What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[Lord Garth]

I love the version of DSC from the first season. I miss that show. Fortunately, I like what DSC is now, but it's effectively become a different show with the same characters.

Kind of like TNG, actually. It's not one show. It's really two shows jammed together into one. S1-S2 is the first show. S3-S7 is the second show. I'd say the same for DSC.

 

[Paul755]

Lorca would have been better had they made him just a hardass “fuck your feelings” type Captain instead of a Mirror character.

So basically Jellico.

 

[Lord Garth]

Here's something that I think could've worked as a compromise:

Lorca's from the Prime Universe and then, while they're all in the Mirror Universe, Mirror Lorca kills him and takes his place before the crew finds out what really happened. It keeps the story they wanted to tell and all the beats they wanted to have still intact.

 

[Rahul]

Lorca would have been better had they made him just a hardass “fuck your feelings” type Captain instead of a Mirror character.

So basically Jellico.

Jellico was (acting as) a hardass. But it was all strategic, an act to hide his insecurity and act strong and decisively in public, even privately.

Lorca was unhinged. Toxic masculinity personified. "Sleeping with a phaser below his pillow" wasn't just metaphorically for him, and Cornell was right to chew him out for it when he pulled it out on her in half-sleep.
If it weren't for that stupid reveal, he would have been a thousand times more interesting, and could have been a really complex antagonist.

 

[Robin Bland]

There’s two kinds of people on this board: people who like Lower Decks, and people who are wrong.

Sorry, I thought I was posting on the "Controversial Opinions" thread.

But srlsy, I did try. I watched all of S1 and a few eps of S2 before I fully realized it wasn't for me. I love Trek comedies, but LD seemed to pick at the rules of the fictional universe, which sorta ruined the suspension-of-disbelief for me. If it labelled itself a straight-up parody I could probably turn off some OCD switch in my brain, but the creators insist it's canon, so I can't.

I'm not wrong, I'm just different. Trek taught me, there is no "Them," there is only "Us."

 

[fireproof78]

but the creators insist it's canon, so I can't.

"Canon" doesn't mean "100% literal truth." Just means it is a part of the official body of work.

 

[Robin Bland]

"Canon" doesn't mean "100% literal truth." Just means it is a part of the official body of work.

Yes, I know. It's my perception and how my mind tends to file stuff. I'm differently brained.

 

[Lord Garth]

The only time I actually laughed out loud during Lower Decks was when hot water was spilled on someone's balls. That was funny!

Otherwise, a lot of the "jokes" are, "We referenced past Trek, isn't that funny?" LD just isn't that funny to me. It's more like mildly amusing sometimes. The characters are nice, and I like stuff like Mariner freaking out about being promoted to Lieutenant (dun-dun-dunnn!!!!), so I don't think it's a bad show at all, it's just not... sitcom-y enough.

I like comedies, but they need to be funny. My favorite sitcom ever is Three's Company. Nothing will ever beat that. My two favorite modern sitcoms are That '70s Show and Parks & Recreation. Boimler straight up reminds of what Eric Foreman would be like if he were in Starfleet.

 

[at Quark's]

Otherwise, a lot of the "jokes" are, "We referenced past Trek, isn't that funny?" LD just isn't that funny to me. It's more like mildly amusing sometimes. The characters are nice, and I like stuff like Mariner freaking out about being promoted to Lieutenant (dun-dun-dunnn!!!!), so I don't think it's a bad show at all, it's just not... sitcom-y enough.

^Having seen only a few episodes yet, I wanted to wait before judging but I have to say, those are exactly my feelings about it till now. Amusing but only mildly, nice characters, but most of the humor derives from Trek references and what I've seen till now is just a bit too predictable.

 

[fireproof78]

Yes, I know. It's my perception and how my mind tends to file stuff. I'm differently brained.

Ah, I see. I treat it like some of the outdoor humorist books I have read. It exists in an exaggerated retelling version of reality rather than the other retellings that are more dramatic, like TOS. But, then, I've hit a place of all Star Trek exists in an elevated reality rather than being literal truth in universe.

 

[Orphalesion]

Humour is something extremely subjective, that can't really be argued about. I won't say I laugh out loud in every episode of LD, but I think overall it's a very funny show where a lot of the jokes hit (for me).

As for other controversial opinions because Jellico and Lorca were mentioned again.
I agree that Starfleet is a military organization, but Star Trek as a whole is not an example military science fiction (as in the genre, look it up) and neither do I want it to be. It occasionally has an episode that fits the genre (the Siege of Ar-558), but in my opinion that's more than enough.
I don't enjoy overly military things or war storylines (the Dominion War was okay, because it was overall very understated) not in Star Trek, not in any other context.

 

[Robin Bland]

Ah, I see. I treat it like some of the outdoor humorist books I have read. It exists in an exaggerated retelling version of reality rather than the other retellings that are more dramatic, like TOS. But, then, I've hit a place of all Star Trek exists in an elevated reality rather than being literal truth in universe.

I think that's definitely the way to come at it. I have to remind myself sometimes of the "unreliable narrator." I found, in LD's case, difficulty in making that mental switch, and a lot of the humor felt reliant on past Trek lore rather than character or situation-based. Aside from that mental glitch, it just wasn't making me laugh so I opted to stop watching.

 

[Lord Garth]

This is the same universe where the original Enterprise was once captured by a giant hand in space and, another time, they found "Abraham Lincoln" sitting on a chair in space. More recently, a child's scream caused The Burn, which I think was one of the dumbest things ever. I like the concept of The Burn and the aftermath from it, but what caused it was one of the dumbest things ever. But anyway, Star Trek is big enough in scope, focus, and tonal range to cover a lot. So I'm fine with antagonists like Nora Satie and Peanut Hamper existing in the same universe, when they couldn't be more different.

I'm in the camp that says Lower Decks should let loose. My problem with it is it's too restrained, not the other way around.

 

[plynch]

Just watched PRO ep, 20. Stuck the landing.

It is the best Trek series.

(wait, I’m always the guy saying the word best is meaningless. Oh well, I’m trying to be controversial for once.)

 

[Paul755]

Jellico was (acting as) a hardass. But it was all strategic, an act to hide his insecurity and act strong and decisively in public, even privately.

Lorca was unhinged. Toxic masculinity personified. "Sleeping with a phaser below his pillow" wasn't just metaphorically for him, and Cornell was right to chew him out for it when he pulled it out on her in half-sleep.
If it weren't for that stupid reveal, he would have been a thousand times more interesting, and could have been a really complex antagonist.

right but the Lorca with a phaser under his pillow was the Mirror version. So the “Toxic Masculinity” is par for the course.

Maybe that scene isn’t done if he’s just a non-nonsense hardass.

 

[Sehlat Vie]

I think that's definitely the way to come at it. I have to remind myself sometimes of the "unreliable narrator." I found, in LD's case, difficulty in making that mental switch, and a lot of the humor felt reliant on past Trek lore rather than character or situation-based. Aside from that mental glitch, it just wasn't making me laugh so I opted to stop watching.

Very much this; Trek references, by themselves, are not inherently 'funny.'
Trek humor works best for me when it comes organically from the characters rather than set-'em-up sitcom gags and deliberately bad or obnoxious behaviors.

 

[Orphalesion]

Maybe that scene isn’t done if he’s just a non-nonsense hardass.

But why do we need a "hardass"? Not really a very intriguing archetype, imo.

 

[ananta]

But why do we need a "hardass"? Not really a very intriguing archetype, imo.

It kind of is, though…in the current Star Trek climate. Nice is nice and very Star Trekky, but I need a little contrast, a little light and shade in my drama.

 

[fireproof78]

But why do we need a "hardass"? Not really a very intriguing archetype, imo.

Hard asses are just annoying. I'd rather have logical and illogical, or someone like Captain Holt.

 

[Commander Troi]

Ahem. City on the Edge of Forever is successful in spite of Harlan Ellison not because of him.

Thank you.