What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

But that’s the great thing ABOUT space. Being wasteful and slovenly there is way more likely to kill you, once that crap gets into the extremely limited livable environment you will have.

 

There is the preventable, and we need to prevent that, fires, murder etc. There is the unavoidable and we mitigate as we can. Earthquakes and the lot. Then there is "I knew the risks when I did it." And I will cheer them on, mourn their lost, and argue vehemently against withdrawing "because of the tragedy." An act that would be a cowardly retreat that disrespected the sacrifice made.

It is really all an old, broken man can do.

 

Data rods, hidden phasers, glowing rock from Pen Pals, isolinear chips...

Did they say when the sphere builders formed it? Maybe it's not there yet...or hasn't been there long enough for the light to reach us. Or it looks like normal space until you fly into an anomoly.

 

Isn't the expanse supposed to be surrouned a by a shell of opaque clouds that can't be see through? And isn't it supposed to be 2,000 lighty ears in diameter at the time of season 3? And isn't one of the places in the expanse suppsoed to be less than 100 light years from Earth.?

If all those things are true, the expanse must have expanded a lot - or even have been first created - after 2020.

 

Thermobaric clouds surrounded its perimeter, yeah. The NX-01 took a little while to clear the cloud layer and enter the Expanse proper.

 

I thought that the TOS trousers had waistband pockets.

 

I applaud your use of the term “trousers”

 

Getting old ain't for sissies.

One leg at a time.

 

You need a lot of experience to do it.

 

Memory Alpha says the spheres were built in the 12th century. That throws a theory of mine out the window. I was hoping the expanse didn't take a long time to form because I wanted to make sense of how in the Enterprise-J future timeline the expanse was able to cover a quarter of the galaxy without anyone like the Klingons or Romulan or Federation stopping it. I thought maybe the spheres got turned on all at once in say the 25th century and surprised everyone before they could do anything about it and then the Alpha Quadrant was suddenly inside the expanse.

 

Not sure how controversial this is but I've never liked Riker very much. I think (Jadzia notwithstanding, I haven't gotten that far in DS9 yet) Troi and Worf were a better-matched and more interesting couple than Troi and Riker.

 

Next to the divan and under your old dungarees?

 

Orville is the spiritual continuation of Star Trek.

 

I couldn't agree more. I'd like this post 100 times if it were possible.

 

Captain Janeway is like the Chuck Norris of Star Trek... consider that she has...
* Died 17 times... and still been around to make admiral.
* Called death a coward and ordered him to go back to hell.
* Put the smackdown on fear and made him afraid of her.
* Reformed the Q continuum two different times.
* Trashed the Borg in two timelines.
* Using a beaten, pulverized wreck of a starship, done in 30 seconds what Annorax's fancy pants timeship couldn't do in 200 years.
* Maintained cult leader allegiance from her crew, even the Maquis.
* And done it while getting less action than anyone in Starfleet except maybe Geordi LaForge or Harry Kim.

 

Orville is a fine series, it doesn't deserve to be used as a vehicle of hatred against current Trek.

 

Orville is Orville and Star Trek is Star Trek. Comparing the two is like taking the original Star Wars and using it as a baseball bat to Flash Gordon. It is not informative, it is not constructive and doesn't help other people under what you actually like about the show.

Controversial opinion-comparisons are pointless. Tell me what you like about a show not how another show did it so much better. This probably comes from being in retail for well over ten years and being told 'Well So-and-So store has this product." And the reaction is "We don't. Why are you not there instead of here bitching to rank and file about it?"

 

Yet, I hear plenty of "Orville is better Trek that Trek." If you consider Star Trek more a story telling process and less a brand, they have a point.

Assuming I was CBS. I could buy the rights to Dirty Harry, post process him into Trek uniforms and re-release the Film as Star Trek: Dirty Harry. That would not to my mind make it Star Trek, branding aside.

 

No they don't. They have a preference for a particular type of story. That has nothing to do with whether Star Trek *must* necessarily be that type of story (and there's absolutely no reason why it must be so and plenty of long accepted precedent that wasn't).