Spoilers The Bastardization of Star Trek

[Lord Garth]

Got to work this in before someone (not Greg) finds a way to twist it. Sometimes I trust this board about as far as I can throw an asteroid.

I mean the people who only look at Star Trek from 1987 to 2001 have the warped perspective. It's the period that had the highest output, yet it's only just a quarter of Star Trek's total existence.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

warped perspective

 

[cooleddie74]

Well, from 1964 to 1966 it was a time warp perspective.

 

[Takeru]

Well, from 1964 to 1966 it was a time warp perspective.

They did the time warp again in the 70s but the ship looked very weird.

 

[Lord Garth]

This is the type of twisted I like.

 

[Sci]

I haven't read the whole thread, but.... in reference to Guinan, in TNG "Time's Arrow" they actually traveled back to the 19th century, not the 18th. It was the lifetime of Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain).

So why doesn't 21st century Guinan remember Picard in Picard S2? Showrunner Terry Matalas addressed this directly:

(Source: Inverse)

So the whole thing with Devidia II and traveling back in time to 19th century San Francisco simply did not happen in this timeline, where Earth is this conquering Confederation instead of part of a cooperative United Federation of Planets. Therefore, 24th-century Picard never met 19th-century Guinan. And guess what, if Picard in this timeline had gone back in time to the 19th century, then it would have been the bloodthirsty, conquering, xenophobic Picard of the Confederation of Earth, not our mild-mannered and noble Picard. What kind of havoc would he have wrought on 19th-century earth? And if Guinan had run into that guy back then, then she probably would sic'ed Luna on Picard immediately or blasted him with that shotgun the instant he showed up at her bar in the 21st century.

Kor

The real answer, of course, is that the writers of PIC S2 didn't want to be tied down by a trivia point from a mediocre, half-forgotten TNG episode that most of the audience either won't remember or won't care about.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

Give it a few years, and the folks growing on the new streaming shows will consider them the "real" STAR TREK, and its the new shows that will shape their expectations of what "Star Trek" should be. That's just the natural life-cycle of pop culture.

I sort of wonder about this and I'm not so sure, just because I don't think any Trek from DSC onwards hasn't had the same sort of wide-impact that TOS/TNG had.

I'm guessing, data as scant after all, but I suspect that most people who watch the new shows were fans of Star Trek beforehand. I don't think the new shows have really generated their own audiences in the way TOS/TNG did.

Back in the old days, everybody in the office would know who Kirk/Spock were. Similarly, a few decades on, you had Picard voted as sexiest bald man of the year or whatever. Star Trek in TNG days was water-cooler talk. I think though that come 2023 you'd get blank looks in the workplace if you talked about Burnham or Saru (or for that matter Pike and Una).

I guess the last time Star Trek had that sort of wide, cultural impact was around 2009-whenever Into Darkness came out.

That's not reflective of my opinion of the quality of the shows, as broadly speaking I enjoy everything from DSC onwards, more that I have doubts that these shows have generated their own (substantive) audiences.

Maybe I'm wrong. I'd like to be wrong.

 

[Tuskin38]

The only good TNG movie directly retcons two of the best episodes - Space Seed (which said the last world war was the Eugenics War in the ‘90s)

TNG the series did that first. If you’re lumping EW and WW3 together, like Spock implied in Space Seed.

 

[cooleddie74]

They did the time warp again in the 70s but the ship looked very weird.

Damn visual reboots.

 

[Farscape One]

I sort of wonder about this and I'm not so sure, just because I don't think any Trek from DSC onwards hasn't had the same sort of wide-impact that TOS/TNG had.

I'm guessing, data as scant after all, but I suspect that most people who watch the new shows were fans of Star Trek beforehand. I don't think the new shows have really generated their own audiences in the way TOS/TNG did.

Back in the old days, everybody in the office would know who Kirk/Spock were. Similarly, a few decades on, you had Picard voted as sexiest bald man of the year or whatever. Star Trek in TNG days was water-cooler talk. I think though that come 2023 you'd get blank looks in the workplace if you talked about Burnham or Saru (or for that matter Pike and Una).

I guess the last time Star Trek had that sort of wide, cultural impact was around 2009-whenever Into Darkness came out.

That's not reflective of my opinion of the quality of the shows, as broadly speaking I enjoy everything from DSC onwards, more that I have doubts that these shows have generated their own (substantive) audiences.

Maybe I'm wrong. I'd like to be wrong.

I have to agree here.

Part of the reason why TOS and TNG became the cultural icons they became was because there wasn't quite as many options for scifi around. Never mind the fact this was an era before the internet existed.

Current era shows (and future) have the disadvantage of not only competing with a huge array of other scifi shows out there, but also their own parent shows.

They would need to churn out their own "THE CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER", "BALANCE OF TERROR", "THE DOOMSDAY MACHINE", "The Best of Both Worlds", "The Inner Light", "Yesterday's Enterprise", "DUET", "THE VISITOR", "IN THE PALE MOONLIGHT", "YEAR OF HELL", etc. on a regular or semi-regular basis. And while there are a couple episodes that could qualify as possibly belonging to that pantheon of greatness, I just don't see this era of shows reaching some of those heights. (A hard thing for me to say, as I LOVE SNW and LOWER DECKS.)

 

[Richard S. Ta]

They would need to churn out their own "THE CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER", "BALANCE OF TERROR", "THE DOOMSDAY MACHINE", "The Best of Both Worlds", "The Inner Light", "Yesterday's Enterprise", "DUET", "THE VISITOR", "IN THE PALE MOONLIGHT", "YEAR OF HELL", etc. on a regular or semi-regular basis.

I actually think as of late that SNW has been doing just that... but it's likely just not reaching the wide audience that TOS/TNG could.

Audiences are much more fragmented these days.

 

[Farscape One]

I actually think as of late that SNW has been doing just that... but it's likely just not reaching the wide audience that TOS/TNG could.

Audiences are much more fragmented these days.

I would agree with you about SNW (which is why I said 'a couple episodes could qualify'... SNW is the show I was referring to).

The internet has AND has not helped. It's helped STAR TREK reach more people more quickly... but the internet has such a huge amount of shows, past and present, that our shows get lost in the shuffle.

Doesn't help that the typical attention span of a person these days is tiny.

 

[The Wormhole]

Well, you see, that's completely different as the thing with Kirk and Spock involved time travel, while the thing with Guinan involved time travel.

I trust you see the difference.

Well, when you put it like that, it certainly changes everything.

 

[Victoria]

I sort of wonder about this and I'm not so sure, just because I don't think any Trek from DSC onwards hasn't had the same sort of wide-impact that TOS/TNG had.

I'm guessing, data as scant after all, but I suspect that most people who watch the new shows were fans of Star Trek beforehand. I don't think the new shows have really generated their own audiences in the way TOS/TNG did.

Back in the old days, everybody in the office would know who Kirk/Spock were. Similarly, a few decades on, you had Picard voted as sexiest bald man of the year or whatever. Star Trek in TNG days was water-cooler talk. I think though that come 2023 you'd get blank looks in the workplace if you talked about Burnham or Saru (or for that matter Pike and Una).

I guess the last time Star Trek had that sort of wide, cultural impact was around 2009-whenever Into Darkness came out.

That's not reflective of my opinion of the quality of the shows, as broadly speaking I enjoy everything from DSC onwards, more that I have doubts that these shows have generated their own (substantive) audiences.

Maybe I'm wrong. I'd like to be wrong.

I would agree with this generally.

The older Trek series were available on free-to-air television at a time when there was generally less content on tv. They would have been seen by many casual watchers (some of whom would remain casual watchers, some of whom would become hooked). Watchers in general would have been aware of the series even if they didn't watch it themselves.

The newer Treks have been fragmented over different paid-for streaming services. The casual watchers would have been limited to people already subscribed to a particular service so potential numbers are already considerably smaller than they would have been in the free-to-air days. Even if someone liked, say, Discovery, and that became "destination television" for them, it doesn't mean they are going to subscribe to another streaming service in order to catch a very different Trek programme. Taking everything onto a dedicated streaming service means even those few casual watchers will disappear and the profile of Star Trek among the greater "real world" dip further. Star Trek is becoming a bubble (if it isn't one already)

I don't think Star Trek's profile has been helped by the bizarre attitude to merchandising which is to fail to make merchandise available as "impulse buys" in ordinary shops. I can get various franchise merchandise from local supermarkets and discounters but you never ever get anything from Star Trek. And that's been true most of my life. It was no different in 2009.

 

[Takeru]

Damn visual reboots.

They took the ship being their home to literal. It's like it wasn't even Star Trek.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Agreed. To follow up on the continuity/"canon" arguments, I think there are a fair number of TNG era fans who mistakenly believe because those shows faithfully recreated the TOS look on a couple of occasions that the Berman era was equally faithful with regard to continuity, when in fact they changed and retconned things just as much as any of the newer productions.

Very true. TNG and the subsequent shows certainly helped cement a lot of the popular stereotypes about Kirk, like him constantly disobeying orders or being a big ladies' man. The Berman era shows rewrote a LOT of what we knew about TOS.

I sort of wonder about this and I'm not so sure, just because I don't think any Trek from DSC onwards hasn't had the same sort of wide-impact that TOS/TNG had.

Back in the old days, everybody in the office would know who Kirk/Spock were. Similarly, a few decades on, you had Picard voted as sexiest bald man of the year or whatever. Star Trek in TNG days was water-cooler talk. I think though that come 2023 you'd get blank looks in the workplace if you talked about Burnham or Saru (or for that matter Pike and Una).

Part of the reason why TOS and TNG became the cultural icons they became was because there wasn't quite as many options for scifi around. Never mind the fact this was an era before the internet existed.

Current era shows (and future) have the disadvantage of not only competing with a huge array of other scifi shows out there, but also their own parent shows.

They would need to churn out their own "THE CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER", "BALANCE OF TERROR", "THE DOOMSDAY MACHINE", "The Best of Both Worlds", "The Inner Light", "Yesterday's Enterprise", "DUET", "THE VISITOR", "IN THE PALE MOONLIGHT", "YEAR OF HELL", etc. on a regular or semi-regular basis. And while there are a couple episodes that could qualify as possibly belonging to that pantheon of greatness, I just don't see this era of shows reaching some of those heights. (A hard thing for me to say, as I LOVE SNW and LOWER DECKS.)

I don't think the current Trek shows' lack of cultural penetration is a question of quality as much as a question of accessibility. TOS was on a network in the days there were only three networks, and after that it was in syndication for decades. TNG was also in syndication for ages. People could stumble across the shows and catch a few stray minutes here & there, so even if you weren't a fan, you learned that Spock was the guy with the pointy ears and Picard was the bald Captain with the British accent. The only people who are watching the current shows are people who've made a conscious decision to watch Trek and are seeking the shows out, either by subscribing to a streaming service or by buying them on physical media.

It's a similar thing to the comic book industry. Comics used to be impulse buys at newsstands or drugstores. These days the majority of comics readers are people who've made a conscious decision to seek out comics and make a special trip to the comic shop to buy them. So you're selling to the same shrinking audience.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

I don't think the current Trek shows' lack of cultural penetration is a question of quality as much as a question of accessibility.

Absolutely. I did say that generally speaking I enjoy the shows. Not questioning the quality, more the reach of them. I don't believe that Farscape One questioned the quality either.

You're on the money about both the changes in how television broadcasting works these days and also the similar changes in the comic book industry.

At some point, Star Trek was a show you could regularly stumble across while channel surfing. Now, it has to be sought. Much like the change in comic book buying that you mentioned.

 

[Farscape One]

Very true. TNG and the subsequent shows certainly helped cement a lot of the popular stereotypes about Kirk, like him constantly disobeying orders or being a big ladies' man. The Berman era shows rewrote a LOT of what we knew about TOS.



I don't think the current Trek shows' lack of cultural penetration is a question of quality as much as a question of accessibility. TOS was on a network in the days there were only three networks, and after that it was in syndication for decades. TNG was also in syndication for ages. People could stumble across the shows and catch a few stray minutes here & there, so even if you weren't a fan, you learned that Spock was the guy with the pointy ears and Picard was the bald Captain with the British accent. The only people who are watching the current shows are people who've made a conscious decision to watch Trek and are seeking the shows out, either by subscribing to a streaming service or by buying them on physical media.

It's a similar thing to the comic book industry. Comics used to be impulse buys at newsstands or drugstores. These days the majority of comics readers are people who've made a conscious decision to seek out comics and make a special trip to the comic shop to buy them. So you're selling to the same shrinking audience.

I don't think the overall quality of the current era is bad. (Though some things I do question, but what I question many others like, so... IDIC.) My point was it's not as culturally iconic as TOS and TNG because there's just so much scifi out there now (both current and past) to compete against that it can get lost in the mix.

You're right about how easy it was to catch TOS/TNG back in the day vs. now. But that also goes to my point about not standing out in the crowd now. It's hard to be a cultural icon if fewer people than in the past are actually able to see it more frequently.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't think the overall quality of the current era is bad. (Though some things I do question, but what I question many others like, so... IDIC.) My point was it's not as culturally iconic as TOS and TNG because there's just so much scifi out there now (both current and past) to compete against that it can get get lost in the mix.

You're right about how easy it was to catch TOS/TNG back in the day vs. now. But that also goes to my point about not standing out in the crowd now. It's hard to be a cultural icon if fewer people than in the past are actually able to see it more frequently.

The flip side is that there is a huge amount of material to move through. I recall (and really still am) being put off by the amount of comic books around Batman and trying to catch up felt impossible. Star Trek, when it was just TOS and TNG, was easier to grasp. I could catch an episode, record it on VHS (yes indeed), watch it and talk about it with friends at school the next day or two.

Then more and more scifi shows showed up. I tried Babylon 5 but found it strange. I went to try out Voyager and was excited for it. But then Stargate SG-1 came along, as well as several other SCI-FI channel shows. And that ended up leaving VOY behind, and DS9 and ENT because they didn't feel as interesting as the others (and I only had so much VHS tapes).

Eventually it becomes daunting to try and go back. And if I who enjoy the material but decided other things were interesting can feel a bit lost at times, how much more so for the casual person who goes "Which one has Dr. Spock in it?"

 

[Farscape One]

The flip side is that there is a huge amount of material to move through. I recall (and really still am) being put off by the amount of comic books around Batman and trying to catch up felt impossible. Star Trek, when it was just TOS and TNG, was easier to grasp. I could catch an episode, record it on VHS (yes indeed), watch it and talk about it with friends at school the next day or two.

Then more and more scifi shows showed up. I tried Babylon 5 but found it strange. I went to try out Voyager and was excited for it. But then Stargate SG-1 came along, as well as several other SCI-FI channel shows. And that ended up leaving VOY behind, and DS9 and ENT because they didn't feel as interesting as the others (and I only had so much VHS tapes).

Eventually it becomes daunting to try and go back. And if I who enjoy the material but decided other things were interesting can feel a bit lost at times, how much more so for the casual person who goes "Which one has Dr. Spock in it?"

True. Longer running franchises like ST or DOCTOR WHO run the risk of appearing daunting to watch. Even more recent ones like STARGATE. ('Recent' as in about 30 years old or less.) SUPERNATURAL can appear very daunting... with 327 episodes, that single show had almost as many episodes as the entire STARGATE franchise.

It doesn't help that people tend to not focus on anything longer than 20 or 30 episodes. I suppose that's also part of the reason for shorter seasons... to compensate for the shorter attention span.