• 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?

Yep. The final day of shooting was on January 9, 1969 and, I believe, NBC's cancellation came down to the actors and crew on January 2. So while the script itself wasn't the product of knowing the series was going to be dead, the actors and producers knew good and well that this was their last.
That would explain why Shatner decided to chew scenery like it was going to be his last meal.
 
I think that’s because it was never meant to be a finale. Did they even know that they got canceled (again) when they filmed it?
I remember reading that a message came in the MIDDLE of shooting one day. Shatner had been promised he'd get to direct an episode in the near future, which would no longer be made. And of course everyone wanted to be on the phone to their agents. Then they were hurrying to pack up all the sets and props the minute the director called "cut" on the last scene that would use that set or item. I'm not sure even fully committed actors at that stage would have saved the episode, though.
 
"Turnabout Intruder" still holds the record for worst finale.
I disagree for one simple reason... at least "TURNABOUT INTRUDER" centered on characters from the show it was the last episode of.

ENT's finale... the focal point of the story was Riker, a character from a different series that ended 11 years before "THESE ARE THE VOYAGES...". And a character over 200 years in its future.

"TURNABOUT INTRUDER" is certainly a weak finale, but I definitely put it above ENT's.
 
I am rewatching DISC Season 3 episode 3. I think the series needed more episodes showing Burnham's experience during her year alone working with Cleveland Booker.
Adira did not need to be a 16 year old child serving in the UE police force/army - the idea was totally stupid.
 
Last edited:
Season 3 needed to give more episodes to everything. It kept setting up situations interesting enough to drive a whole arc and then getting bored and doing something else instead.
 
Some more I guess, things that I hate in retrospect:

DSC
Spore Drive being a 23rd century invention.
Vast space inside Discovery's hull like a Tardis.
Discovery crew knowing about Mirror Universe before Kirk's crew experience.
Another 'time travel' aspect, going to the future, etc.

TOS - TNG
We've seen multiple types of androids in TOS, but in TNG Data is like royalty as if there weren't any other human looking androids a century prior.
No variety designs of any ships in Starfleet. Only couple of designs repeated over and over.
Starfleet opsec being so horrible that a top of the line ship like Enterprise can be easily taken over by hostiles such as Mudd's android, Khan etc. (TOS)
Mission critical controls such as warp drive activation, weapons controls etc are all touch screen. (TNG)
 
While true and I agree concerning the age, I didn't mind Adira near as much as I disliked pre-Academy Wesley.
Understandable. Adira character could still work if the age was 19 or early 20's as a trainee Inspector.
The character was living on a generational ship, possibly unsupervised, (both parents were dead), with a boyfriend and was given a serious species specific transplant, at the age of 15 assuming it happened at least a year before 16.
It took me out of her story, although the Trill scenes were good
 
Last edited:
Understandable. Adira character could still work if the age was 19 or early 20's as a trainee Inspector.
The character was living on a generational ship, possibly unsupervised, (both parents were dead), with a boyfriend and was given a serious species specific transplant, at the age of 15 assuming it happened at least a year before 16.
It took me out of her story, although the Trill scenes were good

Yes. I don't feel being an emergency Trill host really did much for the character, especially since they ended up removing the symbiote and restoring Gray to physical form.
 
Adira did not need to be a 16 year old child serving in the UE police force/army - the idea was totally stupid.
Huh, I guess my brain totally forgot the character's established age, I thought they were supposed to be around twenty. I sort of feel the show did, too.
 
Some more I guess, things that I hate in retrospect:

DSC
Spore Drive being a 23rd century invention.
Vast space inside Discovery's hull like a Tardis.
Discovery crew knowing about Mirror Universe before Kirk's crew experience.
Another 'time travel' aspect, going to the future, etc.

Some more I guess, things that I hate in retrospect:

DSC
Spore Drive being a 23rd century invention.
Vast space inside Discovery's hull like a Tardis.
Discovery crew knowing about Mirror Universe before Kirk's crew experience.
Another 'time travel' aspect, going to the future, etc.

The most hair-tearing thing about DISCO is the missed opportunities caused by initially forcing it to be a prequel.
We've seen multiple types of androids in TOS, but in TNG Data is like royalty as if there weren't any other human looking androids a century prior.
I never thought of this but you're absolutely right. I tend to love continuity nods, but they've really taken it overboard with Data's creator. If they need fab service there must be some other character or episode they could use instead. If Brett Spiner can be involved in AI and human augments, then any number of scientist or engineer characters might be tied into android production. (Dr. Lewis Zimmerman, Scotty, Georgie La Forge....)
 
I'll start.

I don't think The Wrath of Khan is the best Star Trek movie or even as good a movie as my fellow fans think it is. I hear all kinds of reasons as to why it is considered the best, but, the most common one I hear is that because it isn't The Motion Picture -- which is just absurd. As if the whole reason Wrath of Khan should be considered the best is because it's better than the movie before it, which assumes that I share the same general sentiments about the first movie as everyone else -- which I don't.

I like the Wrath of Khan just fine. It's a perfectly good Star Trek movie, but I think the franchise has done much better since it came out. I don't like that it's put on this pedestal where every new Star Trek film has to be compared with it.
My controversial trek opinion? I guess it is that DS9 sucked hard. It think it was because most of the characters I did not like at all. Sisko - didn 't care for him. Bajorans (Including Kira) - don't care. Ferengi - suck. Kids on trek - pass.

Although I will say that Garak was among the best characters on any trek show. Worf and O'Brien were fine. The first Dax was okay as well. I pretty much didn't care about or disliked every one else.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top