Is it time to put Star Trek to rest?
- Thread starter Dar70
- Start date
.....
If you don't find joy in something, tune out.
I'm happy with SNW and taking big swings. It doesn't always land and that's okay. SFA looks promising, but I've learned not to judge something by its trailer. I also understand that at some point in time that my interests and the direction of Star Trek, or any franchise really, aren't going to mesh. And I'm really okay with that.
I'm happy with SNW and taking big swings. It doesn't always land and that's okay. SFA looks promising, but I've learned not to judge something by its trailer. I also understand that at some point in time that my interests and the direction of Star Trek, or any franchise really, aren't going to mesh. And I'm really okay with that.
I have a feeling it's going to go the way of a Sulu Show or Worf show. Shows that many fans and the actors wanted but the studio just ignores until it's too late. I think even Terry Matalas has moved on at this point. Starfleet Academy and SNW until 2028 or 2029. So another show not until 2030 or 31. At which point Jeri Ryan will be over 60.When we met Jeri Ryan at a convention recently, I said to her “A Captain Seven show is a no-brainer!”
She replied “I know, right!?”
So they need to get on that.
I would have liked to see a mini series with Data and Geordie.
5 or 10 episodes with them managing the Starfleet Museum together.... 
it would be the show where Starfleet starts incorporating Leviathans, obviously! Ships, living ships!
And still look 35 somehow, just like now…
She looks absolutely stellar for 57. But not many actors want to lead a show going into their 60's..most of us normal working humans talk about retirement at that age. She may be still up for it.
No, it would be a show about colored candy. In space. Space candy.
“Spandy” if you will.
I think SNW and DSC (for all its faults) show that a Star Trek series can be successful if it has good cast chemistry and solid stories.
With the Klingon War and Section 32, DSC started to get stale on me, I found S1&2 to be tolerable; but S3-5 for the most part were solid.
SNW has decided to take a far more episodic approach while still keeping character storylines and I think that has paid off - with the caveat that I didn't fully approve of S3E3.
I'm excited to see what SFA will offer, and see if there is going to be another SNW era show in the works.
With the Klingon War and Section 32, DSC started to get stale on me, I found S1&2 to be tolerable; but S3-5 for the most part were solid.
SNW has decided to take a far more episodic approach while still keeping character storylines and I think that has paid off - with the caveat that I didn't fully approve of S3E3.
I'm excited to see what SFA will offer, and see if there is going to be another SNW era show in the works.
I felt that way with Voyager and Enterprise. So, I turned it off and watched a lot of other things and for Star Trek I created things with friends.To be fair I said..."for me at least" and it could be an age thing....
If a show isn't entertaining I stop watching.
I feel similarly about Voyager and Enterprise. Sometimes I struggle just to sit through a single episode. Whereas, I recently completed binge rewatches of Discovery seasons three and four (both of which had pacing issues, I'm not going to deny) and was fully engaged.
I think I'm older than you, as is @Mudd , so it's probably more of a "you thing".To be fair I said..."for me at least" and it could be an age thing....
Maybe.
I think Jeri Ryan might be up for it.
Holly Hunter is 67 y/o and she's the lead Captain for SFA.
As long as Star Trek is the flagship show of some network, it will be watered down.
Considering the TV world has changed drastically once streaming TV entered the room, the fact we have had five different Trek shows since the 2009 movie reignited interest in the franchise is a miracle.
So no need to put Trek to rest for the globe, use the power of the remote control and watch something else.
So no need to put Trek to rest for the globe, use the power of the remote control and watch something else.
One thing I always keep in mind is that several people on this BBS are more fans of the TrekBBS than Star Trek itself. Maybe they grew bored with the franchise over time, are "over it", or moved on, but still found an online home here, so have stuck around for non-core Star Trek discussion. Due to this, many discussions become more meta-commentary than commentary on Star Trek itself. So it just doesn't offer a representative cross section of the fanbase (not the slanted concept framing of "The Fandom").
Star Trek as many of the Gen Xers and Millennials know it was a product of the greater 1990's TV ecosystem. More than three channels broadcast channels, but less than 50 channels if you had cable. Syndication, Fox, WB/UPN era. Less options for genre programming, more eyes of Star Trek, especially when TNG was on in strip syndication.
Star Trek should work on streaming. But a critical failure point has been Kurtzman's attempt to target very different audiences with each series. That just isn't viable at $10 million an episode behind a paywalled third tier streaming service that serves as a strong barrier to entry to new people.
Although I have not seen any of the AppleTV+ and other genre shows Lord Garth mentioned above beyond trailers, they strike me as targeting a core audience, not some splintered disintermediated pie offering various flavors of new genre or existing ones.
As a general point, it does seem like there’s been a move to ever more focused audiences over the last few decades, which makes perfect sense given that we no longer live in a world where everybody’s watching the same three or four networks and a few local channels. Consider 1980s TV, where prime time shows typically had to kinda-sorta cater to everybody. Think of, of all things, Man from Atlantis (yes, I know it didn’t last), which simultaneously had literally juvenile humor and a major supporting character having sex (offscreen, but still) with a let’s-call-her-a-gun-moll played by Barbara Luna. Looking back from today it feels schizophrenic, but it was common. Today, those elements would belong on entirely different shows, probably on entirely different streaming channels.
Well...
OK, there it is.
If current Star Trek isn't being what you want it to be, then all that needs to happen is for you to find something else to watch that scratches that itch. Problem solved.
When no one--or not enough people to make it profitable to the studio, which is the only factor that counts--wants to watch Star Trek, then that will be the time for Star Trek to be "put to rest".
Until there's an audience again.
And then there will probably be more.
We've seen that happen a time or three already, haven't we?
Similar threads
