Crawl out into the fallout.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
One could watch season 3 of Picard as a sequel to Nemesis and things pretty much work. Some oddities perhaps. Season 1 works like that as well, if like you said they continued with the crew of the Sirena being that rag tag bunch of people doing good stuff. It was just weird seeing them all warp off at the end of season 1 and in season 2 somehow every one is working in or for Starfleet.
Here's a big controversial opinion, I think.
In response to the nostalgia-mining of a lot of modern Trek, I often see people lament why we can't just have "new things." Why not just explore strange new worlds with no connection to existing Trek lore? Why not just have a clean, post-Nemesis series.
I think these are wrong-headed, but not in the obvious way.
Ultimately, good storytelling isn't about concept, it's about character. There's a finite number of plot constructions which can be done, and an even smaller subsection of these actually work within the Trek setting. But if you place into a plot construction interesting, well-constructed characters, suddenly, a stale plot device can become something fantastic.
Looking at Berman Trek, this is part of why I feel like DS9 succeeded, where VOY and ENT largely failed. DS9 canon-mined far more than the other two. The entire show was deepening lore set up across TNG, and to a lesser extent, TOS (The Bajoran occupation, the Cardassians, the Maquis, Klingons, Ferengi, etc.) Yet it worked because the character writing was great. In contrast, VOY and ENT had much thinner characters overall (with a few exceptions), so going to new settings (the Delta Quadrant and the past, respectively) mattered little when most of the characters didn't react too differently to scenarios which were lifted straight from TNG with the names filed off.
I think an entirely novel series could be great, but it's not a requirement by any means to make for "good Trek" - or even good storytelling.
Thankfully, I feel like modern Trek has finally begun tipping its toe into character-based writing again with SNW, so I'm optimistic for the future.
In response to the nostalgia-mining of a lot of modern Trek, I often see people lament why we can't just have "new things." Why not just explore strange new worlds with no connection to existing Trek lore? Why not just have a clean, post-Nemesis series.
I think these are wrong-headed, but not in the obvious way.
Ultimately, good storytelling isn't about concept, it's about character. There's a finite number of plot constructions which can be done, and an even smaller subsection of these actually work within the Trek setting. But if you place into a plot construction interesting, well-constructed characters, suddenly, a stale plot device can become something fantastic.
Looking at Berman Trek, this is part of why I feel like DS9 succeeded, where VOY and ENT largely failed. DS9 canon-mined far more than the other two. The entire show was deepening lore set up across TNG, and to a lesser extent, TOS (The Bajoran occupation, the Cardassians, the Maquis, Klingons, Ferengi, etc.) Yet it worked because the character writing was great. In contrast, VOY and ENT had much thinner characters overall (with a few exceptions), so going to new settings (the Delta Quadrant and the past, respectively) mattered little when most of the characters didn't react too differently to scenarios which were lifted straight from TNG with the names filed off.
I think an entirely novel series could be great, but it's not a requirement by any means to make for "good Trek" - or even good storytelling.
Thankfully, I feel like modern Trek has finally begun tipping its toe into character-based writing again with SNW, so I'm optimistic for the future.
It's my opinion whenever Seven told another co-regular ''You will fail'', a technician pulled a ring with a string out of her back.
I pretty much agree with this. DS9 respected its past (TOS especially, just look at "TRIALS AND TRIBBLE-ATIONS" and how they wrote Kor in his appearances for examples) but still looked forward. Probably the best way to explain my thinking is part of a conversation at the dinner table in "Family"... they talk about one brother always looking to the past and the other always looking toward the future. "There should be room for both in this life." Precisely so!
This is also why LOWER DECKS succeeds greatly... it DEFINITELY respects and loves its past, but it is also doing stuff that looks toward the future of the franchise.
I think you're mixing up "nostalgia mining" with "world building". DS9 took place in the same universe as TNG. If made sense the Klingon chancellor was still the same. It did NOT do throwbacks to TNG the whole time.
The line is different to draw and somewhat arbitrary, but for me goes something like that:
Star Wars ep. 9 having Jedi is not nostalgia bait, it's part of the universe. SW 9 resurrecting Palpatine IS nostalgia bait - that guy is dead, and brought only back for 'memberberries.
PIC was a post Nemesis show. I didn't give a shit it brought Icheb back only to kill him in the most brutal way possible.
SNW takes place in the past - but it shows us genuine new adventures, new planets, stories we hadn't seen before.
So yeah, a setting is no guarantee. But I genuinely think we need to see ,"new things", new concepts, stories that we hadn't seen before. Good characters alone don't make a good show (see: Discovery).
I think LD hits a balance (though it goes in to excess at times) with the love and comedy. For me, there is a huge need for balance when it comes to a franchise as long as Star Trek. Star Trek has a long history of a mix of different styles that it's hard to say "This is Star Trek." in one specific instance. There are stories that feel deliberate non-Star Trek, and perhaps on purpose. But, then they have those connective moments that swing it back the other direction.
I think LD and SNW hits the balance more often than not, while I think other shows delve in to excess on either side, which works in some cases, but not always.
As well as to pay tribute to the Legends EU which had brought him back. Why not explore the most powerful being in the universe?
It seems you are conflating world building with pandering to nostalgia. I can appreciate world building, developing deeper a shallow or little used character, or returning to a specific event or location in lore and creating a rich culture. I love following Pike's adventures in SNW, and I'll say that's my favorite current series of Trek.
SNW also highlights something I hate about the pandering to nostalgia. Small world syndrome is alive and well. DISCO started us off on this small world trend with Berman being related to Spock and Sarek. With SNW we get Pike, Spock, Number One, M'Benga, Uhura, Chapel, and Kirk. Why have one established character to develop when we can have them all? Oh, let's throw in a character related to Khan because it's not Star Trek until we call back to Khan or ape TWOK. Hey, while we're at it, let's see how many different Soong characters we can get Brent Spiner to play because we need a Brent Spiner played Soong in every Trek series.
And, yes, I'm a bit of a canonista continuity freak, so I dislike pandering to the past while simultaneously ignoring lore for the sake of a good story. This is another reason why I feel creators that want to create should go create new instead of regurgitating the past. You want to create? Create. Give me something new and stop retconning, reworking, and reinterpreting what others have already given us.
So, sure, reuse Pike. He's was still pretty much a blank slate with extremely little on-screen story time prior to DISCO season 2. Plenty of room for new stories using a classic character.
But I don't need or want yet another one more last adventure with the TNG crew using the Enterprise D to fight the Borg with help from 7 of (even though Picard season 3 was my favorite Picard season).
Last edited:
Lower Decks is like Galaxy Quest in this regard.Lower Decks is made with love.
And because that’s so, they can get away with a lot of in-jokes that wouldn’t be okay from “outsiders.”
Often when watching it, I think to myself “okay, but only we can say that!”
It helps that it's not dependant on all the in-jokes and references: It stands totally on its own character and plot-wise, all the little side-gags are just that: Side-gags. They enhance the overall experience a lot, especially with in-jokes for nerds like us.
But they're totally watchable for people who have absolutely no clue about warp 10 salamanders or the Picard manoeuvre, because they never take center space.
The problem is that whenever something new is done it's derided.
But when old things are done they're derided too. The worst is when they do new things but then CALL them old things because they think new things are derided but as long as we CALL IT a "Ka Ting Ga" then we'll be fine.
Because, usually, it isn't very good.
Yes, absolutely.
Sometimes. Sometimes it's because it "feels wrong."
Which is nigh useless.
Well, apparently not, since Lower Decks is trading hard on it, as well as Season 3 using a mix of old and new.
At the end of the day, where entertainment is concerned, all we really have to go on is feelings. If it feels wrong, we'll likely react negatively to it in some fashion.
Lower Decks is made with love.
And because that’s so, they can get away with a lot of in-jokes that wouldn’t be okay from “outsiders.”
Often when watching it, I think to myself “okay, but only we can say that!”
Yep. My wife has seen a bit of Star Trek. Enough to know what it is but not much beyond the basics. She might have seen 3 TOS episodes, 2 TNG episodes a Kelvin movie and… a bit of DSC? However, for that reason I wouldn’t even think about watching LDS with her. There’s just so much that she wouldn’t get. It’s very much a show that’s made for ‘us’.
It’s a strength of the show that at the same time is a weakness. I love it though. I want ten seasons of it. More. Even if Paramount dropped it, I’d like to think it can do a ‘Futurama’ somehow and find its way back.
I was always wondering this, whether LDS has any appeal outside of the Trek fandom?
Yes, it's quite irrational.
Similar threads
- Locked
