• 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 guess the Romulans were never fleshed out enough to be certain but I mean it in the sense of acting with a recognizable personality without being flanderized. Compare Garak and Dukat, or Kira and Kai Winn. Both are of the same species but not the exact same person.
Nero was a very different type of Romulan than Tomalak or the Romulan Commanders. Caitlin Dar wasn't much like any Romulans we saw before. Very up beat for a Romulan.
 
Nero was a very different type of Romulan than Tomalak or the Romulan Commanders. Caitlin Dar wasn't much like any Romulans we saw before. Very up beat for a Romulan.

“Don’t tell me it didn’t happen! I saw it happen! I know it happened! I was around when it happened! HAPPENED! HAPPENED! HAPPENED!!!

:scream:
 
Forgive me, but I forgot who Dar was
One of the underused Ambassador characters from Final Frontier
lHv10p3.jpg
 
TOs did not have anything approaching "cardboard" sets, but designs--particularly for the 1701--that were advanced for their era and influenced generations of sci-fi designs.

Design so advanced that the various movie and series production teams including Roddenberry himself deliberately ignored, if not outright retconned, it until the 1990s?

The visual strength of TOS was the reason it was so seamlessly blended into shows produced decades later, such as DS9's "Trials and Tribble-ations" and ENT's "Through a Mirror, Darkly" 2-parter.

The word "seamlessly" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there :rolleyes:

It's worth considering that at the time TOS's first season was being made Stanley Kubrick was filming 2001: A Space Odyssey. Look at TOS and look at 2001 and tell me which has "visual strength" and looked "advanced for their era and influenced generations of sci-fi designs". Which do you think Star Trek: The Motion Picture looks more visually like? TOS or 2001?
 
I had a massive disconnect with the franchise last night when some Muppet baulked at the consideration that Eugenics has nothing to do with making as many babies as possible. Or more accurately making more good babies and less bad babies. Good and bad of course being determined by a crazy person with too much power.

It's possible that the Supermen wanted to be an elite %0.000001 that ruled 12 billion mundanes, but that's just asking to be in a lavish bubble where you don't even have to be in charge, or creating a position where anyone of you have to do the work of three hundred men and women to keep the trains running on time... Which is dumb... I suppose that's what the Founders did? But they did not have the option of turning everyone else in the galaxy into a Founder.

A total homogeneity is what the Borg wanted. Once everyone is Borg, then there's no one left to threaten the Borg. Safety in isolation, which is all the Daleks wanted too. A quiet universe to be alone im with their thoughts.
 
Last edited:
Tom Paris(paraphrasing): "Humans on Earth gave us smoking tobacco products a couple of centuries ago."

St. John Talbot: "Well, I'm not on Earth, am I, grease monkey?"
 
Yeah hire a top notch talent like David Warner and then forget about his character for over half the movie, :shrug:

There's a quote from that Making of Star Trek Doco narrated by gates McFadden...

"David Warner is a really nice guy, but he drinks a lot."

I can only imagine that that is an understatement.

David's finished product is always outstanding, but now we have to question if we as an audience have ever seen this actor work sober?
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top