Wish they'd taken this route in 2016 and 2017. 
Spoilers Strange New Worlds General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter NewHeavensNewEarth
- Start date
Hard disagree. Even after such a long drought, I was anxious to see Star Trek do something different. And while I can recognize the flaws of some of the newer shows, I have enjoyed them all wholeheartedly and enjoyed everything they have brought to the larger tapestry of Trek canon.Wish they'd taken this route in 2016 and 2017.
All of that said, I am glad that we are now getting a more traditional Trek show with Strange New Worlds. However, I'm still glad they waited. Strange New Worlds has only benefited from spinning out of Discovery.
Last edited:
Yep.Wish they'd taken this route in 2016 and 2017.
Tell that to Brian Fuller.Wish they'd taken this route in 2016 and 2017.
If only.
I've always felt that if you're gonna do STAR TREK, you lean heavily into what makes STAR TREK... well, STAR TREK.
Same with Superman. You have to lean into who that character is and what makes him Superman.
And the least successful of those two franchises have always been when they lean heavily out of what they are.
Same with Superman. You have to lean into who that character is and what makes him Superman.
And the least successful of those two franchises have always been when they lean heavily out of what they are.
Route (19)66?Wish they'd taken this route in 2016 and 2017.
If they had I don't think Strange New Worlds would have turned out the way it did. And Henry Alonzo Myers did pretty much get Christopher Pike and the Enterprise 1701 into the mix rather quickly, as STD S2 pretty much showcased Anson Mount as Christopher Pike, and you could argue the character had pretty much a lead role right alongside the Michael Burnham character for the entire season. And it was the positive response to Anson Mount's portrayal of Pike that got Strange New Worlds greenlit very quickly; and if not for the COVID-19 situation, we'd have seen the series streaming probably a full year earlier than It ultimately did.Wish they'd taken this route in 2016 and 2017.
(And don't forget we also got three Short Trek installments with Anson Mount as Christopher Pike too.)
We probably wouldn't have the same success as with Strange New Worlds, honestly. I know people salivate over it like a Pavolovian dog but it isn't for everyone. I think Discovery had potential because it was willing to try out something new and utilize the Star Trek sandbox to play in in a different way. I think offering that variety allows for more success, rather than just a repeat of past greatest hits.
That's me, though. I feel Trek is at its best when it offers a variety of different storytelling ideas to explore for different audience members to appreciate, rather than sticking with this "Trek is Trek" boxed in mindset.
That would have been nice, if the show were good.
While it is nice that they were willing to add a bit of variety to the Trek format, it only really ended up being about 50% successful, with Lower Decks and Prodigy proving you can have a good show when going against the typical Trek formula. Disco and Picard remain mixed at best.
I guess there's also the Short Treks, which also deviated from the traditional Trek formula and had some pretty good stuff there, but it does seem there are no plans to continue with more of them.
I guess there's also the Short Treks, which also deviated from the traditional Trek formula and had some pretty good stuff there, but it does seem there are no plans to continue with more of them.
I'll take mixed over rehash.
Most people think it is.
At least most people who voted on the episode threads on this site, and the polls on EAS (when he still did them)
Which is a crying shame. They had a better hit-to-miss ratio than early DSC or Season 2 of PIC and remain our best chance to seeing stories in different eras of Trek history.
Unfortunately, I think the COVID-19 protocols make it nearly impossible to continue with them.
(They were supposedly all done quickly and more 'on the fly'; and with everyone now having to be tested constantly and once you a deemed negative, you're in a controlled 'pod'...yeah, by the time the restrictions are lessened to the point doing them could be feasible again, this run of Trek may be ended.
"Most people" really needs to be qualified, here...
Ah, there it is. What you meant was "some people."
Enough, apparently.
It's a good sample size.
I can't speak for Superman, but that's an assertion with a very opaque basis for Trek. What "makes Star Trek"? How is success defined?
Given that we don't have a clear objective measure for the current series, the least successful Trek instalments would presumably be Enterprise, TFF, INS and NEM. If anything, they were pretty heavily bound in Trek tropes; they were unsuccessful largely because they weren't very good.
The most successful would presumably be TOS, TNG, TWoK, TVH, FC and 2009. It would be a bootstraps argument to say TOS and TNG were successful because they stuck close to the Trek formula, given they established it, and the films were largely generic and, if anything, tended to lean away from the TV-style Trek.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll