I found it entertaining and fantastical, like some of the best elements of TOS or VOYAGER.
It was a nothing-burger. It had literally zero impact in an era of serialization where viewers expect story elements to be built upon. But, TOS and Voyager?! Different era with different expectations from the audience.
It brought a character back from the dead. I get the serialization expectations but I think the expectations are now completely impossible if it must be built upon.
But, I'm different in my expectations that I don't expect things to build.
History shows that's just not true.
What attitudes have been completely eradicated?
Well I said at least in Starfleet. (Btw You forgot to quote me..I didn't even realize you responded to my post ..
)But yeah I'm sure that prejudice exists somewhere in the galaxy in the 32nd century but not in Starfleet. At least I think for the most part it's always been portrayed that way since TOS except for the little incident with Spock in Balance of Terror ..
.....
At least I think for the most part it's always been portrayed that way since TOS except for the little incident with Spock in Balance of Terror ..
Racists and other folks of that ilk are like cockroaches, when you see one there are thousands you don’t see.
Obviously, but those who are desperate to pretend plot and character consistency problems between TOS and SNW do not exist will hang on to SNW, telling the world that it fits.
The why within your ” We don't really know those numbers, but it’s easy enough to deduce that they weren’t what they needed to be” is something others who defend SFA are unwilling to [ib[honestly[/b] explore, other than regurgitating what I consider diversionary external excuses instead of taking the hard, necessary look within the product and its service or disservice to the franchise.
Said disservice to the Star Trek franchise is the topic willfully tap-shuffle-tapped around by too many who claim to be “loyal” or “real” Star Trek fans (as opposed to the Right Wing social media mouthpieces, so-named “hate-watchers”, et al.). A self-deceiving, cowardly position to be sure, which erects a shield against pointing to (what should be) obvious about the death of a series and (possibly) the franchise it represented.
One would be quite comfortable to believe that from a historical view, more often than not, poor quality had been and continues to be one of the chief factors behind the cancellation of innumerable TV series, That said, if one considers the negative opinions about SFA from self-identified ST fans (not Right Wing YouTubers, et al.), SFA's showrunners appeared to have not possessed one clue about what makes an interesting concept for a ST series which would draw in a large part of the base. It would be wise to start there in seeking answers about the demise of SFA.
So, the product is cancelled. What more do people want?
For paramount to go back to star trek. Not Harry Potter, not alien, not Buffy, not the walking dead etc. Just star trek.
They won't because no one can define it. It's an unobtainable goal
Given Warner Bros has Harry Potter, Disney has Alien and Buffy, and The Walking Dead is owned by AMC, I think Paramount doesn't have to worry about them.
Th list I gave are franchies Kurtzman Trek is /was trying to emulate.
I think you meant to write,
For paramount to go back to the very specific kind of Star Trek I want and nothing else.
When you put it like that, that does sound pretty awesome. I mean, the 'and nothing else' part is a bit limiting, but the point of brands is to establish a reputation and let people know what they can expect. I was sold on the Star Trek brand in the 90s, I liked what it was doing and I became a fan. TNG, DS9, Voyager, TOS repeats, I want more of that please. Something modern that ticks the same boxes.
Because it's not like I can just switch to another brand of intelligent space adventure and watch that instead; Star Wars is a different flavour and they're not making Orville right now.
I want star trek to yes be a specific thing. No contemporary 21st century slang. No wanting to like other shows. Trying to be something that it wasn't caused its downfall.
It fits nicely. Thanks for playing.
Change "21st century" to "20th century" and you just described TOS to a tee.
I was sold on the Star Trek brand in the early 1970s. TOS and TAS. The movies weren't like that. TNG and the other Berman shows weren't like that. And yet, I watched all of that and liked most of it. Then came the 2009 movie and the streaming era shows, and like the Berman era, they were different while, for me at least, staying true to the spirit of Star Trek. For my money, the one time Star Trek really went wrong was Enterprise. Discovery and the shows that followed were a return to my Star Trek in many ways.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
