Roddenberry '65 might think it okay. Roddenberry '87 definitely not.
Why the hate for Alex Kurtzman?
- Thread starter HotRod
- Start date
Kirk and Spock engaged in skulduggery a couple of times, as did Picard and Worf and Crusher. Those always struck me as quite odd but I took it as spy work was ok.
I'm not saying no one ever did any spying in Star Trek. Of course they did. However, those were officers who were either under orders or, at the very least, ultimately accountable to their superiors. I'm talking about the idea of a rogue agency that is essentially accountable to no one that the Federation brass knows of but chooses to do nothing about. That is what I think Roddenberry would have had a problem with, and I'm not so sure I think even the TOS Roddenberry would have agreed to such a thing.
It was the era of Bond, UNCLE and the IMF.
James Bond works for the British Secret Service. The IMF is at least implied to be an agency of the government, as they are constantly told that the "secretary" will disavow them if they are caught. U.N.C.L.E. would be the closest, but it was a multinational agency that is said to be "sponsored by" major nations such as the United States, the UK, and the Soviet Union, suggesting that it has at least some governmental oversight.
They all seem to be it's better to ask for forgiveness than ask permission.
Honestly, with the competition with Mission: Impossible I'm not convinced of that. We saw the idea of a "last line of defense" even in Assignment: Earth. What did Gary Seven answer to?
There are a lot of ideas that I think are worth exploring, and the dramatic potential doesn't necessarily need to be agreed with to be explored.
And "Assignment: Earth".
And now they're declaring the impending doom and demise of the Star Trek franchise once again after S31 sadly but predictably bombed, when less than a couple of years ago S3 of Picard was a smash hit, DSCO became a long running show, Lower Decks is seen as arguably the best amongst fans/critics, and SNW is a very solid/even show.
What I think is happening is that recent Star Trek has gotten chained to the Paramount+ streaming service, a relative late comer that is struggling in a stagnating, crowded market (when streaming has hit the buffers now after its 2010s golden era, with consumers getting annoyed by unwelcome pop in ads, multiple subscriptions, and its lack of guarantee next to physical media).
What I think is happening is that recent Star Trek has gotten chained to the Paramount+ streaming service, a relative late comer that is struggling in a stagnating, crowded market (when streaming has hit the buffers now after its 2010s golden era, with consumers getting annoyed by unwelcome pop in ads, multiple subscriptions, and its lack of guarantee next to physical media).
Last edited:
Much like Venom, which was destroyed by both fans and critics, and yet was somehow successful enough to spawn a trilogy.
In a few weeks, we'll get the Nielsen watch minutes.
For streaming, Nielsen has all movies under one category. Around New Year's, a film was able to enter the top 10 with 328 million watch minutes. Since most movies tend to drop at the beginning of the month, we should be able to get solid S31 data. I wouldn't be surprised if they picked 1/24 as a release date to maximize the chance of getting a Top 10 headline.
At this point I don't think those predicting the demise of the franchise actually care about the franchise but care far more bring right. A desire for the enemy to be defeated in a Gul Dukat fashion and whatever view of the franchise they think existed restored.
No matter what success or show might be demonstrated, Kurtzman is a villain; the only answer is destruction because the perception is destruction of a franchise.
I like the Gul Dukat analogy...
Dukat: "A true victory is to make your enemy acknowledge that they were wrong to oppose you in the first place. To force them to acknowledge your greatness."
That certainly sounds like a lot of the people posting here and elsewhere about Alex Kurtzman.
I don't get the obsession with ratings. Maybe I'm just beyond the point where I care about whether or not a show is renewed or not or a franchise continues. There's always something (oftentimes better) than what I'm watching that I've yet to see. Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy Star Trek and have loved Lower Decks, Prodigy and particularly Strange New Worlds, but it wouldn't be that big of a blip if I didn't see an episode of any of them again. I'd be disappointed sure, but I'd get over it pretty quickly. (And yes, I know, with the first two the chances are slim to none.)
Honestly, ratings don't matter anymore. There's been multiple cases of shows popular enough to warrant an additional season pickup, only for them to be cancelled before production even begins in recent years.
It all comes down to money, using algorithms nobody outside the studio boardrooms and accounting departments will ever get to see.
What barometer would you like Trek to be rated against?
I don't like Star Wars in general, but is quite clear that she has done a horrible job but remains in charge. She oversaw Indian Jones 4 and the absolute disaster that was too.Along with Kathleen Kennedy over at Disney's Star Wars division!
Similar threads
