I'm with you on that one. IMO, Beltran is hands down the worst first officer since Majel Barret.
Which is fair, but Star Trek is a business. It has to grow with the world or else it will be quickly forgotten.
I could say the same for people who always dismiss critcisms. It's not enough to say "I like this show no matter what." They go the extra mile of dismissing people who disagree, grasp at straws for why their show isn't popular and wave away every metric that demonstrates their show being unpopular.
Ironic, because my point was that everyone's opinions matter and should never be dismissed. That includes people who have a different opinion. I've seen way too much of the opposite around here. It's typical gatekeeping behavior and its disgusting.
I remember a similar statement made in the 80s. It's a crutch. Other shows have no problem succeeding in today's media landscape.
That's been sports talk since the beginning of time.
Last edited:
If four or five episodes are all it takes to judge a show I never would have bothered with TNG at all, or likely any of the rest of them. But hey, if that's how you roll go with it.
That strategy doesn't seem to be working very well.
Which is why popularity needs to be let go of as a metric. Popularity really is a poor measure because it doesn't equate quality. Look at the Transformers.
So let's have discussion around what is working, not whether or not it is succeeding.
And it's stupid.
Then bye bye Trek. And that's ok.That strategy doesn't seem to be working very well.
I enjoyed the first four or five episodes of TNG when it came out and so did millions of others.
Current Trek would kill to have the numbers that old TNG did.
That's why they took down the sets after wrapping up season two of Academy.... They decided not enough profits are coming in for a new trek production to be worth it. Their research may be telling them too many "mainstream" viewers don't want a sci fi show.That strategy doesn't seem to be working very well.
That strategy doesn't seem to be working very well.
It could simply be that Trek has largely run its course. My nostalgia isn’t my kids nostalgia. Same thing is happening to other properties. Hollywood has to figure out how transition these properties into something that the modern 18-34 crowd wants to watch.
It isn’t an easy trick to pull off.
I'd rather they create new franchises, new shows and new concepts for people who don't care about Star Trek or science fiction.
You don’t have vested financial interest in it.
That could be true, but that still doesn't explain why so many Trek fans aren't fans of what's being produced now.
If I had a vested interest in Star Trek, I wouldn't hire people who don't understand the franchise. Kurtzman and his ilk would never have came within a mile of Star Trek. I certainly wouldn't be wasting time and money trying to reach people who don't like Star Trek or science fiction. It's like trying to sell chinese food to people who hate chinese food. It's stupid.
Last edited:
Who are these fans you're referring to? Did they elect you as their spokesperson?
We've gotten 180+ episodes across six series in just the last decade.That strategy doesn't seem to be working very well.
By any metrics, that indicates a thing is working.
No, they are simply the fans who no longer watch the show and try to explain why, but get silenced by the fanatics.
Do try and keep up.
Well, nobody was asking in the first place. Perhaps there's a hint.
No, they folded up the sets because a new regime is coming in.
This is what worries me, that if execs feel the recent shows have underperformed, they'll end up reaching conclusions "Star Trek isn't viable" or "sci-fi is dead/unmarketable" when in reality it's just that people didn't take to these specific shows and the creative decisions within.
Given the limited data set you're basing said judgment on seems to be online reactions, I wouldn't say that's what the "reality" is to execs in charge of such decisions.
The internet isn't a bellwether of conclusive analysis; never has been.
Similar threads
- Locked
