What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[BillJ]

"Modern Trek" seems to mean 2017-Present, and Star Trek that Gatekeepers seem to be happy with is TOS through ENT.

I tend to count the Abrams films as part of the modern incarnation of the franchise, due largely to Kurtzman's involvement and a lot of design cues coming from those films.

In fact, I don't think it's very productive to divide Trek into 'bad' and 'good' trek at all.

Trek has been more bad than good since the beginning. I tend to think of Fry from Futurama's analysis of TOS: 79 episodes, about thirty good ones. That ratio seems to have largely stuck for the vast majority of the franchise.

Casino Royale was good because it dumped the corny hokiness of old Bond

Which is where I got off the Bond train. The corny hokiness was part of its appeal for me. If I want the "real world" all I have to do is look outside.

 

[MikHutch]

To me its not about the real world. Its about not really liking the ridiculous plots and the womanizing

 

[Lord Garth]

I tend to count the Abrams films as part of the modern incarnation of the franchise, due largely to Kurtzman's involvement and a lot of design cues coming from those films.

I can see still including the Kelvin Films.

To me its not about the real world. Its about not really liking the ridiculous plots and the womanizing

I don't watch something from decades ago and expect it to reflect current values and sensibilities. I have one set of expectations for when I'm watching TOS, another set of expectations for when I'm watching TNG/DS9/VOY, and then yet another set of expectations for when I'm watching DSC/PIC/SNW. Otherwise, Star Trek or not, it would be impossible to enjoy something from a long time ago. Especially pretty much almost anything made before the '90s.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't watch something from decades ago and it expect it to reflect current values and sensibilities. I have one set of expectations for when I'm watching TOS, another set of expectations for when I'm watching TNG/DS9/VOY, and then yet another set of expectations for when I'm watching DSC/PIC/SNW. Otherwise, Star Trek or not, it would be impossible to enjoy something from a long time ago. Especially pretty much almost anything made before the '90s.

Indeed, yes.

Otherwise much art would be unenjoyable.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

It can be tricky, though.

To take an example someone mentioned a page or two ago: The Legend of Sleepy Hollow.

I read that for the first time last year. I can see the quality of the writing that allowed it to survive and be remembered but between the fact that barely anything happens and the fact that Ichabod Crane, as it turns out, was supposed to be a total incel, it wasn't exactly a pleasant experience that I would particularly recommend to anyone. And yeah, that's judging a centuries old book by modern standards but sometimes its hard not to.

 

[Lord Garth]

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?!?

No idea. Not liking one entry doesn't make someone a gatekeeper, IMO. Books are almost always better than movies anyway. That's the generally accepted rule of thumb. Books can go a lot more in-depth than a movie can.

I don't like any Transformers after Beast Wars, any Dragon Ball after Z, and I tuned out of the Batman comics once the New 52 came about in 2011. And, as far as I'm concerned, the first two Terminator movies are the only two Terminator movies worth watching. By my own definition, I'm a gatekeeper with those franchises.

The Alien Franchise, like the Star Trek Franchise, is mixed for me. Definitely not as clear cut as "Everything after ___ sucks!" I like all of the first four Alien films, Prometheus, and looking forward to the upcoming TV series. I'm not sure if I'm onboard with Alien: Romulus.

 

[BillJ]

By my own definition, I'm a gatekeeper in those franchises.

Or, your time is limited and you really have to decide what is worth it.

I tend to not like the term gatekeeper in regard to how I personally feel about franchises. To me, gatekeeper means someone who is actively trying to stop others from watching/reading/playing what they don't like.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

Frankly I wasn't the biggest fan of rebooting the James Bond timeline in 2006 and retelling his career from the start but that doesn't mean Casino Royale wasn't a rollicking good 007 film and one of the best since GoldenEye. I ended up being wrong to a large part.

Second only to THUNDERBALL, truly. I enjoyed T-BALL so much I couldn't believe it busted the all-time Bond grosses after inflation. (I personally feel I was wrong to like NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN at first. It's an unnecessary remake which didn't hold up over time.) But I digress.....

 

[Lord Garth]

Or, your time is limited and you really have to decide what is worth it.

Partially that. Partially my tastes shifting with age. In the case of comics, $$$$$ played a huge factor.

 

[Farscape One]

Regarding Bond...

I was not really a fan of Daniel Craig and did not like CASINO ROYALE. QUANTUM OF SOLACE was terrible. The last 3 movies of his were good, though, and I enjoyed Craig as Bond in those. I still rank him at the bottom of the list of Bonds, though.

(Connery is and always shall remain the best James bond, with Pierce Brosnan a close second.)

 

[fireproof78]

I've seen one Bond film

But played a ton of Goldeneye.

Does that count?

 

[Lord Garth]

Regarding Bond...

I was not really a fan of Daniel Craig and did not like CASINO ROYALE. QUANTUM OF SOLACE was terrible. The last 3 movies of his were good, though, and I enjoyed Craig as Bond in those. I still rank him at the bottom of the list of Bonds, though.

(Connery is and always shall remain the best James bond, with Pierce Brosnan a close second.)

Finally! Someone on my side!

Pierce Brosnan is the perfect blend between Sean Connery and Roger Moore.

 

[cooleddie74]

To me he was always what would happen if Timothy Dalton's dark-haired, younger looks got blended with Roger Moore's wit and tongue-in-cheek attitude towards the wider world.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

QUANTUM OF SOLACE was terrible.
(Connery is and always shall remain the best James bond, with Pierce Brosnan a close second.)

Brosnan's biggest habit for me was running with unclenched hands. Still, three of his four Bonds hold up.

Every second movie with a Bond actor crashes and burns in the end unless the actor is Connery.*

(*I'll admit LICENCE TO KILL had a decent first half until Stilgar and others bought it.)

 

[Farscape One]

Brosnan's biggest habit for me was running with unclenched hands. Still, three of his four Bonds hold up.

Every second movie with a Bond actor crashes and burns in the end unless the actor is Connery.*

(*I'll admit LICENCE TO KILL had a decent first half until Stilgar and others bought it.)

Actually, I liked TOMORROW NEVER DIES.

While I mostly agree with you about LICENCE TO KILL, it's still a very solid Bond movie.

 

[cooleddie74]

1. GoldenEye
2. Tomorrow Never Dies
3. The World Is Not Enough



4. Die Another Day

 

[Farscape One]

1. GoldenEye
2. Tomorrow Never Dies
3. The World Is Not Enough



4. Die Another Day

I pretty much agree with this completely, in terms of Brosnan's movies.

His portrayal of Bond himself is truly excellent, and does a great deal of heavy lifting in DIE ANOTHER DAY.

 

[cooleddie74]

GoldenEye is the only example - to me, anyways - where the first Bond film by an actor is their best film, but I guess that would also by necessity have to include George Lazenby.

 

[Farscape One]

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 Dikironium Vampire Cloud is an interesting question.

The parasites from "OPERATION -- AANIHILATE!" and the Gorn... how are they in any way noncorporeal?

 

[Citiprime]

GoldenEye is the only example - to me, anyways - where the first Bond film by an actor is their best film, but I guess that would also by necessity have to include George Lazenby.

That's probably true for the Craig films too, since I never felt like they ever quite got back to the heights of Casino Royale. Although, I'm guessing there's plenty of Skyfall fans that will disagree. I always felt that starting with Skyfall they embedded Bond's family history and drama a bit too much into the narrative.