Does the current state of Star Trek say anything about what fans want?
- Thread starter Citiprime
- Start date
As a mod on a fan forum you would say that though - imagine how easy life would be without having to deal with all the bullshit on hereStar Trek would be great if it wasn't for the fans.
And I was moderator at a forum for Potterheads, which died by inches after the books and movies were all out. Felt like being a mall security officer after all the shops had closed up for good... show up once a day, do your rounds, accomplish nothing. Better to have a forum that's bustling with activity, even if it attracts the occasional problem member.
One thing I've found fascinating is that where the Berman era series (aside from DS9) were afraid to try new things, Kurtzman Trek is all about going outside the box. Discovery went to a new era, Picard explored the darker aspects of the future, Prodigy sought out an untapped fanbase, and Lower Decks was the best kind of parody: one written by people who genuinely loved the source material.
One thing I've found fascinating is that where the Berman era series (aside from DS9) were afraid to try new things, Kurtzman Trek is all about going outside the box. Discovery went to a new era, Picard explored the darker aspects of the future, Prodigy sought out an untapped fanbase, and Lower Decks was the best kind of parody: one written by people who genuinely loved the source material.
Citation needed.
/thread.It's impossible to make any sweeping statements about what "the fans" want because we don't speak with one voice. Indeed, we're a famously opinionated bunch who never agree on anything.
As the internet proves every day!
If the Internet had the reach back when TWOK was released we would have the same reactions and negativity as now.
Or "The Voyage Home".
It's impossible to make any sweeping statements about what "the fans" want because we don't speak with one voice. Indeed, we're a famously opinionated bunch who never agree on anything.
As the internet proves every day!
Nerds arguing about make believe.
This is the life I have chosen.
And for this we salute you!
Bolding mine. Back when ENT was in first run and the beginning of the Xindi arc had episodes like North Star and Rajinn which had no connection to the bigger story, we were all frustrated with the wide open episode counts leading to such filler and were afraid they really are not committing to story arcs. Absolutely nothing of value was lost when ENT's 3rd season saw an episode count reduced from 26 to 24 mid-season and further reduction to 22 for S4 led to the tightest writing in the series' run.
Even apart from that, those runs were hell for the actors, who were putting in 18 hr days.
You're just not gonna see that run for any show again and having watched foreign media long before streaming made it accessible, our model of network TV shows that run endlessly for years was a global outlier. Ask the Brits on what the BBC considers to be a season
MacFarlane being the TNG fanboy he is, who's to say that wasn't inspired by Trek too?
As we all recently were reminded of with Velma, LD could've been so, so, so much worse if they'd had people who knew nothing about the franchise or even worse, people who actively hated it.
The love and care shown for Trek is why despite being the concept that got the most amount of side-eying, got the least about of backlash upon release...save for a few grumblings about Mariner specifically but even that (which at it's worst never reached the noisiness that Michael and Raffi hate did) has largely disappeared.
I don't get the reaction to needing a fan running a franchise. Being a fan doesn't mean you'll run it well. Hating a franchise doesn't mean you'll run it poorly.
With something like "Lower Decks", you're basically making fun of the fandom. If you don't love the source material, it can easily get very mean-spirited.
John Logan was a fan. Nicholas Meyer and Harve Bennett were not.
I think that when you watch something where it's a production that's a continuation of someone else's creation, there are times when you can just tell whether the people involved only understand the story and characters beyond a surface level. You can tell sometimes when the writers and producers of a Star Trek episode have a deep understanding of the characters they're writing for and the universe it's set in, and when they just understand it as people in a spaceship that can have "pew-pew" battles with Klingons.
I have watched movies/TV shows which were reboots or re-imaginings and have wondered whether the people involved even bothered to watch the original material it's based on because the tone, the characters, and the underlying themes are so far removed from the original. Sometimes that's because the people don't care about staying faithful to every little thing that came before. Sometimes that's because the people involved are trying to bring in new viewers and feel like that's more important than referencing a line from episode 5 of season 1. And sometimes it's just they don't get what made the original fans love the material.
I agree that being a "fan" of the material isn't necessary (although, I understand people sometimes do things just for the paycheck, but at this level I don't know why you'd want to run a show like this and not be a "fan" of it), you just need someone that understands character and story.
They weren't writing a series that was basically parody fanfiction.
It's neither.
Similar threads
- Locked
