What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[Lord Garth]

I have zero use for when I was in elementary school, junior high, or high school. My two favorite periods during my life were my early-20s and mid-30s. Whereas I hated junior high and high school. And why would I want to go back to when I was a kid, when I wasn't allowed to do anything? Pop-culturally, OTOH, I do like things from every decade.

For Trek: We wouldn't have gotten more '60s Trek, because TOS ended in 1969! If it continued, it would've become '70s Trek. And we probably dodged a bullet there. For '90s Trek, I was getting sick of it by the end of the actual '90s. So I thought its time was up. I liked that when Star Trek returned to TV in 2017, it wasn't the same style. And when PIC started, even though it was continuing the story of TNG/DS9/VOY, it wasn't continuing the same general style of production or storytelling. If PIC had been like TNG from 1987-1994, I would've been one of the first to tune out.

 

[fireproof78]

And when PIC started, even though it was continuing the story of TNG/DS9/VOY, it wasn't continuing the same general style of production or storytelling.

I think that is one of it's great strengths. It feels like a story that grew up with me, rather than a story I know from when I grew up.

My controversial opinion (potentially) for the day is that I don't need a final adventure for my heroes. Now, part of this comes from the books I read as a youngster, were the adventure just concluded but the characters talked about going on the next adventure. There was nothing final about it, other than there wasn't a book about it. To me that appeals more than revisiting characters again and again because it becomes a part of the idea that they have lives and would have adventures even if I didn't read them. So, for me, things like The Undiscovered Country or Generations for Kirk, are just so ancillary to my enjoyment. Like, people say "Oh, that's a horrible way to end a franchise" and I'm going, well, I mean, maybe? When they warp off to another adventure it just feels like they are always out there on an adventure.

That's just my take though.

 

[drt]

“The human adventure is just beginning” indeed.

I think that’s why so many people find returning to favorite characters years later isn’t very satisfying. It’s never going to live up to what they’ve imagined.

 

[Ragitsu]

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

 

[fireproof78]

“The human adventure is just beginning” indeed.

I think that’s why so many people find returning to favorite characters years later isn’t very satisfying. It’s never going to live up to what they’ve imagined.

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.

 

[ralfy]

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

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

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.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Not strictly Star Trek, but Star Trek adjacement. My "controversial" opinion when someone complains about nostalgia:

Nostalgia = The '50s, '60s, '70s, and '80s, a.k.a. The Cold War Era.
Not Nostalgia = The '90s, '00s, and '10s.

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.

 

[JeffOakland]

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

 

[Lord Garth]

So children are not allowed to be Nostalgic?

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.

 

[Guy Gardener]

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.

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.

 

[Lord Garth]

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.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

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.

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.

 

[Guy Gardener]

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

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.

 

[Tango]

and frankly, the overrated First Contract).

Was that the Ferengi time-travel movie?

 

[fireproof78]

It's as if all of the earlier shows didn't matter, as well as Roddenberry's vision.

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.

 

[dmac]

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

 

[fireproof78]

 

[1001001]

 

[dmac]

View attachment 33505

Move over Buck Rogers. We got Captain Morgan.

 

[Soong-type Android]

The Enterprise E looks better than the Enterprise D.