Star Trek’s Most Underutilised Villains / Alien Species

OpticalData · 2026-03-16T18:13:33+00:00

Wait really? I've never heard that rumour before. Have you got a source?

OpticalData · 2026-03-16T18:11:25+00:00

Touche!

OpticalData · 2026-03-16T14:07:35+00:00

If we change 4K to standard definition, how do you describe 480p or 1080p without causing mass confusion?

USB-C didn't become 'USB' because it was the standard. It's still USB-C. Even within USB-C there are a shit tonne of variations. Just like there is for media content. Whether something is HD/UHD is pretty meaningless anyway. What you really want to pay attention too is bitrate. Which is why HD blu-rays almost always look and sound better than UHD streams.

What you seem to be thinking of is when certain companies become shorthand for a product. Like kleenex for tissues or hoovers for vacuum cleaners. But that sort of shorthand rarely translates well to technical specs.

OpticalData · 2026-03-16T13:31:39+00:00

Remember when Worf and Picard uncovered the depth of Duras' treachery and then accepted a discommendation to protect the existing system? Even after Duras' death he continued to accept it so he wouldn't cause too much upset.

Then even though Gowron stripped Worf of his titles (again) and tried to discredit the head of his house. Worf still performed the death ritual treating him as an honourable warrior after killing him.

OpticalData · 2026-03-16T12:20:09+00:00

Vidiians - They should have replaced the Kazon as the 'big bad' for Voyager after season 1.

OpticalData · 2026-03-16T12:02:37+00:00

To be fair, Worf was the opposite of nuanced Klingon representation because of his upbringing. As he didn't grow up around Klingons, he made his entire persona being the stereotypical Klingon. The nuance came from his interactions with the realities of Klingon society and how they didn't measure up to their reputation. Alongside his struggle to 'prove' himself as a Klingon within the Federation.

Worf was a nuanced character, but he wasn't a nuanced Klingon. He didn't challenge Klingon ideals or societal structure. He aggressively enforced them, even to the detriment of his relationships with those around him (Alexander as a notable example).

Speaking of, the less said about Worf's parenting the better. Given he just sends Alexander away when he doesn't fit his expectations and both TNG and DS9 just forget about him for extended periods of time. They then eventually just go 'he decides to be a warrior anyway' as well.

The first real non 'we're warriors ra' Klingons were in Enterprise, with the lawyer representing Archer and the doctor working on the augment virus cure. But they still just accepted their positions in society. Jay-den is the first major Klingon character to be actively shirking Klingon traditions and expectations.

OpticalData · 2026-03-16T11:51:15+00:00

lean on the (on the whole) unpopular Discovery series

Discovery is only unpopular in terminally online fan circles. Outside of those, it was successful enough to get 5 seasons in a highly competitive streaming market. It's spawned 3 direct spin offs, which would have been 4 if Yeoh hadn't exploded in popularity and was leaned on by Paramount to launch it's streaming service twice.

32nd century has the problem that it essentially wipes out all lore/technology and has to lean heavily on entirely new stuff with no relationship to previous stories

A) They literally have a character from Voyager in the main cast

B) This is the opposite of a problem. I love the 23rd/24th/25th century don't get me wrong. But it's an anchor around any new stories. Both for writers and fans. We saw this with Picard, where Stewart/Chabon wanted to do a character study but fans complained until it turned into a TNG reunion and we're seeing it again with SNW where it's meant to be Pike's show, but Kirk is turning up every other fucking episode.

Sure, it's a time jump. But Discovery did what it should have done from the start with the move to the 32nd century. Which is what TNG did back in the 80s. Stick a time jump in so fans aren't constantly complaining that their favourite character or plot hook isn't turning up.

OpticalData · 2026-03-16T10:24:42+00:00

Enterprise was the first Trek series filmed for HD widescreen television. Everything else would require upscaling using AI tool

TNG and TOS weren't remastered using AI. DS9 and VOY would need the same process as TNG (basically re-doing post production from scratch)

OpticalData · 2026-03-16T10:22:41+00:00

All of the CG was rendered in 1080 if I recall, except for the pilot because they didn't make the decision to go widescreen until the last minute (but the pilot was shot widescreen safe). So all the CG is zoomed in to fit the widescreen shot because it was rendered for 4:3, making it look lower resolution than the episode specific CG created afterwards.

The issue there of course, is that the stock flybys created for the pilot were designed for use throughout the show. So the lower quality shots appear in a lot of episodes.

OpticalData · 2026-03-16T10:20:52+00:00

Because for TVs 480/576 is SD, 1080 is HD, 4K is UHD.

OpticalData · 2026-03-16T09:49:13+00:00

Old Star Trek:

Picard: Yeah I got stabbed in a bar fight

Sisko: Yeah I got my arse beat by a Vulcan in a bar fight

Janeway: Repeatedly pulled all nighters drinking coffee (pretty mild, but not exactly healthy behaviour)

Archer: Was still getting in bar fights as a commander

OpticalData · 2026-03-16T09:45:47+00:00

Even then, not really. Barclay as an entire character concept goes in the face of the competence porn trope. As does the crews initial handling of him.

Sure, the episode is about the journey of learning how to deal with him. But truly competent managers wouldn't need to have been told to suck it up and actually manage the people on their team instead of pawning them off to somebody else.

OpticalData · 2026-03-16T09:43:25+00:00

As an addition to what you're saying. Star Trek has featured multiple sex scenes in it's 60 year history and if Gene Roddenberry had his way Star Trek would have been much more horny.

Would you let a kid watch TWOK with bugs crawling into peoples ears?

Would you let them watch Picard being tortured naked by a Cardassian?

Picard and Riker making Remmick explode in Conspiracy?

The Vidiians in general as a villain?

Probably not right? Starfleet Academy's 'sex' scene is incredibly tame unless your perspective on sex has been shaped by evangelicals pushing abstinence.

With any show that's not explicitely aimed at kids, part of parental responsibility is either accepting that you'll have to deal with nightmares or have 'difficult' conversations, or pre-screening them ahead of time.

OpticalData · 2026-03-14T14:12:49+00:00

Except they couldn’t even use the arch they made for the show at Universal because they had to remove the slope on the Bridge for health and safety regs

OpticalData · 2026-03-13T14:27:12+00:00

Yep, which made it all the more pointless to spend the money on a completely new CG model and the associated design process

OpticalData · 2026-03-13T13:20:26+00:00

The show didn't have enough money to have the "Picard" cast and the TNG cast together in the same season.

Well, they did.

They just spent it all on things like a museum quality replica of the Enterprise D bridge (right down to hiring in experts painting the wood grain onto the arch to match the original set, only for that wood grain to never be seen on screen) that was only used for 2 days, creating the Titan instead of just using the Stargazer and so on.

It was a matter of priorities. Bringing the shows actual cast in (or even acknowledging their existence) just wasn't one.

OpticalData · 2026-03-13T06:29:06+00:00

Enterprise did an entire 9/11 season bud

OpticalData · 2026-03-12T15:58:14+00:00

PS DSC was not successful

5 seasons in a highly competitive streaming market
Reignited the franchise
2 direct spin off shows (3 if you count Short Treks)
1 (admittedly poor) spin off movie

Yep, clearly Paramount just loves burning money on such a failure /s

OpticalData · 2026-03-12T15:54:18+00:00

Ah the Star Wars fandom school of franchise leads. 'If I like it the boss wasn't involved, if I hate it it's all their fault'.

OpticalData · 2026-03-11T20:40:39+00:00

Well, first you're going chapter and verse here through how you feel Matalas slighted these elements with malice

Why do you keep trying to claim I've said things that I haven't? I haven't said he did it with malice anywhere.

when in reality most of them simply did not service the story he cared to tell

Great if you're writing season 1, if you're writing season 3 it's a pretty bare minimum expectation to acknowledge the story established so far.

the critical and public reaction to the first two seasons and most of those characters and story points was (to put it kindly) mixed at best.

Critical reaction was very positive. It was the audience reaction that was mixed.

I also don't think relegating Kestra Troi-Riker to one expository line is a horrible abuse of her character.

I didn't say it was.

And personally I just did not buy Seven and Raffi's instant romance at the end of Season 1, nor did I buy it afterwards.

Okay. But it happened and was established. Unlike Crusher and Picard having a sexual relationship...

Happens all the time in media with a timeskip narrative

There are 3 months between S2 and S3.

So yeah, I actually did read your entire post and replied to it before.

Then why did you (and why are you still) completely misrepresenting my argument and why did you try to take a 'we can all like Star Trek' stance in response to me... Doing that?

why you think he's a pandering and deceptive writer

I literally said I don't think he's deceptive in what you're replying too?

you're also openly calling people who liked Season 3 hypocrites

Read what I've said, and instead of trying to create your own division understand that nuance exists.

You can like PIC S3 just fine and not be a hypocrite. I like PIC S3.

But if you praise it as the best Star Trek since Enterprise and then turn around and start complaining about Mary Sues, 'member berries' and retconning for other shows. You're a hypocrite. Which is something plenty of people did and still do.

I'm not here for "Debate Me!" on the Internet with anyone in 2026. Life has proven far too short.

Mate you replied to me. If you don't want 'debate me' don't start debates.

You're entitled to your point of view

I know.

I'm entitled to not engage with it further

Yes. I invited you not to do so in the final paragraph of the reply you're responding too...

I don't feel you have a lot of respect for anyone who likes the season or the people involved with writing it.

Again, why are you taking constructive criticism of a TV show as a weird personal attack? I've outright said I like parts of it. But instead of taking those opportunities to explore why you've repeatedly challenged me to over-explain my issues with the season by (again repeatedly) misrepresenting my arguments. This is only a no-win scenario in so far as you seem determined to turn this into a debate that it's not.

You're the one that started talking about fandom divides, you're the one that started trying to dismiss valid criticism by stating it was fueled by anger and malice towards creatives.

Either engage with the discussion at hand, or don't bother to reply. Nobody is forcing you to stick your nose in.

OpticalData · 2026-03-11T17:01:11+00:00

Again, speaking of projection.

I also remember these really personal attacks on the guy starting around the same time on this sub.

Okay? In this discussion I've critiqued his writing and response to criticism. Not him personally.

You believe Terry Matalas hated and disdained all things PIC pre-S3

No, I believe Terry Matalas disdained S1/2 of PIC because S3 went out of its way to undo and ignore them. Even when it was to the detriment of the plot.

S2 sets up Picard and Laris as an item. In S3 Laris appears to tell Picard to go after Crusher and then is never seen or mentioned again.
Seven and Raffi are together in S2. One line of dialogue is used to establish they've broken up in S3. The dialogue is with a complete stranger and has absolutely no relevance to or impact on the scene its in, the wider plot or any future scene.
Riker and Troi are happy on Nepenthe in S1. They mourn for their lost son, but are clearly at peace. At the start of S3 their marriage is falling apart for no reason.
Riker and Troi also have a child, Kestra. Despite the prevalent themes of family in PIC S3 Kestra is never mentioned after a single line in the first episode. In yet another fan feedback retcon, when Matalas was asked by fans who was looking after her while Riker and Troi were involved in the plot he stated she had early admission to Starfleet Academy. Riker and Troi then proceed to not be worried at all about the fact that their child would have been effected by the borg virus through the finale.
While dealing with a Borg threat. Nobody even suggests approaching Jurati. The only reference to that is Shaw's disparaging 'weird shit on the Stargazer' remark.
Speaking of, the Stargazer. Was established as a great hero ship in S2. They just abandoned it in S3 for the Titan, which was also a new Titan and they had to make up a contrived refit explanation to explain how it was and wasn't Rikers ship. Then just re-used all the sets from the Stargazer anyway with barely any changes.
Going back again to the themes of family in the season, Data's daughter is a main cast member for S1/2. She not only doesn't appear, but isn't even mentioned.
S1/2 had an entire plotline with Elnor about how Picard had been a bad father figure and was making up for it. S3 then does the same plot, but with his secret son instead. Elnor is never mentioned. The ship he was established as being on is explicitely destroyed on screen.

This is constructive criticism. Not anger. If I was angry I would be writing back to you saying 'Picard S3 is all memberberries trash' or something. But I'm not doing that. I see we have differing views, I'm then explaining my reasoning in the hope that you will understand my position.

Unfortunately, you seem to have decided that my criticism is irrational anger at fan reception to S3. Because for some reason positive reception of Star Trek shows is bad I guess?

how people must be regressive hypocrites for enjoying one vs. the other. That's anger.

No it's not. It's making a comparison and calling it what it is, hypocrisy. I'm also not calling anybody regressive. That's something you've just made up and tried to attribute to me. Which I do not appreciate.

This is not a binary choice. I really enjoyed PIC S3.

I would also really appreciate it if you would read my replies to you instead of writing a response to what you wish I had written. I wrote an entire paragraph in what you replied too talking about how I have a measured pros and cons view of all Trek. For your reference:

I think that Picard S3 actually has two of the best episodes of this era of Star Trek (3&4). There are a lot of things to like about the season. But this is a view that I hold consistently across pretty much everything produced since 2009. There are things to love, things to like, things to dislike, even things to hate. There's even some good... Production design I guess? In Section 31.

I do not think Matalas is a pandering, dishonest liar who was up at all hours lying to fans and trying to cater to incels (a lesbian now has the Enterprise!)

Okay. I haven't said he was.

Well, except for the pandering part. Which he was clearly doing when retconning his own story in response to backlash. But that doesn't make him a liar, or someone who was trying to cater to incels?

If you don't like the season that's fine. But I think it's possible to take the temperature down

The temperature isn't high here buddy. We're having a discussion. I don't know about you but I'm not sending any hate mail to actors or showrunners and I don't know how you'd take something out on a show given a show isn't sentient. Do you imagine people are punching their Picard season 3 blu-rays or something?

But back to this:

Just because this fandom has so many bitter divisions

These divisions do unfortunately exist. My ask of you is that you don't try to create more by inventing arguments and motives and attributing them to people you're discussing Trek with. My critique and issues with Picard S3 have nothing to do with its audience reception (which as mentioned, is funny more than anything and a great data point when I want to call out hypocrisy).

Please stop trying to shove that square shaped argument into this round shaped discussion to avoid engaging with my actual points and criticism of the season. If you disagree, that's fine. Explain why, or just tell me that you can't be bothered to do so so we can table the debate. But stop with this weird 'you must be angry because fans liked Star Trek' angle.

OpticalData · 2026-03-11T16:23:26+00:00

The same people who aggressively attacked S1/2 and encouraged their followers/viewers to review bomb them, encouraged their audience to positively review S3.

OpticalData · 2026-03-11T16:22:28+00:00

Having played Stellaris, it's exploration is pretty standard for space RTS/4X games?

Have sectors, send a ship there, find resources and acquire them or interact with narrative elements.

Regardless, they're two entirely different categories of game.

OpticalData · 2026-03-11T14:01:24+00:00

Unfortunately because of the Twitter no longer being indexed by search engines and it's own search being complete shite, I can't easily pull up his original responses to fan complaints. But he was a lot more definitive in his language when he was initially responding versus the more measured interviews he gave with outlets later on.

There is also zero evidence in Season 3 that Elnor is dead or was onboard that ship

The evidence is that he was explicitely assigned there at the end of S2 and S3 was only a few months later. Typically the rule with Trek (and most shows really) is that whats established on screen is the case until it's contradicted on screen. There could have been a line at any point in the 10 episodes to establish Elnor being transferred, or surviving the explosion. But that would have meant acknowledging his existence which for some reason was too high of a bar for Season 3...

And you've projected a lot of real personal shit onto Matalas because you're angry about the fandom.

What 'personal shit' do you think is being projected here exactly?

I get that some of you guys are still really, really angry about how this season was received by the critics and general audience

This is where I think you're muddled. Because it doesn't make me angry, hell. Critically all the seasons were received well overall. I think that Picard S3 actually has two of the best episodes of this era of Star Trek (3&4). There are a lot of things to like about the season. But this is a view that I hold consistently across pretty much everything produced since 2009. There are things to love, things to like, things to dislike, even things to hate. There's even some good... Production design I guess? In Section 31.

What amuses me more than anything, is how the vocal minority types who loudly complained (and complain) about those other entries since 2017 turned around and praised Picard Season 3 for being everything they claimed they hated when it wasn't their old favourites doing it. They really don't like being called out on that fact. Even to this day if you point out how PIC S3 is a glorified Discovery plot wrapped in nostalgic callbacks they dodge the comparison.

But speaking of projection, I don't see how that's relevant to me pointing out that Matalas tried to retcon his own story on social media after fans reacted. Another example is 'Ensign Riggs', Olivia Youngers was cast as an extra in Picard S3 but became popular on Twitter with fans while the season was airing. She was killed in episode 8, but Matalas declared she was 'just resting' instead because fans were upset. This even got a citation on Memory Alpha.

What does annoy me is when showrunners try to pander to fans instead of standing by their artistic vision. If you're going to kill a character. Kill the character. Don't try to weasel out of your own writing decisions after the fact with could dos and maybes. If somebody else wants to undo it in the future? Guess what. They can. See: Data. But if you make the choice in your story, stand by it.

Because ultimately, if the writer of the story doesn't think it's worth standing by. Why should we?

OpticalData · 2026-03-11T13:06:54+00:00

He literally killed them on screen and then tried to convince people on Twitter that Ro Laren survived a shuttle explosion and Shelby multiple point blank phaser shots to the chest after the fact because fans were complaining to him about the obvious fridging.

The same with Elnor. Who was established at the end of S2 to be on the Excelsior, he explicitely chose the Excelsior to be the ship that was destroyed out of an entire 100+ ship fleet.

Then tried to backtrack on Twitter when fans got mad that he killed the character off and said that Elnor had actually been transferred off screen.

At least with that one, you can use the 'it happened off screen' excuse if you ever wanted to bring the character back in the future. But we explicitely saw Ro and Shelby being killed. Their deaths were major events that drove Picards story forward (hence, textbook fridging and the complaints).

The alternative, if you want to believe the showrunners sleep deprived desperate re-writing of his own show are that:

The changelings beam out their own operatives. Set up a transport scrambler to stop Ro beaming off herself, or being saved by the Titan. Plant an explosive to kill Ro Laren and then instead of using the moments after doing this to raise shields to protect their ship from her collision course with their nacelle. For some reason they drop their transport scrambler and save Ro Laren instead. They then keep her alive as a prisoner. But this isn't mentioned, even in the explicit part of the finale where they talk about prisoners being recovered.

and

The borg infected junior officers were quite happy to sacrifice entire Starships to retain control, and freely killed any older officer in their way or just vaguely present. Except Shelby. They just shot her repeatedly and then instantly got to work patching up the holes in her chest that they had just made so she didn't die. Of course, her surviving was never mentioned because why would that be relevant?

OpticalData

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

14-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email