You post (what you think will be) a unpopular opinion, someone (or multiple people) then quote your opinion stating if they agree or disagree then post an unpopular opinion of their own. I'll start: Good story telling is more important than canon. If it's a good story I don't care if it contradicts something said in an episode decades old.
One hundred percent agreed. Continuity is important, but the fannish obsession with "canon," bordering on religious fundamentalism has become a pox on the franchise. My hot take: Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country suffered because they didn't have Saavik as Spock's protege who gets involved in the conspiracy. It would have added tons of depth to the already good story. Even if Kirstie wasn't willing for whatever reason, and Meyer didn't like Robin Curtis, then they simply should have recast again, or Meyer should have gotten over his attitude about Curtis. (Sub-Hot Take: Curtis was the better Saavik)
Agreed. They can take canon and shoot it out of a cannon into the Sun. "The Inner Light" suuuuuccccckkkkssss!
Agree....up to a point. If the 'canon violation' is something relatively small such the depiction of a minor character like Zefram Cochrane "of Alpha Centuri" who only appeared in one episode of TOS and reinvented into a drunkard who was instrumental in making first contact with aliens in Star Trek: First Contact, that is forgivable as that was actually a good film. Basically as long as the "canon violation" isn't anything too major as to be so inexplicable and nonsensical that it distracts from the story you can pretty much get away with it as long as the plot is half decent. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier and Star Trek: Insurrection are better than any of the reboot movies.
Sorta disagree. Insurrection was a good movie in my book, but Final Frontier was a dumpster fire. Data started off as an incredibly stupid rendition of how an android of his capabilities should act.
Agreed, at least in that I think it's overrated. Disagree. Insurrection is an absolute snoozefest. TFF is comparable to Into Darkness, in that both movies tend to disappoint, but there's some good elements in each. I agree, to a point. Upon doing a rewatch of TNG, I was left to conclude that his characterization (like most on that show) was just all over the place in terms of changing the rules of what androids are. New Hot Take: People often cite Trials and Tribbleations' use of TOS design and effects as proof that a modern Trek series/movie set in that era could effectively carry off pixel-perfect reproduction of the TOS look. When in fact, half of the gags in the episode revolve around how incongruous the look is, something that would be ludicrous to extend over an entire series or movie.
I agree, simply Star Trek 2009 is the only movie I've seen in theaters I've walked out of. So ANY other Star Trek movie is a work of exquisite fine art by comparison. Not only is it the most loathsome, execrable movie in Trek history, it's the most loathsome, execrable movie I've ever seen in my life, sci-fi or otherwise. These reboots are so deliberately brain-addled, with such obnoxious production values, that no matter how much money I paid to get into the theater, it was worth MORE to get out. Forgive me if the English language only has so many pejorative adjectives to depict just how much I detested that movie-like torture.
Disagree. I'll take the reboot movies over all of the TNG movies except FIRST CONTACT. And trust me, the world is full of movies that are lot more loathsome and execrable . . . and I've seen many of them. Unpopular opinion: "Catspaw" is seriously cool.
I don't mind the occasional inconsistency here and there but I'd prefer the universe makes some sense overall. Things can be reconned though, so partially agree. Also, don't care about visual re-imaginings. In fact I throughly encourage them. Now mine: Star Trek Generations and Insurrection have aged better than Star Trek First Contact. All the TNG films have their issues, but GEN and INS capture the spirit of TNG much better than Picard going full Ahab on a bunch of Borg. Now I'm a little older and wiser than when ST:FC came out, I actually think it's the inferior of the three (NEM is still the worst).
Oh my god I loooooooove "Catspaw." I suspect an even more unpopular opinion: I also have a lot of fun with "Turnabout Intruder." That the first run of this venerable 50+ year franchise ended with this insane hour of Shatner mincing about as he channels "woman"... it's just too absurd to not love it.
Agree. This is quintessential 1960s horror (adapted for home viewing on TV). Unpopular opinion: TWOK would have been a glorious ending to the Trek franchise. Everything since then has been one rehash after another. Kor
To me, this is a tough call: Curtis definitely looked more Vulcan/Romulan, and played a far better Vulcan. Kirstie Alley just didn't look Vulcanoid to me, though she definitely played the disposition of someone who was a Romulan/Vulcan hybrid A LOT better, IMO. But then, as far as I know, her Romulan heritage isn't canon, so, some points get awarded back to Curtis. Long term, Alley has too much baggage. But then, for my family, so does Curtis, because of a very awkward masturbation story she told at a convention we went to where she was a featured guest. LOL. I think I'd have liked it better if the protege in Star Trek VI had been Saavik, yes, and then also if Saavik had been played by Kim Cattrall or maybe someone else entirely the whole time. Unpopular opinion: "The Wrath of Khan" is plagued with errors and really silly plot points that haven't stood up well over time, and were honestly pretty noticeable when the film came out, and we've all excused it because it was awesome to see Star Trek with action on the big screen, and there were enough positives to balance the problems out.
Agreed. Unpopular opinion: Star Trek V wasn't that bad. Star Trek TMP was the most unwatchable piece of shit ever committed to film.
Disagree. Not a big fan of TMP, but I can respect its ambition. Apparently unpopular opinion: Hyperbole aside, NO Star Trek movie is the worst movie ever made, by a long shot. I mean, seriously, am I the only person here to have seen GALAXINA? THE HOWLING 2: YOUR SISTER IS A WEREWOLF? MORTAL KOMBAT: ANNIHILATION? BATMAN & ROBIN? PREHISTORIC WOMEN? THE BRIDE? THE CREEPING TERROR? DRACULA VS. FRANKENSTEIN? ORGY OF THE DAMNED? That gawdawful remake of THE HAUNTING? HIGHLANDER 2? Heck, any ST movie is probably better than THE BLACK HOLE or CONGO or VAN HELSING. (EDIT: I confess this post keeps getting longer and longer as I remember ever more terrible movies. "Oh, god, I completely forgot about that incredibly tedious Frankenstein remake with Sting and Jennifer Beals . . . .")
STRONGLY DISAGREE!!! While l like all the Trek movies (just not equally), and I’m a bigger fan of V than most Trek fans, the two Abrams films (in reverse order) are far and away my favourite Trek films. Unpopular opinion: Michael Burnham is a more interesting character than 80% of all main Trek characters.
Agree! I wasn't gonna touch Disco, but yes. What else can I come up with? I don't want to deal my trump card yet because it seems like it's a doozy. So I'll go somewhere else. Let me think... I like the Klingon ships from the first season of Discovery!
OK, well, here's my unpopular opinion, then. Disney's The Black Hole is better than Star Trek: Nemesis.
Well, I'll cop to not having seen The Black Hole in forty years so I'll defer to your judgment there. Not so unpopular opinion: can we concede that Nemesis is better than Starcrash?