I mean, I still find a lot of fan works and they are just as fun now as then.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
What should be in Star Trek:
- walking robots
- cool space jackets for away teams
- wheeled space rovers
- shuttle pods with claw arms
- joysticks to control spaceships
- more civilian ships (cargo haulers, mining ships, luxury liners, science vessels, small transports)
- flying cars
- more alien creatures & Monster
- flying robots
- seatbelts
- tactical vests and/or helmets
- holographic interfaces to control spaceships
- small starfighters
- too many human-looking aliens on Federation ships
I object to most of your list just on principle with what should not be in Trek but this one stood out to me
Why? Anti-gravity devices are demonstrated as early as TOS.
I'm no fan of the Dot robots being in the 2250s but yeah, antigrav technology was already in use by then so them actually flying about through antigrav tech wasn't the issue. Floating or flying anything wouldn't be news in Kirk's time unless it was truly enormous like Stratos on Ardana.
Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda??
Nearly every question I had about TOS was answered in funk and wagnalls or popular Science. A Couple things Star Trek could use today.
Isn't that a band?
All I know is their porch was used for nearly 30 years to store Carnac the Magnificent's envelopes.
The Lunar Schooner cadet - the blonde girl - was the only Valiant cadet I felt any real sympathy for. Those kids let themselves be used and put in a deadly situation and they all paid the price, almost killing Nog and Jake in the process. They were know-it-alls and cocky and led by someone even cockier and they put two innocents at risk.
I don't if that's all that controversial.
I can't imagine there are many Trek fans who don't think those little shits got exactly what they deserved.
I caught some of the episode tonight on H&I…you woulda thought the Vulcan cadets there would know better.
Logic is only ever as good as the a priori assumptions it is built on. Or, like they say: "Logic merely allows one to be wrong with authority."
No, I wouldn't.
Trek has shown more than once in its long history that even logical Vulcans can join the wrong side in a dispute and allow themselves to be complicit in some pretty unethical and/or dangerous behavior.
Eh, honestly if you try to ground star trek too much, you get something that isn't Trek IMO. People better than me have tried. At a point you get to a point where you're just better off making your own thing.
Well, yes, but they're still very young. Many of us did reckless things at their age. They never should have been in that situation in the first place.
I wonder whether that captain that was dying and that ordered Watters to take command also gave him the orders to return to Federation space taking no more risks than absolutely required to do that (despite the orders given to him to collect data on that new Dominion battleship). If not, I'd say he was responsible for their situation, too.
ST:TMP is my favorite Trek film, an opinion I have found to be controversial when discussing Trek with other fans. On the other hand, whenever I do encounter someone who loves TMP as I do, it usually turns out that we have similar tastes when it comes to science fiction books/films/tv in general, preferring more cerebral depictions of humanity's exploration of space than outer space shoot-'em-ups. TMP-ers are a tiny subset of Trek fandom, so we have a secret handshake to identify when we meet IRL. 
I don't think it was emotions. It was logical following regulations and orders.
Similar threads
- Locked
