A Trek for Everyone! (good or bad).

[eschaton]

So, with the news about the Georgiou show, I'm reminded of something I read back in 2017 regarding Kurtzman - the "new Berman" of the series.

At New York Comic Con, during the Star Trek: Discovery panel, Alex Kurtzman said something that I've been thinking about a lot. He said that you couldn't do "City on the Edge of Forever" now, because Kirk would have to spend a whole season mourning Edith Keeler.

For some reason, Kurtzman seems to be under the impression that modern TV must be serialized - and modern serialized shows must be one thing and one thing only. At the same time, he recognizes that Trek historically included quite a good deal of different types of stories. In his recent comments he's made some odd statements (like people wrongly confusing Deep Space Nine and Voyager since they were on at the same time and looked similar) and kept reiterating the new Picard show will be dramatically different in tone.

Thus it seems like the "future of Trek" is clear. There will be a Trek for everyone, but each Trek will do one and only one thing. If you want comedy, go to Star Trek: Lower Decks. If you want a coming-of-age story, go to the Starfleet Academy series. If you want more cerebral Trek, watch Picard. If you are a kid, watch the new kids show.

I don't think this is an awful model to have from a fan standpoint. Lots of Treks with different flavors means we're very likely to enjoy some of them. But it seems like instead of targeting the modal fan and building 12 months of broadly popular Trek content, they're pursuing a bunch of new Trek projects which many Trekkies won't have much interest in seeing. Thus I'm not sure it's a smart idea from the standpoint of CBS All Access, which just wants our sweet, sweet subscription revenue.

 

[cultcross]

For some reason, Kurtzman seems to be under the impression that modern TV must be serialized

Which successful modern shows aren't serialised? At least to the extent that events are remembered week to week?

 

[Mudd]

The only thing Trek lacks now is a set of golden arches.

 

[eschaton]

Which successful modern shows aren't serialised? At least to the extent that events are remembered week to week?

I don't watch much non-SFnal TV, but aren't procdurals still pretty episodic?

I think it's important though to distinguish between semi-serialization and full serialization. For example, awhile back I was watching Dark Matter. The characters in that show develop over time, and there are grand plots which are slowly unveiled, but it's fundamentally a semi-serialized show. Episodes are generally speaking about something, not just a 40-some minute slice of the season arc. Each episode has a definable beginning, middle, and end. Usually the episodes do not end with a cliffhanger, but with a resolution.

Something like Game of Thrones is the other extreme. Game of Thrones basically entirely lacks episodes - save for the once-per-season big action spectacle. You just periodically check in with everyone and see what they're up to.

 

[F. King Daniel]

The future of Trek is clear... a spectacular 2 years for Discovery fans, followed by a crash and burnout that'll resemble the USS Vengeance's "landing" in San Francisco.

 

[tomalak301]

One of the common comments I've seen in this thread (And in another thread) is the idea that they are making Star Trek for certain groups of people. That's all well and good, but as Star Trek fans, are we going to be tempted to see all of it, just from curiosity sake? I know I will probably be that way, considering I've seen all the other Trek offerings. I think that's where the over saturation concern comes from.

 

[Dukat's Major]

Yeah, I wonder if the quality of writing will suffer under the "try everything and see what sticks" franchise model. We could get a gem. I'm looking forward to the Picard Show. And we could get lucky and have amazing writing and direction and acting in one of the "meh" projects, like the Section 31 project. I remember when DS9 and Voyager were out at the same time and many Trek fans were lamenting how the quality of Trek had gone downhill with this "new" model of the franchise. But DS9 and VOY are beloved by tons of people today and often held up as what people wished nu trek would go back to. I think new times call for a new kind franchise model. That being said, I would would have preferred different ownership of the Trek franchise more suitable to nu media---even one of the streaming services, they're also doing everything-sticks but they've been turning out some fantastic content, too.

 

[fireproof78]

One of the common comments I've seen in this thread (And in another thread) is the idea that they are making Star Trek for certain groups of people. That's all well and good, but as Star Trek fans, are we going to be tempted to see all of it, just from curiosity sake? I know I will probably be that way, considering I've all all the other Trek offerings. I think that's where the over saturation concern comes from.

That's pretty much my way of thinking is to try it all and see what happens. And, not just because "Star Trek" but also because I enjoy science fiction as a rule.

If it oversaturates then it oversaturates.

 

[Delta Vega]

You can have too much of a good thing
Over saturation of Trek shows, all fighting for an audience is a bit risky in my opinion

 

[fireproof78]

You can have too much of a good thing
Over saturation of Trek shows, all fighting for an audience is a bit risky in my opinion

Of course, but it's a risk I'm willing to take, if I had a say in the matter. Since I don't I'll be willing to try it.

 

[Delta Vega]

Me too

 

[Mudd]

It's like McDonalds introducing the Filet O'Fish sandwich because they didn't like the sales drop-off on Fridays, and putting toys in the Happy Meal to get children to insist on eating there.

It's exactly like that.

 

[fireproof78]

It's like McDonalds introducing the Filet O'Fish sandwich because they didn't like the sales drop-off on Fridays, and putting toys in the Happy Meal to get children to insist on eating there.

It's exactly like that.

The horror.

 

[The Old Mixer]

It's like McDonalds [...] putting toys in the Happy Meal to get children to insist on eating there.

So...full circle, then.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[gblews]

For some reason, Kurtzman seems to be under the impression that modern TV must be serialized - and modern serialized shows must be one thing and one thing only. At the same time, he recognizes that Trek historically included quite a good deal of different types of stories. In his recent comments he's made some odd statements (like people wrongly confusing Deep Space Nine and Voyager since they were on at the same time and looked similar) and kept reiterating the new Picard show will be dramatically different in tone.

No, what he is saying here is that in order to give the Kirk/Edith relationship some gravitas, the impact of the loss of that relationship on Kirk should be shown. The best way to show the level of the affect of that impact is to show it over a number of episodes.

Every storyline in subsequent episodes doesn't have to be serialized, but some things do. The age of showing some significant event in an episode and having the impact of that event end in one hour are, thankfully, gone from Trek.

 

[eschaton]

One of the common comments I've seen in this thread (And in another thread) is the idea that they are making Star Trek for certain groups of people. That's all well and good, but as Star Trek fans, are we going to be tempted to see all of it, just from curiosity sake? I know I will probably be that way, considering I've seen all the other Trek offerings. I think that's where the over saturation concern comes from.

I'll give every series a chance the first season. But considering the option is always there to let my subscription lapse for awhile, if it's a series I'm not crazy about I'll probably just try and binge it after re-upping for a season of a series I care more about.

Yeah, I wonder if the quality of writing will suffer under the "try everything and see what sticks" franchise model. We could get a gem. I'm looking forward to the Picard Show. And we could get lucky and have amazing writing and direction and acting in one of the "meh" projects, like the Section 31 project. I remember when DS9 and Voyager were out at the same time and many Trek fans were lamenting how the quality of Trek had gone downhill with this "new" model of the franchise. But DS9 and VOY are beloved by tons of people today and often held up as what people wished nu trek would go back to. I think new times call for a new kind franchise model. That being said, I would would have preferred different ownership of the Trek franchise more suitable to nu media---even one of the streaming services, they're also doing everything-sticks but they've been turning out some fantastic content, too.

One thing that makes me a bit nervous here is that in some cases (like the new Georgiou series) the showrunning seems to be handed off to really green writers who only have a little bit of experience working with Bad Robot. If they're going to go this route I'd rather they try and recruit experienced showrunners far and wide. Maybe Kurtzman is too cheap for that though.

 

[Vger23]

The thing people seem to be missing is that this isn't CSI and NCIS territory. These shows are all set up to be completely different from each other from a tone, setting, and character standpoint.

It's a multitude of takes on the same universe.

It's not going to be like TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT <and Orville>, which (aside from DS9, but even that feels the same to a casual fan) were all virtually indistinguishable from each other. This is shaping up to be a bunch of extremely different takes on the same general universe of Star Trek.

I can't see how this could be a bad thing. Only pessimistic Star Trek fans could see this as bad or having a down side. As long as everyone gets past their narrow definition of what "Star Trek MUST be" it should be a hell of a ride.

 

[Vger23]

The horror.

So...full circle, then.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I like fillet-o-fish and happy meal toys.










Sue me.

 

[The Habs Fan]

It's like McDonalds introducing the Filet O'Fish sandwich because they didn't like the sales drop-off on Fridays, and putting toys in the Happy Meal to get children to insist on eating there.

It's exactly like that.

And this is a problem because....? This is how TV has operated forever.

 

[The Habs Fan]

For some reason, Kurtzman seems to be under the impression that modern TV must be serialized - and modern serialized shows must be one thing and one thing only. At the same time, he recognizes that Trek historically included quite a good deal of different types of stories. In his recent comments he's made some odd statements (like people wrongly confusing Deep Space Nine and Voyager since they were on at the same time and looked similar) and kept reiterating the new Picard show will be dramatically different in tone.

I don't think he feels that modern TV should only be serialized. For example, I'm expecting the Lower Decks animated series to be mostly stand alone from a plot standpoint. Characters might change and grow but I bet the show won't have a year long arc like Discovery. Also, the Short Treks so far have been stand alone In fact, they feel like little mini episodes of TNG era Trek. With Short Treks peppered throughout the year, they could be a stand alone fix for those who prefer that format.

Regarding DS9 and Voyager, they did look similar. Yes, there were differences between the two shows but both shows had the same look, music, direction, costumes. Yes, DS9 is seen as a serialized show but that doesn't change the fact that most of its episodes were completely stand alone and those stand alone episodes were pretty similar in style to TNG's stand alone episodes. Voyager was like a TNG redux in a different quadrant. Also, when both of those shows were on at the same time, the TV landscape was completely different, which leads me to...

I don't think this is an awful model to have from a fan standpoint. Lots of Treks with different flavors means we're very likely to enjoy some of them. But it seems like instead of targeting the modal fan and building 12 months of broadly popular Trek content, they're pursuing a bunch of new Trek projects which many Trekkies won't have much interest in seeing. Thus I'm not sure it's a smart idea from the standpoint of CBS All Access, which just wants our sweet, sweet subscription revenue.

TV is completely different than the 90s and when Enterprise was on the air. Back then live viewership ratings and demographic was hugely important because of advertising revenue. For network shows, it is still important but the viewership levels have reduced exponentially since then. However, streaming series have to be viewed with a different model. They are mostly paid for with subscriptions and the amount of subscriptions needed is far lower than the number of viewers needed on network television for ad revenue. That's how HBO survived on shows like The Sopranos and how AMC could afford to have Mad Men on for 7 seasons and Breaking Bad on for 5 seasons. Their viewership ratings don't compare and yet the budgets are often higher. The creative freedom is greater. It's all because of the subscription model.

Star Trek Discovery's premiere had 9.5 million viewers on network TV in the US. How many of those viewers subscribed to CBS All Access? Even if it's "only" 3 million, that is hugely successful for a subscriber based service. Now let's factor in the 180+ other countries it airs in (first time ever this has happened where a new Star Trek episode has aired in that many countries within 24 hours of it first airing) and it turns out Star Trek is a huge success. There's no way CBS would have 4 series officially in various stages of production, with a possible 3 more in development, and be losing money. They're not a charity, they're a business. I bet the Michelle Yeoh series' Chinese audience will pay for the show by itself. Also, think of all the new fans these shows will attract to the greater Star Trek universe.