Sure, but even in early TNG there was a sense that if it didn't benefit the Federation then the aid would be limited.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
On a good day the Federation has the spirit of Jean-Luc Picard, the rest of the time it's Sisko, which is still pretty good, just more pragmatic.
Honestly surprised Code of Honor didn't make this list.
Honestly, if you take out the casting decisions, it's not that bad an episode. Is it top tier? Definitely not, and not even middle tier. It belongs in the lower tier of TNG, but certainly not the worst of the series.
The story is a decent idea, and the acting is good. (Jessie Lawrence Ferguson, in particular, had a great presence.) The fight scene is unique, and the first Data/Geordi friendship scene of the series is here. (A wonderful illustration of why these two are great friends.)
I think this is one of those cases where the perception of the episode is worse than the product itself.
Yeah, what Frostscape said.
It's certainly not a good episode. It's very TOS. It would've made a bad episode of that show, but it makes a worst TNG ep. But the pacing is an improvement over the last two stories, and there's a nice twist at the end. It really is the casting that causes so much trouble. The concept is actually okay on its own. It's certainly way better than the concept for the season two opener The Child.
I can't recommend Code of Honor, but I had far worse experiences in season one than that.
Yeah, what's funny is I believe the Ligonians were originally supposed to have been a reptilian race. If the cast was in reptile makeup the episode falls in to the vast pile of barely remembered mediocre episodes, instead of "worst one ever".
This is really an all-IPs opinion, not just for Star Trek:
Ever notice that when people argue for this or that thing that should have happened differently, or this or that way a story should have ended, their alternative offerings are usually either (a) something you’ve seen numerous times before in other stories, or (b) exactly where you thought the story was going until That Thing That Was Wrong?
Which is why, usually? That Thing They Did “Wrong” is what makes it this story, and not another more predictable one. Which is to say: not wrong at all.
People are free to dislike it of course — that’s true of any ending, or any story turn. But more often than not, to say it shows the writers don’t understand the story they’re writing as well as the angry fan does is… well, inaccurate.
Ever notice that when people argue for this or that thing that should have happened differently, or this or that way a story should have ended, their alternative offerings are usually either (a) something you’ve seen numerous times before in other stories, or (b) exactly where you thought the story was going until That Thing That Was Wrong?
Which is why, usually? That Thing They Did “Wrong” is what makes it this story, and not another more predictable one. Which is to say: not wrong at all.
People are free to dislike it of course — that’s true of any ending, or any story turn. But more often than not, to say it shows the writers don’t understand the story they’re writing as well as the angry fan does is… well, inaccurate.
On this point I agree. And it goes back to something I have regularly encountered since attending cons; writers are not always looking at the property as fans. They understand the property just fine-from a writer's point of view.
Lots of fans think they're more imaginative than they actually are.
I think Star Trek needs an anthology of short flicks done by different creators, like Star Wars: Visions.
This convinced me it could be super cool:
This convinced me it could be super cool:
That was freakin’ awesome! 
The only counter to that would be something like Star Trek: Nemesis, where the people they brought in were specifically not especially familiar with the material, tried to do their own thing with it, and it just doesn't feel right. Yes, they do something different, but you also get story points where things seem totally out of characters (e.g., Picard being giddy about a dune buggy).
I first noticed this with TV shows. If you've been watching a series for a while, and they change showrunners/executive producers in the middle of it, the tone and feel of the stories change, and sometimes certain characters become unrecognizable. That's true in Star Trek too. Season 3 of TOS is a different show than the first 2 seasons. And TNG is a different show once Berman takes over.
Yeah, but even there, that just makes it different, not necessarily wrong (and I say this as somebody who doesn’t love Nemesis). Most people feel TNG is a better show starting in Season 3; does that mean they took the series that existed in Seasons 1-2 and did it wrong?
Last edited:
*cough*Just wait till the Enterprise converts into a robot.
Learned today that Sam Witwer is a fan of the Connor Trinneer and Dominic Keating podcast and remembered he was a Xindi-Arboreal in ENT in addition to two more recent roles in streaming Trek and playing versions of Kirk in the new "Unification" short film. Trek needs to cast Witwer in a major guest or supporting role in live action. Sam's just that talented and that cool.
Wait, is this the *controversial* opinion thread? Never mind.
Wait, is this the *controversial* opinion thread? Never mind.
I've always thought he was a very good actor in all the guest roles I saw him in previously.
So I'm all for it.
We've already seen The Ultimate Computer. It didn't turn out too well.*cough*
Sam is hilarious. Just the physicality he brings in a voice performance is great, so I would welcome him in Trek.
Similar threads
- Locked
