What unnerved me as a child is that this was the first time I saw the set *as* a set….the phony Enterprise…the flying sub cockpit from Voyage’ being smaller was even more jarring to see in one similar episode where the camera backed away and the verisimilitude you invested into it as a kid just collapsed.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
I think there's more apathy about Disco among the critics these days. They may not like it, but it doesn't provoke the same sort of anger as Picard.
I think they're both better than most of Berman-era Trek, which is probably more controversial.
Another controversial opinion: I like Captain Liam Shaw from PIC.
Far as I'm concerned, he has every right to be standoffish to Picard and Riker. If I were him, I'd also hate it when some higher-ups come around to do an inspection for no good
ing reason. I do the same thing when people from Corporate visit my store. If anything, Shaw was nicer to Picard than I am to them.
And also, IMHO Shaw has EVERY right to order Seven to use her human name. He's the captain, so suck it up and deal with it. Besides it seems clear that Shaw has past Borg-related trauma so I'm sure he'd want reminders of the Borg to be kept to a minimum.
Far as I'm concerned, he has every right to be standoffish to Picard and Riker. If I were him, I'd also hate it when some higher-ups come around to do an inspection for no good
ing reason. I do the same thing when people from Corporate visit my store. If anything, Shaw was nicer to Picard than I am to them.And also, IMHO Shaw has EVERY right to order Seven to use her human name. He's the captain, so suck it up and deal with it. Besides it seems clear that Shaw has past Borg-related trauma so I'm sure he'd want reminders of the Borg to be kept to a minimum.
Last edited by a moderator:
Also: Spoilers.
Last edited by a moderator:
What the heck are you thinking?!
Last time I’m going to say this here: if you want to discuss Picard, there’s an entire shiny forum dedicated to just that.
Go there.
I’d hate to get to the point of handing out warnings, so please don’t push it.
Okay. Message received.
But this thread IS about controversial opinions...
But this thread IS about controversial opinions...
Gorgeous! I have the "hi def" DS Enterprise...but I'm definitely in the market for a "Cage or WNMHGB" varient. I'm running out of display space in my theater room, though!
It is a non-controversial opinion that these stupid things are now very expensive.
OMG awful! Even the used / out of box DS ships can be super expensive. Makes me want to kick an infant it's so frustrating.
Okay. Message received.
But this thread IS about controversial opinions...
Not about currently running shows.
Come on.
Yeah, the Disco critics moved to more fertile clickbait fields. I'm sure there will be a "we told you so" victory dance when the show finally ends, however.
Controversial opinion:
Star Trek lore is mostly rubbish.
The history of most species or technology doesn't make a lot of sense, the 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th & 31st century are by all means identical, earth's 21st century history a clusterfuck, one-characteristic species like Klingons or Ferengi unrealistic and dumb, and the more we learn about the inner workings of the Federation & Starfleet the worse it gets.
Where Star Trek really shines is the sense of adventure. A group of nerds/explorers on a ship/station out on the wild.
Exploring Earth, the Federation and the "main" Trek species in Star Trek is a bit like a "Lord of the Rings" series focused only and alone on Hobbiton. It's not meant to be that deeply explored. It's there to serve as a warm feeling of "home", for an adventure set very far away from home.
That's also the reason why none of the movies (or serialised tv shows) really work, because they all focus on the familiar, in a franchise that is very specifically about exploring the unfamiliar.
Star Trek lore is mostly rubbish.
The history of most species or technology doesn't make a lot of sense, the 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th & 31st century are by all means identical, earth's 21st century history a clusterfuck, one-characteristic species like Klingons or Ferengi unrealistic and dumb, and the more we learn about the inner workings of the Federation & Starfleet the worse it gets.
Where Star Trek really shines is the sense of adventure. A group of nerds/explorers on a ship/station out on the wild.
Exploring Earth, the Federation and the "main" Trek species in Star Trek is a bit like a "Lord of the Rings" series focused only and alone on Hobbiton. It's not meant to be that deeply explored. It's there to serve as a warm feeling of "home", for an adventure set very far away from home.
That's also the reason why none of the movies (or serialised tv shows) really work, because they all focus on the familiar, in a franchise that is very specifically about exploring the unfamiliar.
I hate to show my ignorance, but which is which? I think WNMHGB is left, but I'm not positive.
Star Trek is successful in broad strokes, and not looking too deeply into it. It's not a treatise, it's Action-adventure.
Some examples:
It's science is mediocre at best, but it IS for the scientific method.
The politics are never really clear, but if politicians do something questionable, we'll see commentary about it.
It was slow on some diversity issues, but now is near the top of the pack in portraying it, et al.
------
Canon is also a headache. Tip: don't get too tied up in 850+ episodes of details.
Alien species have to be encapsulated in maybe 10-20 minutes of stream-time. There are few aliens that get more, such as the Klingons and so on. One of the most interesting standalones were the 10C in season 4 of Discovery.
Similar threads
- Locked
