That's the one I loved the whole idea of that ship.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
That's the one I loved the whole idea of that ship.
That is the only time a nuclear pulse craft of size was depicted on tv….the Messiah in the film DEEP IMPACT
Spcock did not correct Scott about the time since LIncoln died. Spock did correct Scott about the current direction to the planet Earth (or whatever planet Lincoln died on in Star Trek), even though the currect direction to Earth should change ever few minutes as they orbited the planet.
Spock should have been able to calculate how long ago Lincoln died much faster than calculating the current direction to Earth. But he didn't correct Scott about when LIncoln died, but about the current direction to Earth.
So I deduce that Spock thought. that Scott's three centuries was close enough to not bother correcting Scott. I don't know how close would be close enough for Spock not to bother correcting Scott.
But to me it seems certain that the maximum leeway Spock could possibly allow in a statement that some event was X centuries ago wuld be 1 century. Thus Spock should have corrected Scott's three centuries if the actual time was less than two centuries or more than four centuries. That leaves 200 years to 400 years as the possible range of time since Lincoln died.
I always get them confused.
Then too, I thought Wayne Newton Tony Orlando and Robert Gulet were the same person…
John Fiedler had "only" 202 acting credits.
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0275835/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1
Elisha Cook jr. had 219 acting credits:
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0176879/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1
I once read that John Fiedler was similar tn appearance to Percy Helton. He had 237 acting credits.
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0375887/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1
Last edited:
They aren't?!?I always get them confused.
Then too, I thought Wayne Newton Tony Orlando and Robert Gulet were the same person…
I can totally agree with this and he's even better then Michael Burnham but that's not hard.
I too love the 70s aesthetic, because I was a kid then. The white, sleek minimalism, think the Rebel Blockade hallway, the helmet hair, the jumpsuits. Buck Rogers on TV. But that was how the 70s looked, all modular and vacuum-formed, writ into the future.
Now DSC looks like now only a bit slicker. If TPTB do a next five years show (sounds like a winner) theyd reimagine everything to be sort of reminiscent of the '79 vibe, but in today's lighting, design, hair, etc.
You can't go home again.
Now DSC looks like now only a bit slicker. If TPTB do a next five years show (sounds like a winner) theyd reimagine everything to be sort of reminiscent of the '79 vibe, but in today's lighting, design, hair, etc.
You can't go home again.
Oh, you can go home again. There's just no guarantee the decorations will be the same as you remember.
If you were to combine all those characters, you'd have a mess worse than Tuvix, maybe even something that didn't live long, fortunately.
So, I gotta agree!
Lorca was one of the best Trek characters since DS9. His potential was amazing. Sadly the writers decided to take the laziest, most disappointing route with Jason Isaacs and, well, here we are.
We can only hope that if Prime Lorca surfaces in, say, SNW that he has at least some of the edge and complexity that Mirror Lorca did without all the Mirror Universe distractions and sleight of hand.
We can only hope that if Prime Lorca surfaces in, say, SNW that he has at least some of the edge and complexity that Mirror Lorca did without all the Mirror Universe distractions and sleight of hand.
Lorca was a great character, Mirror Universe and all. I think they could have done a lot more with him, if they decided to stretch out the Klingon War in to one season and the MU in to another season.
However, Michael will always be the most interesting character for me from Discovery and Picard to date.
However, Michael will always be the most interesting character for me from Discovery and Picard to date.
I despise the idea that Star Trek from 1989-1999 (meaning from the third season of TNG to the end of DS9) is the way that Star Trek "should be"; and that anything before that is "They didn't know any better" and anything after that is "No, no, they're doing it all wrong!"
The '90s aren't the be-all and end-all. Yes, I was there. They're overrated. It's strange arguing points with people who see things through that paradigm because not everything works from that lens. I don't think hyper-regimentation and sporadic arc-building makes for better television. The last two seasons of DS9 came to closest to breaking free from that overall, and actually did for a while during the first six episodes of the sixth season and the last 10 episodes of the seventh.
The '90s aren't the be-all and end-all. Yes, I was there. They're overrated. It's strange arguing points with people who see things through that paradigm because not everything works from that lens. I don't think hyper-regimentation and sporadic arc-building makes for better television. The last two seasons of DS9 came to closest to breaking free from that overall, and actually did for a while during the first six episodes of the sixth season and the last 10 episodes of the seventh.
Yep. TOS is superb and ENT is much better than haters ever give it credit for. And there's good stuff being made now for CBS and Paramount+.
1990s Trek may have been peak Trek in ratings and general popularity with the wider public but what preceded it and came after has been and will continue to be just as good.
1990s Trek may have been peak Trek in ratings and general popularity with the wider public but what preceded it and came after has been and will continue to be just as good.
My biggest frustration is the intense need to both put Trek in a box and demand that box stay the exact same size shape, color, and orientation at all times. The 90s were just OK for Trek from my view. Some were good, some were bad, some were just flat out forgettable. But, this is like trying to recapture the "glory days" and not recognizing just how good things currently are. And all it does is breed division. Astounding on a number of levels to insist that Trek can only have one way, and must remain the same, or similar enough, or it is doing a "disservice" and "disrespects" the grand tradition of Trek, as if Trek was confined to one style.
Wrath of Khan and TNG both prove that trek fans will accept major changes to the look of Trek, as long as the resulting product is enjoyable to watch. People don't like the different look and storytelling style of Discovery and Picard because they don't enjoy watching the show, not the other way around.
The new shows were getting plenty of hate before they even aired. Going into a show with a negative attitude is bound to poison the resulting perception - and the echo chamber of the internet only serves to amplify it.
The love for TNG was by no means universal as it was airing. Plenty of TOS fans disliked it and/or compared it unfavourably to the original (just as there was a strong negative reaction to DS9's tone and setting). Much of that division is forgotten now because most fans discussing it grew up with TNG or later series, and because new divisions are fresher in the memory.
I don't think I agree with that.
If somebody says that some series suxxor azz or some other series is beyond amazing I still would like to form my own opinion. I'm not going to allow others decide what I like or don't like, some people do? While new Trek does get negativity around here there are also good words about it.
An example: If a music album gets a bad or good review it might be completely different for other people. Reviews (especially music) and focusing too much on what other people say is dumb.
It's sooo strange, I miss the 90s more than anything in every sense, and would gladly go back every day of the week and twice on Sundays just to visit, but Star Trek was NOT in its top form in the 90s. TNG is for me the obvious exception, but even it got a bit too, how should I put it, "plain" in the later seasons. And DS9 and Voyager did practically NOTHING for me (I don't hate either show, they're just both so, again, "plain"). First Contact was last truly Great Trek in the 90's for me, although in recent years I have decided that no matter how ineffectual it was at the time, Insurrection is comfort food for the eyes and ears in the same way TMP is. The difference is that TMP dared to do something big and epic, while Insurrection felt more like the once-every-two-years get together with your childhood buddies. Also, Insurrection was guilty of the "just another villain bent on revenge", whereas TMP was too abstract to even need a villain. All that said and done, I still think TMP is the direction I would rather Trek go in.
In case you haven't noticed, the TNG/DS9 Brigade, which is what I'm talking about, goes after all other Star Trek and thinks it should be like TNG/DS9. Anything different, in their eyes, is inferior. Anything outside of the 1989-1999 range is either "that old stuff!" or "that new stuff!"
Try bringing up TOS in an argument and it's rejected out-of-hand. Except when it comes to Canon. Then suddenly TOS is the "Sacredness of Holies". Which leads me to the conclusion that they don't enjoy it as a show, they just dust it off to use as a weapon in a Canon War and nothing else. Talk about it in any other context besides canon and you get, "You're talking about a show from the 1960s!" They don't actually like TOS as an actual show. They might claim to, but they do not.
#ControversialOpinion
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
