you conducted a census?
Is it just me, or is Star Trek going the wrong way?
- Thread starter LunaticBurnout
- Start date
I don't how it is in the UK.
But it is a census year here.
But it is a census year here.
Ours is in 2021I don't how it is in the UK.
But it is a census year here.
Georgiou is a cannibal!!!!
Among other things.
I don't know about "unredeemable," buthalf of them are a dreary collection of quirks in search of characters and the others are just tiresome.
So...Voyager.
This's all I can think of when it comes to fandoms and how fans seem to feel about the franchises they claim to love:
Saw that. Thought it was pretty decent for a fan film (some subpar effects, but a lot of attention to detail in recreating the TOS stuff and I did like the depiction of the Aprils having their own marital struggles to work through). Seeing that the creator thanked some of the more toxic online personalities of the "Star Trek is bad now" and "progressive storytelling is bad" in the credits -- alongside crediting Seth MacFarlane "for keeping the true spirit of Star Trek alive" in said credits -- did kinda leave a sour taste after the fact, but still, credit where credit is due, it was a decent fan film. And, to be fair, based on the promotion of it, the guy behind the April film was far more positive and nowhere near as obnoxious as the Axanar people are.
I do find changes that create discrepancies annoying (e.g. the Disco-prise vs the TOS Enterprise), but I'm kinda over the whole "I don't like it or it's different, therefore it's not real [name of franchise]" thing. It's like people can't accept that not everything in a franchise won't be to their tastes and they can pick and choose which elements they engage with.
Saw that. Thought it was pretty decent for a fan film (some subpar effects, but a lot of attention to detail in recreating the TOS stuff and I did like the depiction of the Aprils having their own marital struggles to work through). Seeing that the creator thanked some of the more toxic online personalities of the "Star Trek is bad now" and "progressive storytelling is bad" in the credits -- alongside crediting Seth MacFarlane "for keeping the true spirit of Star Trek alive" in said credits -- did kinda leave a sour taste after the fact, but still, credit where credit is due, it was a decent fan film. And, to be fair, based on the promotion of it, the guy behind the April film was far more positive and nowhere near as obnoxious as the Axanar people are.
I do find changes that create discrepancies annoying (e.g. the Disco-prise vs the TOS Enterprise), but I'm kinda over the whole "I don't like it or it's different, therefore it's not real [name of franchise]" thing. It's like people can't accept that not everything in a franchise won't be to their tastes and they can pick and choose which elements they engage with.
Honestly, this is more my curiosity than anything else. If you don't like something then spare yourself the frustration of watching it and claiming how wrong they do it. Maybe I'm a poor fan, or maybe I just don't have the same need to stay connected with a franchise no matter what. I don't know. But, I see it more often now that someone has to like everything in a franchise or something is wrong. And, I guess my own experience is deeply different because I had seen differences from TOS (which I started with) to TNG (which my friends loved and I didn't care for) in terms of what you like and don't like.
And, to me, I would rather focus on the things that I genuinely like. I like TOS so I go back and watch TOS. I like DSC so I watch that. I'm OK with Picard and enjoyed Lower Decks but they are not what I want necessarily from Trek so I don't watch them as often. I read TOS books and the like. TNG is not for me so I don't really do much with it.
To me, it's rather simple.
As for TNG is concerned, you are clearly wrong and doesn't have a clue how syndication networking worked back then. TNG was offered and sold by individual television markets in each individual syndicated station all across the United States. There was no big network to dictate it's cancellation such as CBS or NBC, affiliates determined a time slot they required filling and would order as needed. 65 episodes is what syndicated networks wanted and would pay for and the more people watched the program they would ask for an additional 35 eps to complete a package they can use if needed. "Made it to a 4th season by the skin of its teeth" is absolute bullshit, TNG syndicated ratings grew every season and more markets were ordering the program, it was one the most successful TV series in syndication history and spawned 3 additional series, 1 of them launch a network.
As for UPN, Voyager was never threatened to be cancelled, it was the network's top program and the ratings were moderate for it's own timeslot.
I think part of it is how new installments can recolor the older ones (like how the ending of "Space Seed" takes on a whole new meaning after Wrath of Khan) and it can be difficult to divorce that when you don't like the new installments (kinda like the new info "contaminates" the old stuff, even if you don't watch it). That is annoying when it happens, but that's always going to be a possible factor.
Also, I think some people make being a fan of something part of their identity, to the point where they perceive anything that doesn't conform to their perception of what the franchise should be as a personal attack.
100%
I’ll never forget all the “he hates and disrespects us...and he doesn’t even like Star Trek” screaming that took place regarding JJ Abrams....just because he dared to do something different.
Last edited:
Such folks need therapy since the creators do not produce a show based on what one fan living in his parent's basement thinks....thankfully
Imagine the uproar if Abrams had said some of the things Meyer said about Trek - eg that TOS was all about racist gunboat diplomacy, with Kirk going around imposing American values on "lesser breeds".
It wasn't just disrespect that Abrams' showed but blasphemy. It was, frankly, disturbing the sheer amount of religious type fervor leveled at him. It was as much his statements as his movie and it was ridiculous. And hypocritical, given that Meyer was not a Star Trek fan, binged it all and decided that Khan would be a good villain because "that guy must be pissed" (sight paraphrase). TWOK is largely considered one of the greatest Trek films of all time and it was not made by a Trek fan.
The hypocrisy is staggering.
TNG was not in danger of cancellation at the end of the third year. That's simply untrue. It was a big success for Paramount by that time.
What is true was that there was some doubt that Stewart would stay with the show at one point, and BOBW was conceived to deal with that possibility. By the time it actually went before the cameras, though, he'd signed to continue in the role.
What is true was that there was some doubt that Stewart would stay with the show at one point, and BOBW was conceived to deal with that possibility. By the time it actually went before the cameras, though, he'd signed to continue in the role.
I pretty sure it was Bennett who binged TOS and chose Khan, as he was part of Sowards's script. But I'm being pedantically nit picky. Your point is still valid.
You might be right. I haven't read Meyer's book in years so I could be misremembering.
That style of storytelling had its day. 25 full seasons and 17 years of pretty much the same thing. I’m glad the new shows are made for Star Trek fans in general...and not trying to please only the fans of the (unfortunately) burnt-out Berman TV era style.
Again, that stuff was fine.....but it had its rise and fall. Time to move along and do something different.
I find them a massive breath of needed fresh air. Same way I felt when the Kelvinverse films premiered.
Yep, Meyer does credit Bennett with having the original idea of using Khan (p83 of Meyer's book).
Yeah, I was someone back in '09 who was really unhappy with how Abrams handled the movies -- although I wasn't railing about it online and at least made the effort to give Into Darkness as much of a chance as I could. It's embarrassing in retrospect.
Recall hearing somewhere that Abrams had actually seem Star Trek in some form or another prior to being hired as a director and had liked it, but Paramount pushed the "he wasn't a fan" narrative as far as possible for marketing purposes. Ironically, the script writers for the first two movies (who I think are the ones primarily responsible for the films' problems) were huge Trekkies. IMHO, at the end of the day, I'm not wild about the creative liberties the first two movies took with the franchise in terms of the lore and all that, but, I think in retrospect, the real problems I have with them are in the writing and plotting, stuff that's totally disconnected from questions of canon, continuity, and the like.
Similar threads
