General Trek Questions and Observations

[Grendelsbayne]

Yo do bring up some good points here and I will reply to them in order.

1.OK, I admit that stating that 99% was crap may have been an exaggeration. But the times I've tested streaming, I haven't found much worth to watch there except for the series I actually bought the streaming service for. As a matter of fact, I do have a paid subscription to one of the bigger companies in my country to follow a certain hockey team's games. That service includes some channels for movies and series which are downrigt horrible. When I skip through the menu and a fifth-rate doom-and-gloom movie like "Greenland" shows up for the umpteenth time, then I really wonder what I'm paying for.

2. Fortunately I haven't paid multiple months for any streaming service so far so it has been easy for me to get out of it, the fists time when they cut the series I was watching, which i described in an earlier post and later on when I wanted to take a look at DSC and PIC which were both big disappointments. I could as well have burned the money.

3. I do remember when one of the big channels in my country scrapped DS9 after one season. It took me ten years before I managed to watch the series from start to finish and find out how good it was so I won't come up with any excuses about thinges being better before. But so far I haven't found anything worth wasting money on when it comes to streaming either.

As for series, I don'rt buy series on DVDs if I'm not 100% sure that I want to watch the whole show. I did that once with a series which started good and then the channel was removed from my TV service so I bought it on DVD to find out that this series got worse and worse in the last seasons. Fortunately I hadn't paid that much for the box and I managed to give it to someone who might have appreciated it more.

4. I will switch Internet provider in the middle of June and that might make it easier even to watch streaming services, so we'll see what happens. And when it comes to series and such which I really like, then I'll stick to home media. However, there is a problem with Star Trek DVDs from Paramount which I have brought up elsewhere on this forum, but that's off-topic when it comes to this discussion.

When it comes to Star Trek, the problem as I see it is that it's removed from the major networks and therefore it can be difficult to attract new fans.

That's totally reasonable. But on the last bit there, you're still assuming broadcast networks are the only/primary/best way of attracting new fans. Broadcast is a shadow of its former self, and it doesn't tend to attract younger viewers very often in general. If anything, Netflix is probably the best place to go for that (and this era of Star Trek was on Netflix for a long time outside the US). The switch to Paramount+ is risky, but their goal obviously is to make Paramount+ (or whatever it winds up being called after the inevitable further mergers with other streaming services) a genuine competitor for Netflix and whoever else comes out on top of the streaming wars. And if they fail to achieve that, they still always have the option of selling all the shows they've already made to Netflix or another streamer or even releasing them on broadcast channels (or doing several of those things at once). TOS found the lion's share of its popularity in reruns throughout the seventies, so even if this era is late to reach people's tv screens it can still eventually find new fans.

Plus, even if Trek isn't attracting new fans, that doesn't mean the franchise is doomed as we already talked about all the previous eras in which the same issue already happened before.

 

[Lynx]

That's totally reasonable. But on the last bit there, you're still assuming broadcast networks are the only/primary/best way of attracting new fans. Broadcast is a shadow of its former self, and it doesn't tend to attract younger viewers very often in general. If anything, Netflix is probably the best place to go for that (and this era of Star Trek was on Netflix for a long time outside the US). The switch to Paramount+ is risky, but their goal obviously is to make Paramount+ (or whatever it winds up being called after the inevitable further mergers with other streaming services) a genuine competitor for Netflix and whoever else comes out on top of the streaming wars. And if they fail to achieve that, they still always have the option of selling all the shows they've already made to Netflix or another streamer or even releasing them on broadcast channels (or doing several of those things at once). TOS found the lion's share of its popularity in reruns throughout the seventies, so even if this era is late to reach people's tv screens it can still eventually find new fans.

Plus, even if Trek isn't attracting new fans, that doesn't mean the franchise is doomed as we already talked about all the previous eras in which the same issue already happened before.

Maybe I'm wrong here but I discovered Star Trek when one of the TV channels where I live started to air the movies in the end of the 80's, then TOS and then another of our channels started with TNG in 1989 or 1990 as I remember and had it going for many years, with re-runs when they had run out of episodes. Then a third channel came with DS9 in 1997 (unfortunately only one season ) and a fourth with Voyager in 1998.

That started the interest for those series and even if Star Trek isn't that big and never has been big in Scandinavia, it actually attracted some people. I knew pwople who became Star Trek fans at that time.

Now Star Trek is totally gone here. There is an SF-bookshop in the capital of Sweden and sometimes I used to pass by there during my travels and I always visited that booshop to buy some Star Trek books. They didn't have that much of it but at least they had a shelf with Star Trek books available. I could also use the net to buy books there.

In the recent three years they haven't had anything Star Trek, it's just Fantasy, Manga, other SF-books and some Star Wars, no Star Trek.

If TNG had started this year and only been on streaming services, I wonder if it had become such a worldwide success. Maybe I'm wrong to see it from my limited view, maybe the whole streaming thing works better in the US and maybe countries like the UK, Germany and France.

And there is a risk with not attracting newer fans. I have previously mentioned a German series from the 60's called raumpatrouille (Space Patrol) which was very popular in Europe in the late 60's and early 70's and have had cult status here since then. It still has a core of die-hearted fans and a decent fansite but it's run and "habitated" by older people. I doubt that anyone under 50 knows about this series. There's a risk that Star Trek will end up the same way without more exposure.

OK, Star Trek did survive between 1969 and 1980 despite no series going and no movies either. But that was a relatively short period compared with what's been going on between 2001 and now when Star Trek seems to lack direction and doom-and-gloom has become the standard for SF-series and movies overall.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Maybe I'm wrong here but I discovered Star Trek when one of the TV channels where I live started to air the movies in the end of the 80's, then TOS and then another of our channels started with TNG in 1989 or 1990 as I remember and had it going for many years, with re-runs when they had run out of episodes. Then a third channel came with DS9 in 1997 (unfortunately only one season ) and a fourth with Voyager in 1998.

That started the interest for those series and even if Star Trek isn't that big and never has been big in Scandinavia, it actually attracted some people. I knew pwople who became Star Trek fans at that time.

Now Star Trek is totally gone here. There is an SF-bookshop in the capital of Sweden and sometimes I used to pass by there during my travels and I always visited that booshop to buy some Star Trek books. They didn't have that much of it but at least they had a shelf with Star Trek books available. I could also use the net to buy books there.

In the recent three years they haven't had anything Star Trek, it's just Fantasy, Manga, other SF-books and some Star Wars, no Star Trek.

If TNG had started this year and only been on streaming services, I wonder if it had become such a worldwide success. Maybe I'm wrong to see it from my limited view, maybe the whole streaming thing works better in the US and maybe countries like the UK, Germany and France.

And there is a risk with not attracting newer fans. I have previously mentioned a German series from the 60's called raumpatrouille (Space Patrol) which was very popular in Europe in the late 60's and early 70's and have had cult status here since then. It still has a core of die-hearted fans and a decent fansite but it's run and "habitated" by older people. I doubt that anyone under 50 knows about this series. There's a risk that Star Trek will end up the same way without more exposure.

OK, Star Trek did survive between 1969 and 1980 despite no series going and no movies either. But that was a relatively short period compared with what's been going on between 2001 and now when Star Trek seems to lack direction and doom-and-gloom has become the standard for SF-series and movies overall.

Well, obviously it worked that way for you and your friends because, well, it was the 80s.

But I really think you're heavily overestimating the amount of information you have there to be able to say it's all because of streaming. I totally believe Trek has gotten less popular in your area. Maybe even in most areas, that's hard to say but I'm not aware of major evidence to the contrary. But there are a lot more variables in play than just the fact that Trek is currently on a streaming service. With the biggest, most obvious one I would think being that Trek just faces a million times more competition than it used to. And to be honest, there's a lot I like about modern Trek but very little of it comes anywhere near things like Stranger Things, For All Mankind, The Americans, Jessica Jones, etc, etc. TV has heavily upped its game and Trek, for the most part, is middle of the pack at best. Even if you were right in thinking broadcast is more powerful, putting modern Trek on Broadcast as is seems unlikely to make much of any difference. Keeping it on streaming at least keeps it succesful enough to be worth continuing to make, which at least gives you a better chance of someone eventually coming up with a show that might actually be at the front of the pack for a while.

And while I'm not going to say it's impossible for Trek to ever be forgotten, your comparison of a single show from a single country really isn't at all comparable. Trek has been around longer than most fans have been alive. It's a name even people who don't watch Trek would recognize, even if they know nothing about it. That sort of thing has power, especially in corporate studios. It would take multiple decades worth of abject failures before Hollywood actually completely gave up trying to make it work again. Just look at Tarzan/3 Musketeers/Zorro, etc.

Plus, if you really think nothing notable has happened in Trek since 2001 you are massively underselling the Kelvin films. Whatever you do or don't like about them narratively, 09 was a serious hit at the time. It's basically near guaranteed more people out there in the general audience have actually watched (some of) those movies than watched either DS9, VOY or ENT. Possibly TOS, too, at this point, since a lot of folks from the TOS generation aren't with us anymore.

 

[Lynx]

Well, obviously it worked that way for you and your friends because, well, it was the 80s.

But I really think you're heavily overestimating the amount of information you have there to be able to say it's all because of streaming. I totally believe Trek has gotten less popular in your area. Maybe even in most areas, that's hard to say but I'm not aware of major evidence to the contrary. But there are a lot more variables in play than just the fact that Trek is currently on a streaming service. With the biggest, most obvious one I would think being that Trek just faces a million times more competition than it used to. And to be honest, there's a lot I like about modern Trek but very little of it comes anywhere near things like Stranger Things, For All Mankind, The Americans, Jessica Jones, etc, etc. TV has heavily upped its game and Trek, for the most part, is middle of the pack at best. Even if you were right in thinking broadcast is more powerful, putting modern Trek on Broadcast as is seems unlikely to make much of any difference. Keeping it on streaming at least keeps it succesful enough to be worth continuing to make, which at least gives you a better chance of someone eventually coming up with a show that might actually be at the front of the pack for a while.

And while I'm not going to say it's impossible for Trek to ever be forgotten, your comparison of a single show from a single country really isn't at all comparable. Trek has been around longer than most fans have been alive. It's a name even people who don't watch Trek would recognize, even if they know nothing about it. That sort of thing has power, especially in corporate studios. It would take multiple decades worth of abject failures before Hollywood actually completely gave up trying to make it work again. Just look at Tarzan/3 Musketeers/Zorro, etc.

Plus, if you really think nothing notable has happened in Trek since 2001 you are massively underselling the Kelvin films. Whatever you do or don't like about them narratively, 09 was a serious hit at the time. It's basically near guaranteed more people out there in the general audience have actually watched (some of) those movies than watched either DS9, VOY or ENT. Possibly TOS, too, at this point, since a lot of folks from the TOS generation aren't with us anymore.

I hope that you are right here and maybe I'm under-estimating the popularity and reputation Trek has.

 

[fireproof78]

Plus, if you really think nothing notable has happened in Trek since 2001 you are massively underselling the Kelvin films. Whatever you do or don't like about them narratively, 09 was a serious hit at the time. It's basically near guaranteed more people out there in the general audience have actually watched (some of) those movies than watched either DS9, VOY or ENT. Possibly TOS, too, at this point, since a lot of folks from the TOS generation aren't with us anymore.

Indeed, yes. It might not be consistently talked about, but people know things in the background.

And the other side is that people underestimate their influence. What? Do people not talk to anyone any more? Do we just ignore people and shrug and go "Whelp, I guess they don't like things?" and assume a constant negative state of the world? Because, well, fuck that noise. I wear Trek stuff from time to time and if I see someone with something Trek related (button, badge, T-Shirt), I'm going to say it.

Fans overrely on people just knowing Trek.

 

[Bynar0110]

Would Starfleet Academy have online type courses for active duty officers on assignment in space who have re enrolled for additional training?

 

[Kraig]

Would Starfleet Academy have online type courses for active duty officers on assignment in space who have re enrolled for additional training?

I seem to remember holodeck training simulations used on TNG Enterprise, like the one that Troi had to pass to advance to the rank of commander.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

More like a classroom setting than a holo-module (think Zoom classes instead of a self-guided slideshow/simulator and quiz)? Perhaps. I suppose a largely-populated-enough ship or base would offer its own opportunities for such instruction, too.

 

[at Quark's]

Just absentmindedly listening to a fragment of Deadlock (Voyager).

B'Elanna: It's some kind of communism, coming over all subspace bands!

I know Trek likes to Message every now and then, but this one was a bit too anvilicious, even for me.

(And yes, most written versions have 'comm emissions' there, but I refuse to believe that. I heard it myself!)

(Perhaps there should be a 'weirdest/funniest mishearings' thread. I can't be the only one occasionally mishearing things.)

 

[Veronica Hobbes]

Fans. People don't stumble in to becoming interested in a series. A fan, usually someone passionate, comes along side and encourages it. This passive reaction is what will kill Star Trek.

Exactly so. People may not like the current output and that's fine, but the rumor of Trek's death are among the most exaggerated I see around the Internet (and that's saying something). Just because no new content is being produced (theoretically in Trek's case) doesn't stop interest.

List of things I still like even though things are not being produced:

• Stargate
• Farscape
• Starship Troopers (the book)
• Seaquest
• JAG
• MASH
• National Treasure
• Red vs. Blue

That's off the top of my head.

Love Stargate, also really liked Farscape.

I remember watching Seaquest as a kid, and there was one episode that stuck out for me, I remember it scaring the crap out of me. Where they find an abandoned haunted ocean liner, so I went back and rewatched it a few months ago, and it isn't as scary as it was when I was a kid, but I can see why it did scare me.

Talking of the Kelvin films, I know not everyone is a big fan of them, but I really liked them. I mean partly because I like Chris Pine, but also because I just generally liked them.

 

[Gorantev]

May I ask a random "What If" here? Oh, wait, I don't need to ask for such permission because that would be redundant. So going straight to the question I had in mind.

How badly should some polity behave for United Federation of Planets to seriously consider going out of their way to delete the offending party out of existence (or at very least - forcefully occupy their worlds and install a very strict occupational administration in the interim, before the offending party can be trusted to not break anything important again)?

 

[Nerys Myk]

My answer is they wouldn’t.

 

[kkt]

Or take a TOS example - In "The Cloud Minders" would or should the Federation have intervened? Ardana was a Federation member; the miners were almost slaves. Zenite or no zenite it was cruel to keep them mining all their lives to support the upper class living in the clouds.

 

[Commander Troi]

Technically, since the Enterprise intervened, the Federation intervened. But I understand that isn't your question. I tend to think the Federation would intervene, once aware of the situation.

 

[Kraig]

Or take a TOS example - In "The Cloud Minders" would or should the Federation have intervened? Ardana was a Federation member; the miners were almost slaves. Zenite or no zenite it was cruel to keep them mining all their lives to support the upper class living in the clouds.

If called on is a federation world supposed to provide needed aid to another federation world? If Ardana isn't providing the aid, is it affecting another federation member world? If so, does the Captain have the authority to intervene to put an end to what is causing the disruption in some sort of limited manor in order to get the aid to the federation world that needs it? By watching the episode, my guess is that federation worlds are supposed to provide aid to each other and the captain has the limited authority to make it happen, especially if time to get the aid is critical.

 

[Shawnster]

If called on is a federation world supposed to provide needed aid to another federation world? If Ardana isn't providing the aid, is it affecting another federation member world?

It depends on how the Federation functions. Is the Federation like the United States or is it like the EU or is it like the UN?

If the Federation is like the United States, then no, one member state cannot decline to send aid to another member state. Nor would such happen. Could you imagine Tennessee not sending relief aid to Florida after a hurricane? It's not like the US would federalize Tennessee businesses or order Tennessee to help. On the other hand, the US government could mobilize the Tennessee National Guard or give orders to military bases in Tennessee, so there is that.

On the other hand, if the Federation is like the UN, then each member state is sovereign. The UN does not, at this time, exercise authority over any members. The UN cannot order or demand Denmark to send aid to Vietnam. Most commonly the UN issues non-binding resolutions which, by definition, are not binding.

I am unfamiliar with how the EU works. My understanding is it has more authority over member states than the UN but less than the USA.

How strong is the federal government of the United Federation of Planets? My head cannon is in the 23rd century it's like the UN but the 24th century is more like the US.

 

[matthunter]

Could you imagine Tennessee not sending relief aid to Florida after a hurricane?

No, but I can imagine them telling a blue state to fuck off.

As for the President forcing them? Trump explicitly denied CA Federal emergency funds after the 2020 wildfires just because he disagreed with their policies.

Trump Administration Refuses To Give California Federal Aid For Wildfires

The rejected application comes after Trump has repeatedly blamed the state’s fires on poor “forest management.”

www.forbes.com

 

[Farscape One]

Or take a TOS example - In "The Cloud Minders" would or should the Federation have intervened? Ardana was a Federation member; the miners were almost slaves. Zenite or no zenite it was cruel to keep them mining all their lives to support the upper class living in the clouds.

As DS9's "ACCESSION" made clear, caste based discrimination, which was exactly what was happening on Ardana, is against the Federation charter. As a Federation member, they would definitely be investigated and likely told, "Stop this, or lose membership." Or something to that effect. (I know my example is from an episode made 25 years after TOS, but there is no dialogue that says this wasn't always a part of the Federation charter.)

Also, this does beg the question... who dropped the ball in the petition for Ardana to join in the first place? What was going on there was certainly happening LONG before the Federation even existed. The Federation representatives didn't investigate well enough.

Technically, since the Enterprise intervened, the Federation intervened. But I understand that isn't your question. I tend to think the Federation would intervene, once aware of the situation.

Agreed.

"THE CLOUD MINDERS" is actually a really good TOS episode. It raises a lot of questions. My opinion as a kid is pretty much the same as an adult rewatching... the city dwellers are douches. They didn't deserve that high society lifestyle.

 

[Henoch]

"THE CLOUD MINDERS" is actually a really good TOS episode. It raises a lot of questions. My opinion as a kid is pretty much the same as an adult rewatching... the city dwellers are douches. They didn't deserve that high society lifestyle.

My thought is that the moral lesson is that all their citizens deserved the high society lifestyle, as well.

And Droxine is no douche!

 

[Farscape One]

My thought is that the moral lesson is that all their citizens deserved the high society lifestyle, as well.

And Droxine is no douche!

Agreed that is the lesson. My thing is the city dwellers never acted like they deserved it. It's basically the same as rich/upper class people who look down upon and are disrespectful to the regular workers. I encountered that FAR more often in retail than can be counted. It's one of the reasons why I enjoyed "THE CLOUD MINDERS" more as I got older. The parallels are virtually exact.