What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[Lord Garth]

Just watched PRO ep, 20. Stuck the landing.

It is the best Trek series.

I'm in an interesting spot with this. While I like DSC and PIC, I think I might actually agree with you.

I think the only thing that might be stopping me is cultural programming that's making me think, "I'm in my early-40s! How can I call a show that's aimed at kids the best?" And yet...

I won't go into spoilers, but this is what I'll say: I think Prodigy had a lot to prove. They knew they had to give it their all in order to be taken seriously by people like us, and they delivered. Like I said before, I'm honestly surprised I like series as much as I do. Before, back at the beginning, I didn't think I'd think much of it.

 

[Paul755]

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.

a hardass can work and be interesting if you do it right. Think something along the lines of Picard in S1 just less of a dick.

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

someone like Captain Holt would be great (Andre Braugher in Star Trek would be amazing). But you’d have to have a Perralta type to balance it out and then you’ve just got Lower Decks.

I do think the idea of a pure Vulcan Captain an interesting one.

 

[Vger23]

I'm in an interesting spot with this. While I like DSC and PIC, I think I might actually agree with you.

I think the only thing that might be stopping me is cultural programming that's making me think, "I'm in my early-40s! How can I call a show that's aimed at kids the best?" And yet...

I won't go into spoilers, but this is what I'll say: I think Prodigy had a lot to prove. They knew they had to give it their all in order to be taken seriously by people like us, and they delivered. Like I said before, I'm honestly surprised I like series as much as I do. Before, back at the beginning, I didn't think I'd think much of it.

I agree.

But I’ll also say that, of all the new series, PRO worries me the most in terms of longevity.

I’m not sure that it’s truly caught on as a kids show, at least to anything resembling a broader audience. I also do not think as many Trek fans have given it a try because they dismiss it as children’s fare. And, it seems like there is less online and social media buzz about it, which is a huge concern if “demand signals” are indeed a measure.

It would be very disappointing if a truly high-quality Star Trek product was short-lived just because the audience is too small. But, of course, that’s how the game is played I guess.

 

[Lord Garth]

I agree.

But I’ll also say that, of all the new series, PRO worries me the most in terms of longevity.

I’m not sure that it’s truly caught on as a kids show, at least to anything resembling a broader audience. I also do not think as many Trek fans have given it a try because they dismiss it as children’s fare. And, it seems like there is less online and social media buzz about it, which is a huge concern if “demand signals” are indeed a measure.

It would be very disappointing if a truly high-quality Star Trek product was short-lived just because the audience is too small. But, of course, that’s how the game is played I guess.

It was very rare when we were kids that cartoons lasted several seasons, they were the exception. So I wouldn't think anything of it. I don't really know how it is now, but the sense I get is that even if Star Trek: Prodigy were a huge sensation, Nickelodeon would either replace it with Star Trek: Something Else or put a stop to it all in general after a few years, no matter what.

But I agree. More people need to give this show a chance.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Wanna know why Prodigy's the best? Simplicity. Logic. No stupid obsession with mystery boxes or "shocking" twists that make no sense. It just told a story and didn't stop every 5 minutes, even mid-crisis, for a group therapy session. Prodigy leant on Trek continuity, but didn't stop to jerk off over it.

 

[Orphalesion]

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.

But why does that contrast have to be a military hardass? There's other ways to contrast. Plus it's not just a recent thing that the characters in Star Trek tend to get along.In fact I've seen people criticise that the characters on TNG don't feel like a "family".
To be clear I want interpersonal conflict and drama, but I don't want a guy like Lorca or Jellico. I can't relate to characters like that.

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

I do not know what this Captain Holt is like, sincje I've never watched Brooklyn Nine-Nine.

a hardass can work and be interesting if you do it right. Think something along the lines of Picard in S1 just less of a dick.

What about someone like Sisko?

 

[Oddish]

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.)

It's been steadily climbing on my list as well. Especially with the long series of strong episodes of the last few weeks.

won't go into spoilers, but this is what I'll say: I think Prodigy had a lot to prove. They knew they had to give it their all in order to be taken seriously by people like us, and they delivered.

They set out to deliver a show that kids could appreciate, but that would remain indisputably Star Trek. They were successful.

Wanna know why Prodigy's the best? Simplicity. Logic. No stupid obsession with mystery boxes or "shocking" twists that make no sense.

There are a lot of reasons. Part of it also is that they have managed to create a group of diverse but very likable characters. That was one thing that kept Voyager afloat despite its questionable writing decisions: you liked the characters.

 

[Tallguy]

I want to go back to Farpoint and see the characters react to Picard like they did to Jellico. "Manual?!? What it the purpose of that? That introduced unnecessary risk and strain on the crew! SIR."

I always laughed at Ellison's audacity in his City on the Edge of Forever book that he simultaneously lambasted the ending of the episode that went in the exact opposite direction to what he had written (Kirk stops McCoy, rather than Spock allowing Edith to die because Kirk was too human) and yet still claims credit for TV Guide naming the episode the greatest television show ending of all time. Which was it, Harlan?

That's #1. #2 is that he didn't put McCoy in the center of the plot. Dorothy Fontana did. He had a weaselly crew member dealing drugs (NOT Scotty as Ellison correctly insists) who is just trying to save his own skin. Every scene with McCoy in this episode? NOT Ellison's idea.

#3: "Let's get the hell out of here" is not in his script. Again, advantage Fontana.

Ellison insisted that he wanted this to be the first time that Spock called Kirk "Jim". From Where No Man Has Gone Before: "We'll never reach an Earth base with him aboard, Jim." Sorry.

A half-hearted #4 is that the iconic set of the Guardian was what it was because of a misreading of "ruins" for "runes". Maybe Ellison's description would have looked cool. Cooler even. But it wasn't what we got and it wasn't what we loved.

Obviously it's a more than solid idea for a script. Classic, even. But almost everything (or is it just everything?) Ellison railed against are the things that take it out of being an Outer Limits episode and make it Star Trek.

 

[plynch]

Back to PRO. I guess I am not controversial even when trying.

I don't care if it is long-lived. MUCH better to leave the stage doing well then get worse and eventually stop.

The story had me guessing and surprised the whole way. Won't get into it the one thing I knew would not happen, but there were lots of others I did not know or anticipate.

I wonder if it is better writing/plotting due to the needs of animation, the need to have story and dialogue well in advance, then comes the animating, then post. Maybe that made them have a better coherent story in place from the get-go. Wondering aloud, and anyone with actual industry knowledge as to timing and nuts-and-bolts, do weigh in. But we know writers'-rooms changeovers and changes in showrunners affected DSC's plot and direction, what, three times?

 

[Anduinel]

Back to PRO. I guess I am not controversial even when trying.

I don't care if it is long-lived. MUCH better to leave the stage doing well then get worse and eventually stop.

The story had me guessing and surprised the whole way. Won't get into it the one thing I knew would not happen, but there were lots of others I did not know or anticipate.

I wonder if it is better writing/plotting due to the needs of animation, the need to have story and dialogue well in advance, then comes the animating, then post. Maybe that made them have a better coherent story in place from the get-go. Wondering aloud, and anyone with actual industry knowledge as to timing and nuts-and-bolts, do weigh in. But we know writers'-rooms changeovers and changes in showrunners affected DSC's plot and direction, what, three times?

That's been my hypothesis for why PRO and LDS just feel so much more like the creatives have their act together than on the live action side of things (esp. for DISCO and PIC). You can't rewrite pages as filming is going on or count on being able to reshoot a scene in animation - you have to have your plan nailed down so everyone can do their bit.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I think there are a couple of TOS episodes where they were rewriting as they were filming. IIRC, "Shore Leave" was one.

 

[plynch]

More than a couple, I’m sure. IIRC Sturgeon was unhappy the little antenna dealeo is revealed so soon, so we know there is technology afoot instead of leaving it mysterious for a while more.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I want to go back to Farpoint and see the characters react to Picard like they did to Jellico. "Manual?!? What it the purpose of that? That introduced unnecessary risk and strain on the crew! SIR."


I always laughed at Ellison's audacity in his City on the Edge of Forever book that he simultaneously lambasted the ending of the episode that went in the exact opposite direction to what he had written (Kirk stops McCoy, rather than Spock allowing Edith to die because Kirk was too human) and yet still claims credit for TV Guide naming the episode the greatest television show ending of all time. Which was it, Harlan?

That's #1. #2 is that he didn't put McCoy in the center of the plot. Dorothy Fontana did. He had a weaselly crew member dealing drugs (NOT Scotty as Ellison correctly insists) who is just trying to save his own skin. Every scene with McCoy in this episode? NOT Ellison's idea.

#3: "Let's get the hell out of here" is not in his script. Again, advantage Fontana.

Ellison insisted that he wanted this to be the first time that Spock called Kirk "Jim". From Where No Man Has Gone Before: "We'll never reach an Earth base with him aboard, Jim." Sorry.

A half-hearted #4 is that the iconic set of the Guardian was what it was because of a misreading of "ruins" for "runes". Maybe Ellison's description would have looked cool. Cooler even. But it wasn't what we got and it wasn't what we loved.

Obviously it's a more than solid idea for a script. Classic, even. But almost everything (or is it just everything?) Ellison railed against are the things that take it out of being an Outer Limits episode and make it Star Trek.

Ellison's bitter ranting only made him appear to be a small man either ignorant of the TV creative process, or wanting to pocket al of the COTEOF glory for himself. McCoy being central to the problem was one of the great elements of the episode, as McCoy--by that point in the 1st season--was so bonded to Kirk and yes, even Spock, that their emotional investment in finding / helping McCoy was not just about the mission, but personal concern. The reaction each has when Kirk & Spock reunite with McCoy at the doorway of the mission says it all, and that would not be possible with some random character.

Moreover, yes, Spock had already addressed Kirk as Jim in the second pilot, so Ellison's claims were based on what--lies? Or not watching episodes he had no involvement in creating? Whatever the case, Spock called his friend "Jim" not only in the second pilot, but "The Naked Time", too.

 

[fireproof78]

I think there are a couple of TOS episodes where they were rewriting as they were filming. IIRC, "Shore Leave" was one.

Roddenberry was known for being a workaholic early on, going back over drafts right up until the last minutes. So, yeah, it was a moving target at times. Prodigy can't afford the moving target because animation has to be done and can't just film in pick ups.

 

[plynch]

Coming at producing from the writing side, GR was said to have really had a hand in a lot of the scripts we saw aired in the first half of S1. They are often more play-like in their dialogue, or wordsy. Not more words, but a bit more aspirational, a bit less naturalistic than later eps. A bit. I’ve always figured that is GR’s hand at work. His workaholism forced Coon et al to buy him plane tickets and send him on a vacay, iirc.

 

[Mytran]

I don't know if it was one of GR's or not, but I've always been fond of:

...it's a mystery, and I don't like mysteries. They give me a bellyache and I've got a beauty right now.

 

[ananta]

That line, and the delivery, remind of the style of those old 50’s detective shows. Which is where Gene started unless I’m mistaken?

 

[Commander Troi]

#2 is that he didn't put McCoy in the center of the plot. Dorothy Fontana did. He had a weaselly crew member dealing drugs (NOT Scotty as Ellison correctly insists) who is just trying to save his own skin. Every scene with McCoy in this episode? NOT Ellison's idea.

Thank you for sharing your reasons. They're pretty good.

Tiny quibble on the one above - Ellison was asked to change the catalyst to McCoy and did so in his second draft. (I just re-read the book.)

My general impression is that the original script still wouldv'e made a great episode and that enough of Harlan's story came through that we all knew watching it, long before knowing any behind the scenes stuff, that Kirk's love for Edith was Different. It carried a weight that no other Kirk romance had. We all knew Jim would "carry that weight" forever. Shatner's performance had a lot to do with it too.

BTW, I'm not sure whose rewrite added "Let's get the hell out of here," but it is brilliant.

I just reread the script and not the intro rant, but it seems to me Harlan got more pissed about Gene lying over the years than the actual script kerfuffle. THAT was totally justified.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The biggest problem I have with Ellison's original script is that Kirk actually tries to save Edith, apparently not caring what this will do to the timeline.

How could anyone trust Kirk after that? He's willing to throw away the Federation's entire history, all just for her?

Poor guy. He's trying to have his cake and Edith too.

 

[cooleddie74]

Poor guy. He's trying to have his cake and Edith too.

Go back to your original timeline and think about what you just did.