Controversial opinion.....
There IS no modern Trek. TNG was once considered Modern Trek. TOS was modern for its time. ENT was Modern Trek compared to TNG.
Trek is just Trek.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Controversial opinion.....
There IS no modern Trek. TNG was once considered Modern Trek. TOS was modern for its time. ENT was Modern Trek compared to TNG.
Trek is just Trek.
You could say the same about all things that change fashion with time, music for example. Still, many people use terms like 'modern music' and 'classical music' for quick reference. I don't think there's any problem as long as people recognise such terms are only relative (that is, both subjective to some degree, and relative to the current 'present').
That is, ofcourse, a very fair observation. My point is mostly towards some fans who use the term 'modern' as a negative. To divide what they perceive to be 'good' Trek, from the past. And 'bad' Trek, that is made today.
Also the Horta, the Organians (in their true form). If you count them as intelligent, the dikironium vampire cloud and the flying pancake parasites.
I guess an interesting question would be, what about the Gorn?
The definition of "Modern Trek" shifts over time. Just like the cut-off mark for what Gatekeepers consider "acceptable Star Trek" shifts over time. Currently "Modern Trek" seems to mean 2017-Present, and Star Trek that Gatekeepers seem to be happy with is TOS through ENT.
The Kelvin Films, not having had any new material for over seven years, are in an "out-of-sight, out-of-mind", No Man's Land limbo. Except among certain people where it still seems to be living rent-free in their head space, after everyone else has long since forgotten about them and moved on.
SNW has taken the place of the Kelvin Films.
Last edited:
Really? Maybe it's me but I never got the idea on this forum atleast that the Kelvin movies are forgotten. I think of them often and fondly, and I get the impression that atleast the thinking about them is done often here.
And the heck are Star Trek Gatekeepers?
Ah right. No, I don't wish to carry such connotations with me, 'modern' is a fairly neutral adjective to me.
In fact, I don't think it's very productive to divide Trek into 'bad' and 'good' trek at all.
There is, of course, Trek that's more or less suited to my tastes, though.
Last edited:
A healthy outlook indeed.
No comment from me... at this stage. Maybe later.
If they say "Everything after ____ sucks!", they're a Gatekeeper.
Ah. I get it. New terminology for me, but honestly considering what an actual gatekeeper is, it makes sense. I was overthinking it.
Not sure I agree with that definition. I am assuming that there are Blake's 7 Gatekeepers. This implies that only things with "old vs. new" content has gatekeepers.
Wait, I objected to watching Tim Burton's Legend of Sleepy Hollow because it had nothing to do with the book. Am I a gatekeeper?!?
To be fair, it doesn't assert that those are the only kind of gatekeepers, only that those are one kind.
Yeah gatekeepers come in all kinds
Not unless you rail about the movie being awful, disrespectful, etc, and that no one should like it because it has nothing to do with the book.
Last edited:
What is bad?
I work in a high end bottle shop where we sell many types of beers, wines, whisk(e)y, what not...
I have people coming in saying 'smoked/peated whisky is disgusting and bad'. No it's not. YOU don't like it. The flavor profile isn't to your liking. This doesn't mean it is badly produced.
Just because YOU don't like a thing, doesn't mean it is bad by itself. Take a step back and don't factor in your own ego. Look at in from afar. Was the production bad? Was the acting bad? Was the cinematography bad? Was the editing bad? Was the writing bad?
Just because you think a character was dull to YOUR personal liking, doesn't automatically mean the whole show/movie was bad.
Look at the movie 'The Room'. This entire thing was badly written, badly acted... the whole nine yards.
But when you look at for example Thor Ragnarok.... This is a movie that goes many ways in terms of humor and how the characters changed over years of getting to know them. Some people didn't like certain choices that were made. This doesn't mean the movie is a bad adaptation. Some people just didn't like it. That is called a weird little called..... PERSONAL PREFERENCE.
And apparently some people still don't understand that what THEY like isn't actually fact. It's opinion.
So, to get back to your statement...... There is hardlly ever something called a 'bad adaptation'. Take Dune. Some people loved it because it hit all the rights notes THEY loved in the novel. Some didn't like it because what THEY liked in the novel wasn't there.
Always remove your own bias when objectively judging a show or movie. But be an adult and be capable of saying something was well made but not to YOUR liking.
All adaptations change the source material.
Nope.
Similar threads
- Locked
