Internal Culture War?

[The Wormhole]

Technically we've always been paying for Star Trek. That is, we've been paying with Time, which is arguably the most precious currency there is.

 

[JoseNoodles]

I think there has always been a segment of both the fandom and the production staff that have always formed a kind of "praetorian guard" that feels the need to dictate to others what it considers to be Star Trek. Unfortunately, as Lord Garth alluded too, some of the current culture war BS has also started to seep into this crowd and that's unfortunate. It makes some people feel the need to be unnecessarily cruel in their criticism of newer shows, and others to expose views that stand against the ideals of the Star Trek they claim to be "protecting" with their nonsense.

 

[Citiprime]

But should he have done that? If the show was so great, did he need to actively court some of the worst examples of the fandom? The shows own positive word of mouth from the general public should have been enough without needing to impower "that" side of the fandom. Frankly, we're better without them.

From the perspective of the studio and Matalas, as long as they can get viewers and they're not compromising their vision or story, what do they care?

As Michael Jordan is alleged to have once said, Republicans buy shoes too.

I do not understand why people feel threatened over a TV show. This is the type of rhetoric that drives my logical brain nuts. You're telling me that people who like a show somehow cannot imagine other people liking something different and that is a threat to them?

Something I noticed in comments at various sites was that I think there are fans of what NuTrek has done with Discovery and Strange New Worlds who were very careful in their praise of Picard season 3 and Matalas, especially when those that have been vocal critics of Discovery and NuTrek were singing Picard's praises vociferously, since they felt some of the praise was a way to tacitly validate the criticisms of NuTrek, given that season 3 was framed as a "correction" in a lot of ways. And since the "wrong" people were liking Picard season 3 and pushing for Legacy, and Matalas was making a concerted effort to court those fans who didn't like the decisions made in the past by Kurtzman and others, that the praise and excitement for Picard becomes part of an argument about the direction that Trek chooses to go in the future.

 

[fireproof78]

Something I noticed in comments at various sites was that I think there are fans of what NuTrek has done with Discovery and Strange New Worlds who were very careful in their praise of Picard season 3 and Matalas, especially when those that have been vocal critics of Discovery and NuTrek were singing Picard's praises vociferously, since they felt some of the praise was a way to tacitly validate the criticisms of NuTrek, given that season 3 was framed as a "correction" in a lot of ways. And since the "wrong" people were liking Picard season 3 and pushing for Legacy, and Matalas was making a concerted effort to court those fans who didn't like the decisions made in the past by Kurtzman and others, that the praise and excitement for Picard becomes part of an argument about the direction that Trek chooses to go in the future.

Does it now?

I like Star Trek. I am the wrong people.

 

[Ovation]

Well surely Alex Kurtzman has his ship in order? Does he not have over arching responsibility for the franchise any more, he is awfully quiet these days? If he still does so, he should be helping to manage these kind of internal issues and conflicts allegedly happening under his watch; Kurtzman should call a board meeting where all the show producers, including JJ Abrams, can get together and sort their problems out without having to resort to a cage fight such as in the case of Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg. I thought that the Star Trek franchise was now under one umbrella after the Paramount/CBS/Viacom merger? Who on earth *is* holding the umbrella?

I will be honest, I have seen evidence (in my eyes) that rather than an internal conflict, perhaps some people have wanted to run Star Trek in to the ground so to speak, almost like they have a loving control of aspects of it but hate what it once was and now want to change Star Trek in to something else which now more resembles generic sci fi, perhaps also using the show to push agendas in overly blatant and controversial ways that is not traditional to Star Trek… it is also possible that some people who currently write for Star Trek are *not* actual fans and do not care about the show, only using it as platform to make a name for themselves and launch their own Hollywood careers? Some writers may be told to watch a few relevant or key Star Trek episodes as research before writing their scripts without realising that there is 60 years of intertwined history, loving familiarity and… erm.. actual canon… for them to also consider in their writings.

Star Trek should also be largely based on allegory, not in your face soap opera, IMHO this is when Trek works best as it makes the show more family viewing appropriate and internationally appealing in more conservative countries such as Russia and Mexico.

I believe that Terry Matalas and Prodigy/SNW gangs have tried to rectify these problems to some extent, though as with all producers I am sure that they anhve their own agendas, too. I understand that this is a *very* strong and emotive statement, but I am saying this as an honest opinion. Perhaps this is why Terry Matalas wants to call his show ‘Legacy’… he may want to honour the Star Trek legacy in his spin-off, where as others may just want to make generic sci-fi and take a sh*t under the Star Trek tent pole in order to sell their otherwise unsellable stories under an established brand name whilst boldly bashing what has gone before?

Perhaps Star Trek needs a hiatus and relaunch of sorts? starting with the undoing of the destruction of the Romulan sun in the JJ verse, which I kind of think started any problems that Star Trek may currently have in the first place, both story wise or production wise.

Star Trek at one time used to be watched all around the world, it was beloved internationally. I believe that some Nu-Trek writers are not writing for an international audience any more, but for their own personal agendas… Star Trek should be written to unify an international audience through an acceptance, a ‘Que Sera, Sera’ of fans across borders on controversial subjects no matter what their centuries old cultures, politics and ideologies truly believe about a given subject or social issue. Star Trek in no longer being written in a way sensitive to an international audience of diverse beliefs. Ok, Star Trek is currently written by Americans for Americans… but the world is *not* just about America anymore, we live in a multinational global co-operative which we all *need* to be sensitive to.

If we visit another country with laws or beliefs different to our own, we respect the land and people that we visit… I personally think that Star Trek should be the same, relying on allegory of modern day social issues which can sometimes prove to be internationally controversial, enabling the show to be enjoyed by an international audience without censorship or blatant banning from broadcast.

Star Trek may now be too damaged a franchise for this vision for an internationally accessible and unifying show for a globalised entertainment industry network, but the potential *was* there… and hopefully *not* forever lost.

Yawn.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Look at the Star Trek Day poster. No Archer or NX-01 (Bakula seemingly left out in favor of Yeoh) and TOS is repped by Uhura instead of Kirk or Spock. In fact Kirk, Archer and Freeman are the only Captains not repped at all. I mean, there is no way you accidentally leave out an entire series and it was clearly a conscious choice to exclude Shatner or Nimoy.

I suspect that's a lot more to do with them wanting to feature current stuff. Yeoh is gonna star in the next movie, Burnham in Disco S5 etc.

Technically we've always been paying for Star Trek. That is, we've been paying with Time, which is arguably the most precious currency there is.

Someone's feeling old today.

 

[somebuddyX]

Terry Matalas seem like a dude that might go on podcasts where people talk shit but isn't a shit talker himself. I only listened to one podcast he was on with some some guy after the final episode of Season 3 came out and he seemed like a straight shooter, criticising himself at different points but not others. You can be friends with people that vocally talk shit and not do it yourself.

 

[Lord Garth]

Something I noticed in comments at various sites was that I think there are fans of what NuTrek has done with Discovery and Strange New Worlds who were very careful in their praise of Picard season 3 and Matalas,

I don't know if you're aware of this, but there's a very real DSC/SNW split. Rivalries within fandom, even there, exist and aren't going away. My preference would be that we don't have that kind of split, but it exists, nonetheless. You know how there are fans of PIC Season 3 who trash PIC Season 1? That's the equivalent with parts of fandom in SNW and DSC respectively.

I'm not careful with my praise of PIC Season 3. I'll tell you straight out: I love the season. It's one of my favorite seasons of Star Trek ever. Straight-up reminds me of the TOS Movies, and I've wanted another "TOS Movie" since I was a kid. I do have to be careful in how I go about things here, though, but not for the reason you think...

Terry Matalas seem like a dude that might go on podcasts where people talk shit but isn't a shit talker himself. I only listened to one podcast he was on with some some guy after the final episode of Season 3 came out and he seemed like a straight shooter, criticising himself at different points but not others. You can be friends with people that vocally talk shit and not do it yourself.

Yup. I think the shit-talkers are not helping the rest of us, including myself, who like PIC Season 3.

As Michael Jordan is alleged to have once said, Republicans buy shoes too.

I think he did say this, but it was back in the 1990s. I'm pretty sure he'd find a way to phrase that differently in the 2020s. Things are a LOT more polarized now. If it were today, that soundbite would be The Kiss Of Death.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I'm in the DSC/SFA camp, despite how much I like PIC, because Star Trek needs to move past TOS vs. TNG, which is what SNW vs. PIC is by another name.

SNW & PIC are TOS and TNG by another name, because the earlier shows still define ST to millions; while TOS is the defining face of the franchise, TNG's end of it shaped the Berman era to the point where its spin-offs (DS9 - ENT) are forever judged by TNG, and criticized if the model was not followed. Current Trek producers have a wealth of faults, but they are aware of what worked with certain kinds of content (begrudgingly), hence the reason they jumped right back to the TOS universe / influence with SNW (despite attempts to reshape the original with retcons, etc.), and created a TNG spinoff with PIC. One of the main reasons is that DIS turned off so many viewers for a number of legitimate reasons (the oft-repeated criticism is that the series is creatively lacking topping the list), so what was the response? Deep dive back into the well, just as JJ did by grafting himself to TOS, instead of projecting ahead in the universe charted by TNG.

I have a zero tolerance for the "Real Star Trek" mentality. It's all Star Trek!

"Zero" tolerance? Not very Star Trek-ian of you.

 

[Lord Garth]

SNW & PIC are TOS and TNG by another name, because the earlier shows still define ST to millions; while TOS is the defining face of the franchise, TNG's end of it shaped the Berman era to the point where its spin-offs (DS9 - ENT) are forever judged by TNG, and criticized if the model was not followed. Current Trek producers have a wealth of faults, but they are aware of what worked with certain kinds of content (begrudgingly), hence the reason they jumped right back to the TOS universe / influence with SNW (despite attempts to reshape the original with retcons, etc.), and created a TNG spinoff with PIC. One of the main reasons is that DIS turned off so many viewers for a number of legitimate reasons (the oft-repeated criticism is that the series is creatively lacking topping the list), so what was the response? Deep dive back into the well, just as JJ did by grafting himself to TOS, instead of projecting ahead in the universe charted by TNG.

This is all true and I dispute none of this, but after 30-plus years, I prefer that Star Trek not keep having the TOS vs. TNG Argument. Though I understand why, from a business perspective, that's not going to happen.

Big Business keeps this argument going. Big Business dictates what's canon. Big Business, IMO, is the problem with almost everything in this society. At all levels.

 

[Paul755]

From what I have observed it’s not just SNW vs PIC, it’s starting to become SNW vs TOS. That one involves a crazy amount of recency bias though.

Terry Matalas seem like a dude that might go on podcasts where people talk shit but isn't a shit talker himself. I only listened to one podcast he was on with some some guy after the final episode of Season 3 came out and he seemed like a straight shooter, criticising himself at different points but not others. You can be friends with people that vocally talk shit and not do it yourself.

Right. He’s going to go where he needs to in order to drum up interest/support/whatever. He needs people to love what he did on Picard in order to drum up support for “Legacy” and force Paramount’s hand. And he’s certainly not going to alienate anyone else involved with Trek since he’ll need them too.

 

[somebuddyX]

I think he's just going to these places to talk to these guys because he likes them. You can talk to people about a subject and have different opinions and it not be divisive. We do it all the time here. And Paramount is not caring about the so-called hardcore fans, it's the normies that are the key to this. It can be great having a hardcore fanbase but they don't base decisions about the franchise on what they want.

 

[Paul755]

There is also undoubtedly a lot of ego stroking as well.

 

[fireproof78]

And possessiveness too.

 

[Timofnine]

I don't know if you've noticed, but there's a bit of a strike going on....

Of course I have noticed, but why can Terry talk and Kurtzman cannot? Does Terry have membership of a Canadian union, not an American WAG one? I am sure that I have seen him on the picket line in LA. I guess that the Writers Guild of America does not cover Canada? Surely they should still work in unison with their fellow American thespians and literary artisans so that better working conditions, pay and terms of contract can be achieved for the people that entertain us, even across borders?

Why, in God's name would people intentionally damage their own careers?

It would not be case of writers intentionally damaging their own careers, it would be about writers attempting to establish a name for themselves through controversy, using Star Trek and its established fanbase, along with the franchises decades old brand recognition, as a platform in which to launch their careers.

And what might that agenda be?

From what I gather, as much as we enjoy Star Trek as fans, there may have been a few controversies ‘behind the scenes’ and also controversies ‘on screen’ such as the destruction of Romulus and Vulcan. Star Trek fans can be quite passionate about their favourite shows, but the Star Trek fanbase has been ‘diluted’ to the point where the fans are fractured in to different ‘sects’ with differing viewpoints which are often heretical to the rest.

What's traditional Star Trek?

Traditional Star Trek is something that *everyone* can watch no matter their background or beliefs, something that can be watched for pure entertainment without the viewer being offended… yet at the same time being *intelligently* written so as not to ‘dumb down’ highly emotive topics and social commentaries.

Here's the cult of Matalas coming into play...

I am not in that cult. Matalas has a *lot* to be accountable for. I still believe that Matalas killed Odo, for example.

God help they shake things up....

Perhaps they can, perhaps they cannot.

Star Trek has always been written for an American audience first and foremost.

The nature of the entertainment industry has changed. Movies and TV shows are *not* about pushing an American centric agenda anymore. American centric productions can *appear* to be diverse due to the nature of the demographic representation of present day America. This demographic, however diverse, still does *not* represent the world.

Literally the only thing that "nuTrek" has really pushed foward, as opposed to the older shows, is the inclusion of LGBTQ characters. If an international audience cannot handle a the inclusion of those peopld and their stories, then fuck them. We don't need them.

Then the writers should have been more subtle, such as in the original case of Kirk and Spock.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Then the writers should have been more subtle, such as in the original case of Kirk and Spock.

Why though? LGBT people exist in our real lives, we see them every single day. If it upsets people to see it in Star Trek, then they're no better than the people who were upset to see a black woman sharing a command bridge with white men and being treated as an equal.

 

[Mudd]

There are certainly a few people involved from the Berman era who feel strongly that the behind-the-scenes folks from that time were treated somewhat shabbily by the Abrams people and perhaps even more so during the startup period of streaming Trek.

I don't know any of the specifics of their complaints, no.

There are also a lot of talented folk from that time who are fair-minded enough not to tear at the new productions, even if they've felt left out to some degree. In most cases they've long since moved on to other projects, but some have come back recently to help with stuff like PIC 3. They don't all have chips on their shoulders.

I've got to admit to being a little disappointed by one or two, but honestly, who cares what "disappoints" a distant observer like myself? Honestly, I don't even, really.

Most people who really have loved Trek for a long time seem to have come to see at least some of the virtues of the modern productions.

Now, as to the dorks who emit those click-bait "commentary" videos, and regarding RMB specifically - the appropriate response is somewhere between a shrug and outright contempt. Fuck 'em.

 

[Timofnine]

Why though? LGBT people exist in our real lives, we see them every single day. If it upsets people to see it in Star Trek, then they're no better than the people who were upset to see a black woman sharing a command bridge with white men and being treated as an equal.

This is absolutely acceptable for a liberal American audience, but what about decades old fans of Star Trek who may be from countries where LBTQ issues may be more controversial or even illegal, meaning that in some cases they may actually be risking their lives watching the show? Love between characters of the same sex does *not* need to be sexualised ‘on screen’ in order to give such intimacy a romantic contextualisation… sexualisation of love is in my opinion one of the problems with society at the moment. We physically find attraction in something and see this attraction and desire as being love… though love more than likely transcends this physical sexual urge even though we use this as a point of reference for our ‘desires’ and relationships.

Star Trek should simplify this though through… allegory.

 

[Lord Garth]

This is absolutely acceptable for a liberal American audience, but what about decades old fans of Star Trek who may be from countries where LBTQ issues may be more controversial or even illegal, meaning that in some cases they may actually be risking their lives watching the show? Love between characters of the same sex does *not* need to be sexualised ‘on screen’ in order to give such intimacy a romantic contextualisation… sexualisation of love is in my opinion one of the problems with society at the moment. We physically find attraction in something and see this attraction and desire as being love… though love more than likely transcends this physical sexual urge even though we use this as a point of reference for our ‘desires’ and relationships.

Star Trek should simplify this though through… allegory.

Nope. Try again. No one's buying it.

 

[fireproof78]

Star Trek should simplify this though through… allegory.

No.

That's ridiculous. Star Trek did it that way to avoid censoring. Times have changed. Star Trek gets held up as an optimistic vision of the future. Show it working. Allegory will only get you so far.