What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[eschaton]

It's not even true that half the characters are LGBTQ when looking at Discovery.

On that show, you had a gay couple (Stamets/Culber), and then starting in season 3, a non-binary character (Adira). Gray IMHO doesn't count, because he never was a main character. He appeared in four episodes of Season 3, then six episodes of Season 4, and was basically put on a bus. For the fifth season, we saw him only twice (once briefly in holo-communication). So an important guest, but nothing more than that. Okay, there's Reno too, but she appeared across 18 episodes over the last four seasons - well less than half of all episodes. Many of those appearances were for only a few minutes as well. And Georgiou, though she's been gone since Season 3.

In contrast, Burham, Saru, Tilly, Lorca, Pike, Book, and Rayner are all not shown as queer. And if you're going to include a character like Gray (or Geogiou, who was never part of the main cast), you'd also have to include characters like Vance, Kovich, T'Rina, etc.

 

[Macintosh]

It's not even true that half the characters are LGBTQ when looking at Discovery.

On that show, you had a gay couple (Stamets/Culber), and then starting in season 3, a non-binary character (Adira). Gray IMHO doesn't count, because he never was a main character. He appeared in four episodes of Season 3, then six episodes of Season 4, and was basically put on a bus. For the fifth season, we saw him only twice (once briefly in holo-communication). So an important guest, but nothing more than that. Okay, there's Reno too, but she appeared across 18 episodes over the last four seasons - well less than half of all episodes. Many of those appearances were for only a few minutes as well. And Georgiou, though she's been gone since Season 3.

In contrast, Burham, Saru, Tilly, Lorca, Pike, Book, and Rayner are all not shown as queer. And if you're going to include a character like Gray (or Geogiou, who was never part of the main cast), you'd also have to include characters like Vance, Kovich, T'Rina, etc.

Even if what they were saying about Discovery's characters were true, that's one series out of five that we've had in the last ten years, and it's still really the only Star Trek series with significant LGBTQ+ representation amongst the cast or characters. Hardly "control" of the whole franchise is it

 

[BK613]

"Well, ...I see we have a long way to go."

 

[Nyotarules]

the gays are controlling Star Trek shows now.

half or most of the cast in Discovery are gay, binary/transgendered which is ridiculous

And things were going so well after 980 pages. Watch it

 

[Citiprime]

Can I make a counter-argument on this issue. I understand people's desire and feelings that LGBTQ representation should have happened a long time ago. But there's a part of me that believes it's a "good" thing it didn't happen in the 1990s, since I have a feeling they would have screwed it up.

• It seems really silly now, but 90s television was nowhere near as progressive as people may think it was. Ellen admitting she was a lesbian on her sitcom was national news, and treated as a "very special episode" when it happened. Even DS9's "Rejoined," which touches on the issue in a science-fiction way, was covered in the media as a the "gay" episode of the show, and the kiss between the two actresses overshadowed everything else. My fear is that if they had tried having a regular LGBTQ character in those days, depending on the writers it may have been the character's defining trait, instead of a fully-realized character where that was just an aspect of their characterization.

• In my opinion, if one looks back at Berman-era Trek, love stories and relationships were not their strong suit. There are a good number of couples (e.g., Riker and Troi, Keiko and O'Brien, Worf and Dax, etc.), but they're not written as great love affairs or do we get depictions of deep intimacy. They just sorta exist as "loving" couples. You never really get a couple where the "falling in love" aspect and relationship issues are a major feature of their characters and the love affair works in the way it would in another drama that deals with those sort of relationship issues on that level. You never get a Shonda Rhimes or KDrama level of interest in the "will they or won't they" work out as lovers part of the story. And if they couldn't do that for the heterosexual relationships, I have my doubts they could have written it for gay and lesbian characters either.

Another aspect is that I think Star Trek's representation of diversity says more by not acknowledging its representation. Going back to TOS, it's hardly if ever pointed out in-universe that the crew is diverse ethnically. It's just something that exists, and by it existing the audience gets the point. The fact that Sisko is an African-American captain or that Janeway is a female captain in the 24th century speaks volumes without having to underline the fact that they come from what are minorities and discriminated groups in the present-day.

And, to me, that would have been the best way to go about it. Not "the very special episode" route where it is put front and center. But just a character where we hear about them going on a date, or going home to their spouse, and we see they're a non-traditional couple but it's treated as normal as everyone else, it's not worthy of being spotlighted, and no one thinks a thing is odd or different about it because people in the 23rd and 24th centuries have gotten past all of that bullshit.

 

[PCz911]

My controversial opinion: the latest iterations of Star Trek were designed to target and appeal to a younger demographic than me. It’s not for me, and that’s ok. I’ve aged out of the prime marketing target.

I’m not a fan of the new iterations and…. But That’s ok.

It brings in more Star Trek fans. So if it works for you , I’m glad. There’s space for everyone in the fandom.

Of course, selfishly, I’d love to have more in the vein of TOS or TNG. But, then again, I’d also like to be younger and good looking (I would say again… but only half that statement is true)

 

[Lord Garth]

My controversial opinion: the latest iterations of Star Trek were designed to target and appeal to a younger demographic than me. It’s not for me, and that’s ok. I’ve aged out of the prime marketing target.

I’m not a fan of the new iterations and…. But That’s ok.

It brings in more Star Trek fans. So if it works for you , I’m glad. There’s space for everyone in the fandom.

Of course, selfishly, I’d love to have more in the vein of TOS or TNG. But, then again, I’d also like to be younger and good looking (I would say again… but only half that statement is true)

I wish more people thought like this. That's the view I hope to have if the time ever comes.

"Aren't you already there with Discovery now ending?" someone might ask. Maybe, maybe not. Ask me again when SFA is out. Then ask me one more time, further down the line, when we eventually get the first Post-Kurtzman series. Whenever that is.

 

[Citiprime]

My controversial opinion: the latest iterations of Star Trek were designed to target and appeal to a younger demographic than me. It’s not for me, and that’s ok. I’ve aged out of the prime marketing target.

I’m not a fan of the new iterations and…. But That’s ok.

It brings in more Star Trek fans. So if it works for you , I’m glad. There’s space for everyone in the fandom.

Of course, selfishly, I’d love to have more in the vein of TOS or TNG. But, then again, I’d also like to be younger and good looking (I would say again… but only half that statement is true)

I don't disagree in theory. But my issue with this notion is twofold:

1. Is there any evidence the current strategy is working in bringing in a significant number of new young fans for those shows with people who wouldn't watch something with more fidelity to the original IP?
2. Is there a fundamental reason why series/movies made for the wider audience of Star Trek fans wouldn't work for all age groups.

TNG and the rest of the Berman era shows were made to be good TV shows, and kids and teens watched it anyway because they liked good television too. Other than the early attempts to have Wesley as a young, audience surrogate, I don't think any of the TV series of that era were trying to target certain demos. They just made a good show and younger viewers watched it too.

 

[James Cole]

TNG and the rest of the Berman era shows were made to be good TV shows, and kids and teens watched it anyway because they liked good television too. Other than the early attempts to have Wesley as a young, audience surrogate, I don't think any of the TV series of that era were trying to target certain demos. They just made a good show and younger viewers watched it too.

Like any TV show, they targeted adults 18-49 while also being kid friendly enough to have toy merchandise. They couldn't afford to micro-segment their potential audience by being too polarizing... like most TV shows, they wouldn't be dead center centrist, but only say 10 points over left of center, in short, very moderately liberal. The shows had to find a happy medium between needing to be able to be aired out of order while also having a strong enough core fanbase to support merchandising sales etc.

Paramount+ both sells advertising and also targets the premium upper middle class Showtime demographic in the ad free tier. Many Berman era fans that got into the shows as kids or teenagers would still be in the 18-49 (or the less premium 25-54) age demographic (and this is leaving aside that the entertainment industry could be easily called out for ageism, that CBS of all companies should have appreciated what it means to have an older viewership based off the network, and the older Gen X and younger Boomer fans would likely have high disposable income to pay ad free). Considering the hyperfragmented nature of streaming, it would make sense to oversample your existing core fanbase instead of focusing too much on somehow bringing in new people at the expense of burning off existing people, especially ones that would otherwise show new series to their kids.

NuTrek really needs to find better market research people. Maybe they assumed the core fanbase would stay no matter what? LOWER DECKS say could afford to be a little goofy, but an $8-10 million per episode series being that structurally polarizing?

 

[at Quark's]

My controversial opinion: the latest iterations of Star Trek were designed to target and appeal to a younger demographic than me. It’s not for me, and that’s ok. I’ve aged out of the prime marketing target.

I’m not a fan of the new iterations and…. But That’s ok.

It brings in more Star Trek fans. So if it works for you , I’m glad. There’s space for everyone in the fandom.

Of course, selfishly, I’d love to have more in the vein of TOS or TNG. But, then again, I’d also like to be younger and good looking (I would say again… but only half that statement is true)

Same for me. If I don't like the newer installments, the more likely explanation is not that quality has dropped dramatically over the past decades, but that my tastes aren't the same as those of younger people that only have become adults recently. I accept that I don't 'get' everything that makes them tick- they've grown up in a different world than I did. I've seen it happen all around me across the whole board (older people who cannot appreciate contemporary music and still cling to the music that was popular when they were young, and then complain that music these days is worthless), so why wouldn't it hit me? I still try to see the good qualities in such newer productions, even when they don't suit my personal tastes.

I'm not even that old yet, but I try to avoid to become one of those people that complain that most things were better in earlier times.

 

[nightwind1]

Well, my days of not taking you seriously have certainly come to a middle. “The gays”. FFS

Up vote for the quote from Cap'n Tightpants.

 

[Daedalus]

I wouldn't necessarily say that Discovery, for example, was designed to target any particular demographic. I do feel like it was created to compete alongside the darker and edgier shows of the same era.

The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones were impossible to match, and Stranger Things was starting to hit its stride.

They must've believed, and with the best of intentions, that people would only tune in if they were getting more of the same. Even if that meant prosthetic klingon boobs.

The Orville showed there was still a place for updated old-style Trek, and a place for older fans, so eventually we got SNW.

 

[Nyotarules]

Streaming has changed everything for the entertainment industry whether its sport, arts, movies, 'terrestrial' television. Trek has done pretty well with its different shows since 2009. It has not done a bad job being all things to all Trek people with DIscovery, SNW, Lower decks, Prodigy. There might be some fans who do not like any of the new shows, well the old shows have not gone anywhere, they are still available to be watched over and over again.
As we Trek fans get old and pass away, if the franchise needs to survive and it cannot just rely on us oldies.
After all it is a business.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

Would it be controversial if I said BLOOD AND FIRE was underrated and unfairly maligned?

 

[Nyotarules]

Would it be controversial if I said BLOOD AND FIRE was underrated and unfairly maligned?

Never heard of it

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

It's a two-part James Cawley fan-film from NEW VOYAGES written by David Gerrold.

 

[fireproof78]

My controversial opinion: the latest iterations of Star Trek were designed to target and appeal to a younger demographic than me. It’s not for me, and that’s ok. I’ve aged out of the prime marketing target.

I’m not a fan of the new iterations and…. But That’s ok.

It brings in more Star Trek fans. So if it works for you , I’m glad. There’s space for everyone in the fandom.

Of course, selfishly, I’d love to have more in the vein of TOS or TNG. But, then again, I’d also like to be younger and good looking (I would say again… but only half that statement is true)

Indeed. Not all of Trek is for me and that's all the better for it.

They just made a good show and younger viewers watched it too.

I agree, though I do not like TNG (prefer Seaquest, thank you!) But, define good show? Because we seem to have a struggle with even that right now!

 

[Lord Garth]

There's shows I actually watch and will re-watch, and then there are shows where, to me, they're just an Internet Argument from my perspective. If I see any of what I file under Internet Argument, it was probably because of here.

TOS --> Show I watch. I'll watch a few per year. Because of the lower episode count, if I did any more than that, the show would've worn itself out with me a long time ago. It's always a random episode. Whatever I feel like.

TNG --> Show I watch. Watched it every day in the '90s. I'm in the middle of a second rewatch, this time with YouTube Reactors. Sometimes I'll put on a random episode, and have also done so in the past.

DS9 --> Show I watched. Past tense. Will watch it again in the fall.

VOY --> Show I watch. Aside from re-watching Seasons 4-7 and now Seasons 1-3, sometimes in the past I've put on a random episode.

ENT --> Internet Argument. Binged the show during the Quarantine because of a poster here. Still can't really get into it. Recently went through bits and pieces of episodes because of an Internet Argument. I'm not going to say why because SPOILERS.

DSC --> Show I watch. Obviously. Of course, the show also just ended. I'll revisit it at least once. How often I'll revisit it in the following years and decades remains to be seen. This might or might not become another DS9 situation.

PIC --> Show I watch. In fact, I'll probably re-watch this a lot more, because I'll also be watching it with the movies, in addition to feeling like revisiting it every now and then on its own. Watching it with TNG itself too. Also, I really did like it that much, overall.

SNW --> Internet Argument. I haven't seen all the episodes. Some of the ones I've seen, I stopped partway through and didn't get back to. I've never seen an episode twice. Simply put: the only two characters I like are La'an and Number One. That's not enough. I don't buy it as a prequel. And I wasn't lying when I said all those years that I didn't want to see Star Trek go back to the Traditional Format. The best episodes are when they swing for the fences. The rest of the time, it feels like, "Been there, done that, hundreds of times." The gushing this show gets while the stuff I like is bashed into oblivion, and the feeling of having it shoved down my throat, grates on my nerves.

LD --> Neither a show I watch nor an Internet Argument. It's just there.

PRO --> Show I watch. I'm just lower-key about it than DSC and PIC.

TOS Movies --> Movies I'll watch.

TNG Movies --> Movies I'll watch only if paired with the TOS Movies or Picard. Except First Contact. I'll watch that one for the Hell of it any time.

Kelvin Movies --> Internet Argument.

.
.
.

"But what about TAS?!?!!" Internet Argument. Not something I'll watch unprompted. '70s cartoons don't do it for me. Most cartoons made before the '90s don't do it for me.

 

[PCz911]

Like any TV show, they targeted adults 18-49 while also being kid friendly enough to have toy merchandise. They couldn't afford to micro-segment their potential audience by being too polarizing... like most TV shows, they wouldn't be dead center centrist, but only say 10 points over left of center, in short, very moderately liberal. The shows had to find a happy medium between needing to be able to be aired out of order while also having a strong enough core fanbase to support merchandising sales etc.

Paramount+ both sells advertising and also targets the premium upper middle class Showtime demographic in the ad free tier. Many Berman era fans that got into the shows as kids or teenagers would still be in the 18-49 (or the less premium 25-54) age demographic (and this is leaving aside that the entertainment industry could be easily called out for ageism, that CBS of all companies should have appreciated what it means to have an older viewership based off the network, and the older Gen X and younger Boomer fans would likely have high disposable income to pay ad free). Considering the hyperfragmented nature of streaming, it would make sense to oversample your existing core fanbase instead of focusing too much on somehow bringing in new people at the expense of burning off existing people, especially ones that would otherwise show new series to their kids.

NuTrek really needs to find better market research people. Maybe they assumed the core fanbase would stay no matter what? LOWER DECKS say could afford to be a little goofy, but an $8-10 million per episode series being that structurally polarizing?

great points. I’d love to see both their subscriber demographic and their target demographic (not always the same thing) in addition to the demos of the various shows.

Before I retired, I was a media manager for the largest car company in the world. Our buys were always based on key demos aligned with our target buyer.

I doubt that info is publicly a available.

 

[Commander Troi]

My controversial opinion: the latest iterations of Star Trek were designed to target and appeal to a younger demographic than me. It’s not for me, and that’s ok. I’ve aged out of the prime marketing target.

but that my tastes aren't the same as those of younger people that only have become adults recently.

Exactly what here denotes "younger"? I'm 56 and I like all the Star Trek shows, including the new ones. So I don't think it's demographics.