What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[Oddish]

It occurs to me that Trek seems to make its best points politically when it kills or otherwise destroys someone.

Example 1: The Outcast. By reducing Soren to a dumbed down "he loved Big Brother" figure with all the individuality of a Borg drone, this one highlights anti-LGBT+ cruelty with devastating effectiveness.

Example 2: Repentance. By having Iko slaughtered by what was essentially pure revenge killing, this one really hits capital punishment where it hurts.

Maybe "Angel One" and "When the Bough Breaks" could have struck harder blows for their causes (equal rights and environmental protection) if they had opted for darker endings...

 

[Phil123]

I don’t really mind some unbelievable/fantasy science, but I do like my Trek to be reasonably consistent to its own rules.

 

[Sisko_is_my_captain]

Controversial Opinion:

I think Trek gets a lot of judgement by folks for having "fantasy science" and things like that, where it is completely undeserved.

We say that "we KNOW" that FTL travel is likely impossible for <insert any number of scientific reasons here>. Or we say that "we KNOW" that a teleportation device is pure fantasy because <insert modern physics explanation here>.

But, throughout history, there have been so many things that we thought "we KNEW" that later turned out to be not the way we thought. At one point, "we KNEW" the Earth was flat and / or that the universe revolved around it. Or "we KNEW" that attaching leaches to a sick person would result in the toxins being sucked out of the bloodstream. All of human history is a wonderful story of achieving that which we once thought was impossible or learning that what we thought was truth really was not. <Insert plagiarized speech from Sybok here>.

I think we are very (perhaps extremely) scientifically arrogant in this age of humanity, and there are likely a number of things that Star Trek predicts that are very possible, but are beyond our current understanding of science and physics.

Imagine what we'll "know" tomorrow.

 

[Vger23]

One of the reasons I feel that the "future" scenario in AGT was just a big Q illusion is the fact that Worf didn't have his Season 1 appearance. Behind the scenes it was probably just a matter of practicality to use the current forehead design, but on-screen discrepancies demand in-universe explanation/rationalization/whatever!

Kor

Speaking of Controversial Opinions, I've always believed this to be true. It's just yet another Q fantasy. Just like they didn't really go back in time during the trial in "Farpoint" or to Sherwood Forrest in "Qpid," or to Earhart Station in "Tapestry"...this AGT scenario isn't "real" either.

In fact, the entire concept of a "real" future is, in itself, fantasy. With infinite possibilities, it's a virtually meaningless concept.

 

[fireproof78]

Are there really that many people who "judge" Trek for including "fantasy science"?

Judge might be a harsher term, but I think yes to a degree. And that's largely owing to the fact that Star Trek constantly gets credit for inspiring people to go in to the harder science fields, like engineering, physics, etc. without recognizing that Star Trek itself isn't always the best representation of those fields.

Edit - Also, if we are to invoke Roddenberry’s vision, he wanted to do a show that was character focussed, using science fiction as a backdrop, to tell stories about contemporary times that otherwise might not pass censors.

Exactly.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

I don’t really mind some unbelievable/fantasy science, but I do like my Trek to be reasonably consistent to its own rules.

You’re onto a losers game there then. TOS can’t even get its’ own rules straight at times and later Trek just compounds that.

 

[Phil123]

You’re onto a losers game there then. TOS can’t even get its’ own rules straight at times and later Trek just compounds that.

Yeah perhaps. I tend to be more forgiving of TOS as it wasn’t part of (or really to build) a greater universe and franchise.

and I’m only really bothered by really dumb (IMO) stuff like a lot of what happened in Into Darkness.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

I’m only really bothered by really dumb (IMO) stuff like a lot of what happened in Into Darkness.

I haven’t seen that movie for years and then I’ve only seen it once.

I don’t have good memories of it, but I think at the time I was more annoyed by the unnecessary strip-mining of TWOK and Cumberbatch’s casting.

I need to rewatch all the Kelvin stuff TBH. I do have a soft spot for 09 and I love Beyond, but I’ll be surprised if I can ever say I love Into Darkness.

 

[Phil123]

I haven’t seen that movie for years and then I’ve only seen it once.

I don’t have good memories of it, but I think at the time I was more annoyed by the unnecessary strip-mining of TWOK and Cumberbatch’s casting.

I need to rewatch all the Kelvin stuff TBH. I do have a soft spot for 09 and I love Beyond, but I’ll be surprised if I can ever say I love Into Darkness.

yeah I don’t mind the other two but really don’t like ID. Mainly for the reasons mentioned, but also getting to Klingon space in about an hour from Earth, Khan transporting directly there from Earth etc

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

I don't need Star Trek to be 100% scientifically accurate, but I want it to trick me into feeling that it is for as long as I'm watching it. My supension of disbelief can only take so many hits before it shatters, and then I'm just watching actors on a screen playing at being space heroes.

 

[Kor]

Controversial opinion: I enjoy Into Darkness the most out of all three JJTrek movies.

Kor

 

[Orphalesion]

There are a lot of people who call elements of Trek "pure fantasy" and things like that.

My point is simply that, 40 years ago, an iPhone was "pure fantasy."

Eh, some parts of Star Trek are fantasy, and there's nothing wrong with that, imo.

Speaking of Controversial Opinions, I've always believed this to be true. It's just yet another Q fantasy. Just like they didn't really go back in time during the trial in "Farpoint" or to Sherwood Forrest in "Qpid," or to Earhart Station in "Tapestry"...this AGT scenario isn't "real" either.

There's actually support for that in Q Who, during the encounter with the Borg that leads to some of the crew dying, Picard asks Q whether it was real or just "one of his illusions", which Q denies, pointing out that the Borg encounter is real despite him transporting the ship there, which would only be necessary if Q the other isntances of Q transporting someone somewhere else were illusions.

 

[Vale]

The entire sequence of Kirk and Scotty flying round the Enterprise in the inspection pod during Star Trek: The Motion Picture is fantastic and shows off the ship beautifully. It is in no way gratuitous or boring.

 

[cooleddie74]

I like your style.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

The inspection pod sequence is worth it just because it gave us the Next Generation theme.

 

[Phil123]

The entire sequence of Kirk and Scotty flying round the Enterprise in the inspection pod during Star Trek: The Motion Picture is fantastic and shows off the ship beautifully. It is in no way gratuitous or boring.

Totally agree. It’s stunning.

 

[fireproof78]

It just belongs in a different film.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

Or the 3 hour extended DVD release.

 

[1001001]

I have often prescribed watching TMP as a cure for Insomnia.

Works wonders…

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

Just on that teleportation thing people have experimented with teleportation but it's not quite the same as Star Trek. @Vger23

https://www.popularmechanics.com/sc...-successfully-teleported-a-particle-to-space/


Into Darkness did nothing wrong