Ok. What is the chance of a Picard spinoff?

[Richard S. Ta]

Again, congratulations. Great way to get poor viewership...

It's usually a bad idea to look at a large segment of the population and potential customers and say "Fuck 'em". It's just bad business.

Where is the data that suggests DSC lost a large section of its audience due to left-signalling?

What are you basing any of this paper bag thin argument on, aside from your own bias?

Star Trek is a left leaning show and always has been. There’s no evidence, no evidence at all that a significant right leaning section of the shows’ audience has ever been driven away by left-signalling in the entire 60 years of the show.

Star Trek isn’t driving away the far right and I have to agree with Hotrod:

Say it with me now..... Fuck 'em.

Fuck ‘em.

You can’t drive away viewers who were never there in the first place.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

As a Canadian, I didn't even know I was supposed to know who Stacey Abrams was while watching the show. It was just a character to me.
It wasn't until after that I found out she's a politician, and still can't be bothered to care/learn more than that.

 

[HotRod]

It's usually a bad idea to look at a large segment of the population and potential customers and say "Fuck 'em". It's just bad business.

Well that segment of the population already isn't watching, so fuck 'em.

If gaining views from these people is so important, maybe we should do away with the recent advances in LGBTQ+ representation in an effort to gain viewership from this untapped segment of the population?

Should Trek have a special episode about how abortion is murder? Should Trek have an episode about how stealing an election isn't so bad?

I mean..... where do you want to start? Trek should appeal to everyone, right? Even the far-right!

 

[evilchumlee]

Well that segment of the population already isn't watching, so fuck 'em.

...that's kind of the point of attracting "new viewers"... the people who aren't watching, you want to be watching...

If gaining views from these people is so important, maybe we should do away with the recent advances in LGBTQ+ representation in an effort to gain viewership from this untapped segment of the population?

You might not like the actual answer to that. *I* don't like the actual answer to that.

The answer is... kind of? It could help, to least focus a bit less on it.

Should Trek have a special episode about how abortion is murder? Should Trek have an episode about how stealing an election isn't so bad?

I mean..... where do you want to start? Trek should appeal to everyone, right? Even the far-right!

Whelp I can see you don't actually have an interest in having a good faith discussion, so i'll just the drop the answer of... no. That's not how it works. At all. The point is to be less overtly political, attracting people from any political leaning. Tone down the politics, tell fun sci-fi stories. That's how you get new viewers.

 

[fireproof78]

As more right leaning, yet liking Star Trek, this "fuck 'em" attitude is amusing..

 

[HotRod]

As more right leaning, yet liking Star Trek, this "fuck 'em" attitude is amusing..

I'm talking the far-right. Those assholes. My friend, you are most certainly not one of those assholes. I find you rather fair and level headed. I decent person. Hell, I'm rather fond of your post.

No, I'm talking very specifically about that small but vocal minority that scream about "wokeness" in Star Trek.

Fuck them.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm talking the far-right. Those assholes. My friend, you are most certainly not one of those assholes. I find you rather fair and level headed. I decent person. Hell, I'm rather fond of your post.

No, I'm talking very specifically about that small but vocal minority that scream about "wokeness" in Star Trek.

Fuck them.

I appreciate the compliments but I'm struck by another proverb of being kind to your enemies and heaping coals on their head.

Just food for thought.

ETA:
Had to find the direct quote: 21 If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat;
if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.
22 In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head,
and the Lord will reward you.
~Proverbs 25:21-22

 

[Tuskin38]

The court room for Una's court martial in SNW S2 is the 32nd century Federation HQ's command center.

Which itself is another redress of the Shenzhou/Section 31 bridge.

 

[evilchumlee]

No, I'm talking very specifically about that small but vocal minority that scream about "wokeness" in Star Trek.

First, yes fuck the far right. Agreed.

ALSO, you might be underestimating how many people are turned off by "woke" who AREN'T those far right assholes, or who might just be turned off by things being political in general. There are also a decent amount of people out there who just don't actually care all that much, but would rather not feel like they're being preached to when watching TV.

Now... I don't ACTUALLY think nuTrek is actually all that bad with this. Discovery definitely is the more openly politicized entry, and I honestly don't think it's all that bad, but even someone like me... generally on your side... will kind of scoff at something Adira/Gray, feeling like their sole purpose is to show how diverse and progressive the show is. Don't do stuff like that. Stamets and Culber were great, done well, and I think even MOST rightish people wouldn't really have an issue. They don't feel tacked on. They serve a purpose, they're characters who are also gay. I think most people are cool with that. It's some of the outlier stuff that I think gets the eyerolls. Now i'm not saying don't include non-binary, trans, whatever characters. Just... do it better, and focus less on it. In the end, isn't that actually even better? That this world is so progressive that like, it barely even registers with people?

I think alot of social commentary and what not in Star Trek and sci-fi in general has been wrapped up in allegory. It tends to be less so now. I've mentioned it before... Adira would be much more interesting if we explored what it means to be non-binary through the lens of her having been host a Trill, rather than just going very real world "no, that's just how i've always been". Sure, ok, score one for diversity but it left a story on the table. And then you have Gray just kind of existing for almost literally the sole purpose of "Hey, we have a trans person too!" Yeah, to people invested in that, it's a "hell yeah we did it!" moment. To alot of other people it's, "ugh, ok."

 

[fireproof78]

Honestly, when it comes to diversity, Trek would do well to look at things like Brooklyn 99 on how to handle it. There is both a recognition of how far they have come in history as well as just how normal relationships are.

 

[Commander Troi]

Adira would be much more interesting if we explored what it means to be non-binary through the lens of her having been host a Trill

I'd have definitely been interested in that story.

 

[Brainsucker]

Where is the data that suggests DSC lost a large section of its audience due to left-signalling?

What are you basing any of this paper bag thin argument on, aside from your own bias?

Star Trek is a left leaning show and always has been. There’s no evidence, no evidence at all that a significant right leaning section of the shows’ audience has ever been driven away by left-signalling in the entire 60 years of the show.

Star Trek isn’t driving away the far right and I have to agree with Hotrod:

Fuck ‘em.

You can’t drive away viewers who were never there in the first place.

I'm not American, nor living in Western world, so I don't know what do you mean with left leaning, far right, etc. Can you explain.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

I'm not American, nor living in Western world, so I don't know what do you mean with left leaning, far right, etc. Can you explain.

I’m also not American and don’t live in the Western world.

Over here we use Google.

 

[The Wormhole]

Oh, FFS, the Stacey Abrams cameo was just meant to be a fun little moment. They wanted a special guest to play the President of Earth, Stacey Abrams, and actual politician and Trek fan was available and interested, so they cast her in the role. The uproar over that is just an extension of the current state of American politics where anyone who is not on your side is automatically considered EVIL and I've probably gone too far into forbidden territory for a thread outside of Misc. or TNZ.

I'm not American, nor living in Western world, so I don't know what do you mean with left leaning, far right, etc. Can you explain.

The political spectrum usually consists of ends known as the left wing (which is considered liberal) and the right wing (conservative). Within those boundaries you can have varying degrees of how far right or left someone is. IE "left leaning" means someone with liberal beliefs but not firmly committed to liberal ideology while "far right" is someone who is a hardcore conservative.

 

[Danja]

It's a matter of timing.

Interview with George Cheeks, the president and CEO of CBS and chief content officer for news and sports at Paramount+ :

https://www.vulture.com/article/cbs-george-cheeks-paramount-interview.html

One of the other big things under your purview is the Star Trek franchise. Discovery is about to start its final season; you have Starfleet Academy in the works and the upcoming Section 31 movie, in addition to Strange New Worlds. But a lot of fans, myself included, are trying to understand why there’s been no greenlight for Legacy, the proposed spin off built from characters introduced in Picard. Is Trek still a priority for the company?

Star Trek remains one of the most important franchises for Paramount Global, and Paramount+ specifically. There’s so much great opportunity with the franchise, and it’s really about the cadence and the timeline of it. We don’t want to offer up all these amazing premium drama series at once. We want to time it out appropriately. Luckily, we have this incredible partner in Alex Kurtzman, and we all work together to sort of manage long-range planning across many years, to figure out what’s the right cadence for dropping new Star Trek series. So there’s a lot we’re focused on, but it should not suggest to you [a scaling back]. There is a tremendous amount of focus and prioritizing of the Star Trek franchise.

 

[HotRod]

It's a matter of timing.

Interview with George Cheeks, the president and CEO of CBS and chief content officer for news and sports at Paramount+ :

So nothing until Strange New Worlds is finished. That's how I'm reading it.

 

[Danja]

So nothing until Strange New Worlds is finished. That's how I'm reading it.

It's going to take 2-3 years to get going regardless.

It took three years to bring SNW to air (it takes four months just to build sets).

 

[Brainsucker]

Oh, FFS, the Stacey Abrams cameo was just meant to be a fun little moment. They wanted a special guest to play the President of Earth, Stacey Abrams, and actual politician and Trek fan was available and interested, so they cast her in the role. The uproar over that is just an extension of the current state of American politics where anyone who is not on your side is automatically considered EVIL and I've probably gone too far into forbidden territory for a thread outside of Misc. or TNZ.

The political spectrum usually consists of ends known as the left wing (which is considered liberal) and the right wing (conservative). Within those boundaries you can have varying degrees of how far right or left someone is. IE "left leaning" means someone with liberal beliefs but not firmly committed to liberal ideology while "far right" is someone who is a hardcore conservative.

I don't know who's Stacey Abrams is. But whatever the director / film maker who invite her to Star Trek is really at fault in that direction. That's because it bring Star Trek into something that entertainment industry should avoid, unless they want Star Trek as the representative of one kind of political party / political view.

But you know what, political always have their own supporters. So if Star Trek come as a propaganda tool for some political movement, expect to get loved by some people, but hated by everyone else who hate that political view. So unless Paramount+ allergy to the conservative's money, they should make Star Trek more universal view that can be enjoyed by both sides.

 

[Danja]

I don't know who's Stacey Abrams is. But whatever the director / film maker who invite her to Star Trek is really at fault in that direction. That's because it bring Star Trek into something that entertainment industry should avoid, unless they want Star Trek as the representative of one kind of political party / political view.

But you know what, political always have their own supporters. So if Star Trek come as a propaganda tool for some political movement, expect to get loved by some people, but hated by everyone else who hate that political view. So unless Paramount+ allergy to the conservative's money, they should make Star Trek more universal view that can be enjoyed by both sides.

Trek has always had an opinion ("The High Ground", "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield", "Measure of a Man", "Critical Care").

"The High Ground" is banned in the UK.

 

[Dukhat]

So nothing until Strange New Worlds is finished. That's how I'm reading it.

Maybe. Here's my interpretation:

Interviewer: When is Legacy going to happen?

George Cheeks: WTF is Legacy?