Why the hate for Alex Kurtzman?

[Danja]

Which is one of many reasons why I've always found the idea of the Star Trek Legacy show to be unlikely. We already have an Enterprise show, and of the two I would much prefer to see Strange New Worlds. Also, a Legacy show would not film in Los Angeles as that was done solely for the sake of Sir Patrick. Legacy would film in Canada, which would require Jeri Ryan and Michelle heard, among others, to move to Canada, which I find unlikely to happen.

Is there enough LEFT of L.A. to film anywhere?

#LAFires

Strange New Worlds is nearing the end of its run. S4 is supposed to begin filming soon.

Alex Kurtzman is committed to the "five year mission," whenever possible (which, as it so happens, JUST happens to coincide with the maximum number of seasons P+ is willing to pay for ).

I don't know about a series (A movie, maybe?) Much has changed since 2023.

 

[fireproof78]

They've already got the "adventures of the crew of the USS Enterprise" show after much lobbying from fans, so they should be free to experiment with other shows.

To borrow a quote from some random sci-fi movie, "Is this all that I am? Is there nothing more?"

 

[Nerys Myk]

Is there enough LEFT of L.A. to film anywhere?

LA is pretty big. Make no mistake, people inside and outside the industry lost a lot, but Hollywood is miles away from where the fires were.

Reminds me of the Loma Prieta quake in '89. From the TV coverage you'd think the entire SF Bay Area was a pile of rubble. (It was not)

 

[Daedalus]

Which is one of many reasons why I've always found the idea of the Star Trek Legacy show to be unlikely. We already have an Enterprise show, and of the two I would much prefer to see Strange New Worlds. Also, a Legacy show would not film in Los Angeles as that was done solely for the sake of Sir Patrick. Legacy would film in Canada, which would require Jeri Ryan and Michelle heard, among others, to move to Canada, which I find unlikely to happen.

Anson Mount lives in Connecticut, Rebecca Romijn lives in California. It was purely an age thing for Stewart.

There are arguments against the possibility of Legacy ever happening, but location isn't an issue for younger actors.

 

[Danja]

LA is pretty big. Make no mistake, people inside and outside the industry lost a lot, but Hollywood is miles away from where the fires were.

Reminds me of the Loma Prieta quake in '89. From the TV coverage you'd think the entire SF Bay Area was a pile of rubble. (It was not)

The Loma Prieta quake was minor (3.3 on the Richter scale).

It caused damage, but it was nothing compared to the 1906 San Francisco earthquake (estimated to be a 7.9 on the Richter scale).

Most TV shows are filming outside the USA (Wednesday is filming in Ireland. Most of the big epic shows, sci-fi or not -- The Expanse, The Handmaid's Tale -- film in Canada. That's the business.)

 

[Nerys Myk]

The Loma Prieta quake was minor (3.3 on the Richter scale).

It caused damage, but it was nothing compared to the 1906 San Francisco earthquake (estimated to be a 7.9 on the Richter scale).

When you're in the middle of it (as I was) it seems big enough. But I was talking about what was shown in the media at the time.

My search shows it as a 6.9 on the Richter scale. So that placed it in the strong category.

 

[Danja]

When you're in the middle of it (as I was) it seems big enough. But I was talking about what was shown in the media at the time.

My search shows it as a 6.9 on the Richter scale. So that placed it in the strong category.

Google must've gotten some bad data.

 

[Dukhat]

I suggest listening to Rob Kazinsky who starred in Section 31. He has a revealing interview on Trek Culture.

"I spoke to Alex and I spoke to Tunde and they explained to me that Star Trek is dying, and I dont know if people know that"

"This film wasn't made for people that love Star Trek. EDIT It was to introduce new people to the world"

There's a difference between wanting to take Star Trek in new and different directions and trying to find new audiences, and making something rushed that was basically just a vanity project for an overrated actress playing a crappy character, with a plot having nothing to do with the actual subject matter of the film's title.

And here you have the problem with Alex. He's trying to make Star Trek popular by turning it into something that it hasn't been in the past. And that's why some fans have beef with him. It's because he's trying to sell more product and its homogenising Star Trek with Star Wars. It's loosing whats made Star Trek unique. But maybe that's OK - just make generic action schlock with a more realistic and less utopian outlook.

Again, if Kurtzman wants to change up Star Trek, that's not necessarily a bad thing. But this was absolutely the wrong way to do it. You don't say that you're trying to make something new but the reality is that you're just ripping off other IPs like Alien, The Hunger Games, Guardians of the Galaxy, Star Wars, etc., and justifying it by slapping the Star Trek name on it.

 

[fireproof78]

And here you have the problem with Alex. He's trying to make Star Trek popular by turning it into something that it hasn't been in the past. And that's why some fans have beef with him. It's because he's trying to sell more product and its homogenising Star Trek with Star Wars. It's loosing whats made Star Trek unique. But maybe that's OK

It is ok and even if it's not none of it warrants hatred towards the man.

Star Trek has always tried different flavors and I would certainly not expect TWOK after TMP or TSFS leading in to TVH.

Star Trek has tried to ape Star Wars a lot. The success of the first SW film is why TMP ended up made and influenced some of the later battles.

This isn't new.

 

[Danja]

Again, if Kurtzman wants to change up Star Trek, that's not necessarily a bad thing. But this was absolutely the wrong way to do it. You don't say that you're trying to make something new but the reality is that you're just ripping off other IPs like Alien, The Hunger Games, Guardians of the Galaxy, Star Wars, etc., and justifying it by slapping the Star Trek name on it.

We live in a time of mass ignorance.

Hardly anyone is interested in going back to certain fans' Berman-era wet dream of a graduate seminar in philosophy every single week.

No one wants to be lectured to (the Berman era ran out of steam in 2005).

That said, making a jumbled pastiche of other studios' monster hits and calling it Trek isn't the way to go either.

 

[Nerys Myk]

TMP is Star Trek by way of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

 

[Char Kais]

Again, if Kurtzman wants to change up Star Trek, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

That's correct.
But change is nothing new to Star Trek.

After TNG, every show changed the Star Trek formula (DS9 was the most successful).

But this was absolutely the wrong way to do it. You don't say that you're trying to make something new but the reality is that you're just ripping off other IPs like Alien, The Hunger Games, Guardians of the Galaxy, Star Wars, etc., and justifying it by slapping the Star Trek name on it.

Also correct.
And "change", "modernization", "IDIC", ETC can not be an excuse for lowering the quality of the writing.



BTW: How was TNG able to get young children interested in Star Trek without drastically changing the formula from TOS or targeting children (or young adults) specifically, like they are now trying with Prodigy and Starfleet Academy?

 

[Tomalak]

TNG literally had a teenager in the main cast! It also had a toyline and comics pretty much from the start.

But it was a different show, aimed at a family audience. It had plenty of action and adventure for the kids, and more complex plots for adults.

The streaming era doesn't quite have the same concept of the family show. Series are micro targeted at specific demographics and the Netflix algorithm shows you what to watch.

 

[HotRod]

BTW: How was TNG able to get young children interested in Star Trek without drastically changing the formula from TOS or targeting children (or young adults) specifically, like they are now trying with Prodigy and Starfleet Academy?

Kids today are a lot fucking different than kids in the late 80s, early 90s. Plus, now you have to compete with Roblox, Fortnite, YouTube, and Smart Phones. I say this as a child of the late 80s and a father of a 7 year old.

 

[Danja]

BTW: How was TNG able to get young children interested in Star Trek without drastically changing the formula from TOS or targeting children (or young adults) specifically, like they are now trying with Prodigy and Starfleet Academy?

There weren't a ton of options back then (You had four broadcast networks and syndication. That was it.)

Everything had to appeal to a mass audience. This meant stuff got watered down.

Even TOS had its edgier moments (Kirk saying "Go to the Devil!" gave NBC heart failure).

 

[fireproof78]

BTW: How was TNG able to get young children interested in Star Trek without drastically changing the formula from TOS or targeting children (or young adults) specifically, like they are now trying with Prodigy and Starfleet Academy?

Different era.

That's all.

 

[Nerys Myk]

BTW: How was TNG able to get young children interested in Star Trek without drastically changing the formula from TOS or targeting children (or young adults) specifically, like they are now trying with Prodigy and Starfleet Academy?

TNG literally had a main character who was a kid.

After TNG, every show changed the Star Trek formula (DS9 was the most successful).

Yeah, no. VOY and ENT were the TNG formula to a T. The Delta Quadrant or the 22nd Century doesn't change that.

Also correct.
And "change", "modernization", "IDIC", ETC can not be an excuse for lowering the quality of the writing.

If that was happening, you might have a point.

 

[Char Kais]

Kids today are a lot fucking different than kids in the late 80s, early 90s. Plus, now you have to compete with Roblox, Fortnite, YouTube, and Smart Phones. I say this as a child of the late 80s and a father of a 7 year old.

If you argue that games are more popular than linear TV shows (something I would agree with) then why even bother with linear TV shows target at children?

It's not just the 80s and early 90s.

The original Star Trek formula, a high concept, allegorical, SciFi action-adventure, space exploration show, worked in the 60s, the 70s/early 80s (TOS reruns), the 80s and early 90s with TNG and, with slight changes to the formula, also in the 90s with DS9 and VOY.

There weren't a ton of options back then (You had four broadcast networks and syndication. That was it.)

Different era.

You all are arguing basically for giving up on Star Trek as a high concept, allegorical, SciFi action-adventure, space exploration show and making it into a low-brow, CW-style melodrama SciFi show.

If you are arguing that there is no market for a high concept, allegorical, SciFi action-adventure, space exploration show, you arguing for making more shows that are "not Star Trek". So whats the point of even calling is "Star Trek"?

 

[Nerys Myk]

You all are arguing basically for giving up on Star Trek as a high concept, allegorical, SciFi action-adventure, space exploration show and making it into a low-brow, CW-style melodrama SciFi show.

If you are arguing that there is no market for a high concept, allegorical, SciFi action-adventure, space exploration show, you arguing for making more shows that are "not Star Trek". So whats the point of even calling is "Star Trek"?

I don't think anyone is saying that.

 

[Char Kais]

BTW: How was TNG able to get young children interested in Star Trek without drastically changing the formula from TOS or targeting children (or young adults) specifically, like they are now trying with Prodigy and Starfleet Academy?

TNG literally had a main character who was a kid.

TNG literally had a teenager in the main cast! It also had a toyline and comics pretty much from the start.

Exactly. That is what I'm saying. TNG tried to appeal to a wide age-range without separate shows for children and adults. And Star Trek was able to that for 40 years. NuTrek isn't even trying anymore.

All these arguments that "today children are different" is basically arguing that you can't get children interested into the idea of Star Trek (high concept, allegorical, SciFi action-adventure, space exploration show) anymore only in the brand of Star Trek.
Just make a show or a movie, slap the name "Star Trek XYZ" on it, no matter the concept, no matter the content, and be done with it.

That reminds me of something...