What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[publiusr]

Same. The Burn and its cause are something that resonates quite deeply for me, and it feels quite in line with the space fantasy themes in TOS and TAS.

Something worse than the Burn may be possible: “collapse of the vacuum”

The cause reminded me of this film
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shout

Spore drive? Keep that for The Mandalorian space whales to eat…or fluidic space.

 

[fireproof78]

Spore drive? Keep that for The Mandalorian space whales to eat…or fluidic space.

I still like the Spore drive.

 

[The Knappos]

I still like the Spore drive.

Enough about what you do on the weekends

 

[AresB]

Reducing it to a depressed child made the entire thing feel so small, where the Burn itself was presented as a HUGE overarching galaxy-spanning event that irrevocably changed entire planets.

The grief of a child losing everything is not small. It's huge. Star Trek is right to point it out.

Spore drive? Keep that for The Mandalorian space whales to eat…or fluidic space.

Interdimensional rifts and beings have been established things in Star Trek before, and the real life mycologist Paul Stamets suggested a global network of mushrooms. The creators of DSC just put together 1 + 1.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I think the Burn storyline is a very good idea and the ending it got was a very good idea.

I just never cared because that storyline took so damn long to get off the ground and do anything interesting whatsoever that it felt like the whole thing was over before it even got started. Also the Orions were really poorly done and dragged the whole season down with them.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Is this a typo? I don't bother with LCARS too much, but the ship designs are right out of the 2280's, right?

Fair point about the USS Titan. But the end credits are literally slow pans over LCARS screens!

This is touchier (and I'm going to be more serious): I don't know the whole Probert thing. I understand that he's (to be charitable) become a bit eccentric. I'm not downplaying the allegation. I'm not.

Except that there are people making the show who ACTUALLY know the man. In real life. Not on the internet. And they think it's OK to put his name on the show. So I'm guessing they don't see him as racist. It's a word that is losing it's power because it gets used a LOT.

I would imagine what he has actually done in real life does not compare to what Gene Roddenberry ever did in terms of parting company. But Gene's been dead for 30 years and Probert hasn't. Also Probert is a big nerd artist and Roddenberry was a Hollywood producer.

Judge for yourself. Instagram.
It kinda has me wondering about the returning old crop of designers who would want to celebrate him.

Really? I doubt "they" have noticed. More to the point, I don't think in the more casual "We hate everything we call woke" circles that they see the distinction between Disco and the rest of Paramount+ Star Trek. I'm sure there are some virulent jerks that are counting coup over the demise of Disco. How much is the cancellation being lauded by "the right" and how much is it by the anti-JJ (by way of Kurtzman) fans? Or are those synonymous? There are dyed in the wool lefties that hate Disco as much as anyone.

But I can't help but smile at the acknowledgement of "right wing Trekkies". That was considered an oxymoron not long ago. Although what passes for "the right" isn't a universally agreed upon thing anymore either. Also: People are idiots. It's bipartisan.

There's a lot of talk on Twitter and elsewhere that Discovery's "wokeness" is what killed it and Picard (despite it, you know, ending first) is putting the ship right.

 

[eschaton]

I think the Burn storyline is a very good idea and the ending it got was a very good idea.

I just never cared because that storyline took so damn long to get off the ground and do anything interesting whatsoever that it felt like the whole thing was over before it even got started. Also the Orions were really poorly done and dragged the whole season down with them.

Part of the issue with The Burn is it wasn't really the Season 3 arc, it was just a part of it:

• Episodes 1 and 2 were about reuniting Michael and the Discovery crew.
• Episodes 3-5 were about "finding the Federation"
• Episodes 6-8 were more clearly about the "cause of The Burn"
• Episodes 9-10 were a side-quest to get Georgiou "put on a bus" for the spinoff which (apparently) will never happen with a few random scenes in engineering.
• Episode 11 solved The Burn
• Episodes 12-13 shifted the story to "let's defeat discount Seksa...I mean Osyrra!"

Yeah, there was a thread about The Burn all the way through. But in a lot of episodes it was structured in a frankly annoying way, where only Michael really cared about solving it, and everyone else was like "lol, whatever!"

 

[Tallguy]

If I remember rightly the novel Mosaic (not canon I know, but written by Jeri Taylor and intended as the character's definitive back story during the time Taylor was showrunner between seasons one and four) put Janeway's birth year as 2336, making her 35 in "Caretaker".

Wasn't Picard meant to be quite about older than Patrick Stewart's late 40's? Because, you know, the future? I don't think Star Trek has considered that kind of thing since then.

Judge for yourself. Instagram.
It kinda has me wondering about the returning old crop of designers who would want to celebrate him.

He's on the right. He's even apparently a Trump guy. (I won't bore you with a quibble of if I think that means "right" but it is unfortunately accepted terminology.) It happens.

You can question just about everyone who has made the Star Trek that we have known and loved for the last 44ish years for associating with Probert, someone that many of them have known longer than even that time or you can accept that they might know his worth as a person beyond supporting the "wrong" party.

I fell in love with Strange New Worlds at the end of the pilot when Captain Christopher Pike told me "Calm the F down." (It's not Picard or Disco so he didn't say "F".)

There's a lot of talk on Twitter and elsewhere that Discovery's "wokeness" is what killed it and Picard (despite it, you know, ending first) is putting the ship right.

Even if one accepts the premise how does one argue that Picard is in opposition to that? It's not like Picard is the "anti-woke" or even middle of the road show either.

 

[Farscape One]

What happened to enjoying a show and starship designs without bringing politics into it?

People seem to have forgotten how to separate the professional work and the personal lives of people. Whether you agree with some of their politics or not, if they gave us great work in designs for a long time, what is the problem? Especially when, as pointed out above, the current era of those in the same industry who actually know the person and have worked with them don't have any issues.



Regarding DISCO's upcoming end...

I figured it would end either with 5 seasons or when it reaches 100 episodes, which would have been season 9 if the pattern of episodes per season held. Ironically, I think if SNW didn't happen, they may very well have hit the 100 mark. It boils down to this.

DISCO was the flagship series for the franchise, until SNW arrived. Between the critics and audience reviews, it easily became the new flagship for the franchise. Plus, given the rising costs per season of DISCO, and the recent decision by Paramount Plus to cut costs because of the Showtime merge, DISCO's days were numbered.

We've seen this before in tv... back when it was the SciFi Channel, FARSCAPE was the network's flagship series. Then they acquired STARGATE SG-1, and that became the new flagship show, and put FARSCAPE on the chopping block due to high costs. (Despite them guaranteeing a season 5 along with a season 4.) Then BATTLESTAR GALACTICA came along, and that became the new flagship show of the network. The critical and audience reception was very, very good... rather similar to how well received SNW currently is being regarded by both.

 

[fireproof78]

What happened to enjoying a show and starship designs without bringing politics into it?

Enjoyment is secondary to outrage.

 

[Macintosh]

Wasn't Picard meant to be quite about older than Patrick Stewart's late 40's? Because, you know, the future? I don't think Star Trek has considered that kind of thing since then..

They never really considered it before either. Patrick Stewart was 47 in "Encounter at Farpoint"; Picard was 59. Though Picard is kind of an outlier there, not least because Patrick Stewart has been of "indeterminate middle age" from his 30s through his 60s. This is him in 1975 at the age of 35:

What's always been interesting to me is that in Generations Kirk's retired at 60 – and in Nemesis Picard is still happily commanding the Enterprise at 74.

Enjoyment is secondary to outrage.

To paraphrase Noel Coward, outrage is more enjoyable than enjoyment

 

[cooleddie74]

At a fan gathering to celebrate the movie Time After Time the discussion went to Sir Patrick and Malcolm McDowell joked that even in the 1960s and in his early twenties Stewart was playing old men.

 

[Farscape One]

Regarding Picard commanding at 74...

It may simply be Federation medicine helps people stay more active for more years. There are 80 years between the Enterprise-B launch and NEMESIS, plenty of time for many medical advances in that area.

 

[cooleddie74]

Starfleet Command trusted 137-year-old Admiral McCoy to travel to other star systems and accurately inspect medical facilities aboard starships. While that's not exactly the same thing as commanding a vessel in a life-or-death situation it's not inconsequential, either. McCoy is almost a century and a half old and can not only walk unassisted but is trusted by men about a third his age to give the seal of approval to life-saving medication and technology.

Medicine and life prolongation methods have clearly advanced a lot between the 21st and the 24th centuries.

 

[Tallguy]

Regarding Picard commanding at 74...

It may simply be Federation medicine helps people stay more active for more years. There are 80 years between the Enterprise-B launch and NEMESIS, plenty of time for many medical advances in that area.

Well, in Roddenberry's TMP novel Kirk muses that if he wasn't killed by Vejur that he might live another century. And Farpoint introduces the 130-something Leonard McCoy, as others have noted. So longer life spans were part of Roddenberry's Utopia for some time.

Sad for a man who wouldn't live past 70.

 

[fireproof78]

To paraphrase Noel Coward, outrage is more enjoyable than enjoyment

The more I interact with fans from various groups (not just Trek, but elsewhere) the more I realize that outrage is far more preferrable to actual participation and happiness.

 

[AresB]

Oooh! Could replicators create kryptonite?

If a '80s weather satellite can analyze a sample of kryptonite to this extent, I'm sure a tricorder can figure out the mystery component too.

Or they can substitute it with something. Though maybe not tar.

 

[Macintosh]

And Farpoint introduces the 130-something Leonard McCoy, as others have noted.

True, though McCoy doesn't seem to have aged more slowly in the same way that Picard did – he just kept on living. He very much looked his age in The Undiscovered Country (66 for the character, 71 for the actor). But still, it definitely shows that extreme longevity isn't so unusual. And we hear of Keiko's mother turning 100 in an episode of DS9 too, which means she must have been 60ish when Keiko was born.

 

[Lord Garth]

True, though McCoy doesn't seem to have aged more slowly in the same way that Picard did – he just kept on living. He very much looked his age in The Undiscovered Country (66 for the character, 71 for the actor). But still, it definitely shows that extreme longevity isn't so unusual. And we hear of Keiko's mother turning 100 in an episode of DS9 too, which means she must have been 60ish when Keiko was born.

Given the way McCoy is, even if he could live longer, he probably preferred living longer the natural way.

I'm guessing there's probably an argument of, "I want to live to be 150, but I don't want to be old for more than half my life!", so they've probably come up with ways to make people look better even though the way the cells regenerate doesn't really change. So, the body still breaks down when it would've, but they'll at least look better when it does.

 

[Commander Troi]

Considering how much has changed just in my lifetime, longer & healthier lifespans is something science fiction got right. For example, I just had a birthday and my mind had to wrap around the fact that 55 now and 55 when I was a kid are very different! And back in the 70s, it would've been unthinkable for a man of 83 to star in a tv show.

The more I interact with fans from various groups (not just Trek, but elsewhere) the more I realize that outrage is far more preferrable to actual participation and happiness.

I find that very sad. I was like that for awhile, but I realized it was no way to live. I'm thankful most people on this board prefer to discuss and enjoy our geeky stuff.