• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

Breaking News
Shake up at NBC universal as Jeff Shell gets the boot. Hey Peacock leave the girls alone!
We now return you to your controversial discussion in progress.
 
My point is is that you're making predictive statements as an absolute about stories that we don't even know are going to come to pass.

You can't say with certainty how this is going to impact any stories that take place in the 25th century going forward
Of course I make a predictive statement based on nothing but experience & a gut feeling here - it's the "controversial opinion thread" after all.:guffaw:

Besides - no prediction ever will have absolute "certainty". Not even the weather forecast. That's kind of in the nature of what a prediction is.
 
No major events in modern Trek will ever matter in-universe again (in the P+ streaming era of Trek).

When "Best if both Worlds" happened, Starfleet had a major defeat and lost thousands of people. That event had profound in-universe consequences and was acknowledged in most Trek series up until the most recent one. The Dominion war was also referenced in anything that in- universe happened later.

But no matter what happens in ANY of the modern streaming series - the destruction of all of Starfleet, the murder of millions of servicemen, A.I. wars spanning millennia and destroying entire planets, reboots of whole species or iconic characters, props, ships - despite never being "technically" erased via time-travel or reboot - NONE of these events will ever have any consequences or even be acknowledged in-universe ever again.

For all intents & purposes, Starfleet history "ended" with ST09. Anything else after that will only ever reference events from itself (but even then rarely - every new season is kind of a blank slate), or the 90s-00s Trek shows. The streaming shows will continue to show events that technically happen. But they will never be part of Treks fictional history. Basically what Voyager did after each episode, back to status quo, on a franchise-wide, galaxy-wide level.

And that is fine.


You sir are correct. This has everything to do with the mindset of the current writers and how little they care about substance and how much they care for attention fame and money.

Type in rowan Coleman star trek tng/ds9/voy/movies 1-10/ent etc and see him talk about the history and story and making of those shows. It's fascinating how much thought and love was put in those series vs fk all in the current ones.
 
Controversial Opinion:


Sometimes it's ok to remember that Star Trek is not a real living, breathing universe...it's fictional and designed for maximum entertainment value, not maximum realism. So, in remembering this, we can pout aside frustrations with in-universe stuff that makes no sense and just allow ourselves the joy of being entertained.

I mean, there's no sound in space in real life...but we don't (?) jump up and down and complain about that...even though it's absolutely and profoundly ridiculous. Maybe most of the other things we could dismiss too....in the name of just for once being happy and joyful in the process of allowing ourselves to be entertained.



This was always happening throughout franchise history. All the forgotten technologies. All the forgotten solutions to various problems. Heck, even BOBW, which you site here, is guilty of one of the most egregious "realism hand-waves" in Star Trek history...and that is that Picard returned to command the Enterprise after taking nothing more than a few days off to hang out at the vineyard, after having undergone an unimaginably horrific and life-altering experience. There's no way this is realistic. I don't care how much gyrating and rationalizing anyone does. He would have been either grounded permanently or he would have been quietly and honorably discharged.

I'm calling bullshit. Star Trek is always stupid. Always has been, always will be. Because "realism" isn't conducive to being wildly entertaining.

Partially incorrect. We see how much wiser 24th century humanity is (at least during Berman Era definitely.not the new shows). Who's to say humans will be as vulnerable and fragile as they are now.

ONE major reason for humans being this way TODAY, and not being able to recover after being assimilated, has a lot to do with modern peolle believing they're invincible, that no one can harm.them, that they're so "cool", "unstoppable" or "powerful", until reality hits them hard. This may be why when these kids who think this way go to the battlefield, they return with strong ptsd that never goes away, and I think a part of this has to do with their delusions of grandeur having been shattered. Ptsd existed in world war I as well but to my knowledge on AVERAGE it was NOT this severe and it was called shell shock and wore off after weeks or months and didn't persist for years.

If humanity becomes compassionate, wise, experienced, learned, loses all arrogance, ego, insecurities, unnecessary and unearned pride, and they become honorable and loyal as well, they may recover far faster if assimilated because they don't come out of it having a mental episode every day about how they weren't so "invincible" or "though" after all, and a lot of people today may be suffering because of these subconscious realizations and not even know about it. If Picard came out of that episode and just understood that these things are bound to happen and that he's not invincible to stop it nor was he arrogant enough to think it wouldn't happen to him, then recovery could be over quickly.
 
First, it’s not a “mental disease”. Second, it’s not restricted to, nor dominant in, “the young of today”. Third, a clear manifestation of the effect is the presumption of amateurs to know more, and (hypothetically, as they are amateurs) perform better, than professionals in a particular field. Seem familiar?


No. I may be called an amateur if I was suddenly hired by paramount but that's just a technicality. I am wise enough and experienced enough in trek Lore, it's history, it's making, it's meaning, that I could produce a modern version of the trek everyone loved and went to conventions for without fail. I'm not saying it wouldn't take hard work, but beliebe me when someone else is paying the millions, it's A LOT easier. It's just too bad the millions are being paid to a classless talentless buffoon
 
Katherine Pulaski was a far more interesting character than Beverly Crusher and, even though Gates is a beautiful woman and talented in her own right, Diana Muldaur gave a more nuanced performance that could have developed into something far more interesting.
 
I enjoy seeing some polarizing and controversial story points because it says more about the inability of fans with inflexible, rigid minds and imagination to adapt to change.

Star Trek either helps encourage you to change or exposes your flaws

Star trek at least from tos throigh ent including the movies up to generations, has inspired me with hope, taught me compassion, humility, loyalty, respect, honor. Spock but especially tuvok, have taught me logic and the meaning and reason to.be excessively logical at times. Picard taught me how to be ethical and moral no matter the cost even at ones own cost, sisko taught me about being a professional and courageous and fearless leader, as well as having deep love for family and appreciating the good times (the emissary is a good example of the ladder), janeway taught me about forming a family with people when we Share a common circumstance out of our control, and to adhere to principles strongly, and archer taught me to never allow others to judge you and put you down, and to have trust in yourself.

But what did Burnham teach me? Be a mutineer, cause your captains death, start a war, and then have the writers use some deus ex machina to fix the mess you started, then pretend to make a "nice speech" to win everyone over throigh some pretentious words you don't mean, and everything will be fine?

Lower decks has taught me nothing so far other than how irritating stories can be when they lack meaning and are desperately trying to be funny in hopes of retaining views, and yet failing.

Picard season 1, what did that teach me? That you should disrespect your greatest elders and predecessors? And have the undeserved and unearned arrogance to insult your predecessors and think you are better than them despite having done fuk all? Sheer fkn hubris. What did it teach me? That the 24th century has cigar smoking, drug addicted, emotionally riddled, people who somehow have the skills to save the day but people without emotional problems, don't?

Picard season 2 had no message worthy of discussion either.

SNW, so far it's taught no meaningful message at all, other than that Vulcans apparently are secretly just like 2022 humans, they will lie and cheat on their future spouses with no care about truth or logic at all. That father's will allow their daughters to go forever with an alien stranger (remember how Picard didn't allow that one child to leave with that imposter mother who had good intents also)? Yea nice 180 modern writers. The issue is modern writers have become so jaded they can't see past their own emotional issues and make the most major mistake and bias, the bias of thinking "if I'm emotionally jaded and have issues, then so does everyone else, today, and for all times"
 
No. I may be called an amateur if I was suddenly hired by paramount but that's just a technicality. I am wise enough and experienced enough in trek Lore, it's history, it's making, it's meaning, that I could produce a modern version of the trek everyone loved and went to conventions for without fail. I'm not saying it wouldn't take hard work, but beliebe me when someone else is paying the millions, it's A LOT easier. It's just too bad the millions are being paid to a classless talentless buffoon
And you have just provided a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect at work. Congratulations.
 
Katherine Pulaski was a far more interesting character than Beverly Crusher and, even though Gates is a beautiful woman and talented in her own right, Diana Muldaur gave a more nuanced performance that could have developed into something far more interesting.


Agreed by far. I just never liked crusher. She always too quickly gave in to commands to do something. Pulaski was hilarious in her own way and stood her ground, but also knew when to back off.
 
Agreed by far. I just never liked crusher. She always too quickly gave in to commands to do something. Pulaski was hilarious in her own way and stood her ground, but also knew when to back off.

She was great. Did she want to leave or did the producers run her out of the building? She didn't get on with the rest of the cast? Honestly can't remember. Either way, she was short changed. I know people say that second season wasn't great but I have a fondness for it. Granted, not all of it.
 
I actually hope not.
There is something the more angry people answering to my post (@Racefuel ) seem to have missed:

I like Marvel movies. I liked Endgame. I liked how they "kept" the Snap and didn't do the obvious solution of reversing it.

However - every time it was brought up later, it was awkward as fuck and took me right out of the movie I was currently watching.

"The snap" would realistically destroy & completely reform all aspects of society - from how romance & relationships work, to more abstract political stuff, like no way they would still live in a traditional Western capitalist society afterwards.
If that gets too deeply explored, it stops being a superhero show, and instead becomes a very abstract, socio-economic "what if"-story on civilization and human norms itself.

It's okay if franchises sometimes "forget" their own story, IF it would otherwise break their universe (see all "lost technologies" in Trek). And the current story-arc writing style of Trek falls under this umbrella, where it's the wiser decision to just move on & forget.


True but thr people making movies make A LOT of money and influence the generations especially the young ones. They WILL NEVER EVER even make a minor scene or 2 second dialogue discussing about getting rid of capitalism or being negative towards it. They know today's minds absorb and copy everything they hear and see, the last thing they want is a sudden viral copying of everyone suddenly being against capitalism. It would mean the end of the owner class and the wealthy, of being able to act like arrogant pricks and show off and brag to the "peasents" about the new million dollar watch or suit they bought, and they desperately need to feed their own egos. So Yea they will never risk even speaking against capitalism, not even for 2 seconds, they want the 99% to continue working themselves to death while only 1% do essentially fk all and live the life of wealth and luxury
 
Did Sisko also teach you about murdering people and deceiving an entire nation state into wars that killed millions of their citizens because you valued their lives more than your peoples also (and then cover it up, lying about it in an official record)? Or committing chemical warfare against your own citizens because you wished to prove a point based on a personal grudge against one person?

Did Janeway teach you that committing total genocide against an entire species was the right thing to do, also by altering the timeline for your own selfish gain?

So while you absolutely castigate Burnham for doing what she felt was right in "The Vulcan Hello"..maybe apply your same standards to Sisko who caused the deaths of countless Romulans based on a lie
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top