What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[Airin]

The reason why I think it's important to have fictional conflicts set in the present, instead of keeping moving them forward, is because we're living in less-than-perfect times. And this helps to draw a parallel with real life. It doesn't matter that there were no Eugenic Wars in the 90's, because there were (and are) other problems; from global warming to genocides all over the world, so the metaphor still works. And the message is clear: "This too will pass. No matter how bleak the present looks, someday it will be better, we will be better." This is the source of the optimism in the series.
So there was no need to move the Eugenic Wars to the 21st century, because it was never intended to be a literal description of current events, but a parallel for them. Back in the 60's they had to know that most of the audience would still be around in the 90's, and that they'd see that there was no such thing as the Eugenic Wars. But those details aren't important; the message is.

 

[fireproof78]

It’s only Star Trek that seems to play this game of make it all match up. It could just have it’s own timeline and whatever like any other show, but somewhere, somehow the Great Bird’s vision crept into the works and now Star Trek is something special… we have to pretend that the pretend thing is less pretend than the other pretend things… why?

Because of the insistence that Star Trek inspired current and past technological achievements. There was a lot of scrambling for credit, and PR push, between cell phones from communicators, the space shuttle named Enterprise, and on and on.

There is a tendency in the Trek productions to align with our world because that is what is considered to be Trek's claim to fame in some way.

 

[Tallguy]

Just don't send us home. We've got no place else to go.

Love lifts us up where we belong...

I'm a credit-man to some degree, but what was memorable with ALTERNATIVE's?

Sorry, that wasn't clear. It's all terrible except the last ten minutes, and that last ten minutes includes a couple of minutes of credits.

 

[nightwind1]

Robin Curtis was a genius recasting. I've always liked her better than Kirstie Alley in the role of Saavik and Curtis seemed much more Vulcan and effective as a supporting character.

I've always preferred Kirstie Alley.

 

[cooleddie74]

I'll pretend I didn't hear that.

 

[HotRod]

Kirstie Alley never came off as anything but Kirstie Alley. I didn't get much of a Vulcan (or Romulan) feel from her at all.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

McCoy's daughter was mentioned in TAS.

Not by name, though. From "The Survivor":

My daughter was going to school on Cerberus about ten years ago when the crop failure occurred.​

 

[Avro Arrow]

You know why it's important to me and many others that Star Trek is our future and not some parallel timeline? Because it gives me hope. Hope that someday, we'll be able to come together, to make it off this planet and find our way out into the stars. It gives people something to strive for. And I feel that's more important now than ever. If it's just meant to be a fantasy universe like Star Wars, it doesn't have near that same impact. How do I deal with inconsistencies? To steal a page from Doctor Who: Wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey.

I agree with you that one of the big draws of the Star Trek franchise is the hopeful future that it portrays. I guess I would just counter that Star Trek doesn't have to literally be *our* future to inspire that hope.

Star Trek's history is arguably *worse* than our own. Star Trek's humans had nuclear weapons orbiting overhead in the 1960s. They witnessed genetic superhumans seize control of much of the world in the 1990s, and fought a devastating war to finally depose them. They basically imprisoned people for the "crime" of financial difficulty in the 2020s. And moving forward from our own time... they fought a cataclysmic nuclear war in the 2050s, that led to an additional genocidal "purification" of humanity, and which regressed society in at least some parts of the world at least until the late 2070s.

And after all that, humanity held on, persevered... and thrived. They banded together, they overcame their prejudices, and they unified. They expanded into the cosmos, and they laid the groundwork that brought that same spirit of unification to their neighbours among the stars. From their terrible history, they overcame their past, and forged a much better future for themselves and others.

That's inherently hopeful. It doesn't matter that their history doesn't match ours. Our own future is never going to be exactly the one depicted in Star Trek. It's a story. It's allegorical. With all the suffering these people went through, they rose above it. They made the world better. If they can do it, then we can too. If we work for it, our future can be just as bright as the one in Star Trek.

Sorry, I've just never understood the argument that Star Trek has to literally be possible in our future in order to be hopeful. Allegory is just what fiction does.

(I will try to keep this post upbeat, and not share my thoughts on our odds of actually managing to attain that bright future, based on the direction we have been heading...)

 

[fireproof78]

Sorry, I've just never understood the argument that Star Trek has to literally be possible in our future in order to be hopeful. Allegory is just what fiction does.

Because Trek felt it was the only way it was significant.


It's not accurate but the perception pervades.

I would argue that humanity has the same potential to reach for a positive future as ever before, with a lot more capabilities now than ever before.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

would argue that humanity has the same potential to reach for a positive future as ever before, with a lot more capabilities now than ever before.

And we can do better than Trek, with FAR LESS loss of life or damage to our planet.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

There is a tendency in the Trek productions to align with our world because that is what is considered to be Trek's claim to fame in some way.

That's so slight in terms of being a justification.

 

[Tallguy]

I still say that if Star Trek started talking about the moon landings in the 1950's that nobody would be saying "Star Trek's history isn't our history."

I think what people mean by this is "Hey, Star Trek has said some things about what was, at the time, the future that didn't pan out and we don't need to address it overtly." And I'm mostly OK with this.

But if SNW or Starfleet Academy started making episodes about finding long lost survivors from the Skynet Revolts of the early 2000's that vaporized Australia there might be some push back. (From Disney if from no-where else, but you know what I mean.)

 

[nightwind1]

I'll pretend I didn't hear that.

That's okay.

You're allowed to be wrong.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Marvel can have a Multiverse, DC Comics can have it's Multiverse.

Why can't Star Trek have it's own Multiverse and everybody be ok with it?

Because the Trek PTB--up to a certain point--produced post-TOS srries as part of the same universe. That did not hold with series such as ENT and DISCO, but the perception of one continuity persists.

It's not necessary and it would have a negative impact on the characters.

Uhura from TOS is improved as a character by having Uhura from SNW in her past. Same can be said of every other legacy character.

Separating characters into different timelines does nothing but deminish their individual stories, while also enabling certain elements of the fandom who view certain productions as being less than.

Separating Uhura from the SNW version does not in any way "diminish" her, either from her journey / part of the franchise's most influential crew, in universe and in pop culture. Uhura never needed SNW to be an important character, unless one simply was not paying attention to her over the course of 2-plus decades of her on TV and in the movies.

Uhura will be equally beloved, no matter what happens in SNW / TOS.

She's a sacred character.

This was just a part of the impact both character and actress had during one of the most tumultuous dangerous periods of American history when it mattered most:

There's no character development in SNW that will ever reach the public as Nichols' presence and performance did on TOS for millions who never viewed black American women as anything other than domestics or worse.

 

[1001001]

The character of Uhura has been fleshed out and improved by the Kelvin movies and SNW.

That’s not a knock on Nichols as an actress, but the symbolism of her role was far more impactful than the role itself. She basically answered the space phone. Even that magazine cover refers to her looks rather than her talent.

Saldana and Gooding’s Uhura both have more depth and breadth than Nichols was ever given. Again, not Nichols’ fault.

A product of the times.

 

[Tallguy]

The character of Uhura has been fleshed out and improved by the Kelvin movies and SNW.

That’s not a knock on Nichols as an actress, but the symbolism of her role was far more impactful than the role itself. She basically answered the space phone. Even that magazine cover refers to her looks rather than her talent.

Saldana and Gooding’s Uhura both have more depth and breadth than Nichols was ever given. Again, not Nichols’ fault.

A product of the times.

Tough to argue with. Someone will try.

 

[HotRod]

Separating Uhura from the SNW version does not in any way "diminish" her, either from her journey / part of the franchise's most influential crew, in universe and in pop culture. Uhura never needed SNW to be an important character, unless one simply was not paying attention to her over the course of 2-plus decades of her on TV and in the movies.

Sorry, but I disagree with you pretty much 100% on this. Yes, her presence on the ship was certainly impactful, but when you go past the cultural impact, she was basically a switchboard operator. Often adding nothing to an episode beyond saying "hailing frequencies open."

The character of Uhura has been fleshed out and improved by the Kelvin movies and SNW.

That’s not a knock on Nichols as an actress, but the symbolism of her role was far more impactful than the role itself. She basically answered the space phone. Even that magazine cover refers to her looks rather than her talent.

Saldana and Gooding’s Uhura both have more depth and breadth than Nichols was ever given. Again, not Nichols’ fault.

A product of the times.

Now this I agree with 100%.

 

[fireproof78]

That's so slight in terms of being a justification.

And?

People want fame and legacy and recognition. Trek hitched itself to this idea that it inspired technology so it must be our history.

And we can do better than Trek, with FAR LESS loss of life or damage to our planet.

Humanity is far more capable than we give ourselves credit for but because the real world tends to have many struggles the escapism of Trek already being there is more appealing than working to get there.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

Yes, her presence on the ship was certainly impactful, but when you go past the cultural impact, she was basically a switchboard operator.

Worse still, she had so few opportunities to leave the bridge it was as if she was glued to her chair.

The character of Uhura has been fleshed out and improved by the Kelvin movies and SNW.

That’s not a knock on Nichols as an actress, but the symbolism of her role was far more impactful than the role itself. She basically answered the space phone. Even that magazine cover refers to her looks rather than her talent.

Now the emphasis is on duty, not booty.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Sorry, but I disagree with you pretty much 100% on this. Yes, her presence on the ship was certainly impactful, but when you go past the cultural impact,

You do not go beyond cultural impact for a character added for that purpose. To underestimate what Nichols purpose was in favor of an attempt to build-up a character misses one of key reasons for Star Trek. Uhura being a ranked bridge officer did not need retconned exposition to be important or a good character, and certainly that was not required to the innumerable black people who spoke for themselves, habitually citing just how great and inspirational that aforementioned ranked bridge officer had been to be on that series--something many who claim to understand Star Trek, but do not when it comes to the deeper message received by those who were among the intended audience.