What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
A favourite scene of mine in all of Trek.
I don't see a need to erase them. The time travel makes it easy to just shift it off into a new alternative timeline if you wanted to get ride of it to make a new future setting. That was more or less done with the Kelvinverse because Trek nerds no enough about this stuff to know if you didn't you would in theory be erasing all the old Trek shows as if they didn't happen.
What does fun have to do with watching Star Trek?
Unless he came from a very long line of Picards who only had one child and who married non Picards or changed their surnames, I find that concept unbelievable. Along with no smoke alarms or sprinklers on a 24th century vineyard, breaks every French health and safety rule in the book.
Last edited:
We only know that Robert and Rene were burned to death in a fire... not where it happened. Could have happened while they were on a trip somewhere. Plus, we have seen people in various shows get burned across their body, like that engineer in "AZATI PRIME". (Luckily, others put out the flames on him pretty quickly, but it can still happen.)
As far as being the last Picard, I get what you're saying, but since we see no other evidence to the contrary, I take his dialogue at face value. (There's also the possibility that others in the lineage renounced the family name for whatever reason, or those people are not considered a Picard for whatever reason. Could even be no other Picard would bother with the vineyard and family home, which would effectively end the traditions and memories passed in that place.)
Heh. It's a glaring example of the name being passed down through the sons, isn't it?
I'd ask if Picard had any aunts or uncles or cousins but we never heard of them so they must not exist. Or they are classified by Starfleet under pain of treason.
Starfleet is a universe where the humans are either only children, (childcare must still be expensive), have only one sibling (yeah childcare issues again) or for a universe where the human lifespan is about 130 plus years, the human parents die very young.
It's on his greatest hits album.
Problems being two things: people like learning backstories (frequently, anyways) and ANY series or film in the franchise is set in the future, at least partially. Trek is always about a time ahead of where we are now or in the last sixty years, so "returning to the past" isn't really a thing for Trek, save in-universe.
But with all the fans of ENT, DSC, SNW and the Kelvin Timeline movies it clearly isn't the creative obstacle many think when the producers go back in time to go back to the well.
Indeed. People have their preferences for seeing and learning about more characters or their favorite periods. And, those usually connect to something we've seen before. Because of this, and what draws in the most views is often going to be the more familiar elements.
The tinier elements or characters that more passionate fans are after simply are not going to be the draw.
Interesting enough though Picard season 3 is the one Trek show set in the future past all the other Trek shows, except for Discovery seasons 3,4 and 5 but of course those don't count since Lower Decks removed them from canon.
Yeah, this "LD removed three whole seasons of DSC from canon" thing....
just....what Shaw said.
If you follow that *ahem* logic, every alternate and callback that we see would also be not canon anymore. Sorry, Sovereign class.
I’m honestly okay with many aspects of DSC being erased from canon. Not all… just many.
I don't like the DSC Klingon look but it's canon and part of the wider Klingon aesthetic. If I can accept that's canon then somehow we'll all survive.
So it'll show up in one random future episode, and never be mentioned again afterwards.
Similar threads
