Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!
we will eventually get a fourth wall breaking episode/character in Trek and then eventually we will find out that the Trek Universe is controlled and written by a God/robot name Gene.....it's the last two gimmicks after the puppet that I can think of that they haven't done yet .. ...
I don't have a complete distaste to more sillier stories. But they have to have boundaries. Example. Farscape has it's share of episodes like this. But they made sense in the context of the show. That show knew how to balance drama, action and comedy.
Which is hilarious because Farscape could be quite heavy in how it handled subjects. There's a reason I went with it and Stargate over Voyager and Enterprise.
I dont like Deadpool doing it either. Especially when writers go back and forth. Its in his head, it's not in his head, it's a superpower etc. just completely stupid and sucks any drama out of it for me. She hulks was the worst though. Walking out of the Disney+ screen was the final straw for me. I get that the comics did it. But the filmed stuff is not the comics and originally when the MCU started they were (or at least I thought they were) trying to be something above the comics. A bit more adult etc. But at this point it's sillier than Batman 66... .
Which is hilarious because Farscape could be quite heavy in how it handled subjects. There's a reason I went with it and Stargate over Voyager and Enterprise.
And that is the thing. I love the show. But it was meant to be ridiculous even if I didn't understand as a four year old. I need to rewatch the whole thing soon.
And that is the thing. I love the show. But it was meant to be ridiculous even if I didn't understand as a four year old. I need to rewatch the whole thing soon.
And Star Trek has ridiculous elements. Always has had them. It has drama, and downright dark and depressing elements. It's not one size fits all or meant to be anything special beyond a sand box of sci-fi for action/adventure.
Some will work for me and others will not. And there are episodes I skip, and that's ok. Nothing, not even Star Trek, is something I have to watch every single episode of.
The topic question is an interesting one: does STAR TREK need to have a rest?
I hesitate to say yes because there are people who love the Kurtzman era. There's a lot about this era I love, too. One thing I think he did well was try to give something for as many people as possible. For those who love arc driven seasons, you have DISCO and PICARD. For those who love episodic, you have SNW. For those who love the nostalgia factor, you have LOWER DECKS. (Though every series of this era is very, VERY referential.) He has been pretty good at casting as wide a net as possible to grab onto the various types of STAR TREK fans or potential fans.
But the Achilles' Heel of his era has been that no series has stood mostly on its own. Best way to illustrate what I mean is comparing TNG and DISCO. Both shows launched an era of continual tv production for years with shows being produced within each other. (Only real difference here is that Berman era shows were concurrent airings, while Kurtzman shows are aired after another ends their season.) Both ended up with essentially spinoffs of itself (TNG had DS9, DISCO had SNW). But let's be honest: TNG is much more popular and more in the public cultural consciousness than DISCO ever has been and ever will be. Why? There's two reasons, I believe, that it comes down to.
First, there wasn't quite as much competition for attention then as there is now. Not just in terms of content, but of ways of access. Only a handful of channels to dial through when TNG aired as opposed to a hundred tv channels and dozens of streaming services now. Each with their own scifi shows. Trying to grab attention and eyes with so much around is not easy.
Second, and the most important reason (to me, anyway): TNG stood mostly on its own. No one from the Enterprise-D was related in any way to anyone from TOS. You had a Starfleet ship that carried the name Enterprise, but that's as close as you got to it being a TOS relative. It still took place about 90 years in the future, and tried to be its OWN thing. (While there were a couple episodes that were direct riffs off of TOS ones, like "The Naked Now", that was more the exception than the rule.) And while you had a Klingon as part of the main cast, that was more a statement of 'yesterday's enemies can be today's friends' message. It's both subtle and loud at the same time, and works well. (Especially for its time, considering the Cold War was still on, though winding down a bit.) The Romulans didn't even appear until the end of season 1. And while McCoy did appear in the pilot of TNG, he was never named AND it was a brief scene. It was an easter egg and torch passing. Unlike DISCO: we not only got Sarek, who would also be a recurring character throughout the first two seasons, but they made the lead character directly tied to essentially the face of the franchise by making Burnham Spock's adopted sister. That's being completely reliant on what came before without letting a show be distinct on its own, not having enough confidence in the show or the character enough to carry the franchise forward. Hell, Spock himself ends up being a recurring character in season 2, not to mention the original Enterprise herself appearing at the very end of season 1, and Pike being captain for season 2. So in 16 episodes (15 season 1 episodes and the season 2 premiere), we have all that reliance on TOS... compare that to TNG's first 16 episodes, and all that was used from TOS was having a Klingon on the bridge, an unnamed admiral who is clearly McCoy and a single episode reused plot from TOS season 1. TNG was given FAR more room to be its own thing and grow into itself. Because of that, TNG moved the franchise forward.
Say what you want about the Berman era, but by and large, it stood up on its own. It didn't rely on the past to keep itself going.
Apologies for taking so long to get to my point (I didn't expect to write such a lengthy post), but my answer to the question: if they can't make a single series that isn't heavily reliant on the previous shows, then it might be time to give STAR TREK a break. I'm all for having a reference and homage here and there, but it's just gotten to a point of overload.
2 of the 4 episodes of the new SNW season really cement this feeling for me, "Wedding Blue Blues" and "A Space Adventure Hour".
I'd like to see the franchise move forward, not retract within itself. And despite ACADEMY taking place in the 32nd century, it STILL manages to have a legacy character be a lead (The Doctor) and (since I am unsure if the content of trailers falls under the spoiler category, I'll just put it in spoiler tags to be safe)...
Virtually every name on the wall we saw was from TOS - ENT. So Starfleet only had noteworthy officers in its first 300 years of existence, and nobody was worthy of being named for the next over 600 years? The James T. Kirk Pavilion? Benjamin Sisko's fate being a subject of 'facing the unexplainable'? (Despite my love of DS9 and Sisko and my initial reaction of happiness that he at least got an acknowledgement, it is a bit much.)
I hope ACADEMY is less referential in the actual show than the trailer makes it out to be.
This is not moving the franchise forward. It's resting on the laurels of the past. And to be blunt, I don't think that is the best way to bring in new fans.
I dont like Deadpool doing it either. Especially when writers go back and forth. Its in his head, it's morning his head, it's a superpower etc. just completely stupid and sucks any drama out of it for me. She hulks was the worst though. Walking out of the Disney+ screen was the final straw for me. I get that the comics did it. But the filmed stuff is not the comics and originally when the MCU started they were (or at least I thought they were) trying to be something above the comics. A bit more adult etc. But at this point it's sillier than Batman 66... .
And Star Trek has ridiculous elements. Always has had them. It has drama, and downright dark and depressing elements. It's not one size fits all or meant to be anything special beyond a sand box of sci-fi for action/adventure.
Some will work for me and others will not. And there are episodes I skip, and that's ok. Nothing, not even Star Trek, is something I have to watch every single episode of.
Yeah I know it has. Again I don't mind lighthearted stuff. It's the extremely ridiculous I tend not to like. There was a couple episodes during the whole Berman era I wasn't too keen on either. The thing about now is that individual shows get very little episodes and seasons and having three comedy episodes in a 10 episode season seems a bit much.
Apologies for taking so long to get to my point (I didn't expect to write such a lengthy post), but my answer to the question: if they can't make a single series that isn't heavily reliant on the previous shows, then it might be time to give STAR TREK a break. I'm all for having a reference and homage here and there, but it's just gotten to a point of overload.
On this point I generally agree. But, I don't fault just Kurtzman and company because the most common question I see with a new show is when will we see "familiar character"?
I dont like Deadpool doing it either. Especially when writers go back and forth. Its in his head, it's not in his head, it's a superpower etc. just completely stupid and sucks any drama out of it for me. She hulks was the worst though. Walking out of the Disney+ screen was the final straw for me. I get that the comics did it. But the filmed stuff is not the comics and originally when the MCU started they were (or at least I thought they were) trying to be something above the comics. A bit more adult etc. But at this point it's sillier than Batman 66... .
This is not moving the franchise forward. It's resting on the laurels of the past. And to be blunt, I don't think that is the best way to bring in new fans.
A lot of nuTrek feels like fanfiction to me, and I don't mean that in a sneering way or as a judgment on its quality (I love fanfiction!), but rather in the sense that it feels like it's designed to play around with things that other people have written, rather than strive to write something new.
Even when there's a new character or concept, their presence is often "justified" by being heavily tied to Roddenberry/Berman era stuff. Look at La'an - her entire backstory relies on "Arena" and "Space Seed", and then she ends up romantically involved with both (a version of) Kirk and seemingly now Spock. She also encounters Romulans, baby Khan, and brushes up against ENT's Temporal Cold War stuff.
There's just no need for any of it, the character could easily stand alone and Chong is a superb actor, but for some reason there's just this insistence on making everything endlessly fold back in on itself until the Star Trek setting, once infinitely expansive and filled with possibility, is compressed down to a tiny cube of decades-old references and things James Kirk happened to bump into.
Yeah I know it has. Again I don't mind lighthearted stuff. It's the extremely ridiculous I tend not to like. There was a couple episodes during the whole Berman era I wasn't too keen on either. The thing about now is that individual shows get very little episodes and seasons and having three comedy episodes in a 10 episode season seems a bit much.
But, I also didn't finish up the Berman shows for lack of interest on my part and way too many episodes, including a wrestling performer appearance which was just stupid.
But, I also didn't finish up the Berman shows for lack of interest on my part and way too many episodes, including a wrestling performer appearance which was just stupid.
During the Berman era I was getting Trek overload as well. It was wearing thin on me mentally. The shows ran for 18 years, 4 shows, 25 seasons total (22-24 episodes each) without a break.
I re-watched everything a few years back. Including part of season 3 of Enterprise I had missed. I enjoyed it all much more for some reason and wasn't sick of it towards the end a second time around. I don't know why??
A lot of nuTrek feels like fanfiction to me, and I don't mean that in a sneering way or as a judgment on its quality (I love fanfiction!), but rather in the sense that it feels like it's designed to play around with things that other people have written, rather than strive to write something new.
Even when there's a new character or concept, their presence is often "justified" by being heavily tied to Roddenberry/Berman era stuff. Look at La'an - her entire backstory relies on "Arena" and "Space Seed", and then she ends up romantically involved with both (a version of) Kirk and seemingly now Spock. She also encounters Romulans, baby Khan, and brushes up against ENT's Temporal Cold War stuff.
There's just no need for any of it, the character could easily stand alone and Chong is a superb actor, but for some reason there's just this insistence on making everything endlessly fold back in on itself until the Star Trek setting, once infinitely expansive and filled with possibility, is compressed down to a tiny cube of decades-old references and things James Kirk happened to bump into.
Well said. I'm all for occasional ties to the past or winks at the audience. But I don't want the show to be filled with them and all about them. Which unfortunately SNW has become.
I quite liked She-Hulk (though to be fair, I also quite liked Brave New World, compared to a lot of recent MCU films), and I very much enjoyed its going full-on postmodernist near the end. Just saying.
...
.
