I think you’ll find that’s not all that controversial. Lotsa people think that. Not me…but others.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
I think you’ll find that’s not all that controversial. Lotsa people think that. Not me…but others.
I'm on record saying PIC Season 3 entertained me and I had a lot of fun, but it's supremely dumb writing that takes fan service to the next level. I think it's an entertaining ride, but you will not get any smarter after a viewing. 
Thank you for that link to a study-of-studies. Please note that I was reacting to another poster who claimed life expectancies in the 40s and 50s were the norm. That is just not the case if you exclude infant mortality, as the study you link to shows. Their table 1 shows life expectancy of men age 15 or higher at different points in history, all but two of the groups they report had life expectancy at least in the 60s and into the 70s would not have been outliers. The exceptions being Kings of Judah approx. 6000 to 1000 BCE as reported in the Books of Chronicles, and Roman Philosophers, Poets, and Politicians, approx. 30 BCE to 120 CE. They speculate that the dip for Romans 30 BCE-120 CE was due to their use of lead pipes.
I am satisfied with this study's support for my statement that average lifespans in the 40s or 50s for people past infancy was not the norm even in ancient or medieval times.
Yes, women had it worse due to complications of pregnancy and childbirth. Note for time travelling women: try to avoid being under pregnancy care any time before the mid-20th century.
And this is the future of Trek that is desired?I'm on record saying PIC Season 3 entertained me and I had a lot of fun, but it's supremely dumb writing that takes fan service to the next level. I think it's an entertaining ride, but you will not get any smarter after a viewing.
Did I say that?
No, not at all. But I had fun. That's all that I wanted from Season 3 after the second year was a dumpster fire.
No, not at all. But I had fun. That's all that I wanted from Season 3 after the second year was a dumpster fire.
If you’re going to take someone’s temperature, you’d better buy them dinner first.
So they threw some tires on the dumpster fire and called it season three? That explains the dark sets.
“The Next Generation” sounds a bit clunky. Not sure what they could have called it. Though I guess just plain “Star Trek” was an option. Then we’d be discussing Star Trek ‘87.
I’d like to see a “Roddenverse” with shows like Assignment: Earth, Questor and Spectre as part of a universe that includes Star Trek. I’d say Genesis II/Planet Earth too, but that’s a stretch continuity wise.
I’d like to see a “Roddenverse” with shows like Assignment: Earth, Questor and Spectre as part of a universe that includes Star Trek. I’d say Genesis II/Planet Earth too, but that’s a stretch continuity wise.
I'm really glad they didn't call it just 'Star Trek' as I hate trying to remember what year to stick onto identical titles so I can tell things apart!
I prefer a "Good SubTitle" after the "Main Title:" than having to append numbers for major releases of movies / TV shows.
That's why I'm happy with the way Star Trek mostly went.
They always picked pretty decent SubTitles IMO.
I always think of Roots: The Next Generations.“The Next Generation” sounds a bit clunky. Not sure what they could have called it. Though I guess just plain “Star Trek” was an option. Then we’d be discussing Star Trek ‘87.
Not really a stretch: they can have to deal with it when a time machine changes something in the past or when they go to a different quantum reality, now possible going forward, thanks to Lower Decks.I’d like to see a “Roddenverse” with shows like Assignment: Earth, Questor and Spectre as part of a universe that includes Star Trek. I’d say Genesis II/Planet Earth too, but that’s a stretch continuity wise.
At least neither Kirk nor Spock were given imaginary siblings by a malevolent alien entity. Poor Chekov had to live through that.
I always thought the Abrams films missed on something here. Instead of having Pavel Chekov, they should have had Piotr. Explain the age discrepancy and do a fandom deep dive.
I'm on record saying PIC Season 3 entertained me and I had a lot of fun, but it's supremely dumb writing that takes fan service to the next level. I think it's an entertaining ride, but you will not get any smarter after a viewing.
It wore out its welcome with me around episode 7. It just didn't feel like the story was advancing in any meaningful way.
Piotr wasn't made-up, he just got Kestra Troi'd?
I think we're supposed to conclude that Chekov imagined his brother (in "The Day of the Dove," I mean).
No. It is a different timeline and this Chekov is about six years older than the original version. So, a different name for a child that was born in the Abramsverse that didn't exist in the original universe.
Similar threads
- Locked
