What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[Farscape One]

I have to disagree. I love TAS, but the limitations of the show (like the short episode run time) keep it from being top tier Trek IMO. Plus, I happen to enjoy DISCO. (PIC is sadly near the bottom of my list as well, mostly because of missed opportunities to have been better.)

While I do agree TAS was too short on run time, that's a thing with animation. And if you look at LDS and PRODIGY, short run times can still bring out great quality.

TAS brought a lot of great ideas to life, and made very interesting stories. More so than either PICARD or DISCO.

 

[BK613]

Beyond did not do well enough to garnish us a fourth movie. So it did bomb, [Obiwan] from a certain point of view[/Obiwan].

 

[fireproof78]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[cooleddie74]

It may have "bombed" but in many ways it was my favorite of the three.

 

[fireproof78]

Controversial Opinion: the financial performance of a movie has no bearing on enjoyment and throwing out numbers is a quick way to make me lose interest in the whole discussion.

 

[cooleddie74]

Mallrats tanked at the box office in 1995. I love that movie.

 

[Nerys Myk]

You know was else was the bomb?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[cooleddie74]

Nootch.

 

[Citiprime]

Controversial opinion:
Trek shouldn't try to be a big budget blockbuster or try to compete with the big boys of Marvel, DC, Star Wars and Disney in general.

Trek movies in the budget range of 80-120 mio. $ would look totally fine, and would be guaranteed to make their money back with the existing fanbase.
We just would have to miss out on the last half an hour of action schlock scenes. Which... I find very acceptable.

One of the problems is the nature of the beast when it comes to Hollywood at the moment, of whether you could get that kind of investment for a non-action oriented Trek movie? Once you're talking about a theatrical release, the powers that be at Paramount want something action-oriented and have used Wrath of Khan as a template for a long-time as to what they think a Trek movie has to be (i.e., a movie centered around stopping a big, bombastic villain with "universal armageddon" at stake).

I remember it being argued as to whether you could do a movie like The Motion Picture or even The Voyage Home given the current dynamics of Hollywood production. Could you do a 2-hour Trek movie that was an exploration of a weird alien encounter that doesn't have a villain or a 2-hour Trek comedy with whales that has no big action set piece and get it greenlit by Paramount executives?

I think that it's more likely that if something like that were to be greenlit today it become something that happens for a streaming service, either as a TV movie or limited series, instead of being a theatrical release.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

While I do agree TAS was too short on run time, that's a thing with animation. And if you look at LDS and PRODIGY, short run times can still bring out great quality.

TAS brought a lot of great ideas to life, and made very interesting stories. More so than either PICARD or DISCO.

The reason you have to look at LDS and Prodigy is because TAS didn't bring out great quality with only a very rare exception. There's some cool ideas in there but almost all of them are poorly executed at best, even without mentioning the terrible animation quality.

 

[BillJ]

Beyond did not do well enough to garnish us a fourth movie. So it did bomb, [Obiwan] from a certain point of view[/Obiwan].

Star Trek Beyond definitely underperformed at the box office.

 

[1001001]

Beyond is my favorite of the Kelvin movies, for sure.

Oh, and TAS is crap.

 

[Tallguy]

There's some cool ideas in there but almost all of them are poorly executed at best, even without mentioning the terrible animation quality.

If you take out the Filmation animation then TAS is amazing. Including the very run of the mill 70's TV animation then it's merely terrific.

 

[BK613]

Oh, and TAS is crap.

A lot of TAS is crap. Then again, a lot of Star Trek in general is crap.

 

[1001001]

A lot of TAS is crap. Then again, a lot of Star Trek in general is crap.

Sturgeon's Law.

 

[UssGlenn]

and have used Wrath of Khan as a template for a long-time as to what they think a Trek movie has to be (i.e., a movie centered around stopping a big, bombastic villain with "universal armageddon" at stake).

I remember it being argued as to whether you could do a movie like The Motion Picture or even The Voyage Home given the current dynamics of Hollywood production.

What's so odd is, Voyage Home made more money than Wrath of Khan, so why is Khan still the one to emulate?

 

[BK613]

Sturgeon's Law.

Absolutely, though the percentage is different for me.

 

[1001001]

Absolutely, though the percentage is different for me.

Yeah, it’s 99% for me.

 

[Commander Troi]

While I do agree TAS was too short on run time, that's a thing with animation. And if you look at LDS and PRODIGY, short run times can still bring out great quality.

TAS brought a lot of great ideas to life, and made very interesting stories. More so than either PICARD or DISCO.

Good point. LDS does ALOT in a short time and does it well.

I think I was *trying* to say that TAS is good and I like it, but I also like DISCO.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

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.

I wish I had a project that failed so hard I made two sequels that totaled a combined $645,357,020 at the box office.

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.

Has ST ever gone into why Berellians aren't suited to be engineers? Or featured the Berellians in any capacity? I'm intrigued now.