What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[Commander Troi]

I haven't fundamentally changed. I'm still a geek. But I hit my "rock bottom" and have made huge changes since then that would probably surprise people who haven't been around me for awhile. I both am and am not the same person.

 

[Boo-khat!]

Changes? Yes. Reboot? No.

And that's the great thing about this fictional universe: You're entitled to your opinion as to whether it's just changes, or a reboot. You seem to favor the former. That's awesome. I favor the latter. I find that I enjoy shows like DSC and SNW much more when I'm not constantly trying to compare them to a show made in the '60's.

(Just don't try to tell me nobody changed anything and we'll get along fine.)

*cough, cough, date for the Eugenics Wars, cough, cough*

 

[Tallguy]

(Just don't try to tell me nobody changed anything and we'll get along fine.)

*cough, cough, date for the Eugenics Wars, cough, cough*

Is anyone saying that the EW has always been the early 21st century? Because why would you need time travel shenanigans for that? Unless that means that they're telling us "Hey, we changed that".

See? A reboot would not have worried about that.

 

[Boo-khat!]

Is anyone saying that the EW has always been the early 21st century? Because why would you need time travel shenanigans for that? Unless that means that they're telling us "Hey, we changed that".

See SNW S2, Ep. 3, "Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow."

 

[King Bob!]

*cough, cough, date for the Eugenics Wars, cough, cough*

Gotta be honest, never understood this.

 

[Tallguy]

See SNW S2, Ep. 3, "Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow."

Yeah. I got that. ARE you trying to tell me nobody changed anything? Because that would be nutty.

 

[fireproof78]

I haven't fundamentally changed. I'm still a geek. But I hit my "rock bottom" and have made huge changes since then that would probably surprise people who haven't been around me for awhile. I both am and am not the same person.

Same here. And there are som big changes for things that I value more as I get older, and the stuff as a youngster I value far far less than before.

Is anyone saying that the EW has always been the early 21st century? Because why would you need time travel shenanigans for that? Unless that means that they're telling us "Hey, we changed that".

Which is why the same continuity doesn't bother because if you have time travel changes are going to happen.

No, it's not a comparison game. It's feeling like this fleshes out the universe idea. Even the Kelvin universe, stated definitively as an alternate timeline, still provides a measure of enjoyment if one knows Kirk from the prime universe.

There is value in both approaches.

 

[King Bob!]

No, it's not a comparison game. It's feeling like this fleshes out the universe idea. Even the Kelvin universe, stated definitively as an alternate timeline, still provides a measure of enjoyment if one knows Kirk from the prime universe.

I don't understand. If you change something, it becomes an altered version.

 

[Boo-khat!]

Yeah. I got that. ARE you trying to tell me nobody changed anything? Because that would be nutty.

Spoiler

In TWOK, Khan definitively states that the Botany Bay was lost in the year 1996, which echoes what was stated in Space Seed. Yet in TATAT, it's the 21st century and Khan is still a little boy. So...somebody changed something.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't understand. If you change something, it becomes an altered version.

Yes, but it's an interesting thought experiment at looking at both versions.

It might be altered but that doesn't negate the previous.

 

[Shawnster]

I would not consider myself the same as I was 5 years ago

Did you go from extrovert to introvert? Sure, we change over time. Regardless, no matter how much we change and grow there is still enough of our core personality that we are identifiable.

It's rare that people change so extremely over time that their basic, core personality changes. This is typically the result of a stroke or a lobotomy or some trauma that affects the brain. One would think such trauma could be treated by the 23rd century depicted in Star Trek.

 

[fireproof78]

Did you go from extrovert to introvert?

Yes, to put it mildly.

One would think such trauma could be treated by the 23rd century depicted in Star Trek.

It can't.

That's been demonstrated repeatedly.

 

[STEPhon IT]

If you shift things over by two years, the '80s were the best decade for Star Trek as a franchise. 1982-1991.

If you look at that stretch, things almost always looked like they were on the up. Even when there were setbacks, they didn't last. The TOS Movies recovered from TFF, and TNG recovered from its rocky start. You've got the Genesis Trilogy and the majority of TNG's best episodes.

TNG never had a rocky start. Did it please everyone? Absolutely not, but it had more positives than negatives despite some old guards who thought the series should've ever existed. As for ratings? It never had a low rating on syndication, how the show was sold was the series was ordered by each individual syndicated station across the United States. Syndication had an option to order 65 episodes, that's approximately 3 seasons, despite a strike year during season 2 the show was getting positive reviews and for many young audiences this was THEIR Star Trek.

Everyone in Hollywood wanted to be on the show, you don't get a big movie star like Whoopi Goldberg, YES - she was a major player in the industry back when - to join a series that was having a rocky start and I doubt very much the show was struggling based on how the syndicated market worked back then.

 

[Lord Garth]

Hmmm.... anyway,..

I'd like to see The Roddenberry Archive put together something related to either The God Thing, Planet of the Titans, or some episodes of Phase II. If they were able to, I think they'd be able to do them justice.

Don't know if that's controversial, but this is my attempt to shift the discussion over to something else.

 

[Lord Garth]

TNG never had a rocky start. Did it please everyone? Absolutely not, but it had more positives than negatives despite some old guards who thought the series should've ever existed. As for ratings? It never had a low rating on syndication, how the show was sold was the series was ordered by each individual syndicated station across the United States. Syndication had an option to order 65 episodes, that's approximately 3 seasons, despite a strike year during season 2 the show was getting positive reviews and for many young audiences this was THEIR Star Trek.

Everyone in Hollywood wanted to be on the show, you don't get a big movie star like Whoopi Goldberg, YES - she was a major player in the industry back when - to join a series that was having a rocky start and I doubt very much the show was struggling based on how the syndicated market worked back then.

I think the ratings were fine. But the first season had a mixed reputation.

You took one thing I said and just ran off with it.

 

[The Vorta-lak]

Is this a spicy take: Allamaraine is better than Faith of the Heart.

 

[Frightscape One]

Is this a spicy take: Allamaraine is better than Faith of the Heart.

Not at all. I'd say it's dead on accurate.

 

[Citiprime]

See SNW S2, Ep. 3, "Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow."

I thought everything about that episode was dumb. And Akiva Goldsman's explanation for why he felt the change was needed is just ridiculous.

Apparently, a 56-year old story needed updating to keep things "aspirational" and believable, but in the same episode where you're putting in these edits for this believability you have the main characters doing things that aren't believable to a modern audience ...

Spoiler

(e.g., checking in to hotels without ID, crossing modern international borders without passports, traveling from Toronto to Vermont, a 14-hour trip by car, in ... what? A taxi cab?)

... And the only explanation given by the script for why all of that is possible is "chess money."

The biggest problem I have with Strange New Worlds is it could of done “Yes, and…” and arguably achieved similar results. Instead of fiddling with Trek's past, introduce new species and new places. Add on to the franchise’s narrative instead of reinterpreting what’s come before.

And at a certain point this gets into the same issue Star Wars has with letting go of the Skywalker family. Either your IP can move beyond the initial set of characters and settings to explore new ground or it can't. Either every story needs to connect to someone named Skywalker, and edit in a new aspect to Anakin Skywalker's past, or you can world build within the setting to explore other places and other characters that connect to the central themes.

 

[Tallguy]

TNG never had a rocky start. Did it please everyone? Absolutely not, but it had more positives than negatives despite some old guards who thought the series should've ever existed. As for ratings? It never had a low rating on syndication, how the show was sold was the series was ordered by each individual syndicated station across the United States. Syndication had an option to order 65 episodes, that's approximately 3 seasons, despite a strike year during season 2 the show was getting positive reviews and for many young audiences this was THEIR Star Trek.

Everyone in Hollywood wanted to be on the show, you don't get a big movie star like Whoopi Goldberg, YES - she was a major player in the industry back when - to join a series that was having a rocky start and I doubt very much the show was struggling based on how the syndicated market worked back then.

The ratings were great, IIRC. Certainly among syndicated television. Because it was STAR TREK. And some of us had waited our entire lives for new Star Trek on TV. (Really we wanted Kirk and Spock back every week, but what can you do?)

Whoopi wanted to be on Star Trek. And nobody could believe that back then, either.

But you have to remember the collective sigh that would go out when you started to get episodes like Measure of a Man or Q Who. When the show started to get GOOD.

TNG absolutely had a rocky start. (But I still love Encounter at Farpoint.)

Apparently, a 56-year old story needed updating to keep things "aspirational" and believable

Are we out of the six month window yet?

Spoiler: SNW season 2

There is a lot about "near future" TOS (and probably now TNG) that could use some pushing. But nobody cares. Why? Because everyone has memorized The Wrath of Khan.

A decent percent of the people of a certain age (like, say, Hollywood show runners) are here because of Wrath of Khan. And in Wrath of Khan there is a memorable speech with a clearly enunciated statement that Khan is from NINETEEN NINETY-SIX.

And the current show runners cannot leave the Eugenics Wars alone because that is where Khan comes from and that is how you get The Wrath of Khan. And not only did we not have WWIII in 1996 but 1996 is now longer ago than TOS was when TWOK was new.

So they fiddled with it. So the Eugenics Wars are still a "possible future" which is where they should always be. (Other than, you know, leaving them alone as the 24th century shows did.)

 

[Shawnster]

Because everyone has memorized The Wrath of Khan.

And they keep going to this well time after time in one form or another in an attempt to catch lightning in a bottle again.

I get it. Creators think TWOK is Trek's high water mark. Still, the well is running dry and these homages, nods, references, and recreations are not bringing the tide line up to the same level. It's been done. Been there, done that.

Hey Star Trek, since you are a progressive show about the future, how about showing progress and giving us something new instead of retreading TWOK over and over again?