Good point.
Is star trek a in good enough place
- Thread starter Mav359
- Start date
Weird: I agree pretty much completely with you on old Trek (except I seem to like TNG more than you: TOS, TNG and DS9 are in a three way tie for my favourite series), mostly with you on the Kelvin movies (Beyond >>>2009>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Into Darkness), but I'm so far away from you on new Trek.
Discovery: liked season 3 (plus the casting of Pike, #1 & Spock, and liked a few of the characters), but plot wise 1 and 2 were a mess and really don't work super well as prequels
Picard: just depressing
Lower Decks: fun - as of the last few episodes I'd even say I'm a full on fan
I also liked the Short Treks.
Is Star Trek in a good place right now? Well, on the one hand - Yes. There are numerous shows currently filming, with big budgets and decent actors. Discovery must be a success because they are making more of it and there are spin offs. One thing the new shows do very well is that they have an inclusive and diverse cast, finally representing a future that is for all people.
But for myself, I see how split the fandom has become. To be fair, one could argue that this was always the case, but it's remarkable to me the vitriol against Discovery, Picard and Lower Decks that is out there. It seems to me at least, that a lot of people dislike the new shows. Not just fans either, but the people who worked on the older shows, people like Doug Drexler (whose essay on why canon matters makes for interesting reading), The Okudas and various others that I follow on social media.
Many years ago (2012), I wrote a blog post on why I personally liked Star Trek. If you're interested, head over here:
https://ryesofthegeek.wordpress.com/tag/star-trek-the-next-generation/
I would argue that Star Trek is not in a good place, for me personally and for its survival in the long term. I liked Star Trek for it's optimistic viewpoint, whereas I find that Discovery and Picard are a bit grim-dark, with morally challenged humans, often engaging in acts of brutality (the "yum yum" line of dialog might just be the worst line ever in all of Star Trek). As for Empress Georgiou, I cannot fathom how Starfleet would let her loose or trust her in any way, nor do I like the way that the Characters seem to find love for someone who is essentially a genocidal maniac.
Much of DSC and Picard depict dystopian elements in the future, which is the antithesis of Star Trek (in my opinion). Then there is the tone, which is much more brutal, we have decapitations, eye gouging and our heroes often act in emotional and reactive ways, rather in measured and rational ways. Bizzarrely, this is mainly true of Burnham, who starts off as a detached and rational character as a result of her Vulcan upbringing but who becomes a whispe. The depiction of humans in the future is far more reflective of humanity as it is now, rather than what it could become.
I liked Star Trek for its attempts (albeit not always successful - I'm looking at you Threshold and Genesis!) to be scientifically accurate. But again, I find DSC especially fails in this regard, with nonsense like the magic mushroom drive, and the Red Angel Suit. Hell, don't get me started on impervious bulkheads or cavernous turbolifts. The universe does not feel real and/or plausible.
I liked Star Trek because the answer to problems was rarely a giant space battle, or killing - Burnham literally goes on a killing spree in the first episode of season 3. The 'baddies' in DSC and Picard are terrible - almost cartoon characters, with dreadful over the top dialog and acting. Picard didn't shoot first and ask questions later and The Enterprise was never a warship. TOS and TNG especially showed scientist explorers in space and we visited strange new Worlds.
TOS became a phenomenon in the 70's when people needed a positive view of the future. TNG then became a mainstream success in it's own right, DS9 and Voyager were never as popular and I think that most people outside of fandom have probably forgotten about them. Enterprise was, obviously, a faliure in the sense that hardly anyone watched it.
Why is The Mandalorian such a huge success? I'd argue that its because it harkens back to what made A New Hope such a monumental hit. Star Trek's creators could and should look back to what made Star Trek great and try to incorporate some of those elements. The Mandalorian didn't redesign The Star Wars universe to make it look more contemporary, no, they purposely wanted to embrace the rich history and fit in with the established continuity. For Star Trek to really engage in the cultural landscape like The Mandalorian, it needs a bit of self examination.
Is Discovery a terrible show? I don't think so. But it could be Star Wars, or any other generic Sci-Fi actioneer. To me anyway, what made Star Trek special isn't present.
"Picard" might just be the most half assed show that I've ever watched, it's telling that Nepenthe is the episode that most people seemed to enjoy as it is the one episode that has some humanity in it. The series subverted my expectations in the worst way possible. Dark, with a nonsensical explanation for Data's reincarnation and then his subsequent suicide and with a plot that seemed to have ripped off Mass Effect. Even the production value looked poor, with an aged Brent Spiner cosplaying as Data, with what must be one of the worst wigs of all time, not to mention a cut and paste fleet or the copious use of the DSC shuttlecraft. As for Lower Decks, I guess that I just don't get the humour, I gave up after episode 3.
Anyway, that's got that off my chest. And it's just one disappointed fans subjective opinion.
But for myself, I see how split the fandom has become. To be fair, one could argue that this was always the case, but it's remarkable to me the vitriol against Discovery, Picard and Lower Decks that is out there. It seems to me at least, that a lot of people dislike the new shows. Not just fans either, but the people who worked on the older shows, people like Doug Drexler (whose essay on why canon matters makes for interesting reading), The Okudas and various others that I follow on social media.
Many years ago (2012), I wrote a blog post on why I personally liked Star Trek. If you're interested, head over here:
https://ryesofthegeek.wordpress.com/tag/star-trek-the-next-generation/
I would argue that Star Trek is not in a good place, for me personally and for its survival in the long term. I liked Star Trek for it's optimistic viewpoint, whereas I find that Discovery and Picard are a bit grim-dark, with morally challenged humans, often engaging in acts of brutality (the "yum yum" line of dialog might just be the worst line ever in all of Star Trek). As for Empress Georgiou, I cannot fathom how Starfleet would let her loose or trust her in any way, nor do I like the way that the Characters seem to find love for someone who is essentially a genocidal maniac.
Much of DSC and Picard depict dystopian elements in the future, which is the antithesis of Star Trek (in my opinion). Then there is the tone, which is much more brutal, we have decapitations, eye gouging and our heroes often act in emotional and reactive ways, rather in measured and rational ways. Bizzarrely, this is mainly true of Burnham, who starts off as a detached and rational character as a result of her Vulcan upbringing but who becomes a whispe. The depiction of humans in the future is far more reflective of humanity as it is now, rather than what it could become.
I liked Star Trek for its attempts (albeit not always successful - I'm looking at you Threshold and Genesis!) to be scientifically accurate. But again, I find DSC especially fails in this regard, with nonsense like the magic mushroom drive, and the Red Angel Suit. Hell, don't get me started on impervious bulkheads or cavernous turbolifts. The universe does not feel real and/or plausible.
I liked Star Trek because the answer to problems was rarely a giant space battle, or killing - Burnham literally goes on a killing spree in the first episode of season 3. The 'baddies' in DSC and Picard are terrible - almost cartoon characters, with dreadful over the top dialog and acting. Picard didn't shoot first and ask questions later and The Enterprise was never a warship. TOS and TNG especially showed scientist explorers in space and we visited strange new Worlds.
TOS became a phenomenon in the 70's when people needed a positive view of the future. TNG then became a mainstream success in it's own right, DS9 and Voyager were never as popular and I think that most people outside of fandom have probably forgotten about them. Enterprise was, obviously, a faliure in the sense that hardly anyone watched it.
Why is The Mandalorian such a huge success? I'd argue that its because it harkens back to what made A New Hope such a monumental hit. Star Trek's creators could and should look back to what made Star Trek great and try to incorporate some of those elements. The Mandalorian didn't redesign The Star Wars universe to make it look more contemporary, no, they purposely wanted to embrace the rich history and fit in with the established continuity. For Star Trek to really engage in the cultural landscape like The Mandalorian, it needs a bit of self examination.
Is Discovery a terrible show? I don't think so. But it could be Star Wars, or any other generic Sci-Fi actioneer. To me anyway, what made Star Trek special isn't present.
"Picard" might just be the most half assed show that I've ever watched, it's telling that Nepenthe is the episode that most people seemed to enjoy as it is the one episode that has some humanity in it. The series subverted my expectations in the worst way possible. Dark, with a nonsensical explanation for Data's reincarnation and then his subsequent suicide and with a plot that seemed to have ripped off Mass Effect. Even the production value looked poor, with an aged Brent Spiner cosplaying as Data, with what must be one of the worst wigs of all time, not to mention a cut and paste fleet or the copious use of the DSC shuttlecraft. As for Lower Decks, I guess that I just don't get the humour, I gave up after episode 3.
Anyway, that's got that off my chest. And it's just one disappointed fans subjective opinion.
Last edited:
I like all the new star trek shows, not all equally, but I like them all. You dont have to like them all, or any of them.
But fandom doesn't really matter. It can benefit, a little, it can harm a little. Star Wars has and continues to be successful because it has mainstream appeal beyond fandom. Star Trek is at its most healthy when it gets out of the cave where fandom keeps the embers burning and appeals to a wider audience, which it is trying, successfully, to do.
Television watching habits are different than they were in the show's last successful small screen period. And small screen /big screen divide hardly means anything, anymore anyway. Everyone has their dream star trek show within them, and they're never going to see that exact show, so expectations are always going to be a little scattershot.
But fandom doesn't really matter. It can benefit, a little, it can harm a little. Star Wars has and continues to be successful because it has mainstream appeal beyond fandom. Star Trek is at its most healthy when it gets out of the cave where fandom keeps the embers burning and appeals to a wider audience, which it is trying, successfully, to do.
Television watching habits are different than they were in the show's last successful small screen period. And small screen /big screen divide hardly means anything, anymore anyway. Everyone has their dream star trek show within them, and they're never going to see that exact show, so expectations are always going to be a little scattershot.
If Anson Mount's Captain Pike is any indication, STRANGE NEW WORLDS should fit the bill for those who are looking for a more optimistic vision. Personally, I am thrilled we're getting that show.
Why am I able to find optimism in the new Trek that others don't? It baffles me to hear dystopia flung about when discussing new Trek. Like new Trek is showing something not present in the franchise before.
The Mandalorian is not where Trek should look. It is safe, predictable, and unengaging in terms of characters. It treats the audience as children with little capacity to be dynamic. The good guys are good and the bad guys are bad.
Star Trek has always embraced the idea that apparent villains are not all bad, and that our heroes can be motivated by unsavory motivations, like revenge. Or our heroes can be wrong. In any case it welcomes shades of gray.
The Mandalorian is not where Trek should look. It is safe, predictable, and unengaging in terms of characters. It treats the audience as children with little capacity to be dynamic. The good guys are good and the bad guys are bad.
Star Trek has always embraced the idea that apparent villains are not all bad, and that our heroes can be motivated by unsavory motivations, like revenge. Or our heroes can be wrong. In any case it welcomes shades of gray.
Regarding the optimism in Discovery, and I don't want to get too into "Genes vision" type arguments, but he said that in Star Trek, greed and poverty, material wealth, petty jealousy etc... would all be things of the past. Picard especially, shows a society of 'haves' and 'have nots' - more realistic maybe. Roddenberry really posited a future that was onward and upward. I don't see that future reflected in Star Trek anymore.
I agree with you that the Mandalorian is not where Star Trek should look, it's exactly the right thing for Star Wars though. It takes the Western in another place concept that A New Hope had and really runs with it. I think Star Trek should look to its own past for inspiration, but not by setting it up as a prequel or recasting existing characters.
I also agree that Star Trek has embraced the idea that apparent villains aren't all bad, but I'd argue that DSC and Picard don't do that. Narissa, Osyraa, Georgiou, Control etc... they're just baddies. Narissa and Oh in particular - they may as well have done the "mwahh ha haa" laugh, such was the dialog. Fine for Star Wars- but not Star Trek.
One thing we used to see in the older Treks was a concern and sadness for those killed, now we have characters chuckling about having a bit of a dead man on their shoe and saying "yum yum" at the prospect of killing someone. Now, maybe I missed something, but in the Season 3 finale, they just eject the warp core to blow up the huge enemy ship - for no real reason. I mean, they jump away to safety. Why did those people have to die? Osyraa was dead already.
The Orville, it's a very strange program in my opinion, not a comedy, but not a drama. But it does feel like Star Trek at times. It makes me wish that Seth McFarlane had the keys to the franchise.
I think the "window-dressing" is a big factor that gets people riled up. Classic Trek tried to present a future that was very comfortable and pleasant to look at, where everybody ate right, lived healthy and happy and gently passed away in their sleep at 120. It was very pretty to look at; the ships seemed like fun places to live and work at, the characters were present as very clean and proper and fundamentally rational people. (were presented as, is here the key word)
When something didn't conform with that pleasant image then it usually was from outside the Federation; the Ferengi, those Rocker Aliens from the vengeance Factor, that sleazy space bar where the TNG characters looked for Picard in "Unifiocation" etc. It was almost always presented as the "other"
New Trek, however doesn't use that level of idealization. It often has the main characters being sleazy (or just not prim and proper), even Star Trek officers like Mariner or Raffi. Somebody like Mariner would have been impossible on TNG.
Modern Trek also acknowledges flaws a lot more and allows its characters and world to be a lot more obviously fellable.
New trek is more like "We're trying to be good people despite our flaws", when classic trek tried to pretend that our main characters are good people because they don't have flaws anymore (#evolvedhumanity #GenesVision)
And I think that makes new Trek seem a lot darker to many people than it actually is.
I dunno I always felt like Star Trek, particularly TOS was a bit too indifferent to the copious amounts of redshirt deaths. Even in other Trek shows, deaths were usually forgotten by the time of the happy ending.
The only time I can remember right now where the aftershock of faceless causalities was acknowledged and expressed by the characters was "Q Who" where Picard was distraught about those 18? crewmembers the Borg had killed.
Maybe in TNG, though even that is a stretch with some of the human colonies that were shown, like Yar's. I think that Picard shows a society of diversity, rather than haves and have nots.
I think past Star Trek was pitched as an action/adventure show and that is what is has embraced.
Star Trek has done both, and even Osyraa had more a bit more nuance, if pragmatic, evil, and Georgiou has evolved quite considerably. She is probably the most dynamic character, exposing the potential of humanity.
As for the rest, well them being insane was a plot point so I'll leave that at that.
Really? Concern and sadness for those killed wasn't always the rule. You have Klingons who loved killing the enemy, even when working with the heroes. So, we take one comment from one character as indicative of the whole thing?
Concern for those killed varied from story to story. Especially in TOS when the episodes could sometimes end on a sensible chuckle.
As for Season 3, well there wasn't any indication that they would stop being a threat.
I do not trust McFarlane with Star Trek. He has a box like view of the franchise and would not do any change outside of the TNG parameters. Which isn't the only way to do Star Trek.
Sisko was distraught at losing 5 people in "THE SHIP". We only knew one of them, and the others he talked about with Dax.
That's why I said, "the only time I can remember right now". There's also Kirk consoling that crew member who just lost her husband at the end of Balance of Terror.
Thing is, there were a lot episodes, where they hardly acknowledged the causalities or forgot them quickly.
I was thinking the same example. The biggest thing with Star Trek was there was a large amount of inconsistency in how casualties were treated. Even in the pilot Pike is lamenting the loss of 7 yet willing to kill the Talosians. It depends heavily on the dramatic point of the story. And even if people regard killing characters in setting as a good thing why is that automatically indicative that all characters in there regard killing good? That's like saying Kirk likes killing because he wants to kill the Klingon in "Friday's Child" or his cavalier attitude in The Search for Spock when killing Kruge's crew.
Maybe this is the fan fic writer in me who automatically fills gaps like this with "we did not see this on screen, explore it in your mind", but I've always felt that the characters will properly acknowledge the losses "off screen", like when the episode is over and they have more time to consider what happened. Might just be me tho.
I think some of the changes are a generational thing. Kirk is always sad when a crew member dies in TOS, especially with Season 1 where he talks about the burden of command with Bones. Picard likewise (at least in the TV show) is a pacifist, who refuses even to kill the Crystalline entity or the Borg. And I think that's because the generation that made TOS knew the brutality of War and the futility of it. I find the older shows to be kinder and gentler.
Sure, in certain situations, there isn't time for grief - Picard says as much in Contagion, when Wesley asks him why people aren't more torn up about the loss of a starship crew.
Sure, in certain situations, there isn't time for grief - Picard says as much in Contagion, when Wesley asks him why people aren't more torn up about the loss of a starship crew.
And then there's the whole Gene's vision regarding death and mourning. That people in the future don't mourn. Death is a part of life.
Well, there's...
WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE
BALANCE OF TERROR
WHAT ARE LITTLE GIRLS MADE OF?
THE GALILEO SEVEN
THE DOOMSDAY MACHINE
THE APPLE
THE ULTIMATE COMPUTER
THE PARADISE SYNDROME
AND THE CHILDREN SHALL LEAD
Skin Of Evil
Unnatural Selection
Q Who
Conundrum
THE SHIP
WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE
BALANCE OF TERROR
WHAT ARE LITTLE GIRLS MADE OF?
THE GALILEO SEVEN
THE DOOMSDAY MACHINE
THE APPLE
THE ULTIMATE COMPUTER
THE PARADISE SYNDROME
AND THE CHILDREN SHALL LEAD
Skin Of Evil
Unnatural Selection
Q Who
Conundrum
THE SHIP
Do you mean Gambit?
^There was one in "Gambit" but wasn't there also one where Commander Riker was trying to get some information out of a fat Ferengi in "Unification"?
It never helps. I know that writers & directors are human beings like everyone else but I'm constantly shocked at this modern trend of filmmakers slagging off on their own potential audience.
I approve of your contempt for '70s message movies!
If people don't obsess over fiction, they start to obsess over the real world. Those people tend to make everything worse. Best leave them in the holodeck.
"You're drunk."
While it was an action show, it wasn't mindless action. They were morality plays that examined some heavy issues:
War, peace, when to kill your enemy and when not to ("Arena," "Errand of Mercy," "A Taste of Armageddon," "The Devil in the Dark," "The Savage Curtain")
The role of computers in society and whether it's better to be comfortable & provided for or to work for what you get ("The Return of the Archons," "This Side of Paradise," "The Apple," "The Ultimate Computer")
The burdens of leadership and how different people react under extreme stress ("The Galileo Seven," "The Corbomite Maneuver")
It never helps. I know that writers & directors are human beings like everyone else but I'm constantly shocked at this modern trend of filmmakers slagging off on their own potential audience.
I approve of your contempt for '70s message movies!
If people don't obsess over fiction, they start to obsess over the real world. Those people tend to make everything worse. Best leave them in the holodeck.
What was I saying?
"You're drunk."
While it was an action show, it wasn't mindless action. They were morality plays that examined some heavy issues:
War, peace, when to kill your enemy and when not to ("Arena," "Errand of Mercy," "A Taste of Armageddon," "The Devil in the Dark," "The Savage Curtain")
The role of computers in society and whether it's better to be comfortable & provided for or to work for what you get ("The Return of the Archons," "This Side of Paradise," "The Apple," "The Ultimate Computer")
The burdens of leadership and how different people react under extreme stress ("The Galileo Seven," "The Corbomite Maneuver")
In general I think people should pay a little more attention to what is happening around them. Staggering through life unaware benefits no one.
Similar threads
