Divisive is not bad.
What type of project would you like Matalas to do then? If not follow up TNG/DS9/VGR, then what? Later in the 25th century? An ENT follow up? The temporal cold war?Like I've said before, I don't even want the Legacy series because the Pic S3 finale effectively wrapped up everything neatly.
The more important thing was to get Matalas involved in the creative side of New Trek, to be a guiding voice. Someone who actually knows and gets the material.
In that case, you have structural budget limitations in your favor. If Legacy is semi-serialized a la say THE ORVILLE or a Stargate series, they just won't be able to afford all the "fanwank" that some people fear on an episode by episode basis.Whatever's not "Back to Basics" is what I'm for.
With Legacy, I don't know. It depends on what direction they're looking in. If they propel things forward, I won't complain. If they pull a Lower Decks and do things like just hang out at DS9 for a bit, and stuff like that, then I'm not sticking around.
I guess this is all relative to where you're standing. If you like something that many people don't, that's just luck by semi-design. I'd just argue that the streaming boom has burst along with the low interest rate financial bubble, so series going forward will need to be more broad to justify their budgets and be more advertiser friendly. Although I do admit the Abramsverse and SNW could arguably be this, and I just don't like them on tone/continuity grounds. THE ORVILLE and PS3 at least demonstrate that other approaches can be successful as well.Divisive is not bad.
Pretty much my experience with most franchises I like so this does not come as new or offensive to me.. If you like something that many people don't, that's just luck by semi-design.
Of course they can. It's not a zero sum game but what the trend is, especially with Trek specifically, pop culture generally, is to go all in on nostalgia properties. It can work in some cases, but a lot of times it just wears out it's welcome because it just repeats patterns. It's not additive.THE ORVILLE and PS3 at least demonstrate that other approaches can be successful as well.
What type of project would you like Matalas to do then? If not follow up TNG/DS9/VGR, then what? Later in the 25th century? An ENT follow up? The temporal cold war?
I always imagined it would be not as much as some people want and as not as little as some other people want.In that case, you have structural budget limitations in your favor. If Legacy is semi-serialized a la say THE ORVILLE or a Stargate series, they just won't be able to afford all the "fanwank" that some people fear on an episode by episode basis.
Too bad it's only most.I'm partial to "Back to what works." Because too much of Trek in the last decade just hasn't been good enough in terms of basic entertainment values to be worth the watch.
What does this mean?respects the characters and the universe
"Shares my tastes."What does this mean?
that would be a terrible ideaThe more important thing was to get Matalas involved in the creative side of New Trek, to be a guiding voice. Someone who actually knows and gets the material.
I can see where you are coming here actually. But we just go in a very different direction. My objection is to reboots, which the Abramsverse and SNW are de jure or de facto. I'd like SNW if it was Star Trek: Early Voyages. But it is far from that. A successful SNW would likely lead to a more overt TOS reboot. I'd like a continuation in the 25th century to preserve the existing continuity.Of course they can. It's not a zero sum game but what the trend is, especially with Trek specifically, pop culture generally, is to go all in on nostalgia properties. It can work in some cases, but a lot of times it just wears out it's welcome because it just repeats patterns. It's not additive.
I guess the only way that could work would be ousting Kurtzman.At the very least, for Matalas to be a creative voice amidst the producers, someone who knows Trek continuity, respects the characters and the universe, and has a good pulse on what would be popular and successful with the fans (and general audiences).
The positive reception to Picard S3 and the strong support for him to continue demonstrates that whatever he did... worked, in spades.
I've seen this kind of positivity towards rockstar producers in Marvel (Feige), Doctor Who (RTD), but Matalas would be the first time I've seen this kind of thing for modern Trek. Paramount must have some awareness of this by now.
The goldilocks point can be pretty sustainable if you get it just right...I always imagined it would be not as much as some people want and as not as little as some other people want.
*Sighs*I can see where you are coming here actually. But we just go in a very different direction. My objection is to reboots, which the Abramsverse and SNW are de jure or de facto. I'd like SNW if it was Star Trek: Early Voyages. But it is far from that. A successful SNW would likely lead to a more overt TOS reboot. I'd like a continuation in the 25th century to preserve the existing continuity.
I can see where you are coming here actually. But we just go in a very different direction. My objection is to reboots, which the Abramsverse and SNW are de jure or de facto. I'd like SNW if it was Star Trek: Early Voyages...
This!Yeah, no. SNW is way better.
Yes, TOS will be "rebooted."
Picard is hardly evidence that Matalas "gets" Trek, only that he's a big TNG fan. I sure wouldn't want that kind of approach on SNW. SNW enlarges Trek in a way that nostalgia fests can't.
respects the characters and the universe
and has a good pulse on what would be popular and successful with the fans
and general audiences)
I guess the only way that could work would be ousting Kurtzman.
General audiences don't give a shit about nostalgia.
I wouldn't go that far. I've been to enough "80s Nights" to know better, Stranger Things is pretty big, and there have been enough late sequels out in theaters that I know it isn't true...General audiences don't give a shit about nostalgia.
This I agree with.To tell the truth, there's no evidence that the public at large has really embraced or even shown much interest in any version of Trek after the Abrams movies. All the streaming shows make it on the basis of relatively small, dedicated viewerships of a few million.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.