• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Does it feel to anyone else that SNW is cynically mining Trek's past glories?

herofhyrule said:
Also, "different viewpoints" in the case of people who use the term "woke" negatively is about whether or not certain people deserve rights. If you are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc, I'm not obligated to say IDIC and just accept your prejudice.
Click to expand...
I agree on that point. The trouble is the left these days tend to have a very broad definition of what is racist, sexist, homophobic or transphobic. It isn't just relegated to proud boys or skin heads. It tends to also get levied at people who disagree with them on anything. I see the charge levied far too often these days. But this is really treading on TNZ territory and has nothing to do with SNW.
 
zzz said:
I had a similar issue with Enterprise Season 4, which I know most people loved, but I disliked. It feels like they're combing over past Trek's best work and clinging to its shirt tails. In Enterprise it was lore elements like the Klingon ridges, Augments, and Mirror Universe. In SNW it's specific episodes:
  • Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow => City on the Edge of Tomorrow
  • Ad Astra per Aspera => Measure of a Man
  • The Broken Circle => stealing the Ent from STIII, and plot to ignite a war from STVI
  • Those Old Scientists => Trials and Tribble-ations
It's inherently limiting. It's next to impossible to outdo the thing you're imitating. The best you can achieve is recreating the same feeling as the memory of the original story does. There's no creativity, no originality, no new top-tier stories that can join alongside those of the best of past Trek.

It's one step above going " 'member this nostalgia inducing-thing?"
Click to expand...
Every story gets repeated, sometimes in the same season of the same show. The question is execution. Is it any good?

Was "Tommorow..." better than "City..."? Well no but the loss was keenly felt, the historIcal questions were important to Trek, the performances excellent and it looked great.

"Measure.." was the first of its kind but we had others debating rights, and in Trek I'd expect this to happen from time to time, it's a natural fit. Discovery just gave us a fantastic episode a year ago debating AI in a thoughtful, intelligent manner, and it was executed well. "...Per Aspera" is on par with "Measure..." in my book. So close in quality I can't differentiate. High compliment indeed.

While these ideas resemble each other I think SNW is mainly trying to replicate variety of story, genre and tone rather than specific plots. With 900 stories you'll eventually repeat something.
 
Hythlodeus said:
why? that was when the series turned shit and creativitly bankrupt.
Click to expand...

And many would call them the best seasons of a flawed show that couldn't find it's identity until it separated itself completely from the weight of continuity and nostalgia.

Noname Given said:
No, absolutely not. The Berman era 24th century already made Star Trek bland and overly preachy; (and STD lost me when they jumped to the 32nd century, and while I'll take a look, I at this time have little top no interest in the upcoming StarFleet Academy series because it's set it the 32nd century) - but for me - going farther into the future just makes everything more boring and the Federation more 'perfect/preachy' because (per GR) man will always 'be better in the future'.
Click to expand...

Except that's not at all what happened on Discovery in the 32nd century. If anything, the Federation was broken and lost. Earth isn't even IN the Federation and neither are the Vulcans. I'm not sure how that equates to perfect. As far as peachy, that's kind of what Trek is and always has been. Not moreso here compared to other eras whatsoever tho.
 
Last edited:
I think SNW has balanced new ideas with old follow-up ideas so far.

However, if this were the case then it is inevitable due to one big reason:

This is yet another prequel in the TOS era. Ever since The Powers That Be misinterpreted the lower ratings of DS9/VOY compared to TNG, they have fretfully gone back to the past (ENT, Abramsverse, DISCO, and now SNW) assuming that is the only type of Trek viewers want to absorb.

It wasn't until the past few years they finally moved forward in time with the TNG-era (two of which being animated series). Because of constantly going back to the TOS-era, we're going to keep getting Kirk/Spock/Enterprise/Klingons/Khan/TOS follow-up plots or some variation thereof. As long as you're in the TOS sandbox, there will be an inevitable pull towards those staples.

If this is considered repetitive then Trek really needs to get out of the TOS-era and move into eras unexplored. DISCO kind of did that in the last few seasons with mixed results. I'm not the biggest DISCO fan but I appreciate that they tried that.
 
The Emissary said:
If this is considered repetitive then Trek really needs to get out of the TOS-era and move into eras unexplored. DISCO kind of did that in the last few seasons with mixed results. I'm not the biggest DISCO fan but I appreciate that they tried that.
Click to expand...
Well, when you have a clamor for the familiar from the loudest voices, the one touchstone that is the most familiar to the broadest possible audience is the TOS era.
 
The Emissary said:
I think SNW has balanced new ideas with old follow-up ideas so far.

However, if this were the case then it is inevitable due to one big reason:

This is yet another prequel in the TOS era. Ever since The Powers That Be misinterpreted the lower ratings of DS9/VOY compared to TNG, they have fretfully gone back to the past (ENT, Abramsverse, DISCO, and now SNW) assuming that is the only type of Trek viewers want to absorb.

It wasn't until the past few years they finally moved forward in time with the TNG-era (two of which being animated series). Because of constantly going back to the TOS-era, we're going to keep getting Kirk/Spock/Enterprise/Klingons/Khan/TOS follow-up plots or some variation thereof. As long as you're in the TOS sandbox, there will be an inevitable pull towards those staples.

If this is considered repetitive then Trek really needs to get out of the TOS-era and move into eras unexplored. DISCO kind of did that in the last few seasons with mixed results. I'm not the biggest DISCO fan but I appreciate that they tried that.
Click to expand...

Yeah Trek needs to actually move forward. Despite the bleating of TOS fanboys it wasn't peak Trek
 
SNW has been critically received. Even if it's not well known outside of Scifi groups, it's credited with having tighter stories, better acting and better chemistry among the actors than Discovery's initial season. And with a potential run of 4-5 seasons, and DSC ending after 5, CBS needs to have something on the air to keep Trekkies happy (i know, a paradox!)

Perhaps it makes sense to start skipping years, make SNW S3 take please 2 years after S2 ends. Skip another year or two for S4 and 5 and you can introduce Pike to the accident that puts him in the Beep Beep Chair. In 2027-28 you can spin one or two crew members off onto a new ship or station, and keep the magic running.
In all honesty, what makes me love SNW is the fantastic chemistry, great stories and great character development. I could care less that its a TOS prequel.

I don't like Picard because it feels like filler. I find it hard to enjoy each new episode, then I end up getting spoilered from existing on the internet and I have even less motivation to watch. Not to mention the grimdark lighting.
 
  • No Trek series is set in "the past."
  • Every series takes place in the future.
  • If one is obsessively interested in the so-called "Trek timeline" or rickety "future history," I suppose that it might matter which fantasy year or era a story takes place. But era has no impact whatever on whether a given story is worth telling or is entertaining. If it did, the last couple of years of STD would be "Peak Trek."
  • Yes, TOS was Peak Trek. That's why most producers who want to reinvigorate Trek go back to it or to a time adjacent to it, rather than further down the endlessly repetitive, time-worn, largely indistinguishable eras of the timeline. It's a thing seen easily when one isn't a long-time Trek fan. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
TOS created this universe and has yet to be surpassed in impact of its storytelling.
 
Some of those YT reaction videos give an insight into TOS's footprint. I've watched a couple for Star Trek '09 where the reactor(s) are hopelessly clueless (e.g. didn't know Nimoy was the original Spock). Some weren't even aware of the original show. Yet in spite of their ignorance, they all had varying degrees of recognition when Kirk / Spock appeared.
 
StarMan said:
Some of those YT reaction videos give an insight into TOS's footprint. I've watched a couple for Star Trek '09 where the reactor(s) are hopelessly clueless (e.g. didn't know Nimoy was the original Spock). Some weren't even aware of the original show. Yet in spite of their ignorance, they all had varying degrees of recognition when Kirk / Spock appeared.
Click to expand...

That "footprint" is indeed a major consideration. The only other series that approaches it is, obviously, TNG. But it's weird - TNG was more widely watched and may be the best-remembered for being more recent than the original, but the characters aren't as strongly embedded in pop culture as Kirk and Spock.
 
TOS isn't peak trek because it simply didn't do as much in terms of worldbuilding, character building and storytelling as DS9 did
 
MikHutch said:
TOS isn't peak trek because it simply didn't do as much in terms of worldbuilding, character building and storytelling as DS9 did
Click to expand...

Most of which was not particularly remarkable as television. But they did make a lot of it, didn't they? As much as they did of TNG and Voyager.

DS9 isn't close in terms of influence or inventiveness, no matter how much Niners love it.
 
Serveaux said:
Most of which was not particularly remarkable as television. But they did make a lot of it, didn't they? As much as they did of TNG and Voyager.

No, DS9 isn't close, no matter how much Niners love it.
Click to expand...

What are you basing that on? And what's a niner?

TOS couldn't even flesh out most of its cast. Are any of the TOS supremacists going to back up their claims or just keep bashing later Trek?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

xenotaris
STAR TREK: THAT TIME WHEN HINATA WAS REINCARNATED AS A ROMULAN
Replies
1
Views
637
xenotaris
xenotaris
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top