• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

Shatner drew on his Shakespearean roots for this scene....

1kirk-tribbles-1582642658.jpg
Alas, Dead Tribble, I knew him well.
 
What do you now consider the worst episode of DS9?

Curious if it would be controversial.
Not sure if it's a controversial choice, but it's "THE RECKONING"... it's one of the only episodes in the franchise that actually gets worse with each viewing for me.

One of the fundamental aspects of Sisko, and DS9 itself, was Ben as a great dad. This episode completely disregards everything about him as a father in those 6 years (at that point) and tarnished him badly. It damaged not just the lead character but one of the core pillars of the series itself.

I simply cannot give that episode any kind of pass when it did that to him.
 
I feel like DS9 had a recurring problem with its villains being so compelling that people started to side with them. The writers had to go out of their way to make it obvious that Gul Dukat was not a good guy, and even with Bashir repeatedly telling everyone who'll listen why Section 31 sucks, people came away thinking 'hmm, they may ruffle some feathers, but they're the ones who keep the Federation safe
I dunno, maybe they should've had it flashing up on screen THESE ARE THE VILLAINS just to make sure no one missed it.
The theme of DS9 was moral ambiguity, and a darker tone to events.... particularly with Garaks sinister and shady nature, which ends up saving the Federation, despite his conflicted motives.

Dukat, after all, stressed how Bajor only triumphed due to his restraint, but how he was both vilified by Sisko while being punished by Cardassia, and this conflict drove him to seek Siskos approval, but still Sisko judged him to the end.

And of course there was the finale of Section 31 supposedly engaging in genocide against the Founders, despite that biological warfare was their specialty in the Gamma Quadrant, while they were also the aggressors in the war with the Federation... and the Dominion only needed to surrender and negotiate for a cure.

So because the writers lacked the skill to resolve conflict peacefully as in TOS, they made a whole series war out of it.
 
There'd been a global nuclear war just 10 years earlier and he'd become an alcoholic to help deal with the depression and other stress of the Postatomic Horror. The idea he'd be just like Glenn Corbett only a decade after the worst war in human history had sent him to a refugee encampment in central Montana is just, well, ludicrous.

Short of being an artificial-feeling character with the stamina and outlook of a Legacy superhero Zefram Cochrane was going to be a shell of the way we saw him in TOS. And we can't forget that Berman and Braga wanted to use Cochrane as a commentary on Gene Roddenberry and his own mythos.
 
It's definitely a fun science fiction concept, the idea of a single planet with this many indigenous sapient species.
Earth once had a few. It may still have a few, taking orcas and dolphins into account. I have no doubt about their sapience. They're just not interested in what we're interested in, though orca's are getting into boating in a new kind of way.
Another case of character rape in movies.
married with cochrane.png
the hell are you talking about?
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top