Gene "people don't mourn their dead in the future" Roddenberry.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Bev was so underwritten I never noticed.
I always liked Bev in TNG, but she was often the Chekov of that series. Usually there, usually having lines but not much to do.
I thought Pulaski was more interesting but I think she and Wesley did have a few good scenes as mother and son.
Pulaski was more interesting period. Beverly was fine, but once you knew she was Picard's one-time love interest and the mom of Wesley and widow of Picard's late best friend there wasn't much left the producers did with her.
I mean, ghost fucking. I guess.
I mean, ghost fucking. I guess.
But she put on plays! TNG crew new how to have fun. Go listen to classical music. Watch a play Dr Crusher play put on. Play poker despite nobody having money to bet on. Have sex with Riker. So many options.
Pulaski got better development in 1 season than Crusher got in 6.
Sulu was into botany and collected antique firearms and loved fencing and yeah, a lot of good most of that did him or audiences. 
Sulu was into botany and collected antique firearms and loved fencing and yeah, a lot of good most of that did him or audiences.
He also had that annoying fascination with time pieces as well according to Scotty. Also as Demora shows he also liked having sex.
George was a guest at a fan run Con where I was on the ConCom back in the early 1990s. We got to have dinner with him and the other guests Friday night. A class act is how I'd describe him.
Chief Exposition OfficerSulu was into botany and collected antique firearms and loved fencing and yeah, a lot of good most of that did him or audiences.
Well, the one time for sure.He also had that annoying fascination with time pieces as well according to Scotty. Also as Demora shows he also liked having sex.
As it should be. I see no reason why it had to be "expensive". You build up the library shots just like you did for the whole ship. Editing and story telling should have easily carried the day here.
The ship separating wasn't any more inherently dramatic than standard orbit. The ship being in danger was the drama.
No offense to McFadden, but she wasn't Patrick Stewart or Avery Brooks. And Stewart and Wheaton did a pretty good job together.
There's got to be a better comparison than Chekov. McFadden would have given a leg to have as much screen time and character as Chekov.
I mean, Liam Shaw was more interesting. He sucked and I hated him, but that's interest.
Yes, I'm entirely hung up on Data. If she really had been as indifferent to him as a piece of machinery that might have been something. But she was MAD about it.
She was a bold and vivid character. Not one I wished to spend time with.
I’ll never forget TNG’s series bible, I’m pretty much certain this was Gene’s contribution to the character of Beverly: “she has the natural walk of a striptease queen”.
They made her a little smug and sanctimonious every so often, so there’s always that. But apart from that she was something of a “nothing” character alas. She fulfilled a function in terms of being the CMO, but that’s really it.
Yeah, this was a case where we learned something about a character I wish we’d never, ever learned. Specifically, that she gets turned on by reading her recently deceased Granny’s sex journals and then decides she wants some of that Hot Candle Ghost Action herself. That remains one of the most embarrassing hours of television Trek ever produced.
She really did. It helped that Diana Muldaur was a genuinely good actress, too. She had real screen presence and managed to do a great deal with even very minimal material. I’d have loved to see her relationships with Picard, Data and Worf develop.
That's pretty much the same line he used for one of the TOS characters. (Or maybe it was just The Cage?) Isn't it?
I’m not sure. Was that Yeoman Colt and “her abnormally high female drives”? That line has never made me not cringe in 35 years of being a Trek fan.
No I mean there is actually the line in the writer's guide.
Here it is (from The Making of Star Trek):
Oh, Gene. Gene, Gene, Gene.
What did you like? Do you like them culturally that you see that this was a cultural / civilizational change that should have come at a different time?
Or do you like them aesthetically that you think that they don't look like TMP / TNG Klingons OR TOS Klingons and so don't belong in the 2250's?
For me, for the second point, I (personally) don't care. I think the only way that the whole "that's not what Klingons look like" argument can ever work is if we see TOS Klingons ever again.
If you want to count Enterprise, I guess, OK. I'm not up on ENT. I know they were cancelled that season but did we ever see TOS Klingons in an episode that was not about them being TOS Klingons?
But otherwise the way Star Trek has always operated is that Klingons look like Klingons look. I would have to see Klingons from other "eras" at the same time to be convinced that this was not entirely a function of budget and production aesthetics. Nice try, ENT.
(And not to go all No True Scotty here, but I'm not counting DS9. That was a wink and a nod. And a good one. Lower Decks, either.)
Actually, I would LOVE to see the Empire as an actual Empire. Not just a planet. (I suppose they could have colonized an uncharacteristically empty - for Star Trek - section of space and it's an empire sized of systems but it's all lunatics from Qo'noS.)
You either die a hero or live to be Joss Whedon.
Similar threads
