I've enjoyed all the ST series. I honestly don't have too many gripes. Sure I'm not a big fan of some "filler" episodes but appreciate the requirement to develop characters etc. Just like anyone else I have my favourite characters but there are no characters I don't like. I think that is what made the ST series so damn good for me. Having said that I did not enjoy the ST reboot movie. The sequel was better but only because I'm a Benedict Cumberbatch fan. He carried that movie. I have not seen Beyond yet.
I am sure I have a bunch of these. Some I can think of today are... Movies: - I love Final Frontier! - Search for Spock is better than Wrath of Khan - I think the problems with the Abrams movies are in storytelling (too action-oriented) but not at all in visuals. I think they are aesthetically great movies, with a perfectly updated look with due homage to the look of TOS without overdoing it - and I even enjoy the lens flare! TOS: - The mise en scène of the Original is probably the best of any, cardboard sets and all. They weren't afraid of colour. Star Trek gets more sapped of colour as it goes along and although I don't necessarily dislike the atmosphere of later Treks, I still think TOS holds up as a visually gorgeous show with some of the best painterly landscape shots too. TNG: - I'd take Pulaski over Crusher any day. She actually had a personality! DS9: - I have never understand why people hate Bashir early seasons - I loved him from day one. Maybe he is like...Harry Kim but with personality to me - I think Let He Who Is Without Sin is a great episode of DS9 (In fact I generally enjoy Risa episodes for all their kitsch factor)! Voyager: - I don't hate Neelix. Granted I don't love him, but I really do like that sense that he is clinically depressed and hides it through being overly friendly. I also think 'Mortal Coil' is a thought-provoking and excellent episode. Enterprise: - Archer is an interesting character, with a genuine arc of growth from naive optimism to traumatised avenger; maybe he isn't technically the best captain but neither should he be, he's the first. Picard etc represent 'evolved' captaincy but Archer being so Starfleet-perfect would have been a terrible idea - I don't dislike the animosity between Terrans and Vulcans; it kind of makes sense - I like the decontamination scenes. All of them. I don't care.
Didn't care for Neelix and Kes and thought they occupied far too much of the screen. The idea that Janeway pretty much designated them as essential crew members from day one bothers me. At one point, Janeway even tells Neelix she couldn't run the ship without him. Yeah, BS. There's a lot about Voyager that I can nitpick at. For instance, what was with all the security lapses? That stuff was either hand waved or simply ignored because of story considerations or Tuvok was completely incompetent. Never cared much for Ferengi. I thought they used Luaxana and Q far too much. When they tried to do serious with her and Dr Charles Emerson Winchester, and when they did the Q civil war and Q's son, I thought the shark had been jumped. Never cared for Lore. I avoid episodes with him. I don't care for the Kelvin universe. The movies are fun but they aren't Star Trek to me. Destroying Vulcan irritates me to no end.
Except that never could have happened with Seska. She would have spent all of her time trying to betray the crew. She was an unrepentent and unredeemable character. "Evil" Seska could never have worked. On the other hand the show producers, had they wanted to, could have changed her character towards a path to redemption but they didn't. Thus, her dying was just fine. She deserved it. As far as Neelix is concerned, I agree with your assessment of his character. Given all those misgivings, Janeway assigning him such a level of importance on the crew always seemed odd to me.
I wouldn't say that TNG is of higher caliber than the original series. Rather, I would say that the original was of a different caliber. Not necessarily better or worse. The approach to the writing of the original was not the same as TNG. Yeah, there were similarities but because both series were written in very different times (60s Vs 80s/90s), they couldn't help but be different. That's why I can't say that TNG is "better" than TOS, or vice versa.
With you for sure on Polaski. I really liked her. They quickly got past her wierd thing about Data, and would have been great to see where they went with her.
Yeah, to be honest I think people generally over-emphasise the Data thing. Sure, it probably wasn't a great writing choice! But they didn't actually dwell on it that much. And at least it established that she was a character with opinions, with attitude and who definitely had potential we never get to see.
I liked Neelix. At least he, unlike J*r J*r Binks, had character development and didn't have a hideously annoying voice.
The move in the 24th century costumes towards more and more black I feel was flawed, until we get to Nemesis and it majority black with just a bit of muted color (or colour) at the shoulder. Not crazy about the new uniforms for Discovery. I loved Kristie Alley as Saavik and felt excluding her from later movies was a mistake. The more other fans dislike Neelix, the more I like him. Picard was wrong in I Borg and Insurrection. Every year TNG should of had a new chief medical officer. Riker should have gotten a his first command after the second season and Frakes would have left the show. Every other year there would be a new first officer. The Xindi arc was too long, should have been a half dozen episodes tops. Similar everything involving the Dominion also should have been shorter, a season and a half would have been fine. Then move the hell on already.
I can't agree on the Discovery uniforms (which I think look great), Riker leaving or the Xindi and Dominion arcs - but I definitely concur on some of these! Kirstie Alley as Saavik was sorely missed. I am still somewhat torn, but I think I've decided Picard was wrong in both I Borg and Insurrection. And I love the idea of a Defence against the Dark Arts teacher thing with the TNG medical officers.
Wrong in I borg and Insurrection?! I must disagree! But agree on Kirstie Alley, and I wouldn't shorted the Xindi arc, I'd remove it. Or rewrite it.
Think about how many people were assimilated because of what Picard did in I, Borg...or rather, his failure to do anything when he had the potential to is tantamount to responsibility. I liken it somewhat to Phlox and Archer's decision in Enterprise's Dear Doctor. This is why I struggle to defend his decision, as much as I love that episode and think it makes sense from a character point of view - also, I just adore Hugh, so it makes it hard not to agree with Picard's decision within the episode...but on reflection it is tactically foolish. Insurrection. How many people is too many...hmm. I feel like it was too few people in that case. I do want to rewatch and rethink that though.
People move on planet in the 21st century, and reverse their aging process 24th century Federation comes along and claims the home you lived on the 300 years to take your fountain of youth. No moral dilemma there.
In the case of I, Borg, a race being a current enemy does not justify genocide. In Insurrection, the whole point is its not about how many or how few people, it's about the morality (or lack thereof) of the action being taken.
Not genocide, the Borg were a group of captives doing forced labor. It was about the immorality of Picard's decisions. Placing the comfortable of a few immortals, over the quality of life of billions of ordinary people.
Ok, I'll probably catch holy hell for voicing this pet peeve but let me temper it by saying I love the original Star Trek the most and love the actors who brought them to life...especially Nimoy's portrayal of Spock...BUT...after Kirstie Alley didn't sign on for Star Trek III and Saavik was recast with Robin Curtis...Saavik lost all of the vitality and interest that her Vulcan/Romulan background gave her. Although the scene where Spock tells Kirk of her Romulan heritage was cut from the final version of the movie, it was obviously that Saavik wasn't your typical Vulcan but that's how she was portrayed in the third movie. I was always bothered by interviews with Robin Curtis where she said she didn't watch Star Trek II to see how Saavik was portrayed by Alley and how Nimoy coached her to play the role "dryer, dryer" when she spoke. Nimoy was the prototype and master of portraying all things Vulcan compared to some of the later actors but why did he have to choose this interpretation of Saavik for Curtis to play. This is purely speculation on my part, but after Nimoy decided to not leave Star Trek after all once the "Wrath of Khan" wrapped, did he see Saavik's popularity as competition to Spock and sabotage the character of Saavik when he directed Curtis? Regardless of the reasoning behind the choice, it was a shameful waste of Saavik's potential!! Also I remember Gene Roddenberry saying (maybe in "The Making of Star Trek") that he presented the original Star Trek as "1960's man in the 23rd century" because if he chose to have the actors behave like 23rd century men then the audience might not be able to relate to them and get into the story...BUT...that's exactly what he did with TNG when he imposed this "all humans get along with other humans" to the point they were lacking tension and drama to the stories. The writers had to bring in aliens to inject some tension into the scripts with Worf or Odo. But it was obvious that whenever a character like Shelby or Jellico somehow snuck into a script that the story became more interesting (at least, for me) to watch!! Then, there's Data. He was so innocent and charming at the beginning of TNG with so much potential. But after Brent Spiner started acting dual roles like Lore or Dr. Soong, some of those quirks and characteristics he brought to those characters slowly started creeping into his performance of Data...and Data (for me) lost some of that charm and became less interesting. I wish Data had retained his "Questor-like" persona and that Geordi would have become his "Jerry." A chance to explore the "human" condition through Data just a little closer. But we got Data learning to laugh with Q, and learning to sneeze with Wesley, having dreams and nightmares with a Troi cake, and trading an ungodly amount of technobabble lines ad nauseum with Geordi. I liked the story of Roddenberry taking 2 pages of technobabble in a TOS script, crossing it all out and replacing it with "Reverse course!" For so much of Berman-Trek, I was waiting for them to finally "reverse course" already!! Just fire the gun already and don't explain to me how it works!! I think the only time it really bothered me in TOS was in "That Which Survives." Maybe that's why TOS survives...it's a show that focuses on interesting, relatable humans instead of technology in a "perfect" utopia.
An interesting and convincing description of the Borg, I like it a lot. However it doesn't make killing them all any more justifiable - worse if anything as they were operating against what would have been their will. As for insurrection, it's about not forcibly plundering the natural resources of the land inhabited by one group, regardless of size, for the benefit of another and to the detriment of the former. Plus the destruction of that land in the process. I get the feeling however that we may have to agree to disagree. Which is okay - IDIC.
I feel like the Baku were just incredibly selfish in Insurrection. To my memory (as I said I do need to rewatch the film), they would be inconvenienced, but not exactly annihilated or anything. It made it difficult for me to really have sympathy for them. As for the Borg, I too like the analogy of them being in forced labour. But plenty of peasant soldiers over the centuries have been forced into military service. If they were coming to annihilate your homelands and force your people into slavery, would you not do anything to protect your own people and all of those other people? The fact that they are in forced labour themselves makes it absolutely abhorrent to punish them - but barring any other feasible solution, it might just make it necessary. At any rate, I think the 'I, Borg' choice is a fascinating moral conundrum, perfectly presented and played out, although I still disagree with Picard's decision. I do like that he has to answer for it later to Admiral Nechayev in 'Descent'.