What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[fireproof78]

Yup. Good thing a show like DS9 eventually strove for carry throughs. Such a shame the writers of it seem to be the only Trek showrunners who get how difficult it is to find a balance between episodic and serialized series, and yet still went for broke.

I mean, isn't that the nature of the business? People who are talented come together and manage to accomplish something unexpected? It's like trying to do TWOK every movie.

I agree that it would be nice if they could strike a balance but it's not always going to be possible and I'll not take modern Trek and show them their older brother in DS9 and be like "Why can't you be more like them?"

Okay, just so we're all on the same page, the term "bottle episode" refers to a money-saving story restricted to the standing sets, with minimal effects and guest actors right?

To the best of my knowledge, yes.

But more to my point is that the actual stakes are not what matter. Galaxy ending doesn't matter if it involves personal stakes about people we care about, about characters being impacted. That matters more that high stakes/low stakes. To me, any way.

 

[gweeps]

I suppose some of us are still coming to terms with the aftermath of a seismic shift in the idea of Star Trek, just like when there was 13 years between shows from 1974-1987. Almost the same amount of time between the end of Enterprise and the beginning of Discovery. And both had at least 3 movies in those interims.

 

[fireproof78]

I suppose some of us are still coming to terms with the aftermath of a seismic shift in the idea of Star Trek, just like when there was 13 years between shows from 1974-1987. Almost the same amount of time between the end of Enterprise and the beginning of Discovery. And both had at least 3 movies in those interims.

I suppose that's true. I had that shift with TNG and TMP so I've already felt it. It's perhaps less concerning to me now than when I was younger and more irritated at the change. Now, I find myself more engaged and actively happy to see something different.

 

[Oddish]

Remember Half a Life? And how hard Lwaxana argued and fought to convince Timcin to chose to live, and he ended up killing himself anyway for, frankly, stupid reasons? I'd say that's another pretty major example of the hero losing. Also, that episode makes me legitimately angry

Me too. I hate that @$*#!-ing episode. The holocaust began with involuntary euthanasia, which this effectively was.

Sometimes dark endings are the most effective. Would "The Outcast" be as affecting without its 1984 nightmare "Winston loved Big Brother" conclusion? Would "Repentance" condemn the death penalty as savagely with a happy ending? And "Far Beyond the Stars" destroys racism for the same reason.

Regarding era preferences, I tend to stick with Berman era Trek. But that is strictly a matter of what I like. If another person prefers TOS/TAS, or another likes NuTrek, I am happy for both. There's enough room for all of us in the big and sometimes dysfunctional family of Trekkies.

 

[Farscape One]

There's enough room for all of us in the big and sometimes dysfunctional family of Trekkies.

Sometimes dysfunctional???

 

[1001001]

Sometimes dysfunctional???

That’s like saying I’m sometimes drunk…

 

[gweeps]

I suppose that's true. I had that shift with TNG and TMP so I've already felt it. It's perhaps less concerning to me now than when I was younger and more irritated at the change. Now, I find myself more engaged and actively happy to see something different.

While I'm not disillusioned as much as I was when Enterprise was announced - I wanted more shows set after Voyager - and Star Trek 2009, it's occasionally jarring to see Star Trek as it is now, mostly serialized with different filming techniques and blunter storytelling.

Again, I'm in my 40s, so this probably plays a big part in my attitude; the nostalgia factor of growing up in the 80s, watching repeats of TOS and getting excited about catching up on movies, TNG and keeping up with everything that was to come in the 90s.

But since Star Trek has been a part of most of my life, I should by now just be grateful it's still going, and I'm still interested enough to join a forum this late in the game.

 

[F. King Daniel]

People are praising episodic Trek as if there were more than 20 good episodes for every 79 made.

 

[Turtletrekker]

People are praising episodic Trek as if there were more than 20 good episodes for every 79 made.

I love the quote from Fry from Futurama about the original series, "You know, Star Trek? 79 episodes, about 30 good ones?"

 

[Vince A]

People are praising episodic Trek as if there were more than 20 good episodes for every 79 made.

You think there are only 45 good episodes of ST:TNG?

 

[F. King Daniel]

You think there are only 45 good episodes of ST:TNG?

Maybe fewer? TNG's best epsiodes are solid gold, but there is a LOT of worthless chaff around them.

 

[Farscape One]

People are praising episodic Trek as if there were more than 20 good episodes for every 79 made.

I think that's being a bit unfair. There are a LOT more good episodes than that.

(Even if the reference is only TOS, there are more than 20 good episodes. Now, 20 bad episodes of TOS, I can believe, but even many of them have good things within them.)

 

[Richard S. Ta]

That's another thing about galaxy ending threats... you KNOW our heroes will win. It kills any possibility of real drama because it's impossible for them to lose.

There's been a lot of interesting talk these past few pages. Mr @Farscape One, I'm not aiming anything at you in particular, more talking about the general sentiment expressed above which has been echoed by a few posters.

Heroic drama is something that goes way back. Like way, way back, and one of the given things about such drama is that the audience fully expects the hero to win.

We know Sherlock Holmes will solve the unsolvable case. We know that Doctor Who's Doctor will find a way out. We similarly know that the heroes in Star Trek will win through.

As we the audience are implicit in that, the drama therefore comes not from the fact that the heroes will win, but how they will win. The story and drama are drawn from the fact that our heroes face the undefeatable and somehow defeat it.

I'm reminded of Series 6 of Doctor Who (Matt Smith's second) which was heavily promoted using the idea that this was going to be 'The Death of the Doctor'. I'm sure nobody actually believed that, any more than audiences believe in things like 'The Death of Superman!' or, as in Discovery 'The End Of The Universe As We Know It!'.

In such dramas, the beats of the story come from our heroes facing the insurmountable and prevailing.With Season 4 of Discovery, my reaction was not 'of course they will win', rather it was 'how will they win?'. That's where the meat of the drama is. Star Trek is a story of larger than life heroes, so it becomes a story of a process, not a result and I think in that sense it works for Discovery. Hence them having to spend a few episodes to even figure out what the threat even was.

The times that some kind of pyrrhic victory is the result are exceptions and all the more notable for it. At the end of the day though, generally speaking audiences like heroes to win. It's telling that the initial reaction to the original ending of The Wrath of Khan was overwhelmingly negative, to the point where new scenes had to be shot and reediting had to be done.

It does seem, judging by plot synopsis that have been revealed, that SNW will mark a move away from larger stories into smaller more personal ones. As you pointed out, it's really not possible to draw a comedic episode from either Discovery or Picard, but SNW has a comedy of errors on it's slate within the first five episodes.

 

[Farscape One]

It's a fair point that the audience usually expects the heroes to win, and how they win is the meat of the story. I agree on that.

But large stakes like the galaxy don't feel personal to the characters... they are doing it to save everyone. Which is a worthy goal, but of course they are going to save the galaxy. Why wouldn't they?

With smaller stakes, it feels like we are locking in on a specific character, or characters if it deals with a group. We get a deeper understanding of them, how they think, why they are who they are, what makes them tick, etc. Larger than life heroism is great, but what about just something as simple as saving a single life?

BABYLON 5 had an episode called "COMES THE INQUISITOR", where Delenn was being put to the test to see if she was worthy of her coming role. She was willing to sacrifice herself to save a single person... not for glory, or fame, or anything else. Only because her cause was, as she said, "Life! One life or a billion, it's all the same!"

There's heroism in small acts and more personal stakes, and I think that is something that tends to be forgotten in the current era.

 

[dupersuper]

I've been rewatching TOS, TNG, Voyager and Enterprise

No DS9 love?

Aside from Harry Mudd returning in Season 2, a mention of the Treaty of Organia in The Trouble With Tribbles, and using the slingshot time travel method in both Tomorrow is Yesterday and Assignment: Earth, I think there's zero continuity between TOS episodes.

The Tholian Web and Talos death penalty each get a mention in Turnabout Intruder, and Trelaine had a stuffed salt creature. Also Kirk mentions his ill fated brother in What Are Little Girls Made Of.

People are praising episodic Trek as if there were more than 20 good episodes for every 79 made.

I'd say per 79 episodes there are generally about 10 - 20 great, 40 - 50 good/fine, and the rest were clunkers.

 

[Oddish]

And even the clunkers have a few scattered fans. "A Night in Sickbay" and "The Q and the Gray" are generally reviled, but I admit to enjoying both.

 

[Farscape One]

Valid point. My wife actually enjoys "PROFIT AND LACE", looks at it as a full on comedy. (More precisely, she acknowledges it's not a good episode, but not as bad as many, including myself, say it is. Bias may come into play, as Quark is her favorite character.)

 

[at Quark's]

And even the clunkers have a few scattered fans. "A Night in Sickbay" and "The Q and the Gray" are generally reviled, but I admit to enjoying both.

I admit to having a weak spot for Threshold. Yes, it has huge plotholes, and the script is ridiculous and all that, but because it is so far out there, it's at least more entertaining than some 'safe' very formulaic episodes. (the kind that makes you check the clock: oh, there's still have 17 minutes left, presumably 10 minutes ship-to-ship and 7 minutes hand-to-hand combat... can't I just fastforward and see the resolution?).

 

[Captain's Coffee]

And even the clunkers have a few scattered fans. "A Night in Sickbay" and "The Q and the Gray" are generally reviled, but I admit to enjoying both.

I actually legitimately like The Q and the Grey. Janeway's interactions with Q will never not be enjoyable. It gave us this https://i.imgur.com/8ndWrjU.jpg scene, and Janeway's face when Q and Q are mating always makes me giggle. "That was it?!?"

 

[eschaton]

I'd say per 79 episodes there are generally about 10 - 20 great, 40 - 50 good/fine, and the rest were clunkers.

My personal count for each show:

TOS: 25 good, 30 okay, 25 awful.
TNG: 59 good, 88 okay, 29 awful
DS9: 87 good, 69 okay, 17 awful
VOY: 55 good, 89 okay, 24 awful
ENT: 32 good, 46 okay, 19 awful.