As a vehicle for Stewart's acting abilities, it functioned as that. As a Star Trek episode, your description is accurate.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
I was just thinking that. But, then would I get Kelvin universe...?
^ Make it the Romulans and I'd watch that!
Same here.
*grabs popcorn*
I mean, I agree. I think that was evident from TOS on but yeah the unified universe theory doesn't hold up.
But, definitely controversial.
Modern Star Trek began in 2009, not 1987. Whenever I see someone refer to everything from TNG on as "Modern Trek", it drives me up the wall. I'm not saying 1987 wasn't a major generational turning point for Star Trek. But so was 2009.
There are three generations of Star Trek. There's 21 years of difference between 1966 and 1987 and there's 22 years of difference between 1987 and 2009. Pretty much the same amount of time. The three-way split works.
Plus: 1987. Reagan was President, the USSR still existed, mullets were a thing, TV was 4:3 SD, ships were shot using models, special effects were practical, and most importantly: no lens flare
. How is any of that modern?
There are three generations of Star Trek. There's 21 years of difference between 1966 and 1987 and there's 22 years of difference between 1987 and 2009. Pretty much the same amount of time. The three-way split works.
Plus: 1987. Reagan was President, the USSR still existed, mullets were a thing, TV was 4:3 SD, ships were shot using models, special effects were practical, and most importantly: no lens flare
. How is any of that modern?
Last edited:
Modern Star Trek began in 2009, not 1987. Whenever I see someone refer to everything from TNG on as "Modern Trek", it drives me up the wall. I'm not saying 1987 wasn't a major generational turning point for Star Trek. But so was 2009.
There are three generations of Star Trek. There's 21 years of difference between 1966 and 1987 and there's 22 years of difference between 1987 and 2009. Pretty much the same amount of time. The three-way split works.
Plus: 1987. Reagan was President, the USSR still existed, mullets were a thing, TV was 4:3 SD, ships were shot using models, special effects were practical, and most importantly: no lens flare
Well... https://www.google.com/searchq=modern+mullet&tbm=isch&rlz=1C1CHBD_nlNL832NL832&hl=en&ved=2ahUKEwjuibHBmdXqAhWQgaQKHTbaChkQrNwCKAB6BQgBEPoB&biw=1349&bih=625
If it's the second time around, it doesn't count.
Otherwise, the '70s reigned supreme in the '90s when I was in high school.
The same with Dax. I know some people absolutely love Ezra, but it cheapened Jadzia death to quickly introduce Ezra.
I mean, it's how the Trill work, but maybe they could've just had Ezri be some sort of one episode docent. Maybe they could've had her in Starfleet, but everything previously established about the ban on reassociation means she should never had transferred to DS9 (and all of Jadzia's old friends, her husband, and ex-lovers). By allowing her on DS9, Starfleet was being culturally insensitive and breaking a strong taboo.
Modern Star Trek began in 2009, not 1987. Whenever I see someone refer to everything from TNG on as "Modern Trek", it drives me up the wall. I'm not saying 1987 wasn't a major generational turning point for Star Trek. But so was 2009.
There are three generations of Star Trek. There's 21 years of difference between 1966 and 1987 and there's 22 years of difference between 1987 and 2009. Pretty much the same amount of time. The three-way split works.
Plus: 1987. Reagan was President, the USSR still existed, mullets were a thing, TV was 4:3 SD, ships were shot using models, special effects were practical, and most importantly: no lens flare
Modern Star Trek began in 2017. Get with the times, Gramps.
Controversial?
I absolutely hate Section 31. They worked fine on Deep Space Nine and I actually did like their appearance on Enterprise, but, otherwise, I felt like they were forced into every story they appeared in.
Found their use in Into Darkness uninteresting and even rolled my eyes when I saw they were recruiting Georgiou in Discovery -- and now we get a whole show on them! HOORAY!
I absolutely hate Section 31. They worked fine on Deep Space Nine and I actually did like their appearance on Enterprise, but, otherwise, I felt like they were forced into every story they appeared in.
Found their use in Into Darkness uninteresting and even rolled my eyes when I saw they were recruiting Georgiou in Discovery -- and now we get a whole show on them! HOORAY!
Semi-agree. I don't think he should've come back so quickly.
The ban on reassociation seemed to only ban two symbionts from doing it as it was brought up when Dax and Kahn wanted to continue their relationship. No one seemed to have a problem with Jadzia reassociating with Sisko who already had a close relationship with Curzon and going on a mission with some of Curzon's old klingon buddies wasn't a big deal either.
The ban also never made sense in the first place, the symbionts are naturally very long lived but they are supposed to break off all personal relationships to other symbionts just because they get a new host? Or is the ban only for romantic relationships but friendships are okay? And why wouldn't a society that includes joined people see reassociation as an advantage?
They only came up with that ban so they could have a one episode lesbian relationship for inclusiveness brownie points without any long lasting repercussions a d as soon as Lenara left the station the super serious ban was quickly forgotten
Yeah, i don't think that's controversial at all. Liking Section 31-that's controversial.
Star Trek isn't science fiction, but rather space fantasy with SF elements.
Seeing how I never watched any series where they appeared beyond DS9 and Enterprise, I still like them.
Seeing how I never watched any series where they appeared beyond DS9 and Enterprise, I still like them.
Nah, space fantasy is a subset of science fiction.
Similar threads
- Locked
