What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

The Replimat's Pasta al fiorella is good stuff.​

 

I go back to Nimoy's quote about being willing to go where Trek is taking us. Instead, Star Trek has become more about take me away from here and make me feel comfortable again. It's not about exploration; it's about satiation.

 

Roddenberry was a classical liberal who admired JFK, and with that envisioned a future based on that. Here's an example:



The result was a very intelligent show that was not afraid to deal with sensitive matters, but always saw that through the lens of civilization. Which is what you expect from a classical liberal.

And yet the recent films and TV shows no longer do that. Instead, they push political agendas blatantly, focus heavily on spectacle and action, depict gratuitous violence, etc. It's as if all of the earlier shows didn't matter, as well as Roddenberry's vision.

In response to that, I expect those who disagree to resort to personal attacks, e.g., call me a "snowflake" for not accepting more violence, or that I'm going against freedom of expression, or say that I should "get over it" and accept the fact that what's being shown now is what viewers want, without ever addressing any of the points I raised above, and points that I think Roddenberry would have shared.

In which case, my point isn't to debate because I don't think what I say will matter, but since the thread invited people to share controversial opinions, then that's what I just did.

 

So children are not allowed to be Nostalgic?

My wife waxed tragically, explaining how we must watch the Newly Weds because this was her bread and butter when she was little.

"Chicken of the Sea."

She has grabbed control of the telly and the house now gets to enjoy an encore of Ever After with Drew Barrymore.

Ye gods.

 

Most trek has horrible acting...and that's part of the fun.

 

They are, I'm just giving my Controversial Opinion.

1956? That's nostalgic. 1973? That's nostalgic. 1985? That's nostalgic. 1998? I'm going to start thinking, "How old are you? Who are you kidding? Give me a break!" And most people here are over 30. The vast majority. I'd even say most are over 35, myself included.

I just can't buy someone older than I am calling 1995, 1999, 2002 "nostalgia". That's bullshit, IMO. The '90s, the '00s, they're not "retro" yet, they're just old. Unless it's computer tech.

Driving it back to Trek, we had prequels and reboots all through the '00s and '10s. 2020 was the first year going back to the 24th/25th Century. It doesn't exist in a vacuum. So if you're going to draw from what's already there, they had no choice but to look at 2002 and earlier, because that's what had been the last time Star Trek was set then. If they had 24th Century Trek made after that, the creators of Picard wouldn't have had to have looked so far back to get their bearings.

I personally prefer the 32nd Century. I think it's a broader canvas that they can do more with, since so little has been done with it. But if you're going to do the 25th Century, I understand why they made the choices they made.

As far as the 23rd Century, I like the 23rd Century, I really do, but I don't like the non-stop Canon Arguments that prequel settings bring. They're not fun. Some people might have "fun" arguing about it all the time, but I think they're masochists. So I prefer that things take place later. That and I like not knowing what's going to happen immediately afterwards.

 

She's making me watch Ever After A Cinderella Story right now, and I laughed because we are also watching reruns of Batwoman, and she had never cottoned on that the young sexy Prince in Ever After is the grumpy old dad in Batwoman.

JG is 33.

 

Whatever works. You and the Misses can have your opinion and I can have mine.

 

I have my own Head Canon that I want them to work on and start in the beginning of the 26th Century.

A similar time jump between TOS & the start of TNG.

This let's you have a clean slate without being to big of a time jump like the 32nd century.

And I already have a solution for the 32nd century that involves Michael Burnham time traveling back in time to the middle of the 25th century to prevent "The Burn", the Temporal Cold/Hot War and changing the UFP for the better and guranteeing the UFP's survival for at least the next 10,000 years.

Her bringing back so much future knowledge & tech will be game changing in many ways.

 

Oh no... I'm agreeing with you.

Her "nostalgia" is rubbish I was too good for in my 20s, and I still damn well am.

Ever After is 2 hours long!

Holy Jesus Fuck.

 

Was that the Ferengi time-travel movie?

 

The original vision was to entertain and to make money, to keep the audience engaged. Now, while TOS was aiming to have some thought provoking segments, it wasn't above jokes, violence, combat, and insults to also maintain audience engagement. It's not as high brow as us fans like to think.

It also is no longer unique. At the time it was. It no longer is.

 

Kelsey Grammer's USS Bozeman using old school tactics going up against a Borg cube would have made an interesting episode.

 

Move over Buck Rogers. We got Captain Morgan.

 

The Enterprise E looks better than the Enterprise D.

 

That's not hard to do.

 

Klingon uniforms may actually have been better uniforms in TOS, TAS and later "Trials and Tribbleations(DS9)." The armor that became almost ubiquitous starting with TMP is just that. Armor. Not so much a good idea for a uniform. Though the belts on the TMP Klingons forward and their boots were a lot better looking.

 

No, it was the Berman crew's sly revelation about their contract to sink the ST franchise.