What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[Tallguy]

I think the only really significant change Star Trek might have to deal with (and this is just because of First Contact, really) is if we're still bothering about this in the 2060's. If it was only based on Metamorphosis I'm not sure anyone would care. (Just like how The Wrath of Khan made 1996 a LOT more significant than if the Eugenics Wars had just been in a first season episode.)

OR if we discover warp drive and make some kind of alien contact in the near future. That would be a big deal to Star Trek "history".

Otherwise the important part is that "things happened between now and Star Trek".

"When will now be then?" The answer should always be: "Soon". Never now.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

Bell Riots failed to happen in August this year.

Should we kick them 30 years down the timeline?

 

[fireproof78]

Star Trek isn’t real and it doesn’t even matter anyway. Crazy.

Fascinating discussion and long paragraphs on something that doesn't matter.

 

[Tallguy]

Bell Riots failed to happen in August this year.

Should we kick them 30 years down the timeline?

Is there a new Star Trek story that you're burning to see about the Bell Riots? Some sort of follow up by the time cops or something?

I hate to say it, but the only place where that becomes important is if you're writing down a timeline of Star Trek's 21st century.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

Fascinating discussion and long paragraphs on something that doesn't matter.

I’m talking about a sci-fi show on the internet. I’m well aware of how much all this matters…

So… What’s your point, or maybe I should ask, do you even have one?

You’ve failed to put anything cogent together in your previous responses to my opinion… still, hope springs eternal.

Long paragraphs beat empty snark every time. And take it from a person who teaches academic writing… those paragraphs aren’t very long.

Still, I’m sorry if lots of words in quick succession like that caused you to become confused. Still, if (as in this case) you literally have nothing to say, maybe just say nothing?

 

[Richard S. Ta]

Is there a new Star Trek story that you're burning to see about the Bell Riots? Some sort of follow up by the time cops or something?

I hate to say it, but the only place where that becomes important is if you're writing down a timeline of Star Trek's 21st century.

I’m not burning to see anything.

Just coming back to that original point I raised.

Why should it have to matter? Why do those in charge feel the need to alter the established timeline of a fictional universe, just so it pointlessly lines up with ours?

No one has a satisfying answer to why this is necessary, yet apparently it is.

 

[fireproof78]

It’s certainly nothing to do with the dubiously stated impact of Star Trek on modern technology. You just randomly pulled that from the air. I’m sure I heard some BTS person, some SNW person, say it makes the show more ‘aspirational’ if we are to take it all as being ‘real’.

No, it's a myth. It's a myth that has been perpetuated for years. Rodenberry put it forward that Star Trek was aspirational because it influenced technological change even though it actually didn't. But it became a pop culture idea, with the Shuttle Enterprise and the cast appearing with it, and even other media commenting that "oh, cell phones were just something from Star Trek until we made it a reality."

Yes, it's a myth.

I'm not saying it's not a myth. I'm saying that there has been a tendency to hold on to Star Trek as needing to connect to our reality because of that myth. It's not accurate, but what Star Trek has done has constantly connected back to our reality, i.e. TVH is in our 80s (literally, with the Alameda scene), and the 90s (LA is just our LA, save for Starling). On and on it goes to try and connect back.

Why? That I do not know. I honestly think the why is the weird belief that Star Trek needs to satisfy escapism but somehow offering a measure of hope or some other idea that this is possible. That Star Trek can become real in some measure because people get so dissatisfied with this present life. What I think it actually does it create a bit of a learned helplessness, i.e. "The world cannot become better until we hit such and such in Star Trek." Yes, it's nonsensical, but I think because fandom doesn't know how to cope with the idea of Trek not being our future, and the production teams constantly go back to the great historical touchstones of the past, without recognizing some of them were inaccurate to beging with.

 

[Citiprime]

Why should it have to matter? Why do those in charge feel the need to alter the established timeline of a fictional universe, just so it pointlessly lines up with ours?

No one has a satisfying answer to why this is necessary, yet apparently it is.

There is an interesting possible shift among "those in charge" that, depending on your interpretation of the Lower Decks finale, might be significant.

Spoiler: For the Series Finale of "Lower Decks"

The story of the final episode involves an expanding tear in the universe which sends out waves that, without proper shielding, changes both objects and lifeforms into different forms from other parallel universes.

A Klingon bird-of-prey is hit by one of the waves and the Klingons morph into the Discovery season 1 Klingons.

Arguably, this implies Discovery and Strange New Worlds (as well as probably Starfleet Academy) occur in a different timeline/universe than everything directly connected to TOS.

And, when asked about it, Mike McMahan left open the possibility that it can be interpreted that way.

Listen, I'm not gonna tell the fans how to respond to anything. If you watch [Fissure Quest] you can see the timelines across different realities are all messed up. Was I being a little stinker with that moment and knowing what I was doing? Yeah. I’m not dumb. It’s also not firmly [established]–another multiversal shift we saw is it turned into a Klingon sail barge. You can take that moment however you want, and talk to me about it in ten years [smiles].​

​

Star Trek: Lower Decks’ Mike McMahan Addresses Wild Discovery Reference In Series Finale, And Now It Has Me Wondering

What do we make of this?

www.cinemablend.com

 

[oktay]

My favorite movies among the old Star Trek movies are the TNG movies. Among the old series, DS9 because it does not deal with war themes and because it deals with seasonal issues rather than episodic ones. Among the new series, Picard and SNW.

 

[oktay]

My favorite old Star Trek movies are the TNG movies. Old series include DS9 because it deals with war themes and deals with seasonal issues instead of episodic episodes. New series include Picard and SNW.

 

[oktay]

My favorite movies among the old Star Trek movies are the TNG movies. Among the old series, DS9 because it does not deal with war themes and because it deals with seasonal issues rather than episodic ones. Among the new series, Picard and SNW.

This is a completely wrong translation from google translate.

 

[Tallguy]

My favorite old star trek movies are the TNG Movies

Controversial Opinions thread is someplace else.

My favorite old Star Trek movies are the TNG movies. Old series include DS9 because it deals with war themes and deals with seasonal issues instead of episodic episodes. New series include Picard and SNW.

I didn't intend you to take me seriously, but welcome aboard, Ensign.

 

[Shawnster]

This is a completely wrong translation from google translate.

I understood you though.

 

[Jayson1]

Bell Riots failed to happen in August this year.

Should we kick them 30 years down the timeline?

Deep State is good at making news stories go away. They even ruined Chris Brynner's career to cover it up!

 

[JonnyQuest037]

You don't like Terry Matala's proposal for "ST:Legacy"?

Star Trek: Nepo Baby? Hard pass.

Perfect, and I 100% agree with you, Kang.

You understand why Sisko treats Picard like a jerk in DS9’s “Emissary.” It’s not right, but the man is still hurting from his wife, and still constantly living in the moment of her death. And Shaw has a similar backstory with survivor’s guilt.

Let's be real. Shaw had the SAME backstory. Because S3 of PIC could only give us remixes of things we'd seen before instead of anything new.

Head canon (or whatever word you prefer to use) is how you look at the show and prefer to interpret it for yourself. That's entirely up to you. Ignore canon. Ignore continuity. Interpret every single scene as its own separate universe if you want to.

I interpret every single line of dialogue to be its own separate universe. Including screams, gasps, and coughs.

Star Trek is currently at 3,679,462,943 universes and counting.

 

[cooleddie74]

And that's just in DSC!

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

Let's be real. Shaw had the SAME backstory. Because S3 of PIC could only give us remixes of things we'd seen before instead of anything new.

Along with a lot of survivors of that incident.

 

[Commander Troi]

Why? That I do not know.

Why? To keep it relatable to its contemporary audience. That's the simplest explanation, so I'm going with it.

 

[fireproof78]

Why? To keep it relatable to its contemporary audience. That's the simplest explanation, so I'm going with it.

Occam's Razor prevails I suppose.

 

[Dr Helen Noel]

The silly romance episodes are not terrible but the ship types, ship battles, and technobabble are dull.

The Enterprise should not have carpet.

Neelix is too much sometimes but at least he has a strong personality, which many on Voyager don’t.

The transporter does not create and kill a copy of you and no one would agree to use it if it did.

The holodeck episodes are the worst. They’re on the ship which means no real tension vs on a planet where anything could happen. I also want to see Trek characters do Trek things and not play Sherlock Holmes.

Flip communicators are better than badges.

If you can suspend your belief about them being on a spaceship in space with aliens, you should be able to suspend your belief about bad special effects.

The alternate Earth episodes make sense and should be brought back.

Kirk only slept with two women in TOS and most of the other Kirk romances were just an escape or information gathering ploy.

The Q should not exist. Trelanie was enough.

Wesley wouldn’t have been hated as much if he wasn’t told to shut up and he was taken seriously. The character isn’t terrible, it’s how the other characters react to him.

Star Trek is not set is a utopia but a dystopia:

Does Star Trek (TOS) really portray a future utopia?
As Dom #31 and others have pointed out, the Star Trek universe is not really a happy one.

Why is there such a need for escape, as in Rigley’s Pleasure Planet?
Why do so many starship captains go completely bananas?
Why is the body count so high? ( About 20% of all of the crewmen aboard the Enterprise died during the run of the series, most from conflict rather than from the rigors of space travel.)
The majority of the inhabited galaxy outside of the Federation is under the whip of the slavery and imperialism of the Klingon and Romulan Empires.
Racism (or I guess species-ism) is alive and well in Starfleet. How many times has Dr. McCoy called Mr. Spock names that would make even Paula Deen cringe?
Why do mining officials have so much power over Starfleet? It seems the major purpose of the fleet is to control commerce and the supply of dilithium. Peacekeeping is necessary to ensure the orderly flow of trade, with exploration being secondary.

Sure, they’ve cured many diseases, but they’ve encountered even more. Sure hunger and illiteracy is a thing of the past, but at what cost? It seems that civilians that appear on the show are often quite unhappy. Tight-lipped and cranky, we hardly even meet anyone who’s truly joyful. The criminals, con men and swindlers are the only people with smiles on their faces.

Or maybe it only seems that way because we see life from the standpoint of the crew of the Enterprise. Like some sort of monastery or convent, it’s occupants all seemed to be running from something in civilian life:
The massacre of thousands of innocent people at the hands of Kodos the Executioner and a life of boring farm work (Kirk)
A repressive and xenophobic society and a controlling father. Oh, and a really unsuitable fiancee. (Spock)
A failed marriage and who-knows-what in his medical career (McCoy)

Is their universe really so different from our own?

https://trekmovie.com/2013/07/01/th...ore-likely-than-we-may-think/#comment-5134876