You're most unpopular Trek opinions

[Alyssa]

that 'lacking in brilliance' Special effects in TV and Film means that a show is automatically bad. now i agree i used to believe this too but after watching a few eps of TOS and the movies i am reformed! the way the phaser beams look or how realistic the aliens appear don't matter as long as it is accompanied by good writing and ( with the exception of Bill Shatner ) good acting then none of that matters and i wish more people could see that
P.S i didn't read all posts before writing this so sorry of it has already been mentioned!

 

[garakfan]

I HATE TROUBLE WITH TRIBBLES. I even say it in capital letters. Please tell me I am not alone for despising this horrible 1960's sitcom episode.

 

[TeutonicNights]

Mike Have-Not said:
I like when Shatner and Brooks go "over the top" with their acting.

I like Ferengi comedy episodes.

I don't think Seven of Nine was THAT hot... (I like Kes better...)

I liked Doctor Pulaski. Better than Dr Crusher, even...

agreed

 

[K-Star]

Insurrection was AWESOME!
Hero Worship is my favorite episode of TNG.
I didn't really like Wrath of Khan that much. (Not a huge TOS fan)

 

[Orac Zen]

Re: Your most unpopular Trek opinions

garakfan said:
I HATE TROUBLE WITH TRIBBLES. I even say it in capital letters. Please tell me I am not alone for despising this horrible 1960's sitcom episode.

I wouldn't say I hate it, but it is greatly overrated. As are "The City on the Edge of Forever" and "The Visitor".

Another unpopular opinion: Quark is the most loathsome character in Trek.

 

[patlandness]

Re: Your most unpopular Trek opinions

"Deep Space Nine" (more than "Voyager" and "Enterprise" and the TNG-movies) killed Modern Trek.

You heard me.

It's overrated darkness and grittiness minus lasting realistic consequences (a character kills someone for wholly selfish/immoral reasons and they act like nothing happens in the next episode?) and snotty iconoclastic sledgehammering to Gene Roddenberry's (albiet unrealistic) vision of the future repulsed loyal fans and turned away viewers in droves. What the fuck does constant political chicanery, intergalatic war, long-drawn out convoluted soap opera stories and lame-brained Ferengi "comedies" have to do with Space Exploration?

Exhibit A: it's the first Trek show to *not* appear on the silver screen. Even the shortlived "Firefly" series was able to do that! Gee, I wonder why?

Exhibit B: It was becoming so unpopular that Paramount had to quickly cobble together a TOS/TNG-style cast and premise (you know, about "Seeking Out New Life and New Civilizations and Boldly Going Where No One Has Gone Before"?) to win back fans.

Exhibit C: It's not a household phenomenon like TOS and TNG. (The few waves of action figures are commonly found in the bargain bin of any toy or comic store)

Exhibit D: How many people do you know who were truly *inspired* by Deep Space Nine? Not entertained, but inspired? Raise of hands? Bueller? Bueller? You know why? Because it was too busy flipping shit to The Trek Mythos than actually adhering to a philosophy (any philosophy) or code of conduct.

And if that's not bad enough, there's the irratating view that DS9 is closer to TOS simply because there's more CONFLICT and DARK EPISODES. Well, gee so does "Angel" and "Law and Order" and "Nip/Tuck" and "The Sopranos" and "Oz". And...?

Oh yeah, they had "The Tribble Tribute Episode" and the "Klingon Trio Episode" and constant TOS name-dropping from TOS fanboys working on the show. Okay? And? Where's the, you know, "Star Trekking?" Exploring?

And finally: TOS-DS9 chic is a crock. People who worked (and also created) both TOS and DS9 worked (and created) on the heavily bashed TNG that they like to exclude.

Star Trek: The Next Generation is the CLOSEST series to The Original Series--not just because it was created by Roddenberry himself--it stayed true to the principles of Star Trek--infectious optimism for the future, morality, the concept of mercy and justice, understanding overcoming prejudice, transcending one's limits to be better than what one is and oh yeah SPACE EXPLORATION!

Deep Space Nine was made by people who watched TOS. The Next Generation was made by people who actually WORKED on TOS.

THE END

 

[patlandness]

Re: Your most unpopular Trek opinions

Orac Zen said:
I see I share several "unpopular" opinions with some other people. Cool. I'll restate the ones I agree with and add some extras:

1. Roddenberry was not a one-man band or the only creative force associated with TOS. He may have created the idea but people like Gene Coon and DC Fontana (to name just two) did at least as much to make it work as Roddenberry.

2. TOS is looked upon with rose-coloured glasses by some. It was and is a great show, but it's not some flawless masterpiece and the sequel series are not worthless crap by comparison.

3. TWoK is overrated. TSFS is underrated.

4. TNG holds up much better than it's given credit for. Further, a number of the criticisms directed at it are absurd.

5. Avery Brooks is, at best, a mediocre actor.

6. In TV terms, DS9 did nothing particularly innovative and is overrated. It's not a terrible show; it's simply not as good as it's made out to be.

7. There are several episodes across all Trek series that are much poorer than "Threshold".

8. Berman and Braga are not evil incarnate. Moore and Behr are not the second coming.

There are others, but that'll do for now.

Edit: Two more:

9. Voyager's characters - with the exception of Chakotay - are the most likeable in any Trek series.

10. All Trek relationships (with the exception of Paris / Torres) are pathetic beyond belief.

Orac Zen, you are my new god.

 

[unimatrix7]

Re: Your most unpopular Trek opinions

patlandness said:
"Deep Space Nine" (more than "Voyager" and "Enterprise" and the TNG-movies) killed Modern Trek.

You heard me.

It's overrated darkness and grittiness minus lasting realistic consequences (a character kills someone for wholly selfish/immoral reasons and they act like nothing happens in the next episode?) and snotty iconoclastic sledgehammering to Gene Roddenberry's (albiet unrealistic) vision of the future repulsed loyal fans and turned away viewers in droves. What the fuck does constant political chicanery, intergalatic war, long-drawn out convoluted soap opera stories and lame-brained Ferengi "comedies" have to do with Space Exploration?

Exhibit A: it's the first Trek show to *not* appear on the silver screen. Even the shortlived "Firefly" series was able to do that! Gee, I wonder why?

Exhibit B: It was becoming so unpopular that Paramount had to quickly cobble together a TOS/TNG-style cast and premise (you know, about "Seeking Out New Life and New Civilizations and Boldly Going Where No One Has Gone Before"?) to win back fans.

Exhibit C: It's not a household phenomenon like TOS and TNG. (The few waves of action figures are commonly found in the bargain bin of any toy or comic store)

Exhibit D: How many people do you know who were truly *inspired* by Deep Space Nine? Not entertained, but inspired? Raise of hands? Bueller? Bueller? You know why? Because it was too busy flipping shit to The Trek Mythos than actually adhering to a philosophy (any philosophy) or code of conduct.

And if that's not bad enough, there's the irratating view that DS9 is closer to TOS simply because there's more CONFLICT and DARK EPISODES. Well, gee so does "Angel" and "Law and Order" and "Nip/Tuck" and "The Sopranos" and "Oz". And...?

Oh yeah, they had "The Tribble Tribute Episode" and the "Klingon Trio Episode" and constant TOS name-dropping from TOS fanboys working on the show. Okay? And? Where's the, you know, "Star Trekking?" Exploring?

And finally: TOS-DS9 chic is a crock. People who worked (and also created) both TOS and DS9 worked (and created) on the heavily bashed TNG that they like to exclude.

Star Trek: The Next Generation is the CLOSEST series to The Original Series--not just because it was created by Roddenberry himself--it stayed true to the principles of Star Trek--infectious optimism for the future, morality, the concept of mercy and justice, understanding overcoming prejudice, transcending one's limits to be better than what one is and oh yeah SPACE EXPLORATION!

Deep Space Nine was made by people who watched TOS. The Next Generation was made by people who actually WORKED on TOS.

THE END

Wow, dude. That took guts I didnt think anybody around here had the balls to slam DS9 so hard, and while I largely agree with you, I'm just gonna run and hide before the Niners mobilise to tell you how wrong your opinions are

 

[Kegek]

Re: Your most unpopular Trek opinions

^
I also admire patlandness's guts, as a big fan of TNG if not exactly someone who despises DS9 as much as he does. I love both, but I do think DS9 is overrated and TNG is underrated.

 

[Angel4576]

Re: Your most unpopular Trek opinions

^^ There's an equally valid argument that TNG both started, and killed modern Trek.

After seven (mostly) glorious years, what was the point of shovelling up more of the same? DS9 was different. It had to be. Voyager, and later, Enterprise were classic examples of going back to the well once, and twice, too often. Both were pretty much dead on arrival because they were never going to recapture the brilliance of TNG, and were nowhere near different enough to be considered worthy.

 

[Kegek]

Re: Your most unpopular Trek opinions

^
I'd more say TNG was modern Trek, and it had a formula that combined excellence and success which the subsequent series couldn't quite match (DS9 being, IMHO, excellent, but wasn't a ratings success).

 

[TeutonicNights]

Re: Your most unpopular Trek opinions

patlandness said:


Exhibit B: It was becoming so unpopular that Paramount had to quickly cobble together a TOS/TNG-style cast and premise (you know, about "Seeking Out New Life and New Civilizations and Boldly Going Where No One Has Gone Before"?) to win back fans.

Yeah, that's why Voyager was such a huge ratings success. Oh wait...

Because it was too busy flipping shit to The Trek Mythos than actually adhering to a philosophy (any philosophy) or code of conduct.

Did you even watch the show?

Oh yeah, they had "The Tribble Tribute Episode" and the "Klingon Trio Episode" and constant TOS name-dropping from TOS fanboys working on the show. Okay? And? Where's the, you know, "Star Trekking?" Exploring? (...)
yeah SPACE EXPLORATION!

Where exactly did TNG explore much? What they mostly did, was checking out planets that had already been explored for a long time. The TOS aliens were often very strange, very alien beings. It was TNG who started the bumpy-forehead- alien-of-the-week thingy, not DS9.

 

[greenmystik]

Re: Your most unpopular Trek opinions

DS9 was only good when the was a war or some kind of action going on. The first three (hell four) seasons sucked ass. None of those people had the depth to do anything else. Just because they had a lot of "drama" actors doesn't mean they were good ones. Why do you think they brought Worf in. It took somebody (actually a few...Q, O'brien, Vash, and others) from the TNG universe to make it watchable.


How's that for unpopular huh?

Let the bashing begin baby!!!

 

[ktanner3]

Re: Your most unpopular Trek opinions

patlandness said:
"Deep Space Nine" (more than "Voyager" and "Enterprise" and the TNG-movies) killed Modern Trek.

You heard me.

It's overrated darkness and grittiness minus lasting realistic consequences (a character kills someone for wholly selfish/immoral reasons and they act like nothing happens in the next episode?) and snotty iconoclastic sledgehammering to Gene Roddenberry's (albiet unrealistic) vision of the future repulsed loyal fans and turned away viewers in droves. What the fuck does constant political chicanery, intergalatic war, long-drawn out convoluted soap opera stories and lame-brained Ferengi "comedies" have to do with Space Exploration?

Exhibit A: it's the first Trek show to *not* appear on the silver screen. Even the shortlived "Firefly" series was able to do that! Gee, I wonder why?

Exhibit B: It was becoming so unpopular that Paramount had to quickly cobble together a TOS/TNG-style cast and premise (you know, about "Seeking Out New Life and New Civilizations and Boldly Going Where No One Has Gone Before"?) to win back fans.

Exhibit C: It's not a household phenomenon like TOS and TNG. (The few waves of action figures are commonly found in the bargain bin of any toy or comic store)

Exhibit D: How many people do you know who were truly *inspired* by Deep Space Nine? Not entertained, but inspired? Raise of hands? Bueller? Bueller? You know why? Because it was too busy flipping shit to The Trek Mythos than actually adhering to a philosophy (any philosophy) or code of conduct.

And if that's not bad enough, there's the irratating view that DS9 is closer to TOS simply because there's more CONFLICT and DARK EPISODES. Well, gee so does "Angel" and "Law and Order" and "Nip/Tuck" and "The Sopranos" and "Oz". And...?

Oh yeah, they had "The Tribble Tribute Episode" and the "Klingon Trio Episode" and constant TOS name-dropping from TOS fanboys working on the show. Okay? And? Where's the, you know, "Star Trekking?" Exploring?

And finally: TOS-DS9 chic is a crock. People who worked (and also created) both TOS and DS9 worked (and created) on the heavily bashed TNG that they like to exclude.

Star Trek: The Next Generation is the CLOSEST series to The Original Series--not just because it was created by Roddenberry himself--it stayed true to the principles of Star Trek--infectious optimism for the future, morality, the concept of mercy and justice, understanding overcoming prejudice, transcending one's limits to be better than what one is and oh yeah SPACE EXPLORATION!

Deep Space Nine was made by people who watched TOS. The Next Generation was made by people who actually WORKED on TOS.

THE END

Ladies and gentleman, I think we have a winner. It's all total bullshit, but it's a winner as far as this board is concerned. :thumbsup:

 

[T'Cal]

With few exceptions, Data and Worf were handled very poorly in the four movies. Repeatedly, the writers tried to use both in attempts at comedy but far too often they failed. Data and Worf are among the richest characters in all of Trek with detailed histories and deep relationships. All of that was ignored in favor of an awful punchline or some lame schtick. If you remove these characters' attempts at comedy from all four movies, they are vastly improved.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Re: Your most unpopular Trek opinions

ktanner3 said:

patlandness said:
"Deep Space Nine" (more than "Voyager" and "Enterprise" and the TNG-movies) killed Modern Trek.

You heard me.

It's overrated darkness and grittiness minus lasting realistic consequences (a character kills someone for wholly selfish/immoral reasons and they act like nothing happens in the next episode?) and snotty iconoclastic sledgehammering to Gene Roddenberry's (albiet unrealistic) vision of the future repulsed loyal fans and turned away viewers in droves. What the fuck does constant political chicanery, intergalatic war, long-drawn out convoluted soap opera stories and lame-brained Ferengi "comedies" have to do with Space Exploration?

Exhibit A: it's the first Trek show to *not* appear on the silver screen. Even the shortlived "Firefly" series was able to do that! Gee, I wonder why?

Exhibit B: It was becoming so unpopular that Paramount had to quickly cobble together a TOS/TNG-style cast and premise (you know, about "Seeking Out New Life and New Civilizations and Boldly Going Where No One Has Gone Before"?) to win back fans.

Exhibit C: It's not a household phenomenon like TOS and TNG. (The few waves of action figures are commonly found in the bargain bin of any toy or comic store)

Exhibit D: How many people do you know who were truly *inspired* by Deep Space Nine? Not entertained, but inspired? Raise of hands? Bueller? Bueller? You know why? Because it was too busy flipping shit to The Trek Mythos than actually adhering to a philosophy (any philosophy) or code of conduct.

And if that's not bad enough, there's the irratating view that DS9 is closer to TOS simply because there's more CONFLICT and DARK EPISODES. Well, gee so does "Angel" and "Law and Order" and "Nip/Tuck" and "The Sopranos" and "Oz". And...?

Oh yeah, they had "The Tribble Tribute Episode" and the "Klingon Trio Episode" and constant TOS name-dropping from TOS fanboys working on the show. Okay? And? Where's the, you know, "Star Trekking?" Exploring?

And finally: TOS-DS9 chic is a crock. People who worked (and also created) both TOS and DS9 worked (and created) on the heavily bashed TNG that they like to exclude.

Star Trek: The Next Generation is the CLOSEST series to The Original Series--not just because it was created by Roddenberry himself--it stayed true to the principles of Star Trek--infectious optimism for the future, morality, the concept of mercy and justice, understanding overcoming prejudice, transcending one's limits to be better than what one is and oh yeah SPACE EXPLORATION!

Deep Space Nine was made by people who watched TOS. The Next Generation was made by people who actually WORKED on TOS.

THE END

Ladies and gentleman, I think we have a winner. It's all total bullshit, but it's a winner as far as this board is concerned. :thumbsup:

Knock it off

 

[SpreadingTheMuse]

DS9's after-the-fact "greatness" is due to rose-colored glasses and is in no proportion to what actually occurred on the show. Whereas it has its fan base and all that, it is the most overrated of them all.

DS9s Crimes Against Trek:
1) Stunting the scope. Remember when trek was new worlds and new civilizations? But how many eps were wasted on cutesie feely family stories, where someone gets a girlfriend or has family trouble or whines about their love life? This is NOT Melrose Space people, this is OUTER Space. Something the writers of TOS knew that the writers of DS9 never did was that the best and most important character of the show was the Galaxy Itself, and any ep that didnt explore the frontier and give us a NEW IDEA was a waste. Either its about New Worlds and New Civilizations or its not Star Trek. Its that simple.

2) Recycling plotlines. How many characters had to follow the EXACT SAME ARC of being outcasts from their own people? Odo? Worf? Garek? Quark? Its as if the writers never bothered to think up anything else.

3) Inconsistent Plotlines.

A) Lets see, lets make a BIG STINK about how the Dominion has forbidden all traffic thru the wormhole, and lets have them destroy a galaxy class starship to prove their point, then have a two-part episode to introduce the Defiant and take on the Dominion: EXCEPT, the two-parter ends on a whimper, the Dominion ultimatum is never brought up again, and instead of following thru, the next weeks ep is a cliched Quark episode. EXCUSE ME? What about the Dominion? You didnt solve the problem fellas!

B) Then lets make a BIG STINK about bringing back the Klingons (which Rick Berman admitted in TV GUIDE was a by the numbers ratings stunt), and have a big two-parter where THEY make a bunch of ultimatums. EXCEPT the Klingons are then forgot as quickly as they are brought up, regulated to a handful of forgettable cameos of no relevance at all, making it totally obvious that not only were the Klingons every bit the ratings stunt that Berman admitted they were, but that the writers themselves had no idea for a 2nd act at all. The big mid-season 2-parter that year was not even about the Klingons, rather changeling infiltration of Earth, and the whole Klingon subplot itself wasnt even wrapped up in its own episode, rather solved in 30 seconds of dialogue midway thru the next season.

C) Dominion War. Oh yeah, these guys are back again. And they're beating the hell out of us. And we're running out of ships. Except when we're not running out of ships. Every episode of catastrophic woe was matched THE FOLLOWING WEEK by innocent irrelevance. Every episode of "we're all going to die" built up great momentum only to be sabotaged by a cutsie family ep the following week. THen the Jem Hadar are running out of White, so we blow up their supply which accomplishes....absolutely nothing. Still have the war. Then we bring in the Breen with their super-weapon, which is dark and evil and "we're all going to die..." except we never see it again, the Breen dont take advantage of their advantage when they have the chance, and they give Starfleet what, 4 EPISODES to find a counter to it? God people, ATTACK.

And then the final episode, which was a collection of recycled FX shots and a cheesy ending, when we find out that the Gul Dukat subplot which had been going on for about 6 episodes had the entire time been a timeline stunt, with all of it occurring AFTER the Dominion surrender, too late for Dukat to get the Pah Wraiths to open the wormhole.

Now that thats out in the open---- Laughing
I remember reading the sci fi magazines of the day and occassionally reading their editorials where they themselves lamented the shrinking of Treks vision and scope, and even making a joke that if Shakespeare once said that if there were only 7 plots, then on Star Trek it must be down to 5.
If you like it then fine, but really, other treks DID NOT have these same problems, and we could have done a whole lot better.


On that note:
- The Animated Series is better than Ds9.

 

[ktanner3]

SpreadingTheMuse said:
DS9's after-the-fact "greatness" is due to rose-colored glasses and is in no proportion to what actually occurred on the show. Whereas it has its fan base and all that, it is the most overrated of them all.

Maybe on this board, but I would say with the general Trek public it's not even mentioned.So I fail to see how it is overated.I could make the same accusation on "The Motion Picture". Not many outside of this board think it is anything more than a big yawn fest. Yet here it is pretty popular.

DS9s Crimes Against Trek:
1) Stunting the scope. Remember when trek was new worlds and new civilizations? But how many eps were wasted on cutesie feely family stories, where someone gets a girlfriend or has family trouble or whines about their love life? This is NOT Melrose Space people, this is OUTER Space. Something the writers of TOS knew that the writers of DS9 never did was that the best and most important character of the show was the Galaxy Itself, and any ep that didnt explore the frontier and give us a NEW IDEA was a waste. Either its about New Worlds and New Civilizations or its not Star Trek. Its that simple.

Many new worlds and civiliztions were discussed. We just didn't send a ship to the planet. The citizens of that planet came to the station. And we learned far more about those species than we ever did on TNG. The cardassians and bajorans were terribly one dimensional on TNG. All we knew about the cardassians was that they were another brutal race bent on domination(**cough Klingons****) On DS9 we learn about the entire political structure and see that not all cardassians share the military view. This pretty much goes for all the races, including the Klingons. TJHe Bajorans were given a rich background that made them different. On TNG, all races with the exeption of the Borg were the same bump on the forehead aliens of the week.And let's not even go into the HUGE improvments to the Ferengi thanks to DS9.They went from a one dimensional moronic race that flubbed it up in space to a society that cared more about profit and had rules for doing so. Again, WAY different than the usual alien of the week on TNG.

2) Recycling plotlines. How many characters had to follow the EXACT SAME ARC of being outcasts from their own people? Odo? Worf? Garek? Quark? Its as if the writers never bothered to think up anything else.

Sorry, but garek was nothing like any character that had ever been done before. He was definitly someone you wouldn't turn your back on. And unlike characters on TNG, they didn't all want to be like starfleet.Quark and all ferengi were interested in profit,not being cookie cutter do gooders.

3) Inconsistent Plotlines.

A) Lets see, lets make a BIG STINK about how the Dominion has forbidden all traffic thru the wormhole, and lets have them destroy a galaxy class starship to prove their point, then have a two-part episode to introduce the Defiant and take on the Dominion: EXCEPT, the two-parter ends on a whimper, the Dominion ultimatum is never brought up again, and instead of following thru, the next weeks ep is a cliched Quark episode. EXCUSE ME? What about the Dominion? You didnt solve the problem fellas!

B) Then lets make a BIG STINK about bringing back the Klingons (which Rick Berman admitted in TV GUIDE was a by the numbers ratings stunt), and have a big two-parter where THEY make a bunch of ultimatums. EXCEPT the Klingons are then forgot as quickly as they are brought up, regulated to a handful of forgettable cameos of no relevance at all, making it totally obvious that not only were the Klingons every bit the ratings stunt that Berman admitted they were, but that the writers themselves had no idea for a 2nd act at all. The big mid-season 2-parter that year was not even about the Klingons, rather changeling infiltration of Earth, and the whole Klingon subplot itself wasnt even wrapped up in its own episode, rather solved in 30 seconds of dialogue midway thru the next season.

C) Dominion War. Oh yeah, these guys are back again. And they're beating the hell out of us. And we're running out of ships. Except when we're not running out of ships. Every episode of catastrophic woe was matched THE FOLLOWING WEEK by innocent irrelevance. Every episode of "we're all going to die" built up great momentum only to be sabotaged by a cutsie family ep the following week. THen the Jem Hadar are running out of White, so we blow up their supply which accomplishes....absolutely nothing. Still have the war. Then we bring in the Breen with their super-weapon, which is dark and evil and "we're all going to die..." except we never see it again, the Breen dont take advantage of their advantage when they have the chance, and they give Starfleet what, 4 EPISODES to find a counter to it? God people, ATTACK.

I can sum up TNG in shorter sentences: Let's see, let's create another alien of the week that looks like every other race with the exeption of a different forehead. Let's throw in a catastrophe that is similiar to something on 20th century earth and show how helpless the aliens are without the good ole enterprise coming to the rescue. And let's never show conflict between the federation members because in the 24th century we're all perfect.

 

[Tralah]

I like almost all the Ferengi and Klingon episodes.

I think "City of the Edge of Forever" is overrated and even a bit dull.

I don't care much for the Kirk character or Shatner's portrayal of him.

I think Keiko is unfairly maligned.

 

[JD]

SpreadingTheMuse said:
And then the final episode, which was a collection of recycled FX shots and a cheesy ending, when we find out that the Gul Dukat subplot which had been going on for about 6 episodes had the entire time been a timeline stunt, with all of it occurring AFTER the Dominion surrender, too late for Dukat to get the Pah Wraiths to open the wormhole.

The Dukat plot took place concurrently with the end of the Dominion War, the only thing that took place afterwards was when Sisko confronted him and Winn. As for Dukat, he wasn't trying to open the Wormhole, he was trying to release the Pah-Wraiths so they could destroy the Prophest and take over the Celestial Temple.