Feel free to continue this via PM. The personal comments aren’t helpful or necessary to the topic.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Feel free to continue this via PM. The personal comments aren’t helpful or necessary to the topic.
It's because that era isn't visually believable as the future anymore.
It still looked like pre-TNG Star Trek however.
Discovery was never intended to be a reboot.
It isn't.
Last edited:
That was completely not my point.
If they wanted to make a show that looked like it took place post-TNG-movie, then don’t advertise it as a show that takes place before TOS.
It also isn’t completely in continuity with TOS. So your mileage may vary as to your personal opinion about whether it’s a reboot or not.
Last edited:
It would have gone over slightly better if it had been.
And I say slightly because it would still get compared to the original unfavorably.
If you shift things over by two years, the '80s were the best decade for Star Trek as a franchise. 1982-1991.
If you look at that stretch, things almost always looked like they were on the up. Even when there were setbacks, they didn't last. The TOS Movies recovered from TFF, and TNG recovered from its rocky start. You've got the Genesis Trilogy and the majority of TNG's best episodes.
"No! The '90s were the best decade for the franchise!" I disagree. Rick Berman lasted long enough to become a problem, VOY had a mixed reputation, and the TNG Movies aren't well-regarded (except for FC). That's three strikes against it already. On top of that: TNG's seventh season also had a mixed reputation; and Neilson Ratings for DS9 and VOY kept going down.
If you look at that stretch, things almost always looked like they were on the up. Even when there were setbacks, they didn't last. The TOS Movies recovered from TFF, and TNG recovered from its rocky start. You've got the Genesis Trilogy and the majority of TNG's best episodes.
"No! The '90s were the best decade for the franchise!" I disagree. Rick Berman lasted long enough to become a problem, VOY had a mixed reputation, and the TNG Movies aren't well-regarded (except for FC). That's three strikes against it already. On top of that: TNG's seventh season also had a mixed reputation; and Neilson Ratings for DS9 and VOY kept going down.
Last edited:
I've never heard anyone call 90s trek the best. Ds9 sure was good but voy and the movies were often lambasted.
I've said repeatedly that a number of my issues with the first season of DIS would have been resolved by just setting it in the early 25th century, jettisoning all the direct connections to TOS like shoehorning in Spock's family etc, and having the bizarro-Klingons turn out to be the Tzenkethi or the Breen or something entirely new.
Are you sure? Because there's a whole lot of character development and plotlines that are completely different from the way we knew them in TOS.
Fixed.
Just as it's not that hard to stay away from continuity if you feel like it because there isn't as much of it as people think, it's hard for there to be a LOT of continuity that gets changed.
Chapel is a different character. At BEST a WILDLY different interpretation. The Gorn are whatever the Gorn are. OTOH, the Gorn are about as different from TOS Gorn (really, it's not so much the critters as it is when did humans meet them and what was the relationship with them) as TOS Klingons (sneaky, underhanded, totalitarian Soviet stand ins) are with TNG Klingons (Space Viking Bikers who prize
Changes? Yes. Reboot? No.
(Just don't try to tell me nobody changed anything and we'll get along fine.)
So, Star Trek.
Because that's all the changes remind me of. Things are not so wildly different that the only explanation is a reboot or an alternate timeline.
Totally agree. I was watching Journey to Babel last night, which has a lot of Christine in it, and she's an entirely different person than the SNW Christine. I mean, there's not even an attempt at a personality overlap I can see.
If only some sort of traumatic event were known about Christine that could account for a personality change.
If only we knew such an event and the loss that would shake her up.
Some things might be a mystery...
If only we knew such an event and the loss that would shake her up.
Some things might be a mystery...
I can definitely buy that falling deeply in love with first Spock and then Roger Korby and then losing them both in entirely different but no less emotionally traumatic ways could make her behave differently by 2266 but even that explanation only covers for so much. Let's just face it, Majel Barrett and Jess Bush are two different actors interpreting the very same character but filmed half a century apart and with an in-universe gap of six to seven years between Bush and Barrett.
It all works out if you just accept Spock and Korby wounded her and TOS is still more than half a decade away. People change. Hell, I'm a lot more assertive and confident than I was a decade ago and I'm still the same old me in practically every other regard.
It all works out if you just accept Spock and Korby wounded her and TOS is still more than half a decade away. People change. Hell, I'm a lot more assertive and confident than I was a decade ago and I'm still the same old me in practically every other regard.
It covers sufficiently, as the strange fact that humans change covers the rest. The honest answer is of course that it has been many decades since Chapel was first created an acted. But, I see no issue having them as the same character, just with different experiences and a significant trauma upcoming. If people don't think that can change a person then I have some sad news for you after 6 years of working with people with various traumatic experiences and trauma related disorders.
I would not consider myself the same as I was 5 years ago. There is a different edge, less sociable, far more introspective. Less judgmental but also less willing to argue.
Kirk in TWOK is a different man from who he was when he first fought Khan. 52-year-old Admiral Kirk feels tired and worn out and unfulfilled being stuck on the ground as a member of the Academy instructor staff. 34-year-old Captain Kirk was a dashing, energetic, devil-may-care cowboy diplomat and soldier who sought out challenges and used them to test himself. Both are the exact same man, just changed by years of aging and relationship trauma (in GEN we learn he had left Starfleet at some point and only recently broken off his engagement to Antonia to return to Starfleet at the time TWOK takes place).
Five years isn't that long.
"I'm not the same person as I was 20 years ago!" Okay. Fair enough. "I'm not the same person as I was five years ago!" Ummmm.... How old are you? The generic "you", no one in particular. Unless something dramatic/traumatic happened, most adults don't change much (if at all) in that small a space of time.
If Chapel changed from SNW to TOS, she changed for the worse. Is this really the case you want to make?
"I'm not the same person as I was 20 years ago!" Okay. Fair enough. "I'm not the same person as I was five years ago!" Ummmm.... How old are you? The generic "you", no one in particular. Unless something dramatic/traumatic happened, most adults don't change much (if at all) in that small a space of time.
If Chapel changed from SNW to TOS, she changed for the worse. Is this really the case you want to make?
Yes.
Not all change is good.
39, and had a career change, building a house and a lot of other big changes.
I know it was generic, but since I made the assertion I'll lean in to it. Yes, I've changed. A lot from my point of view. Not all good.
I can picture the threads that are going to take place when SNW catches up to TOS. Because it will before it ends, even if they have to do a time-skip to get there.
It depends on the 5 years. I've made some big changes in my life just in the last 2 years.
I've had some changes in my life situation, but that didn't fundamentally change who I am as a person.
Similar threads
- Locked
