What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[Farscape One]

Ranking the pilots is tough, they are all so different.

I know this is not how everyone does it, but I made my rankings based on three things.

1. Does it establish setting/premise well enough?

2. Does it establish the lead characters in a way that makes you care about them?

3. Is the story good?


Though one could argue that these three points should be used as a basis for any episode, it's especially important for a pilot.

 

[Lord Garth]

I know this is not how everyone does it, but I made my rankings based on three things.

1. Does it establish setting/premise well enough?

2. Does it establish the lead characters in a way that makes you care about them?

3. Is the story good?


Though one could argue that these three points should be used as a basis for any episode, it's especially important for a pilot.

These are the three standards I go by for the pilots as well, except for Picard. You want to have a good idea for what the series will be like. Though gauging a pilot is never a guarantee either, since how I rank the pilots doesn't match how I rank the series. But at least it's a start.

 

[Farscape One]

Agreed. It's why VOYAGER felt like such a disappointment because "CARETAKER" was so damn good.

They almost abandoned half their concept within a couple episodes after the pilot.

At the very least, it set the bar really, really high.

 

[eschaton]

They could also have gone in a different direction than "Earthers, they're DUMB." (Full disclosure I haven't seen a lot of ENT. I quit when it seemed like the stories were going to be "Earthers, they're DUMB.")

So much of Season 1 of ENT is basically the following:

T'Pol: Captain, the Vulcans have past experience with this. The prudent thing for us to do is to stay on the ship and scan the anomaly.
Archer: Well, that might be what pointy-headed Vulcans think, but on this ship we do things the Earth way!

Thus the crisis of the week is 100% Archer's fault.

And the converse never bothered me as much as it did other viewers. When Archer was angry enough to torture the Illyrian in the Delphic Expanse and then he ordered Enterprise to board and take what they needed from the Illyrian ship it was jarring. What Archer did in both instances wasn't nice nor was it terribly ethical. But it's what human beings of the mid-22nd century would likely do in real life if they were faced with preventing a disaster on the scale of the Xindi destroying Earth.

For a few moments in ENT the crew were the pissed-off assholes that real humans would probably be in those situations and it was refreshing, if controversial. "Here's some really awful behavior. We don't recommend it but this is how people would probably behave in these situations."

I'd agree, save for the outside-show context. Season 3 was clearly a giant September 11th/War on Terror analogue, and Enterprise, like much of Hollywood at the time, decided it wanted to normalize the idea of torture as an interrogation tactic, because the U.S. did it, and hey, we were the good guys!

It is not only morally reprehensible, it also just doesn't work as an intelligence gathering tactic, and helped to spread the false, dangerous idea that if there's a "ticking time bomb" that engaging in sadism actually leads to actionable results.

 

[eschaton]

I sometimes wonder if "Vulcan Hello/Binary Stars" is a bit clunky because it most scenes were originally to be utilized in flashbacks, with the show presumably beginning with Burham on the prison shuttle.

I remain convinced it was originally intended as a single episode, and then they bloated it up with additional footage. BOTBS being really really short in particular sticks out to me.

Also, the Sarek scenes are 100% filler that seems to have been added later.

 

[Space Socialist]

You have to give credit to Bakula for being VERY much against the idea of members of his crew getting redshirted. It's why we didn't see any of his crew die until season 3.

Oh, didn’t know that before. Respect due.

Another ENT crew/cast member who was dealt a bad hand was Dominic Keeting. He’s a sitcom guy, the cast member British viewers were most familiar with when the series was new, and he’s playing this character mis-written as a 19th century emotionally repressed officer type. Not playing to his strengths at all, and the “stiff upper lip” British officer trope would already be out of date back in 1971, let alone 2001.

 

[Lord Garth]

I'd agree, save for the outside-show context. Season 3 was clearly a giant September 11th/War on Terror analogue, and Enterprise, like much of Hollywood at the time, decided it wanted to normalize the idea of torture as an interrogation tactic, because the U.S. did it, and hey, we were the good guys! It is not only morally reprehensible, it also just doesn't work as an intelligence gathering tactic!

Yup.

For those wondering how I can be okay with Section 31 and not Enterprise Season 3, aside from the obvious (that I'm not a fan of ENT), you're not supposed to like what S31 is doing. Or, at the very least, S31 is portrayed as anti-heroes doing things The Good Guys wouldn't do. If S31 does bad or pragmatic things, okay, that's what I was expecting from them.

But Archer? Archer represents Starfleet. He's the first Starfleet Ship way out there on the frontier, the sole representative of Earth. And he's supposed to be one of The Good Guys. What he does is supposed to be considered good, what he does is supposed to be considered moral. Then he tortures someone as if he's stationed at Guantanamo Bay. Not a good look. And no one challenges it.

In "Equinox, Part II", when Janeway has gone over the edge and has had it with Lessing, Chakotay steps in. He doesn't let Janeway let the aliens in the episode torture Lessing. By the end of the episode, Janeway looks at a wrecked bridge and realizes she lost some perspective. It looks messy. Because it is messy.

In "In the Pale Moonlight", Sisko's beating himself up over having made a deal with Garak to get Senator Vreenak killed, covering everything up, and being responsible for the Romulans entering the Dominion War under false pretense. The justification is that it's a life-or-death situation. The Federation either survives or it doesn't. But Sisko still struggles with it. And it's portrayed as a bad thing.

At the end of DSC's first season, in "The War Without, the War Within" and "Will You Take My Hand?", the Federation is losing the Klingon War. They're going to be defeated. They're going to be wiped out. Cornwell, Sarek, and Starfleet Command need to think outside the box. They ask Georgiou what she did to stop the Klingons in her universe, and they feel they have no choice but to destroy Qo'noS. No one likes it. But they feel like they have to. Burnham hates this idea. Then Burnham ultimately comes up with another way to stop the war, avoid Qo'noS's destruction, and have someone in charge of the Klingon Empire, L'Rell, who wouldn't be as bad as someone else. She came up with an alternative. Georgiou reluctantly agreed, and Burnham -- along with the rest of the Discovery crew -- were rewarded. Long story short: They came pretty close to throwing Star Trek's ideals out the window, but ultimately turned around and said, "No."

In DS9, Sisko's conscience is telling him "No." In VOY, Chakotay was there to say "No," before Janeway herself came around.

Who's telling Archer, "No"? Does Archer ever come around in "Anomaly" where he tortures? No. And all he's doing is proving the Vulcans right about Humans. I don't care if other characters do the wrong thing or immoral things, but the Captain in a Traditional Star Trek Series should be above that.

Finally. Something controversial again in the Controversial Opinions thread.

 

[eschaton]

At the end of DSC's first season, in "The War Without, the War Within" and "Will You Take My Hand?", the Federation is losing the Klingon War. They're going to be defeated. They're going to be wiped out. Cornwell, Sarek, and Starfleet Command need to think outside the box. They ask Georgiou what she did to stop the Klingons in her universe, and they feel they have no choice but to destroy Qo'noS. No one likes it. But they feel like they have to. Burnham hates this idea. Then Burnham ultimately comes up with another way to stop the war, avoid Qo'noS's destruction, and have someone in charge of the Klingon Empire, L'Rell, who wouldn't be as bad as someone else. She came up with an alternative. Georgiou reluctantly agreed, and Burnham -- along with the rest of the Discovery crew -- were rewarded. Long story short: They came pretty close to throwing Star Trek's ideals out the window, but ultimately around and said, "No."

Discovery did muddle the message a bit though, since Michael gave the bomb to L'Rell.

I don't think it was the intent, but it sure is easy to read the conclusion to the season as saying 'we don't have to genocide, we can just facilitate a coup and put our chosen candidate on the throne to ascend as dictator of a foreign power!

 

[Zapp Brannigan]

Yup.

For those wondering how I can be okay with Section 31 and not Enterprise Season 3, aside from the obvious (that I'm not a fan of ENT), you're not supposed to like what S31 is doing. Or, at the very least, S31 is portrayed as anti-heroes doing things The Good Guys wouldn't do. If S31 does bad or pragmatic things, okay, that's what I was expecting from them.

But Archer? Archer represents Starfleet. He's the first Starfleet Ship way out there on the frontier, the sole representative of Earth. And he's supposed to be one of The Good Guys. What he does is supposed to be considered good, what he does is supposed to be considered moral. Then he tortures someone as if he's stationed at Guantanamo Bay. Not a good look. And no one challenges it.

In "Equinox, Part II", when Janeway has gone over the edge and has had it with Lessing, Chakotay steps in. He doesn't let Janeway let the aliens in the episode torture Lessing. By the end of the episode, Janeway looks at a wrecked bridge and realizes she lost some perspective. It looks messy. Because it is messy.

In "In the Pale Moonlight", Sisko's beating himself up over having made a deal with Garak to get Senator Vreenak killed, covering everything up, and being responsible for the Romulans entering the Dominion War under false pretense. The justification is that it's a life-or-death situation. The Federation either survives or it doesn't. But Sisko still struggles with it. And it's portrayed as a bad thing.

At the end of DSC's first season, in "The War Without, the War Within" and "Will You Take My Hand?", the Federation is losing the Klingon War. They're going to be defeated. They're going to be wiped out. Cornwell, Sarek, and Starfleet Command need to think outside the box. They ask Georgiou what she did to stop the Klingons in her universe, and they feel they have no choice but to destroy Qo'noS. No one likes it. But they feel like they have to. Burnham hates this idea. Then Burnham ultimately comes up with another way to stop the war, avoid Qo'noS's destruction, and have someone in charge of the Klingon Empire, L'Rell, who wouldn't be as bad as someone else. She came up with an alternative. Georgiou reluctantly agreed, and Burnham -- along with the rest of the Discovery crew -- were rewarded. Long story short: They came pretty close to throwing Star Trek's ideals out the window, but ultimately around and said, "No."

In DS9, Sisko's conscience is telling him "No." In VOY, Chakotay was there to say "No," before Janeway herself came around.

Who's telling Archer, "No"? Does Archer ever come around in "Anomaly" where he tortures? No. And all he's doing is proving the Vulcans right about Humans. I don't care if other characters do the wrong thing or immoral things, but the Captain in a Traditional Star Trek Series should be above that.

Finally. Something controversial again in the Controversial Opinions thread.

First off, the Vulcans have no moral authority to judge Earth's actions during the Xindi Conflict. For all their "friendship," they left Earth out to dry after the attack. Really, the Andorians were better "friends" to Earth during that period than the Vulcans were. So they can take being proven right about humanity's nature and cash it in at the Bank of Bolias for all it's worth, because it's irrelvant.

It's easy to be a paladin when you don't have a gun to your head. During both the Xindi Conflict and the Dominion War, there were no "good" options –only a choice between "survive" and "perish." As Sisko says at the end of "In the Pale Moonlight," he "can live with it." The alternative, although moral, would mean death or slavery for trillions of innocents. To paraphrase Garak, trading one Romulan senator for the freedom and continued life of literally half the galaxy is a bargain.

Same goes for Archer in "Damage"... the paladin route would have ultimately meant extinction for Earth. It sucks, but life is all about trade-offs.

 

[Farscape One]

First off, the Vulcans have no moral authority to judge Earth's actions during the Xindi Conflict. For all their "friendship," they left Earth out to dry after the attack. Really, the Andorians were better "friends" to Earth during that period than the Vulcans were. So they can take being proven right about humanity's nature and cash it in at the Bank of Bolias for all it's worth, because it's irrelvant.

It's easy to be a paladin when you don't have a gun to your head. During both the Xindi Conflict and the Dominion War, there were no "good" options –only a choice between "survive" and "perish." As Sisko says at the end of "In the Pale Moonlight," he "can live with it." The alternative, although moral, would mean death or slavery for trillions of innocents. To paraphrase Garak, trading one Romulan senator for the freedom and continued life of literally half the galaxy is a bargain.

Same goes for Archer in "Damage"... the paladin route would have ultimately meant extinction for Earth. It sucks, but life is all about trade-offs.

Completely agreed.

And also, in "ANOMALY", Reed was objecting to Archer, if I remember correctly. (It has been a quite while since I saw this one.)

 

[fireproof78]

Discovery did muddle the message a bit though, since Michael gave the bomb to L'Rell.

I don't think it was the intent, but it sure is easy to read the conclusion to the season as saying 'we don't have to genocide, we can just facilitate a coup and put our chosen candidate ascend as dictator of a foreign power!

Which again goes to show that this is a gray area and not black and white, as politics often are. Star Trek has tried, sometimes successfully, sometimes less so, to show that the strong moral principles we cite as our guiding light are not often easy in the face of full scale genocide or extinction or defeat. TOS often has strong opinions but it is framed as not being easy decisions to follow through on. Kirk regrets having to kill the Romulan commander but his duty to protecting the Federation takes precedence over his personal misgivings, and the Commander is shown to be likewise compelled. Patterns of Force has an interesting take on Nazi Germany as an efficient force despite the negative consequences. Gill of course has to reap the whirlwind on that one.

And then there are all the examples that Lord Garth mentions. It's not clean, and it's not black and white. Far from mudding the decision I think that it shows that compromise is necessary at times.

 

[Farscape One]

Which again goes to show that this is a gray area and not black and white, as politics often are. Star Trek has tried, sometimes successfully, sometimes less so, to show that the strong moral principles we cite as our guiding light are not often easy in the face of full scale genocide or extinction or defeat. TOS often has strong opinions but it is framed as not being easy decisions to follow through on. Kirk regrets having to kill the Romulan commander but his duty to protecting the Federation takes precedence over his personal misgivings, and the Commander is shown to be likewise compelled. Patterns of Force has an interesting take on Nazi Germany as an efficient force despite the negative consequences. Gill of course has to reap the whirlwind on that one.

And then there are all the examples that Lord Garth mentions. It's not clean, and it's not black and white. Far from mudding the decision I think that it shows that compromise is necessary at times.

All you mention here... it's one of the reasons why I think DS9 is probably the most true successor, in spirit, to TOS of all the spinoffs. At the very least, in terms of realistic decisions vs. idealistic decisions. Definitely in terms of balancing light-hearted and dark episodes/themes.

 

[Vger23]

All you mention here... it's one of the reasons why I think DS9 is probably the most true successor, in spirit, to TOS of all the spinoffs. At the very least, in terms of realistic decisions vs. idealistic decisions. Definitely in terms of balancing light-hearted and dark episodes/themes.

I agree. Even though, on the surface, shows like TNG and VOY are far more like TOS than DS9 is...DS9 is the closest in spirit and intent in my opinion.

 

[Macintosh]

The Klingons... while not said outright, it's certainly implied in "THE SWORD OF KAHLESS".

I believe it's a popular theory that the Sarcophagus Ship from DIS is an original captured Hur'q ship.

 

[cooleddie74]

I believe it's a popular theory that the Sarcophagus Ship from DIS is an original captured Hur'q ship.

This has been my head canon for its origin. It's both Klingon as well as exotic alien in appearance which could mean that the Hur'q spacecraft aesthetic influenced early Klingon ship designers as the Empire took its first steps into interstellar space.

 

[Farscape One]

I believe it's a popular theory that the Sarcophagus Ship from DIS is an original captured Hur'q ship.

I've actually never heard that theory, but it does fit pretty well.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

With modern computer technology, we need to have accurately size Moons / Planets in our shots in camera.

We don't need to artificially scale up planets to be "Aesthetically Pleasing" to tell a story.

If you want the planet to become big, create an excuse to land a shuttle so you can have a nice shuttle ride down that enlarges the planet as you descend onto the surface.

Or zoom in on the planet in the view screen.

Otherwise scale them appropriately based on how far they should be relative to the outside shot of the scene.

 

[fireproof78]

This has been my head canon for its origin. It's both Klingon as well as exotic alien in appearance which could mean that the Hur'q spacecraft aesthetic influenced early Klingon ship designers as the Empire took its first steps into interstellar space.

That's been my view as well. I think it's amazing example of older space faring tech but still useful in it's influence over the Klingon Great Houses.

We don't need to artificially scale up planets to be "Aesthetically Pleasing" to tell a story.

Sure we do. That is the nature of art.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Oversized moons are canon.

No, seriously, the matte painting of the fortress at Rigel VII is magnificent, if not iconic. The huge moon rising (or setting) is one of the things that make it so "other-worldly," not to mention memorable.

Sure we do. That is the nature of art.

Yep.

 

[Sci]

With modern computer technology, we need to have accurately size Moons / Planets in our shots in camera.

No we don't. That may be your artistic preference, but it's completely subjective. Other artistic preferences are just as valid.

We don't need to artificially scale up planets to be "Aesthetically Pleasing" to tell a story.

Of course they don't need to. But choosing to do so for aesthetic value is just as valid an artistic choice as not choosing to do so.