NuTrek's big, controversial premises

[Candleicious Ghost]

I'd still love to see something along the lines of a cop show set on Earth which very, very occasional mentions of Starfleet, or brief glimpses of it way in the distance. They still have police so I'd assume they still do police type things. I want that

Also probably this would involve Starfleet but what about a JAG / Law & Order type show set in this period too?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

If you believe Star Trek can be literally anything with a Star Trek name attached, then we really do need a term to distinguish 'something that's trying to be Star Trek' and 'literally anything, except someone wrote Star Trek on the title'.

It's called accepting reality, the way things are.

When the name can be legally applied and it is, there's no trying about it, it's done. The courts will back it up, because we have a functioning society.

 

[DonIago]

If you believe Star Trek can be literally anything with a Star Trek name attached, then we really do need a term to distinguish 'something that's trying to be Star Trek' and 'literally anything, except someone wrote Star Trek on the title'.

Why?

 

[BillJ]

It's called accepting reality, the way things are.

When the name can be legally applied and it is, there's no trying about it, it's done. The courts will back it up, because we have a functioning society.

It doesn’t mean viewers have to accept it, like we saw with Enterprise and Starfleet Academy.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

Why?

I think I'm more arguing for the fact that people should push back against Star Trek not being true to itself. Change is inevitable and often welcome, but it's not in our interests to cheer as a series with some actual identity gradually disperses into 'sci-fi flavoured content'. That's how you get Section 31s and we don't want them. I've checked the numbers on this one, that's an objective truth.

 

[DonIago]

I think I'm more arguing for the fact that people should push back against Star Trek not being true to itself. Change is inevitable and often welcome, but it's not in our interests to cheer as a series with some actual identity gradually disperses into 'sci-fi flavoured content'. That's how you get Section 31s and we don't want them. I've checked the numbers on this one, that's an objective truth.

People can push back by not patronizing the content that's not of interest to them. Calling some entries in the franchise "real" Trek and others, I suppose, "unreal" Trek is arbitrary and in some cases just seems like petty snobbery...or, as others have said, a euphemism for "I don't like it."

I once asked another user on this board why DS9 was "real" Trek and the newer series were not...what was the dividing line? Unsurprisingly, they didn't have an answer that didn't boil down to, "What I want to see the franchise do."

 

[Detached Nacelle]

I think I'm more arguing for the fact that people should push back against Star Trek not being true to itself.

This is not a solid argument as that is entirely down to individual interpretation and has been the increasingly common rallying cry to thinly disguise racist, sexist and homophobic rhetoric.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

This is not a solid argument as that is entirely down to individual interpretation and has been the increasingly common rallying cry to thinly disguise racist, sexist and homophobic rhetoric.

Thinly disguised racist, sexist and homophobic rhetoric has made it bloody difficult for everyone else to have a proper conversation about the flaws of any kind of entertainment these days.

 

[DonIago]

...it scares me to think there must be people out there who feel Trek...especially newer Trek...isn't real because it isn't as "wholesome" as older entries in the franchise.

One step removed from, "This isn't real Star Trek because it's too woke!"

 

[Detached Nacelle]

Thinly disguised racist, sexist and homophobic rhetoric has made it bloody difficult for everyone else to have a proper conversation about the flaws of any kind of entertainment these days.

Indeed it can be hard to filter legitimate criticisms and avenues for discussions and debates from the noise.

But there is absolutely no justification for wanting to delegitimise a piece of content simply because you don't like it. That is not a position for proper conversations either.

 

[BillJ]

...it scares me to think there must be people out there who feel Trek...especially newer Trek...isn't real because it isn't as "wholesome" as older entries in the franchise.

One step removed from, "This isn't real Star Trek because it's too woke!"

I don’t care about wholesome or woke, I care about whether the material is interesting.

 

[DonIago]

I don’t care about wholesome or woke, I care about whether the material is interesting.

Sure, but just because it doesn't interest you doesn't mean it isn't "real Trek".

 

[CorporalCaptain]

It doesn’t mean viewers have to accept it, like we saw with Enterprise and Starfleet Academy.

Viewers don't have to like or watch, that is most certainly true.

 

[BillJ]

But there is absolutely no justification for wanting to delegitimise a piece of content simply because you don't like it. That is not a position for proper conversations either.

Personal experience is all we have to really go on. If product ends up being ignored by wide swaths of the fanbase, that isn’t on fandom.

 

[BillJ]

Sure, but just because it doesn't interest you doesn't mean it isn't "real Trek".

In all honesty, I’ve never been for the “real Trek” or “CBS says its canon” argument. It is fans trying to add critical weight to a failing property. More important to tell entertaining stories than what is or isn’t canon or “real Trek”. Somewhere along the way, fans and CBS lost track of the good storytelling part of the equation.

It’ll be interesting to see where the next iteration of the franchise goes and how much of this stuff is considered “real Trek” by the next showrunners and CBS.

 

[Detached Nacelle]

Personal experience is all we have to really go on. If product ends up being ignored by wide swaths of the fanbase, that isn’t on fandom.

It does not matter if the product is loved by 1 or 1 million, unless it is a reboot starting over it is still as legitimate and true as that which came before it. It does not become less so even if the majority of the fandom doesn't like it, wanting it to go away or wanting it to be declared this or that is just the hallmark of a fandom full of gatekeeping crybabies.

You can personally headcanon something out of existence or tweak something to better fit the whole in cases where some writers didn't really care but that will always be an entirely individual thing.

 

[BillJ]

It does not matter if the product is loved by 1 or 1 million, unless it is a reboot starting over it is still as legitimate and true as that which came before it.

Why wouldn’t a reboot be legitimate? It would be ‘Star Trek’ because the IP holder says so.

You can’t have it both ways. I mean, you can, because your brain isn’t owned by CBS.

 

[Detached Nacelle]

Why wouldn’t a reboot be legitimate? It would be ‘Star Trek’ because the IP holder says so.

I didnt say that I said as legitimate as that which came before it. A reboot is a clean slate and has nothing before it. A fresh new universe has a new set of rules and so shouldn't be compared to previous incarnations.

 

[BillJ]

I didnt say that I said as legitimate as that which came before it. A reboot is a clean slate and has nothing before it. A fresh new universe has a new set of rules and so shouldn't be compared to previous incarnations.

A lot of people are already convinced that CBS Trek is largely a reboot. They do what they want then tell fans it is all the same. Which it isn’t remotely.

Time alone has radically changed what Trek “is”.

 

[Detached Nacelle]

A lot of people are already convinced that CBS Trek is largely a reboot.

They are factually wrong.

They do what they want then tell fans it is all the same.

Which it is.

Which it isn’t remotely.

Yes it is.

Time alone has radically changed what Trek “is”.

No it hasn't.