What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[Tallguy]

If Kirk had touched the time crystals he would have not accepted his fate as easily as Pike

I think we spent a whole season of SNW with Pike going through various phases of "acceptance".

When we first meet him again at the beginning of SNW he is just about to quit Starfleet. (Again. Yes, it's a pretty basic Pike move apparently.) When he finally "accepts" it is when he finds out it will cripple Spock.

How many times did we see Kirk have to accept something that was still around in the next episode? I mean, he accepted losing Edith. But clearly we took longer to get over it than he did.

Kirk also wouldn't accept Gary Mitchel's fate. Ask Lee Kelso how that worked out.

 

[fireproof78]

But clearly we took longer to get over it than he did.

Spock did a Vulcan forget magic for him.

 

[Nyotarules]

Spock did a Vulcan forget magic for him.

When Spock did that without Kirk's consent that should be considered a mental assault.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

I think we spent a whole season of SNW with Pike going through various phases of "acceptance".

He mourns himself with the stages of grief?

 

[fireproof78]

He mourns himself with the stages of grief?

He mouns a significant loss.

The stages of grief are rarely so linear though and I would expect Pike to struggle a few more times.

 

[Tallguy]

He mourns himself with the stages of grief?

Yeah. But whatever you call it, he didn't simply chill and move on.

What do you think people do when they are given terminal medical diagnoses?

 

[Commander Troi]

Grief has many causes. And it often comes back to hit you in the gut long after you think you've moved on.

 

[fireproof78]

One of the recent articles I've read on grief is that grief is the cost of love. We can loves many things as humans, be it our partners, parents, students, children, or job, possessions, and way of life.

A loss or a change, even a positive one, may cause grief because we miss what we lost.

 

[Firebird]

Grief has many causes. And it often comes back to hit you in the gut long after you think you've moved on.

Yup, this exactly. My grandfather died about eight years ago, but every now and then, I'll have a moment where I profoundly feel that loss again with no rhyme or reason.

 

[137th Gebirg]

I feel the same way about my grandmother.

 

[HotRod]

Grief has many causes. And it often comes back to hit you in the gut long after you think you've moved on.

Hit the nail on the head. In the last decade or so, I've basically lost my entire family. I can be perfectly fine for weeks... months.... Then, outta nowhere, one little thing can trigger a memory and BAM! I miss my mom and my grandparents, and I'm holding back the sorrow for a week. Wash, rinse, repeat.

 

[Macintosh]

He mourns himself with the stages of grief?

Think of it as him discovering he's terminally ill. In which case yes, he can grieve for himself.

 

[knightgrace]

That's a fair point and example, but to continue using the example, if you can get to destinations quickly, you cut the overall time it takes to get all that information. If you have a decade to collect data, a slow ship would mean you spend (just shooting numbers here) 2 years just in travel time between destinations. A fast ship, you only spend 6 months of travel time between spots. You can get a LOT more done in that extra time collecting data because you saved time that would otherwise be spent on just getting from point A to B.

In the end, who'll likely have more data gathered... the ship who only spent 8 years with people, or the ship who spent 9 and half years? Have enough groups like that, and you suddenly have 7 or 8% information gathered instead of 5%.


Another point... faster ships mean they get to an emergency quicker. Say a small colony has to be evacuated. Or a medical emergency like a plague. Or natural disaster and they need aid quickly. There's a lot of non-military uses for having faster speed.

There are two problems. The first is travel time. The second is more important, exploration time. Since Gene Roddenberry defined that exploration means actual close observation of a planet, and its star system, then you two things, a good overall sensor system, and then the ability to process that data in a reasonable time frame, at an acceptable level of detail.
This is why 'Exploration and Research ships spend only a week...good enough to determine the major important objectives, but not good enough to determine the really important things, like the local stobar(Robert A. Heinlein reference). Stewart, is a nonsense word defined by Heinlein as anything man lethal. From a virus to that velosoraptor, sneaking up on you.

To determine a definitive examination of a Class M Planet, beyond exploration and research, will require far more time than a week. The next level would be a science/survey ship spending a month there.
The level after this a prolonged exposure to the planet by an expendable colony...

I don't care how good your Tricom badges are, they are going to miss something. With most likely fatal results.

It is not going to be a picnic.

 

[oktay]

If there is no situation of canceling the season of the project shot at Skydance, SNW will be finished by shooting the 4th season from the beginning or the 5th season will be made as a final season and finished. I think the 2nd season to be shot at SFA or the 3rd season will be finished. Thus, the current Star Trek TV series chapter will end.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Section 31 is just the culmination of all the issues persisting through all of modern Trek. -- even the shows you like.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

Hopefully putting all the bad into one place will make it easier to point to it and say "This is specifically what we don't want".

 

[fireproof78]

Or lower the damn budget.

 

[at Quark's]

“The Next Generation” sounds a bit clunky.

And it's inaccurate, at that.

But 'Star Trek: Three Generations Down The Line' sounds even clunkier, doesn't it?

 

[oktay]

Or lower the damn budget.

Current Star Trek TV shows are already shot on low budgets compared to Star Wars TV shows. I think each TV series has a budget of around 60 to 120 million dollars per season. If Paramount spent as much money on Star Trek as Disney did on Star Wars, none of the current shows would have seen a third season. Among the live action Star Wars shows, none of them except The Mandarilon saw a third season. It would be great if we got low budget seasons of 22 episodes each for both Star Trek and Star Wars. But in the streaming age, this is impossible at the moment.


Maybe the budget of Discovery's 2nd and 5th seasons is close to 200 million dollars with reshoots. But that's all.

 

[fireproof78]

Current Star Trek TV shows are already shot on low budgets compared to Star Wars TV shows. I think each TV series has a budget of around 60 to 120 million dollars per season. If Paramount spent as much money on Star Trek as Disney did on Star Wars, none of the current shows would have seen a third season. Among the live action Star Wars shows, none of them except The Mandarilon saw a third season. It would be great if we got low budget seasons of 22 episodes each for both Star Trek and Star Wars. But in the streaming age, this is impossible at the moment.


Maybe the budget of Discovery's 2nd and 5th seasons is close to 200 million dollars with reshoots. But that's all.

You don't need to lower it much but move yourself from expectations of spectacle to consistent storytelling.