What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

The lighting in this picture just made me wonder - what would the ship have looked like with a smaller, more proportioned saucer, say, like just the light silver lit up part of this picture? Its an interesting visual thought experiment.

 

It'd look a bit like this I guess.

Though I wouldn't say that the saucer is out of proportion, it just looks really big when you stick a camera close to it. If you pull the camera away and then zoom in it appears less huge by comparison:

 

Which brings us back to the point that the ship was often badly, or at least boringly, lit and filmed in TNG. This slightly-off-centre slightly-looking-up view we get of the Enterprise-D all the time, presumably in homage to the similar view we often saw of the original 1701 (and because it's easier to mount and motion control the models that way), is definitely not its most flattering angle.

 

CGI has some advantages. I love me a good physical model. But the ability of CGI to place the lights and camera any place you fing want them, cannot be beat.

 

My most controversial opinion?

There's no discontinuity in Star Trek. Whenever something looks different or is a retcon, it's just because of the constant time travel.

Yes, this means Klingon appearances, bridges, uniforms, Eugenics War dates, the fact that Klingon First Contact wasn't disastrously wrong, and so on. Hell, Archer's entire series, are all the result of time being constantly meddled with. Nothing is wrong. Everything is just updated.

 

That is how Doctor Who fans roll.

 

I sure hope for Worf that his experience in Parallels didn't leave him sensitive to such timeline changes for the rest of his life - he seems psychologically less equipped to deal with such awareness than, for example, Guinan.

WORF: I do not know. Things are changing.
TROI: What's changed?
WORF: <...>It is as if events, circumstances, continue to change from moment to moment, but I am the only one who seems to be aware of it.

 

Guinan: Like what?

Worf: For a while, I had....two....

Guinan: Two what?

Worf: We do not speak of it.

 

This is more an embarrassing one:

I thought INTO DARKNESS was a critique of the Iraq War with Admiral Marcus creating the threat of Klingon weapons of mass destruction and tying them into Khan/Harrison as a way to justify cassus belli.

Apparently it was not about that.

 

I can see that.

 

Didn't Bob Orci end up being a 9/11 truther? It's possible he folded that into STID.

 

Yeah, another "controversial" Star Trek creative.

 

I think that tracks. Nothing embarrassing about intelligent analysis.

 

And they have almost as much time travel.

 

Almost as much? It’s one of the shows central conceits.

 

It was a zing.

 

Serious question… what is a zing?

 

A witty rejoinder.

Example: Someone says Doctor Who has always as much time travel as Star Trek.

Meaning: Star Trek having more so much time travel as a literal time travel show suggests that the poster thinks Star Trek overuses it as a plot device.

 

You might also know it as a zinger.