A coochi mora, we are far from the bones of our ancestors, but we want you to give your guidance to Michael chabon and Bryan Fuller.
Is star trek as we knew it in the 90's dead? lets ask the spirit guides.
- Thread starter WildManWizard
- Start date
Star Trek is dead. Long live the Star Trek.
Or, it's just art and adapts with the times, as TMP did, TNG did, on and on.
Or, it's just art and adapts with the times, as TMP did, TNG did, on and on.
The 90’s. You will never find a period more overrated.
Also, Coyote called, and you still owe him $20.00.
Also, Coyote called, and you still owe him $20.00.
During the '90s, I was online and there were people who wondered if '60s Trek was dead.
Now it's the 2020s, I'm online and there are people who wonder if '90s Trek is dead.
I guess I know what to look forward to 30 years from now...
Now it's the 2020s, I'm online and there are people who wonder if '90s Trek is dead.
I guess I know what to look forward to 30 years from now...
I can vouch for that.
Last edited:
I don't know. The 1470s weren't as great as everyone claims they were.
I loved DS9 like crazy, but I have to admit, for all the greatness we witnessed in the 90s, there was a heck of a lot of meh as well. By its latter seasons TNG had arguably lost a fair amount of its spark. As patchy as the first couple of seasons were, they had a spirit of exploration, adventure and danger which in later seasons was replaced by a tendency to do middle of the road soap opera combined with a technobabble ‘jeopardy’ B-plot. It got too comfortable, too safe. And then Voyager was quickly moulded into ‘TNG lite’ (due in large part, I gather, to executive meddling). I gave Voyager the benefit of the doubt for five seasons before I eventually jumped ship and only caught up with the remaining eps a decade later. (My conclusion: I didn’t miss that much).
90s Trek is dead. It barely survived the 90s itself if I’m honest. If something is to survive, it has to constantly reinvent itself and stay fresh for contemporary audiences while hopefully retaining the essence of what made it great. 60s Trek necessarily died to create movie Trek in the 70s/80s. Both were then reincarnated into TNG and then evolved into 90s Trek. 90s Trek heaved and spluttered into Enterprise/early 00’s Trek before ending up six feet under for several years. JJ Abrams Trek reinvented the narrative for a whole new generation and, while fans were understandably divided, this opened the door for a whole new resurgence of new Trek with Discovery, Picard, etc.
I understand that some have the fondest memories of 90’s Trek, with that added element of nostalgia. But anyone who thinks Trek shouldn’t have moved on from that is deluded and simply doesn’t understand that Trek has only survived and thrived all these years by constantly reinventing itself. Outside of a core fandom, the general audience would NOT be tuning in each week to a 90’s styled show any more than they’d be tuning into the show if it was still made to a 1960’s style and sensibility.
Trek is always dying and reinventing itself. Let it!
That’s the source of its longevity and power.
90s Trek is dead. It barely survived the 90s itself if I’m honest. If something is to survive, it has to constantly reinvent itself and stay fresh for contemporary audiences while hopefully retaining the essence of what made it great. 60s Trek necessarily died to create movie Trek in the 70s/80s. Both were then reincarnated into TNG and then evolved into 90s Trek. 90s Trek heaved and spluttered into Enterprise/early 00’s Trek before ending up six feet under for several years. JJ Abrams Trek reinvented the narrative for a whole new generation and, while fans were understandably divided, this opened the door for a whole new resurgence of new Trek with Discovery, Picard, etc.
I understand that some have the fondest memories of 90’s Trek, with that added element of nostalgia. But anyone who thinks Trek shouldn’t have moved on from that is deluded and simply doesn’t understand that Trek has only survived and thrived all these years by constantly reinventing itself. Outside of a core fandom, the general audience would NOT be tuning in each week to a 90’s styled show any more than they’d be tuning into the show if it was still made to a 1960’s style and sensibility.
Trek is always dying and reinventing itself. Let it!
That’s the source of its longevity and power.
Chakotay's spirit guides are an interesting thing to invoke here, given that Berman Trek's treatment of Native American spirituality is one of it's worst and most offensive distinguishing features. There are few better examples of why the time for this particular form of Trek has passed. (But there are a few. See also: Ferengi feminism, any non-"Rejoined" treatment of queer issues, incidences of attempted rape or other forms of sexual coercion used as comic relief, etc)
Though, troubling flaws and all, 80's/90's Trek is my favorite Trek, and it probably always will be. How could it be otherwise? It's such an intense hit of childhood nostalgia, it takes me back in a way no other show can. The only way I could come to prefer a new form of Trek is to experience it as a child, and unless I trip into a time anomaly, that's not happening.
However, there are some things I would LOVE streaming Trek to pick up from this era. Specifically, more episodic storytelling, and an understanding that not every story can have "all life in the universe will be extinguished!" as it's stakes.
Last edited:
As long as the themes are the same; TOS didn't have crazy bonkers admirals every other week in the way TNG had opted to resort to as cheap plot gimmicks... 21st century Trek so far pretty much took that and a jar of freshly cooked meth and ran with it.
Maybe it's for the best Q didn't return; given what he was trolling Picard with in E@F being nothing by comparison...
Maybe it's for the best Q didn't return; given what he was trolling Picard with in E@F being nothing by comparison...
Bryan Fuller is no longer involved with Discovery, but if the spirit guides want to help him get Hannibal back on the air, I'm all for it.
Though at least Gene, in whatever state of mind, helped craft TNG. Sequels beyond it were not; even DS9 was in a rough outline and it's not unsafe to say Gene would despise it as well based on where it went.
But it's true; things change: Shakespeare plays eventually got tweaked by others. Not because four centuries-oldeth Englisheth would be too pretentious to have to follow-- So how come the current show, a sequel no less*, ditches the reality language will adapt and evolve over that span of time too? But in 1967 and 1987, the makers thought evolution would be more formal. Before 2019, someone else thought evolution would be more akin to movies like 'Idiocracy". Whoops.
And articles have been out for decades; sci-fi has never been mainstream/general audiences. Based on known numbers, at least Canadian general audiences don't care for PIC either...
* except for when the makers say it isn't yet are grasping directly onto characters as if it were a sequel... so I wouldn't take it as being one. But then why can't they make their own show without using the franchise as a big crutch? (Because the ratings would drop faster than an elephant's dookie?)
This guy is the reason for Akoochemoya and spirit guides and all that.
That's true. However, it's sad that the best Trek can get from our times is bad characterizations and incoherent story telling.
Also, per a recent quote taken from this video clip:
As the aphorism goes, "If a show is a product of its time"...
As had other nations, e.g. the Gulf War and its bad dictator... Trek has shown lots of bad dictators.
Trek only plays with politics. Not always as parallel to or with current day issues, only once in a while making a pan-over-head statement (e.g. "Private Little War" and to a slightly lesser extent since no continent was mentioned, "Too Short a Season"). After all, "The Enterprise Incident" didn't have viewers screaming "That's about the Pueblo, how come it's all about fake aliens and not a real life yet one-sided documentary with go-go boots! And swearing! And blackjack and hookers!" (with apologies to Bender from Futurama, the AI that wants to kill all humans...)
Hee-hee, that tickles!
As the aphorism goes, "If a show is a product of its time"...
As had other nations, e.g. the Gulf War and its bad dictator... Trek has shown lots of bad dictators.
Trek only plays with politics. Not always as parallel to or with current day issues, only once in a while making a pan-over-head statement (e.g. "Private Little War" and to a slightly lesser extent since no continent was mentioned, "Too Short a Season"). After all, "The Enterprise Incident" didn't have viewers screaming "That's about the Pueblo, how come it's all about fake aliens and not a real life yet one-sided documentary with go-go boots! And swearing! And blackjack and hookers!" (with apologies to Bender from Futurama, the AI that wants to kill all humans...)
What's 90s Trek? TNG, DS9 and VOY had elements that distinguished them from one another. 90s Trek is not a unified phenomenon.
Since I have been fully onboard with the characters I will just have to disagree.
Honestly, I connect better with Picard in Picard than I do with Picard in TNG or even Sisko. And I'm all in for Spock in Abrams Trek.
Mileage will vary.
Yes, there is a wide range of opinions on the topic and I wont tell anyone they can't like something I don't like. I know I like some things that are objectively bad.
I just think that in twenty years or so most recent Star Trek will be remembered as the "Star Wars Holiday Special" or Star Trek.
Honestly, for a mid to late 90's show, DS9 is still very watchable. I watch it even now, especially as reruns on TV. Whereas with TNG, it has the signs of not aging as well. It's all about the content. DS9 had a serialized style, The dialog, personalities and plots were more down to earth and relatable.
With TNG, while I still watch it, I sense this age gap, where the characters never had conflict with each other, always did the right thing, solved the plot at the end of the episode, and always seemed to forget what happened previously because the next episode had arrived.
I'm really glad DS9 took that path to be different. You can see it in the dialog and personalities that grow. That's why it's so watchable now (IMO). It's the show that everyone ignored that Went on to become a cult classic later.
By the way, people used to criticize DS9 for the same thing as Picard. Now it's the go-to show for showing how far from Trek Picard is. How ironic.
With TNG, while I still watch it, I sense this age gap, where the characters never had conflict with each other, always did the right thing, solved the plot at the end of the episode, and always seemed to forget what happened previously because the next episode had arrived.
I'm really glad DS9 took that path to be different. You can see it in the dialog and personalities that grow. That's why it's so watchable now (IMO). It's the show that everyone ignored that Went on to become a cult classic later.
By the way, people used to criticize DS9 for the same thing as Picard. Now it's the go-to show for showing how far from Trek Picard is. How ironic.
Or Pushing Daisies. Or Wonderfalls. Or The Munsters. Or his Dead Like Me. Or His American God's. Or, hell, his Discovery...
It's A-koo-chee-moy-a. Try that and tell me if the spirit guides answer.
Similar threads
