Is it just me, or is Star Trek going the wrong way?

[The Wormhole]

I would like for Trek to move from the so-called Prequel stuff and stop tainting the waters of TOS.

Lower Decks is set a year after Nemesis, Picard is set twenty years after Nemesis, and Disco is now set 810 years after Nemesis. Of the new shows in development, Prodigy will definitely be set after Voyager, and probably after Nemesis given Janeway's involvement. Meaning SNW is the only prequel set in the TOS era.

 

[fireproof78]

Lower Decks is set a year after Nemesis, Picard is set twenty years after Nemesis, and Disco is now set 810 years after Nemesis. Of the new shows in development, Prodigy will definitely be set after Voyager, and probably after Nemesis given Janeway's involvement. Meaning SNW is the only prequel set in the TOS era.

Yes, but will it be a "proper" prequel?

 

[dupersuper]

This thread is going the wrong way...the Alien franchise is that way [points down to SF&F].

Of course, some people do go both ways...

I would like for Trek to move from the so-called Prequel stuff and stop tainting the waters of TOS....it's better off they just launch a TNG type series. A series for a new generation of viewers and open the door to a very large canvas where it doesn't contradict what was done better during TOS run.

So...Discovery season 3 and Lower Decks?

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Honestly, this may be the most out of touch comment Kurtzman has made:

"Trek was always fully formed adults, already in Starfleet and people who have decided who they are. And it never was aspirational that way. It's important to me to find a way to go back and reach younger kids in a way that Trek should and never really has,"

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/n...niverse-will-fit-into-and-expand-on-paramount

Aside from LOWER DECKS, I haven’t exactly been in love with the new content. I still give PICARD and DISCO a chance, because I don’t want to be like those grumps that dismiss new Trek out of hand and I don’t hate it. Maybe STRANGE NEW WORLDS will hopefully hit that sweet spot.

One recurring aspect I’m definitely tired of is each season having a villainous antagonist. I feel like that’s only being done because that was a Trek Movie trope. I really hope DISCO and PICARD get away from that, and if there should be antagonist it shouldn’t be a mustache twirling villain like that Romulan who’s name I can’t remember.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't see that as out of touch.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

There's people working in NASA who were inspired by Trek as children. I don't get where Kurtzman is coming from with his comment.

 

[fireproof78]

There's people working in NASA who were inspired by Trek as children. I don't get where Kurtzman is coming from with his comment.

Deliberately focusing on children has not been Trek's goal. It has been either family or adult based, with children coming along because of parental influence or tangentially because of interest in science fiction.

I follow Kurtzman just fine...

 

[The Wormhole]

I mean, I'll jump at the opportunity to diss Kurtzman at every possible turn, but this time, he's not wrong.

It seriously hurt to write that.

 

[fireproof78]

I mean, I'll jump at the opportunity to diss Kurtzman at every possible turn, but this time, he's not wrong.

It seriously hurt to write that.

Do you need mouth wash?

 

[The Wormhole]

I wouldn't turn it away.

 

[fireproof78]

I wouldn't turn it away.

Just ignore the scotch label.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

If all Kurtzman meant to say was "Trek never targeted a young audience", claiming that past shows featuring Starfleet officers was never aspirational is kind of a weird flex.

 

[fireproof78]

The way I read it was that Star Trek was never about kids who were aspiring for adult careers. Star Trek had fully formed adults with identities either defined or in conflict and resolving that conflict.

At least that is my read. Especially considering the insistence that Trek was more mature science fiction fair, and not for kids like Star Wars.

 

[The Wormhole]

If all Kurtzman meant to say was "Trek never targeted a young audience", claiming that past shows featuring Starfleet officers was never aspirational is kind of a weird flex.

I mean, I get it. Kurtzman is a filthy hedonist, but this is a total non-issue to get worked up over.

 

[fireproof78]

It sounded more like PR fluff pieces as most people will do when speaking to the media.

Just because Star Trek was enjoyed by kids doesn't mean it was targeted specific at younger audiences. In fact, the opposite opinion was often argued. And, no, toys doesn't mean it is a kid show, unless we want to argue The Walking Dead is a kid's show because of Nerf style guns in the toy aisle.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Poor Nog.

It sounded more like PR fluff pieces as most people will do when speaking to the media.

It definitely sounds like Executive Producer-speak.

 

[fireproof78]

Which is why it makes a basic kind of sense and ultimately means very little in what the show will do.

 

[DEWLine]

I don't see what you're seeing.

I've been a fan since the 1970's, the days of TOS re-runs on two- or three-channel TV before cable came to the Canadian prairies, and I don't have a problem with what I'm seeing promoted as Trek content these days. I feel more in synch with the various series, in fact, than I have in years. Maybe part of that's the Toronto factor, and part of it is certainly the politics!

But I plan to stay with it for as long as I can legally watch the shows.

 

[RAMA]

What's more important than just the pure success and expansion Trek is having right now is the diversity...in style and tone. The latest look at Prodigy proves that keeping all these shows distinct is the key to avoiding the dreaded "franchise fatigue". Though Picard already proved this was the way forward.

RAMA

 

[MakeshiftPython]

That’s all fine.