Yeah, get back to me when someone traipses in with a substantive criticism.
All right?
We'll wait.
Right now we're playing ping pong with a trite, tiresome "T'aint like the old days" plaint.
So, stand down now.
Last edited:
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
All right?
We'll wait.
Right now we're playing ping pong with a trite, tiresome "T'aint like the old days" plaint.
So, stand down now.
1979, 1987, 1993, 1995, 2001, 2009, 2017, 2018, 2020, 2022.
Ah, the good old days
1979 or 2017?
As a wise Ferengi once said, "the more things change, the more they stay the same".
I think Rick Berman benefitted from the fact that there was a transition from Gene Roddenberry at the top to himself at the top. After Rick Berman, it goes straight to JJ Abrams. Then it goes straight to Alex Kurtzman. There's no transition, there's no overlap. It's bing-bang-boom! I think that's part of what's contributing to why some people can't accept any Star Trek after 2005.
Between the Kelvin Films, DSC, PIC, SNW, LD, and Prodigy, if you don't like any of those six, then you have to start wondering if something else might be going on. They weren't eased out of Berman Trek the way they were eased out of Roddenberry Trek, so whenever they see any type of Star Trek after 2005, they're like, "What the Hell is this?! That's not Star Trek!"
Now, personally, I obviously like the way things turned out. But I'm spit-balling here.
Between the Kelvin Films, DSC, PIC, SNW, LD, and Prodigy, if you don't like any of those six, then you have to start wondering if something else might be going on. They weren't eased out of Berman Trek the way they were eased out of Roddenberry Trek, so whenever they see any type of Star Trek after 2005, they're like, "What the Hell is this?! That's not Star Trek!"
Now, personally, I obviously like the way things turned out. But I'm spit-balling here.
1979 or 2017?
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
All this has happened before, and will happen again.
Ooops. Sorry, wrong franchise.
Ooops. Sorry, wrong franchise.
I don't know. I think we're already seeing a significant shift on the amount of hate the Abrams films get and the streaming era series will likely follow in time, even though there will always be some individuals who never let go of the hate (just as there are some who never let it go of it in regards to TNG, DS9, etc).
It's not about how the franchise changes from one era to the next, it's just purely about how new stuff is. The newer it is the more haters it gets. Ten years from now, Abrams trek will be just as much 'old trek' as the 90s era and the streaming shows will be much less controversial than they are now.
Last edited:
The ST'09 crew are very soon gonna be as far back from current Trek as TNG was from TOS when it began.
Yup. This is the common go to when people don’t really like nu-trek. Yes, one day ST09 will be “old trek” but it’s the old nu-trek. It’s not really “hate” either and the writing for the streaming shows will be just as bad in twenty years as it is now. Nu-trek is fundamentally different from what came before. Ds9 bent the rules that were eventually broken and forgotten.
Substantive criticism? Others braver than myself have tried and failed. It’s just not welcome online. The online of 2003 is different than 2022. So, if you’re like me know that you are not alone.
Not a moderator, but speaks like one. In the future, you'll want credentials to back up your bravado.
There just isn’t any place online to discuss Star Trek freely anymore in my opinion. Reddit is totally gone in that regard. I posted my “controversial” opinion and it’s just dismissed as “old good new bad”. Nu-trek has some serious, fundamental flaws with it. What has Alex Kurtzman been involved with that has been good? Alex Kurtzman is in charge of Star Trek and it shows. I don’t know what to tell you if you can’t see the differences between 1966-2005 and 2009 to now.
It’s not bad because it’s new, it’s bad because it’s bad.
You're entirely wrong. We discuss it freely here.
Free discussion most certainly doesn't mean that you're entitled to assert any silly thing without being brushed back.
It's not that you're having trouble finding free discussion. It's that you can't find a place where most people agree with you, or even find your assertions worthwhile.
That is not really a problem.
Uh...you're doing that right now. Getting blow-back for an opinion is not the same as being unable to express it.
In your opinion. In my opinion, TOS has some serious, fundamental flaws.
I don't know...Fringe was pretty good. Alias. Scorpion had its moments early on. Again, all subjective opinion.
I can definitely tell the difference. Maybe not the difference you see.
In your opinion. To dismiss all 5 series as "slop" and "bad" is probably what leads to the criticism you don't like, if I had to guess.
For the record: I love DSC, hate PIC, like SNW, love LDS. PRO is fine for what it is. So it's not universal love for all new stuff, just like I don't have universal hate for all old stuff. I would guess a vast majority of fans are more like this than the "all or nothing" approach you seem to be taking.
All Star Trek has serious, fundamental flaws. TOS has the fewest because they kept things simple and took themselves less seriously. SNW comes closest to that, since.
Discussion on reddit is about as free as it gets, but you have a fair number of doofuses in the Trek subreddits who start foolish topics like this one.
Discussion on reddit is about as free as it gets, but you have a fair number of doofuses in the Trek subreddits who start foolish topics like this one.
Last edited:
Yeah there is no flawless Star Trek, all of the shows (every single one from the very beginning) had their serious flaws and elements that were just awkward or downright bad.
To me New Trek has just as many good/bad elements as the older shows.
Like I like a lot of the characters in DISC are very interesting, but I can't get into the overall storytelling/plot the show employs (I'm kinda sick of seralized mystery box shows)
PIC I hate with the fire of a thousand suns, but I do think that there is quite a bit of quality in its storytelling, I just disagree with a lot of the choices made from the very beginning.
LD is, in my opinion, an awesome show, not just funny, but it also has interesting plots and characters.
And SNW is also a very good show with likeable characters, good episodic stories and very good production values.
If you are free to say it's bad, then others have the freedom to disagree.
To me New Trek has just as many good/bad elements as the older shows.
Like I like a lot of the characters in DISC are very interesting, but I can't get into the overall storytelling/plot the show employs (I'm kinda sick of seralized mystery box shows)
PIC I hate with the fire of a thousand suns, but I do think that there is quite a bit of quality in its storytelling, I just disagree with a lot of the choices made from the very beginning.
LD is, in my opinion, an awesome show, not just funny, but it also has interesting plots and characters.
And SNW is also a very good show with likeable characters, good episodic stories and very good production values.
Well it depends on what you understand about "free discussion of Star Trek" do you just want to state that New Trek is "bad" and just have lots of people agree with you?Wow.
If you are free to say it's bad, then others have the freedom to disagree.
Where are the millions of people who think the majority of nu-trek is hot garbage? They certainly aren’t here. I remember being called a racist for not liking Discovery. That’s stuck with me. Just because I didn’t like the show, now I’m a racist? I see the game we’re playing now. I’ve seen how this board deals with people who express criticism.
If you think Reddit allows free speech in the main sub, then I have a bridge to sell you.
I always find it funny when people talk about "Trek from 1966-2005", as if TNG was anywhere near as entertaining as TOS. I mean, I was born thirty years after TOS got canceled and TNG movies were still coming out after my birth, and yet I get bored halfway through an episode of TNG while I could binge-watch TOS (I do try to pace myself, in order to extend this rewatch, and make it feel more "special").
Who ever said that? Why would there be? Why would they be needed? Do you only think a discussion about Trek is "free" if there's "millions" of people backing up your opinion?
I wasn't there for that incident, so I cannot voice an opinion on it, perhaps the user who did that just liked name-calling, people like that are found everywhere, especially online.
I can only judge from what you wrote here which was:
Which is a opinion lots of people will disagree with, especially if that's your whole argument. Doesn't mean it can't be your opinion, just saying a lot of people will disagree, but there will always be people who disagree with every opinon.
For example I greatly disagree with the blow statement:
I think TNG is a lot better and find a lot of TOS difficult to watch, but I can agree that there's a good portion of TNG episode where just some stuff of little importance or interest happens (really sometimes I think TNG is the most uneven show in Star Trek, it can fluctuate wildly in quality from one episode to the next, and there are some very good TOS episodes, like the Enterprise Incident).
That doesn't detract from Jinn's opinion or deny them the right to voice their opinion. It's just my opinion to disagree with that. Free Discussion.
Similar threads
- Locked
