What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[JonnyQuest037]

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.

That makes a lot of sense. Opening with Burnham on the prison shuttle is certainly a compelling way to open the show.

I remember being annoyed with "The Vulcan Hello" when it aired on CBS because it was really just half of a pilot. I didn't feel like I could properly judge DSC yet because I hadn't even been introduced to all of the characters in the first hour. Imagine judging TNG by the first hour of "Encounter at Farpoint" when you hadn't even seen anything with Riker, Crusher, and La Forge yet. It didn't really compel me to immediately sign up for CBS All Access in the hopes I might like the rest.

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.

It's worth noting that ENT S3 writer (and S4 showrunner) Manny Coto went on to write for 24 after ENT, a show that did a LOT to popularize that BS "torture is justified in extreme circumstances" POV the US bought into hook, line, and sinker after 9/11.

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.

100% agreed. David Gerrold wrote in The World of Star Trek that the essence of a good Star Trek story was "Kirk has to make a decision." DS9 remembered that with Sisko. Star Trek is less about giving us answers than making us think about the questions. (Or it should be, anyway.)

 

[Turtletrekker]

I assumed this was meant metaphorically or politically, rather than literally.

I thought so as well until I saw The Force Awakens where the whole galaxy was able to see the Starkiller Base death ray with the naked eye, and then I realized that JJ Abrams just doesn't care about accurate science.

Regardless of how it was actually meant, I personally take it as the rest of you do, as being metaphorical and or political in nature. In the end, it doesn't really matter. It's all goofy fun anyway.

 

[Vger23]

100% agreed. David Gerrold wrote in The World of Star Trek that the essence of a good Star Trek story was "Kirk has to make a decision." DS9 remembered that with Sisko. Star Trek is less about giving us answers than making us think about the questions. (Or it should be, anyway.)

Agreed wholeheartedly...

 

[Guy Gardener]

Starfleet Doctors are not allowed to bang thier patients.

If you're only the only doctor on board a star ship, male or female, you gotta keep your pants zipped up, to maintain professional detachment.

Bones was married during the first five year mission?

But if there are two or more Doctors servicing one command, then obviously they have a draft.

Like in foot ball.

But for dating.

 

[1001001]

Wow. I feel like I just teleported back to May, 2009

Exactly.

JJ Trek was fun, even if it didn’t make a lick of sense.



I don’t know that we’re talking about all these new shows if JJ hadn’t come along.

 

[Vger23]

Exactly.

JJ Trek was fun, even if it didn’t make a lick of sense.



I don’t know that we’re talking about all these new shows if JJ hadn’t come along.

Agreed on both points. In fact, I'll go so far as to say we absolutely know "if we're talking about all these new shows if JJ hadn't come along..." and the answer is that we almost certainly would not.

 

[Farscape One]

I don’t know that we’re talking about all these new shows if JJ hadn’t come along.

That's the one thing I fully will give credit to him for... helping to reignite interest in the franchise more broadly. I hate his two movies, but I am glad they exist because the current era of shows likely wouldn't happen... or at least not until years from now.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Well, the streaming era was fast approaching whether the JJ movies got made or not. I'm sure Paramount would have been looking at the Star Trek IP for content for the streaming service in any case, just as they fast tracked Voyager for the fledgling UPN.

 

[Tallguy]

I thought so as well until I saw The Force Awakens where the whole galaxy was able to see the Starkiller Base death ray with the naked eye, and then I realized that JJ Abrams just doesn't care about accurate science.

"Accurate science" might be too far of a limb to go out on (this is Star Trek we're talking about).

But if we got JJ's movie about Pearl Harbor you would have an ensemble of characters in Washington D.C., San Francisco, and maybe Denver all watching with mouths agape as the Japanese planes flew over the horizon.

 

[Turtletrekker]

"Accurate science" might be too far of a limb to go out on (this is Star Trek we're talking about).

But if we got JJ's movie about Pearl Harbor you would have an ensemble of characters in Washington D.C., San Francisco, and maybe Denver all watching with mouths agape as the Japanese planes flew over the horizon.

That's entirely fair. How about "pseudoscience that's so whack job that it actually pulls me out of the story and makes me groan"?

 

[Vger23]

Well, the streaming era was fast approaching whether the JJ movies got made or not. I'm sure Paramount would have been looking at the Star Trek IP for content for the streaming service in any case, just as they fast tracked Voyager for the fledgling UPN.

I'm not sure I agree. Star Trek was a dead-in-the-water, bloated dinosaur of a property after 2005. Two highly disappointing major motion pictures in a row and television series that each produced diminishing / declining ratings were all telltale signs. Star Trek in any form is a highly expensive property to produce. I doubt, unless the success of the Kelvinverse films had taken place as it did, that the suits at CBS would have wanted to dump $8-10M per episode into something they didn't have any faith in, nor did they have any reason to believe would draw subscribers.

After all, if "loyal" fans weren't even going to show up for a TNG film in 2002...who was going to care about yet another re-cast television series?

 

[fireproof78]

Star Trek 09 cost $150 million dollars and was made by a guy who kept saying he didn't like Star Trek very much and was pretty open about what he DID like which was coincidentally his next job.

Which ignores the love that he developed by working on these films.

It's amazing how much this story gets traction yet its ignored how Abrams came to appreciate the franchise and fandom.

That's entirely fair. How about "pseudoscience that's so whack job that it actually pulls me out of the story and makes me groan"?

That's a list in Star Trek that includes many episodes.

 

[cooleddie74]

J.J. is a fantastic visual ideas guy but he's atrocious at stories that make any logical sense. But Trek 2009 is one of the best movies in the franchise since 1991 and it's a helluva lot of fun so, hey, clearly a science fiction story being vetted by real life scientists isn't a prerequisite for me.

 

[fireproof78]

Abrams is very much a visuals guy and knows what he likes. And I think it can work..I personally love ST 09. I think it has incredible character work from Kirk, Spock, Sarek, Spock Prime, Nero, McCoy, Uhura, Sulu and Chekov. It takes all these elements from TOS and turns them up to the 2000s. It doesn't shy away from humor or sekf-serious platitudes. It's warm, accessible and very entertaining for fans and nonfans.

That Abrams still gets shit on as a person by Trek fandom irks me more than the bad science. Or the finger pointing that feels like "we don't want your kind in Trek." Which is more than annoying.

 

[AresB]

I still don’t get how gravity is supposed to work onboard a starship and the very notion of the Universal Translator falls apart under even the lightest scrutiny.

The TNG Technical Manual gives pseudoscientific explanations of how they are supposed to function in-universe. Both have a whole page dedicated to them, with helpful charts and diagrams.

But the best answer to how a particular piece of Star Trek technology works was given by Mike Okuda: "It works very well, thank you."

 

[Richard S. Ta]

But the best answer to how a particular piece of Star Trek technology works was given by Mike Okuda: "It works very well, thank you."

Yes, I’ve heard that quote. Superb.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

But the best answer to how a particular piece of Star Trek technology works was given by Mike Okuda: "It works very well, thank you."

That quote was specifically about the "Heisenberg Compensators" on the TNG transporters, as I recall.

 

[1001001]

That quote was specifically about the "Heisenberg Compensators"

 

[Tallguy]

I love Malcolm in the Middle!

 

[cooleddie74]

MINE ARE THE QUANTUM MOLECULES THAT KNOCK.