I get a weird feeling Korrd is going to show up in SNW. We're already getting Sybok.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
I hadn't considered that but then I never expected Sybok either lol
One thing I love about Picard: No prequel or canon debates!
For the first time in six years, I'm looking at Canon Debates from the outside. And wow. I'm glad to not be part of that anymore.
For the first time in six years, I'm looking at Canon Debates from the outside. And wow. I'm glad to not be part of that anymore.
Actually, Picard is set an alternate timeline caused by a faction in the Temporal Cold War destroying Romulus' sun.
Just joking.
You say that now but I'm waiting for the thread with that title.
"Why Picard DESTROYS canon."
The fifth or sixth season is when most shows run out of stories. After that you start scraping the bottom of the barrel. I remember Ron Moore or Brannon Braga saying when they were breaking the story for S7's "Interface," they thought, "...We're doing a story about Geordi's mother? This show needs to die."
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Interface_(episode)#Reception
Hmm. I thought the show's director of photography had moved over to DS9 around that time, but according to Memory Alpha it was still Marvin Rush, the same person working on TNG since the third season. So I don't know.
I think VOY just started doing it because the writers thought just saying "Voyager" sounded more natural than saying "The Voyager." But then they carried the habit over to ENT, and all the characters started calling the ship "Enterprise" instead of "The Enterprise," the way they did on TOS.
It drives me NUTS and throws me out of the story each and every time they do it. The same as when anyone in the SNW or TOS era calls it an "away team" instead of a landing party.
God, that "TOS had cardboard sets!" myth needs to die already. They knew how to build sets out of wood in the 1960s. The only thing in TOS that might qualify as a cardboard set would be the munitions dump in "Errand of Mercy," which I agree did not look great.
2001, which was the problem. It was trying to be 2001 instead of trying to be Star Trek.
Last edited:
Is it really that big of a deal? People need to stop nitpicking so much.
As I said, it throws me out of the story every time they do it, so yes, it is a big deal for me.
I don't expect this to be a universal opinion. Your experience is not my experience.
ENT did it a few times. At this point I just expect it and am happy when they do use "landing party."
Well, OK, but if something as small as that throws you out of the story, then maybe you just don't enjoy the story.
Oh, obviously you know my mind better than I do, then.
I'm just saying, usually when people are engrossed in a story they don't notice minor things like that.Oh, obviously you know my mind better than I do, then.
I meant no offence.
I’d actually say that tracks, the third season photography is way more bland and overlit compared to previous seasons. Not to specifically dig on Marvin Rush, I’ve always believed that the soap opera lighting was another one of Berman’s cost-cutting measures, if everything is overlit you don’t have to screw around as much setting up for different shots.
Not putting a “the” in front of a ship’s name is the correct convention, so they actually were doing it wrong up to Voyager.
Well, again, they were probably just doing whatever sounded best to the ear.
I'm surprised the TOS writers & producers would get that wrong, though, as a lot of them had real world military experience. The TNG writers & beyond did not, except for Ron Moore, who went to military school, IIRC.
Unpopular opinion:
Beyond is one of the absolute worst Trek movies. Saying it's "beige" or "vanilla" would insult it for being too colorful or too spicy. It's not even bad, it's so unmemorable. People say "Insurrection" is just a TNG two-parter. If so, then "Beyond" is like the second act of a regular episode before anything starts to happen. It's too bland to run as background noise while doing the dishes. It's like "the silence" from Dr. Who. It's not just grey, it literally wipes your memory the second you look away from it, even if it's still running in the background. The "Battleship" to the Transformers franchise.
The only reason why Trekkies love it is because it's the first nuTrek movie where they managed to get Spock & McCoy bickering right (respectfully, instead of, you know, somebody bullying someone mentally unstable who just survived genocide), the arrival at the space station looked good, and because it isn't as audaciously stupid or offensive as it's immediate predecessor. That it felt completely flat with general audiences is rightfully deserved.
No.
Yes, a movie budget like 2001 or TMP is naturally going to look better and more realistic than the TOS budget. That's why Roddenberry is referenced as saying that was basically how the Klingons (in TMP) were always supposed to look.
So isn't it natural that a TV series made 60 years later is also going to look better and more realistic?
Similar threads
- Locked
