Well I hope at least that new Trekkies watch the "old" series, too.
They don't have to like it but they should know it imo.
Can someone who never watched TOS,TNG or DS9 be a Trekkie? I doubt it...
Just like I don't refuse to watch new Trek.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Well I hope at least that new Trekkies watch the "old" series, too.
They don't have to like it but they should know it imo.
Can someone who never watched TOS,TNG or DS9 be a Trekkie? I doubt it...
Just like I don't refuse to watch new Trek.
I get the argument that new creators have to tell stories that appeal to a new generation of fans who have grown up in a different world instead of just imitating what worked for people in the 60s, Star Trek does have to progress with the times, and it always has. But I got into the franchise in time for its 25th anniversary, I've always taken for granted the idea that there's a history that I can go back and watch, and it'll all connect. That's part of the deal for me, part of the appeal.
I don't think new producers are doing anyone any favours by reimagining classic characters and contradicting old stories. It's basically telling new fans "Oh don't bother watching TOS, that never happened, and it's too archaic for you anyway". When Discovery fans watch Journey to Babel for the first time, they want to see the introduction of the Sarek they know, not 'a version of Sarek'.
I don't think new producers are doing anyone any favours by reimagining classic characters and contradicting old stories. It's basically telling new fans "Oh don't bother watching TOS, that never happened, and it's too archaic for you anyway". When Discovery fans watch Journey to Babel for the first time, they want to see the introduction of the Sarek they know, not 'a version of Sarek'.
Last edited:
That is what they are already doing.
I would rather see the characters as I knew them in TOS, too, but every director or show-runner is going to want to their mark on a series. I don't particularly like the marks the current folks are putting on the franchise, but hey, what can I do? I just don't watch it.
And it really sucks!
If the stories are engaging, then I honestly don’t care about the timeline.
I think a big problem with the Paramount+ era of shows is how they churn already covered ground. They're concerned with revisiting old favorites in different costumes and changed makeup, instead of using the opportunity to put that new interpretation on something ... new.
We've had 5 TV series, 3 of them live-action, since 2016. And what additions have been made to the lore of the franchise? I think there's an argument to be made that, other than the exploration of the Kelpians in Discovery, and the Diviner (and the Vau N'Akat) being a threat in Prodigy, there haven't been new, significant species added to the lore of Star Trek over the last 8 years.
Name something on the level of the Borg, Dominion, Q, or even Cardassians and Ferengi, that any of these shows have created and made their own the way the TNG era did? Something that some future iteration of Star Trek can say: "let's go back to that and explore some more about it."
What they do instead is continually go back to the Gorn, Klingons, Romulans, Breen, Pakleds, Khan, Section 31, etc., except they change the makeup and aspects of their culture in non-sensical ways that don't fit with anything from the previous 6 decades. There was no reason to call the Klingons in season 1 of Discovery Klingons, or the Gorn in Strange New Worlds Gorn. They could have called them ANYTHING else and made those ideas their own and been totally free to go in almost any direction with it.
And when they do that, I think it betrays an insecurity in the ideas. If these ideas for stories and character variations were strong enough in-and-of themselves, they could stand on their own. You'd want to create it as something different that you're adding on to Star Trek, instead of just re-imagining the giant lizard people that someone else thought up decades ago. At least Prodigy had the guts to do that with their antagonist. They didn't try to say: "Oh these are mutated Kazon seeking revenge for Voyager's trip through their space."
Last edited:
I wish I could like this more than once! That's really the crux of the issue.
Yes. There isn't some kinda litmus test to be a fan of the franchise.
Someone could like just the JJ films and call themselves a Trekkie if they wanted. It's not up to you or anyone else to judge someones worthiness as a fan.
That's...not what happened at all.
Yes, they absolutely can. How sad to be so limiting.
You can do that too. What an odd position to think that a particular series defines fan status.
Otherwise, I could easily declare that no one who hasn't seen TOS is a Star Trek fan, and be completely right.*
*I'm not.
Star Trek is entertainment.
That's what they need to understand. That's what being a viewer and a fan is all about. If they wish to go further, as I've seen many do from watching things like ST 09 (heretical to start there, I know) or Discovery (even worse) and they enjoy it I consider them a fan.
Mileage will vary on this definition. I don't think it's that important to understand what Trek is, unless you want to go deeper. Otherwise, as Roddenberry noted, it's an action/adventure franchise that needs to entertain enough people to stay on the air-period.
But, the question was "can you be a fan?"
In my opinion, a "Trekkie/Trekker" is someone who goes deeper. A fan can be casual, and interested in only one aspect. I would consider my dad a fan, and he has only watched TOS. I would consider my wife a fan, and she watched ST 09 as a favor to me and then enjoyed Deep Space Nine. She has no desire to watch anything else.
A fan is someone who likes Star Trek. That's my definition.
Star Trek could be a great many things to a great many people. Who is to say your understanding of what Star Trek is supposed to be is the correct one?
I simply didn’t need additional context for Spock and Sarek’s relationship. Being in that type of relationship with my own father, I understood it completely from the time of “Journey to Babel”. That episode did present a pretty clear reasoning for the divide.
Like I said, it's a question of definition. Of course people can have different interpretations of the words "Trekkie" and "fan".
We could also ask, can somebody who knows just one song be a fan of the band?
Not sure why not?
Similar threads
- Locked
