Kurtzman intentionally killed Legacy?
- Thread starter Beyerstein
- Start date
They tried to set up "Legacy" because it worked before: DIS season 1, and then even more season 2, worked really, really hard to set up a Pike show. And then the "Short Treks" even more! And the audience reaction to Pike was overwhelmingly positive, while online campaigns launched, and it STILL took years to launch.
Since then they tried to re-captured that success: Set something up, hope it works out.
Sometimes it does - Late DIS set up "Academy" (actually happening) and "S31" (somewhat - a tv movie, but not the intended series). Sometimes it doesn't - PIC tried to set up a "Legacy" series, SNW season 2 is really hard trying to set up "young Kirk". "ST: Beyond" ended with a new Enterprise being built.
"Legacy" doesn't happen because:
1) It would be HELLA' expensive (compared to a comedy show, or highschool soap) - when Paramount is bleeding money already
2) It's kinda' redundant - we have a ship based "back to the roots" Trek series set on an Enterprise already
3) The fan demand is not THAT overwhelming
4) It would be a spin-off of the least successful Trek series, based on the "only" positively regarded season, without the strengths of that season. Take out the TNG nostalgia of S3 and you're left with... what? 7of9? A bridge set that's way less impressive than the SNW Enterprise? And that's it. More likely we see Seven appear on another, later spin-off.
Since then they tried to re-captured that success: Set something up, hope it works out.
Sometimes it does - Late DIS set up "Academy" (actually happening) and "S31" (somewhat - a tv movie, but not the intended series). Sometimes it doesn't - PIC tried to set up a "Legacy" series, SNW season 2 is really hard trying to set up "young Kirk". "ST: Beyond" ended with a new Enterprise being built.
"Legacy" doesn't happen because:
1) It would be HELLA' expensive (compared to a comedy show, or highschool soap) - when Paramount is bleeding money already
2) It's kinda' redundant - we have a ship based "back to the roots" Trek series set on an Enterprise already
3) The fan demand is not THAT overwhelming
4) It would be a spin-off of the least successful Trek series, based on the "only" positively regarded season, without the strengths of that season. Take out the TNG nostalgia of S3 and you're left with... what? 7of9? A bridge set that's way less impressive than the SNW Enterprise? And that's it. More likely we see Seven appear on another, later spin-off.
Last edited:
I think that a large part of this comes down to the fact that a Star Trek show, like Legacy, would be expensive. Paramount is in the middle of a financial crisis. Between the end of Picard last year and the end of Lower Decks this year, four out of the five existing shows will no longer be airing, leaving SNW. Section 31, according to the EW article from awhile back, is a much less expensive movie than one apparently would expect. We know that SFA is going to have a very large set and will likely be largely ground-based so that might be less expensive. This idea from Newsome and Simien is just that, at this point -- an idea. Just like Legacy is. The one difference is, is that they're likely getting paid for it.
But seriously, this whole idea that Kurtzman is out to get the fans and stop them from getting what they want? Please. I get that the current status of the franchise is not everyone's cup of tea and I'm sorry for those who aren't getting what they want right now. But Star Trek likely would be dormant right now if it wasn't for the work that he's done.
But seriously, this whole idea that Kurtzman is out to get the fans and stop them from getting what they want? Please. I get that the current status of the franchise is not everyone's cup of tea and I'm sorry for those who aren't getting what they want right now. But Star Trek likely would be dormant right now if it wasn't for the work that he's done.
Yeah, it’s because he’s in charge. Whomever’s at the top, that’s always the bad guy ruining your franchise and trying to stop getting your money. There’s never (again?) going to be an era when a vocal minority doesn’t hate the current top brass.
Raffi, Shaw, Jack, and Sidney, who people who don't like PIC S3 tend to gloss over. Jack and Sidney work well enough as their own characters and are more than just the children of their parents.
And let me repeat, for emphasis: Raffi and Shaw.
This is true. This is always going to happen. What's also going to always happen is stupid "My Faction of Fandom vs. Your Faction of Fandom" nonsense where people use the worst-behaved people on the other side as an excuse to act just as bad in their own way, not realizing that two wrongs don't make a right.
The most ironic thing though is that if you don't include the "TOS Only" Fans, the people who were most against B&B back then were Niners. A detail that I think gets lost today.
Last edited:
Untrue. Looking at dictionary.com for "cipher", since "cypher" (with a "y") redirected me there:
"A person or thing of no influence or importance; nonentity": Sidney convinced Geordi to join Picard. They had two different points of view and argued out the pros and cons.
"Someone or something that is not understood; mystery or enigma". There's no mystery and she's easily enough understood. She goes out of her way to tell Seven that Shaw calling her "Hansen" isn't right. This is how Seven is later able to tell when there's a Changeling Sydney because she calls her "Hansen" instead of "Seven".
Between Sydney's scenes with Geordi and Seven, I see her as someone who wants to see people for who the really are and will call them on it when they've lost touch with that.
And these are off the top of my head, without trying to do a deeper dive.
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
www.dictionary.com
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
www.dictionary.com
Last edited:
The first one. She has no real personality/role other than to provide lines to drive the plot forward.Untrue. Looking at dictionary.com for "cipher", since "cypher" (with a "y") redirected me there:
"A person or thing of no influence or importance; nonentity": Sidney convinced Geordi to join Picard. They had two different points of view and argued out the pros and cons.
"Someone or something that is not understood; mystery or enigma". There's no mystery and she's easily enough understood. She goes out of her way to tell Seven that Shaw calling her "Hansen" isn't right. This is how Seven is later able to tell when there's a Changeling Sydney because she calls her "Hansen" instead of "Seven".
Between Sydney's scenes with Geordi and Seven, I see her as someone who wants to see people for who the really are and will call them on it when they've lost touch with that.
And these are off the top of my hide, without trying to do a deeper dive.
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
That personality can be brought out. If her and Jack's interest in each other develops into a relationship, then we can see how she compares and contrasts to Jack.
The love of Shaw as a character still somewhat confuses me.
He's an absolute bastard to Seven throughout the season, but then, after his death, it turns out he was just being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole and actually respected her?
Plus, as pointed out, he's a ripoff of a much better character.
Sure, he was entertaining, and Todd Stashwick seems like a pretty good guy.... But the character is dead. Let him stay dead and let his death have what little meaning it had.
He's an absolute bastard to Seven throughout the season, but then, after his death, it turns out he was just being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole and actually respected her?
Plus, as pointed out, he's a ripoff of a much better character.
Sure, he was entertaining, and Todd Stashwick seems like a pretty good guy.... But the character is dead. Let him stay dead and let his death have what little meaning it had.
Yeah, the love for him continues to baffle me.
What personality was that again?
Shaw, and I said this at the time too, was a character I "love to hate". At least at first. After I understood his motivation, then I dropped that stance. Which dovetails into what I'll talk about next.
As far as Shaw being a rip-off of Sisko (yes, we all know that's who's being talked about), I'm literally doing a re-watch of DS9 right now. So both DS9 and PIC are fresh in my mind. Shaw wasn't married and didn't have a son, he was just a guy, so he didn't lose any family the way Sisko did. That makes him different right away. Another point is, it's important to be reminded of how many people's lives Locutus actually affected. It wasn't just Sisko's. To have it brought up so much later, 35 years later, shows that time doesn't heal all wounds. Another key difference between the characters is that Sisko ultimately forgave Picard. I don't think Shaw ever actually did.
Then there are the personalities. Shaw and Sisko couldn't be more different in terms of how they are and how they act in general.
As far as Shaw being a rip-off of Sisko (yes, we all know that's who's being talked about), I'm literally doing a re-watch of DS9 right now. So both DS9 and PIC are fresh in my mind. Shaw wasn't married and didn't have a son, he was just a guy, so he didn't lose any family the way Sisko did. That makes him different right away. Another point is, it's important to be reminded of how many people's lives Locutus actually affected. It wasn't just Sisko's. To have it brought up so much later, 35 years later, shows that time doesn't heal all wounds. Another key difference between the characters is that Sisko ultimately forgave Picard. I don't think Shaw ever actually did.
Then there are the personalities. Shaw and Sisko couldn't be more different in terms of how they are and how they act in general.
Last edited:
Sisko never crossed my mind when I called Shaw a ripoff.
Confession Time: I've only seen Jaws once. In school in the seventh grade. And I wasn't really paying attention. 
All I remember is the Captain getting eaten by the shark and I've completely forgotten the rest.
Guess I have a "new" movie to watch.
All I remember is the Captain getting eaten by the shark and I've completely forgotten the rest.
Guess I have a "new" movie to watch.
Ok, forget all the other crap being discussed.Confession Time: I've only seen Jaws once. In school in the seventh grade. And I wasn't really paying attention.
All I remember is the Captain getting eaten by the shark and I've completely forgotten the rest.
Guess I have a "new" movie to watch.
Go watch Jaws.
I envy you. Being able to watch it for basically the first time. A genuine masterpiece of filmmaking.
Yeah, I feel it won't be hard to elevate her personality to the more complex levels
we see with Una, who really didn't have much to do in DSC:S2.
Mura, if his character makes it to a potential series, will need a lot more work.
I really do want to get to know the helmsmen this time. Or one of them, at least.
Similar threads
