What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[Locutus of Bored]

While I am no fan of TMP it is a very grand film. However, and this is reminiscent of many other Trek plots, the lack of urgency around the mission is completely sucked out in to space with that space tour. Tell me that the Enterprise is the only ship in range and then fly circles around the hero ship. It looks very pretty...and that's it.

They weren't ready to leave spacedock yet because they were still working on the warp drive, and taking on personnel and provisions for the mission. So the five minutes was available regardless. It didn't slow down their "launch" time one bit.

Pilots, whether flying an airliner, cargo plane, bomber, fighter, helicopter or private plane, do a preflight exterior inspection or walk-around of the aircraft to make sure everything is in proper condition to fly. This is the same principle of Kirk and Scotty's preflight fly-around of the Enterprise. Obviously it had the benefit of showing the ship off to the audience too, but there's a valid reason for it.

Kirk was somewhat unfamiliar with the refit and needed an inspection to see what was new about the ship anyway.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

Who wouldn't want to check out their favourite ride after it had been supercharged?

 

[Vger23]

I first saw TMP when I was so young (4 or 5 probably) and I saw it so many times (pretty much any time it was on HBO and my parents could stomach watching it with me again), that I think everything about it is just engrained as a "norm" in me....meaning I don't really see any flaws or pacing issues objectively because I've known the movie for so long that it's impossible for me to judge it now.

I can see why people would think the Enterprise intro scene is painful, but for me, the music and visual spectacle are just all part of the TMP experience, and part of what makes it uniquely special. Is it slow? Yeah...of course. Is it awesome, though? Yeah...it kind of is.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

Is it awesome, though? Yeah...it kind of is.

No kind of.

 

[HappyMcWonderful]

Controversial opinion #1 -- There are two kinds of Trek Fans. The ones that enjoy the flyby in TMP and the kind who are 'JUST GET ON WITH IT ALREADY.'

Controversial opinion #2: TWOK is not the Best Star Trek Movie Ever. In fact it ruined the franchise by turning it into Star Wars Lite.

 

[Orphalesion]

In fact it ruined the franchise by turning it into Star Wars Lite.

Ha, the Star Trek movies wish they could be Star Wars lite. They never got that good.

 

[Vger23]

Controversial opinion #2: TWOK is not the Best Star Trek Movie Ever. In fact it ruined the franchise by turning it into Star Wars Lite.

That's always a great one to work with!

I don't think TWOK has any resemblance to Star Wars whatsoever. The fact that weapons fire is exchanged between ships in outerspace isn't something that you can tag to turning the franchise into "SW Lite." You'd need to go deeper than that.

I also don't think it's fair to retroactively hold TWOK accountable for a shift in direction of the franchise. It's not the film's "fault" (if I were to accept that such a shift did indeed occur) that future writers and producers looked at the overwhelmingly positive fan and casual viewer reaction to TWOK and tried to re-create that in various ways. It's the "fault" of the writers and producers who were responsible for subsequent iteration of the franchise.

I'd actually refute this whole idea pretty heavily based on 2 almost indisputable data points:

1. What immediately followed TWOK in terms of major franchise products were TSFS (1984), TVH (1986), and TNG (1987). While TSFS was also a faster-paced action adventure movie, that hardly makes it "SW Lite." TVH was nothing like SW whatsoever, being a fish-out-of-water time travel comedy escapade. And, unless I'm totally mis-remembering, TNG was about as far away from the action-adventure (to its detriment I seriously think) sci-fi format as you can get.

2. TWOK was responsible for the continuation of the franchise, not its eventual decline. Star Trek was essentially stuck in the parking lot after TMP, and the success or failure of whatever "next move" Paramount made would dictate the future of the franchise. So, I guess if you'd rather Star Trek died at TMP (and yeah, I know there are fans who actually feel this way), you can direct ire at TWOK...but otherwise, there's no franchise without it.

I always get confused when people grate against Star Trek having action-adventure elements to it....like every episode was "Measure of a Man" and every movie should have been TMP. Star Trek from the very beginning was built on phaser blasts, Kirk-fu, ripped uniform shirts, witty character exchanges, extended fistfights, special effects set pieces, and space battles. It wasn't until Gene retroactively re-branded the franchise as "thinking person's science fiction" that was made for "the more intelligent segment of the television audiences" <insert eyeroll here> that fans started buying into that line, and then we had TNG modeling a much more self-conscious, slow, pseudo-intellectual approach to the franchise...and suddenly, Star Trek had re-imagined itself as something it initially was not. I actually view DS9, VOY and ENT as a course-correct back to the more dynamic and fun roots of the franchise (resulting quality not withstanding), rather than a gravitation away from the core.

Controversial Opinion:

Star Trek is way better as an action-adventure sci-fi franchise than it is as hardcore, philosophical, deep thinking, intellectually stimulating science fiction. It can certainly do the latter, but it can't sustain it and frankly isn't built to do it consistently. The base premise of Star Trek (explorers on the frontier of deep space) absolutely encourages and invites action and adventure on a regular basis.

 

[eschaton]

Star Trek is way better as an action-adventure sci-fi franchise than it is as hardcore, philosophical, deep thinking, intellectually stimulating science fiction. It can certainly do the latter, but it can't sustain it and frankly isn't built to do it consistently. The base premise of Star Trek (explorers on the frontier of deep space) absolutely encourages and invites action and adventure.

IMHO, Trek needs both to be recognizable as Star Trek. I mean, lots of SF shows do action-adventure, but what sets Star Trek apart is the almost didactic element of storytelling in the series - the "moral of the story" if you will. You take that away, and it's interchangeable with tons of bland series.

 

[Vger23]

IMHO, Trek needs both to be recognizable as Star Trek. I mean, lots of SF shows do action-adventure, but what sets Star Trek apart is the almost didactic element of storytelling in the series - the "moral of the story" if you will. You take that away, and it's interchangeable with tons of bland series.

Controversially enough, I actually don't agree.

I think that element in Star Trek is vastly over-rated/over-estimated/over-credited....and I believe the lack of that element in other supposedly "bland series" is actually vastly under-rated/under-estimated/under-credited. There's hardly any series (science fiction or otherwise) in modern memory that doesn't have some attempt at a "moral of the story" element. It's just a question of whether or not the audience buys it and considers it worthy or not.

TOS may have focused on it more than any other sci-fi series at the time (not that there were lots of shows to compare it to)...but it's since become the basic standard for sci-fi TV storytelling...not special at all.

Also- you can have a heavily action-packed adventure show/movie/episode and still have a "moral of the story" (like the aforementioned TWOK, which has a fantastic set of themes and moral dilemma issues running through it), and you can also have a dreadfully slow, dull, ponderous, pseudo-intellectual show/movie/episode and have absolutely no real substance whatsoever.

I think it's a common mistake to equate action/adventure with something that has no stimulating themes or story elements that leave the viewer to ponder.

 

[fireproof78]

Who wouldn't want to check out their favourite ride after it had been supercharged?

Me. One pass over and on to the mission to save the planet.

The flyover is beautiful and poorly placed in the film.

I think it's a common mistake to equate action/adventure with something that has no stimulating themes or story elements that leave the viewer to ponder.

It absolutely is and it's frustrating.

 

[cooleddie74]

One reason I like BEY is it had a lot of action sequences - even a dumb one with the 22nd century motorcycle - and it still told a story about being so inflexible and stuck in one's ways of thinking that it turns you into a monster. Hell, Die Hard was an action thriller with messages so if your writing is good enough you can blow things up and still be a smart story.

 

[Vger23]

One reason I like BEY is it had a lot of action sequences - even a dumb one with the 22nd century motorcycle - and it still told a story about being so inflexible and stuck in one's ways of thinking that it turns you into a monster. Hell, Die Hard was an action thriller with messages so if your writing is good enough you can blow things up and still be a smart story.

Right, or conversely you can have an absolutely dull, slow, static episode like "Aquiel"...yet it contains nothing of depth or value whatsoever.

 

[cooleddie74]

I know some like the mystery investigation and Troi-Worf dynamic in the seventh season TNG episode "Eye of the Beholder" but that episode has always bored the living snot out of me and been a chore to watch.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

TWOK is not the Best Star Trek Movie Ever.

Agreed.

In fact it ruined the franchise by turning it into Star Wars Lite.

But a hard no to this. TWOK isn't even remotely similar to any Star Wars movie.

 

[Vger23]

I know some like the mystery investigation and Troi-Worf dynamic in the seventh season TNG episode "Eye of the Beholder" but that episode has always bored the living snot out of me and been a chore to watch.

I just rewatched it a few weeks ago (I was wrapping up a years-long undertaking to watch all the TNG BR disks, and was finally wrapping Season 7). I hadn't watched it since it originally aired, and I hated it back then. I was hoping an adult perspective on it might change my mind.

It did not.

 

[cooleddie74]

It may be my least-favorite episode of the final season and that's a season that contained "Liaisons."

 

[Vger23]

It may be my least-favorite episode of the final season and that's a season that contained "Liaisons."

Haha...at least "Liaisons" had the line where Data tells Worf that he and the ambassador are both assholes, so they should build upon that common ground to form a more effective relationship. At least that's something....

 

[cooleddie74]

And Eric Pierpoint. So it has at least two things going for it.

 

[fireproof78]

I can agree that as a film, that scene could drag the pace down.

It does. This is not to take away from the beauty of the shots but a question of pacing.

But I will always feel that scene was not only necessary, but was in character with established behavior from TOS.

How so? When in TOS did we get these long shots of the ship from every angle?

Fair enough about her not being a character in your view... many people don't see the Enterprise like that. Thankfully, I do see her as a beautiful character.

Except, characters are not shot like that. The equivalent would be Kirk walking on to the bridge and the camera covering his trip from the lift, around the left side of the bridge, around the right side, having a close up of his rank braid, and slowly rising shot as he sits in the chair, before focusing on his hands on the seat rests. Do other characters get treated like that?

Pilots, whether flying an airliner, cargo plane, bomber, fighter, helicopter or private plane, do a preflight exterior inspection or walk-around of the aircraft to make sure everything is in proper condition to fly. This is the same principle of Kirk and Scotty's preflight fly-around of the Enterprise. Obviously it had the benefit of showing the ship off to the audience too, but there's a valid reason for it.

Ok. this not me saying that an inspection is invalid. This is me saying the pacing of the shot, after being told of an emergency situation, is off putting. You can do an inspection without 5 minutes of film time, and probably even longer in universe time. It strains credulity.

Also, in general, to be extremely blunt to the point of rudeness the shot is beautiful. I am not saying the shot isn't beautiful. The music, the cinematography and everything is lovely. The Enterprise looks like a beautiful ship. But, in the context of the film it throws off the pacing, and diminishes the urgency of the emergency. That's all. That's my objection. People want beauty shots of ships, knock yourselves out.

 

[Falconer]

With regard to action vs. intellectual vs. moral, I think the key to Star Trek (at its best) is that the heroes have strong principles and act accordingly. Not all the same principles as each other, but you know what principles Kirk, Spock, Picard, etc., stand for, and the show is a play about how those principles come into practice in a given situation.