I often quite suspicious of the idea of any sort of malicious intent on the part of creative staff directed towards fans. The fans are a part of the process but their emotional reaction is probably not well understood by production team.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Captain Janeway is not Captain Marvel, nor is she meant to be.
We don't know if the resultant timeline is objectively worse than the original.
Though kind of makes me wonder whether they meant it as a finale to all of 90s Trek (as in the TNG-ENT era) because they knew a chance for another Star Trek show was slim after ENT's cancellation.
No but she is still meant to be a moral, heroic character. Imagine Kirk had decided that the Keeler Elf is just that much more important to him than the space time continuum.
Doesn't matter. It's still not one person's call to make. Endgame Janeway was selfish and amoral in her choices. Which was a disservice to the character.
No but she is still meant to be a moral, heroic character. Imagine Kirk had decided that the Keeler Elf is just that much more important to him than the space time continuum.
Doesn't matter. It's still not one person's call to make. Endgame Janeway was selfish and amoral in her choices. Which was a disservice to the character.
V
Vale
Guest
Oh I don't know, the half-metal woman and the all-wooden man might have been good together.
For the most part, probably true. It's rarely a good idea to deliberately antagonize your audience. But there were a couple scenes in Voyager that really made me wonder.
This. Consider what Janeway destroyed when she did what she did...
* Harry's successful Starfleet career.
* Tom's work as a holonovelist.
* B'Elanna being a successful ambassador.
* The EMH finding acceptance and even love.
* The lives and careers of 100 or so unnamed crew.
* The entire existences of a number of children.
Here's the biggest thing that I have found in stepping out and studying productions and their process of being made. What resonates with the audience rarely resonates the same way with the production team. The popularity of multiple characters is often a complete surprise to those writing it and not expecting it to take off the way that it does, or causing a connection as strongly as it does. Even if the passion is realized it isn't realized to the same extent as fans actually feel it.
That's why it is hard for me to ascribe malice, even in the oddest decisions. There isn't the same connection for there to be maliciousness.
Seven of Nine is the best thing to come out of VOY and I'm glad we get to see her in a different context in PIC.
Also, I think Janeway was a better Captain than the series she was in. Kate Mulgrew really does have the Command Presence. Casting was never Voyager's problem. It's kind of like what I think of Pierce Brosnan's James Bond. I thought he was a better Bond than the films he was in. So I'm also glad we're getting to see Holo-Janeway in Prodigy.
Also, I think Janeway was a better Captain than the series she was in. Kate Mulgrew really does have the Command Presence. Casting was never Voyager's problem. It's kind of like what I think of Pierce Brosnan's James Bond. I thought he was a better Bond than the films he was in. So I'm also glad we're getting to see Holo-Janeway in Prodigy.
Something about this sounds Wizard of Oz-ish for some reason.
Sorry: I was referring Avengers Endgame: the movie all about bringing back uncounted trillions of dead people.
I think TMP onwards was very keen to distance itself from the TOS aesthetic and pretty much from the start, TNG sort of backwards integrated the TMP aesthetic. If they'd used a movie-era bridge then TOS could have eventually been slipped canonically into a TOS -Verse or something. Along with TAS and the wacky comics for more fun.
I sort of got the impression that the way TOS looks is considered to be impressionistic. Zapping the TOS aesthetic into Relics canonically destroyed that notion, TOS era ships really did look like that. DS9 compounded it, then Enterprise followed on. Now fans opine that SNW should be filmed on 1960s set-replicas when the truth is SNW looks like a 'real' version of those early shows.
I don't know fella. Just musing. Don't even know if that makes much sense.
That sounds far more painful to me. I'm fine just accepting that tech looked different in the 2260s than a decade later and certainly different than 8 decades later.
As a big Bond fan, completely agreed. Brosnan is second only to Connery, and only by a slim margin.
Of course, I'm also slightly biased because GoldenEye was the first Bond film I saw in the theater. 
Cue anyone older than me saying, "Oh my God... "
Cue anyone older than me saying, "Oh my God... "
I. Feel. The. Same. Way!
This. Connery was the original, and therefore the benchmark. He was kicking butt and saving the world, but having a little bit of fun in the process. Brosnan managed the same balance. Moore was having a little too much fun. Dalton wasn't having enough. And Craig wasn't having any fun at all.
And besides, Brosnan's Bond had the best gun by far.
1. Connery
2. Moore
3. Dalton
4. The rest
2. Moore
3. Dalton
4. The rest
I never cared for James Bond.
I also truly hate making Terry Bruce's son.
Completely agree. Uninteresting.
Made sense to me. Though, interestingly enough to me almost all the appearances of the TOS aesthetic were viewed through a nostalgic lens. Still not convinced of the strict literalism of TOS. Especially after TMP.I think TMP onwards was very keen to distance itself from the TOS aesthetic and pretty much from the start, TNG sort of backwards integrated the TMP aesthetic. If they'd used a movie-era bridge then TOS could have eventually been slipped canonically into a TOS -Verse or something. Along with TAS and the wacky comics for more fun.
I sort of got the impression that the way TOS looks is considered to be impressionistic. Zapping the TOS aesthetic into Relics canonically destroyed that notion, TOS era ships really did look like that. DS9 compounded it, then Enterprise followed on. Now fans opine that SNW should be filmed on 1960s set-replicas when the truth is SNW looks like a 'real' version of those early shows.
I don't know fella. Just musing. Don't even know if that makes much sense.
I'm at the point now where I'm like "Fuck it, I don't care how the TOS Era looks!" Live-Action Trek is updating the look and Animated Trek is keeping it the same. Plus it looks like SNW is moving in a different visual direction than DSC Seasons 1-2. I think the TOS Era will look like whatever the showrunners choose. 2250-2270 is just an era where no one can agree about how it looks. So whatever.
I know what Star Trek's late-23rd Century looks like, thank you TOS Movies. But as far as the mid-23rd Century? I guess it looks like whatever I'm watching that takes place then.
I know what Star Trek's late-23rd Century looks like, thank you TOS Movies. But as far as the mid-23rd Century? I guess it looks like whatever I'm watching that takes place then.
Yeah that was a bit too much.
Similar threads
- Locked
