What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[Tenacity]

Plus you run into the issue of wondering why we never heard of the Xindi on the other shows.

While it obviously wasn't the original intent and the spelling was different in the script, there was a mention in TNG of a starbase Zendi, if you want to that actual Zendi could be "retcon'ed " to be Xindi. The two words sound identical.

SURELY, we would've heard of them somewhere.

No, not really. The multi-species Xindi could still be out there in the universe and not get mentioned.

To me, it would've made more sense for it to be the Romulans just for the sake of canon.

Not every species has to be a call back. Nothing would have made me happier than if after the first episode we never saw the Klingons again during the series.

This should be quite controversial: I think Tuvok was a better Vulcan character than Spock.

Tuvok seemed more comfortable in his own skin, part of his (in-universe) advantage over Spock might have been he lacked Spock hybrid nature. Spock struggled to control his emotions, Tuvok usually didn't. Tuvok was also quite a bit older than Spock.

If the two, personally I like Spock better, YMMV.

 

[fireproof78]

but it doesn't work for me and because of that I've been called out for not being a "proper fan".

Who said that? I'll beat them up!

 

[Mytran]

Is it controversial to think that every time the crew did time travel and agonised about their actions changing the future they were simply mistaken, because the Star Trek timestream consists of multiple predestination paradoxes and as such cannot ever be changed?

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Tuvok was also quite a bit older than Spock.

He wasn't when he was aboard Excelsior, under Captain Sulu!

 

[Falconer]

This is probably a little controversial.

TOS has the most futuristic look-and-feel of any screen production in the franchise.

I’m going to start with counter-examples. The bellbottoms and collars of TMP scream 1970s; the “bloodless” color palate of the uniforms and ship scream generic utopian sci-fi futurism. The hair and shoulder pads from TWoK through TNG scream 80s. Later productions feature ships with dark lighting, lots of metallic surfaces and appliances, and holographic controls, which scream generic military sci-fi. The most recent uniforms scream Marvel Cinematic Universe.

But everything about TOS seems distinctive and deliberate and uniquely imaginative. They scream “Star Trek” and nothing else. Nothing in TOS looks like anything from Batman or Gilligan’s Island or Get Smart. The 60s fade into the background. There’s a timelessness to it, but it’s not so much timeless as grounded in a completely imaginary (future) time.

I don’t think the other productions do as good a job of imagining the future, perhaps because they are intentionally setting about to be “relevant.” In other words, the idea of “updating” Trek aesthetics to conform to modern ideas seems retrograde to me.I would prefer if they would extrapolate from TOS into ITS future.

But I admit it could be partially a point of view thing, i.e., I don’t notice the 60s-isms because the 60s have a built-in exoticism to me.

 

[fireproof78]

But I admit it could be partially a point of view thing, i.e., I don’t notice the 60s-isms because the 60s have a built-in exoticism to me.

Exactly. If you know the 60s then it stands out.

 

[Lord Garth]

But I admit it could be partially a point of view thing, i.e., I don’t notice the 60s-isms because the 60s have a built-in exoticism to me.

I can see what you're saying. I was born in 1979, so I view the '80s the same way you view the '60s.

 

[Falconer]

I also was born in 1979, so, I think I am saying the opposite of what you are saying.

 

[Lord Garth]

I also was born in 1979, so, I think I am saying the opposite of what you are saying.

My apologies. I thought you were going somewhere else with it. So I'll better explain where I was coming from. The '80s were my formative years, so that's what I perceive of as being "normal", so "that's so '80s!" doesn't register with me as a problem. It's part of what I like so much about the TOS Movies and is one of the few things that can me through some of early-TNG.

The '60s, I perceive as other-timely. But I can see how that's a good thing. If you want to watch something set in another time, it should feel like another time.

 

[BillJ]

TOS has the most futuristic look-and-feel of any screen production in the franchise.

I tend to agree here. I was born in '71 and what is presented in TOS is so different from what the 60's and 70's were, especially where tech is concerned. What seemed fantastical all those years ago seems mundane on the more modern shows.

 

[Tenacity]

because the Star Trek timestream consists of multiple predestination paradoxes

I think not, we are definately (ymmv) seeing changed events.

Example, Riker and LaForge were never on the first warp flight, and the original people in the control room were not laying dead on the floor.

Gillian Taylor didn't originally disappear one day on the 1980's.

A air policeman wasn't walking down a corridor in the late 1960's, suddenly find himself being offered chicken soup, and then he was back in the same corridor with no missing time.

Not "predestination paradoxes" they were changes from the timeline that didn't involve the interaction of our heroes.,

He wasn't when he was aboard Excelsior, under Captain Sulu!

But was during his time on Voyager.

TOS has the most futuristic look-and-feel of any screen production in the franchise.

TOS feels more futuristic owing to being different from 'modern day."

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

But Spock was also a good deal older by then.

 

[NCC-73515]

I think TOS looks futuristic and advanced because they had to improvise with a tight budget and leave out details. Everything looks smooth, clean, minimalistic. Later budgets and picture quality demands brought more surface details and sophistication, which made it look more familiar and perhaps realistic, but also kinda more primitive.

 

[Admiral Archer]

Something that my brother once said, which stayed with me (I'm paraphrasing here, as I don't remember his exact quote): "The TOS ship is the most realistic depiction of a real-life starship. It looks like something the military and NASA might actually build. The lack of aztec decals and glowy bits and the protruding deflector dish make it look more modern and feasible."

 

[Takeru]

This is probably a little controversial.

TOS has the most futuristic look-and-feel of any screen production in the franchise.

I’m going to start with counter-examples. The bellbottoms and collars of TMP scream 1970s; the “bloodless” color palate of the uniforms and ship scream generic utopian sci-fi futurism. The hair and shoulder pads from TWoK through TNG scream 80s. Later productions feature ships with dark lighting, lots of metallic surfaces and appliances, and holographic controls, which scream generic military sci-fi. The most recent uniforms scream Marvel Cinematic Universe.

And TOS screams 60s, the women wore beehives, miniskirts and go-go boots. Chekov's look intentionally copied The Monkees, everything from the props to the costumes, sets and color palates is so obviously from the 60s. You might not notice it but it is there. Every Star Trek production has always reflected the time it was made in, TOS is not an exception.

 

[Mytran]

Example, Riker and LaForge were never on the first warp flight, and the original people in the control room were not laying dead on the floor.

Gillian Taylor didn't originally disappear one day on the 1980's.

These claims cannot be substantiated because we never saw the alleged "unchanged" timeline.

A air policeman wasn't walking down a corridor in the late 1960's, suddenly find himself being offered chicken soup, and then he was back in the same corridor with no missing time.

The problems with how time travel is depicted in Tomorrow Is Yesterday could fill an entire thread of its own (and have done, several times!)
Suffice to say that neither the version of the air cop nor of Captain Christopher who'd spent time on the Enterprise ever physically returned to their timeline of origin...

Not "predestination paradoxes" they were changes from the timeline that didn't involve the interaction of our heroes.

Predestination paradoxes were clearly stated to have existed in Assignment Earth and Yesteryear. Further examination of COTEOF reveals that Edith Keeler only died because of Kirk's presence in her life. In ST4 Scotty gives the transparent aluminium formula to a company in 1986 with no change to his current timeline (hence it was always "meant" to be that way). Data's head was always buried in a mine in Time's Arrow. The USS Voyager is involved in a time loop in Parallax.
There are other examples too but even if there were only one, the fact that a time loop can exist (and always did exist) makes non-circular time travel escapades a logical impossibility. Aside from incredibly local, artificially created pockets of reality (such as we saw in Cause And Effect), our timeline is staying the way it is, the way it always was!

IMO

 

[FederationHistorian]

- As nice as it would have been for ENT to either get a 5th season, or compete the planned 7 season run, it actually didn’t need that. Four seasons was actually enough. It just needed to not have its production order cut for the 3rd and 4th seasons, have a proper 2 hour finale (like TNG, DS9 & VOY before it), and for it to be known ahead of time that the 4th season was the last season instead of during the middle of production of IAMD.

The show went from having 26 episodes produced in S1-S2 each to 23 in S3 and 22 in S4. And a third of its existence was devoted to the Xindi arc, which itself was an extension of the Temporal Cold War arc.

- Sito Jaxa being sent on that secret mission that got her killed was an awful decision by Picard.

 

[Tenacity]

And TOS screams 60s,

It definitely doesn't scream early 21st century, one advantage toward "it depicts a different time."

 

[Lord Garth]

"Controversial" Opinion: I think it's just as well the first two seasons of DSC didn't take place after Nemesis. PIC could continue the story without thinking about anything DSC did.

If you're a TNGer who didn't watch Discovery and was only now getting CBS All Access for the first time, you could go straight into Picard. And the only thing the writers had to take into consideration was the destruction of Romulus from the 2009 Film. Otherwise, all they had to do was use Nemesis as a jumping-off point and figure out what from "All Good Things" came true.

Though I'm still in the camp who would've preferred if DSC took place after TUC. I like the series well enough, obviously, that it didn't bother me that it was set 10 years before TOS; but setting it in the early-24th Century would've been my first choice.

 

[Tenacity]

Controversial?

The agressor species in season one Discovery shouldn't have been Klingons, instead have there be a newly created species. Much of what we did see could have been incorporated into the new species with minor changes in dialog, use of symbols, costumes and set decorations.

Remove those element that absolutely scream "Klingon."

We've seen through the years that new species can be sucessfully brought into the show.