Oh boy, where to start with the hot take from this article claiming “Farscape” set out to do everything “Star Trek” didn’t. I mean, they might as well have said “Farscape” is the anti-green-bean casserole of sci-fi shows. First off, kudos to the Jim Henson Company for making a show that’s essentially a cosmic zoo on steroids. That’s fun, but saying it’s fundamentally the opposite of “Star Trek” is like saying pizza is the opposite of fine dining—both have their place at the dinner table.

The article drools over “Farscape” being funny, campy, and ‘weird as hell,’ as though “Star Trek” never had an episode where folks swapped bodies or Kirk fought a guy in a rubber lizard suit. Newsflash: “Star Trek” had its fair share of campy weirdness, just with fewer puppets.

Then there’s the claim that “Farscape” characters are very, very human and relatable, unlike those unfeeling robots on “Star Trek.” Hold the space-phone! Are we really saying that Picard, with all his Shakespearean soliloquies and moral dilemmas, isn’t relatable? Or that Data’s quest to be human isn’t the most human thing ever? “Farscape” might have cornered the market on intergalactic hot messes, but “Star Trek” definitely serves up its share of emotional turmoil and character depth.

And let’s not forget the whole “Farscape” angle of being less about utopian ideals and more about surviving another day. Sure, that’s gritty and all, but isn’t the point of sci-fi to explore different ideals, whether they be utopian, dystopian, or just plain ol’ strange? “Star Trek” might give us a polished look at the future, but it’s not like they’re not facing their share of cosmic calamities.

In conclusion, while “Farscape” absolutely brings its own unique flavor to the sci-fi smorgasbord, the notion that it did everything “Star Trek” didn’t is like saying ice cream is the opposite of cake. They’re different, sure, but at the end of the day, we all just want a piece of that delicious space drama.