What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[Citiprime]

I like Season 3 of PIC, I'm just more baffled that it features almost all of the same issues some folks complain about in other Kurtzman era shows, but those are rendered moot simply by featuring the TNG cast. Maybe those people need to be honest with themselves and admit their perceived issues didn't actually matter and the true complaint is they don't care about Picard as a character unless he's surrounded by Riker, Data et al., which is fine, TNG was an ensemble after all.

When people want to argue that its unfair that Picard season 3 gets away with things that Discovery and other "Nu Trek" shows would get raked over the coals for, I think the primary difference is the depth of characterization where a significant chunk of the audience cares about those characters in ways that the writing for the other shows hasn't been able to establish for some. The second issue would be it's not a problem of Picard being by himself in absence of the rest of the TNG cast. The bigger problem with the Picard character from the first two seasons is that it arguably continued the trajectory of the character from the TNG films, and I'm not sure some of those choices ever really worked. Season 3 arguably tries to fix not only some of the issues with the first 2 seasons, but also some of the problems from the movies, where they tried to turn Picard into an action hero.

What I would argue is the TNG characters connected to the audience where when things people consider dumb happened (e.g., Borg DNA, long lost unknown family, etc.) the characterizations were able to pull the audience through that because they gave a shit what happened to these people. They cared about Riker's and Troi's relationship. They cared about Picard's connection to Jack. They cared about Data's future and for frickin' Spot.

So, yes, I think there's a significant segment of the audience which cares about the TNG characters in ways that some of the other new shows have failed in making those connections for those people, where I don't think there's a huge segment watching week-to-week because they care the same way about Michael's and Book's relationship or Jurati's personal growth. Now people can argue about why that is, whether that's due to quality of writing or biases within the audience ... or both.

 

[Tallguy]

We call it the sleek Italian running shoe.

That's the Heart of Gold.

Picard season 3 gets away with things that Discovery and other "Nu Trek" shows would get raked over the coals for, I think the primary difference is the depth of characterization where a significant chunk of the audience cares about those characters in ways that the writing for the other shows hasn't been able to establish for some.

Or Picard is so far gone that we've written it off.

BTW, we're watching SNW season 1 for the FOURTH TIME. We (well, some of we) can complain that "The Scorch" should have been blown away with the rest of the front of the Enterprise's saucer and STILL have the most fun watching Star Trek we've had in DECADES.

 

[eschaton]

Here's a controversial thought. QUIT USING ESTABLISHED ERAS OR CHARACTERS! Someone wants to tell their own story in the Star Trek universe? Cool. TELL YOUR OWN STORY. Quit relying on established characters like Kirk, Spock, Pike, etc. Do your own thing. Make your own characters. Tell your own story instead of constantly trying to recreate Wrath of Khan.

While I agree, it's clear from past history fans do not agree. Hell, TWOK was an explicit callback to a TOS episode after the somewhat disappointing response to TMP (which was, structurally speaking, an attempt to just tell a TOS episode's plot on a big budget).

Though, I'd also kind of say that if you don't actually use Star Trek's existing lore and worldbuilding to some degree...why are you actually writing a Trek story rather than just some other SF setting? If things go too far, it just feels like a shallow cash grab on the part of the studio, slapping a Trek name on a story that could have been somewhere else in order to get nerds to watch it.

If I could snap my fingers and control the future of the entire Trek franchise, my choice would be a full reboot with an entirely new continuity where mixing and matching previously established characters is actively encouraged.

While it would never happen due to the writing credits, if nothing else, I'd just love to see something like a TOS reboot which just straight-up rewrote classic episodes from a new slant.

I mean, reinterpretation and recontextualization of classic stories is a central aspect of narrative. We live in a different time from the mid 1960s, and some of the flaws of TOS (like the glaring sexism/lack of agency for women, lack of any character development outside of Kirk/Spock/McCoy, etc) could be addressed with modern edits.

But too many Trek fans treat the episodes like some sort of weird-ass documentary footage rather than - you know - stories.

 

[fireproof78]

I just watched the VOY Season 6 episode, "Child's Play". I've always enjoyed it. But I found it depressing to watch this last time, thanks to PIC. Thinking about Icheb, he was damned one way or the other. Unnecessarily. Thanks a lot Kurtzman.

Gene's vision at play. Space is dangerous and people die.

When people want to argue that its unfair that Picard season 3 gets away with things that Discovery and other "Nu Trek" shows would get raked over the coals for, I think the primary difference is the depth of characterization where a significant chunk of the audience cares about those characters in ways that the writing for the other shows hasn't been able to establish for some. The second issue would be it's not a problem of Picard being by himself in absence of the rest of the TNG cast. The bigger problem with the Picard character from the first two seasons is that it arguably continued the trajectory of the character from the TNG films, and I'm not sure some of those choices ever really worked. Season 3 arguably tries to fix not only some of the issues with the first 2 seasons, but also some of the problems from the movies, where they tried to turn Picard into an action hero.

What I would argue is the TNG characters connected to the audience where when things people consider dumb happened (e.g., Borg DNA, long lost unknown family, etc.) the characterizations were able to pull the audience through that because they gave a shit what happened to these people. They cared about Riker's and Troi's relationship. They cared about Picard's connection to Jack. They cared about Data's future and for frickin' Spot.

So, yes, I think there's a significant segment of the audience which cares about the TNG characters in ways that some of the other new shows have failed in making those connections for those people, where I don't think there's a huge segment watching week-to-week because they care the same way about Michael's and Book's relationship or Jurati's personal growth. Now people can argue about why that is, whether that's due to quality of writing or biases within the audience ... or both.

Controversial opinion; I don't care about the TNG crew. No emotion for them.

 

[Lord Garth]

version 3.0 of frickin Christine Chapel.

3.0? Which one was 2.0? I don't remember seeing her in the Abrams Movies.

 

[cooleddie74]

She wasn't. But she did appear in the TOS Movies so maybe that's Christine Chapel version 2.0?

 

[Lord Garth]

She wasn't. But she did appear in the TOS Movies so maybe that's Christine Chapel version 2.0?

I think @Grendelsbayne goofed.

 

[drt]

We saw the back of a dishwater blonde woman's head in ST'09, maybe that was 2.0, she had only slightly less characterization than Chapel 1.0.

 

[fireproof78]

McCoy hollers for a "Nurse Chapel" with Kirk's allergic reaction to the vaccine and then Marcus mentions her in Into Darkness.

maybe 1.5?

 

[Lord Garth]

Anyway, I think the demands for new characters and new settings rings a little false or is sending an incomplete picture. Why? Because whenever we have them, those same people complain about how they don't care about the new characters and don't like the new setting.

Discovery: Some people either can't or won't connect with the new characters. Whether or not it's "can't" or "won't" depends on who we're talking about.

Voyager: Flung off to the Delta Quadrant. 95% of the time, all the races they encountered were new. Excluding the Borg. Contact with the Alpha Quadrant was rare (and makes up the other 5%). Yet, when it was on, VOY was bashed non-stop. Worse than DSC level, actually. Though it's easy to forget now. I eventually stopped watching the show myself.

I think people are sending the Creators mixed messages.

Some will shift the goalpost from "We want new!" to "We want a show that's good!" Yeah, well, I think DSC is good because I connect with the characters. So what these people are really saying is, "We want a show we connect with!"

And everyone wants a show they think is good. It's just that what's considered "good" varies from person to person.

 

[Oddish]

"Chief O'Brien must suffer" shouldn't even be a thing, considering that in the Battle of the Cosmic Whipping Boys... Harry Kim just plain hammers him.

1. Yes, they both suffer in terms of what happens to them. That "prison term" the chief faced is arguably the worst thing that happened to anyone, though I think it's kind of convenient that Dr. Bashir forgot how to modify memories, which is supposedly pretty routine. Spending days being agonizingly eaten alive by 8472 with no pain reduction possible was no picnic, though, so I'm calling this one close to even.

2. Chief O'Brien has a devoted wife, two adorable children, and even a cat (perfect for curling in your lap and purring away a bad day). Harry's had a long string of tragic romantic misadventures: Planet Succubus, luminescent syphilis, drag racing terrorist... poor guy can't even have a successful date in the holodeck without new meaning to the phrase "don't have a cow". Disadvantage Harry.

3. Chief O'Brien reached about the highest enlisted rank that Starfleet seems to have. Harry is stuck at the lowest one, and with a reprimand on his record like an anchor chained to his ankle.

4. Chief O'Brien is venerated by future generations ("Lower Decks"). Multiple efforts to even have Harry show up on a Nu Trek show with a rank above ensign have met with abject failure.

 

[Macintosh]

"Chief O'Brien must suffer" shouldn't even be a thing, considering that in the Battle of the Cosmic Whipping Boys... Harry Kim just plain hammers him.

1. Yes, they both suffer in terms of what happens to them. That "prison term" the chief faced is arguably the worst thing that happened to anyone, though I think it's kind of convenient that Dr. Bashir forgot how to modify memories, which is supposedly pretty routine. Spending days being agonizingly eaten alive by 8472 with no pain reduction possible was no picnic, though, so I'm calling this one close to even.

2. Chief O'Brien has a devoted wife, two adorable children, and even a cat (perfect for curling in your lap and purring away a bad day). Harry's had a long string of tragic romantic misadventures: Planet Succubus, luminescent syphilis, drag racing terrorist... poor guy can't even have a successful date in the holodeck without new meaning to the phrase "don't have a cow". Disadvantage Harry.

3. Chief O'Brien reached about the highest enlisted rank that Starfleet seems to have. Harry is stuck at the lowest one, and with a reprimand on his record like an anchor chained to his ankle.

4. Chief O'Brien is venerated by future generations ("Lower Decks"). Multiple efforts to even have Harry show up on a Nu Trek show with a rank above ensign have met with abject failure.

O'Brien is the relatable everyman though, that's why episodes where he suffers have such audience appreciation. He's the blue collar union family man. Kim is animated set dressing with virtually no personality.

 

[Oddish]

You don't have to relate to somebody to wince when you see them get smacked by a speeding garbage truck.

 

[Tallguy]

Anyway, I think the demands for new characters and new settings rings a little false or is sending an incomplete picture. Why? Because whenever we have them, those same people complain about how they don't care about the new characters and don't like the new setting.

Discovery: Some people either can't or won't connect with the new characters. Whether or not it's "can't" or "won't" depends on who we're talking about.

Voyager: Flung off to the Delta Quadrant. 95% of the time, all the races they encountered we were new. Excluding the Borg. Contact with the Alpha Quadrant was rare (and makes up the other 5%). Yet, when it was on, VOY was bashed non-stop. Worse than DSC level, actually. Though it's easy to forget now. I eventually stopped watching the show myself.

I think people are sending the Creators mixed messages.

Some will shift the goalpost from "We want new!" to "We want a show that's good!" Yeah, well, I think DSC is good because I connect with the characters. So what these people are really saying is, "We want a show we connect with!"

And everyone wants a show they think is good. It's just that what's considered "good" varies from person to person.

All good points.

For my own self:
Discovery: They put themselves in a weird place where it was supposed to be an era we had seen (The Cage) but they took almost none of the same design language. Never mind having a screen accurate throwback to 1964, it hardly felt anything like previous Star Treks. Which would be an OK approach if they hadn't set it when they did.

Some of the characters grew on me. Others didn't. That's a show.

Voyager: I was as onboard for Voyager as anything. We'd really moved into the TNG era by that point. But then they kept throwing out their own premise. Instead of making it "lost Star Trek ship in a whole new place struggling to survive" they kept slicing away the things that were supposed to make Voyager unique. Except the Kazon. We had to keep the Kazon.

Enterprise: Some of the same issues with both Voayger and Disco. It should have felt far more different to TNG than it did. Characters were fine. And Uhura paved the way for Sato who paved the way for Uhura. Nice!

Picard: This was the show where the characters fell down. Because they DIDN'T feel like they were from Star Trek. All three seasons were just all over the place.

Strange New Worlds: THE HOME RUN! Wheeeee! My biggest complaint is that we have Chapel and M'Benga who are really just names attached to new characters. Whom I love anyway! The most "himself" legacy character is Spock, and even there it's a younger Spock so that gives wiggle room.

 

[Farscape One]

Anyway, I think the demands for new characters and new settings rings a little false or is sending an incomplete picture. Why? Because whenever we have them, those same people complain about how they don't care about the new characters and don't like the new setting.

Discovery: Some people either can't or won't connect with the new characters. Whether or not it's "can't" or "won't" depends on who we're talking about.

Voyager: Flung off to the Delta Quadrant. 95% of the time, all the races they encountered we were new. Excluding the Borg. Contact with the Alpha Quadrant was rare (and makes up the other 5%). Yet, when it was on, VOY was bashed non-stop. Worse than DSC level, actually. Though it's easy to forget now.

I think people are sending the Creators mixed messages.

Some will shift the goalpost from "We want new!" to "We want a show that's good!" Yeah, well, I think DSC is good because I connect with the characters. So what these people are really saying is, "We want a show we connect with!"

And everyone wants a show they think is good. It's just that what's considered "good" varies from person to person.

Speaking strictly for myself, the problem isn't that the characters or setting is new. It's that the new characters aren't interesting enough to hold on to people's attention.

Using DISCO as an example, the only really interesting characters, consistently, are Georgiou and Saru. Michelle Yeoh is just awesome and her stage presence alone elevates things. And while it does help that he is the first Kelpian ever seen, Doug Jones' portrayal really sells him as being different and interesting. Burnham, while sometimes has been interesting, is tricky to connect with. And while Stamets and Culber, separately, are sometimes interesting and engaging, their relationship and them being together is actually outstanding. I like Tilly a lot, and probably connect with her more than almost all the others.

As far as DISCO's setting, it really should have been set in the 32nd century from the start. (Though that would mean, unfortunately, SNW likely wouldn't happen.) There were just too many problems and mental gymnastics that the writers had to perform to make the prequel before TOS work. The 32nd century is definitely more interesting than when they were in the 23rd.


Regarding VOYAGER... I think the problem was similar about having interesting because while it was different superficially, a lot of the show was not that different than TNG. They did have a fantastic premise, possibly the most interesting of all the shows... but so much of it was brushed aside by the end of the second episode. Aside from The Doctor and Seven, the characters weren't consistently interesting. Janeway, while interesting many times thanks to Mulgrew's performance, was written massively inconsistent. Half of the rest of the cast... Chakotay, Kim, Tuvok, Neelix... were basically left riding the pine in favor of Seven and The Doctor. Tom and B'Elanna, to me, are like how I feel about Stamets and Culber... alone, they are okay. Together, awesome.

As for the Delta Quadrant setting, I might be in the minority, but the setting was more interesting before they crossed the Nekrit Expanse. After that, everyone was on par with them, technologically... or better. Though I will say the fact there was never any unified empire like the Federation or Dominion did help keep it different from the other shows. They had some great aliens like the Krenim, Hirogen, and especially the Vidiians, but so many of the others had a feeling of 'been there, done that'.


Apologies for going on much longer than I expected to basically just say 'people want interesting, not really just different or new'. I think that's the heart of the matter because even if you use familiar and used, people will watch if it's interesting.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

3.0? Which one was 2.0? I don't remember seeing her in the Abrams Movies.

McCoy hollers for a "Nurse Chapel" with Kirk's allergic reaction to the vaccine and then Marcus mentions her in Into Darkness.

maybe 1.5?

Yeah, I guess I remembered the mentions we got and forgot we never actually see her. But it doesn't really matter. I could just as easily mention Christopher Pike 3.0 (again, no disrespect to the actors) - he wasn't exactly top of the TOS barrel, either, way back when.

"Chief O'Brien must suffer" shouldn't even be a thing, considering that in the Battle of the Cosmic Whipping Boys... Harry Kim just plain hammers him.

1. Yes, they both suffer in terms of what happens to them. That "prison term" the chief faced is arguably the worst thing that happened to anyone, though I think it's kind of convenient that Dr. Bashir forgot how to modify memories, which is supposedly pretty routine. Spending days being agonizingly eaten alive by 8472 with no pain reduction possible was no picnic, though, so I'm calling this one close to even.

2. Chief O'Brien has a devoted wife, two adorable children, and even a cat (perfect for curling in your lap and purring away a bad day). Harry's had a long string of tragic romantic misadventures: Planet Succubus, luminescent syphilis, drag racing terrorist... poor guy can't even have a successful date in the holodeck without new meaning to the phrase "don't have a cow". Disadvantage Harry.

3. Chief O'Brien reached about the highest enlisted rank that Starfleet seems to have. Harry is stuck at the lowest one, and with a reprimand on his record like an anchor chained to his ankle.

4. Chief O'Brien is venerated by future generations ("Lower Decks"). Multiple efforts to even have Harry show up on a Nu Trek show with a rank above ensign have met with abject failure.

Ensign isn't an enlisted rank. Harry outranks Miles.

 

[Lord Garth]

Discovery: They put themselves in a weird place where it was supposed to be an era we had seen (The Cage) but they took almost none of the same design language. Never mind having a screen accurate throwback to 1964, it hardly felt anything like previous Star Treks. Which would be an OK approach if they hadn't set it when they did.

In a nutshell, I think this was basically how it went down:

Bryan Fuller: "This is a reboot!"
CBS: "No it's not!"
Alex Kurtzman: "I guess it's not."
Bryan Fuller: "Fuck this! I'm out!"
Alex Kurtzman: "We promise to make it fit canon! We promise!"
Michelle Paradise: "Discovery's going to the 32nd Century! Not my problem!"
Akiva Goldsman: "Well, we're going to keep Strange New Worlds in the 23rd, and I say the Hell with it!"
Terry Matalas: "Picard Season 3!!! TNG!!!"

So, basically, Bryan Fuller left them with something they couldn't easily get out of, and Alex Kurtzman let it happen.

 

[herofhyrule]

I saw it mentioned somewhere, either in this thread or another one, that Bryan Fuller had a connection to a specific TOS plot in mind when working on DIS S1, which was then abandoned when he left the series. Does anyone know what plot it was?

 

[fireproof78]

I saw it mentioned somewhere, either in this thread or another one, that Bryan Fuller had a connection to a specific TOS plot in mind when working on DIS S1, which was then abandoned when he left the series. Does anyone know what plot it was?

I don't believe it was ever shared.

 

[herofhyrule]

I don't believe it was ever shared.

That's interesting. I'm trying to think now of what DIS S1 could be related to. I assume it's something to do with the Klingons or Spock/Sarek/Amanda.