Unpopular Trek Opinions — What Are Yours?

Discussion in 'General Trek Discussion' started by M, Mar 22, 2010.

  1. Sorak

    Sorak Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Mar 24, 2010
    Taranto, Italy
    -I like Enteprise's theme song (one of the few things I actually fancy about the series).

    -I find Neelix agreeable, though I must admit I was sinfully delighted when Tuvok choked him to death single-handedly in Meld :bolian: It happened to be a hologram, anyway ...

    -I'm not exactly a fan of the Galaxy-class design. Sorry about it, tastes cannot be governed.
  2. DeVario

    DeVario Commodore Commodore

    Oct 31, 2003
    Sacramento, CA, USA
    I may be listing some that others may have already mentioned, but they're still my opinions too, so here goes...

    • Although I have my personal favorites, I still enjoy all the series and all the movies.
    • "Shipping" is lame.
    • DS9 isn't a soap opera.
    • The word "overrated" is overrated.
    • Many of the novels are just as much a part of the official continuity as the TV shows and movies.
    • I don't give a rat's ass about "canon."
    • Speaking of which, "canon" and "continuity" are not the same thing.
    • There is no "Roddenberry's Vision."
    • I like making fun of the dorks in the "Trekkies" documentaries. Yeah, I'm a mean bastard. So what?

    I'm sure I'll think of more later...
  3. Luther Sloan

    Luther Sloan Captain Captain

    Mar 7, 2010
    Section 31 Headquarters

    As much as I love Spock and his later involvement in the Star Trek series. I am afraid I am going to have to agree with you on this one. Any return of a major character's emotional death scream's comic book cop out.

    Not that I don't enjoy and appreciate comic books or anything.

    Yes. Star Trek Enterprise is a legitimate prequel to TOS. However, like JJ Abram's 2009 Star Trek film, I consider it to be an alternate time line. But, unlike JJ Abram's film, it is an unexplained alternate time line. At least that is my opinion when I look at the show's continuity or canon in comparison to the other series.

    Galaxy Class:

    Yeah, I used to enjoy certain episodes of Star Trek: Enterprise. However, over the years I have seriously out grown the show. I discovered the absurdity in believing in a series that blatantly disregards previous canon. I also now have a better understanding of proper characterization, acting, believability, and story telling within movies and television, as well. So the series is cringe worthy and unbelievable at best for me.

    In fact, here are some reviews on "Star Trek: Enterprise" (if your interested)...

    Broken Bow Review Part 1:

    Broken Bow Review Part 2:

    Broken Bow Review Part 3:

    Fight or Flight Review:

    Breaking the Ice Review:

    Andorian Incident Review:

    Shuttle Pod One Review:

    Fortunate Son Review:

    Terra Nova Review:

    Strange New World Review:

    Silent Enemy Review:

    Oh, and although I don't agree with everything mentioned within these reviews, I do think there is a certain logic to a lot of the things that he has said within them, though.


    I watched Spock's Brain in it's original format and it's remastered state about a two or three months ago and I absolutely loved it still.


    Yeah, I know I said this before, but I completely agree. I think Ezri is a lot more sexier than Jadzia.

    Jellico was a good Captain?

    Jellico was unnecessarily argumentative, unsympathetic, close minded, and down right disrespectful of the crew.

    Plus, I can see some of the crew not liking him. But if it was practically the entire crew, I seriously think something is wrong there.

    In other words, if you do the math. Jellico was simply an ass who led with an iron fist rather than being more tactful, intelligent, calm about things, and getting the natural cooperation of his crew or team.

    Agreed. Section 31 does the necessary dirty work to protect the Federation when Federation ideals and laws get in the way.

    Really? Enterprise is better than Voyager? Let's do a little side by side comparison, my friend.

    • Enterprise ripped off T'Pol from Seven of Nine.
      Voyager had a character called Seven of Nine who was the first of her kind.

      Enterprise didn't make any sense for having a female vulcan in various cat like sex suits. Vulcans are conservative.
      Voyager was agreeable or acceptable in having a girl run around in sexy cat like sex suits.

      Enterprise fails at being a prequel show for being a 22nd Century series that looks more like the 24th Century.
      Voyager at least succeeds at giving you the impression that they are a ship trying to get home to Earth.

      Enterprise introduced major canonical errors or at least questions on it's validity within the other series.
      Voyager had very minor canon issues that could be explained easily.

      Enterprise had a horrible cast of actors that appeared like a bunch of card board cut outs.
      Voyager had a descent cast of actors that felt real.

      Enterprise lasted only 4 seasons and was canceled despite a successful run of the last 3 series.
      Voyager had a semi successful run of 7 full seasons.

      Enterprise had a major TV numbers drop after the pilot and as the series progressed.
      Voyager did relatively well overall in the TV numbers.

      Enterprise didn't have any real character camaraderie or fellowship among the crew. Sure they hung out. But there was no real connection or chemistry between anyone.
      Voyager had some descent relationships built between Tom Paris and B'Lana/Harry, Janeway and Seven/Chakotay, Tuvok and Kes, and the Doctor and Seven.

      Enterprise had a horrible song in the credits.
      Voyager had an acceptable title credits song.

      Enterprise never properly explained important story arcs or characters within it's series (The Temporal Cold War, Future Guy, the aliens in Storm Front, why was the Suliban chosen to be genetically enhanced, ECT.)
      Voyager helped to flesh out the Borg, and other various cool alien cultures within the Delta Quadrant.

      Enterprise felt more like the Galaxy Quest version of Star Trek.
      Voyager was not perfect but it felt like it was at least a part of the Star Trek universe.

      Enterprise left us with one of the worst episodse in Star Trek history (TATV or These Are The Voyages).
      Voyager left us with a pretty descent series ender (End Game).

      Enterprise had a cast a characters I didn't give a spit about.
      Voyager had a cast of characters that I actually had a genuine interest in.

    USS Renegade:

    Extremely well said, my friend. I couldn't have said it better myself.


    Yeah, I never was a huge fan of BSG. In fact, this Caprica junk seems even worse to me. I mean, I almost choked on my own popcorn in the pilot episode. Now it turns my stomach whenever I see the series being promoted.

    Oh and I normally will watch anything science fiction related, too. However, in this case, I think I am going to pass on it.
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2010
  4. C.E. Evans

    C.E. Evans Admiral Admiral

    Nov 22, 2001
    Saint Louis, Missouri, USA
    Which means it's my opinion.

    Here's some more opinions:
    - Star Trek was never meant to be an realistic depiction of the future.

    - Even before Star Trek XI, Star Trek already took place in its own universe that was separate from ours. In that universe, the Eugenics Wars did take place some ten years ago and deep space sleeper ships are fairly common, and there are currently Human colonists living on the Canopus planet presently.

    - The designs and fashions in TOS are appropriate to the era in that fictional universe and don't have to be justified to our standards today.

    - The TMP uniforms are the most "realistic" Starfleet uniforms.

    - Star Trek XI did not make Star Trek "cool" again, but it did reintroduce it.
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2010
  5. DevilEyes

    DevilEyes Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Jun 9, 2009
    basking in the warmth of the Fire Caves
    Yes. Yes it was. Though that's not saying much...

    Uh... if you said T'Pol was a ripoff from Spock, that would make more sense, but how was T'Pol a rip off of Seven of Nine? They aren't the same species, they don't have the same backstory or personality. She's a ripoff because she wore a catsuit? Then I guess every male who took off his shirt was a ripoff from Kirk?
    Why? How did Seven's catsuit make sense?

    • Except for the endless supply of torpedoes, the lack of any damage to the ship, endless supply of energy that allowed them to run holodeck all day long, and the fact that they seemed to care more about investigating anomalies and fooling around on the holodeck than about going home. Not to mention that they happened to run into way too many familiar races and humanoid aliens in the Delta quadrant.

      Apart from the utter lack of internal continuity and the fact that it kept contradicting its own previous episodes?

      Enterprise had a decent cast of actors that felt real, even though the writing for their characters was sometimes inconsistent, but at least they had some character development (apart from Mayweather). Voyager had a decent cast of actors that didn't feel real because the writing for some of their characters was always inconsistent, while others had no character development at all.

      So? TOS lasted only 3 seasons and was canceled. ENT had poor first 2 seasons but excellent last 2 seasons and might have become great if it had been given the chance for 7 seasons. VOY had its chance and wasted it, being average during its entire run, and it can be blamed for the franchise burnout that resulted in the audience having less patience with ENT than they did with the previous 3 shows.

      This says diddly-squat about the quality of the show. Statistics say that DS9 had major numbers drop, and it means diddly-squat for the quality of the show.

      ENT had camaraderie, connections and chemistry among the crew - Trip and Reed, Trip and Archer, T'Pol and Archer, Archer and Hoshi, T'Pol and Trip (though the writers almost screwed it up completely), Phlox and anyone. Voyager had some decent relationships, but the writers eventually did manage to screw them all up, with the exception of Tom/B'Elanna.

      At least one thing I can agree on.

      The first part is true as far as it refers to the TCW, a very bad idea and bad story arc. But you forget to mention all the other, good story arcs - the Xindi, the MACOs, the Vulcan trilogy in season 4, the Andorians...
      Helped to flesh out the Borg? That's how you call it? :lol: VOY made a joke out of the Borg. And as for "cool" alien cultures... um... OK. The only ones who were interesting and cool were the Vidiians and the Species 8472, possibly the Hirogen in the very beginning; the Vidiians were in the show for a short time, the 8472 were eventually ruined after just a few appearances, and the Hirogen were made into a joke even sooner after their first appearance.

      Meaning what?

      True. And it was one of the worst episodes because it went completely against everything that had happened on ENT before, and wasn't even about ENT... it was a TNG episode.

      Enterprise had a cast of characters that I actually had a genuine interest in. Voyager had a cast a characters I didn't give a spit about.
  6. Luther Sloan

    Luther Sloan Captain Captain

    Mar 7, 2010
    Section 31 Headquarters

    Wow. Seriously? Enterprise is better than Voyager?

    Seven and T'Pol Comparisons:

    1. Both wore similar sex suit outfits. Note: Sex suits is different than wearing a mini skirt. A mini skirt is considered normal apparel within our society. Cat suits are not normal apparel within our world, so they stand out and make a very specific impression or statement.

    2. Both were voices of logic or reason with a vast array of knowledge under their belts.

    3. Both characters looked less attractive before they joined their respective ships.

    4. Both had huge breasts and finely shaped bosoms.

    5. Both were a cheap attempt at boosting the ratings.

    6. Both characters talked in that logical non emotional way.

    7. Both characters had a personal (but professional) relationship with the Captains of their ships.

    8. Although, they became a part of the family on board the ships they were serving, both characters originally were considered outcasts or extremely different. In other words, within various story lines these two characters were plot devices for creating a feeling of being misunderstood or being different.

    9. Both characters were violated in some fashion (T'Pol was mentally raped, and Seven was taken over by the Borg).

    10. Both characters were put within the spotlight of their shows.

    That is very minor. They could have very well could have traded for supplies for the necessary energy requirements and converted or modified it to keep the ship fully armed and it's crew relaxed.

    Just because we didn't see it didn't mean it didn't happen.

    What's Starfleet's mission and or Gene Roddenberry's philosophy? To explore strange new worlds. To seek out new life and civilizations. To boldly go where no one has gone before.

    Sure, you might say that anomalies don't fall under this jurisdiction. But they are out to investigate not only to keep to Starfleet standards, but to squeeze every possible chance in getting home. Even if it is an anomaly that could potentially lead them into getting to Earth.

    As for the Holodeck adventures: There is going to be a lot of time out in space to kill when traveling back home. If they didn't relieve stress in some way the crew would seriously lose their efficiency and or sanity on board the ship at some point.

    Actually it makes more sense. They all come from a closer related gene pool.

    The lack of internal continuity on "Voyager" is nowhere near the level of the questionable canon (or overall Star Trek continuity) that was put into question on "Enterprise". In my book, your comparing things that are minor versus things that are really important or a big deal.

    I disagree. Enterprise's cast was just awful. And I am not the only one that thinks that. I would rather watch the crew of Voyager's versus Enterprise any given day of the week.

    As for character development: No way. There was actual relationships that were formed among the crew on Voyager. On Enterprise no body hung out with one another really. Sure they ate together in the same room. But their was no chemistry. Sure Trip and T'Pol gave themselves back rubs. But it felt more like Trip was with a Vulcan prostitute than he was with an actual person he cared for.

    I mean, it is pretty bad when an actress from the show actually complains about how her character was handled. In fact, as I recall, a number of the cast complained about how their characters were mishandled in the final episode even.

    Personally, the only worthwhile relationship I seen on Enterprise was between Archer and his dog.

    No, there is a difference. TOS was trying to become a successful series within an era when western TV shows was the big thing. ENT failed to deliver after a healthy history of successful series.

    As Sisko would say, "That's a circular argument and you know it!"

    The numbers for Deep Space Nine overall were good.
    And they certainly didn't drop or plummet like they did on Enterprise.

    They were co-workers (that were forced to work together) at best. In reality, if they met in the real world they would never would have hung out with one another.

    They talked to each other during dinners and when drinking on occasion. But there was no real special connection between them. It just seemed liked they shared words with one another and never really gotten to know or care for each other.

    I didn't see any special banter or interaction even nowhere close to the relationship that Kirk and Spock had.

    What the?

    They felt like two opinionated strangers in a room who either had sexual tension or actual sex with one another.

    Phlox had a relationship more with his bat than he did with the crew.

    Screwed it up, how?

    So villains that remind me of the lizards from Galaxy Quest and the Dominion War is a good thing? Villains that we never heard of before take the center stage in an event that we never heard of before? Villains that make no real connection to the other previous Star Trek shows?

    Yeah, sure. The Xindi were a great idea.

    *Shakes head*

    The MACOs were fun (when I first seen them). But they quickly lost their glamour in light of a universe that doesn't make any normal sense. Besides, there was no attempt at tying these MACOs to the other series either.

    Any Vulcan related episodes on Enterprise made me dislike the Vulcans.

    The Andorians were sort of okay in the Andorian Incident. But they didn't seem to offer anything in me enjoying the Andorians any better.

    I like the Borg episodes on Voyager, more so than I did on TNG. As for the other alien races I mentioned. The point is that there are alien races that made an impression upon me in some way (despite how they were handled in specific episodes). On Enterprise I can't think of one episode off the top of my head that made me think of a recurring alien race that I liked.

    If it was a TNG episode, then it failed as a TNG episode, too.
    However, in reality it is actually an ENT episode. It says so right on the DVD.

    Well, I guess we should just agree to disagree then. It looks like we found yet again another issue that we don't see eye to eye on.


    Last edited: Mar 30, 2010
  7. Teiwaz

    Teiwaz Lieutenant Red Shirt

    I think the question of what the audience wants is surely on the minds of the producers, and in the case of NuBSG I think they were running on the back of shows like 'Lost', '24' and Heroes, meanwhile STNG was running on the latent popularity of TOS and DS9 on the popularity of STNG as did Voy, so they are hardly likely to alter the format too significantly for fear of breaking the franchise.

    Whether the audience wants clean moral heroes or dark brooding anti-heroes is a combination of taste and current fashion. Of course anti-heroes are a recent advent to TV and movie as are the concepts of a gray moral standpoint (I'm not sure Hollywood has gotten a grip on this idea yet either). Hollywood generally got good guys and bad guys, a childlike moral viewpoint. Unsurprising as to most people, SciFi is considered a childs obsession.
  8. Teiwaz

    Teiwaz Lieutenant Red Shirt

    I think of all Sci-Fi that breaks from current time-line as an alternate time-line. It just helps with the 'suspension of disbelief':p

    The storylines laid out in TOS were laid out in the late 60's after all, 1990, even 2000 was in future at that time.
    UFO was made just a year or two after TOS and its future date was 1980, Space 1999 (well it's obvious). I enjoy both programs, it doesn't bother me that they are well past their future-date.;)

    I know that the multiple-dimensions idea is still in vogue to some degree (not that I'm complaining, I liked the mirror-universe stories in Trek), although I think they ruined the darker aspect potential by having the Terran Empire fall after Kirks visit which changed the Terrans from a brutal mirror-image of the Federation into victims (DS9). It would have been rather more satisfying to see the brutal human conquest continue in mirror-image of the growth of the Federation between Kirk's era and that of Sisko's. We could have had Kira's concerns during the first series of DS9 coming true as a deceitful Terran Empire liberated Bajor from the Cardassians only to replace them as overlords while they launched a pacification against first the Cardassians then through the wormhole into Dominion territory.:evil:

    The designs in TOS are apropriate to the 1960's vision of computers and future technology, it's just that they're anachronistic today.:confused:

    Perhaps we should just push all those dates forward 40 or so years so the Eugenics war can happen this friday (14:30 hours suits me, I have a hole in my schedule).:evil:
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2010
  9. C.E. Evans

    C.E. Evans Admiral Admiral

    Nov 22, 2001
    Saint Louis, Missouri, USA
    The only problem with that is that any science fiction series set in the future will become obsolete relatively fast because certain things will advance far quicker in the real world than the writers anticipated, while other things won't happen for many more decades (if not centuries or millennia) later.

    You'll constantly have to keep pushing dates forward in that regard to keep it in line with the real world.
    Not so much in its own self-contained fictional universe where it doesn't matter if things don't line up because it isn't real anyway.
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2010
  10. DevilEyes

    DevilEyes Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Jun 9, 2009
    basking in the warmth of the Fire Caves
    BSG was running on the back of shows like Lost and Heroes? How could it possibly do that, when Lost premiered in 2004, Heroes in 2006, while BSG premiered in 2003? :vulcan:

    And sorry, but Heroes - whether it was running on the back of 'dark' shows like BSG or Lost or not - is cartoonish compared to BSG.
  11. Cheapjack

    Cheapjack Fleet Captain

    May 12, 2007
    Here's another one:

    People who think they are authorities on Star Trek, should read 'The Making of Star Trek', by Stephen Whitfield, that was written in the 60's, and sets up its aims.
  12. RobertScorpio

    RobertScorpio Pariah

    Jan 25, 2008
    San Diego
    I use to have that book; my uncle got it for me when in originally came out..great book!

  13. Joel_Kirk

    Joel_Kirk Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Aug 16, 2009
    In the Joel Zone, identifying as Sexually Fluid.
    'Darmok' is overrated....

    (After I saw it, I was like: 'And...? Am I supposed to be blown away?')
  14. RobertScorpio

    RobertScorpio Pariah

    Jan 25, 2008
    San Diego
    I know the feeling...My friend actually called me a racist because I told him it was just average!!! Its not only average, its boring. But what really hampers it, with repeated viewings, IMO, is the over-the-top political correctness, which seemed to be a problem with ALL Treks in later years "IMO"..

  15. Joel_Kirk

    Joel_Kirk Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Aug 16, 2009
    In the Joel Zone, identifying as Sexually Fluid.
    I agree, Robert....:techman:
  16. Anwar

    Anwar Vice Admiral Admiral

    Dec 11, 2006
    Regina, SK, Canada
    I can understand Darmok not being for everyone, but how was it overly PC?
  17. Luther Sloan

    Luther Sloan Captain Captain

    Mar 7, 2010
    Section 31 Headquarters
    I liked "Darmok" as a popcorn episode. But if I turned on my brain for just one second... it would seize to be a mild and mindlessly fun 40 minutes out of my life.
  18. Anwar

    Anwar Vice Admiral Admiral

    Dec 11, 2006
    Regina, SK, Canada
    You mean the whole "How could their language be in metaphors if they never had a normal language to get metaphors from in the first place?" thing? I figured my own explanation around that years ago, so it doesn't get to me.
  19. GalaxyClass1701

    GalaxyClass1701 Captain Captain

    Dec 21, 2009
    USS Titan
  20. M

    M F-bombing Coppershirt Moderator

    Jul 10, 2007
    Aloha Quadrant
    Unfortunately for you, though, this never was the intention of anything we saw on screen. Nor was it the intention of the producers, who (you'll agree) are the only reliable source, when it comes to the actual intentions of the series.

    However much you like to consider Enterprise to be an alternate timeline doesn't change the fact that for all intents and purposes it was always meant to portray the 22nd century of the known Star Trek universe; not an alternate one. Of course you can (and will) believe what you want. Who am I to stop you from believing something wrong? :p

    I didn't know that you have to believe in a series to enjoy it. What does that even mean?

    And you can say that with a straight face?

    I'm afraid you are misinformed about the TV numbers for Voyager.