TLDR: the Enterprise is not a spaceship, it's a story vehicle.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
That emotions don't matter in design language; only logic.
I can accept it fine. I don't agree with it and have stated why.
For emergencies as previously stated.
It's not about justification. Otherwise the same is true for why it's on top
It's about the preponderance of evidence from the show itself. This isn't just ship building 101 class. It starts with the design language of the show.
Others have argued better: once the shields are gone the hull isn't much better.
It's not. It a hierarchical organization.
Yet they made a movie literally called "Boyhood" that followed a kid growing up.
It literally took 12 years to film with the cast growing up together along with the parents & kids.
It's a Hollywood hit movie with all sorts of accolades.
It's not like reality can't be engaging & entertaining.
Boyhood was an independent film (not a Hollywood studio picture in the least), directed by a renowned indie director who got big name actors because of the director's accolades. The movie would not have had the box office it did without the cast. It is a big exception to the general rule.
How about that hasn't been Star Trek's way.
While true, that's not why people watch Star Trek with the rocket ships and ray guns. Currently, reality doesn't offer voyaging in to deep space on an exploratory mission with a large ship.
I love the show MASH and Brooklyn 99 but they are not always realistic and change things in the name of drama.
Many want to escape reality with imagination and adventures. Why deprive them of that stated entertainment goal.
Who's this "we"? You don't own the franchise, dude. Stop pretending your ideas are some kind of predetermined outcome, and maybe you won't get quite so much pushback from other users.
But not to the majority of the audience. Your version of Trek would lose viewers faster than a Babylon 5 spinoff aired during the Friday evening death slot...
I agree, it doesn't. But you're trying to apply "realism" based on a basic understanding of today's science and technologies, for an imaginary setting centuries into the future. Regardless of how up to date you think you are, this is not just a little self-delusional.
Yes, and? It's an exception to the rule, and its uniqueness could very well be said to be key to the success it's enjoyed.
Now, since this is a Controversial Opinions thread, here are some more... "GRENADE!"
The Enterprise-E is a mess, and heralded the descent of Trek ships from somewhat rationally designed starships into ugly "kewl" fanboy kludges demonstrating less logical sense than Sybok on a ketamine fueled bender. "Oooh, but muh negative space paint job and swooshy pointy edges!1!!"
I miss Dr Pulaski. Much as I love Gates McFadden, I sorely wish we'd seen more of Diana Muldaur. Somehow; anyhow.
The lack of a unifying GUI for the TMP-TSFS computer displays ages them, and helps make that bridge look like the ugly middle stepchild shoved between TOS and the late TOS movies.
I liked the Future Imperfect and Parallels bridges better than the regular TNG series version (and yes, the Generations version was better too).
If you have a good series creator that is JMS level like what he did on Babylon 5.
You can plan many seasons in advance and have back doors in case actors drop out.
He planned out 5 seasons and it was legendary.
You just needed a vision.
We'd still have plenty of Action / Adventure, traveling the stars in our fancy StarShip and blasting things when needed.
Having engineering in the center of the secondary hull didn't save Peter Preston.
Trek is just too full of examples where shields up, you're golden and shields down, you're toast. No matter your location in the ship.
JMS' five-season plan ended up going through a lot of changes, chief among them:
Michael O'Hare leaving the show after season one, necessitating a gigantic retool of the central character arc and moving that over to Sheridan. I'm pretty sure HMS didn't have a backdoor for his series lead vanishing just one year into the run.
B5 nearly escaping cancellation during the fourth season, after having shoved the narrative content of the fourth and fifth seasons into one.
Writers can have all the intents and plans in the world for a multi-year arc, but there's still the reality of working in a collaborative and unpredictable medium of television where shit can change on a dime.
If any of us got to participate in the creation of the next Star Trek show, I'm sure "we" would impact it in our own way with our own particular visions of what Star Trek could be.
Don't tell me that you wouldn't want to do the exact same thing if you could be part of the writing team.
We'll see, nothing to it but to prove it.
So what do you suggest?
How fantastical should we allow things to get?
Star Wars level with mysterious "The Force" running around?
But isn't Star Trek's "Unique-ness" also one of it's appeal, one where they strive for more scientifical believability than Star Wars ever did.
That's no surprise to me, I'm used to seeing this level of change.
WWE just lost their "Main Heel (Antagonist) Seth 'Freakin' Rollins" to injury last night.
Now we have to wait and see what sort of matches and storylines change because of that.
I'm used to seeing and changing on the fly as need be from a Pro Wrestling world where storylines can change at the drop of a dime.
Literally to moments before the show opens and storylines can change with performers having to figure things out on the fly.
Scripted TV actually has a bit more luxury and leeway compared to what Pro Wrestling Storylines have to deal with and how dynamic things can change.
Yes, which is why the people aspect is the one I consider the people aspect first. That's why there are industrial organizational psychologists to remember the human.
Star Trek has its own inspiration that people associate with it. Even with all the newer designs they're all variations on a theme. That is part of the appeal is a thematic familiarity.
Huh? In what way does a multi-million dollar TV production have more luxury and leeway?
Even the ReFit connie isn't all that well armored IMO.Having engineering in the center of the secondary hull didn't save Peter Preston.
Trek is just too full of examples where shields up, you're golden and shields down, you're toast. No matter your location in the ship.
23rd Century StarFleet depended more on shielding than on a good mix of Armor & Shields.
StarFleet went head first into shields and forgot about Armor R&D for a while during that time frame.
I get that, and I'm sure to meet that requirement, even if it isn't as obvious as you would like it to be.
Their performers/actors don't have to worry about injury every single match that happens every week on one of it's many shows.
Be it RAW, NXT, SD!. This isn't even counting for PPV's that occur on a near monthly schedule.
Any sort of injury that forces time off can derail planned storylines dramatically for large chunks of time.
Storylines can get changed "The Day of" very frequently as well for any number of reasons.
Where as Multi-Million Dollar TV productions are scheduled, planned, & usually well arranged ahead of time.
With their actors not generally risking their health that would prevent them from acting their roles.
Where as in Pro Wrestling, if a Wrestler is injured, they're gone for a while until they come back from rehabing their injury.
Storyline plans gets thrown out of the window and new ones come up.
WWE this past year alone has lost many Wrestlers to injury:
1) Seth Rollins (Main Event Level, Top Heel)
2) Liv Morgan (Main Event Level, Top Heel)
3) Kevin Owens (Main Event Level, Top Heel)
4) Chad Gable (Mid Card Level, Heel)
5) Ilja Dragunov (Low Card Level, Face)
6) Rey Mysterio (Upper Card Level, Face)
7) Zoey Stark (Low Card Level, Heel)
8) Kiana James (Low Card Level, Heel)
9) Apollo Crews (Low Card Level, Face)
10) Elton Prince (Low Card Level, Heel)
11) Tama Tonga (Low Card Level, Heel)
It's a good thing they have a very large roster to fall back on.
But it's still a pain in the arse to have to change things all the time.
This isn't even counting any form of weekly "Travel Issues" that might make somebody not make it on time to a weekly show.
Or Personal Issues that become public that forces WWE to pull the Wrestler from live TV and ground them for causing issues that could make WWE look bad.
The # of issues that could happen in WWE and Pro Wrestling is crazy.
WWE is "All Year Round", no Off season.
51 weeks of New Scripted Sports Entertainment every week.
The Final week of RAW in each calender year is usually a giant ReCap episode for the past year.
WWE RAW started Jan 11, 1993.
It's been running for 32 years and counting.
Still providing new weekly scripted Sports Entertainment on a consistent basis.
Last edited:
JMS obstinacy to his epic worked against the quality of the show. He resisted writing with collaborators, and his relationship with the studio soured. In the end, we got one mediocre season, two great seasons, and two crappy seasons. On the balance, good. It's popularity is largely on being the series about people serving in the military(-ish) organization centered on human values and leadership. It's the Star Trek that is not Star Trek.
This is absolute nonsense. Every. Single. Production has protection bond insurance in case lead actors are hurt or pass away during production.
It can be just as bad to a narrative tv show as to a live wrestling show if an actor is suddenly hospitalized midway through filming and can't complete the scenes that were shot. If that happens to your series lead, you'll have to take a very expensive production shutdown until such time they're available again, or you roll the dice and see if a rewrite without them is possible (as with Oliver Reed in Gladiator).
In streaming series, it's not as bad to production schedules. But, if you're a network show with a full 22-episode order? Taking any downtime during the season is the kiss of death.
I can count the number of "great" B5 episodes on one hand (and still have fingers left), and I don't even know if there's a season's worth of "good".
It's a show greatly inflated by its microscopic audience. Calling it "legendary" is ridiculous, and it's monolithic production is the perfect example of what not to do.
It's a show greatly inflated by its microscopic audience. Calling it "legendary" is ridiculous, and it's monolithic production is the perfect example of what not to do.
Babylon 5 is one of the greatest series ever made, rivalling and even beating Deep Space Nine on occasion. Seasons 3 and 4 are incredible television all created by a singular author, and planning the series out in advance gave it a consistency few other shows can match, even if JMS had to continually rework the plan due to life getting in the way.
Similar threads
- Locked
