Does the current state of Star Trek say anything about what fans want?

[SalyutBuran]

I am as aware as any that "woke" is supposed to mean "aware of inequalities in our society". But the problem is that it's turned into "you will think like me and support my agenda of equality, or you will be silenced and/or punished." I am fine with the first, but if you expect me to capitulate to the second, you don't know me very well.

And in that vein, I don't force my opinions on others. If you feel that people who don't care about a fandom are a good choice for managing it, I'm sure you have your reasons.

I think you're missing the key detail.

""woke" is supposed to mean "aware of inequalities in our society""

You're missing the part that "woke" implies the rest of the population is "asleep".

And this isn't just a clever play on words, it's quite literally the problem.

If the base assumption of an ideology is that everyone around you is ignorant, you quite quickly turn to othering people who don't agree with you.

And this isn't a fringe theory, you can literally just ask a person who is woke, and they'll basically shoot for the hills with that assumption.

Not only do they reflexively dismiss people and categorize them, they also tend to tune out people who might factually have a greater "awareness" of the topic to begin with. I hear "first black captain" and I'm reminded I was literally watching a show about space nazis persecuting space jews 30 years ago.

I'm not saying fans of DS9 might be more "awoke" than the wokesters, but if for no other reason than chronology we do have a few decades worth of a head start. Like there's just certain assumptions that are just routine to DS9 fans, like there are certaintly evil cardassians and clearly good cardassians. You don't get brought up in such and environment and not have at least some degree of social awareness. Every tool in writing is used to convince us cardassians are just inherently bad people, and yet good writing shows that there are good cardassians.

 

[Amaris]

Interesting. I am always fascinated by these strong visceral reactions as I don't feel that agitated by bad Trek.

The most visceral reaction I've had to an episode of Star Trek was an out loud "Blurgh, oof!" when I see any random beheading or eye gouging on Star Trek Picard. I hate that shit.

 

[Greg Cox]

For what it's worth, I'm old enough to remember reviews complaining that THE WRATH OF KHAN had dumbed down TMP's more "cerebral" approach, and betrayed Gene's "vision," by being nothing more than a crowd-pleasing space opera about stopping a megalomaniacal super-villain and his doomsday super-weapon, complete with space battles and explosions. (I don't agree, of course, but this was a take you sometimes heard back then.)

Pretty much the same "nothing but pew-pew" stuff you hear today, except "pew-pew" hadn't become a cliche yet.

 

[Sci]

The problem with whining about "wokeness" and being upset that "wokesters" think you're "asleep" is that it requires you to believe that institutional inequality does not embed itself into our society in ways that the majority does not always perceive.... in a world where the infant mortality rate for black folk is significantly higher than it is for white folk, and where we all have implicit biases we're not even always aware of.

Like, sorry dude, but sometimes we are biased in ways that are unfair and we deserve to be called out for it.

 

[fireproof78]

Keeping in mind there's a massive benefit of 26 episode seasons, you can release total filler crap and if it is released biweekly, people will watch just because they enjoy the not knowing of whether or not it'll be a bad episode.

I still do that even with 10 episode or whatever seasons. And 26 episodes is killer on cast and crew. Rather their health and safety come first.

 

[SalyutBuran]

Please. Read some old Best of Trek issues, or Interstat (much of which is online here), and you'll see that the only thing that's changed is that we can say this stuff on the toilet.

You're just looking for confirmation bias because you don't like it. But it's okay not to like things. It just doesn't make you objectively right.

I'm objectively right that nu trek characters are very clearly written to rate low in conscientiousness. That's more or less an objective fact. I can literally email you questionnaires used by actual mental health professionals and you can answer them yourself based on what you see on screen.

If I had to guess most old trek characters rate in the 90+ percentile for conscientiousness where most nu trek characters struggle for a 40th percentile.

You argue that "you're just complaining because it's different" that doesn't say much if you trivialize how it is different.

You're trying to cloud the argument by making differences seem like vague undefined mystical properties, when the vast majority of what people are complaining about is quite direct and very very very easy to illustrate.

And the consequences of these difference aren't trivial they are what made old trek old trek. The pale moonlight is liked or hated exactly because it's such a stark contrast to the behaviors of a regular federation officer. If you like it, it is because that is a rare thing, if you hate it is because it is a rare thing. NuTrek can't compare because it's routine that they don't behave like star fleet officers.

 

[Amaris]

I'm objectively right that nu trek characters are very clearly written to rate low in conscientiousness. That's more or less an objective fact. I can literally email you questionnaires used by actual mental health professionals and you can answer them yourself based on what you see on screen.

If I had to guess most old trek characters rate in the 90+ percentile for conscientiousness where most nu trek characters struggle for a 40th percentile.

You argue that "you're just complaining because it's different" that doesn't say much if you trivialize how it is different.

You're trying to cloud the argument by making differences seem like vague undefined mystical properties, when the vast majority of what people are complaining about is quite direct and very very very easy to illustrate.

And the consequences of these difference aren't trivial they are what made old trek old trek. The pale moonlight is liked or hated exactly because it's such a stark contrast to the behaviors of a regular federation officer. If you like it, it is because that is a rare thing, if you hate it is because it is a rare thing. NuTrek can't compare because it's routine that they don't behave like star fleet officers.

Just say you don't like it. No need to call the APA. I mean, goddamn.

 

[fireproof78]

NuTrek can't compare because it's routine that they don't behave like star fleet officers.

Yes, they do. Just not the usual heroic ones. Whom by definition are probably exception, as stated on screen.

And I don't compare. I just watch the show. I do enough psychoanalysis in my everyday job and with my wife writing novels. I'm good without it here.

However, I'm sure the APA will accept your paper, if not the ACA or the other APA, or possibly Psychology Today.

 

[F. King Daniel]

If I had to guess most old trek characters rate in the 90+ percentile

No no no. Use the questionnaire.

 

[SalyutBuran]

I still do that even with 10 episode or whatever seasons. And 26 episodes is killer on cast and crew. Rather their health and safety come first.

One of the benefits of a brand like star trek is that you can reuse sets, film locations, props, costumes, and CGI with ease. It means you can recycle shared costs across episodes/casts. We saw this done extensively in the 90s. Star 6 was shot on the D sets, DS9 routinely used TNG and Voyager sets and costumes etc.

This is one of the reasons I think nu trek is unsustainable from a financial perspective. The setting of Star Trek is an environment where everyone roughly dresses the same, acts the same, does the same sort of work on a week to week basis, and they exist in a flexible social hierarchy. So you can create an entire episode, work out wardrobes, cgi's sets guest stars and cast whoever to do the episode with minimal notice. It goes in both directions.

You can control casting costs, by hiring big brand names like Stewart when it is needed and fill in the gaps when you aren't relying on star power to save money.

The flip side is that you have total narrative freedom. Want to do an episode where everyone dies? Switch the cast with guest stars, move a few "lcars consoles" around and bang you have a brand new ship on the other side of the galaxy.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Meet the new fans…same as the old fans

 

[fireproof78]

One of the benefits of a brand like star trek is that you can reuse sets, film locations, props, costumes, and CGI with ease. It means you can recycle shared costs across episodes/casts. We saw this done extensively in the 90s. Star 6 was shot on the D sets, DS9 routinely used TNG and Voyager sets and costumes etc.

This is one of the reasons I think nu trek is unsustainable from a financial perspective. The setting of Star Trek is an environment where everyone roughly dresses the same, acts the same, does the same sort of work on a week to week basis, and they exist in a flexible social hierarchy. So you can create an entire episode, work out wardrobes, cgi's sets guest stars and cast whoever to do the episode with minimal notice. It goes in both directions.

You can control casting costs, by hiring big brand names like Stewart when it is needed and fill in the gaps when you aren't relying on star power to save money.

The flip side is that you have total narrative freedom. Want to do an episode where everyone dies? Switch the cast with guest stars, move a few "lcars consoles" around and bang you have a brand new ship on the other side of the galaxy.

Wow. This entirely misses the point that I had made. Of course you can control costs. That's a pretty standard business model. What you should be controlling more is not working your cast to death with 26 episode seasons.

Meet the new fans…same as the old fans

Stay classy Trek fans!

 

[BillJ]

I'm objectively right that nu trek characters are very clearly written to rate low in conscientiousness.

Bullshit. You don't like it, and you need to seem like you're "objective" because you want your words to carry more weight. I can say I don't like Discovery, I don't find it at all imaginative, but that is from my POV as a long time Trek fan, others will have other interpretations.

 

[Sci]

I'm objectively right that nu trek characters are very clearly written to rate low in conscientiousness.

No, you're not. If anything, they are more conscientious, because they are better able to recognize their own negative behavior patterns and seek effective mental health care, which is something that the TNG-era characters often ignored or went into denial about.

That's more or less an objective fact. I can literally email you questionnaires used by actual mental health professionals and you can answer them yourself based on what you see on screen.

If I had to guess most old trek characters rate in the 90+ percentile for conscientiousness where most nu trek characters struggle for a 40th percentile.

Now you're just making shit up.

One of the benefits of a brand like star trek is that you can reuse sets, film locations, props, costumes, and CGI with ease.

If you listen to people discuss the production process on 90s-era Trek, it was never "with ease." The strain of doing 26 episodes a season was constant.

This is one of the reasons I think nu trek is unsustainable from a financial perspective. The setting of Star Trek is an environment where everyone roughly dresses the same, acts the same, does the same sort of work on a week to week basis, and they exist in a flexible social hierarchy. So you can create an entire episode, work out wardrobes, cgi's sets guest stars and cast whoever to do the episode with minimal notice. It goes in both directions.

That's not really the issue. The issue is simply that none of the major studio streamers have been able to turn a profit -- not Paramount+, not Disney+, not Peacock, etc. As I understand things, the only major streamers to turn a profit are Netflix and Hulu. Now, the plan was that they would all run a deficit for the first several years so as to build up a catalog of programs that would entice customers to stay regularly subscribed, so not having turned a profit yet was all part of the plan. But now they're under pressure to change the plan and start turning a profit as a result of external economic factors. Fundamentally, the question is whether single-studio streamers are capable of developing a sufficiently large catalog of programs to retain customers over the long term.

I suspect they are not, but that is not the fault of any one program. It's not the fault of The Mandalorian or Andor over at Disney+, it's not the fault of The Resort or Poker Face over at Peacock, and it's not the fault of Star Trek: Discovery or Star Trek: Picard over at Paramount+. It's a question of their fundamental business model. I think what's gonna happen is, we'll see the major single-studio streamers fold, but we'll see their content migrate over to multi-studio streamers like Netflix or Hulu.

 

[SalyutBuran]

The problem with whining about "wokeness" and being upset that "wokesters" think you're "asleep"

There's no problem there if you think people like myself are asleep you've already jumped off the deep end.

is that it requires you to believe that institutional inequality does not embed itself into our society in ways that the majority does not always perceive.

You have no idea what I believe, and thankfully you illustrated my point that you tell us what you believe and it's quite loud and clear what you mean and what your sweeping assumptions are.

... in a world where the infant mortality rate for black folk is significantly higher than it is for white folk,

And this is just a perfect example. You just started your argument by grouping people by skin color. A black American is miles ahead of a white Ukrainian. The world is far more complex than woke narratives want to suggest.

and where we all have implicit biases we're not even always aware of.

speaking about implicit biases, how about that bias where all of the world can be defined by "implicit biases" regardless of whether or not they have any connection to reality.

The vast overriding feature of the world we live in is that we're the very very recent product of some very very horrid social environments. The problem with the "implicit bias" is that it doesn't have any means of distinguishing between history and the present social environment.

If you look at natives in Canada you get people with pure native ancestry and people that are mostly european at this point(i.e. me). Turns out the amount of native blood/your appearance has little to do with your problems in life. Turns out the best predictor of your hardship isn't whether or not you look white or look native, but whether or not you're a victim of abuse(in my case molestation).


The world is complicated and if you've been following this topic for a while you know it's 10 steps forward and 9 steps back.

The famous black barbie ball study being a perfect example of just bad science. Turns out black kids prefer white barbies, because "duh" the design of a barbie was based on a lightly colored plastic. So naturally if you flip the color scheme it is gonna be less desirable. If you take a dark colored death star toy and flip to an off pink skin color it's gonna look awful too. Has nothing to do with race and everything to do with how hard it is to make a toy that children want.

Social inequality is so incredibly complex and multi faceted, the wokesters assume they have some leg up and as I suggested earlier the belief they have a leg up is really ultimately why they can't advance.

Society is complex and if you listen to others there's always more and more proof of this. For every 10 steps forward there's always 9 steps back.

Like, sorry dude, but sometimes we are biased in ways that are unfair and we deserve to be called out for it.

And yet wokester's never practice what they preach. Run with the assumption that it's complicated and we're mostly in the dark before the preaching begins.

 

[SalyutBuran]

Meet the new fans…same as the old fans

And magically 40 years later and still everyone agrees that first season of TNG was an abomination to all mankind.

Just as 20 years later the first two seasons of ENT were an abomination.

The difference is that nu trek started in 2017 and it has taken 6 years to produce something that has mass appeal(STP sesason 3).

 

[Jedi Marso]

I think every ST fan out there has their own personal list of wants, so there is a list of lists as infinitely diverse as there are fans themselves.

Lots of threads around here are of the 'how would you remake / reboot such and such...'

 

[BillJ]

And magically 40 years later and still everyone agrees that first season of TNG was an abomination to all mankind.

The first season of TNG is my favorite season of Trek from 1987-2023. So, once again, you are completely misreading the fan base and doing what you just bashed @Sci for, painting everyone with the same broad brush.

 

[fireproof78]

And magically 40 years later and still everyone agrees that first season of TNG was an abomination to all mankind.

Um, no. Everyone doesn't agree.

Just as 20 years later the first two seasons of ENT were an abomination.

Pretty sure I felt that way early on.

The difference is that nu trek started in 2017 and it has taken 6 years to produce something that has mass appeal(STP sesason 3).

Who cares about mass appeal? That's ridiculous and paints the fandom with a single color, and not even close to respecting the diversity of opinions presented on this forum and others around newer Trek, including ENT, and Kelvin Trek, Discovery and Star Trek Picard.

This is point blank false because it paints fans as monolithic and that if it appeals to the majority it's automatically good. Appeal to the majority doesn't fly.

 

[BillJ]

When we try to be "objective" we exclude external factors that exist when we consume entertainment. I likely wouldn't have been a Trek fan if not for my circumstances and being exposed to it at a very young age. Trek wasn't groundbreaking sci-fi, it was a Western wearing a sci-fi mask, just enough of one to spark my imagination.

No one can gauge what an audience member is doing or going through when watching and those external factors affect us. Was it something we watched when we were sick, or mourning, or on a first date with someone special? The new Night Court is probably a good show in my eyes because I'm sharing it and laughing every week with my wife of thirty years.

Objectivity has objectively nothing to do with how one feels about entertainment.