Does the current state of Star Trek say anything about what fans want?

[Lord Garth]

With Prodigy, a kid could watch that without ever having seen Voyager.

With Discovery and Strange New Worlds, they fill you in enough so that 99% of the time, you don't have to have seen the other series.

With Lower Decks and Picard, if you haven't seen anything else, you're screwed. Too much will be lost on you. I'd love to show Picard to someone who's never seen TNG and see what they think. Just as an experiment.

 

[Oddish]

With Prodigy, a kid could watch that without ever having seen Voyager.

Yup. But there's just enough fanservice thrown in that VOY fans don't feel neglected.

 

[Greg Cox]

Certainly, there's a reason why the whale movie was the most successful TOS movie back in the day.

Because it was accessible to both Trekkies and the general audiences.

 

[ThankQ]

To get five concurrent series out of your beloved franchise and only hate 1 or 2 of them is doing pretty damn fine.

 

[fireproof78]

With Prodigy, a kid could watch that without ever having seen Voyager.

With Discovery and Strange New Worlds, they fill you in enough so that 99% of the time, you don't have to have seen the other series.

That is the appeal, yes.

It's perhaps worth remembering that STAR TREK is not and never has been just for us hardcore fans. It needs to appeal to more casual fans, newbies, and the general audience as well. Indeed, almost by definition, us diehard Trekkies are outliers at the far end of audience spectrum, with total non-fans at the other end.

Star Trek was never meant to some cliquey, cult thing aimed only at the True Believers and preaching to the converted. Heck, it started out as a prime-time series on NBC, aimed at the general audiences.

Indeed. Star Trek as a franchise gets treated, well, like the One Ring to use a very visually identifiable metaphor. It is precious, people will risk no harm to it, no change, nothing. It must be kept secret and safe and hidden away at all costs.

 

[STEPhon IT]

A writer was recently asked to define the word live on air. She couldn’t. The clip went viral.

1 person who happened to not have her phone to read the definition. Her error. LOL!

 

[Awesome Possum]

1 person who happened to not have her phone to read the definition. Her error. LOL!

She wrote an entire book on the subject, you’d think she’d have a decent idea of what it is.

What it shows is that it’s just a boogeyman for the right. A vague concept for anything they don’t like and want to dance around why.

 

[STEPhon IT]

Its just a boogeyman for her and she was gaslighted, and was well deserved. Maybe some people on the right may be that ignorant but not all.

 

[1001001]

@JirinPanthosaIf I were a moderator, I would ask all involved in the discussion on general wokeness to take it elsewhere.

And if I were a moderator, I would tell you you’re not on staff here and don’t back-seat moderate.

Oh, wait…

 

[BillJ]

Maybe some people on the right may be that ignorant but not all.

The one's who aren't ignorant are actually the worst of the bunch. They won't admit to the myriad of problems that we have in society, choosing to stick their heads in the proverbial sand, because admitting to the problems we face would mean they would have to change how they live.

So they promote cruel things that eat up valuable public thought space like banning transgender treatments for kids and drag shows.

 

[Oddish]

And if I were a moderator, I would tell you you’re not on staff here and don’t back-seat moderate.

If I had told Jirin what to do, your complaint would have merit. I merely stated my own intentions: to end an off-topic discussion, agreeing to disagree.

 

[1001001]

If I had told Jirin what to do, your complaint would have merit. I merely stated my own intentions: to end an off-topic discussion, agreeing to disagree.

And now you're doing it again.

This is the last time I'm going to tell you: knock it off, or you'll get a formal warning. And given how many you've already received, that will translate into a long break from here.

 

[XCV330]

Certainly, there's a reason why the whale movie was the most successful TOS movie back in the day.

Because it was accessible to both Trekkies and the general audiences.

It was, and is a really fun movie too.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Indeed. Star Trek has moved from the TOS style sandbox to a veritable playground. Declaring something "not Star Trek" is like saying a slide is not a piece of play equipment.

The difference is that a playground is not designed to be its own universe with a language, convention, mood and creative direction / agenda. The intention from the movies to the Berman era was that ST featured a connected universe (no matter how many times that idea was screwed over), not some loose assemblage of ideas with the title "Star Trek" slapped on it.

Any franchise must have some uniformity / consistency, and a good number of viewers expect that, hence the reason Fontana and Roddenberry assured worried convention attendees that the then-forthcoming animated series would be consistent with (i.e. a believable, natural continuation of) TOS in as many ways as possible. The expectation has always been a part of ST. Just imagine: if a ST spin-off was pretty much the 60s Lost in Space by another name, viewers would predictably reject it, as it would not be anything consistent / live up to what had been established in that fictional universe.

No one is saying each series has to be a clone of its predecessor, but if another chapter strays too far, there should be no surprise if the viewers dig into it, or flat-out reject it.

 

[Citiprime]

Voyage Home is accessible, but I would argue that a huge part of why it works is how its themes are set up by the events of Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock.

If you look at II-III-IV, they're a trilogy of stories that basically debate the idea of "the needs of the many..."

• Wrath of Khan is Spock's sacrifice based in utilitarian Vulcan logic that his death is worth saving the "many."
• Search for Spock is Kirk and the crew inverting everything with human nobility, that they are willing to sacrifice everything they have to save Spock.

Amanda : Spock, does the good of the many out weigh the good of the one?

Spock : I would accept that as an axiom.

Amanda : Then you stand here alive because of a mistake made by your flawed, feeling, human friends. They have sacrificed their futures because they believed that the good of the one - you - was more important to them.

Spock : Humans make illogical decisions.

Amanda : They do, indeed.

Voyage Home is a fish out of water story, and it's accessible because of the humor derived in that and the present-day setting, but it is also rooted in these themes, and Spock realizing there's a third way between these viewpoints and finding value in the "human thing to do."

McCoy : Jim. You've got to let me go in there. Don't leave him in the hands of 20th-century medicine.

Spock : Admiral, may I suggest that Dr. McCoy is correct? We must help Chekov.

Kirk : Is that the logical thing to do, Spock?

Spock : No, but it is the human thing to do.

And I would argue the reason Voyage Home works and season 2 of Picard, which uses elements of it, doesn't is because it doesn't have the foundation to give it meaning. It's the same reason Into Darkness using elements of Wrath of Khan doesn't work. It doesn't have the emotional foundation to give those moments meaning.

 

[fireproof78]

No one is saying each series has to be a clone of its predecessor, but if another chapter strays too far, there should be no surprise if the viewers dig into it, or flat-out reject it.

They can do so. I reject TNG from my personal viewing. That doesn't make it "not Star Trek."

 

[Dukhat]

I don’t think the problem is if a particular movie or show is or isn’t “Star Trek.” I think the problem is how that show or movie is presented to the audience.

If Christopher Nolan presented his Christian Bale Batman films as taking place in the same continuity as the Adam West Batman TV show, despite the updated look and the glaring continuity errors such a thing would have, its audience would laugh in his face about how preposterous that would be. And yet CBS/Paramount has done that exact thing, but Trek fans have instead decided to tote their line simply because TPTB have said that this is gospel. It’s like Trekkies have lost the ability to actually think for themselves or believe what their own eyes show them even though it contradicts what the producers tell them.

 

[fireproof78]

It’s like Trekkies have lost the ability to actually think for themselves or believe what their own eyes show them even though it contradicts what the producers tell them.

I have, actually. Years of schooling will do that

Ok, serious answer time. I haven't lost that ability, nor do I take CBS as gospel. However, I do take authorial intent quite seriously because they are the ones who make it. It's their product after all. So, even if I don't agree, yes I will take that as part of it. It's why I don't go in to the whole "reboot/alternate timeline/rewrite thing" that others do. To me that's at odds with authorial intent, and it's not my work to rework to fit my perceptions. So, I work within the parameters given rather than being argumentative over it.

I don't think that indicates a lack of willingness to think for oneself.

 

[Bea Jonas]

Star Trek is almost 60 years old, and I think every generation (no pun intended) gets the Trek suited to them and their times. Trouble seems to arise when fans of a particular era don't feel another era (whether it be older or newer Trek) isn't sufficiently similar to the era of Trek they love.

Perhaps they should consider that particular Trek wasn't written for them and their time but for other fans and their time. There's plenty of Star Trek to go around these days—and since there's no law that says you have to enjoy it all—can't we all simply love the Trek we love and let others love their Trek, too (IDIC)?

 

[Dukhat]

That’s all fine. And while I treat DSC/SNW as a reboot, I have never once told anyone that they should believe the same thing I do.
While the people who tote CBS’s line have felt that they very much need to tell people what they’re supposed to believe. It’s quite annoying, actually. It’s like having a religious family member constantly telling you that you need to go to church when you’re an atheist.