News Discovery isn't on TV because no-one would watch it

[fireproof78]

I agree, but then you'll have people saying things like "it's not REAL Star Trek." I find those comments to be incredibly dull and self-serving, but any time Trek veers an inch from a person's preconceptions, it gets the "not real Star Trek" dig. It's dumb, but it happens.

The reaction to Star Trek 09 is clear evidence of that.

But, for me, the point needs to be made that Star Trek needs to have a fundamental change in terms of presentation. There doesn't need to be this fear of "dumbing down" to the masses. You can have smart writing, good storytelling and fun characters and be "Star Trek," alongside action and adventure scenes. Strike the balance between the two instead of treating them like bitter enemies.

Star Trek, in order to survive, needs to find that balance and bring in some form of the younger demographic if it is going to survive. If it wont', it will die and deserves it.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

The reaction to Star Trek 09 is clear evidence of that.

But, for me, the point needs to be made that Star Trek needs to have a fundamental change in terms of presentation. There doesn't need to be this fear of "dumbing down" to the masses. You can have smart writing, good storytelling and fun characters and be "Star Trek," alongside action and adventure scenes. Strike the balance between the two instead of treating them like bitter enemies.

Star Trek, in order to survive, needs to find that balance and bring in some form of the younger demographic if it is going to survive. If it wont', it will die and deserves it.

Completely agree. Star Trek is a fifty year old franchise. If it wants to remain relevant, as I believe it has in the past, it needs to be allowed to grow and change to address what is current. It has to develop both it story content and presentation. And it doesn't have to abandon its Trekkiness to do that either.

 

[donners22]

Too long, at least to me, Star Trek has lived in it's own shadow, fearing that its best days are behind it and scared to try anything different lest it loose it's own identity. So, they put on the Star Trek name and all the safe Star Trek elements without consideration of making a good, well written, show.

For years the Trekkies have exerted an almost vampiric control over Roddenberry and the spirit of Star Trek. The benefits devolved from their support, that kept the idea alive; but the drawbacks now reveal themselves in all their invidious potency; because in Paramount's and Roddenberry's fealty to "maintaining the essence of the television series that fans adored," they have played it too safe.

Harlan Ellison wrote that about TMP 39 years ago, and it still rings true today.

 

[jaime]

Science fiction is not just literary speculation about things outside the realm of experience. It is literature that uses (to some degree and with varying levels and kinds of effectiveness) the language and discourse of disciplinary science.People can write imaginative fiction about the gods in which they believe, as Homer probably did when he composed the Iliad, and as John Milton certainly did when he wrote Paradise Lost. Most of our knowledge of folklore and myth comes from literary fictionalizations of ancient beliefs, not theological or philosophical accounts of the beliefs. The reason epics and literary representations of folklore don't qualify as science fiction is not because they contain no fiction but because they contain no science. Though "science" was once a mere synonym for knowledge, that's not what contemporary people including science fiction writers mean by the word. Science is a disciplinary system based on empirical evidence and repeatable, controlled experiments (hence testable hypotheses). Science is not synonymous with any and every worldview taken by some to be factual.

I was discounting myth as being fantasy, not it being science fiction. (I am pretty much in agreement with SF starting with Frankenstein.)
The distinction I was making was...essentially...if an appropriate ancient god turns up in the middle of a story set in/written in the time and place said god was believed to exist, it is not fantasy, but essentially no different to say Bridget Jones diary. From their perspective, it's realist. If it's written now and set back then, then it is arguably just historical fiction, depending on how far they go with the mythic elements and if they are accurate to the period. (Viking dude walks into town with new hammer, says Thor gave it to him, no other explanation given....still historical fiction not fantasy.)
To flip it around, Ds9 (and with Q arguably next gen) depends heavily on what might be seen as mythological beings for some of its plot....the prophets however do not switch it into being fantasy. (Nor does Apollo back in TOS, because he's explicitly given an explanation)

For a funnier explanation...say last year someone wrote a story about Trump being president, and got a swathe of details right. At the time it was written it would be speculative fiction. Even though those events then came to pass, doesn't suddenly shift it into being literary fiction. Dickens is not historical fiction, it's just literary fiction. If I write a book set in Victorian London, then it's historical fiction, but Dickens will always simply be fiction. Ancient gods are only a hallmark of 'fantasy' if used outside their original time/context.

 

[jaime]

For years the Trekkies have exerted an almost vampiric control over Roddenberry and the spirit of Star Trek. The benefits devolved from their support, that kept the idea alive; but the drawbacks now reveal themselves in all their invidious potency; because in Paramount's and Roddenberry's fealty to "maintaining the essence of the television series that fans adored," they have played it too safe.

Harlan Ellison wrote that about TMP 39 years ago, and it still rings true today.

Yeah, but Harlan is a grumpy dude, and some people actually liked TMP, and some of those were definitely not Trekkies before hand. Some of us may not meet his idea of a Trekkie afterwards either. And to some extent, if you are making something into a franchise, and want to be honest about it, you have to stay in many ways true to what the idea already has in place...otherwise it's a marketing exercise and hoping to simply take advantage of an existing fan base. Which can lose you that fan base, and may not pick you up a new one. (For all the talk back and forth about the kelvinverse, it is certainly possible that it lost more of the fan base's interest than it gained from outside it....and in Enterprise's case, that's almost a certainty.)

 

[jaime]

The reaction to Star Trek 09 is clear evidence of that.

But, for me, the point needs to be made that Star Trek needs to have a fundamental change in terms of presentation. There doesn't need to be this fear of "dumbing down" to the masses. You can have smart writing, good storytelling and fun characters and be "Star Trek," alongside action and adventure scenes. Strike the balance between the two instead of treating them like bitter enemies.

Star Trek, in order to survive, needs to find that balance and bring in some form of the younger demographic if it is going to survive. If it wont', it will die and deserves it.

That disallows a couple of things though....firstly, a chunk of that 'younger generation' are already Trek fans. Us thirty somethings are the target demographic for a ton of stuff now. And we had Trek when we were kids. Our parents had TOS. Some of us came into it because we watched it with our parents, some of us came into it by ourselves. Now...some of that generation of Trek fans have now had kids, and they too will pick up the habit, and some younger people are going to wander into it...if the show is accessible to them. If it's Game of Thrones in space, that's not going to happen. So if they chase that particular zeitgeist, it's doomed to failure, particularly in this modern era, with the death of 'edited for TV' versions. To give a separate example, I became a GhostBusters fan aged 5, I religiously watched the TV edit. The theatrical edit would never have been allowed by my parents. The new Ghostbusters (other problems, like being a bad film, aside) cannot be watched by my five year old because it simply isn't suitable and no suitable version exists. So that's a fan base they cannot grab, because they aimed it too much at a certain demographic. (Ironically not the existing fan base it turns out. They didn't take into account fans who were children at the time apparently, because the director had assumptions based purely on his age and experience)

The only time in Trek history that it could massively gain a new fan base was TNG era, and it did so. Because fandoms didn't exist the way they do now, because there wasn't a critical mass of Trek to point at and say 'this is what Trek is' and it arguably held a different space in the public consciousness. All of those things are different now, and the Trek name would be a disadvantage to anything trying to be radically different, but an advantage to something trying to continue in a broad existing style, and needs to use the weight of its brand to win over new audiences, not muddy its identity attempting to grab new viewers (see Enterprise. Dropped the branding, chased a demographic...didn't catch enough of them and alienated many in the existing fan base.)
In some ways DSC is already making this mistake by being a prequel, hunting what's left of the baby boomer Trek fan audience, and ignoring the 'we would like a post Voyager' series crowd. It's a pretty safe bet though, because they can rely on the goodwill of fandom in that area to at least give it a chance (as they did for enterprise) the question is what they do afterwards.

Of course, as long as existing Trek fans keep having kids, there will always be an audience. I have long joked that TOS fans will end up as a future Catholic Church, and TNG fans will end up the Protestant wing.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

There are really two genres that are called 'scifi', hard scifi and space operas.

Besides hard sci-fi and space operas, there are also the subgenres of soft sci-fi, cyberpunk, (post-)apocalyptic fiction, science fantasy, steampunk, military sci-fi, superhero fiction, horror sci-fi, dystopian future, etc.

Regarding the plot there's also alien invasion, first contact, time travel, robot fiction, near future, voyages extrordinaire, alternate history, space western, etc.

So a sci-fi movie/TV series/novel can fall into many subgenres and categories.

 

[Belz...]

That bolded part I strongly agree with. Too long, at least to me, Star Trek has lived in it's own shadow, fearing that its best days are behind it and scared to try anything different lest it loose it's own identity. So, they put on the Star Trek name and all the safe Star Trek elements without consideration of making a good, well written, show.

And, if Discovery makes the same mistakes, it will not last.

Yeah, lots of long-running series and franchises run on nostalgia after a while and try too hard to recapture their origins, as well. There's a way to keep with the spirit of Trek while doing something entirely new.

 

[jaime]

Besides hard sci-fi and space operas, there are also the subgenres of soft sci-fi, cyberpunk, (post-)apocalyptic fiction, science fantasy, steampunk, military sci-fi, superhero fiction, horror sci-fi, dystopian future, etc.

Regarding the plot there's also alien invasion, first contact, time travel, robot fiction, near future, voyages extrordinaire, alternate history, space western, etc.

So a sci-fi movie/TV series/novel can fall into many subgenres and categories.

Steampunk is barely SF any more...a lot of it is now Urban Paranormal in period dress. Steampunk is what happens when goths get tired of black, and discover colour. Mainly brown. (I say that with my tongue in cheek as a retired goth, and someone who reads steampunk.)

 

[Spot261]

Children?

Wow, you really believe us older folk don't enjoy space ships and aliens? Funny how HG Wells, Arthur C Clarke and Isaac Asimov managed to sell so many books.

I'm a 37 year old parent of three, my kids like sci fi, my dad does, my grandad did.

Why is that so difficult to accept? Like every generation of teenagers managing to invent sex?

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

I say that with my tongue in cheek as a retired goth, and someone who reads steampunk.

That's interesting. I've been meaning to start reading SP. Any recommendations?

 

[Mudd]

Ellison was, as he often is, absolutely right about Trek.

Science fiction is a subgenre, just a certain kind of fantasy literature.

 

[fireproof78]

That disallows a couple of things though....firstly, a chunk of that 'younger generation' are already Trek fans. Us thirty somethings are the target demographic for a ton of stuff now. And we had Trek when we were kids. Our parents had TOS. Some of us came into it because we watched it with our parents, some of us came into it by ourselves. Now...some of that generation of Trek fans have now had kids, and they too will pick up the habit, and some younger people are going to wander into it...if the show is accessible to them. If it's Game of Thrones in space, that's not going to happen. So if they chase that particular zeitgeist, it's doomed to failure, particularly in this modern era, with the death of 'edited for TV' versions. To give a separate example, I became a GhostBusters fan aged 5, I religiously watched the TV edit. The theatrical edit would never have been allowed by my parents. The new Ghostbusters (other problems, like being a bad film, aside) cannot be watched by my five year old because it simply isn't suitable and no suitable version exists. So that's a fan base they cannot grab, because they aimed it too much at a certain demographic. (Ironically not the existing fan base it turns out. They didn't take into account fans who were children at the time apparently, because the director had assumptions based purely on his age and experience)

First of all, I would not argue for "Game of Thrones in space" because that wouldn't allow for 30 year old fans and their kids to enjoy it together, as you say. But, Star Trek has done little in the way of reaching that younger generation. As odd as it sounds, GoT and Walking Dead, for all their gore, are still able to garner younger attention, even if they are not watching it.
Why?
Walk in to Walgreens or K-Mart and head to the toy section. You won't find Star Trek there, but you will find GoT figurines, and Walking Dead dart guns. So, it doesn't have to be the TV show that garners that attention of the younger crowd.

The only time in Trek history that it could massively gain a new fan base was TNG era, and it did so. Because fandoms didn't exist the way they do now, because there wasn't a critical mass of Trek to point at and say 'this is what Trek is' and it arguably held a different space in the public consciousness. All of those things are different now, and the Trek name would be a disadvantage to anything trying to be radically different, but an advantage to something trying to continue in a broad existing style, and needs to use the weight of its brand to win over new audiences, not muddy its identity attempting to grab new viewers (see Enterprise. Dropped the branding, chased a demographic...didn't catch enough of them and alienated many in the existing fan base.)
In some ways DSC is already making this mistake by being a prequel, hunting what's left of the baby boomer Trek fan audience, and ignoring the 'we would like a post Voyager' series crowd. It's a pretty safe bet though, because they can rely on the goodwill of fandom in that area to at least give it a chance (as they did for enterprise) the question is what they do afterwards.

Why is it a disadvantage of trying something different? I know that Star Trek has a certain flavor, and that attempting something new is considered problematic (see the "Not Star Trek" @Balok's Decoy mentioned in response to me) but I still think that it needs to be attempted.

Look at Battlestar Galactica and its reboot. First of all, it was off-putting for me because I grew up with the original series and this was far darker, far more depressing and not the characters I knew. But, it garnered some attention among my friends and was successful for a couple of years. It drew in a newer crowd.

Now, to be clear, I am not advocating Star Trek as dark and gritty, or a new-BSG survival reboot. I am using it to illustrate a reboot that can be done. Star Trek could go through the reboot, a full one, without connection to prior materials, but still having the familiar look of the franchise (ship shape, uniform, terms, etc).

Even ST09 did not fully separate, and there is an argument to be made that a full reboot might have done even better.

 

[jaime]

First of all, I would not argue for "Game of Thrones in space" because that wouldn't allow for 30 year old fans and their kids to enjoy it together, as you say. But, Star Trek has done little in the way of reaching that younger generation. As odd as it sounds, GoT and Walking Dead, for all their gore, are still able to garner younger attention, even if they are not watching it.
Why?
Walk in to Walgreens or K-Mart and head to the toy section. You won't find Star Trek there, but you will find GoT figurines, and Walking Dead dart guns. So, it doesn't have to be the TV show that garners that attention of the younger crowd.

Why is it a disadvantage of trying something different? I know that Star Trek has a certain flavor, and that attempting something new is considered problematic (see the "Not Star Trek" @Balok's Decoy mentioned in response to me) but I still think that it needs to be attempted.

Look at Battlestar Galactica and its reboot. First of all, it was off-putting for me because I grew up with the original series and this was far darker, far more depressing and not the characters I knew. But, it garnered some attention among my friends and was successful for a couple of years. It drew in a newer crowd.

Now, to be clear, I am not advocating Star Trek as dark and gritty, or a new-BSG survival reboot. I am using it to illustrate a reboot that can be done. Star Trek could go through the reboot, a full one, without connection to prior materials, but still having the familiar look of the franchise (ship shape, uniform, terms, etc).

Even ST09 did not fully separate, and there is an argument to be made that a full reboot might have done even better.

Of course, as long as existing Trek fans keep having kids, there will always be an audience. I have long joked that TOS fans will end up as a future Catholic Church, and TNG fans will end up the Protestant wing.

[/QUOTE]

I think that a show realistically gets one shot at a reboot and from a certain perspective, the TNG era was it. BSG is an interesting case, but in some ways was an early example of the current nostalgia wave...the original was successful with a given generation when we were kids, all fired up off the back of Star Wars, and the reboot rolled up at just the right time to be a gritty version of what we remembered, (it's amazing how much of it is not at all rebooted, and how much of it heavily draws from the original) Trek Just has so much mass to reboot.

 

[Greg Cox]

I think that a show realistically gets one shot at a reboot and from a certain perspective, the TNG era was .

Not sure that's true. PLANET OF THE APES has been rebooted a couple of times already, at least twice theatrically and twice more if you count the TV series and Saturday morning cartoon. And yet the current cycle of APES movies is doing quite well at the moment, with a new movie due out this summer.

And, heck, we're getting a third reboot of LOST OF SPACE in the near future.

And if we're talking something like ZORRO or SUPERMAN . . . heck, they get rebooted on screen every generation or so. I'm old enough to have seen at least six live-action reboots of SUPERMAN in my lifetime.

And the first version is not always the best. It took Hollywood at least four tries to get CAPTAIN AMERICA right.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Not sure that's true. PLANET OF THE APES has been rebooted a couple of times already, at twice theatrically and twice more if you count the TV series and Saturday morning cartoon

I'm not sure the live action TV series is a reboot. In '74, it was seen as just another leap forward on the calendar (from Battle for the Planet of the Apes), although I admit there were some plot inconsistencies between TV world & the movies.

And the first version is not always the best. It took Hollywood at least four tries to get CAPTAIN AMERICA right.

....well, the Dick Purcell version was the textbook definition of low budget/crank 'em out serial, so no one should have expected much from that no shield, no Bucky, no point snoozer.

Reb Brown's was fairly successful (it did get strong enough ratings to warrant a sequel movie), but yeah...it was not like anything from the comics.

Nevermind the 1990 film...yikes.

 

[Greg Cox]

I'm not sure the live action TV series is a reboot. In '74, it was seen as just another leap forward on the calendar (from Battle for the Planet of the Apes), although I admit there were some plot inconsistencies between TV world & the movies..

That one's ambiguous, which is why I qualified my remarks, and I've seen some chronologies that attempt to work the TV series into the original movie continuity, but they don't really hold up to close examination. (Is the "Doctor Zaius" in the TV series supposed to be same "Doctor Zaius" as the one in the first two movies?) The TV series is more or less a toned-down, kid-friendly reboot of the basic premise of the first movie . . . more clothes, less blood and brutality and despair.

 

[KelisThePoet]

The distinction I was making was...essentially...if an appropriate ancient god turns up in the middle of a story set in/written in the time and place said god was believed to exist, it is not fantasy, but essentially no different to say Bridget Jones diary. From their perspective, it's realist.

We're in agreement that stories about gods written at a time when people believe in them are not fantasy stories. But I disagree that ancient stories about gods written by people who (may have) believed in them are realist. The words "realist" and "realism" are too loaded for me by mid-1800s to early 2000s assumptions about what constitutes reality and how to represent it in fiction; assumptions that have nothing to do with what someone like Homer or Virgil was doing. And if the ancient epics and stories of gods are not realist, much less are they intended to be journalistic, documentary, theological or scientific accounts of their writers' worlds.

 

[KelisThePoet]

As to the discussion of how different new Star Trek should be, consider an analogy. If I go into a sushi restaurant, I want sushi. If there are rolls on the menu I've never tried, that's exciting. If some of those rolls have ingredients I wouldn't expect in a sushi roll, I'm usually game to try them. If I don't like the addition of a certain ingredient or spice, I may still like the roll well enough, if I can also taste something I like (yellowtail, eel or whatever). But if I go to a sushi restaurant and find nothing but the finest cuts of corn-fed Iowa beef on the menu, I'm going to be disappointed, and I won't be going back; not because the steaks were low quality, not because there should be more sushi than steak in the world, not even because I don't personally enjoy a good steak, once in a while. It's just not what I came for.

Similarly, I'm fine with some experimenting and variety on a Star Trek program, but if I don't get anything that I consider Star Trek, I'll be disappointed and I won't be coming back.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Star Trek is a Food Court.