What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[HotRod]

You do not go beyond cultural impact for a character added for that purpose. To underestimate what Nichols purpose was in favor of an attempt to build-up a character misses one of key reasons for Star Trek. Uhura being a ranked bridge officer did not need retconned exposition to be important or a good character, and certainly that was not required to the innumerable black people who spoke for themselves, habitually citing just how great and inspirational that aforementioned ranked bridge officer had been to be on that series--something many who claim to understand Star Trek, but do not when it comes to the deeper message received by those who were among the intended audience.

Yeah.... how bout I just want a character to be interesting with a good backstory.

It's not 1966 anymore. As culturally important as Uhura was back in the 60's, these days she needs to be more than just a stunningly beautiful African Officer on the bridge of a Starship.

I want to know why she wants to be on the bridge of that Starship. What drives her to reach her goals. What struggles she faces. I want to watch her character grow from being a cadet that was thinking of leaving Starfleet,to becoming a proud and confident senior officer on the Flagship of The Federation.

Strange New Worlds is showing us that character growth. It's one of the reasons I love the show so much.

 

[Dr Helen Noel]

Shatner is not a bad actor and has lots of great subtle moments.

They should bring back the vaseline on lens (for men too).

Gene is not as great as people seem to think and he just got lucky.

Troi would have been one the best characters if they had kept her as first contact to new alien races. Also would have made room for Guinan to be the only counsellor character.

Spock should wipe SNW Pike’s memories of Talos IV so that Pike has no idea when he will die.

They need to stop putting Brent Spiner in things, especially not as random relatives.

They should have more actors with accents and not have everyone speaking in the same way.

Tarantino’s Trek movie should have been made.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

People want fame and legacy and recognition. Trek hitched itself to this idea that it inspired technology so it must be our history.

I disagree that that’s the reason all of this is. Plenty of speculative science-fiction has had ideas that turned out to be true. That’s not Star Trek’s exclusive wheelhouse and it never has been.

So yeah, as a justification or explanation, what you said fails to add up.

 

[CoveTom]

Kirstie Alley never came off as anything but Kirstie Alley. I didn't get much of a Vulcan (or Romulan) feel from her at all.

Really? Saavik was 180 degrees removed from Alley's actual personality. Or the other characters she has played. Do you see any of Rebecca Howe in Saavik? I think she did a fantastic job with the character.

 

[Tallguy]

Really? Saavik was 180 degrees removed from Alley's actual personality. Or the other characters she has played. Do you see any of Rebecca Howe in Saavik? I think she did a fantastic job with the character.

What's really amazing to me is that at least 50% of that performance was in post production in the dubbing stage.

 

[Shawnster]

Spock should wipe SNW Pike’s memories of Talos IV so that Pike has no idea when he will die.

When does Pike die?

 

[Dr Helen Noel]

When does Pike die?

Good question. Did Pike actually see his death or just something involving the accident and Talos IV? I’ve only seen SNW through once and it was a while ago.

 

[Farscape One]

I think they mean the accident that cripples Pike. Which as far as I'm concerned is a fate worse than death.

 

[Tallguy]

Good question. Did Pike actually see his death or just something involving the accident and Talos IV? I’ve only seen SNW through once and it was a while ago.

Pike explicitly says that his life will be different. He knows he won't die.

 

[137th Gebirg]

His fate is, arguably, a fate worse than death. This is why Spock did everything in his power to get Pike back to Talos IV.

 

[1001001]

We know he’s going to be okay in the end, even if he doesn’t.

 

[carcinoGeneticist]

They need to stop putting Brent Spiner in things, especially not as random relatives.

I was aware of Brent Spiner being random Soong relatives, but wasn't aware of how many times this has actually happened, so I looked it up.
Seven.
Seven???
This man has played seven roles on this show and six of them were just a bunch of other Soongs???
Why are all the men in this family exactly identical? Also, isn't Brent like 80? Let him get a break !

This is an unpopular opinion in it of itself, but I don't mind Lore, like, at all. I liked Datalore the episode (probably because of an event i associate it with but nonetheless I liked Datalore and still so). So, I'm fine with Data and Lore, and I guess I can tolerate Noonien Soong also being Spiner because I can buy the "he made them in his image" thing, but just barely. So, that would give Spiner three roles. That is very much enough! Just the two is fine if we have to include Lore! But even then, as much as I do like Lore, I do understand that the "evil twin" concept is... well. It's quite tropey.

I don't even understand why every Soong is Spiner. Like, I already specified that I can understand Soong making Data and Lore in his image, but why does this mean every normal human Soong relative has to be Spiner?

 

[Citiprime]

Yeah.... how bout I just want a character to be interesting with a good backstory.

It's not 1966 anymore. As culturally important as Uhura was back in the 60's, these days she needs to be more than just a stunningly beautiful African Officer on the bridge of a Starship.

I want to know why she wants to be on the bridge of that Starship. What drives her to reach her goals. What struggles she faces. I want to watch her character grow from being a cadet that was thinking of leaving Starfleet,to becoming a proud and confident senior officer on the Flagship of The Federation.

Strange New Worlds is showing us that character growth. It's one of the reasons I love the show so much.

I don't think a multiverse view of Star Trek would invalidate that.

There are many productions of Hamlet. The fact they're not connected in a continuity doesn't diminish different interpretations of the character or the play.

Why would that be any different for Star Trek? We have various versions of Sherlock Holmes (e.g., the Benedict Cumberbatch modern version of Holmes versus the older characterizations) and other historical characters that add depth and put a different spin on the material, but are also in their own separate continuities. It doesn't diminish the character. It doesn't say they're "less than" in any way.

They just provide a different perspective on the source material. And each version can be appreciated in its own way.

 

[fireproof78]

I disagree that that’s the reason all of this is. Plenty of speculative science-fiction has had ideas that turned out to be true. That’s not Star Trek’s exclusive wheelhouse and it never has been.

So yeah, as a justification or explanation, what you said fails to add up.

But not as many have grabbed the public attention in the same way.

Whether it "adds up" or not is not the point. It's a myth perpetuated ongoing because of Trek constantly looking to its past.

 

[Airin]

I don't think a multiverse view of Star Trek would invalidate that.

There are many productions of Hamlet. The fact they're not connected in a continuity doesn't diminish different interpretations of the character or the play.

I agree with this comparison, and that the different series should be viewed as different productions, which they're literally are: separate productions, made by different teams at very different times. And neither the new series should get limited by details established in the past (i.e. women can't be starship captains), nor the older series are suddenly "wrong" because someone contradicted something 60 years later (those things were conscious decisions of the script, not goofs or errors).

However, this is not the same as having a literal multiverse. All the versions of Hamlet are set in our world and our timeline, same with Sherlock Holmes, same with the vast majority of works (including fantasy works like Lord of the Rings).
In my opinion, trying to place the different series in separate timelines or universes, still feels like trying to force jigsaw pieces together, that don't really match.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

They should bring back the vaseline on lens (for men too).

What better way to get Warren Beatty to do sci-fi TV at medium wages? (37 years ago he preferred soft-focus interviews.)
Do you have an ENEMY WITHIN sequel/prequel in mind here?

 

[fireproof78]

I agree with this comparison, and that the different series should be viewed as different productions, which they're literally are: separate productions, made by different teams at very different times. And neither the new series should get limited by details established in the past (i.e. women can't be starship captains), nor the older series are suddenly "wrong" because someone contradicted something 60 years later (those things were conscious decisions of the script, not goofs or errors).

However, this is not the same as having a literal multiverse. All the versions of Hamlet are set in our world and our timeline, same with Sherlock Holmes, same with the vast majority of works (including fantasy works like Lord of the Rings).
In my opinion, trying to place the different series in separate timelines or universes, still feels like trying to force jigsaw pieces together, that don't really match.

I think it also ignores the authors and their desire to try and weave within the established story points. Yes, they ignore some visuals, or update based upon their preferences. That's the part of the art that makes it all the more enjoyable. Just like we don't go watch a performance of Hamlet as if it were performed like in the Bard's day but by people wanting to tell the story with contemporary tools.

Star Trek is no different. It's not meant to be a gathering of the SCA, but an exercise in creativity and business.

And, well, honestly, if people don't like it the presence of a newer story doesn't invalidate the older one.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Controversial opinion: The core problem that leads to all this constant arguing about universes is not really about universes or what is believable or what is inspirational, etc.

It's about far too many people's constant insistence on using very different terms/conceptions as if they were all interchangeable.

Canon is not continuity. 'Head canon', ie, what you prefer to believe, is neither canon nor continuity.

Canon is not up for debate by anyone. Everything on screen is canon. Even if it's animated. Even if it's ridiculous. Even if it wildly contradicts everything else in the history of Star Trek. If it makes it onscreen, it's Canon. The only conceivable way anything could ever be made not canon after being on screen is if Paramount themselves actively want to decanonize something, and even then that doesn't really change the fact that it was onscreen in the first place so would largely be a meaningless act.

Continuity is about the question of what lines up with what and can theoretically be tied to ideas about alternate universes or time travel, but ultimately the continuity of any show or movie is still by definition whatever the writers say it is onscreen. It's much more malleable than canon as every new production can choose to be in a different continuity if they wish to, but that doesn't mean every new production is in a different continuity just because it's new. It is in whatever continuity it says it's in because that is how fiction works. This is true even if later productions say different. And it is still true even if it contradicts other things in the same continuity. Because sharing a continuity does not mean having zero contradictions with everything else in that continuity. It never has, not for Star Trek or Star Wars or Marvel or DC or Bond or anything else.

Head canon (or whatever word you prefer to use) is how you look at the show and prefer to interpret it for yourself. That's entirely up to you. Ignore canon. Ignore continuity. Interpret every single scene as its own separate universe if you want to. That's totally your prerogative. But stop trying to tell everyone your interpretation must be correct because you have the 'best interpretation' of the canon or the continuity. That's not how either canon or continuity works and your intrepretations or preferences are *yours*, not some inherent quality of Star Trek that everyone should acknowledge as correct.

If people would just stick to 'I prefer to think of [x] this way', there'd be a lot less endless arguing about this stuff.

 

[Dr Helen Noel]

What better way to get Warren Beatty to do sci-fi TV at medium wages? (37 years ago he preferred soft-focus interviews.)
Do you have an ENEMY WITHIN sequel/prequel in mind here?

I like that we get a POV shot from whoever is attracted to that person TOS. When you’re immediately attracted to them, that’s what it can be like.

I also find that images are getting too sharp to the point of being able to see every pore on an actor’s face. While pores are natural, I don’t need to see them in every show.

Also, I don’t really like how they do the make-up in SNW. It makes their faces look dirty. Hopefully some blurring would be more flattering.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

Whether it "adds up" or not is not the point. It's a myth perpetuated ongoing because of Trek constantly looking to its past.

The myths don’t even hold water:

https://www.facttrek.com/blog/fliptop

It seems to be a very modern thing. It’s certainly not something which I’ve heard any BTS people talk about until CBS Trek came along. I don’t mean retcons… that’s been going on since the sixties. It’s more the idea of specifically retconning specific events out of existence so that the show can appear more ‘real’.

It’s certainly nothing to do with the dubiously stated impact of Star Trek on modern technology. You just randomly pulled that from the air. I’m sure I heard some BTS person, some SNW person, say it makes the show more ‘aspirational’ if we are to take it all as being ‘real’.

Like a story that isn’t real can’t be aspirational?

All bullshit, basically and I still haven’t budged on my thoughts regarding the sheer pointlessness of it. Reality is not going to adhere to canon/continuity and the latter has already failed to adhere to reality…

So, just do it like everyone else does it, hey?

But for some reason Star Trek is special and has to maintain a pretence of taking place in our world… Even if that means ripping up it’s own floorboards in what will inevitably become increasingly ridiculous ways in order to satisfy the impossible standard it has placed on itself.

I’m not having a go at you, by the way. Rather the sheer futility of swearing blind something is ‘real’, even though it isn’t and never can be.

Star Trek fans can be very weird.

Star Trek isn’t real and it doesn’t even matter anyway. Crazy.