What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[fireproof78]

I think the "Terra Firma" episodes are two of the best DISCO episodes, both of them, right up there with "Redemption III". How's that for controversial?

All three are also up there with "If Memory Serves". IDK, that last pick as a top tier DISCO episode may not be so controversial, though?

I support this statement. Terra Firma is one of the best Trek put out there.

 

[Farscape One]

I can agree that those are probably the best of DISCO, low as a bar as that is to clear. But among the best of all of STAR TREK?

Most certainly not.

To each their own, I guess.

 

[cooleddie74]

Now, "New Eden(DSC)"? Great Trek - and in any series.

 

[Farscape One]

Now, "New Eden(DSC)"? Great Trek - and in any series.

I will say that episode was far better than pretty much ALL of DISCO. Frankly, that show didn't deserve that level of quality, given how so much of its other output was mediocre.

 

[fireproof78]

I can agree that those are probably the best of DISCO, low as a bar as that is to clear. But among the best of all of STAR TREK?

Most certainly not.

To each their own, I guess.

It showcases the capability of humanity to grow, even the worst. That's a plot centered in TOS optimism.

 

[FredH]

But no one ever even tried just being honest with Keeler.

Strange — I could have sworn I remembered Kirk suggesting they could take Edith back with them and Spock countering that she would have no place in their world, and that she and Kirk would end up resenting each other (which still sounds a heck of a lot better than dying), but it’s not in a transcript I’ve found of the episode. Maybe I’m remembering something from the Ellison script?

 

[Shawnster]

Regarding the plot hole of Spock finding the obituary...

He did take scans and started recording what the Guardian was showing before McCoy stepped through. That is where he got the information... he just needed to look around and connect the dots, which is why he was building that stuff out of outdated material.

Cause and effect. McCoy stepped through the Guardian and saved Edith. When Carl replayed history prior to Spock and Kirk going after McCoy, they stepped through before Edith died.

So when did Spock ever get to record the obit? For what you suggest to work requires Spock to record history up to at least seeing the obit of Edith's death, the Guarding resetting and playing history a second time so that McCoy jumps through before Edith died. Then a third replay for when Kirk and Spock jump back in time.

"Honesty?" Who's being dishonest? I already said explicitly that it only occurred to me decades after the fact. That is my entire point, that it's an alternative perspective it eventually struck me to consider. It bugs me when a story claims that there's only one possible solution to a problem, but then I think of another solution the story failed to rule out.

In my sentence the word “honestly” (or the phrase “in all honesty”) is being used colloquially as a conversational softener or emphasis marker.

It doesn’t imply I believe believes you are lying. Instead, it signals a desire for candor.

In my specific sentence It functions as:

> “I want a straightforward, genuine answer — when did you actually start thinking that?”

It adds emotional emphasis, not a legal or moral accusation of dishonesty.

But I'm sure you understand all this, seeing how words are your wheelhouse.

Truthfully?

I hope he keeps doing that. Works perfectly for him.

Case in point. I doubt Farscape expected anyone to have him tell a lie.

 

[Farscape One]

Cause and effect. McCoy stepped through the Guardian and saved Edith. When Carl replayed history prior to Spock and Kirk going after McCoy, they stepped through before Edith died.

So when did Spock ever get to record the obit? For what you suggest to work requires Spock to record history up to at least seeing the obit of Edith's death, the Guarding resetting and playing history a second time so that McCoy jumps through before Edith died. Then a third replay for when Kirk and Spock jump back in time.




In my sentence the word “honestly” (or the phrase “in all honesty”) is being used colloquially as a conversational softener or emphasis marker.

It doesn’t imply I believe believes you are lying. Instead, it signals a desire for candor.

In my specific sentence It functions as:

> “I want a straightforward, genuine answer — when did you actually start thinking that?”

It adds emotional emphasis, not a legal or moral accusation of dishonesty.

But I'm sure you understand all this, seeing how words are your wheelhouse.



Case in point. I doubt Farscape expected anyone to have him tell a lie.

I see what you are saying about Spock and the recording.

I'll have to watch the scene again to be sure, but I think Spock was already looking at his tricorder as McCoy stepped through and again before he and Kirk went in, which indicates he was already getting the information on the altered history.

If not, that is a good observation and would appear to be a plot hole.


(Also, you are correct about 'truthfully', at least in why I said that. Like you said about 'honestly', I used mine in the same way.)

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

IIRC, it replayed it more than once before they jumped in.

 

[Maurice]

It might have been far more interesting, at least from a historical POV, if he had been left in charge to allow Spock to shoot JFK.

I've read three treatments that involve JFK and that Spock shoots him thing never appears. The extant evidence indicates this is rubbish.

 

[Set Harth]

why does everybody keep shooting JFK, just STOP IT!!

 

[BillJ]

I've read three treatments that involve JFK and that Spock shoots him thing never appears. The extant evidence indicates this is rubbish.

I wonder where it came from? Because I remember this being bandied about well before I was ever on the internet.

 

[Maurice]

She would have been killed by the trip back. Kirk would either grab empty air as she vaporized before his eyes, or she'd die on the planet and he'd have to bury her there, a long way from home in both distance and time.

It never occurred to me for decades, but then one day I realized, "Hey, why couldn't they just have taken Edith back with them?"

Can't happen. The Guardian explicitly says that if they are successful in fixing history, they will be returned. There's no door back without that, so no, Edith can't go with them.

Just put of curiosity to those who have had access to the Roddenberry archive, what does Harlan Ellison original script say about Edith Keeler and her place in history?

EIlison's script smartly never says exactly how Edith's living changes history, though Spock speculates about her philosophy perhaps having consequences for the upcoming war. They can't "fix" it so that Edith lives because there are too many unknown unknowns; what little certainty they have is what the Guardian(s) told them: for time to resume its shape she's gotta die.

 

[Maurice]

I wonder where it came from? Because I remember this being bandied about well before I was ever on the internet.

It was supposedly some unnamed Paramount exec shooting off his mouth, IIRC.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

It was supposedly some unnamed Paramount exec shooting off his mouth, IIRC.

TrekMovie.com claims that it was Eddie Egan [link].

 

[Maurice]

TrekMovie.com claims that it was Eddie Egan [link].

Would not surprise me, but a unit publicist probably would never see a treatment that was rejected. If him, he was probably repeating something he heard.

EDIT: The book The First Star Trek Movie says of this:

In March 1981, a rumor soon spread via Starlog from a Paramount official “who asked not to be named” about Roddenberry’s Star Trek III treatment, claiming that “just about the last scene in the story had Spock walking up to Kennedy’s limousine and killing him with his phaser,” which was not true.

I am looking for that Starlog now.

 

[Maurice]

Here it is: Starlog 46, May 1981 issue.

Gene wrote a treatment," says a Paramount official (who asked not to be named), "in which the Enterprise crew goes back in time to prevent John F. Kennedy's assassination. After doing that, Kirk and company return to the 23rd century, only to find that they've altered the future: there is no Federation. The Enterprise returns to the early 1960s to let the President's death take place, but the crew learns that they've screwed up the time line—Oswald isn't there to pull the trigger. Just about the last scene in the story had Spock walking up to Kennedy's limousine and killing him with his phaser....

It's smack in the middle of this page (the highlight relates to an article we did).

Roddenberry's Star Trek III (internally, TMP was Star Trek II) outline fits the bill as to featuring JFK, but this grassy knoll nonsense is just that, AFAIK.

 

[Nyotarules]

And does it occur to anyone else that it's ultimately a predestination paradox? Edith wouldn't have been at that spot in the first place if Kirk wasn't taking her to the movies. She wouldn't have moved to cross the street if she wasn't witnessing the reunion of Kirk and McCoy.

If Edith always crossed the road without looking, she should have died years before Kirk and McCoy showed up

 

[Tallguy]

If Edith always crossed the road without looking, she should have died years before Kirk and McCoy showed up

Random chance seems to have operated in her favor.

 

[fireproof78]

If Edith always crossed the road without looking, she should have died years before Kirk and McCoy showed up

Spock PSA: Always remember, children, to look both ways before crossing the street.

Kirk: Now I know! (Looks at the camera) And knowing is half the battle.