Geordi being married to Leah is the first dead give-away that future would never come to pass.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
That was basically the idea wasn't it? Bones was supposed to be a proud and unashamed southern good ol' boy.
Except that doesn't work in all the situations where the presence money or it's absence was mentioned.
Do you think that Worf was raised Jewish?
I don't really need to debate this once again (but it really does, the way I've framed it), since this is the controversial opinions thread.
TOS is at the bottom of my list in terms of series I like the most. I respect it for what it did at the time, but it is difficult for me to watch.
M
marlboro
Guest
Hmm... ok.
"I'm not saying that I agree with everything he did, but Kodos the Executioner did have some good ideas, and I think we should acknowledge that."
"After splitting with Kes, Neelix should have hooked up with someone a little closer to his own age. Y'know, like Naomi Wildman, for instance."
"If God didn't want us to eat Kelpians, then why did he make threat ganglia so delicious?"
"The Cardassian Occupation never happened. If you think it did, it's 'cause you've been brainwashed by a bunch of wrinkly nosed Bajorans - they control the media, you know!"
" We should tear down every statue of Zefram Cochran. His silence on tribble reproductive rights is deafening. "
"We need to build a wall around Bajor to keep the Skrreean caravan out. It's gonna be beautiful, and the Kohms are gonna pay for it."
"The vaccine for the augment virus will turn our kids into Discovery Klingons. I for one, do not intend to spend the rest of my life reading subtitles."
Nothing works in ALL the situations where the presence or absence of money was mentioned.
I don't doubt that you believe it.
Speaking personally I find it... inexplicable that anyone would consider Sonequa Martin-Green to be the strongest actor the franchise has ever seen in nearly 55 years, but obviously that's what makes it a controversial opinion!
In what situations would the absence of physical money, but the presence of money as information only bookkeeping, not work?
Uhura was "shopping" on K7 and offered to buy a tribble. Yet her uniform apparent had no pockets for cash.
Beverly was obviously buying merchadise that she was charging to "my account."
I could reel off the usual list, but you probably know it as well as I do.
No. I take it at face value that his parents tried to give him the Klingon upbringing he wanted to the best of their abilities. Moreover, I suspect that in-universe, human parents generally do not give their children education in a specific religion.
The parts where people are clearly talking about the absence of money being a moral/social evolution and not just a technological change. You've listed some of those things yourself and acknowledged they don't really work with your theory, so I don't really see why you should need anyone else to supply the examples.
Controversial Opinion #1: Understanding two things - one, that Producers and Directors can have very different visions and ideas about a show, and as a result narrative and purpose can fade/change with time. Two, that television and movie production is often a hurried, messy business, and that "best fit" solutions are often employed by production staff to make the said Producers and Directors happy and "get the job done". That said, Star Trek could take some notes from Star Wars (not in regards to narrative mind you) and have someone, or multiple someones, often called "staff" work on maintaining internal continuity in respect to one show or element of the franchise to another.
Controversial Opinion #2: Tossing the original pre-Federation design of the Enterprise in the rubbish bin effectively for a re-tooled, retro-esque Akira-class starship has always bugged the hell out of me. Jefferies' Declaration class XCV-330 coulda / woulda / shoulda been a wonderful storytelling setting (that of a eXperimental Carrier Vessel) set during the Romulan War. But hey, what do I know.
Controversial Opinion #3: Forgetting (or simply failing to acknowledge) Data's history in regards to Lal and Lore, or perhaps utilizing either one of them in some regard last season was a huge missed opportunity on Picard. The tie-in to "daughter" is stumbled over multiple times, and the loss of so important a character to Data, and indeed the rest of the Enterprise-D crew is not even given an appropriate acknowledgement as to her impact. Also since Brent Spiner has made it clear Data will not be coming back, I assume that goes for Lore as well. That is a huge disappointment.
Controversial Opinion #4: Destroying the Enterprise-D the first movie out for the TNG crew was a marketing mistake of epic proportions. Brand/design recognition is a thing, and the E (sorry, and with all due respect for those who are fans) doesn't evoke the emotional connection that many fans felt for the D. Ooops.
Controversial Opinion #2: Tossing the original pre-Federation design of the Enterprise in the rubbish bin effectively for a re-tooled, retro-esque Akira-class starship has always bugged the hell out of me. Jefferies' Declaration class XCV-330 coulda / woulda / shoulda been a wonderful storytelling setting (that of a eXperimental Carrier Vessel) set during the Romulan War. But hey, what do I know.
Controversial Opinion #3: Forgetting (or simply failing to acknowledge) Data's history in regards to Lal and Lore, or perhaps utilizing either one of them in some regard last season was a huge missed opportunity on Picard. The tie-in to "daughter" is stumbled over multiple times, and the loss of so important a character to Data, and indeed the rest of the Enterprise-D crew is not even given an appropriate acknowledgement as to her impact. Also since Brent Spiner has made it clear Data will not be coming back, I assume that goes for Lore as well. That is a huge disappointment.
Controversial Opinion #4: Destroying the Enterprise-D the first movie out for the TNG crew was a marketing mistake of epic proportions. Brand/design recognition is a thing, and the E (sorry, and with all due respect for those who are fans) doesn't evoke the emotional connection that many fans felt for the D. Ooops.
I agree, Roddenberry and Co. were swinging for the fences IMO creating and expanding the Star Trek universe as we know it. Although the fan wankery was a given to invite TOS film fans in, but I thought seasons 1 and 2 were the building blocks to the success of TNG.
I remember reading somewhere that it had to do with the producers feeling that the E-D model wasn't good enough for the big screen, and that if they needed to build a new model, they wanted a new design to begin with. I need to google this to be sure, but dinner is almost ready. I'll look it up after that.
As for the last part of that opinion....If you check out the favorite ship design topic, you'll find many people claiming to love the Sovereign design, and a lot of people also saying they don't really appreciate the Galaxy that much.
The design has grown on me through the years, still have a problem with the coloring, photoshopped it once with a off white appearance, personlly liked it better.
Do you still have that photoshop?
Claiming the Kelvin movies and Discovery are crap is hardly unpopular or controversial either.
unfortunately no.
Not what I said, Jake's statement that he didn't need money while obviously needing money do seem odd. And several episodes before Jake was making money.
But then Jake's words do seem as tho he was reciting a slogan.
Last edited:
They could show up together in Picard. I just hope they don't get John Ales to play Leah Brahms.
Deep Space 9 season 1-3 are criminally underrated. Conversely (besides a few episodes) season 6 and especially 7 went so off the rails that they wrecked so much of what made the show great.
TNG was a more interesting show and took more risks in the early years. I enjoy it all, but season 2 was just the right mix of things and is my favourite overall. It has a wonderful sense of atmosphere (the whole "space is dangerous/weird/unexplainable" vibe in episodes like Time Squared, Q Who), and a really good variety of stories. Later seasons were fine, but mostly played the storytelling/acting/music/directing far too safe.
Both Final Frontier and Nemesis were enjoyable Trek films. The same mix of good/bad as pretty much all of them.
Enterprise was an excellent show, and deserved to run longer. I didnt watch it until 2014 (for no other reason than I had drifted away from new Trek by 2001) but had heard so many stories of how terrible it was. I loved it!
TNG was a more interesting show and took more risks in the early years. I enjoy it all, but season 2 was just the right mix of things and is my favourite overall. It has a wonderful sense of atmosphere (the whole "space is dangerous/weird/unexplainable" vibe in episodes like Time Squared, Q Who), and a really good variety of stories. Later seasons were fine, but mostly played the storytelling/acting/music/directing far too safe.
Both Final Frontier and Nemesis were enjoyable Trek films. The same mix of good/bad as pretty much all of them.
Enterprise was an excellent show, and deserved to run longer. I didnt watch it until 2014 (for no other reason than I had drifted away from new Trek by 2001) but had heard so many stories of how terrible it was. I loved it!
Similar threads
- Poll
