• 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?

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. :luvlove:
I mean, I agree but I think the simple fact that Star Trek was considered to be on the fringes, especially in the 80s and 90s, and you had pop culture teasing, like in Night Court poking fun at Trekkies arguing over TOS vs. TNG, there is a certain amount of discomfort that can come from freely accepting Trek being closer to the main stream.

Personally, Trek fandom has tried to frame itself as inclusive, but the reality is it struggles with a very basic human idea of trying to distinguish itself and it's identify within the larger cultural context. So, when you have people who are perhaps more casual fans trying to come in to franchise, or you have other science fiction/space fantasy that infringes on a territory there is a protectivist reaction, largely because one's identity is so wrapped up in this fiction. Not only that, but arguing about it can feel way more empowering because then you are protecting your "realm" and by extension, your identity. And, when so much time was spent arguing about it, it becomes easier and more comfortable to just argue, rather than accept different opinions.

It's fascinating from a psychological perspective, but I struggle at times because it really feels like Trek would rather be this isolated little niche and not let anything new in.
 
I mean, I agree but I think the simple fact that Star Trek was considered to be on the fringes, especially in the 80s and 90s, and you had pop culture teasing, like in Night Court poking fun at Trekkies arguing over TOS vs. TNG, there is a certain amount of discomfort that can come from freely accepting Trek being closer to the main stream.

Personally, Trek fandom has tried to frame itself as inclusive, but the reality is it struggles with a very basic human idea of trying to distinguish itself and it's identify within the larger cultural context. So, when you have people who are perhaps more casual fans trying to come in to franchise, or you have other science fiction/space fantasy that infringes on a territory there is a protectivist reaction, largely because one's identity is so wrapped up in this fiction. Not only that, but arguing about it can feel way more empowering because then you are protecting your "realm" and by extension, your identity. And, when so much time was spent arguing about it, it becomes easier and more comfortable to just argue, rather than accept different opinions.

It's fascinating from a psychological perspective, but I struggle at times because it really feels like Trek would rather be this isolated little niche and not let anything new in.
Which is ironic and kinda sad
 
I mean, I agree but I think the simple fact that Star Trek was considered to be on the fringes, especially in the 80s and 90s, and you had pop culture teasing, like in Night Court poking fun at Trekkies arguing over TOS vs. TNG, there is a certain amount of discomfort that can come from freely accepting Trek being closer to the main stream.

Personally, Trek fandom has tried to frame itself as inclusive, but the reality is it struggles with a very basic human idea of trying to distinguish itself and it's identify within the larger cultural context. So, when you have people who are perhaps more casual fans trying to come in to franchise, or you have other science fiction/space fantasy that infringes on a territory there is a protectivist reaction, largely because one's identity is so wrapped up in this fiction. Not only that, but arguing about it can feel way more empowering because then you are protecting your "realm" and by extension, your identity. And, when so much time was spent arguing about it, it becomes easier and more comfortable to just argue, rather than accept different opinions.

It's fascinating from a psychological perspective, but I struggle at times because it really feels like Trek would rather be this isolated little niche and not let anything new in.
Thank you for unpacking that more. I remember feeling "special" and smarter than "mundanes". As a teen, that probably helped me survive. Even now, I love going to conventions to be around "my people." So that I understand - the desire to belong somewhere is hardwired into us.

The gatekeeping and protectionism rubs me wrong. When a newbie or casual fan comes up to me, I'm thrilled to share the things I love! The more the merrier!

Maybe it's part of the general divisiveness of our (US) culture right now. People seem less able to tolerate differing opinions about anything. As I've gotten older, I've realized I'd rather try to understand (emphasis on try - I'm not always good at it :lol:) than fight. I've learned new things, found common ground where I didn't expect to, and even changed my mind. Maybe I've just mellowed.
 
Thank you for unpacking that more. I remember feeling "special" and smarter than "mundanes". As a teen, that probably helped me survive. Even now, I love going to conventions to be around "my people." So that I understand - the desire to belong somewhere is hardwired into us.

The gatekeeping and protectionism rubs me wrong. When a newbie or casual fan comes up to me, I'm thrilled to share the things I love! The more the merrier!

Maybe it's part of the general divisiveness of our (US) culture right now. People seem less able to tolerate differing opinions about anything. As I've gotten older, I've realized I'd rather try to understand (emphasis on try - I'm not always good at it :lol:) than fight. I've learned new things, found common ground where I didn't expect to, and even changed my mind. Maybe I've just mellowed.
I think I have mellowed to some degree as well, and definitely have a much different viewpoint on my participation in fandom. But, more than that, it just makes me so freaking sad to see a franchise that rails about diversity struggle with accepting new points of view.

Like, I get the desire to have that precious thing and we won't risk harm to it, but I always don't see the harm being done to the franchise. That's the part that confuses me the most is the extreme style of rhetoric, i.e. "destroyed, terrible" or my favorite, "Worst Trek ever!" and I'm going "How?" I try my hardest to see different points of view but this one eludes me.
 
I mean, I agree but I think the simple fact that Star Trek was considered to be on the fringes, especially in the 80s and 90s, and you had pop culture teasing, like in Night Court poking fun at Trekkies arguing over TOS vs. TNG, there is a certain amount of discomfort that can come from freely accepting Trek being closer to the main stream.

Personally, Trek fandom has tried to frame itself as inclusive, but the reality is it struggles with a very basic human idea of trying to distinguish itself and it's identify within the larger cultural context. So, when you have people who are perhaps more casual fans trying to come in to franchise, or you have other science fiction/space fantasy that infringes on a territory there is a protectivist reaction, largely because one's identity is so wrapped up in this fiction. Not only that, but arguing about it can feel way more empowering because then you are protecting your "realm" and by extension, your identity. And, when so much time was spent arguing about it, it becomes easier and more comfortable to just argue, rather than accept different opinions.

It's fascinating from a psychological perspective, but I struggle at times because it really feels like Trek would rather be this isolated little niche and not let anything new in.
I feel that a lot. Should diversity mean we all have to think alike or you're cast out or canceled
Hell I grew up thinking it meant excepting people different than yourself.
 
Back to TMP for a second. The plot didn't suck you in, kind of a slow 90 + min drum beat.
But after a decade plus it was Trek for the sake of Trek. right up to the end of the opening credits.
 
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.

unknown.jpg

Dialium is a tropical Legume.

Has Kryptonite always been a fruit?
 
Paul Rudd is now older than Wilford Brimley was when he made Cocoon. Let that sink in for a moment.

We've come a long way.
WAIT a minute! He's younger than ME!

To be fair, Brimley was exceptional even then. He was seven years younger than, for example, Roger Moore. Who still had one more Bond film in him (unfortunately). He was also younger than George Peppard, Gene Hackman, Michael Caine, Christopher Plumber... And William Shatner.

None of whom appeared younger than Rudd, but also none of them were going toe to toe with Don Amici and Hume Cronyn who were in their 70's.

It's fascinating from a psychological perspective, but I struggle at times because it really feels like Trek would rather be this isolated little niche and not let anything new in.
Hmmm. On the one hand I totally see it. OTOH the biggest hit that Star Trek ever had was JJ's Into Darkness (even adjusted for inflation). So, more inclusive but not really the most Star Trek thing that's ever been made. (WOW! Star Trek: The Motion Picture still holding on at number TWO! Making that movie must have been truly a miserable experience - and it was - for the studio for them to have kicked Roddenberry out after a bona fide hit!)
 
Ok, but why are the two things mutually exclusive? Is there a balance point between Trek thing and inclusive?
I think so, yes. Where is it? Who knows? I'm certainly not entitled to more Star Trek the way that I like it. The new fans and creatives can make new things and I'm in favor of people liking things that they like.

I'm delighted that Disco has fans. Hopefully rabid ones. I want Jodie Whittaker to be someone's favorite Doctor. Hell, Sylvester McCoy is SOMEONE's favorite Doctor. Somewhere someone thinks that they didn't get James Kirk right until Chris Pine played the role. Paul Wesley is someone's breath of fresh air.

I can't stand any of the Enterprises since the E. And I'm not in love with any of them since the A. I dearly hope there is someone covering their wall or hard drive with drawings of the SNW Enterprise.

At some point a change will attract some while pushing others away. If you can find the sweet spot that keeps the maximum fans young and old, congratulations. You're probably Kevin Feige and you should start picking out your own island soon.

I never cared about the Disney Afternoon Ducktales but BOY am I a fan of the Disney Channel reboot. Really, have you seen it? It's SOOOOO GOOD! I know they're glad they finally got the guys that were too old for the original. ;) OK, and my kids. But I'm sure that's a happy accident.

BTW, beating this dead horse (Hey! 54 isn't dead!):

Currently 54 years old:
Hugh Jackman, Will Smith, Dave Bautista, Captain Liam himself Todd Stashwick, Jennifer Aniston, Jason Bateman, Thomas Jane (Door and corners!).

About to be 54: Ant-Man II Paul Rudd, Connor Trinneer, Cate Blanchet, Matthew McConaughey (allright allright allright!), David Boreanaz, Jack Black, and Peter Dinklage.

So yeah, 54 is certainly not what it was 30 years ago. Even if you aren't Wilford Brimley. Or Patrick Stewart.
 
Controversial Opinion:

I always wanted Star Trek to be more mainstream. I never, ever had any desire for it to be "my special thing" and I never bought into the total bullshit that it was/is "science fiction television for a smarter, more intellectual audience." That was something Gene made up in the 70's and 80's to make everyone feel special.

Those attitudes are what has kept Trek in the fringes for decades. I'd rather everyone be able to enjoy it as much as I do.
 
Thanks for the list of people slightly younger than I am.
:devil:

Controversial Opinion:

I always wanted Star Trek to be more mainstream. I never, ever had any desire for it to be "my special thing" and I never bought into the total bullshit that it was/is "science fiction television for a smarter, more intellectual audience." That was something Gene made up in the 70's and 80's to make everyone feel special.

Those attitudes are what has kept Trek in the fringes for decades. I'd rather everyone be able to enjoy it as much as I do.
I guess that's the thing: I wanted more people to like Star Trek. But I didn't want them to change Star Trek so that more people would like it.

(And I wanted WAY more people to like Firefly. But I'm not willing to trade The Avengers for it.)

But let's not take that tone. What should Roddenberry have changed to be more accessible?
 
:devil:


I guess that's the thing: I wanted more people to like Star Trek. But I didn't want them to change Star Trek so that more people would like it.

(And I wanted WAY more people to like Firefly. But I'm not willing to trade The Avengers for it.)

But let's not take that tone. What should Roddenberry have changed to be more accessible?

I think the rhetoric that Trek is only for “smart, intellectual science fiction aficionados” probably didn’t help the show’s appeal. It’s condescending and exclusive.

And has Trek changed, or evolved?
 
I think the rhetoric that Trek is only for “smart, intellectual science fiction aficionados” probably didn’t help the show’s appeal. It’s condescending and exclusive.
Yes, but that was all after the fact. It certainly wasn't part of the marketing. And unless you were already "in" you didn't hear it.

If anything you heard it from the people NOT watching the show (not "fans") that Star Trek was for dweebs who couldn't get girls.

And has Trek changed, or evolved?
In most ways, yes. But it's still way cooler to like Star Wars and Spider-Man.
 
:p

I guess that's the thing: I wanted more people to like Star Trek. But I didn't want them to change Star Trek so that more people would like it.

(And I wanted WAY more people to like Firefly. But I'm not willing to trade The Avengers for it.)

But let's not take that tone. What should Roddenberry have changed to be more accessible?
Yeah. "Make it more accessible" has too often been the kiss of death for good shows. I really don't know what Gene could've done - we already had miniskirts and action scenes. What beat it in the ratings?

(In some moods, I'd trade Avengers for more Firefly. But I did my best to get everyone I knew into the Shiny.)
 
And has Trek changed, or evolved?
Definitely evolved. Back when TNG was on the air, I'd never have envisioned Prodigy or Lower Decks or Picard. There's so much more diversity of tone, subject matter, characters, and casting.

If anything you heard it from the people NOT watching the show (not "fans") that Star Trek was for dweebs who couldn't get girls.
And no one thought there even were female fans! (The Big Bang Theory pissed me off for still using those stereotypes.) Just existing put me beyond the pale to most non-fans.
 
In most ways, yes. But it's still way cooler to like Star Wars and Spider-Man.
I think if they had been more aggressive with the Kelvin universe movie releases it might have bumped up the popularity with the general public. They had six years before Star Wars returned and only managed to release one movie during that time.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top