What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[CorporalCaptain]

Also on the reverse, there is no 23rd century medicine/treatment to alleviate Spock's sensitivity to cold suggesting that Vulcan's find the Enterprise too cold. (I guess he could wear a coat, but I think coats are not stocked anymore by the Quartermaster...anyone remember poor Sulu in The Enemy Within? and Chekov and guards in Spock's Brain ).

Spock had an enhanced collar in TMP. I don't recall now what it was for in the real (production) world (I seem to be thinking something to do with making the makeup job easier or keeping makeup off the costume maybe?) or what it was supposed to be in-universe, but maybe we could speculate that it made Spock feel more comfortable after the time he'd just spent on Vulcan.

 

[Tallguy]

*=the Star Trek Technical Manual went with the assumption that the founding Federation members were several human colonies and Vulcan, although I'd argue that the amount of mystery surrounding Spock and Vulcans in TOS would indicate that they were a more recent addition to the Federation.

I'd say that in TOS it was also an indication that the Federation was also rather new. This has not been seen as the case for a while now.

 

[BillJ]

I'd say that in TOS it was also an indication that the Federation was also rather new. This has not been seen as the case for a while now.

As I've gotten older, I've begun to treat TOS as its own entity that exists outside of the franchise. It is just so much different than the rest of the shows.

 

[evilchumlee]

As I've gotten older, I've begun to treat TOS as its own entity that exists outside of the franchise. It is just so much different than the rest of the shows.

I like to look at it as... almost 100%, but a grain of salt here and there. I'm ok with blurring a few details here and there while keeping things by and large intact.

 

[Kor]

Spock had an enhanced collar in TMP. I don't recall now what it was for in the real (production) world (I seem to be thinking something to do with making the makeup job easier or keeping makeup off the costume maybe?) or what it was supposed to be in-universe, but maybe we could speculate that it made Spock feel more comfortable after the time he'd just spent on Vulcan.

Interestingly, the Vulcan commander Sonak didn't have a similar standup collar when he was seen on Earth. It's hard to tell what his uniform looks like when he's getting mangled in the transporter coming aboard the Enterprise, but behind-the-scene photo shows the same clothes he was wearing in the scene at Starfleet HQ.

In-universe, Sonak was probably well-acclimated to human living and working conditions since he hadn't been on Vulcan in a while.

Kor

 

[Macintosh]

Spock had an enhanced collar in TMP. I don't recall now what it was for in the real (production) world (I seem to be thinking something to do with making the makeup job easier or keeping makeup off the costume maybe?) or what it was supposed to be in-universe, but maybe we could speculate that it made Spock feel more comfortable after the time he'd just spent on Vulcan.

It looks like he arrives on the Enterprise wearing that high-collared purple undershirt with his black long-sleeved Vulcan jacket, and he keeps the undershirt on when he changes into a Starfleet uniform. Some sort of thermal garment to keep him comfortable at human room temperature after becoming reacclimatised to the much higher heat of Vulcan perhaps?

 

[Macintosh]

Although something like the Cats musical movie with CG fur might be fun.

The Cats musical movie with CG fur says otherwise

 

[drt]

As I've gotten older, I've begun to treat TOS as its own entity that exists outside of the franchise. It is just so much different than the rest of the shows.

I have as well. I liked what @Lord Garth said a while back about TOS: it’s like the Old Testament of Star Trek, everything is sorta based on it, but it isn’t taken as literally as later scriptures.

 

[Shat Happens]

As I've gotten older, I've begun to treat TOS as its own entity that exists outside of the franchise. It is just so much different than the rest of the shows.

I think the opposite, TOS is the only true real Star Trek. I don't even like the term TOS, I call it Star Trek.

Everything else is a derivation.

Notice they waited until 2009 to dare to recast Kirk and Spock -- and lamentably failed. Before then, they set their shows a century away to be safe from the comparison.

Now that I think of it, one of the TMP's marketing lines was "there is no comparison". They were right.

 

[Tallguy]

It is just so much different than the rest of the shows.

Which is, of course, a problem with the other shows.

Notice they waited until 2009 to dare to recast Kirk and Spock -- and lamentably failed.

That's... Debatable at best on both creative and financial criteria.

 

[Citiprime]

Yeah. Alot of people think of "segregated ships" and insert a bit too much real world baggage into it. There are quite a few completely reasonable, logistical reasons why it makes sense.

EXCEPT … the example we’ve seen in canon has nothing to do with environmental factors, and everything to do with the Vulcan captain of the ship being a bigoted dick.

The Vulcan captain in “Take Me Out To The Holosuite” is explicit in believing in Vulcan superiority as his reasoning for having an all-Vulcan crew. It has nothing to do with the ambient temperature of the ship’s interior, and everything to do with the Vulcan captain thinking Vulcans are better, which if you applied that mentality to any workplace setting would be a fireable offense that would get someone sued in any modern managerial position when you have someone basing staffing decisions on stereotypes.

And beyond being bigoted, It’s demonstrably untrue (how many times have we seen the diversity of a crew be a strength in bringing different perspectives and abilities to deal with different situations?), and it even flies in the face of Vulcan philosophy (i.e., IDIC).

It strikes me as a notion that’s firmly rejected in TNG’s “Redemption Part 2” when the human XO tries to demean Data’s ability to command by appealing to stereotypes and the ability of certain species to do certain things within Starfleet, and in the end is shown to be completely and totally wrong.

HOBSON: Frankly, sir, I don't believe in your ability to command this ship. You're a fellow officer and I respect that, but no one would suggest that a Klingon would make a good ship's counsellor or that a Berellian could be an engineer. They're just not suited for those positions. By the same token, I don't think an android is a good choice to be captain.

DATA: I understand your concerns. Request denied.


​

 

[Richard S. Ta]

As I've gotten older, I've begun to treat TOS as its own entity that exists outside of the franchise. It is just so much different than the rest of the shows.

It’s so much easier like that.

Notice they waited until 2009 to dare to recast Kirk and Spock -- and lamentably failed.

ST09 was a commercial and critical success.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

ST09 was a commercial and critical success.

We're going to use facts when talking about the first Star Trek film to earn an Academy Award? Why do you hate Star Trek?

 

[Richard S. Ta]

We're going to use facts when talking about the first Star Trek film to earn an Academy Award? Why do you hate Star Trek?

I didn’t know it won an Oscar.

So between all the glowing reviews, turning a profit at the box office and winning prestigious awards… well, clearly as the OP said, a lamentable failure…

 

[Citiprime]

Can I split the difference and say I liked Star Trek (2009), but I don't exactly like the variant characterizations of Kirk and Spock that the movie led to. I thought it was interesting to see different actors bringing something different to the material, but overall I think the issues with those choices became more apparent as the Kelvin Universe movies progressed.

To me, the biggest difference between Shatner's Kirk and Pine's version is that Shatner's Kirk feels a compulsion to be in the center seat. He wants to be there to affect change, and doesn't feel right when he isn't. Conversely, given the change to the timeline and Kirk's upbringing in the Kelvin-verse, Pine's Kirk is a bundle of daddy issues and spends 3 movies questioning whether he should be in the captain's chair. And, to me, by Star Trek Beyond I was tired of Kirk's ambivalence about whether he should be on the Enterprise.

With Quinto's Spock, he's a much more emotional character than Nimoy's, and I don't exactly think he gets the balance of it right. I think Ethan Peck is much better at finding new nuances to Spock than Quinto did.

Moreover, my biggest gripe about the characterization is that by the end of ST09 both Kirk and Spock know they have a destiny together aboard the Enterprise and the story should have progressed to them having to deal with what that means in new and different ways, instead of rehashing whether or not they should be there and the ups and downs of whether or not they can be friends.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

Can I split the difference and say I liked Star Trek (2009), but I don't exactly like the variant characterizations of Kirk and Spock that the movie led to. I thought it was interesting to see different actors bringing something different to the material, but overall I think the issues with those choices became more apparent as the Kelvin Universe movies progressed.

To me, the biggest difference between Shatner's Kirk and Pine's version is that Shatner's Kirk feels a compulsion to be in the center seat. He wants to be there to affect change, and doesn't feel right when he isn't. Conversely, given the change to the timeline and Kirk's upbringing in the Kelvin-verse, Pine's Kirk is a bundle of daddy issues and spends 3 movies questioning whether he should be in the captain's chair. And, to me, by Star Trek Beyond I was tired of Kirk's ambivalence about whether he should be on the Enterprise.

With Quinto's Spock, he's a much more emotional character than Nimoy's, and I don't exactly think he gets the balance of it right. I think Ethan Peck is much better at finding new nuances to Spock than Quinto did.

Moreover, my biggest gripe about the characterization is that by the end of ST09 both Kirk and Spock know they have a destiny together aboard the Enterprise and the story should have progressed to them having to deal with what that means in new and different ways, instead of rehashing whether or not they should be there and the ups and downs of whether or not they can be friends.

I don’t think anyone would take issue with someone pointing out differences and preferences.

It’s the fanciful notion that ST09 failed (lamentably) that’s on the table right now, because objectively it did no such thing.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Notice they waited until 2009 to dare to recast Kirk and Spock -- and lamentably failed.

The funniest part of this is that thise versions are considered old now, and the roles are now being played by another generation of actors on Strange New Worlds.

So much so that Celia Rose Gooding, who is the Strange New Worlds' Uhura, said in an interview she grew up a fan of Uhura in Star Trek movies. But she wasn't talking about Nichelle Nichols, she meant Zoe Saldana. That's the moment I aged 100 years

 

[Tallguy]

The Vulcan captain in “Take Me Out To The Holosuite” is explicit in believing in Vulcan superiority as his reasoning for having an all-Vulcan crew. It has nothing to do with the ambient temperature of the ship’s interior, and everything to do with the Vulcan captain thinking Vulcans are better, which if you applied that mentality to any workplace setting would be a fireable offense that would get someone sued in any modern managerial position when you have someone basing staffing decisions on stereotypes.

Such human thinking.

And beyond being bigoted, It’s demonstrably untrue (how many times have we seen the diversity of a crew be a strength in bringing different perspectives and abilities to deal with different situations?), and it even flies in the face of Vulcan philosophy (i.e., IDIC).

They talk a good game. The central fact of Spock's upbringing and backstory says they play very differently.

 

[at Quark's]

Not sure if this is even controversial or not but here goes.

Yesterday (or actually this night, I couldn't sleep), I saw Star Trek Beyond - hadn't really seen it before. I was distinctly underwhelmed.

Visually it looks great, of course. But in my view, there was way too much emphasis on 'spectacular' scenes and I could have done with a few more 'quiet' character interaction scenes, but I'll grant that this also is due to the movie fashion of the era.

Also, 'the great reveal' about Skrall near the end of the movie made the entire story utterly unconvincing in my eyes.

But perhaps I'm simply getting too old for this kind of movie.

 

[Rahul]

ST09 is the only "good" Kelvin universe movie. And it's aggressively mediocre.

"Into Darkness" is an absolute trainwreck of epic proportions that killed the Kelvin universe creatively.

"Beyond" was okay - but the audience damage was already done, so it flopped HARD, killing not just the Kelvin universe, but Star Trek as a movie franchise in general. And that in the age of strong nerd IPs.
-------
It took also 2 underwhelming TNG movies in a row to kill the "old" franchise.

By now, the Trek movies are deader than after "Nemesis" - it took only 7 years back then to re-star the franchise.

We're now in year 8 after the last Tre movie, and there's nothing remotely even on the horizon.

-------

ST09 won that Oscar for make-up btw. No one's ever complained about the production value of these movies.