Alex Kurtzman on streaming movies and the future of Trek

[Noname Given]

There is still a considerable chance that SFA gets axed before the airing of its first episode. Especially if the S31 outrage sparks further momentum.

It will be hard to rationalize another Trek streaming movie if the first is met with so much ridicule and rejection.

They need to change the overall trajectory of the franchise. Maybe some of the upcoming Paramount execs made sure that S31 fails so they can start Star Trek over again under a new management and a new production team.

I never thought I'd see someone try the same claims that were made before the first episode of ST: D dropped.

This seems a retread of:

"Star Trek: Discovery is so bad, Netflix is pulling out of its deal and are going to demand it not be aired..."
^^^
Which turned out to be B.S., but hey, Trek negativity keeps all the monetized Trek YouTubeer's going.

 

[fireproof78]

I never thought I'd see someone try the same claims that were made before the first episode of ST: D dropped.

This seems a retread of:

"Star Trek: Discovery is so bad, Netflix is pulling out of it's deal and are going to demand it not be aired..."
^^^
Which turned out to be B.S., but hey, Trek negativity keeps all the monetized Trek YouTubeer's going.

Money talks.

 

[locborg]

I never thought I'd see someone try the same claims that were made before the first episode of ST: D dropped.

Well, guess what? Those people were right from the start. Star Trek took a turn for the worse under Kurtzman's oversight.

Just imagine where the franchise could be today if the executives had shown even a little more ingenuity. Things started to unravel when Fuller left the project after just a few episodes. This doesn’t necessarily mean Fuller could have saved Discovery, but there was a plan to move Trek towards a more modern style with him at the helm. The rest is history: Star Trek faltered miserably, Discovery is widely regarded as the worst live-action Star Trek series, and it naturally set the tone for the shows that followed.

Someone asked me what I would have done differently. Well, for starters: be bold and focus on more cerebral storytelling and cinematography. Star Trek doesnt need to compete with Star Wars in a pissing contest for the best special effects or most expansive world-building. Trek's major advantage over Star Wars lies in its rich backstory, developed and refined over decades of movies and series.

Who thought it was a good idea to dumb down the very essence of Star Trek: its unique ability to explore contemporary social issues through a science fiction lens? The storytelling in almost all NuTrek episodes has been sloppy, and the artistic execution falls far below the standards set during television's golden age.

Why can’t we have real suspense, stunning cinematography, and coherent story development? Largely because Kurtzman has never possessed the artistic intelligence to make it happen.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Well, guess what? Those people were right from the start. Star Trek took a turn for the worse under Kurtzman's oversight.

Just imagine where the franchise could be today if the executives had shown even a little more ingenuity. Things started to unravel when Fuller left the project after just a few episodes. This doesn’t necessarily mean Fuller could have saved Discovery, but there was a plan to move Trek towards a more modern style with him at the helm. The rest is history: Star Trek faltered miserably, Discovery is widely regarded as the worst live-action Star Trek series, and it naturally set the tone for the shows that followed.

Someone asked me what I would have done differently. Well, for starters: be bold and focus on more cerebral storytelling and cinematography. Star Trek doesnt need to compete with Star Wars in a pissing contest for the best special effects or most expansive world-building. Trek's major advantage over Star Wars lies in its rich backstory, developed and refined over decades of movies and series.

Who thought it was a good idea to dumb down the very essence of Star Trek: its unique ability to explore contemporary social issues through a science fiction lens? The storytelling in almost all NuTrek episodes has been sloppy, and the artistic execution falls far below the standards set during television's golden age.

Why can’t we have real suspense, stunning cinematography, and coherent story development? Largely because Kurtzman has never possessed the artistic intelligence to make it happen.

Not sure what shows you're watching. Can't be SNW, PRO or LDS, though.

 

[Firebird]

Why can’t we have real suspense, stunning cinematography, and coherent story development? Largely because Kurtzman has never possessed the artistic intelligence to make it happen.

The recent series have had some of the best cinematography of the franchise, so your opinions are laughable, as usual.

Except season 3 of Picard, which forgot to turn the lights on.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The recent series have had some of the best cinematography of the franchise, so your opinions are laughable, as usual.

Except season 3 of Picard, which forgot to turn the lights on.

Cut the lighting dept budget so they could afford the D and useless cameos.

 

[Danja]

Someone asked me what I would have done differently. Well, for starters: be bold and focus on more cerebral storytelling and cinematography. Star Trek doesnt need to compete with Star Wars in a pissing contest for the best special effects or most expansive world-building. Trek's major advantage over Star Wars lies in its rich backstory, developed and refined over decades of movies and series.

Who thought it was a good idea to dumb down the very essence of Star Trek: its unique ability to explore contemporary social issues through a science fiction lens?

People watch Star Trek to be ENTERTAINED.

No one wants to sit through a sermon or a graduate seminar every single week.

There's also the need to make Trek accessible to new fans (fans who might not have an encyclopedic knowledge of the lore).

Why can’t we have real suspense, stunning cinematography, and coherent story development? Largely because Kurtzman has never possessed the artistic intelligence to make it happen.

You can only do so much within ten episodes every season.

The days of 26 eps per season are over. They died with the syndication market.

Now that streaming allows for on-demand, anytime, anywhere access, there's no need to produce so many eps.

 

[fireproof78]

Now that streaming allows for on-demand, anytime, anywhere access, there's no need to produce so many eps.

Thank the Great Bird for that.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

Well, guess what? Those people were right from the start. Star Trek took a turn for the worse under Kurtzman's oversight.

Just imagine where the franchise could be today if the executives had shown even a little more ingenuity. Things started to unravel when Fuller left the project after just a few episodes. This doesn’t necessarily mean Fuller could have saved Discovery, but there was a plan to move Trek towards a more modern style with him at the helm. The rest is history: Star Trek faltered miserably, Discovery is widely regarded as the worst live-action Star Trek series, and it naturally set the tone for the shows that followed.

Someone asked me what I would have done differently. Well, for starters: be bold and focus on more cerebral storytelling and cinematography. Star Trek doesnt need to compete with Star Wars in a pissing contest for the best special effects or most expansive world-building. Trek's major advantage over Star Wars lies in its rich backstory, developed and refined over decades of movies and series.

Who thought it was a good idea to dumb down the very essence of Star Trek: its unique ability to explore contemporary social issues through a science fiction lens? The storytelling in almost all NuTrek episodes has been sloppy, and the artistic execution falls far below the standards set during television's golden age.

Why can’t we have real suspense, stunning cinematography, and coherent story development? Largely because Kurtzman has never possessed the artistic intelligence to make it happen.

Fuller was the reason for all the things you don't like about Discovery in the first place. The changes to the Klingon makeup and ships were his idea as was the decision to focus on one character instead of an ensemble and the spore drive. Fuller went over budget and then got fired because he was too focused on another series he was developing. Kurtzman largely walked back a lot of the things fans didn't respond well to.

I don't know what Star Trek you have been watching, but classic trek isn't exactly the paragon of cerebral storytelling. There is a reason classic trek died in 2004 and it's because the stories were being recycled, and the franchise refused to innovate and take risks. I was around in the 90's and early 2000's and the fans were pretty unhappy with what they were getting.

Rick Berman and Brannon Braga received the sames demands to be fired as people such as yourself make towards Kurtzman. You obviously weren't around for all of that so who are you to come in here and try lecturing us all about what star trek is? You don't even understand what it is or what its history is.

 

[Danja]

There is a reason Classic Trek died in 2004 and it's because the stories were being recycled, and the franchise refused to innovate and take risks. I was around in the 90's nd early 2000's and the fans were pretty unhappy with what they were getting.

"Doctor's Orders" (ENT) was a remake of "One" (VOY).

"Similitude" (ENT) was a remake of "Tuvix" (VOY).

 

[Lord Garth]

If I start thinking a show I'm watching feels like a chore instead of something I want to watch, I'll stop. If I start missing episodes and don't care, I stop.

I get that there are occasionally going to be episodes I don't like, and I treat those like isolated incidents. It should be the exception, not the rule. If it starts happening frequently, then I start wondering, "Why am I watching?" Then I stop.

None of this, "I'm going to wait until the end of the series or the end of the season!" Once I'm not feeling it, it's done. I'm on the internet. If something really does become more to my liking, I know I'll find out about it. I'll hear about it, someone will tell me about it, or both.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

If I start thinking a show I'm watching feels like a chore instead of something I want to watch, I'll stop. If I start missing episodes and don't care, I stop.

I get that there are occasionally going to be episodes I don't like, and I treat those like isolated incidents. It should be the exception, not the rule. If it starts happening frequently, then I start wondering, "Why am I watching?" Then I stop.

None of this, "I'm going to wait until the end of the series or the end of the season!" Once I'm not feeling it, it's done. I'm on the internet. If something really does become more to my liking, I know I'll find out about it. I'll hear about it, someone will tell me about it, or both.

This. When Enterprise first aired I don't think I made it past episode 5 or 6 of the first season, before i switched off. Nemesis was the final nail in the coffin. I moved on to other shows like Battlestar Galactica and really felt like i had outgrown Trek.

It wasn't just Trek either. I tried getting into Breaking Bad and The Sopranos and while objectively can understand why people enjoy them, neither of those series are for me and I stopped watching very quickly.

I think the vocal haters of nutrek don't actually hate what they are watching, but it's trendy to be angry and cynical. They want to be part of online communities and they want the likes and upvotes and little surges of dopamine that come with it. It's like being in high school and hiding an interest that might get you picked on.

 

[Frontis]

Well, I am happy with a new season of SNW this year.
Just wish it would be more than just 10 episodes...

 

[fireproof78]

think the vocal haters of nutrek don't actually hate what they are watching, but it's trendy to be angry and cynical. They want to be part of online communities and they want the likes and upvotes and little surges of dopamine that come with it. It's like being in high school and hiding an interest that might get you picked on.

I don't know if I should like this or not...

 

[BillJ]

Who thought it was a good idea to dumb down the very essence of Star Trek: its unique ability to explore contemporary social issues through a science fiction lens?

Gene Roddenberry.

 

[Lord Garth]

I think the vocal haters of nutrek don't actually hate what they are watching, but it's trendy to be angry and cynical. They want to be part of online communities and they want the likes and upvotes and little surges of dopamine that come with it. It's like being in high school and hiding an interest that might get you picked on.

Not just trendy, thanks to YouTube it's Big Business. I think some of them secretly like some of New Trek but can't say it or they'll lose subscribers and patrons. Same is no doubt true on the other side. There's some New Trek some of those people don't like but they can't say it, or they'll also lose subscribers and patrons.

I'll just say what I think straight out. I don't care who's on my side. You know who's on my side? The people who'll accept that sometimes they'll just have to agree to disagree with me. That's who's on my side.

 

[I am not Spock]

Fuller was the reason for all the things you don't like about Discovery in the first place. The changes to the Klingon makeup and ships were his idea as was the decision to focus on one character instead of an ensemble and the spore drive. Fuller went over budget and then got fired because he was too focused on another series he was developing. Kurtzman largely walked back a lot of the things fans didn't respond well too.

I don't know what Star Trek you have been watching, but classic trek isn't exactly the paragon of cerebral storytelling. There is a reason Classic Trek died in 2004 and it's because the stories were being recycled, and the franchise refused to innovate and take risks. I was around in the 90's nd early 2000's and the fans were pretty unhappy with what they were getting.

Rick Berman and Brannon Braga received the sames demands to be fired as people such as yourself make towards Kurtzman. You obviously weren't around for all of that so who are you to come in here and try lecturing us all about what star trek is? You don't even understand what it is or what it's history is.

indeed, i was here in 2001 when ENT was airing, and the comments about Berman and Braga were brutal. As bad as the comments about Kurtzman now. The more things change, the more they stay the same

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

And then Manny Coto took over the show and it got good!

 

[I am not Spock]

Not just trendy, thanks to YouTube it's Big Business. I think some of them secretly like some of New Trek but can't say it or they'll lose subscribers and patrons. Same is no doubt true on the other side. There's some New Trek some of those people don't like but they can't say it, or they'll also lose subscribers and patrons.

I'll just say what I think straight out. I don't care who's on my side. You know who's on my side? The people who'll accept that sometimes they'll just have to agree to disagree with me. That's who's on my side.

yes. You have people like Nerdrotic and Critical Drinker who make money from hating everything, or saying they hate everything.

And on the other side, you have sites like Trek Culture, who i enjoy, but are extremely positive about virtually all Trek , and can't say they don't like it, or they will lose access to Trek interviews, premieres, etc

 

[The Wormhole]

And then Manny Coto took over the show and it got good!

Coto had a good idea dividing the season in mini-arcs of three episodes or so with the occasional standalone, but holy fuck, he really went overboard with the fanwank.