• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

"We're beyond that sort of thing" is a smug slogan Humans repeat to make themselves feel superior and enlightened.

"The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess." Luke 28:11-12 KJV
 
Watching “Rocks and Shoals” DS9 S6 on H&I. It would have been fun if they did alternate opening credits for the episodes where the station was occupied.

maybe use the same song but change up how it’s played, have Dominion ships docked, etc…
 
Watching “Rocks and Shoals” DS9 S6 on H&I. It would have been fun if they did alternate opening credits for the episodes where the station was occupied.

maybe use the same song but change up how it’s played, have Dominion ships docked, etc…
That would have been better, leaving it as is just screams “this is temporary!”
 
What specifically is a reference in your book? Anything at all about Augments?
Good question. I wouldn't count that because they're just telling new(ish) stories with/developing the lore that was established by Space Seed and TWOK. What annoys me is the direct callbacks and rehashes and name drops like the "Project Kahn" folder, the opening and jackets in PIC S3E1, but most obviously Into Darkness which took it to a bizarre level of self-parody. Also the revenge plots starting with Nemesis, which aren't direct references but always felt like they're trying to repeat TWOK. Into Darkness just dropped all pretence. I just wish they'd finally let it rest.
 
The multitude of jackets/uniforms in Beyond bothered me, so I can see it.

I really like the jackets and gloves they have as away-team gear on SNW, it just makes sense when you're going to poke around a planet you don't know much about. I appriciate when they put common sense things like that into shows.
Plus they look cool.
 
Last edited:
I really like the jackets and gloves they have as away-team gear on SNW, it just makes sense when you're going to poke around a planet you don't know much about. I appropriate when they put common sense things like that into shows.
Plus they look cool.
If you're exploring the universe, it makes sense to have an entire wardrobe ready to deal with nearly any environment.
 
I love all of the Star Trek jackets. I love The Cage. I love their successors in The Motion Picture. And I love the TWOK jackets.

The "problem" with the Picard jacket that Beverly is wearing (that is what we're talking about, yeah?) is that it references the second most Robert Fletcher feature ever, the collar*, but that it doesn't really go with anything else. "The sounds, but not the language. We would be responding in gibberish." And that's a rather minor transgression on the "Wrath of Khan Bingo" chart.

*The most Robert Fletcher feature ever is the stitching on the TMP / TWOK space suits that can't really be seen because of all of the space gear.
 
Maybe Controversial: The Enterprise D bridge is a Star Trek cul de sac that will not ever be visited again other than specifically as the Enterprise D bridge.

Look at how many umpteen variations on the TOS / TMP / Defiant / Voyager design language we've gotten over the years. And that's just canon on screen. Look at the proliferation of fan designs!

The TNG bridge is totally unique and for all the love that TNG gets (I know many consider TOS to be the trial run that paved the way for the Real Star Trek that is TNG) no one so much bats an eyelash at that design. Which I confess makes me a little sad. It was one of the truly successful departures that TNG was able to make from TOS and the movies. The Ent-E bridge is cool and all but it shows none of the Out of the Box thinking that they had in 1987.

And that's coming from a staunch TOS / TMP guy.
 
My controversial option is letting the child die in Lift Us Where Suffering Cannot Reach is a fair trade.
Which way? Pry him from the machine that was devouring him from the inside out, allow him to die peacefully in his father's loving arms while the machinery shuddered to a stop and the floating city began its final plunge? Or leave him, and a presumably endless line of other randomly chosen innocents, to a horrific fate?
 
Maybe Controversial: The Enterprise D bridge is a Star Trek cul de sac that will not ever be visited again other than specifically as the Enterprise D bridge.

Look at how many umpteen variations on the TOS / TMP / Defiant / Voyager design language we've gotten over the years. And that's just canon on screen. Look at the proliferation of fan designs!

The TNG bridge is totally unique and for all the love that TNG gets (I know many consider TOS to be the trial run that paved the way for the Real Star Trek that is TNG) no one so much bats an eyelash at that design. Which I confess makes me a little sad. It was one of the truly successful departures that TNG was able to make from TOS and the movies. The Ent-E bridge is cool and all but it shows none of the Out of the Box thinking that they had in 1987.

And that's coming from a staunch TOS / TMP guy.

I agree. I think the TNG bridge was unique and interesting….one of the things in the series that effectively sold the idea that we are truly 80 years in the future from Kirk and Spock’s time.
 
The 1701-D bridge never bothered me. Well-lit. Like a hotel lobby with carpeting and lots of computer terminals. It was a definite evolutionary jump from the bridge's of Kirk's era.

The 1701-E bridge by comparison was like Voyager and the Enterprise-D had a kid.
 
Which way? Pry him from the machine that was devouring him from the inside out, allow him to die peacefully in his father's loving arms while the machinery shuddered to a stop and the floating city began its final plunge? Or leave him, and a presumably endless line of other randomly chosen innocents, to a horrific fate?

As far as I'm concerned, killing a child so a civilization can have technology and convenience is a civilization that deserves neither.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top