Is it time to put Star Trek to rest?

[kkt]

What you are doing is called Faulty Analogy. It's a logical fallacy. The previous poster did not suggest Wil Wheaton play Kirk. Frankly, I think he probably could. He's a decent actor, and Kirk isn't exactly the hardest character to play. But no one suggested he play Kirk. The difference is that Wheaton was already known for one important character. It might be jarring to see him move from that role to another one that's even more iconic. However that in itself isn't necessarily a problem. Two words: Jeffrey Combs.

Combs was a phenomenon. It wouldn't be fair to expect another actor to be able to do the same thing. (I wanna know if Combs got paid double for playing two different parts in the same episode!)

 

[Dar70]

Now that's a real trick. I know time travel was involved in the story but not like that.

To do what, exactly?

Who would have learned what? Those people in charge now we're not charge then. What were they there to learn?

-First one was a typo. 2007. I corrected it.

-The franchise is fatigued. Give it a break to either totally reboot or come up with better show ideas.
- what do you mean to learn what? Oversaturation. As far as I know paramount was the production company back then as well.

 

[The Wormhole]

Isn't that a part of the decay? is it so difficult to come up with stories for, let's say 20 episodes?

It has nothing to do with "can they come up with twenty stories." If it were about story ideas, Goldsman could easily provide twenty for a season of SNW as he has recently revealed they have a number of unused ideas which will likely never see the light of day now because of the show ending with an abbreviated Season 5.

Rather it's a reflection of the times. Television is general is getting shorter seasons these days, even network shows now consider eighteen episodes to be a full season. Take into consideration space opera like Star Trek isn't cheap. At the risk of invoking fire hoses and coin jar tithes, the closest to Star Trek a non-Trek show has come in the last decade is The Orville, and even that could only last a dozen episodes each season, which got scaled back in the third. And even then, they still had trouble meeting production deadlines, it's why episodes were frequently postponed in the first two seasons, with one episode from the first postponed to the second, and a factor in why the third took as long as it did, though granted the pandemic also played a part there.

Bottom line is twenty episode seasons are a thing of the past where Star Trek is concerned and are becoming a thing of the past for the rest of television in general. Besides, with Trek's twenty-six episode seasons there were typically only ten good ones anyway.

 

[BillJ]

Why are you constantly turning this into some psychological mumbo-jumbo instead of staying on topic?

Psychological mumbo-jumbo is why we are who we are and why we do the things we do.

 

[Markonian]

I tend to agree. I see at least four major hindrances to making more Trek:

1) Real-world space travel/science hasn't been exciting since the early days of the ISS and Hubble Telescope, and probably never will be again. We'll probably never be able to put a human on Mars (except maybe as a one-way trip), and, given the sophistication of robots, there's zero reason to do so other than as a flex. There will never be self-sustaining colonies on the Moon or Mars due to factors such as toxic dust and radiation, never mind a lack of resources.

We cannot predict that Humanity never returns to space flight. PR China has made enormous strides in the last 10 years alone. Imagine what they could achieve in 10.000 years.
Plus, to save Earth we’ll have to extend Sol’s lifespan. Isaac Arthur’s plan on doing so requires spaceflight to be common and advanced in less than one billion years.

 

[Tallguy]

Any younger and the Fandom Menace would be calling him a kid!

Like... 35? Wesley is 43. He left "kid" a long time ago. He's in the neighborhood of the age Admiral Kirk was meant to be in TMP. (Hence my unflagging enthusiasm for following up SNW with a post TMP sequel.)

Kirk is supposed to be right around 30 at this point, right? (We're five years before The Menagerie, right? I think we slipped a year or two since at the beginning of SNW it was supposed to be ten years.)

Wesley is my favorite Kirk actor not named Bill. But his age is high. OTOH, Scott is too young, esp. compared to this Kirk. Whatcha gonna do?

 

[Dar70]

I love the lack of continuity in TOS. James R Kirk of UESPA and his Vulcanian sidekick Spock, on the Earth Ship Enterprise.

I'm not even joking, I actually do love it; there's something to be said for an almost anthology-esque model where nothing really matters outside the story of whichever episode you're watching at the time, and writers simply don't have to care about keeping things consistent, instead being free to tell whatever story they want in the moment.

TNG was fairly good at it too - characters' motivations and beliefs shift markedly between episodes, but the more you watch, the more you start to get a sense of who these people broadly are, even if there's a lot of contradictions. In a lot of ways I think it's got advantages over the modern model of everything everyone says having to be loaded with meaning that contributes toward some longform character arc.

It was also really cool in older TV how you'd get different writers' takes on characters and ideas - is Kirk an impulsive hot-blooded fighter, a cool-headed military commander, a jovial good-natured adventurer, or a compassionate humanitarian? Is the Federation a utopia, a hard-nosed military, or a well-intentioned but questionable empire? You don't get that kind of variance nowadays when stories are focus grouped and subject to endless "continuity check" rewrites by a tiny handful of staff writers.

The show was in its infancy back then. The R Kirk thing has been brought up many times but is a minor detail. UESPA is still canon and so is Vulcanian.

No one is saying canon issues haven't or don't happen. Every show has them. I remember on Leave it to Beaver Wally and Beaver were 6 years apart. By the end of the show they were 4 years apart. Wally was 14 season 1 and 18 season 6. They of course did that to keep Wally on the show. Soap operas do that all time.

Anyhow I don't mind minor retcons here or there. But they need to be reasonable about it. Where we stand with SNW nothing really fits. If I were to watch SNW and then tos right after. It will be jarring from a story standpoint..

 

[fireproof78]

Yes, but as I've wrote before, DS9 handled that in a good way. There were lighter episodes in between the more dark ones. Not to mention that the series had good, likeable characters, something which seem sto be rare in later productions. I mean, even the villains were likabele in some way, like Dukat and Winn.

As I said, it comes down to the characters and personal engagement with them. I think I have as much enjoyment with newer Trek characters as older Trek.

Mileage will vary.

 

[Lynx]

What you are doing is called Faulty Analogy. It's a logical fallacy. The previous poster did not suggest Wil Wheaton play Kirk. Frankly, I think he probably could. He's a decent actor, and Kirk isn't exactly the hardest character to play. But no one suggested he play Kirk. The difference is that Wheaton was already known for one important character. It might be jarring to see him move from that role to another one that's even more iconic. However that in itself isn't necessarily a problem. Two words: Jeffrey Combs.

We're talking about actor Paul Wesley playing Kirk on Star Trek: Strange New Worlds.

Just so we're clear.

My mistake and I apologize for that.
When I saw the name Wesley, I was immediately tinking of Wesley Crusher.

However, it doesn't change my opinion on reboots and new actors playig Kirk, Spock and the other TOS legends.

Combs was a phenomenon. It wouldn't be fair to expect another actor to be able to do the same thing. (I wanna know if Combs got paid double for playing two different parts in the same episode!)

Combs must be the best star Trek actor ever. I mean, playing two so different charcters as Weyoun and Brunt and doing it so incredible good. Not to mention Tiron in Meridian and Mulkahey in Far Beyond The Stars.

If I didn't know that it was the same actor for those four roles, I would never have suspected it and thought about it.

It has nothing to do with "can they come up with twenty stories." If it were about story ideas, Goldsman could easily provide twenty for a season of SNW as he has recently revealed they have a number of unused ideas which will likely never see the light of day now because of the show ending with an abbreviated Season 5.


Rather it's a reflection of the times. Television is general is getting shorter seasons these days, even network shows now consider eighteen episodes to be a full season. Take into consideration space opera like Star Trek isn't cheap. At the risk of invoking fire hoses and coin jar tithes, the closest to Star Trek a non-Trek show has come in the last decade is The Orville, and even that could only last a dozen episodes each season, which got scaled back in the third. And even then, they still had trouble meeting production deadlines, it's why episodes were frequently postponed in the first two seasons, with one episode from the first postponed to the second, and a factor in why the third took as long as it did, though granted the pandemic also played a part there.

Bottom line is twenty episode seasons are a thing of the past where Star Trek is concerned and are becoming a thing of the past for the rest of television in general. Besides, with Trek's twenty-six episode seasons there were typically only ten good ones anyway.

But isn't it a sign of not being as good at it as they used to be?

By the way, I miss The Orville!
There you have a series from later years which I actually liked!
Not as good as TOS, TNG, DS9 and the first three seasons of Voyager ot even Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis but still a good and watchable show!

We cannot predict that Humanity never returns to space flight. PR China has made enormous strides in the last 10 years alone. Imagine what they could achieve in 10.000 years.
Plus, to save Earth we’ll have to extend Sol’s lifespan. Isaac Arthur’s plan on doing so requires spaceflight to be common and advanced in less than one billion years.

Of course, humanity will return to space flights. Everything else would be a step in the wrong direction and a sign of a society in free fall.

Not to mention that it can be neccessary when Earth has being drained of all resources and might be over-populated too.

As I said, it comes down to the characters and personal engagement with them. I think I have as much enjoyment with newer Trek characters as older Trek.

Mileage will vary.

Lucky you!

I must admit that I haven't found much enjoyment in any Star Trek character after season 3 of VOY.
Some decent ones in SNW but not more.

 

[Danja]

My mistake and I apologize for that.
When I saw the name Wesley, I was immediately tinking of Wesley Crusher.

It's OK.

I just wanted to keep everything straight.

 

[Gaith]

China has made enormous strides in the last 10 years alone. Imagine what they could achieve in 10.000 years.

In 10,000 years, Lunar dust will still be lethally toxic, Mars will still be punishingly far away, both will have gravity levels humans didn't evolve for, and it's overwhelmingly likely Mars still won't have a breathable atmosphere, and will have average surface temperatures of far below freezing.

And, I'm supposed to be impressed by a space program that still hasn't conducted a human moon mission, 56 years after Apollo 11? 56 years before Apollo 11, biplanes were cutting-edge technology.

There is no Planet B in our Solar System, and, given the immutable facts we know about the physics challenges of reaching other planetary systems, there's an overwhelming likelihood that we will never, ever be able to reach an M-class planet elsewhere even if we locate one (and even if we could, surviving and thriving on such a planet would be a whole other story).

There's a roughly 99.999999% likelihood humanity will perish when Earth becomes uninhabitable. Period.

 

[XCV330]

In 10,000 years, Lunar dust will still be lethally toxic, Mars will still be punishingly far away, both will have gravity levels humans didn't evolve for, and it's overwhelmingly likely Mars still won't have a breathable atmosphere, and will have average surface temperatures of far below freezing.

And, I'm supposed to be impressed by a space program that still hasn't conducted a human moon mission, 56 years after Apollo 11? 56 years before Apollo 11, biplanes were cutting-edge technology.

There is no Planet B in our Solar System, and, given the immutable facts we know about the physics challenges of reaching other planetary systems, there's an overwhelming likelihood that we will never, ever be able to reach an M-class planet elsewhere even if we locate one (and even if we could, surviving and thriving on such a planet would be a whole other story).

There's a roughly 99.999999% likelihood humanity will perish when Earth becomes uninhabitable. Period.

We have a window of opportunity to build large orbital habitats, not to mention Venusian cloud colonies. Humanity can begin to partly move off-world. Mars and Luna are not the answers, though Luna may be a stepping stone. Theres no compelling reason to live on Mars, and if it turns out Mars still has its own limited biosphere, there's ethical reasons for not doing so.

 

[Mage]

I have confidence in what i do.
In fact, Star Trek should need someone like me who has good ideas and a bit of humor.


And as I've written before, I haven't found many good new series to watch.

Aaaaand I'm done with this topic. Any fan who says this is literally the type of 'writer' that Star Trek does not need.
Fanfic doesn't mean you can actually write.

 

[Dar70]

We cannot predict that Humanity never returns to space flight. PR China has made enormous strides in the last 10 years alone. Imagine what they could achieve in 10.000 years.
Plus, to save Earth we’ll have to extend Sol’s lifespan. Isaac Arthur’s plan on doing so requires spaceflight to be common and advanced in less than one billion years.

Not to be negative but I don't see man being here in 10k definitely not a billion years.. ...

Which is ok. Nothing lasts forever. The earth will be gone and we all will be but a memory....well not even that since there shall be no one to remember.

 

[Lynx]

In 10,000 years, Lunar dust will still be lethally toxic, Mars will still be punishingly far away, both will have gravity levels humans didn't evolve for, and it's overwhelmingly likely Mars still won't have a breathable atmosphere, and will have average surface temperatures of far below freezing.

And, I'm supposed to be impressed by a space program that still hasn't conducted a human moon mission, 56 years after Apollo 11? 56 years before Apollo 11, biplanes were cutting-edge technology.

There is no Planet B in our Solar System, and, given the immutable facts we know about the physics challenges of reaching other planetary systems, there's an overwhelming likelihood that we will never, ever be able to reach an M-class planet elsewhere even if we locate one (and even if we could, surviving and thriving on such a planet would be a whole other story).

There's a roughly 99.999999% likelihood humanity will perish when Earth becomes uninhabitable. Period.

Ahh, the typical 2020's standpoint.
"Everything is going to hell and we can't do anything about it".
If humanity had been that way since the start, we would still be living in caves.

The problem with not so much development since 1969 is just the pessimism which started after the oil crisis in 1973, a pessimiem which didn't even disappear during the somewhat more optimistic 80's and 90's and which has been totally gone since the early 2000s.

It's like someone pulled the plug around 9/11.

We really need a change and do away with all this pessimism, not only in TV series and movies.

 

[Lynx]

Aaaaand I'm done with this topic. Any fan who says this is literally the type of 'writer' that Star Trek does not need.
Fanfic doesn't mean you can actually write.

And who are you to make that judgement?

 

[Mage]

And who are you to make that judgement?

I am me. Deal with it, like we need to deal with your judgement. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

 

[Gaith]

We have a window of opportunity to build large orbital habitats, not to mention Venusian cloud colonies. Humanity can begin to partly move off-world.

"Everything is going to hell and we can't do anything about it".
If humanity had been that way since the start, we would still be living in caves.

Oh, yay, the Elon Musk Corps of Interplanetary Engineers is here.

And we can absolutely make Earth a paradise quite nicely without once trying to build tiny sterile tubes of limited habitability elsewhere, thank you very much.

 

[Lynx]

I am me. Deal with it, like we need to deal with your judgement. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

Well, if you don't like my posts, you can always ignore them.
My opinions are mine and I'm not gonns change them.

Oh, yay, the Elon Musk Corps of Interplanetary Engineers is here.

And we can absolutely make Earth a paradise quite nicely without once trying to build tiny sterile tubes of limited habitability elsewhere, thank you very much.

Just let us hope that people will become more optimistic and constructive in the near future than you are.

If you take a bow and arrow, aim at the sky and shoot, you may at least get to the treetops.
But if you shot the arrow in the ground, you're stuck in the ground.

 

[XCV330]

Oh, yay, the Elon Musk Corps of Interplanetary Engineers is here.

And we can absolutely make Earth a paradise quite nicely without once trying to build tiny sterile tubes of limited habitability elsewhere, thank you very much.

I haven't called you the Terrance Howard of Pseudo-intellectuals, so kindly don't refer to me as Elon Musk.

And yes, restoring Earth has to be the goal. But if a comet hits, you're fucked. Ultimately manufacturing and even farming can be moved off-world, and if that were to happen, some would want to move with that. Some would just want to move because they want to. This would permit parts of Earth go back to an undomesticated state in many areas. The two goals are copacetic.