Some of the factions that post about Star Trek on Twitter.
It's like the show JAG and NCIS. Now, for those more casual fans they might not realize that NCIS is a spin off of the show JAG, or that the main character on NCIS was more an antagonist towards the mains on JAG. But, NCIS never treated the audience like they needed to watch JAG in order to enjoy NCIS. It set up the stage, explored the premise and became successful in its own right. It assumed that both JAG fans and casual fans were on the same level.
&
With five Star Trek series on at the same time, I don't think every single one of them needs to be written as if it's someone's first. If there was only one Star Trek series at a time, I'd feel differently about it, but that's not the case here.
I guess my ideal model here would be how the Stargate franchise handled continuity. Each season had a loose serialized arc, there would be stand alone episodes, and a random episode from season 2 might have a follow up in season 8. And they were comfortable about using the "previously on____" to refresh old plot points, even if it might spoil something in the upcoming episode.
Let's say Legacy goes with semi-serialization. They could avoid the exposition heavy as you know, the Changelings are shape shifters from the Gamma Quadrant that fought a war you should be well aware of by just doing a "previously on____" from TNG/DS9/VGR. Plus this would encourage them to spend the money to remaster DS9 and VGR. Each series could be done for the price of three NuTrek episodes.
Even with PIC Season 3, we had people who'd go on and on, non-stop about the lighting, and wouldn't shut up about it. How much these people complained about the lighting became really annoying after a certain point. "Yes, yes, yes, we heard you the first 100,000 times!", is what I thought to myself. And we still have pearl-clutchers who can't handle hearing a word like "fuck" on Star Trek. In fact, Terry Matalas even said, exact quote, "This isn't 1992 Star Trek: The Next Generation."
To be fair, the lighting was a Paramount+ app problem. When I rewatched the entire season just before my P+ sub ran out, the early episodes did look surprisingly brighter. And, I wouldn't be surprised in the final BD release has some revised color timing.
On the fuck... I think people object for two reasons. The first, they might have gotten into Star Trek as kids, and don't like the idea of a TNG follow up that isn't say PG-13 that they themselves couldn't show their kids. The second, a more Watsonian one, that Star Trek never used fuck before, that in TVH Kirk and co weren't familiar with that type of cursing, and that it thus knocks people out of the narrative.
I'd say split the difference, and if you really want an F-bomb, have two audio tracks with and without it.
PIC Season 3, I'll insist until I die, is closer to '80s Trek than '90s Trek. Nevertheless, it's the outlier with the full-on TNG Reunion. Legacy wouldn't be like that.
It does have the more Nick Meyer / Harve Bennett elements that Gene Roddenberry and Rick Berman would have both vetoed out of the gate.
It's all academic anyway. If you're some total noob, you're not subscribing to Paramount+ to watch Star Trek. But, for the sake of argument, if I'm not a Trekkie, I have Paramount+, I'm someone who likes Patrick Stewart because of X-Men and I see a list which includes the two Star Trek series he stars in, I'd look at them and then go with the first one he was in! I'd watch TNG first instead of Picard. Why? Because I wouldn't be fucking stupid. I'd know that if I started with the second show he was in, there's stuff I probably wouldn't get and I'd feel like I was thrown in.
If anything, P+ should have curated themed Star Trek playlists a la those Blu-ray sets that only had the Q episodes, the Borg episodes, the Klingon episodes etc.
They're equally as lazy with the Boomer label. In fact, I think it's silly that someone born in 1946 and graduated from high school in 1964 is considered to be part of the same generation as someone who was born in 1964 and graduated from high school in 1982. If anything, I think a younger Boomer would have more in common with an older Gen Xer.
If I remember correctly (this is a BBS, not a submitted paper...) Boomers were originally attached to the 1946 to 1964 dates based on the post WW2 surge in birthrates, that only returned to normal baseline in 1964. One reason the 1960s was so disruptive is there were just a lot more young adults about, and able to win arguments just based on their generational size.
And yes, culturally there is no easy beginning or end point with Gen X. On my side of it, older millennials have the Xennial or Oregon Trail labels. And all Millennials come up against elite overproduction and the lack of jobs we'd be fully qualified to fill.
When people look at "generations", especially something like Generation X, I think they underestimate how truly sharp the divide between the '80s and '90s really was. Or the '60s/'70s and '70s/'80s divides, for that matter. We haven't had anything like that in the 21st Century, where change is so much more gradual and incremental.
Haha, I remember the first time a Gen Zer told me about our respective different generations. Was a shock.
The major pivot point for the transition from Millennials to Gen Z (at least in the US) was access to a smartphone. There was a major spike in mental health problems in 2014, which has been tied to social networking apps, increased bullying, and feelings of alienation / inadequacy.
This hit at different times in different countries.
And, to bring the post full circle... Season 3 has a very Gen X mentality -- NCC-1975 anyone? Whereas Akiva Goldsman and Michael Chabon were born respectively in 1962 and 1963.