What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Well, sure...but where are the cannibalism and drug-fueled threesomes?
I ask that question every day of my life, quite frankly......
My new controversial opinion is that
]Captain Janeway's return in Star Trek: Prodigy is a good thing and I welcome it because she was one of the best things about NEM and Kate Mulgrew is awesome no matter what your opinion of VOY
What is there to "get?" Roddenberry changed from wanting to make an action/adventure series to a show about how humanity can evolve.
I couldn't agree more. There are some promising ideas, but none of it lives up to its potential, in my opinion. Specifically on the topic of Discovery, for instance, a Klingon-Federation war could have been an interesting backdrop for a Star Trek series, but it was drastically mishandled, giving us a less than likable lead who acts inconsistently with her own stated values and action over character beats. Character is what makes a good story, and it is what has allowed Star Trek to endure for so long.
I think a way to fix this set up would have been to focus on Captain Georgiou as the commander of the Shenzou and let us get to know her and her crew as proper Starfleet officers, introducing the idea that tensions are high in the Federation due to the increasing aggressiveness of the Klingons, but as a background factor. You could slowly have that tension grow over the first season, taking more and more focus away from their Starfleet duties until all out war did finally break out, forcing our characters to decide which side of the issue they fall on. This is where Deep Space Nine succeeded and Discovery failed.
The costs of the Dominion War were felt by the audience, and cared about by the audience, precisely because they forced our characters to change after we had gotten to know and like them. Discovery attempted to start off here, but the problem with this is we don't care about these people, and it's hard to believe in Michael Burnham's Stafleet principles because we never got to know them or her well enough to do so before she betrayed those principles. They jumped feet first into a war, exhibiting behavior after behavior that was inconsistent with Starfleet's ideals. But there was no impact from these actions because, from our perspective, that's just who these people always were.
Last edited:
Yes, and that's what intrigues me about her. She has deeply held values that are colored by trauma and impact her overall ability. She is incongruent as a person. For me, that's the character stuff I want in Star Trek.
I mean, if that's your fix you're basically just saying they should've done it the way DS9 did it.
I love DS9, and I have issues with the writing consistency on DSC, but I'm glad they didn't just try to present the Klingon war through the same basic arc structure as the Dominion war. We've had too much blatant copying of prior trek in the franchise already. There's absolutely no point doing any new Star Trek shows if you're not going to try to be at least a little bit different from what came before.
100% agree. I was completely uninterested in a “Klingon War” arc when the series was announced, but was happy when I realized they wouldn’t just be re-doing something DS9 had already done extremely well.
That's a great way of putting it and seems to be a common theme for me and my preferences in Trek. I don't want Trek to go back and redo TOS/TNG/DS9 in the exact same way. I don't want another war story were things play out like the Dominion War.
In the same way, I hear others go "I don't want another Trek film with a Khan style viallain." Well, why do we want shows that rehash things in the same way? The reason why I like Burnham is because despite her values her actions don't always line up. She is discovering, very painfully, that things are not black and white, like the Vulcan Hello set it all up to be.
A lot of people don't like Burnham, and that's fine. But, I'll not begrudge new Trek for doing something new.
I said this same thing last week, I still haven’t seen the finale but even if it’s bad (doubt it) it won’t change that opinion.
Some might even go so far as to call it entertaining.
So who DOES “get Star Trek?”
Oh wait....I know....whoever makes a version of Star Trek that you personally like, right?
Move passed this. You shouldn't judge everything someone does based on a few movies they did over 10 years ago for a completely different audience. And even if you do, he's not writing everything Star Trek related.
Rick Berman, I should point out, was responsible for The Big Blue Marble. But they put him in charge of Star Trek. And I have a lot of issues with him as a creator, but judge him based on Star Trek not The Big Blue Marble. And he had a lot of people under him who put out a lot of good work in spite of him.
"But The Big Blue Marble was a children's show!" Yeah. And Michael Bay's Transformers films are kids' movies. I don't care if they're PG-13. Alex Kurtzman wrote Transformers the way he was instructed to. And just so we're clear: I think the Transformers movies are shit. I stopped going to see them after a certain point because I was able to let go of something from my childhood. Something that a lot of other people here generally don't seem to be able to do.
Last edited:
Man, I am still so irritated that there's zero international release set up for Lower Decks...
That's not a controversial opinion. Everyone here squees all over the show all the time. The episodes are usually rated 9's and 10's.
Do you often speak for everyone?So who DOES “get Star Trek?”
Oh wait....I know....whoever makes a version of Star Trek that you personally like, right?
Similar threads
- Locked
