Discussion in 'General Trek Discussion' started by Amasov, Jun 20, 2020.
Agreed on both points.
Odd numbered Trek films are the most fun.
The evolution of the Klingon culture, tech and looks keeps them interesting.
Canon is a tool, not a straitjacket.
Picard should have destroyed the Borg when he had the chance in "I, Borg "
TNG's version of "Captain nagging the computer to death!" Total agreement, actually...
Now that redefines "nuclear family"...
I think I agree with you.
Overall I tend to find the whole 'avoiding dealing a mortal enemy a decisive blow' because 'then we'll be the same as them/just as bad as them' pretty tiresome when the stakes are so high to be honest.
Most episodes should end with a joke and a laugh.
Ok, so, here's the thing on that episode. Am I supposed to hate it? I knows that's an odd question, lol.
I see people poke fun at the episode from time to time, but I can never tell if it's generally regarded as good or just fun to hate on. Personally, I always thought it was good. The premise is ridiculous, but, it presents a great moral dilemma.
How about letting the Founders die in "What you Leave Behind"?
I see it brought up a lot less, and I think it's at least as legitimate.
As for controversial opinions:
- DS9 is overrated. Not bad per se, but overrated, especially the ending arc and "Emissary".
- Not everyone who dislikes the new shows is a curmudgeon that doesn't like change. Sometimes, something is bad on its own merit.
That goes double for those who dislike some of the new shows, but not the others or even some aspects of the new shows but not everything.
Yes, some of the detractors do fall into that characterisation, but not to the extent that they/we (I think DSC is terribly written; PIC has peaks and troughs) are being strawmanned on the BBS.
I don't wish he destroyed them, but, I wish Hugh's bout with individuality affected the entire collective with more long-term effects that could've been revisited beyond what we saw in Descent. It would've been interesting to see the Borg potentially evolve into something weird, twisted, personality disorder-like cyborg.
Yeah, the difference between "controversial" and "unpopular" seems pretty minor. I almost merged the two, but decided to let it slide.
I'd rather see a season of Riker than a second season of Picard.
My controversial opinion might actually be that as much as I love Jonathan Frakes I don't see him as the leading man of his own Star Trek series, much like I didn't see George Takei leading a Captain Sulu series when that idea was floated many years ago.
The people that like the show and just watch it and make intelligent posts are fine. It's the people who will immediately attack you when you for example say "I actually enjoy Discovery" or "I thought the Rise of Skywalker was a great movie". Toxic stuff. Quoted from the wiki-page on the origin of the word fan:
It's those type of fans that made me stop calling myself a fan of anything and just somebody that really enjoys a certain franchise.
I'm not saying you are one, since I'm guessing no actual angry fanboy would use that as a nickname. But it is the 'angry fanboys' that I'm talking about. Claiming that something isn't real Star Trek. How they could make a way better Star Trek show/movie because they have been devoted fans for decades and understand Star Trek better. Or, my favorite one..... The ones who feel they are actually entitled. That they 'deserve' a specific type of show, and not what they got, simply because they didn't enjoy it. The fact that others did doesn't mean anything to them, and they feel they're 100% absolutely right that a certain show should be taken of the air because they are offended by it. Offended because they didn't like it..... Let that sink in for a moment...... Are they a minority? Sure. I'm still annoyed a/f by them. Which is my problem ofcourse. And that's why it's my controversial opinion.
Have to agree, going through a rewatch of TNG just now and after the third season the series really lost something. Perhaps it was Piller’s insistence that stories be primarily character driven. The problem with that is...aside for Picard, Data and maybe Worf, most of TNG’s characters simply aren’t that interesting or dynamic. I wish the sci-fi elements had been better developed in later seasons instead of tepid soap opera stuff. I loved the early season’s sense of energy, danger and freshness. I almost gave up my rewatch in season 5 but the completist in me has trundled on. I’d watch s1-3 again in a heartbeat though!
that’s a controversial opinion. Here are a couple more:
This may trigger a few aneurysms but I think Michael Burnham is a better series lead than either Archer or Janeway. I find her flawed and interesting, and she’s had legitimately more character development in 20 episodes or so than most Trek characters get in an entire series.
Conversely I hate Janeway. Her writing was woefully inconsistent, and throughout the series she was always portrayed as being infallibly right when in fact she made some bloody awful decisions. Having a romance with a Holodeck character was perhaps the nadir and demonstrated that the writers didn’t really have a clue what they were doing. I think Kate Mulgrew can act, but her performance struck me as stylised and her mannerisms and quirks really grated on me for some reason. I guess she watched too many Katherine Hepburn movies growing up!
also... I think TNG movies should have stopped at First Contact.
and, I love TOS (along with DS9 I think it’s the pinnacle of Trek), but find the animated series almost impossible to watch.
As long as he's in a starship and commanding it. PIC was not without its strong points.
But ten episodes of 'Grumpy Old Trek' with Riker in the woods near his cabin and wearing a bright orange vest with a gun saying "Be vewy vewy quiet, I'm hunting bunnicorns" and make sausage for Troi isn't going to be as enthralling. So they'll do a 10 episode arc with his divorce just like for Han Solo, I guess.
Now if that ain't controversial...
They could do a cook-with-Riker show.
I pretty much agree with everything you said here.
All the (pre-2009) movies are bad when compared with non-Star Trek movies and would have never seen any success if they hadn't been part of a franchise with a very loyal, very nostalgic fanbase desperate for new material.
(I can't say anything about the Abrams movies, because I haven't seen them)
I agree that Picard should have used Hugh to destroy the Borg.
I'm sick of Klingons.
All episodes that take place in (real, holodeck, facsimile, imagined) past/present Earth or planets that resemble it are terrible. I'm watching a SciFi show set in the future, I don't want to see the present/past.
The "Benny Russel" Ending Ira Stephen Behr was planning is some of the stupidest, most navel-gazing crap I've ever heard.
How much someone loved/liked/disliked/hated the episode was beside the point. The argument about Janeway's decision took on a life of its own.
I still have a scar from the Great Debate about "Tuvix" in the '90s. It left quite an impression on teenage me.
I became a fan through the movies. I never watched a single episode of TOS before seeing them.
And while most of my friends only primarily like TNG, some of them also like the movies. I know a lot of people in my circle who fall under the category of, "I don't like the original series, but I like the movies". Which is pretty much proof to me that they would've liked TOS if they could get passed the '60s style.
Separate names with a comma.