Is it time to put Star Trek to rest?

[Starflight]

Because at the end of the day, this is a business. The goals of Star Trek producers are the same goals of car salesmen. They need to sell the most amount of product and make the most amount of money, while keeping their customers happy and wanting more of their product.

Might be veering slightly off topic, but I wonder if money is their sole motivation - what fascinates me is that we've got indicators that viewership of SNW S3 and SFA S1 is hovering about 1 - 1.5 million.

Network TV series get way more than that! The police procedural SMG went to after Discovery, Boston Blue, got like 7 million viewers on its first episode. Law & Order still gets about 4 million per episode!

I know Star Trek is "genre" and thus assumed less popular, but TNG was netting like 12 million viewers per episode - different time, I know. Even in the world of streaming, SNW got beaten by stuff like Everybody Loves Raymond and NCIS in the Paramount Plus charts.

Viewership doesn't directly translate into revenue in the streaming era, I suppose, but it's just weird. It seems like mid-budget, long-running procedural/episodic shows - in other words, TOS/TNG's type of model - dominate in viewership and streaming rankings, but the IP owners just outright refuse to even attempt that with Star Trek nowadays.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

The goals of Star Trek producers are the same goals of car salesmen. They need to sell the most amount of product and make the most amount of money, while keeping their customers happy and wanting more of their product. But the customer rarely knows what he or she wants when they walk into that showroom (or they think they know what they want until the dealer tells them otherwise), so it’s the dealer’s job to really sell their product to that customer to make that sale.

A salesman's goal is to sell the customer on what's best for the salesman. If a customer does their research they'll be better equipped to make choices that work better for them. And Star Trek fans have been doing their research for years.

Also you're making the assumption that what fans want would only appeal to a tiny niche. Sure that's true if you're going to really get into the specifics, but generally people want more of what they already like, mixed with a bit of what they see other shows doing right, plus a hint of originality.

 

[fireproof78]

know it seems like I'm being weirdly fixated on this point but I just wonder if the idea that fiction necessarily must have some deeper meaning to impart has resulted in worse TV - i

I personally think that it has. It can't just be an hour of entertainment and doesn't have to mean anything except that you enjoyed it.

 

[bdub76]

I think you mean TOS?

Yes. Typo.

 

[Dukhat]

A salesman's goal is to sell the customer on what's best for the salesman.

Yes, that was my point.

If a customer does their research they'll be better equipped to make choices that work better for them. And Star Trek fans have been doing their research for years.

The customers who do their research are the small percentage of Trek fans that the producers shouldn't cater to because those fans only want what's best for them, not for the viewing audience at large.

Also you're making the assumption that what fans want would only appeal to a tiny niche. Sure that's true if you're going to really get into the specifics, but generally people want more of what they already like, mixed with a bit of what they see other shows doing right, plus a hint of originality.

Okay. So tell me what a Star Trek show has to do to combine all those things and have a steady viewing audience of both fans and casual viewers.

 

[Danja]

Might be veering slightly off topic, but I wonder if money is their sole motivation - what fascinates me is that we've got indicators that viewership of SNW S3 and SFA S1 is hovering about 1 - 1.5 million.

Network TV series get way more than that! The police procedural SMG went to after Discovery, Boston Blue, got like 7 million viewers on its first episode. Law & Order still gets about 4 million per episode!

I know Star Trek is "genre" and thus assumed less popular, but TNG was netting like 12 million viewers per episode - different time, I know. Even in the world of streaming, SNW got beaten by stuff like Everybody Loves Raymond and NCIS in the Paramount Plus charts.

Viewership doesn't directly translate into revenue in the streaming era, I suppose, but it's just weird. It seems like mid-budget, long-running procedural/episodic shows - in other words, TOS/TNG's type of model - dominate in viewership and streaming rankings, but the IP owners just outright refuse to even attempt that with Star Trek nowadays.

You're leaving out the C-word: Consistency.

The ratings for SNW S3 fell off a cliff after episode four (there's a reason P+ tried to cancel the thing after S4).

Networks want shows that will not only hold on to their audiences, they want shows that will BUILD on them week after week (the networks don't like seeing the ratings circle the drain).

 

[Campe]

there's a reason P+ tried to cancel the thing after S4

Change in corporate ownership?

 

[The Wormhole]

The ratings for SNW S3 fell off a cliff after episode four (there's a reason P+ tried to cancel the thing after S4).

Considering the decision was made before S3 even aired, I don't see how you can draw the conclusion that cancelling the show with S5 or trying to cancel it after S4 was in reaction to S3 at all.

 

[Set Harth]

Yes. Typo.

(( people who grew up with Star Trek Online breathe a collective sigh of relief ))

 

[Khamsin]

It may not be social commentary in the A Plot, but the character development might challenge some. Liking Stamets and Culber might go a long way in shaping someone's opinion on LGBTQ people if not issues. On the other hand, "Lift Us Where Suffering Cannot Reach" and "Ghosts of Illyria" might be saying something to someone.

I can't really say anything specific about what's under your spoiler, since I haven't watched SFA. However, I do think that cultural identity, professional identity, and, for some, religious identity play a much larger role in shaping a person's worldview than sexual identity does. At least when you consider how much of someone's perspective can be traced back to a given identity or lifestyle. I tried making that point a few pages back, when I was talking about the lack of deeper-level diversity. For me, that's really about diversity of culture and intellectual values. The episode "Lift Us Where Suffering Cannot Reach" is a good example of that, as you mentioned. Also, sexuality is considered a fairly private topic in many cultures. Not because it's shameful, but because it's something you share only with those closest to you, which makes it special. That distinction between secrecy, privacy, and openness would be an interesting angle to explore in itself, actually.
As for Stemets and Culber in early DSC - absolutely. I believe it's a great depiction of a healthy romantic relationship that feels universal. It's not a "gay relationship" first and a relationship second - it's simply a healthy, loving partnership. And that's precisely the approach that reaches broader audiences, in my opinion. Changing minds is an incredibly delicate task. Venture too far, and you risk preaching only to the choir - or worse, provoking backlash. So I agree, Stamets and Culber are a great example.

And, no. I wasn't intentionally limiting my examples to dark violence. The Burn and it's aftermath isn't specifically violent. They could have easily made The Burn an environmental or climate change metaphor.

I agree with you that the idea of The Burn isn't specifically violent. It is an interesting idea to explore.

Older Trek has huge swaths of wars and weapons of war and near destruction at times. Not sure that newer Trek is doing that much differently.

Newer Trek is doing it much more graphically, in my opinion.

 

[Rahul]

Might be veering slightly off topic, but I wonder if money is their sole motivation - what fascinates me is that we've got indicators that viewership of SNW S3 and SFA S1 is hovering about 1 - 1.5 million.

Network TV series get way more than that! The police procedural SMG went to after Discovery, Boston Blue, got like 7 million viewers on its first episode. Law & Order still gets about 4 million per episode!

I know Star Trek is "genre" and thus assumed less popular, but TNG was netting like 12 million viewers per episode - different time, I know. Even in the world of streaming, SNW got beaten by stuff like Everybody Loves Raymond and NCIS in the Paramount Plus charts.

Viewership doesn't directly translate into revenue in the streaming era, I suppose, but it's just weird. It seems like mid-budget, long-running procedural/episodic shows - in other words, TOS/TNG's type of model - dominate in viewership and streaming rankings, but the IP owners just outright refuse to even attempt that with Star Trek nowadays.

Yes, money is still the sole motivation.
You need some expensive high-profile shows to attract people into getting your service in the first place.
After that it doesn't matter so much if they mostly only rewatch friends or something. As long as they feel they still get their monthly money worth.
So yes, Trek is probably too expensive to be profitable on its own with these viewing numbers. But as long as P+ covers the whole family market with it, it might make financial sense as a bundle with the rest of the catalogue.
Of course going gangbusters would still be preferable...

You seem to have an axe to grind in terms of superheroes.

The phenomena you’re describing there goes back to 1977 and Star Wars. Arguably even further.

Yes. And I love superheroes. But they killed pretty much every other mid to high budget movie genre. And their tropes now also permeate all types of speculative fiction storytelling in tv & streaming.
Star Wars also introduced a lot of mixed tropes. But it also brought "classic" sci-fi with spaceships, rayguns and robots into the limelight.
But superhero shows target the same demographic as "classic" sci-fi like Lost in Space or Foundation - except maybe more, because they also go for romance and frat boys. So they kind of eat up all the resources studios are willing to spend in this area.

The War College cadets in general really add to the show, Kelrec included. But yes, Dzolo in particular is a highlight.

Yes. I did not like the idea of the war college at first (still iffy on that). But Kelric? He looks like a Starship troopers dressed fascist in black leather. And then he's just such a dork. i love it.
And the "rival gang"? They're just needed for such a show, and the actors work really really well.

I still think they should have just been a different division (e.g. security/Maco guys vs command guys vs science guys vs engineering guys).
"War college" is kind of a low hanging fruit for college rivalries. But whatever.

 

[bdub76]

(( people who grew up with Star Trek Online breathe a collective sigh of relief ))

I've played Star Trek Online off and on. It's fun. But it's not what I meant.

 

[The Wormhole]

Yes. I did not like the idea of the war college at first (still iffy on that). But Kelric? He looks like a Starship troopers dressed fascist in black leather. And then he's just such a dork. i love it.
And the "rival gang"? They're just needed for such a show, and the actors work really really well.

I still think they should have just been a different division (e.g. security/Maco guys vs command guys vs science guys vs engineering guys).
"War college" is kind of a low hanging fruit for college rivalries. But whatever.

Ah, do you even realize you quoted me from another thread (in another forum) on a matter which has no relevance to the discussion in this thread?

 

[Danja]

What is Bean Soup Theory?

Bean Soup Theory? No, it's not *totally* about beans. Here's a breakdown of the internet phenomenon you may have experienced on social media.

www.yahoo.com

What is bean soup theory?

Essentially, bean soup theory is the phenomenon that some people can't seem to acknowledge that a piece of media is not necessarily made for them.

The whole phenomenon started with a TikTok from 2023, where a creator was making a bean soup recipe.

One comment in that video was like, "What if I don't like beans?" on a video about bean soup.

It started a very interesting conversation related to egocentrism, media literacy, and also online etiquette.

Bean Soup Theory = Exhibit A = This thread

 

[Rahul]

Ah, do you even realize you quoted me from another thread (in another forum) on a matter which has no relevance to the discussion in this thread?

Haha multi-quote goes brrrr...

 

[Lynx]

TOS: Meh
TNG: Pedantic
DS9: Haven't seen it
VOY (S1-S3): Awful




I don't like procedurals. You see one CSI, you've seen them all.




I don't like characters that need "mirror" versions of themselves in order to have a dark side.

I couldn't relate to the characters on TNG. They were TOO perfect. They weren't human.

Well, I'm not gonna waste any time on this.

If you love dark, dystopian stuff, then it's your problem.

I don't! I hate it because I have more than enough of it in my daily life.

Star Trek is supposed to be about a better future for mankind Now it's dragged down in the dirt of a dystopian decade.

This doesn't help you define "good." Clearly the quality of good is subjective. I've watched all of the entire NCIS and CSI franchises and I hold Star Trek to a much higher bar than these shows reach. These procedurals definitely appeal to a very broad fan base and, therefore, aren't all that deep.

What is it about these shows that appeals to you? Quirky characters? The buddy relationships between partners?



Ah, here we go. Your definition of good does not appear to mean quality of storytelling. You aren't focusing on high concepts or deep thought provoking narratives that challenge your world view.

You appear to want a happy, positive, feel good emotional experience. No Burn. No apocalyptic aftermath. No doom and gloom. No dark stories that might fuel nightmares or, at the very least, leave you feeling sad or emotionally drained after watching. You want comfort food. Familiarity. If Trek was food you appear to be wanting chicken noodle soup or a holiday meal or pizza with friends (or insert whatever comfort food best fits your personal heritage).

And that's OK. After the daily stress we all deal with, it's understandable one wants to unplug and veg out with familiar friends in a comfortable environment and end the day with a smile.

SFA and all current Trek isn't that. These aren't the comfortable, familiar characters and settings that we've grown up with or lived with for decades. Modern Trek has quite a bit of a dark undercurrent what with a Klingon War, homicidal AI, Federation collapse, apocalyptic aftermath, galactic ending threats, people blown out of airlocks, murderous heroes given a pass, mutiny, child separation, and so on. Even pre-burn SNW isn't as comfortable as it could be because it's reimagiming of classic Trek characters and situations can feel like someone has rearranged all your stuff or made their version of your favorite foods by using ingredients you don't like, and somehow made all your comfy clothes feel just a little bit itchy.

I get it. I understand. That does not make modern Trek bad or not good. It simply makes modern Trek not for you. No matter how much you want it to be.

I get that, too. You want more of the Trek you like, but that's not being made anymore. It's like your favorite band broke up and isn't making new music, or your favorite restaurant closed, or your grandma is no longer cooking your favorite holiday meals and her recipes are lost.

I get it. I want the same. I want this modern Trek to be my Trek. I want this Trek to grow on me but it's hard. Everything is too fast and there isn't enough opportunity to breathe. Seasons are too short so there really isn't enough to get into before it's over. Everything has to be bigger, faster, more and have an overarching theme that makes each episode a piece of the whole instead of a whole thing itself.

I reach.

I must admit that you do hit some nails on the head in your comments above.

But you are incorrect when it comes to certain things too.

I don't want a cozy little family show. I want excitement, adventures and such.
But actually such adventures when the good guys actually win in the end.

That's why I like series like DS9 and even NCIS. They could sometimes be dark and even depressive. But there was also a lot of humor and good things happening as well whoich in the long run outweighed the hardships and serious things.

Not to mention that both series had good written great stories plus great and likable characters which is something I really appreciate.

I don't find anything of that in current Star Trek. Yesterday, while searching for some good music on Youtube (such things are hard to find nowadays in a time of Taylor Swift and rap-crap), I stumbled over some Starfleet Academy videos.

After watching them, I realized that DSC wasn't the absolute bottom when it comes to Star Trek. DSC was awful but Starfleet Academy seem to be ten time worse.

My reaction was: "This isn't Star Trek, it has no reseblance at all to quality series like TOS, TNG, DS9 and early VOY! This is childish CRAP! And I won't watch it, even if they paid me a large sum for it!"

As I wrote in a previous comment: Star Trek is supposed to be about a better future for mankind Now it's dragged down in the dirt of a dystopian decade which so far can't come up with anything constructive and memorable.

You are absolutely right about "modern" Trek not being anything for me. It isn't because it isn't Star trek anymore, just another dystopian mess from the boring dystopian 2020s.

I mean, look around. The music sucks, the movies and TV series sucks, the books sucks and there is not much joy left in our daily society either. And yes, my grandmother is dead since many years, my favorite coffee place since ten years or so closed down last week and a friend of mine died in an accident a couple of days ago. (I'm not lying or exaggerating here, these are recent events).

The sad thing is that there is nothing to replace it with. When "my favorite band" (in this case Iron Maiden) quits, there is nothing there to replace it with and Star Trek which has been a big part of my life for many years can't be replaced either.

Unfortunately, Star Trek will suffer from the current "development". It was actually made to be about a better future for mankind but it is becoming as dull and dystopian like the society which seem to have existed before the "Star Trek era" histiorically.

The result will be that long-time fans will turn their backs on it since it's no longer what it used to be and the fans of blood-splattering, dystopian "dark" episodes will also abandon Star Trek to move on to series and movies which are even more bood-splattering, dystopian and dark than what Star trek is now.

And that's a shame. Such a great concept as Star Trek deserves better than that.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Wait, Starfleet Academy is dystopian now? That bright goofy show about the space cadet kids?

 

[Danja]

If you love dark, dystopian stuff, then it's your problem.

I never said I loved it.

Star Trek is supposed to be about a better future for mankind Now it's dragged down in the dirt of a dystopian decade.

There cannot be light without darkness.

great and likable characters which is something I really appreciate.

That's my issue with TNG.

The characters tried SO hard to be "likable" that they weren't human.

They were TOO perfect. I couldn't relate to them.

 

[Campe]

Kurtzman era Trek is a lot of things. Dystopian it’s most definitely not.

 

[JamesRye]

Kurtzman era Trek is a lot of things. Dystopian it’s most definitely not.

dystopian
/dɪsˈtəʊpiən/

adjective

1. relating to or denoting an imagined state or society where there is great suffering or injustice.

DSC Season 1 featured graphic torture, cannibalism and a brutal war with 100 million deaths. Characters in these newer shows are driven more by PTSD and personal loss than in the older shows, where they are driven by curiosity. Both Picard and DSC reverse the ideal of a post-scarcity, peaceful Federation, with a more cynical and broken outlook.

So, I think you can argue that some of Kurtzman Trek is dystopian. I could probably make the case for some of the older Star Trek's as well though. I would say that this darker, cynical tone characterized by failing institutions, intense character trauma, and brutal moral compromises started with DS9.