Which is your choice. Make sure not to devalue others choices.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Which is your choice. Make sure not to devalue others choices.
As much as certain people carry on, it seems that people having interpretations different than the company line is frowned upon.
If I find them silly and without in-universe narrative merit I'll call them out, but they can believe anything they want and I won't lose sleep. Heaven knows I've had some dodgy and dowright awful fan theories in the past and based entirely on supposition.
Sure it is.
So is thinking that it's multiple timelines.
It's disagreeing not devaluing an opinion.
Same here. And I'll be right in disagreeing with past me's theories.
Past me was an idiot.
Present me is still an idiot.
I wouldn't disagree that Emissary has some rough patches. But it is a good episode, which is not something I can honestly say about Farpoint, Caretaker or BB.
IMDb ranks Emissary, Caretaker and Broken Bow around the middle of the episode list, so they're generally considered to be about as average as you can get. I'm a bit kinder to them personally but I'd group them pretty close as well. And they're all above poor Encounter at Farpoint.
That power trio dynamic has not materialized in any Trek outside of TOS.
So, this rant felt better suited here:
The first two seasons? I was unhappy about the kind of wandering "I'm not sure what we're doing here" and the "Starfleet and the Federation are falling apart and we need Jean-Luc Picard to save us (because Brexit is making Sir Patrick upset)". Then in season three it was a lot of the same stuff but because there were a LOT more Star Trek references and cast members it was THIS IS ALLLLLLL WE'VE BEEN WAITING FORRRRRRRR!
*ahem* No. There were a few moments where Riker and Picard were together at the beginning that were adorable. Picard was still Picard and Riker was "grown up" enough to see through a lot of Picard's BS... And ADORE him anyway. He would follow that man into hell and back out again. And then they crapped all over that moment with "You've KILLED US ALL!"
Worf was terrific. Deanna was always wonderful. (Sorry they made you a mom, Marina? Deanna seemed pretty good at it.)
And I get that Stashwick was giving a hell of a performance. But in service to what? Why is this guy a captain? He needed to a) have the loyalty of his crew OR b) be totally right in the face of Jean-Luc Picard and Shaw's own crew. And he didn't do either of those things. They put him against Picard AND Seven of Nine, AND HIS OWN CREW and still wanted us to somehow take his side. Queeg was more likeable. And he had José Ferrer defending him in the end. Screw you, Captain Shaw's writers.
The one thing Shaw did right (except he was a whiny jerk about it) was Picard was super out of line to try and take his ship. All correct and above board. Except they managed to make even THAT look skeevy and cowardly. And really it was ACTUALLY all because Picard was Locutus. Screw you, Captain Shaw's writers.
I just realized: Did they look at 30 years of some of us saying "Hey, Jellico was pretty cool and the Enterprise crew acted like children" and say "Yeah, lets do that"? Except Jellico got to be RIGHT. And they didn't put Jellico alone in his quarters eating steak and imagining he was in Blade Runner somehow. Remember the guy who didn't want to serve under Data? That was Shaw, only somehow we're expected to be sad when he dies. (Screw you, Captain Shaw's writers.)
It was GLORIOUS to see the D bridge again. (Star Trek's great tremendous design cul de sac. We have never even seen a NOD to that design.) But then they had the D attack the... I was going to say the Death Star but it's actually Starkiller Base, isn't it?
I'm not sure what made me angrier about S3: The AMAZING father / son Picard / Riker that they then pissed away or that they gave us a moment of Ro and Picard and then they KILLED her.
The first two seasons? I was unhappy about the kind of wandering "I'm not sure what we're doing here" and the "Starfleet and the Federation are falling apart and we need Jean-Luc Picard to save us (because Brexit is making Sir Patrick upset)". Then in season three it was a lot of the same stuff but because there were a LOT more Star Trek references and cast members it was THIS IS ALLLLLLL WE'VE BEEN WAITING FORRRRRRRR!
*ahem* No. There were a few moments where Riker and Picard were together at the beginning that were adorable. Picard was still Picard and Riker was "grown up" enough to see through a lot of Picard's BS... And ADORE him anyway. He would follow that man into hell and back out again. And then they crapped all over that moment with "You've KILLED US ALL!"
Worf was terrific. Deanna was always wonderful. (Sorry they made you a mom, Marina? Deanna seemed pretty good at it.)
And I get that Stashwick was giving a hell of a performance. But in service to what? Why is this guy a captain? He needed to a) have the loyalty of his crew OR b) be totally right in the face of Jean-Luc Picard and Shaw's own crew. And he didn't do either of those things. They put him against Picard AND Seven of Nine, AND HIS OWN CREW and still wanted us to somehow take his side. Queeg was more likeable. And he had José Ferrer defending him in the end. Screw you, Captain Shaw's writers.
The one thing Shaw did right (except he was a whiny jerk about it) was Picard was super out of line to try and take his ship. All correct and above board. Except they managed to make even THAT look skeevy and cowardly. And really it was ACTUALLY all because Picard was Locutus. Screw you, Captain Shaw's writers.
I just realized: Did they look at 30 years of some of us saying "Hey, Jellico was pretty cool and the Enterprise crew acted like children" and say "Yeah, lets do that"? Except Jellico got to be RIGHT. And they didn't put Jellico alone in his quarters eating steak and imagining he was in Blade Runner somehow. Remember the guy who didn't want to serve under Data? That was Shaw, only somehow we're expected to be sad when he dies. (Screw you, Captain Shaw's writers.)
It was GLORIOUS to see the D bridge again. (Star Trek's great tremendous design cul de sac. We have never even seen a NOD to that design.) But then they had the D attack the... I was going to say the Death Star but it's actually Starkiller Base, isn't it?
I'm not sure what made me angrier about S3: The AMAZING father / son Picard / Riker that they then pissed away or that they gave us a moment of Ro and Picard and then they KILLED her.
PIC canonized "Sheer fucking hubris." It's not all downside. QED. 
I don't think it should or even be attempted. That trio aspect was TOS' thing, other shows should try other things rather than ape characters and dynamics that came before.
Wasn't that one of the nails in the coffin for ENT? How they just tried to transplant Seven and a mashup of Neelix and the Doctor into their show?
One could argue that TNG tried it with Picard/Riker/Data. ENT kind of tried it with Archer/Trip/T'Pol. DS9 was more of an ensemble. I'm not sure about VOY. Neither DSC nor PIC did it. LD is a foursome and PRO is an ensemble.
However, trios have been a thing in shows other than TOS (Buffy and Angel both come to mind).
I'd say Picard/Data/Worf.
Archer/T'Pol/Trip was a blatant TOS Troika ripoff that even the cast members saw and recognized at the time. And it worked for the most part.
TNG was often the Picard/Data show.
I'm glad it did. Picardo and Ryan helped save that show.
Similar threads
- Locked
