What a curious statement. What has Kurtzman done to earn your mistrust?
And God bless him for that!
Shhhh.... there's a certain group of people that hate this little factoid.
Ok. What is the chance of a Picard spinoff?
- Thread starter ELCHawk
- Start date
What a curious statement. What has Kurtzman done to earn your mistrust?
And God bless him for that!
Shhhh.... there's a certain group of people that hate this little factoid.
It's Star Trek.
Unless this is TNG in the 90s or MAYBE the 2009 movie, there will be no fire with general audiences.
I said nothing negative about S2 in my post. I was simply pointing out how S1 and 2 are treated as having a distinct energy from S3. I didn’t even say that energy was bad either.
In fact, I realize that they basically rebooted the series after S1, and it works better if you jump from NEM straight to S2.
Plus, I’m more familiar with Akiva Goldsman’s approach to “big swings” in SNW. And that the whole thing with Guinan bar was shut down showed they were aiming for too big a swing.
In light of these viewpoints, I’ve slightly softens on S2. Its bad, but its not boring like the majority of S2 of ENT was.
That is factually untrue. Over in Future of Trek, you'll see plenty of people eagerly awaiting SFA. No one's made a petition for it because, you know, it's already getting made.
From what I read, it was his idea to do a time travel story... as a cost cutting measure.
Discovery. That's the easy, generalized answer. Although in all fairness, it was really Fuller who destroyed Discovery. Kurtzman has actually done a fairly reasonable job up picking the pieces and making all of this work.
I'm sure there's zealots out there who will get angry about it. SNW Season 2 was good, although I thought it was a step down for Season 1.
There certainly are other factors to consider, such as what else was going on at the time, and given SNW S2 came out after PIC S3, did PIC's success have an influence on it?
But in all reality, it's not a pissing contest. We're all on the same team here. I want all of this to be successful. Even Discovery, which I generally loathe, I still want to do well. I'm either a good fan or a bad fan, not really sure, i'll even support the stuff I don't like.
I disagree, strongly, on the whole "asked for" argument. One, as you note, SFA is set to target a different crowd than Legacy will, and capitalize on popularity of more young adult crowd, which Star Trek has not done as much.
Two, Legacy being "asked for" is on the heels of Season 3, which the Legacy show decidedly will not be like that at all. It can't. It won't have the TNG crew, or even as many familiar characters, aside from Seven. It's as much of a shot in the dark, other than it being in a era that people supposedly like.
Yup, which is where I see SFA having an advantage over Legacy, which is meant to sate the old fan palette.
So, Kurtzman should have more trust?
He hasn't done all that great of a job. Seasons 3 and 4 start to become sort of watchable, but they're still... bad. Kurtzman made mild improvements on the absolute dumpster fire Fuller left, but by all that much.
I am probably alittle too hard on him though. Everything outside of Discovery has been higher quality. Picard was fantastic, Lower Decks is fun, Prodigy is surprisingly good for what it is, and SNW has been generally pretty good.
It's going to take a miracle to win me over on Section 31 though. Having a hard time envisioning any scenario where I don't hate that. Can't really get behind Space Hitler who we apparently like now because she's played be Yeoh and was nice to Burnham. The only acceptable scenario in my head is an absolute impossibility... she's in no way able to be redeemed, continues to be evil Space Hitler for evil space organization that does evil things. I'm not really down for "but actually, fascism is GOOD!" right now.
I hope I'm wrong and it's awesome.
Why do we have to be behind her or support her? Why can't it just be a drama that is entertaining?
So, his running of Star Trek in general is still bad?
It could be, but all signs point to trying to turn her into a more sympathetic character.
I will not have sympathy for Space Hitler. I don't care how much she quips.
It's still not great, but I admit that first impressions go a long way, and Discovery absolutely broke my heart. I was over the moon with excitement for a new Star Trek show and... that's what we got. Absolutely heartbreaking. I see Kurtzman and I think of Discovery. Carries the taint.
Really though the only GOOD entry has been Picard, and even that was... only so good for the first two seasons. SNW is... fine, but I'm growing increasingly annoyed at Pike being treated as a weak character. Lower Decks is fine as a throw away cartoon. Prodigy is good for a kids show, but it's still a kids show.
No one is asking for sympathy for her. Certainly I don't. Putting her as a protagonist doesn't automatically make for sympathy. I don't have sympathy for characters like Paul Atredies, Riddick, or John Wick, or even Kor, to use a Star Trek example. It's a protagonist, not a sympathy exercise.
ETA: Look at freaking Loki! They guy wanted to enslave an entire planet, and wipe out an entire race and yet we're suppose to weep when he dies? Fuck that.
Interesting.
Well, I can sort of get it, though I would not be heartbroken over a show. TNG season 1 tainted that from the word go and nothing will fully redeem Picard as a character in my eyes. But, TOS somehow carried me through until I eventually got onboard with DS9.
If Pike is weak, then I would hate to see strong. The man goes through shit and still shows up, wrestles with his own cursed future and still wants to do his duty. It's not weakness to wrestle with inner turmoil.
"A kid's show." Yeah, it's still a good show though. The qualifier "kids" doesn't make it lesser.
In what way is Pike being turned into a weak character?
That's fair, but it depends on the presentation.
It's exacerbated by being Star Trek. I normally don't mind rooting for terrible people characters. I'm a fan of Warhammer 40k... everyone is terrible, and I wouldn't have it any other way. But Star Trek isn't supposed to be that. I had an issue with the idea of a Section 31 focused show the entire time, since it was first announced. The only way it possibly works is if we have a show taking care to show Section 31 as bad guys, doing bad guy things. And even then... in another franchise, cool. I don't want that in Star Trek, but I seriously doubt that's what we are going to get anyway.
Different perspectives and all that. I'm 39, got into Star Trek in roughly 1993-4ish. I wasn't "around" for Season 1 of TNG or DS9. So that didn't have any affect of me. Loved Voyager. Loved Enterprise. Generally enjoyed the Kelvin movies. Going in retrospect, I have nothing against TNG S1 and I love TOS.
Star Trek is a big part of my life, it's like... my favorite thing in the world. I can't even describe how excited I was when the news broke of a new show. And then... small tidbits would come out, and it was starting to look worse and worse but I told myself to be positive, they can't possibly mess this up, it's all going to work out... and then... that's what we got. It's so bad. I wish it wasn't. But it is. It's gotten better, but only marginally.
But I can also acknowledge different people like different things and that's ok.
The season 1 finale is an episode about how weak Peak is. But beyond that, "weak" may not have been the best choice of words. I'm having trouble articulating my feelings on it, but I don't like that a bit too often Pike is kind of pushed to the background, doing things like spending his time like cooking and being almost comic relief.
I stand by my statement, it's good... for a kids show. The premise is interesting and it's fine for what it is, but it would better if it wasn't a kids show. It being a kids show does make it lesser, in my opinion.
For Season 2 that was because Mount requested less to do because he had a new kid.
No, it shows he just has a different type of thinking than Kirk. He wasn't weak.
SNW is not showing him as weak.
What a terrible mindset to have.
Perhaps, but I think you might misunderstand what i'm trying to say.
The fact that is a show intended for children means that the story and presentation has to be done in a way that appeals to children. I would prefer a story that includes more mature storytelling and situations that are not really possible in the format of the show.
It's totally fine as a kids show.
I would enjoy it more if it were not.
What is Star Trek supposed to be?
I am 39 as well. I watched TOS on VHS and reruns. In my opinion TOS is the best part of Star Trek, and will not be topped. TNG Season 1 was disappointing and disheartening to try and watch and I gave up.
DS9 I didn't warm to until after "Trials and Tribble-ations." VOY fell off for me in favor of Stargate, Farcape, Invisible Man, among other shows.
I guess I don't see that as comedic or anything. I see it as him trying to be as comfortable in his own skin with the time he has left.
I would disagree strongly. Emotions are a fundamental aspect of the human experience. One of my favorite cartoons growing up was Gargoyles which dealt with hugely mature themes. Same with Prodigy.
I want the whole "positive depiction of the future" thing. I don't want to see evil Space Hitler working for evil organization doing evil things.
I really don't mind TNG Season 1. It's not particularly good, but I find it to be offensively bad.
I have an odd relationship with TOS. I enjoy it very much but I rewatch it the least out of any of them. And yet, I remain a TOS purist.
Oddly enough, I actually dropped out of DS9 when the Dominion War started. I just wasn't looking for that at the time. I liked Star Trek being about peaceful exploration and what not. A war was just totally against everything, I thought. I have since watched the hell out of it and enjoy it immensely.
VOY always held a special place in my heart. I can acknowledge it's not always the most well written show, but... I like it. There's an intangible part of VOY that makes me love it.
(I watched other stuff too... big on Stargate. Never could get into Farscape though.)
And just think how much better both of those would be if they weren't hamstringed by having it to keep child-friendly.
The future is not always so positive, especially with corruption at the top.
I get the wanting the positive thing, but that was not always Star Trek.
I'm going to assume it's supposed to be "don't find it to be offensively bad".
Hardly. It resonates deeper for me. Probably the hazard of working with children.
Mileage, etc.
Which is why I want my escapism to be that. Especially Star Trek. That was what made Star Trek different. It wasn't just the generic sci-fi pew pew nonsense. It was different.
It's fast becoming generic sci-fi pew pew nonsense.
"Indeed", - Teal'c/Spock
Different strokes and all that. I don't interact with children at all. I'm fine with stuff aimed at children... I watch cartoons all the time. There's nothing wrong with it. "Mature" themes in kids shows tend to come off as incredibly shallow to me.
Some things would just be better if they weren't. It doesn't make them bad. Just, not as good as could be.
Doesn't feel like it to me.
But, I'm wary of escapism.
Maybe.
It would be an interesting experiment to rewrite Prodigy as an adult show.
What exactly can change to make something "adult"?
How is SNW more mature than Prodigy? Were there jokes about passing gas in Prodigy that I missed, or something?
How is SNW more mature than Prodigy? Were there jokes about passing gas in Prodigy that I missed, or something?
Similar threads
