What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

That doesn't actually answer the question at all. That is no more taking a baseball bat than Nimoy stating that Spock's Vulcan salute was inspired by a Jewish blessing. That's drawing inspiration. People draw inspiration from various sources and being inspired doesn't impact legacy. Certainly not Star Trek's legacy. That's rather set in cement and there is not a thing newer Trek can do to take away from it.

Again, no baseball bat because Spock still made his choices to do what he did.

Random Youtubers are not convincing to me. I have no doubt that many out there feel that NuTrek isn't Trek. Which is a specious argument on its face. Star Trek means different things to different people and declaring something "not Trek" just because they don't like it or it doesn't fit with preconceived notions is not sufficient for dismissing whole works.

 

Heck, I couldn't tell that the command gold and operations salmon were different colors when I was watching WNMHGB in the mid- 1980s. They both just looked gold to me.

If you replace the word "Klingon" with any sort of real world ethnicity, the racism behind that line becomes clear.

I think the Monster Maroons were used on TNG just because:

A) The costume department already had lots of them on hand (always a useful thing for a show on a tight budget).

B) They were an easy shorthand for "This is from an era before TNG."

There's a S3 episode of TOS ("Spock's Brian", I think) where Kirk and his landing party adjust the thermal controls on their uniforms after beaming down to an arctic planet.

I fantasize about Gene Coon still being alive in the late 70s to rewrite TMP before they started shooting.

I'm the same way. It takes me forever to start on new shows that I don't start watching right from the beginning. Like, I don't doubt that The Sopranos is great, but I'm probably not going to sit down and watch the entire series at this point.

This is a very interesting parallel! Lorca was my favorite ST Captain in a long time, so I both loved and hated the big twist with him midseason.

 

I'll be the first one here to say there are aspects of DISCOVERY and PICARD I don't like. A couple things even grate me to the point that I may never get past it.

But there is a lot about both series I DO love. Will it be enough to make either in my top 3 STAR TREK shows list? I won't know that until they end their runs.

But neither have not made me think they don't belong in the STAR TREK universe. DISCOVERY had a rough start, but so did almost every spinoff. PICARD's first season ending might have had a few aspects that underwhelm the show, but that's true of almost every spinoff. Both shows have more than enough within it to have earned their place in the STAR TREK universe and franchise. And LOWER DECKS... I just love that show. Another worthy entry.

And your argument of Burnham dismantling all that Spock accomplished is completely wrong. While I don't like certain aspects of her character, such as even when she is in the wrong she somehow ends up as in the right, I think she is overall a good addition to the franchise. I don't see her as the reason Spock went and did all he did in his later years. And even if she was his inspiration, what difference does it make? How does the person who inspired one to do great things diminish or deconstruct all they did? Would knowing who inspired Nelson Mandela change his accomplishments? Would finding out who inspired Jonas Salk to go into medicine deconstruct the fact he brought a polio vaccine to the world? Would the inspiration of Leonardo da Vinci be the true person to congratulate instead of the man himself and all he did? Should we erase everything Marie Curie herself did and instead give all her accolades and accomplishments to the one who inspired her?

And what about all the people who have been inspired by STAR TREK? Engineers, doctors, scientists, astronauts... these people and what they do don't matter because they were inspired to go into a field that they saw was interesting on a tv show, so they decide to go and be that very thing, helping to change the world for the better?

If THAT is one of your reasons to not like a current era set of shows, then you are missing the point of them entirely. And I'm sorry to say, you are missing the point and the spirit of STAR TREK itself.

 

Definitely being ignored. I make my own choices about what I enjoy, I don't need to be told by anyone

 

The single departure, where the parallel ends, is that I don't think Don Draper would have a romantic relationship with Peggy (his "daughter" figure) or Sally (his actual daughter). It's something I took issue with during the first season, when they had the reveal about Lorca and Burnham. Though, in retrospect, I think it adds to "Context Is for Kings" that Lorca would find out where Burnham is and try to get her out of there and make her work for him.

But, to be honest, I don't see chemistry between Lorca and Burnham in the romantic way. Lorca and Landry, I could see. Lorca and Cornwell, we saw, and I can easily buy. The only way I buy Lorca/Burnham in the Mirror Universe (or any universe) is if he was trying to make Georgiou angry and get a reaction out of her. Which is something I wouldn't put passed him.

 

DSC had the worst luck when it came to YouTube Channels. ENT was cancelled the year before YouTube became a thing and the Abrams Films came out too infrequently to properly fuel The Fandom Menace. DSC was the first Star Trek series to properly fit the bill while they were totally up-and-running. PIC is somewhat shielded because of Patrick Stewart and TNG is the Star Trek most of these people grew up with. And LD won't draw their ire, or as much of it, because it's a cartoon. So Discovery gets the full brunt with no filter.

Had YouTube existed in the '90s, the vitriol the Fandom Menace would've had for DS9 and VOY would've given the vitriol they have for Discovery a serious run for its money.

 

KIRK: Suit temperatures to seventy two.
...
CHEKOV: ...Temperature, a high maximum of forty. Livable.
KIRK: You have a thick skin.​

I never noticed that line, before. Thanks. I'm glad they still use Fahrenheit as its standard measure of temperature.

 

If you want to get along here, you might start by not calling Discovery "STD". DSC or even Disco are good, but "STD" is a deliberate slam against the show, and tends to piss people off.

 

Not weighing in on NuTrek or Orville, but that's hardly the best metric of quality, as the live action Transformers films have taught us.

 

Quality is subjective.

 

Popularity is subjective. I would argue that quality is not. There are good things, both loved and hated, and bad things both loved and hated. Being good or bad does not much affect loved or hated.

 

When it comes art I find quality subjective.

 

"Everybody is a critic."

 

Art is whatever you make of it. Quality in art is also subjective and based entirely on overall context.

 

I consider certain elephants a more accomplished artists than Jackson Pollack.


o/c my opinion is totally subjective.

 

Nor was it supposed to be. Just an observation of it's commercial success. The first 4 TF films were financial successes because they delivered popcorn big screen action for a couple of hours - not something that a weekly TV series can replicate, since the audience and entertainment niche is different.
It does seem though that the DSC seems to be delivering what audiences want though, since said audiences have now tuned in for 42 weekly episodes.
Are the episodes good or bad? Well....

Ah but who determines what is "good" or "bad"? And is everyone in agreement?

 

Depends on what you are quantifying. The design of a ship can be judged on function, in this case moot as the models do not function. The pretty is as pretty does standard. You can judge on the axioms of design. Why do some things look better than others. There is science behind it. golden ratio, rule of thirds and so forth. These are not subjective. Humans, I believe the entire population here, I could be wrong, like things better when designed to these standards. Last is to the design. Was it made right? Nothing subjective to that. It matches the blueprint or it does not. Lego is a prime example of objective Quality of the first order. I have 50 year old pieces that work perfectly with new ones. That, is Quality.

Whether you like something, regardless of quality that is subjective. Liking or dis-liking is not a matter of Quality.