NOPE.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
V
Vale
Guest
"Message in a Bottle" would like to have a word with you.
That was Season 4.
I'd call Year of Hell excellent, as well as Pathfinder.
Agreed on all counts.
I loved Pathfinder! But, and here's the controversial opinion, Year of Hell was predictable and anticlimactic and is extremely overrated. I enjoyed most of part 1 upon first watching it, but before the episode even ended I realized that the things happening to the ship and crew weren't the kind of dramatic chances that this show had historically been willing to take, making the reset button inevitable in my mind. That certainty made it impossible to really get into or enjoy part 2, making the events as meaningless and inconsequential as your average malfunctioning holodeck episode. Less.
Last edited:
I was responding to someone who said there were no excellent episodes in season 6, which was why my examples were only from that season.
Agreed that it's excellent, but "MESSAGE IN A BOTTLE" is season 4.
It could be my favourite episode of any Star trek ever. Beautiful stuff.
I'm not sure I'd say that there are no excellent episodes of VOY, but I don't think most of the ones listed the last couple pages are excellent. Maybe "One Small Step." IMO, VOY went from being a consistent B student in its first few seasons, to an intermittent C and D student with occasional Bs in its later years.
V
Vale
Guest
I'm sorry, I'd somehow missed the "season 6" qualifier and thought we were going off of "I can't think of a single episode of Voyager I'd brand 'excellent'.".
As you were.
In the hisotry of this little anecdote, I've never believed for a second that it was "Shatner's fault." Why would Shatner care? In the context of this movie, it's meaningless.
No, I think it's a combination of what you said above and the fact that Paramount pretty much knew there would be a "Star Trek III" even before "Star Trek II" was completed, and they didn't want to write themselves into a corner with Sulu, particularly where they had already done so with Spock. It's very telling that they went ahead with the idea for TUC, knowing that would be the last film and all bets were off for needing to maintain the status quo.
Also, Sulu's additional line as written is clunky, and sounds more like something for the written page than as spoken dialogue.
Last edited:
I think Dax should have ended up with Quark. They flirted a bit early on in the show, but the main reason is I think it would have been incredible to see Quark struggle through a relationship with an independent, assertive, and confident woman. It would have provided amazing opportunity for character growth to say the least.
There is a certain irony in the fact that so many more fans remember ENT fondly than do VOY. Years ago VOY was the ambitious seven-year lost starship show that had Borg and so many other cool factors including multiple crossover appearances by TNG characters. Now it's the series most likely to be relegated to the bottom of the pile of pre-2017 Trek series.
Seems like some people wanted Voyager to be Battlestar Galactica, all grimdark and edgy. I'm glad it wasn't that. "On the next episode of Star Trek Voyager: B'Elanna repairs the ship while Neelix looks for food!" But I think that was the unmet expectation that lost some viewers. Fair enough.
John Billingsley has talked several times about how ENT went the same route, to its detriment. It should have been scarier, newer, more chaotic.
I don't know...that's not what I watch Star Trek for.
JMHO
I think Enterprise could have accomplished both things. They launched people into a show where Starfleet already existed, the transporter was there (used kind of sparingly, but it really had no bearing on the plot), and despite the ship being a little slower, an new alien species was going to be met every week. There wasn't any sense of wonder of a Earth really lifting itself up, becoming a peaceful society, moving out to the nearby planets and moon. All that was already done before the show started, so we could get immediately thrown into Vulcan politics, meet the Klingons, and be ready to have the first throwback cowboy episode in a couple of seasons.
It promised something different but it delivered the same old goods, and a lot of people, including me, were tired of those goods. Same story, different catsuit. By the 4th season the show seemed to finally have found its way but the damage was done.
I don't think Voyager had to be BSG, but again, there should have been consequences, some skin in the game for this monumental undertaking, a compelling reason to watch and not think everything would be chuckles by the end credits. But again, adverse to breaking the formula, it just became TNG with a lesser cast. Voyager is the Joy of Painting of sci-fi. Nothing much happens. you can leave it on in the background. It's nice.
ENT was an ambitious concept in a Berman and Braga skin so they were willing to go only so far in changing things, sometimes to the show's detriment and definitely to its appeal to fans. ENT was the first time in years that Trek had actually tried something different but it ended up not being different enough to set it apart from TNG, DS9 and VOY. The same people ran it as produced VOY so in many respects it was going to have a "24th century Starfleet officers but in 22nd century uniforms" feel. B&B were tired and had run out of most original ideas by 2001 and expecting them to produce seven more years of content but this time make it radically different just wasn't going to become reality.
So while I love ENT and find it (mostly) satisfying as a series there are ways in which it failed, and in the end it was a Prequel series without some of the technology we would later take for granted and no Federation but it was still B&B Trek. And by 2005 B&B Trek was just largely the same formula repeated over and over again.
So while I love ENT and find it (mostly) satisfying as a series there are ways in which it failed, and in the end it was a Prequel series without some of the technology we would later take for granted and no Federation but it was still B&B Trek. And by 2005 B&B Trek was just largely the same formula repeated over and over again.
It's not ironic to me. Elephant in the Room: The Captain of the NX-01 has a Y Chromosome. I'm sorry, but that plays into it at least to some degree. How Burnham is treated by these fans, even after she became a Captain, only reinforces this in my mind. Janeway and Burnham have both always been more harshly criticized than Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Archer, and soon Pike.
Also, the initial shock of "That doesn't look like how I imagined Pre-TOS!" wore off a long time ago.
With a male lead and the issue of how ENT looks no longer being a problem, all these fans would be left to complain about is it feeling like warmed-over Trek a lot of the time and now that they're nostalgic for the Berman Era, that's not going to be a problem anymore either. So ENT is now "Acceptable Trek".
To top it all off: With Season 4, they think ENT tied things in neatly with TOS. "But then Discovery came along and messed it up!" So they probably see SNW as a course correction to get things "back on track".
Last edited:
The impression I've gotten from the internet overall is that Voyager's a lot more fondly remembered than Enterprise is, maybe even more fondly remembered than DS9, and no captain gets as much criticism as Archer. Well okay Burnham gets a lot of criticism but I don't think it's fair to count the opinions of YouTube channels that make their money from hating whatever's new.
Similar threads
- Locked
