• 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?

Another aspect of this is that a reboot sounds great on paper. You get to rethink the wheel and it'll totally open up possibilities. However, part of the reason Star Trek usually hits certain tropes is because those tropes work better for the types of stories they tell, and they've figured that out over 60 years.

One of my favorite books that my mom bought for me as a kid was "The Art of Star Trek," and it has a LOT of the behind-the-scenes making of art design that went into the shows and movies.

There's a section about the production of Star Trek: Voyager, and how the art department was told to go wild and totally rethink the idea of a starship's bridge. And there are a bunch of different designs that were thought up where the stations are in weird configurations. But at the end of the day they came back to something close to the familiar because that worked best for storytelling purposes, breaking apart the set, placement of cameras, etc. That when they got down to it, they figured out that the same pressures which led Matt Jefferies and others to certain design constants still held.

And I think that's true for some things thematically too. That there's a certain story shorthand in Trek when it comes to setting up the stories. And if you throw all of that out the window and start from scratch, you might end up right back there because it works the best.
 
Last edited:
And I think that's true for some things thematically too. That there's a certain story shorthand in Trek when it comes to setting up the stories. And if you throw all of that out the window and start from scratch, you might end up right back there because it works the best.
No where do I think a reboot means this.

What I do want is to go back to the roots, remove all the ridiculous check lists, the "this is Star Trek" nonsense, the timelines, and events, and start at a new beginning for the franchise. I grow so fatigued by the "That's not right for this -fill in the blank- (era, character, technology" that the stories themselves are completely ignored for want of the right look.

Yes, it's a bit much, but at this point I've heard it so many times that I want a reset and explore it again with the tropes but not the baggage.
 
Why the bridge officer test in "Thine Own Self" was all wrong:

I'm not saying Troi should not have been promoted. She was a competent officer, after all, and it's a perfectly normal phenomenon for competent officers to rank up, when possible. With the sole exception of Data, all ship's personnel either ranked up periodically or were at least offered higher rank (Data should have been, but I don't think THAT is a controversial statement). And, Picard and Riker declined their promotions because their characters were fan favorites, and promoting them would have required one of them to leave the show. My rationale is to explain that firstly, Deanna should not have been tested at all. Secondly, she should not have passed the test.


The test offered in "Thine Own Self" should not have been a prerequisite for commander rank, for one simple reason: it wasn't really about a third pip so much as it was about being assigned a place in the ship's line of command. Deanna and Beverly Crusher were not in said line, regardless of their pip count. If Commander Riker had perished on an away mission, Picard would not have declared either of them first officer in his place. Rather, their subordinate, Lt. Commander Data, would have been acting first officer. And, he would have remained so until Picard either promoted him to Commander and gave him the job for good, or else selected a new first from available Starfleet personnel. Troi and Crusher would have stayed exactly where they were. Medical officers and ship's counselors do the job that they do, regardless of their rank. Because he was in the succession, Data should have received the test Deanna took, whether he was promoted or not.


That explains why she should not have been tested, but she was. And, as part of that examination, Troi was given a test on the holodeck, in which she had to save the Enterprise from destruction... a test that she failed. However, undaunted, she retook the test. And the Enterprise blew up, sort of. Third time's a charm... nope, kaboom, everyone's dead. An unknown number of failures later, Riker lets her know that she just doesn't get it.


But have no fear... after this dark moment, sometimes known to writers as the Big Gloom, the solution finally comes to Troi. She retakes the test again, this time understanding that the key to saving the Enterprise from destruction is to knowingly and cold-bloodedly sacrifice one crew member. This was considered to be passing the test. And in my opinion, it shouldn't have been.


Don't get me wrong, that is not because it was a bad test. Indeed, it was a perfect test. To take command, a person has to be ready to make what Shelby called "the big decisions". She accused Riker of not being able to make these decisions. Riker proved her wrong with three little words (no, it wasn't "I love you", it was "Mr. Worf... fire"). To take command, a person must understand the big picture, and the sacrifices it can entail. To take command, a person has to understand that they and all personnel under their command are expendable in the service of the greater good. However, the way it was used in "Thine Own Self", it was treated as a puzzle to be solved. Deanna Troi only stumbled on the correct solution after hours of pondering and dozens of trial and error iterations. It is unlikely that a real life or death command decision would be so forgiving.


So yes, the test was perfect... but only when used as a test of character, like the fabled (and unwinnable) Kobiashi-Maru test. Used as it was in the episode, it was merely a test of problem-solving skills. And I really don't think that was the point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kkt
Why the bridge officer test in "Thine Own Self" was all wrong:

I'm not saying Troi should not have been promoted. She was a competent officer, after all, and it's a perfectly normal phenomenon for competent officers to rank up, when possible. With the sole exception of Data, all ship's personnel either ranked up periodically or were at least offered higher rank (Data should have been, but I don't think THAT is a controversial statement). And, Picard and Riker declined their promotions because their characters were fan favorites, and promoting them would have required one of them to leave the show. My rationale is to explain that firstly, Deanna should not have been tested at all. Secondly, she should not have passed the test.


The test offered in "Thine Own Self" should not have been a prerequisite for commander rank, for one simple reason: it wasn't really about a third pip so much as it was about being assigned a place in the ship's line of command. Deanna and Beverly Crusher were not in said line, regardless of their pip count. If Commander Riker had perished on an away mission, Picard would not have declared either of them first officer in his place. Rather, their subordinate, Lt. Commander Data, would have been acting first officer. And, he would have remained so until Picard either promoted him to Commander and gave him the job for good, or else selected a new first from available Starfleet personnel. Troi and Crusher would have stayed exactly where they were. Medical officers and ship's counselors do the job that they do, regardless of their rank. Because he was in the succession, Data should have received the test Deanna took, whether he was promoted or not.


That explains why she should not have been tested, but she was. And, as part of that examination, Troi was given a test on the holodeck, in which she had to save the Enterprise from destruction... a test that she failed. However, undaunted, she retook the test. And the Enterprise blew up, sort of. Third time's a charm... nope, kaboom, everyone's dead. An unknown number of failures later, Riker lets her know that she just doesn't get it.


But have no fear... after this dark moment, sometimes known to writers as the Big Gloom, the solution finally comes to Troi. She retakes the test again, this time understanding that the key to saving the Enterprise from destruction is to knowingly and cold-bloodedly sacrifice one crew member. This was considered to be passing the test. And in my opinion, it shouldn't have been.


Don't get me wrong, that is not because it was a bad test. Indeed, it was a perfect test. To take command, a person has to be ready to make what Shelby called "the big decisions". She accused Riker of not being able to make these decisions. Riker proved her wrong with three little words (no, it wasn't "I love you", it was "Mr. Worf... fire"). To take command, a person must understand the big picture, and the sacrifices it can entail. To take command, a person has to understand that they and all personnel under their command are expendable in the service of the greater good. However, the way it was used in "Thine Own Self", it was treated as a puzzle to be solved. Deanna Troi only stumbled on the correct solution after hours of pondering and dozens of trial and error iterations. It is unlikely that a real life or death command decision would be so forgiving.


So yes, the test was perfect... but only when used as a test of character, like the fabled (and unwinnable) Kobiashi-Maru test. Used as it was in the episode, it was merely a test of problem-solving skills. And I really don't think that was the point.
It shouldn't have been the point. As a test of character, the Kobayashi Maru wasn't about rank, it was about command. Some people have it, some people don't, and that's fine. But command isn't something you learn. it's something you have, or don't have. Deanna is one character who has only exhibited command in small bursts when absolutely necessary, and doesn't like it. They should have left her like that.
 
You never know. =)
60th anniversary isn't that far away.
The dates I mentioned (1979, 1987, 2009, and 2017) were at the beginning of film runs (TMP and the first JJ Abrams film) and at the beginning TV runs (the second string of Star Trek shows from TNG to ENT, and the third string of Star Trek shows from DSC on). They weren't tied to anniversaries.

They won't do a reboot in the middle of a run of a string of shows in the Kurtzman Era just because it's the 60th Anniversary. If -- if -- they do a clean reboot, it won't be until the Kurtzman Era is over. That means it would be done by someone else. If they did it. Anniversaries look back on and celebrate what's come before. They don't like to wipe the slate clean. That goes against the nature of an anniversary celebration.

Back in the '00s, I was all about Star Trek being rebooted. I was DONE with the Berman Era. D-O-N-E in All Capitals. Finished. I wanted a reboot. I wanted to look forward to the 2009 Film. Then I came to the conclusion that 1) It was only a partial reboot with a Split Timeline so they could include Leonard Nimoy, and 2) It was basically just a Comic Book Movie. I supported it because I wasn't stupid: I knew that the 2009 Film being successful could lead to Star Trek coming back to TV and it could lead to something I liked better. Which is what ended up actually happening. Also, it was the first time since TNG was on that John Q. Public talked to me about Star Trek. They knew that I was a fan so whenever anyone I knew asked me what I thought about the movie, I gave the canned response, "I thought it was great!" I lied a little.

While I'm only really a fan of two of the new shows (DSC and PIC), I don't dislike any of them. If they do a reboot, it could lead to something I don't like. It would also end other series that people are enjoying. So, no. I don't want a reboot right now. I don't think it's fair to anyone enjoying any of the current shows. And I'd prefer that they not do it until the Kurtzman Era's run its course. After that, have at it. Can't promise if I'll be on board but have at it.
 
Last edited:
Off topic, maybe, but I must ask, what about STNG, do you check out any of it before doing a 'Picard' rewatch?
I re-watched every episode of TNG in 2019 before the beginning of PIC. I hadn't seen most of the episodes since I was in high school in the '90s. In addition, I also re-watched every key Seven of Nine episode from VOY.

Of the old shows (1966-2005), the only one I don't like is ENT, which I stopped watching after six weeks (I eventually binged the series during the Quarantine and have since forgotten most of it because it all blurred together). I watched TNG, DS9, and VOY first-run from 1991 to 1999. I got caught up with TOS, TAS, and earlier TNG through reruns on TV. And I finally got around to watching the last two years of VOY in 2008.
 
100% creative freedom to do whatever they like.

And before anyone says, they already do that, they don’t. They tried with DSC S01 and they’ve been backpedaling ever since.
I don't think it would work out that way. Even with a revoot people would cry "x is not Trek"
Also I don't see the point in making a Star Trek show that is not recognizable as Star Trek. At that point might as well create a new franchise.
 
I don't think it would work out that way. Even with a revoot people would cry "x is not Trek"
Also I don't see the point in making a Star Trek show that is not recognizable as Star Trek. At that point might as well create a new franchise.

Okay, cool. You have convinced me and now I think that my opinion was wrong.

Let’s move on.
 
Last edited:
Okay, cool. You have convinced me and now I think that my opinion was wrong.

Let’s move on.

This isn't about convincing you.
But in general...you know how a forum works right? If you post something everybody else can read and comment on it. It's what it's there for a discussion forum for discussion. If you do not wish for that to happen, don't post in the first place, or don't reply.
Nobody cares about your "2cool4school" quips.
 
I don't think it would work out that way. Even with a revoot people would cry "x is not Trek"
Also I don't see the point in making a Star Trek show that is not recognizable as Star Trek. At that point might as well create a new franchise.
But it's not meant as unrecognizable. It's meant as a fresh start and build from elements to reboot the franchise free of past continuity, not past tropes or elements.

Unless the continuity is the only waybits recognizable as Star Trek? :vulcan:
 
But it's not meant as unrecognizable. It's meant as a fresh start and build from elements to reboot the franchise free of past continuity, not past tropes or elements.

Unless the continuity is the only waybits recognizable as Star Trek? :vulcan:
I think that a reboot would only shift the arguments.

Instead of it being about how certain things don't "fit" within the narrative, it would become a debate over the comparison between the new and old. For example, if Discovery had started with it being a reboot as a given, yes, all of the arguments about how the uniforms and ships don't "look right" for the era go out the window. But the previous history is still there. It then becomes arguments about whether the choices are better or worse than the original.

I think even if it was a reboot people would still have been "WTF?" about the Discovery Klingons and the arguments saying how the designs are all "wrong" would have just shifted to saying they didn't look good in comparison.
 
I think that a reboot would only shift the arguments.

Instead of it being about how certain things don't "fit" within the narrative, it would become a debate over the comparison between the new and old. For example, if Discovery had started with it being a reboot as a given, yes, all of the arguments about how the uniforms and ships don't "look right" for the era go out the window. But the previous history is still there. It then becomes arguments about whether the choices are better or worse than the original.

I think even if it was a reboot people would still have been "WTF?" about the Discovery Klingons and the arguments saying how the designs are all "wrong" would have just shifted to saying they didn't look good in comparison.
Of course you'll always have it.

I'm looking to diminish it so that the focus is on the actual story and not the set dressing being "wrong."
 
6nYu9bR.gif
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top