What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[Commander Troi]

Yeah, and the time between seasons didn't help. BOOM! Will's grown a foot!

There's no ep called Robot. Do you mean Eulogy?

Parker should've gotten an Emmy.

 

[cooleddie74]

Great. One more he has to lift to sit down on a chair.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

I feel like the Culture series of novels by Iain M. Banks is actually a great update of the Star Trek ethos. It's still a nigh-utopian, multiracial civilization, where the "adventure" stories come from mucking around on the frontiers (their version of Starfleet is called "special circumstances). But it's more explicit with politics, being basically anarcho-socialist, and it actually embraces posthumanism, with super-advanced benevolent AIs running most everything important (ships are all self-aware, for example), leaving biological humanoids to laze around, do drugs, or perform various hobbies unless they're really driven for public service.

I keep meaning to reread the whole series. Masterpieces.

 

[Rahul]

I feel like the Culture series of novels by Iain M. Banks is actually a great update of the Star Trek ethos. It's still a nigh-utopian, multiracial civilization, where the "adventure" stories come from mucking around on the frontiers (their version of Starfleet is called "special circumstances). But it's more explicit with politics, being basically anarcho-socialist, and it actually embraces posthumanism, with super-advanced benevolent AIs running most everything important (ships are all self-aware, for example), leaving biological humanoids to laze around, do drugs, or perform various hobbies unless they're really driven for public service.

Haven't read it, maybe I should try?
Though while I agree with the sentiment, I'm usually against going to deep into any detail about Treks future society.
This specific future might look more realistic now. But might be already outdated in 20 years, when we all have a personal A.I. in our phones. Whereas the future society of TOS might still be possible - simply because we know so little about it.
Don't get me wrong - I do LOVE detailed thought out future scenarios. Just not necessarily in Star Trek.

I also thought it was a bad idea to give a specific date for first contact/WW3. There's a reason TOS invented "Stardates" instead of saying it takes place in the year 3000.

Let's call it another unpopular opinion: I kinda prefer a strategic unclarity/fog of details about Treks society. That includes weather or not they use currency.

 

[Commander Troi]

I can dig that. Things become dated so quickly.

 

[Rahul]

I am always shocked when I remember that Blade runner takes place in the year 2019, 'Alien' in 2122 (and Prometheus in 2089), there original 'Lost in Space' in 1997 and, well, guess about '2001: A Space Odyssey' and 'Space: 1999'.

Like, all of these show still reasonable plausible future scenarios. But hell - each one of these worlds has a long future history, that is frankly impossible to archieve in such a short time.

I never understood why writers don't set their future in, like, the year 2500 or 3000. 'Dune' did actually will in this regard, as well as German sci-fi series "space patrol Orion", which is very Star Trek like, but set in 3000.

Just leave a bit more space, dammit. Worst of them all is probably "Picard", with the Europa mission (a mission to Mars that definitely needs years of planning ahead) being set next year, in 2024. Talk about accidental alternate history...

 

[fireproof78]

Well, there is the Artemis mission...

But, yes, I always enjoyed science fiction and the dates they used in terms of future events. It makes me laugh. Star Trek always tries to reconnect with real world history which is fine, but doesn't always work they way they want it to.

So, I would prefer some measure of ambiguity to the dating. But, it is what it is. Nothing I can do to change it.

 

[Vger23]

I am always shocked when I remember that Blade runner takes place in the year 2019, 'Alien' in 2122 (and Prometheus in 2089), there original 'Lost in Space' in 1997 and, well, guess about '2001: A Space Odyssey' and 'Space: 1999'.

Like, all of these show still reasonable plausible future scenarios. But hell - each one of these worlds has a long future history, that is frankly impossible to archieve in such a short time.

I never understood why writers don't set their future in, like, the year 2500 or 3000. 'Dune' did actually will in this regard, as well as German sci-fi series "space patrol Orion", which is very Star Trek like, but set in 3000.

Just leave a bit more space, dammit. Worst of them all is probably "Picard", with the Europa mission (a mission to Mars that definitely needs years of planning ahead) being set next year, in 2024. Talk about accidental alternate history...

I watched Event Horizon last night and the opening crawl indicates that 2015 is the establishment of the first permanent lunar colony. All these movies like Blade Runner, etc (that you mentioned above) I generally just put a "1" in the hundreds column with regard to when they are supposed to take place. It makes me feel better.

 

[fireproof78]

I should add that dates don't bother me that much. At a 1, or a 0, and call it good. The story is the important thing to me.

Same thing with the idea of "Oh, this is better than Star Trek!" Ok, well then go watch that I guess...'cause the comparison game is a net zero gain for me. It's not interesting to place these science fiction works in a competition with each other. They each approach things a little differently and I welcome that. I don't understand the need to pigeonhole these things.

 

[Rahul]

My guess is that it's because American history is just so goddamn short. Like, they went from first settlers arriving on barques, to an industrial society, to having an aerospace industry in just a few hundred years. Of course they believe in another hundred years they're living on Jupiter.

Whereas here in Europe, I go to a monastery where they brew beer in the same room since 800 years and print a customer review from 1412 on their bottles as a joke. And in Asia project managers read advice on team-building from a guy from 544 b.C.
So of course we think everything might take a little bit longer, and people in 500 years might have new gadgets and a different economy, but will still drink the same beer (or tea) in the same room.

 

[drt]

Just leave a bit more space, dammit. Worst of them all is probably "Picard", with the Europa mission (a mission to Mars that definitely needs years of planning ahead) being set next year, in 2024. Talk about accidental alternate history...

Yeah, they probably should have made it a moon or Artemis mission, one where Ms. Picard cuts her teeth for the future Europa mission. Having a Europa mission in 2024 is a little too "not our future" for me.

My guess is that it's because American history is just so goddamn short

I think, for TOS anyway (which of course influenced everything else), it was less American history, and more aviation history - where we had gone from first powered flight to landing on the moon in less than seventy years. When I was a kid in the early 70s, everyone 100% believed we'd have moonbases in the 80s and be traveling to Mars and beyond in the 90s. So I forgive the original producers for believing similarly in the mid-60s.

 

[dmac]

A boy and his dog 2024 is looking good.

 

[fireproof78]

My guess is that it's because American history is just so goddamn short. Like, they went from first settlers arriving on barques, to an industrial society, to having an aerospace industry in just a few hundred years. Of course they believe in another few hundred years they're living on Jupiter.

I think that's part of it, as well as just how difficult some of these tasks are. Like going to the Moon was a big deal, and then there was delays, and some wars here and there, and some loss of knowledge and then it ends up not going as fast as it had in the past decade.

I do agree that Americans have a very short sighted view of history but also that it's fun to have that sense of "This is just around the corner" type attitude. It's a duel edge sword.

 

[Dee1891]

The Borg should have died after the Queen's Cube was destroyed in "Endgame", the series finale for "Voyager". I realize I may have stated this in another thread. But the more I think about "Picard", the more I believe that the Borg should have remained gone.

 

[fireproof78]

The Borg should have died after the Queen's Cube was destroyed in "Endgame", the series finale for "Voyager". I realize I may have stated this in another thread. But the more I think about "Picard", the more I believe that the Borg should have remained gone.

I agree but that's not what has been shown from Picard Season 1, to Lower Decks and even Discovery.

 

[dmac]

The Borg should have died after the Queen's Cube was destroyed in "Endgame", the series finale for "Voyager". I realize I may have stated this in another thread. But the more I think about "Picard", the more I believe that the Borg should have remained gone.

The Last Borg who infected a tribble and that's when the trouble really started.

 

[Rahul]

The Borg should have died after the Queen's Cube was destroyed in "Endgame", the series finale for "Voyager". I realize I may have stated this in another thread. But the more I think about "Picard", the more I believe that the Borg should have remained gone.

I actually loved the depiction in season 1, where they have essentially been technologically overtaken. Still there, still somewhat scary and mighty, but now also a focus of study.

A shame they didn't do anything with this.

 

[1001001]

The Last Borg who infected a tribble and that's when the trouble really started.

Soon, the Triborgs were everywhere…

 

[dmac]

Soon, the Triborgs were everywhere…

View attachment 33748

That was some of the best Trek LIKE EVER!

 

[Finn]

Soon, the Triborgs were everywhere…

View attachment 33748

That's how the Borg would be able to conquer Qo'nos