Okay, then. Sigh... Whatever happened to boldly going where no one has gone before?
Does Prodigy's semi cancellation make Legacy more likely?
- Thread starter Omegaphallic
- Start date
Okay, then. Sigh... Whatever happened to boldly going where no one has gone before?
Legacy won't draw in anyone new. It'll bring back some old fans, just like Picard Season 3 did, but that's the extent of it. It's not about a new beginning, it's about extending Picard without having Patrick Stewart. PIC Season 3 laid the groundwork for how they could do that.
As far as the "nostalgia" angle, that's only half-true. Half very, very false. These old fans will come back to watch Legacy, just like they did Picard Season 3, but then a lot of them will react like, "But it's not the way I remember it!" It'll be shot differently, it'll be lit differently, it'll be paced differently, and the use of language will be different from TNG/DS9/VOY.
So true in the sense that the old storylines and characters will be revisited, false in the sense that it'll be written and produced in a different style. That was the draw for me with Picard in general. Seeing Berman characters back in a non-Berman style. That's the reason I like it. Yes, it's the same characters. But it's a different spin on the characters.
If you want completely new characters in a completely different setting with everything in the galaxy all shaken up, then Star Trek: Discovery is that. With the exception of "Unification III" and the two-parter where they wrote out Georgiou, Discovery has been largely devoid of "fanwank" and "nostalgia" since the beginning of its third season. "But STD sucks!" Then you like the idea of something different, but you don't like the reality of it.
"Continuing TNG sucks! Let's do another TOS reboot!" So you all want to replace one type of revisiting with another type of revisiting. Pot meet kettle. "But it's a different type of execution!" Once again, pot meet kettle.
As far as the "nostalgia" angle, that's only half-true. Half very, very false. These old fans will come back to watch Legacy, just like they did Picard Season 3, but then a lot of them will react like, "But it's not the way I remember it!" It'll be shot differently, it'll be lit differently, it'll be paced differently, and the use of language will be different from TNG/DS9/VOY.
So true in the sense that the old storylines and characters will be revisited, false in the sense that it'll be written and produced in a different style. That was the draw for me with Picard in general. Seeing Berman characters back in a non-Berman style. That's the reason I like it. Yes, it's the same characters. But it's a different spin on the characters.
If you want completely new characters in a completely different setting with everything in the galaxy all shaken up, then Star Trek: Discovery is that. With the exception of "Unification III" and the two-parter where they wrote out Georgiou, Discovery has been largely devoid of "fanwank" and "nostalgia" since the beginning of its third season. "But STD sucks!" Then you like the idea of something different, but you don't like the reality of it.
"Continuing TNG sucks! Let's do another TOS reboot!" So you all want to replace one type of revisiting with another type of revisiting. Pot meet kettle. "But it's a different type of execution!" Once again, pot meet kettle.
Last edited:
Legacy of course will draw in new fans. Every Star Trek series (including Picard even with its over Reliance on nostalgia and an old beloved character, and Prodigy) has done so.
The big question is: Would it draw in existing and new viewers with the same fervor that Picard Season 3 did; or would it just do the same level of views that Picard seasons 1 and 2 got?
And honestly, the answer is most likely the latter.
That means Paramount should be in no rush to fast track it. Just put it in the assembly line and make it the next series after Star Trek Strange New Worlds has run its course, or the new Starfleet Academy falls flat, and doesn't run past one or two seasons.
The big question is: Would it draw in existing and new viewers with the same fervor that Picard Season 3 did; or would it just do the same level of views that Picard seasons 1 and 2 got?
And honestly, the answer is most likely the latter.
That means Paramount should be in no rush to fast track it. Just put it in the assembly line and make it the next series after Star Trek Strange New Worlds has run its course, or the new Starfleet Academy falls flat, and doesn't run past one or two seasons.
“Get over the idea of there being more Enterprise. There won’t be anymore. It not popular and doesn’t make money, plus the cast is too old.”
“Get over Short Treks. It was not supposed to be used for telling short tales about the Federation. That was not its purpose.”
“Get over Legacy. There have been no serious talks with Paramount, and even if there were, the show would be a nostalgic fankwank and would not bring in new viewers. Just the repeat customers that watched Picard and Berman era Trek. Even though SNW is just as reliant on nostalgia and legacy characters.”
You guys sure do know how to build enthusiasm over Trek. /s
“Get over Short Treks. It was not supposed to be used for telling short tales about the Federation. That was not its purpose.”
“Get over Legacy. There have been no serious talks with Paramount, and even if there were, the show would be a nostalgic fankwank and would not bring in new viewers. Just the repeat customers that watched Picard and Berman era Trek. Even though SNW is just as reliant on nostalgia and legacy characters.”
You guys sure do know how to build enthusiasm over Trek. /s
I don't have much enthusiasm if Trek is only a vehicle for nostalgic and history repeating and constantly trying to reclaim the glory days of the past.
But it's hard to argue that the points you list aren't true.
Nailed it. Every time I see a post that has the words “fanwank” and “nostalgia” as pejoratives I can almost always write the post off as substance-less bitching. The root of 99% of the disagreement is that is not their preferred trek property being nostalgized/they aren’t the fan being wanked. When it’s their turn to be wanked you’ll see how the tune changes. Sorry to be crude.
“We want something new” is a fine sentiment but unrealistic in a franchise like this. Even the most different entries would be impossible without wider connections. Take DS9. It doesn’t exist without TOS and TNG. Its connections to TNG made it better, not worse.
The worst part is that PIC isn’t even that good! As much as I enjoyed the TNG reunion it was mostly an uneven mess for 3 seasons. But the nostalgia/fanwankery isn’t why it wasn’t good. It had fundamental problems of plotting, characterization, and storytelling. To simply say it was nostalgia/fanwank is not only lazy but reveals poor media literacy.
If you had some good ideas, people might be more enthused... /s
Not for me. I liked TNG and DS9 quite a bit, but I didn't like PIC just trying to pander to my nostalgia for those shows rather than offering me something new that I would like, which is what TNG and DS9 did. I want to see new things, not just be reminded of the stuff I've already known and liked for decades.
What did you expect from a show named after and featuring the one of the most popular legacy characters in the franchise?
Then don't pretend Trek is groundbreaking. If it is purely a nostalgia driven exercise in self pleasure then at least be honest about what it is.
Nostalgia isn't bad; I just was told for years that Trek was groundbreaking, grew the STEM fields and inspired astronauts.
Nostalgia is a lot of things but inspiring isn't one of them.
Stuff can be 2 things! Astronauts can be inspired and people can be reminded of other things that have happened in a fictional universe. This is binary thinking that is a little facile. Media can absoutely be compelling and interesting using established characters/events/whatever.
Also...I can't dig them up right now but you have posted before (and correct me if I'm wrong) that your favorite captain is Pike and that you really got into the franchise with ST09/Kelvin movies...talk about the pot and the kettle! And it proves my point: those movies were (mostly, and imperfectly) interesting uses of long-established characters/events/whatever.
This hang up on nostalgia is bizarre and misses the forest for the trees.
It can. It shouldn't be all there is.
Correct.
Shaw: No.
I was in the franchise since TOS, my friend.
As does your attempt to pigeonhole my argument. My frustration is not with nostalgia; it is with nostalgia alone as being the emphasis that I am told to appreciate things. "SNW is like TOS you should love it!" Well, no, I love it because the characters are compelling and shed light on future events in a way I find enjoyable. "You should absolutely love it with Picard Season 3 because of all the TNG reunion!" Well, no. I was enjoying it with Worf and Raffi's arc but it immediately hooked hard in to pure nostalgia with no substance.
That's what I push back against. Nostalgia for nostalgia's sake. I like connectivity, and I like connective tissue in a series. I appreciate that Pike is back because I liked him in the Cage. I do not expect Mount to act like Pike in the Cage. That would be ridiculous,
Talk about missing the forest for the trees. You think i just hate nostalgia. And that would be a gross misreading of my argument.
I am afraid we are talking past each other then. My argument is essentially this:
Nostalgia is baked into the cake in any long running franchise and criticizing that aspect alone is a waste of time, especially when there are so many better ways to critically engage with the content, PIC being a great example. There is a lot to criticize about PIC. Focusing on the nostalgia is really fruitless because removing it from the show entirely would fix none of them, really.
Nostalgia is a part of the cake, not the whole cake. Telling me I only like something because of nostalgia is getting very frustrating.
Which I'm being told over and again to get over my issues with Picard Season 3 because of that one ingredient. But, I can't because, as you note, there are lots of issues in there. Same with Season 1 and 2. I enjoyed Season 1, despite the issues, and Season 2 definitely had some excellent psychological work for Picard that was mired in poor storytelling.
Nostalgia isn't bad; it isn't good. It just is. But the overreliance on it by multiple properties and arguments to enjoy it is starting to drag my overall enjoyment down significantly.
Omg, someone wants to follow up on 21 seasons worth of Trek history, and storylines that are wide open for greater exploration that structural constraints in the 1980s-2000s prevented! Instead we need to beat legacy fans over the head with the idea that their Star Trek is dead, and needs to be remade for... the CW audience with an HBO level budget!
Some people really love Star Trek but really seem to hate any kind of continuity and building up on established history. For me, the interconnected lore is greater than the individual parts. Even a shitty or mediocre episode can generate an excellent follow up. The tons of low hanging fruit, and someone like Terry Matalas would be aware of many of the great ideas that didn't happen for whatever reason during his time on DS9 / VGR / ENT.
Some people especially seem to enjoy Star Trek history being "deconstructed" because they don't want any kind of baggage or history, and want things set in the infinite present where the past and future don't matter. For me, that's just perfectly disposable content.
Say what you will about season 3, but it managed to be better than GEN, NEM, and season 1!
It was….but the bar was low!!’
I expected what season 1 actually delivered: A new story about Jean-Luc Picard in a new context and new stage of his life. That's the whole reason it was called Picard instead of just The Next Generation -- for the same reason Lou Grant wasn't called The Mary Tyler Moore Show. The show's name specifically told us that it was not just more TNG, but a more focused character study on one person in particular, taken out of that familiar context and allowed to grow in new directions as a result. And that's what season 1 actually was, and for all its flaws, I liked it that they did that.
It's facile to suggest that the only way to tell more stories about a character is to dwell on their past. That makes no sense. People grow and change over their lives. Picard was not the same person on the Enterprise that he'd been on the Stargazer, so why the hell would you expect a story about Picard 20 years later to be about the same Picard in the same kind of stories? That's not the only way to do more with a character, it's just the lazy, sucky way. Season 1 had the right idea, with some flaws in execution. But seasons 2 & 3 responded to those flaws in the wrong way, by throwing the baby out with the bathwater, deciding that boldly going where the story and characters hadn't gone before had been a mistake, and retreating to the safe, timid option of pandering to familiarity.
Similar threads
