Internal Culture War?

[HotRod]

There seems to be a bit of a Culture war, for a lack of better term, going on, not just between the fans, but also internally amongst the actual producers of Star Trek.

It's actually fascinating to watch. Before the third season of Picard, Trek was pretty firmly in "new territory" in that it was in the mostly fresh hands of peoples who were pretty new to the franchise, with a few exceptions here and there.

From Discovery, Lower Decks, Strange New Worlds, Prodigy and the first two seasons of Picard, we were definitely giving a new, and in my opinion, fresh form of Trek. The various series had a different energy to them. And while opinions on quality may vary, I still view this as a new "golden age" of Star Trek.

But then, something happened with the third season of Picard. Terry Matalas decided to bring back a bunch of the "old guard." People like the Okuda's and Doug Drexler were brought it, to much fanfare, and we all know the results

That could have been the end of it, but I've listened to various podcasts. I've read various articles, I've watched the YouTube rants, and there does seem to be atleast a certain amount of animosity, mostly from those involved in the "Berman era" of Trek, towards the live action stuff produced in Toronto.

They seem to feel some form of ownership over the franchise and that their way is the only way things should be done. It's not any one single comment, but there is a definite sense of.... hostility? That may be too strong of a word. But there's something. Almost reeks of jealousy, perhaps?

I mean, you constantly have the the likes of Drexler or Terry Matalas joining podcast such as the "Treksperts," a podcast that never misses a chance to hurl insults towards "nuTrek." Hell, you have them conversing with Robert Meyer Burnett on multiple occasions. That alone says alot. To have staff of one Trek series go onto shows run by those who are openly hostile towards other Trek series, seems odd.

A certain segment of the fandom is screaming for this supposed "Star Trek Legacy" series to be run by Matalas, but is he shooting himself in the foot with Paramount?

Have there been other examples of this in other long running franchises? Is Dave Filoni badmouthing Kennedy behind her back? I doubt it. It all just seems very childish and unprofessional on the part of the "old guard." I can understand that they feel they have a connection to the franchise, but perhaps they need to take a little advice from Captain Kirk...

Young minds, fresh ideas. Be tolerant.

 

[Lord Garth]

The Culture War, in its current form, has been going on since 2015, and it spilled over into Star Trek the day a new series was announced in November of that year. But you're talking about another Culture War, so on that...

With all these series, but particularly the live-action ones: DSC, PIC, and SNW, there have been three very different takes on how to approach continuing Star Trek. SFA could be another different way too, but I'll reserve judgment on that.

I'm not saying the old guard can't offer anything new, but it should be the new guard in control.

I'm in the DSC/SFA camp, despite how much I like PIC, because Star Trek needs to move past TOS vs. TNG, which is what SNW vs. PIC is by another name.

I like DSC being diverse, pro-LGBTQIA, having a continuing storyline, and having nothing else take place after it. I like a Federation that's no longer Earth-centric. I like a series that tries, regardless of how that might be received.

I also am leaning towards liking PIC Season 1 better than 3. Season 3, as much as I like it, is something I see as fixing things that bugged me about the TNG Movies for a long time, and that's it. I'm glad for it on that basis, but that's as far as it goes. If Legacy is made, I hope it's more like PIC's first two seasons. Really Season 1, but you get the idea. I treat Season 3 like a one-time thing. People who want it to not be a one-time thing aren't on my side, other than maybe nominally.

I really hate the mentality of "Real Star Trek" being strictly something from 1966 to 2005. And when they say "1966 to 2005", they really mean "1989 to 2005". Yes, 1989, not 1987. TNG's third season to the end of ENT, plus "The Measure of a Man" and "Q Who".

 

[HotRod]

With all these series, but particularly the live-action ones: DSC, PIC, and SNW, there have been three very different takes on how to approach continuing Star Trek. SFA could be another different way too, but I'll reserve judgment on that.

I think it's one of Treks greatest strengths that we can have so many series be so different from eachother while still all being Star Trek.

I'm not saying the old guard can't offer anything new, but it should be the new guard in control.

Agreed 100%. While I respect their contributions to the franchise, their time had past. We desperately needed the new blood.

I like DSC being diverse, pro-LGBTQIA, having a continuing storyline, and having nothing else take place after it. I like a Federation that's no longer Earth-centric. I like a series that tries, regardless of how that might be received.

Agreed on all fronts. While Disco is certainly not my favourite, I still like the show. Plus, I greatly appreciate a show that takes chances, and Disco has probably taken more chances than any other series.

I treat Season 3 like a one-time thing. People who want it to not be a one-time thing aren't on my side, other than maybe nominally.

Yep. I'm mostly fine with Picard season 3 being a one time thing. I've certainly got my issues with it, but it's done and over with. It's the desire to duplicate it on a constant basis that perplexes me.

I really hate the mentality of "Real Star Trek" being strictly something from 1966 to 2005. And when they say "1966 to 2005", they really mean "1989 to 2005". Yes, 1989, not 1987. TNG's third season to the end of ENT, plus "The Measure of a Man" and "Q Who".

I have a zero tolerance for the "Real Star Trek" mentality. It's all Star Trek!

 

[fireproof78]

Unfortunately, this seems to be built in to the culture of Trek, going back to TOS, the revival, TMP and TNG and finally TWOK. At each turn there was a bit of competition, either to keep in pop culture awareness, or between shows, i.e. Kirk vs. Picard. Now, I suppose that many would argue that it's only natural to compare the (at the time) two captains, and two shows since they took very different approaches from the outset in terms of presentation of characters. But, then we had TWOK, and TWOK gave a much different feel from the pristine view in TMP and TNG. It was a little rougher, a little darker, a little more militaristic take than Roddenberry liked. And so he spoke out. And created another rift.

And then DS9 came along, and was able to create another different take outside of Berman's TNG style eye. And created another rift.

Ultimately, I think it comes from jealousy and to possessiveness, and will depend greatly on which Trek you started out with. If TOS, then you find that perhaps a bit perfect, warts and all, and expect Trek to follow suit. If TNG, then more like that is expected, save for DS9 which had a different take. And on it goes in a possessive, vicious, cycle.

 

[Lord Garth]

The real problem is this, and I mention it in another thread: TNG, DS9, and VOY make up 65% of live-action Star Trek. If you include ENT, that number goes up to 77%. It warps people's view of Star Trek into thinking the Berman Way is the RIght Way or the Only Way. It's very hard for some people to accept another approach.

When Kurtzman Trek is done, and something else replaces it, I won't demand that it be exactly like Kurtzman Trek. I expect things to change with each creative regime and people who expect things to stay the same, or demand it, are fooling themselves.

 

[HotRod]

What still bothers me the most is the rather blatant disrespect being shown to what I'm just going to call the "Toronto productions", by those based in Los Angeles.

Drexler, a guy who I rather liked, has been openly hostile towards things like the SNW Enterprise, to the point of rather purposely excluding it, and other ships from the newer shows, from things like the Ship of the Line calender. In the 6 years that she has existed, the SNW Enterprise appears only once with Discovery.

And the podcasting...... Terry Matalas became a somewhat frequent guest, among others, of shows like the Inglorious Treksperts, a show that never misses a chance, from what I've seen, to hurl insults at the Toronto productions.

Hell, even that asshole, Robert Meyer Burnett, seems to have a connection with the Los Angeles crew. Didn't he even manage to acquire early screeners of Picard season 3?

It all just reeks of childish unprofessionalism.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Doug Drexler's opinion about current Trek changed 100% when they started giving him money.

For all of their crowing that Picard season 3 was a huge success for making the Nielsen streaming charts, so has Strange New Worlds on multiple occasions.

 

[Citiprime]

I mean, you constantly have the the likes of Drexler or Terry Matalas joining podcast such as the "Treksperts," a podcast that never misses a chance to hurl insults towards "nuTrek." Hell, you have them conversing with Robert Meyer Burnett on multiple occasions. That alone says alot. To have staff of one Trek series go onto shows run by those who are openly hostile towards other Trek series, seems odd.

If I remember correctly, Matalas made a concerted effort to reach out and send screeners to the fan sites and YouTube reviewers that had been negative about Nu-Trek in order to get positive buzz for Picard season 3 and to get those fans who had given up on Discovery and Picard to come back for another chance. And that largely worked. The positivity about Picard season 3 on YouTube, Twitter, and across the internet was off the charts (e.g., Picard season 3's rotten tomatoe's audience score is 90%, compared to SNW season 2's 75%).

But as far as Matalas himself, I can't think of any instance where he's bad mouthed another Trek production or undercut their attempts to market. From everything I've seen on his Twitter and Instagram feed, he does everything to support the entire franchise.

Moreover, if there's a culture war on this, it seems to be a problem of some thinking that "the wrong people" are liking Picard season 3. I've gotten the feeling that some of those who are very "concerned" about a possible Star Trek: Legacy are threatened by its popularity and what that might mean for their favorite version of Star Trek in the future, and the implications for the decisions that have been made on the other shows than just enjoying a TV show for being a TV show.

 

[The Wormhole]

A culture war between fans is of course nothing new. There's always been a culture war between fans, it's just these days things like YouTube and other social media platforms are able to shine a brighter spotlight on it.

Even a culture war between producers, is a bit inaccurate. For the most part, there appears to be if not complete coordination than at least a level of cooperation amongst the various Trek productions. Something like the recent SNW/Lower Decks crossover wouldn't be possible otherwise. The wildcard seems to be Picard S3 which seems to have netted the support of many of nu Trek's harshest and most vocal critics like RMB and the like.

As for Matalas's apparent complicity with them, I suspect ignorance on Matalas's part plays a part there. It's possible Matalas isn't aware of the extent of RMB's or Drexler's vitriol against current Trek. Matalas is probably just thinking back to the days when he worked on Enterprise, which was undoubtedly how he met Drexler and likely how he met RMB and reached out to them when it came to promoting Picard S3 as a means of "building a bridge" to the fandom without knowing anything about their online behavior. So the only real thing Matalas is guilty of is not doing his homework. Which is especially embarrassing in the case of RMB, who makes no attempt to hide how much of an ass he is. This is the guy who once tweeted that a woman should be publicly sexually assaulted just for writing an episode he didn't like.

I mean, I get it somewhat, being a television producer is busy work, and Matalas likely doesn't have time to root through Twitter and YouTube or whatever and find out what people are saying about what. From his perspective, a guy he met while working on Star Trek now has a following among Trek fandom, extend an olive branch. Clearly some research was in order, but too late for that now.

And while the success of Picard S3 looks as though it's going to pave the way for future productions emulating it, the good news is SNW S2 has also been wildly popular which should provide sufficient evidence that there is an audience among Trek fans for something other than in your face fanwank thus insuring we'll still get some good Trek in the times to come.

 

[HotRod]

Matalas made a concerted effort to reach out and send screeners to the fan sites and YouTube reviewers that had been negative about Nu-Trek in order to get positive buzz for Picard season 3

But should he have done that? If the show was so great, did he need to actively court some of the worst examples of the fandom? The shows own positive word of mouth from the general public should have been enough without needing to impower "that" side of the fandom. Frankly, we're better without them.

But as far as Matalas himself, I can't think of any instance where he's bad mouthed another Trek production

I suppose I'm looking at it from a "guilty by association" point of view.

I've gotten the feeling that some of those who are very "concerned" about a possible Star Trek: Legacy are threatened by its popularity

A popularity that "NuTrek" Strange New Worlds has seemingly matched or even exceeded. Which is what I think is causing some of the "old guard" some aggravation.

 

[Paul755]

I don’t really watch any of the YouTube stuff or listen to any of the pods but in regards to Matalas it just seems like…for lack of a better phrase…he’s just playing politics. He’s trying to drum up support for Picard Season 3 and to keep building a base to convince Paramount to let him do Legacy. I mean, Republicans still go on NBC/MSNBC and Democrats still go on Fox News. I’m sure Matalas goes on outlets where he may not agree with the hosts. But I haven’t heard him bad mouth Disco, SNW, Lower Decks, etc… As for the RMB stuff, maybe they are just friends. Sometimes you are buddies with people that others don’t like. It happens.

Drexler and the Discoprise…eh…I don’t see a big deal there. Maybe he loves the Classic Enterprise and doesn’t like being told that version is no good and that the Discoprise is how the ship always was supposed to look. It’s a personal preference thing.

I do think any internal conflicts do go both ways though. Look at the Star Trek Day poster. No Archer or NX-01 (Bakula seemingly left out in favor of Yeoh) and TOS is repped by Uhura instead of Kirk or Spock. In fact Kirk, Archer and Freeman are the only Captains not repped at all. I mean, there is no way you accidentally leave out an entire series and it was clearly a conscious choice to exclude Shatner or Nimoy.

 

[fireproof78]

I've gotten the feeling that some of those who are very "concerned" about a possible Star Trek: Legacy are threatened by its popularity and what that might mean for their favorite version of Star Trek in the future, and the implications for the decisions that have been made on the other shows than just enjoying a TV show for being a TV show.

I do not understand why people feel threatened over a TV show. This is the type of rhetoric that drives my logical brain nuts. You're telling me that people who like a show somehow cannot imagine other people liking something different and that is a threat to them?

 

[Timofnine]

I think that all of this talk of infighting between the producers is speculation on your part. I have seen *no* sign of it.

 

[HotRod]

I think that all of this talk of infighting between the producers is speculation on your part. I have seen *no* sign of it.

Terry Matalas aligning himself with various individuals who have been extremely vocal in their distaste of Discovery and Strange New Worlds is one part of it.

Without going into extreme detail, just recently I listened to a podcast with him as a guest speaker at a panel at the recent Las Vegas convention. When talking about the likes of the Okuda's, Drexler and such, he basically made the statement of "why would you hire anybody but these people?" I'm paraphrasing, but that was the just of it.

The whole statement left a sour taste in my mouth and is pretty much the reason for this post as the insinuation was pretty clear, especially with further jabs from the host.

 

[Timofnine]

Well surely Alex Kurtzman has his ship in order? Does he not have over arching responsibility for the franchise any more, he is awfully quiet these days? If he still does so, he should be helping to manage these kind of internal issues and conflicts allegedly happening under his watch; Kurtzman should call a board meeting where all the show producers, including JJ Abrams, can get together and sort their problems out without having to resort to a cage fight such as in the case of Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg. I thought that the Star Trek franchise was now under one umbrella after the Paramount/CBS/Viacom merger? Who on earth *is* holding the umbrella?

I will be honest, I have seen evidence (in my eyes) that rather than an internal conflict, perhaps some people have wanted to run Star Trek in to the ground so to speak, almost like they have a loving control of aspects of it but hate what it once was and now want to change Star Trek in to something else which now more resembles generic sci fi, perhaps also using the show to push agendas in overly blatant and controversial ways that is not traditional to Star Trek… it is also possible that some people who currently write for Star Trek are *not* actual fans and do not care about the show, only using it as platform to make a name for themselves and launch their own Hollywood careers? Some writers may be told to watch a few relevant or key Star Trek episodes as research before writing their scripts without realising that there is 60 years of intertwined history, loving familiarity and… erm.. actual canon… for them to also consider in their writings.

Star Trek should also be largely based on allegory, not in your face soap opera, IMHO this is when Trek works best as it makes the show more family viewing appropriate and internationally appealing in more conservative countries such as Russia and Mexico.

I believe that Terry Matalas and Prodigy/SNW gangs have tried to rectify these problems to some extent, though as with all producers I am sure that they anhve their own agendas, too. I understand that this is a *very* strong and emotive statement, but I am saying this as an honest opinion. Perhaps this is why Terry Matalas wants to call his show ‘Legacy’… he may want to honour the Star Trek legacy in his spin-off, where as others may just want to make generic sci-fi and take a sh*t under the Star Trek tent pole in order to sell their otherwise unsellable stories under an established brand name whilst boldly bashing what has gone before?

Perhaps Star Trek needs a hiatus and relaunch of sorts? starting with the undoing of the destruction of the Romulan sun in the JJ verse, which I kind of think started any problems that Star Trek may currently have in the first place, both story wise or production wise.

Star Trek at one time used to be watched all around the world, it was beloved internationally. I believe that some Nu-Trek writers are not writing for an international audience any more, but for their own personal agendas… Star Trek should be written to unify an international audience through an acceptance, a ‘Que Sera, Sera’ of fans across borders on controversial subjects no matter what their centuries old cultures, politics and ideologies truly believe about a given subject or social issue. Star Trek in no longer being written in a way sensitive to an international audience of diverse beliefs. Ok, Star Trek is currently written by Americans for Americans… but the world is *not* just about America anymore, we live in a multinational global co-operative which we all *need* to be sensitive to.

If we visit another country with laws or beliefs different to our own, we respect the land and people that we visit… I personally think that Star Trek should be the same, relying on allegory of modern day social issues which can sometimes prove to be internationally controversial, enabling the show to be enjoyed by an international audience without censorship or blatant banning from broadcast.

Star Trek may now be too damaged a franchise for this vision for an internationally accessible and unifying show for a globalised entertainment industry network, but the potential *was* there… and hopefully *not* forever lost.

 

[Paul755]

Terry Matalas aligning himself with various individuals who have been extremely vocal in their distaste of Discovery and Strange New Worlds is one part of it.

Without going into extreme detail, just recently I listened to a podcast with him as a guest speaker at a panel at the recent Las Vegas convention. When talking about the likes of the Okuda's, Drexler and such, he basically made the statement of "why would you hire anybody but these people?" I'm paraphrasing, but that was the just of it.

The whole statement left a sour taste in my mouth and is pretty much the reason for this post as the insinuation was pretty clear, especially with further jabs from the host.

“Why would you hire anybody but these people” sounds like he’s just pumping their tires. Did he straight up say that the current designers, model makers, graphics people should be fired and replaced?

It sounds pretty innocent to me.

and in the context of Picard S3, of course you would want the Okudas, Drexler, etc…they’ve worked on Trek since Search for Spock (I think) so if you are going for a TNG aesthetic, they are who you’d want.

 

[The Wormhole]

Star Trek is currently written by Americans for Americans…

Star Trek has always been written by Americans for Americans. TOS had an episode where Kirk was preaching to the people of the planet of the week the meaning of the US Constitution. Hell, right from the very start the ship names have always started with USS, just like American ships.

 

[fireproof78]

almost like they have a loving control of aspects of it but hate what it once was and now want to change Star Trek in to something else which now more resembles generic sci fi, perhaps also using the show to push agendas in overly blatant and controversial ways that is not traditional to Star Trek…

How?

I do not understand this insistence upon assigning malicious intent to producers for difference of artistic opinion.

but for their own personal agendas

As opposed to Roddenberry?

 

[HotRod]

Well surely Alex Kurtzman has his ship in order? Does he not have over arching responsibility for the franchise any more, he is awfully quiet these days?

I don't know if you've noticed, but there's a bit of a strike going on....

perhaps some people have wanted to run Star Trek in to the ground

Why, in God's name would people intentionally damage their own careers?

perhaps also using the show to push agendas in overly blatant and controversial ways

And what might that agenda be?

that is not traditional to Star Trek…

What's traditional Star Trek?

there is 60 years of intertwined history, loving familiarity and… erm.. actual canon… for them to also consider in their writings.

And they're doing a great job interjecting themselves into the canon.

Terry Matalas wants to call his show ‘Legacy’… he may want to honour the Star Trek legacy in his spin-off, where as others may just want to make generic sci-fi and take a sh*t under the Star Trek tent pole

Here's the cult of Matalas coming into play...

which I kind of think started any problems that Star Trek may currently have in the first place,

God help they shake things up....

I believe that some Nu-Trek writers are not writing for an international audience any more,

Star Trek has always been written for an American audience first and foremost.

Star Trek in no longer being written in a way sensitive to an international audience of diverse beliefs.

Literally the only thing that "nuTrek" has really pushed foward, as opposed to the older shows, is the inclusion of LGBTQ characters. If an international audience cannot handle a the inclusion of those peopld and their stories, then fuck them. We don't need them.

Star Trek may now be too damaged a franchise

Hardly.

Did he straight up say that the current designers, model makers, graphics people should be fired and replaced?

It was further insinuated by those hosting the panel.

 

[BK613]

Anecdotal, but one thing has changed for me and I've noticed that it affects my attitude: I have to pay to see Star Trek now.
In the past, that wasn't the case*. I either watched it OTA or on a cable channel** so I could be a lot indifferent in what was being produced. I wasn't really Paramount/CBS/Viacom's customer, anyway, advertisers were.
But now, with streaming, I am a customer and as such, I have expectations like any customer of any product does when the producer of said product wants my money.

*(movies and physical media aside)
**(basic cable was an amenity that came with almost every apartment I lived in, so even then I wasn't really paying.)