Hmm, this thread has evolved in some interesting and unpredictable ways!...
Some pages back there was much discussion that boiled down to "how I would do a new Trek series," far more than what might actually be next for DSC... which seems odd to me, since there's a whole other subforum for that and this topic is specifically about the future of this particular Trek series.
But hey, whatever floats your boat. On that front, I can only say that I am a diehard TOS fan first and foremost, and all other iterations of Trek are secondary to that for me. So the concept of prequel series set shortly before TOS was actually pretty appealing to me. However, the actual execution of DSC has been a very mixed bag. It has disappointed me as often as not, for reasons involving everything from production design to acting to (mostly) writing... and it really hasn't evoked the tone, look, feel, or sensibility of TOS in any way that I can recognize. In that sense, it might as well have been set in the 25th century, or some other period.
(And of the ideas floated for a series in that setting, the best I saw were those offered by @eschaton — about e.g. a team of Starfleet archaeologists exploring ancient mysteries, or a colony world, or various other ideas that break the well-worn formula of "starship with crew of predictable officer positions dealing with interstellar existential crises." Trek's universe is a big one. Lots of stories can be set there. The more original a concept, the better the characters, the more realistic the scale, and the more thoughtful the writing, the easier it is not only to surmount challenges like the level of "magic tech," but to keep viewers engaged and in suspense.)
My personal preferences aside, though, I'm skeptical about Vger23's proposition that CBS/the producers were determined to do the show as a prequel because TOS is what's most familiar to "general audiences"...
Why skeptical? Well...
As for a few more recent comments in the thread...
(Actually, they seem to have set both ends against the middle... they're not making the show to target broad general audiences, but neither are they giving loyal fans what they're familiar with. It seems like a rather quixotic approach. To be honest, I'd probably admire that, if only the show were better written.)
(Is it something from Attack of the Clones? I never saw that one; after Phantom Menace literally bored me to sleep (and was cringe-inducingly bad when I was awake), I wasn't inclined to buy a ticket to another prequel. But regardless, I recall a line in Force Awakens about training recent troops rather than cloning them, which should've been enough to cover the issue for anyone who knew or cared about such things.)
Some pages back there was much discussion that boiled down to "how I would do a new Trek series," far more than what might actually be next for DSC... which seems odd to me, since there's a whole other subforum for that and this topic is specifically about the future of this particular Trek series.
But hey, whatever floats your boat. On that front, I can only say that I am a diehard TOS fan first and foremost, and all other iterations of Trek are secondary to that for me. So the concept of prequel series set shortly before TOS was actually pretty appealing to me. However, the actual execution of DSC has been a very mixed bag. It has disappointed me as often as not, for reasons involving everything from production design to acting to (mostly) writing... and it really hasn't evoked the tone, look, feel, or sensibility of TOS in any way that I can recognize. In that sense, it might as well have been set in the 25th century, or some other period.
(And of the ideas floated for a series in that setting, the best I saw were those offered by @eschaton — about e.g. a team of Starfleet archaeologists exploring ancient mysteries, or a colony world, or various other ideas that break the well-worn formula of "starship with crew of predictable officer positions dealing with interstellar existential crises." Trek's universe is a big one. Lots of stories can be set there. The more original a concept, the better the characters, the more realistic the scale, and the more thoughtful the writing, the easier it is not only to surmount challenges like the level of "magic tech," but to keep viewers engaged and in suspense.)
My personal preferences aside, though, I'm skeptical about Vger23's proposition that CBS/the producers were determined to do the show as a prequel because TOS is what's most familiar to "general audiences"...
Why skeptical? Well...
- For one thing, as others have posted, later shows (especially Borg stories?) apparently do better on Netflix, and while that's not a scientific survey by any means, neither is is just a single data point; Netflix has a large enough subscriber base that it probably approximates a random sample.
- For another thing, though, even if it were scientifically verifiable data, since when do we have any reason to believe that Hollywood execs (in charge of Trek or anything else) are actually swayed by scientifically verifiable data about market preferences? If they were, then computers could do their jobs. They're famous for making subjective "gut decisions" about new projects (and the content of existing ones), often deeply irrational ones, and for having careers rise and fall based on the success (or lack thereof) of those gut instincts. Just ask any screenwriters about the irrationality of studio "notes" on scripts.
- For a third thing, even if empirical data existed and studios based decisions on it, why would we want that? The idea of having creative decisions dictated by marketing needs is generally thought of as a bad thing. I'd much rather creators be allowed to pursue their own creative instincts, however iconoclastic; that's how we get interesting new work that breaks out of old formulas.
- For a fourth thing, if that's actually what was happening with DSC's development, whether desirable in the abstract or not, it doesn't really explain the end product we got. If the show were actually intended to play on audience familiarity with TOS concepts and characters, then the show could've gone a whole lot farther to actually do that than it actually did. The closest it got to familiar characters were Sarek (appeared once in TOS) and Mudd (appeared twice). It never even mentioned Spock (despite the backstory connection) or Kirk. Nothing about it looked remotely like TOS. Basically, the similarities (and the minor throwbacks to canon, or for that matter contradictions of it) were the sort of thing only hardcore Trek fans would notice, and hardcore fans would presumably be pre-sold on any new Trek show anyway. (Heck, CBS seems to have banked on exactly that, at least in the US, since you couldn't count on anyone beyond hardcore fans signing up for CBS All Access just to watch the one show.)
As for a few more recent comments in the thread...
This remark genuinely puzzled me. Canon is not the same thing as continuity, to be sure. But I tend to think that consistency is. Being consistent with information previously established about your fictional reality is a pretty darn concise definition of what it means to build a continuity. How do you see them as different?
And it's sheer formula. That's the last thing I ever want to see Trek degenerate into. (Same goes for the James Bond franchise, which someone upthread mentioned as a possible comparison for Trek's future.)
To be fair, Picard and Data were hands-down the two best characters in TNG, so it's not unreasonable that they'd be the most remembered, just as Kirk and Spock are the ones people immediately think of in association with TOS. That said, what the heck are you talking about regarding basketball players? You completely lost me there...
Interesting. I'm pretty much the opposite. I prefer physical media. It's always there; I never have to worry that some new streaming contract will make something suddenly unavailable. I typically watch through a computer too, but I've never had a problem with copy protection. I have no idea what you mean about them being slow; they play shows at exactly the same speed as a stream. The video is more reliable (no buffering or downscaling), the audio is much better, and of course there are all the nifty extra features. I will concede that unskippable intros are annoying... but OTOH some streaming services include commercials, which are no less annoying. I use streaming for stuff I expect to watch once and never go back to (e.g., most TV shows), but for anything I really like, I want to own it.
Good point. Although I may be hopelessly out of the loop here, as I have to ask "who is Drake?"
Well, sure. And that's completely reasonable. After all, as I've had occasion to remark in other threads, none of us here are CBS execs or investors. We have no actual reason to care about the business side of things — about how to market Trek, or how large an audience it attracts. We really only have reason to be interested in new Trek projects to the extent that they're enjoyable to watch — which is a personal and subjective thing for each of us (though there are broader critical and artistic standards that can and should apply). A new Trek project that's just bland mediocre crap, even if it attracts huge audiences, is no better than nothing at all. Frankly, to me personally, most of the Trek product since the end of DS9 qualifies as " barely watchable." So I really don't care about how economically successful the next iteration down the pipeline may be... I care about how good it is.
I'm curious what you mean by this. Seems to me that most comic books (and especially super-hero ones) have traditionally been criticized, just like much SF, for being far more focused on clever plots than on character development... and that they've attracted significantly overlapping fan bases for precisely that reason.
True statements. As noted, I don't think "attracting non-fans" ought to be Trek's priority, but neither do I see it as what DSC's producers are actually trying to do.
(Actually, they seem to have set both ends against the middle... they're not making the show to target broad general audiences, but neither are they giving loyal fans what they're familiar with. It seems like a rather quixotic approach. To be honest, I'd probably admire that, if only the show were better written.)
Seems like bringing coals to Newcastle if it were, since one of the distintive things about Trek all along (seriously, since TOS was on the air!) was what a strong and loyal following of female fans it attracted.
And yet, as a straight white American male, I enjoyed Xena, while I never got into Hercules at all.
Hm. I am a "casual Star Wars viewer" by any definition. I've seen most of the movies, and found them moderately enjoyable, but I would never call myself a "fan." I've never read any of the books, and I didn't even know there was an animated TV show until comments elsewhere on these forums brought it up. And speaking from that perspective, I haven't got the slightest fucking idea who Jango Fett is or was, or what the background of stormtroopers is supposed to be.
(Is it something from Attack of the Clones? I never saw that one; after Phantom Menace literally bored me to sleep (and was cringe-inducingly bad when I was awake), I wasn't inclined to buy a ticket to another prequel. But regardless, I recall a line in Force Awakens about training recent troops rather than cloning them, which should've been enough to cover the issue for anyone who knew or cared about such things.)
But the thing is, as discussed in other threads, Star Trek's reality isn't supposed to be our future, nor ever was. It's a future. It branches off from our reality in its own particular way, just like any other SF concept. Trying to pretend it's a projection of our particular future would call for perpetual rolling retcons — of the elements you mention, and many others — which would be both pointless and undesirable. Trek's backstory (history, tech, and all the rest) deserves to be left intact.
Last edited:
