What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[Vger23]

I love Voyager, just as it is.

I don't want all that shaking camera, snot-nosed sobbing, melodrama.

Voyager did episodic science fiction as well as any sci-fi series. And easily the best two-parters in Star Trek.

VOY and TNG are basically tied for my favorite series.

I have to be honest...I did not like VOY when it first aired. I just couldn't get into it and I only watched it sporadically after the first season. Over the last 2 years, I did a slow watch of the entire series and...frankly...I think it's pretty damn entertaining. It doesn't have the depth that TNG achieved at times, and it doesn't have the great characters that TOS and DS9 had...but what it does have is an absolutely consistent sense of fun and some pretty inventive sci-fi stories that kept me engaged and enjoying most of what I saw. And, perhaps most importantly, even when it was sub-par...it was NEVER boring.

I think, decades later, with far less "expectations" in my mind (and far less "saturation" of Trek movies and series)...I was able to see it from a very different angle and I really liked most of it.

 

[Saul]

My controversial opinion?

There were 5 lights....

 

[Vger23]

We're not married, just good friends.

Year of Hell is definitely my favorite. Several others are good, too.

So good, they can make a Vulcan smile.

Long Live Voyager!

You glorious bastard!

The best part of this is how these pictures make it look like he's just hanging out with "Kate" and "Tim"...just chatting away...maybe waiting for a beer to arrive...catchng up about last winter's vacations and how the kids are doing.....

 

[1001001]

...but what it does have is an absolutely consistent sense of fun and some pretty inventive sci-fi stories that kept me engaged and enjoying most of what I saw.

And that's exactly what I love about it, and what I look for. I am not expecting Star Trek to have life-changing revelations about the nature of humanity. I mostly watch TV to escape. My real life is intense enough as it is!

VOY is like a warm blanket on a cold evening. And that suits me just fine.

The best part of this is how these pictures make it look like he's just hanging out with "Kate" and "Tim"...just chatting away...maybe waiting for a beer to arrive...catchng up about last winter's vacations and how the kids are doing.....

The one with Mulgrew is from a convention (obviously). The one with Russ...your description is pretty accurate. That was at a fundraiser at John Billingsley's house.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

I have to be honest...I did not like VOY when it first aired. I just couldn't get into it and I only watched it sporadically after the first season. Over the last 2 years, I did a slow watch of the entire series and...frankly...I think it's pretty damn entertaining.

I similarly like VOY a lot more than I did a decade ago. I originally gave up on the show early in the third season, so I missed some of the best episodes they did in the latter seasons. I've since caught up on much of the show on H&I in the last couple of years, and they did some good stuff. It's not my favorite Trek show by a long shot, but I think it's a lot better than I initially thought.

 

[Sci]

I think I would enjoy and respect Star Trek: Voyager more if it had had the... well, I'm not sure what the word for what I'm looking for is, but, to make a comparison: At the end of season two, the producers of Star Trek: Discovery looked at what the show was originally conceived to be and what the show had evolved into, and they decided the best way to reconcile what the show was with what kind of show they wanted to write, was to totally re-tool the premise. Star Trek: Discovery went from being a prequel to the original series to going further into Star Trek's future than any show had, and totally revamped the premise of what the Federation in this new setting would be. And in doing so, the show improved.

Given that it was clear by the start of S4 that the show the writers wanted to make was not the show the pilot had set up, I find myself wishing that the writers of Star Trek: Voyager had had the chutzpah to just totally re-work the series into the show they wanted to write so that it wouldn't constantly be at war with its own premise anymore. I think I'd have more respect for Star Trek: Voyager if, say, "Scorpion, Part II" had ended with Voyager being returned to the Alpha Quadrant and its Maquis officers given official pardons on condition they continue to serve about the ship. Or, perhaps, if Starfleet had found some way to get to the Delta Quadrant and decided to deploy Voyager and a support fleet there. Just something to shake up this really dire premise that was clearly at odds with the more light-hearted show they actually wanted to write.

 

[Vger23]

And in doing so, the show improved.

 

[plynch]

Yeah, S3 is when I started disliking its vibe more, though S2's stupid red angel plot lost me.
But, give em props for a bold move. That must be hard for a showrunner with a studio to answer to. ?

 

[eschaton]

IMHO one of the worst aspects of Kurtzman Trek (at least in the live-action format) is they lack the confidence to continue series visions from season to season, and are continually tweaking major things in seeming response to fan criticism. Not that Berman Trek didn't do that a bit as well, but usually they gave a show a show 2-3 seasons to try out its existing format before changing (adding Worf for DS9, adding Seven for VOY, the Xindi arc for ENT).

 

[Vger23]

Yeah, S3 is when I started disliking its vibe more, though S2's stupid red angel plot lost me.
But, give em props for a bold move. That must be hard for a showrunner with a studio to answer to. ?

The Red Angel plot was actually pretty awesome......until it wasn't.

But, that shift in focus for S2 (and the reasons for it) have been well-documented at this point.

 

[Vger23]

IMHO one of the worst aspects of Kurtzman Trek (at least in the live-action format) is they lack the confidence to continue series visions from season to season, and are continually tweaking major things in seeming response to fan criticism. Not that Berman Trek didn't do that a bit as well, but usually they gave a show a show 2-3 seasons to try out its existing format before changing (adding Worf for DS9, adding Seven for VOY, the Xindi arc for ENT).

There's a difference between "adding a character" (Bernam Era tweak) and "completely retooling the entire premise of the show," whicih is what DSC did between S2 and 3.

There are many reasons for DSC's rocky appearance over the last 4 years, and those have been discussed to death, but I think one that doesn't get enough discussion is the fact that the core concepts and characters of DSC were really built to support the first season story arc about the Klingon War, the MU, and Burnham's unique character and journey to some kind of redemption. It's apparently leftover of Fuller's concept that Star Trek be a "season-to-season anthology." DSC was not, at its core, designed for the long-haul with those characters and concepts. Once you try to take those foundational pieces and apply them to a totally different story arc or setting, it's going to fit strangely, kind of like trying to build a Lego sailboat out of a Lego set designed to be a space fighter.

Now, the characters and concepts don't really fit as well the further you get away from the setting and premise of S1. This is why Stamets seems to be a listless character without purpose, because he was the experimental spore drive guy who has no real purpose any longer now that the drive has become "a common thing" in the show. This is why Burnham can be frustrating and inconsistent character at times, because the whole concept of her being a traumatically orphaned child raised in the Vulcan disciplines is now pretty much worthless. It's why they had to make major changes to Saru, as having an alien character whose primary trait is to have a highly tuned fear response was interesting, but not sustainable (apparently)...so they neutered the one trait that made him somewhat unique as a Star Trek alien (it would be like deciding to give Spock emotions at the end of S1 of TOS, or making Data a flesh-and-blood human early in TNG).

 

[eschaton]

There's a difference between "adding a character" (Bernam Era tweak) and "completely retooling the entire premise of the show," whicih is what DSC did between S2 and 3.

There are many reasons for DSC's rocky appearance over the last 4 years, and those have been discussed to death, but I think one that doesn't get enough discussion is the fact that the core concepts and characters of DSC were really built to support the first season story arc about the Klingon War, the MU, and Burnham's unique character and journey to some kind of redemption. It's apparently leftover of Fuller's concept that Star Trek be a "season-to-season anthology." Once you try to take those foundational pieces and apply them to a totally different story arc or setting, it's going to fit strangely, kind of like trying to build a Lego sailboat out of a Lego set designed to be a space fighter.

Now, the characters and concepts don't really fit as well the further you get away from the setting and premise of S1. This is why Stamets seems to be a listless character without purpose, because he was the experimental spore drive guy who has no real purpose any longer now that the drive has become "a common thing" in the show. This is why Burnham can be frustrating and inconsistent character at times, because the whole concept of her being a traumatically orphaned child raised in the Vulcan disciplines is now pretty much worthless. It's why they had to make major changes to Saru, as having an alien character whose primary trait is to have a highly tuned fear response was interesting, but not sustainable (apparently)...so they neutered the one trait that made him somewhat unique as a Star Trek alien (it would be like deciding to give Spock emotions at the end of S1 of TOS, or making Data a flesh-and-blood human early in TNG).

I remember awhile back watching this Youtube video that had an unconventional take on the show Stranger Things - that is should have ended with the first season. The point it made was the first season had all of the characters created for the story that was intended to be told. But once they started doing further seasons, they shifted to having to create story for characters - in some cases massively expanding the role of fan favorites. As a result the later seasons are less focused, since side-plots have to be created to give everyone enough to do, even if it doesn't actually work within the core thematic narrative of the season.

 

[Vger23]

I remember awhile back watching this Youtube video that had an unconventional take on the show Stranger Things - that is should have ended with the first season. The point it made was the first season had all of the characters created for the story that was intended to be told. But once they started doing further seasons, they shifted to having to create story for characters - in some cases massively expanding the role of fan favorites. As a result the later seasons are less focused, since side-plots have to be created to give everyone enough to do, even if it doesn't actually work within the core thematic narrative of the season.

Yes, exactly.....same idea.

Look at Ash Tyler, Phillipa Georgiou and L'rell in Season 2 for the same effect.

 

[FederationHistorian]

his is why Stamets seems to be a listless character without purpose, because he was the experimental spore drive guy who has no real purpose any longer now that the drive has become "a common thing" in the show.

Which is solved if Stamets comes to the realization that he isn’t special anymore in the 32nd century even though the weight of the world is no longer on his shoulders since arriving, and he devises a plan to return to the 23rd century, well aware he’s breaking the law by doing so.

This is why Burnham can be frustrating and inconsistent character at times, because the whole concept of her being a traumatically orphaned child raised in the Vulcan disciplines is now pretty much worthless.

Which is solved if Burnham comes to terms that Sarek was a terrible father and her upbringing on Vulcan wasn’t suited for humans in general, especially for someone who went though the trauma she went through. And she relinquishes the captain’s chair and resigns her Starfleet commission to discover who the real Michael Burnham is.

It's why they had to make major changes to Saru, as having an alien character whose primary trait is to have a highly tuned fear response was interesting, but not sustainable (apparently)...so they neutered the one trait that made him somewhat unique as a Star Trek alien (it would be like deciding to give Spock emotions at the end of S1 of TOS, or making Data a flesh-and-blood human early in TNG).

Which is solved if Saru joins Federation Security and works sides by side with Nhan, or he is sent to explore regions of space that both the Federation and its rivals are too afraid to go visit/revisit.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

There’s a fascinating coffee table book about the behind the scenes workings of Discovery to be made one day.

Once the show is closed, done and dusted it’ll be a great thing to look at and debate as a whole. There are those who love the darker Season 1, those who admire the ‘Pike’ era and those who prefer the 32nd Century reboot of the show.

It’s a hot mess alright, but no one could accuse it of resting on it’s laurels.

 

[plynch]

I remember awhile back watching this Youtube video that had an unconventional take on the show Stranger Things - that is should have ended with the first season. The point it made was the first season had all of the characters created for the story that was intended to be told. But once they started doing further seasons, they shifted to having to create story for characters - in some cases massively expanding the role of fan favorites. As a result the later seasons are less focused, since side-plots have to be created to give everyone enough to do, even if it doesn't actually work within the core thematic narrative of the season.

THIS THIS THIS

nailed the problem with franchise tv!!

Writer’s room: “It’s season x and we’ve got__ episodes to fill. What can we do with these characters?”

It was a big wonder I had w Picard S2, which though stupid fun, has a very different Raffi, Agnes, and Rios, who were specific tropes needful for S1.

With my beloved TOS, they asked the good and great writers out in the world, Who has cool/interesting stories to tell, and can you make them to fit our series Bible?

Didn’t work perfectly, I know.

 

[eschaton]

THIS THIS THIS

nailed the problem with franchise tv!!

Writer’s room: “It’s season x and we’ve got__ episodes to fill. What can we do with these characters?”

I think this is also the reason why series based upon books are generally better. Characters have preplanned exits from the narrative when they are no longer useful (through death or otherwise).

With my beloved TOS, they asked the good and great writers out in the world, Who has cool/interesting stories to tell, and can you make them to fit our series Bible?

Didn’t work perfectly, I know.

It helped that characterization is close to nil in TOS, and what's there is mostly down to the portrayals by the actors rather than the lines on the page.

 

[Sci]

I think this is also the reason why series based upon books are generally better. Characters have preplanned exits from the narrative when they are no longer useful (through death or otherwise).

On the other hand, sometimes it's good for a show to keep a character who turns out to be unexpectedly popular. Joss Whedon had originally intended to kill off Spike by the end of Buffy S2, but he became one of the series's best characters. Slavishly adhering to a book can be a bad decision if you're not responding to the unique elements that the adaptation has developed as a result of factors like actors' performances, etc.

I don't think there's a hard and fast rule on stuff like this, except insofar as there is a problem if the show that you're writing is fundamentally in conflict with its own premise. When that happens, you need to either change what you're writing or change the premise. It's generally going to be better, I think, to change the premise to fit your creative voice than to try to adopt a creative voice that feels false to you as a creator.

 

[Tango]

THIS THIS THIS

nailed the problem with franchise tv!!

Writer’s room: “It’s season x and we’ve got__ episodes to fill. What can we do with these characters?”

It was a big wonder I had w Picard S2, which though stupid fun, has a very different Raffi, Agnes, and Rios, who were specific tropes needful for S1.

With my beloved TOS, they asked the good and great writers out in the world, Who has cool/interesting stories to tell, and can you make them to fit our series Bible?

Didn’t work perfectly, I know.

IMHO a similar thing happened to Twin Peaks and The Prisoner. They both sort of ran beyond where they probably should have stopped. I thought TP sort of lost its way after the Laura Palmer mystery was resolved, and I believe the creators of TP intended it to be a shorter series (not that it was very long anyway), and they had to stretch it out.

Cheers

 

[Tango]

Just realized "TP" is ambiguous, whoops! Just go with the context....