• 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!

Are you "aging out" of Star Trek?

Nobody said "this post doesn't count as meaningful because I don't like its conclusions"! Your post is following the form and structure of a discussion, but the content doesn't correspond to what other people are saying, or make internal sense! This is why everyone's accusing you (correctly) of using an LLM, it's a telltale sign.

To respond anyway to stop the thread going in circles:

Not sure about that, there's a number of episodes of TNG where you simply are not invited to disagree with Picard, and the entire plot is set up to prove him right (The Drumhead being an obvious one).


When does this happen in SFA, SNW, Picard, or the first two seasons of Discovery (the only ones I've seen)? When is a character's identity made a big deal and the focus of the entire plot?
On The Drumhead: you’re right that the episode ultimately affirms Picard’s position, but that doesn’t contradict my point. The ideology isn’t presented as a slogan; it’s interrogated through process. Satie isn’t a strawman, the procedures initially make sense, and the episode spends most of its time showing how fear and certainty escalate step by step. The audience isn’t asked to debate whether witch hunts are bad, but they are invited to feel how tempting and reasonable the slide into them can be. That’s still exploration, even with a firm conclusion.

On the identity question: I’m not claiming that identity becomes the entire plot in modern Trek. I’m talking about narrative priority and friction. In several recent shows, aspects of identity are introduced in ways that are largely insulated from cultural, institutional, or moral resistance, meaning they generate affirmation more than tension.

That’s different from older Trek, where identity-related differences (Data’s personhood, Trill joining, Worf’s Klingon-ness, even Picard’s authority) created conflict with institutions, cultures, or laws. The story emerged from that friction.

I’ll also concede this: Strange New Worlds often handles this better than Discovery, which is why many fans see it as a course correction. My critique isn’t “new Trek bad, old Trek good.”
 
TOS did it all the time with Spock. That was often the friction within the crew.

Somehow, the show held on for three seasons. I know that nowadays it would be demanded to be cancelled.
 
On The Drumhead: you’re right that the episode ultimately affirms Picard’s position, but that doesn’t contradict my point. The ideology isn’t presented as a slogan; it’s interrogated through process. Satie isn’t a strawman, the procedures initially make sense, and the episode spends most of its time showing how fear and certainty escalate step by step. The audience isn’t asked to debate whether witch hunts are bad, but they are invited to feel how tempting and reasonable the slide into them can be. That’s still exploration, even with a firm conclusion.
Can't agree with this; the audience is immediately told that Satie is factually wrong in her concerns, scary music plays when she talks (and heroic music plays when Picard talks), the Simon character is introduced early on specifically to show that Satie is evil, and she has a breakdown when Picard says a fridge magnet quote. The episode doesn't interrogate Picard at all, nor does it invite the viewer to be seduced by Satie's inquisition; she literally is a strawman there to be demolished by Picard.

KRAD's old review of the episode pretty much sums up what's wrong with it, I feel - and it's far from the only time in TNG this happens (Suddenly Human, Measure of a Man, Silicon Avatar to an extent, etc). Meanwhile, I can't immediately think of any time this happens in Kurtzman Trek (largely because Kurtzman Trek never has a point to make in the first place...).

On the identity question: I’m not claiming that identity becomes the entire plot in modern Trek. I’m talking about narrative priority and friction. In several recent shows, aspects of identity are introduced in ways that are largely insulated from cultural, institutional, or moral resistance, meaning they generate affirmation more than tension.
When does this happen? What characters would you use as examples? I'm not trying to be obtuse, I genuinely cannot think of this happening (maybe the Trill stuff in Discovery, but again, I've only really seen the first two seasons so I'm not familiar with that).
 
Hell, Picard was barely even tolerable until sometime in Season 2, and even that's debatable.
He could be a pontificating windbag at times, especially with Gene pounding away on his IBM Selectric.

Reddit discussion on type of typewriter Gene used:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
True, I hear that. A good writer would clarify such an inconsistency in the story though.
And if this was the only example I wouldn't say anything.
A species that was already genetically engineered can be genetically re-engineered to include genders. It took me a less than a split-second to work that out. I didn't need to a writer to spell it out for me.

I would've mentioned it much sooner than right now, had I not decided to step back from discussions about New Trek compared to 2017-2024.
 
True, I hear that. A good writer would clarify such an inconsistency in the story though.
And if this was the only example I wouldn't say anything.
We haven't heard her story yet. She's been in two episodes and wasn't the focus of either one. Like with the gay Klingon, you've put the cart before the horse. Try watching the show and get back to us on its "structure".
 
I have not gotten into most of post-Nemesis Trek, but I don't know if it's a matter of age. The style of storytelling changed rather dramatically: I view the Abrams movies as basically Avengers-type action thrillers with a Star Trek skin, and while the casting is amazing it's telling I've never rewatched Into Darkness or Beyond, despite having the DVDs. I first encountered ST TOS in 1992, when I was hospitalized for a month or so, and I found ST TNG at the same time. I grew up with that era of Trek. It consumed me: I played Trek games, read Trek books, etc. I knew people who are my current ago who were DEEPLY invested into Star Trek, so teenage me could have conversation with people twice my age about the topics being probed by episodes.

I fear modern Trek storytelling is just....action-adventure in space, or sometimes even soap operas in space. Those elements were part of original Trek, but they weren't the whole thing. In DS9, for instance, there's that brilliant episode where Bashir pushes back against Ross for acting in a Machiavellian fashion to save the Federation. There are SF episodes in TNG where tech is looked at critically -- dopamine addiciton The Game, for instance, or Barclay's addiction to escapist holodeck fantasies. Are those stories in modern Trek? I enjoy Lower Decks for what it is -- an almost affectionate parody of the Trek I grew up with. I enjoy Strange New worlds because of its cast and the drama they're involved in, but where are the episodes that make the viewer sit up and go "Huh. That's something I hadn't thought of before?" Those moments DO happen from time to time -- Burnham's speech to the UFOP at the end of season 1 of DSC, Pike's speak about giving up our values being to lose the battle in advance, etc -- but they don't define the shows. And frankly, outside of SNW, they don't really speak to me. I have each in turn; some if I have continued with, some I have dropped. Some I have dropped and tried again. Bottom line, I don't think I'm "aging out" of Trek, I think the writing is just getting less..aspirational and lazier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kkt
Aging out? No, not in any way. I watched my first TOS episode when I was a kid and immediately fell in love. Today I watch Start Fleet Academy and still love it.
 
As I am from a somewhat younger generation, it feels more like I've aged into older Star Trek series.
When I was younger, I used to be attracted to bright colors and shiny visuals. Now I feel fatigued and irritated by excessive visual effects that often seem to draw focus away from the plot and character development. I also prefer a more realistic, less polished look for characters. As much as I admire Ethan Peck's acting skills and his portrayal of Spock, it is hard to imagine a busy chief science officer having enough time to maintain that level of physical fitness.
Of course this is all subjective, and these issues are a reflection of the modern high-budget film industry as a whole, not just new Star Trek series.
 
These characters all started out as someone with a particular thing.
She's gotta worm in her belly!

dax.jpg
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top