Poll Should the fans be running the show?

[Takeru]

Its not an option on the pole but I would be in favor of Fans choosing a showrunner and then let them control the rains as they see fit for 5 years. After we can vote them back in or out. Fans controlling every little decision would be chaos. Having said that, the fans are in the best position to get a vibe on who should be running things. My vote would be Ronald D Moore if he's available.

Obviously this will never happen but it would be my preference.

This is probably the worst idea I've ever heard. How would this even work, you can't just vote for a showrunner, they'd have to be available and willing to take the job, they would have to run a campaign up to the election and refuse any other work they might be offered to not interfere with their potential Star Trek obligations just for the chance to be voted in? Who would do that and why would Paramount let fans make a decision like that?

I also completely disagree that fans are in the best position to get a vibe who should be running tings, fans as a collective are a dumb blob and don't know anything, as a group we love and hate every iteration of Star Trek and every showrunner is both the best and the worst, we want serialized standalone episodes and stories that explore completely new ideas and corners of the Star Trek universe while also being familiar bringing back everything and everyone from before.

 

[Victoria]

We need to get down to basics with this question.

What qualifications do you need to be a "fan"?

(Can't help feeling there'd be no agreement about that, never mind anything else!)

 

[JonnyQuest037]

fans as a collective are a dumb blob and don't know anything

I think this site has a new slogan!

 

[Jedman67]

Matalas on the other hand, basically filmed his TNG fanfic and called it Season 3. And the pacing was horrible, just look at how long the mystery box was stretched to and milked out before finally revealing what it was. Maybe Matalas himself has some talent, though flawed I will admit that season 2 of Picard had some merit, but while watching season 3 there are times I find it hard to believe a professional TV producer was involved with that season rather than a rabid fan wanting to outdo his own excessive fannish desires at every turn.

ST:Picard was a vehicle for nostalgia/fanwank from the outset. If not for nostalgia, what purpose would there be to bring Patrick Stewart back to lead his own show for 3 seasons?
I"ll be honest, the 2nd villain of S3 was surprising at first but it worked at tying off loose ends from the Berman Era. And the big reveal at the end of Episode 9 was absolutely a nostalgia fest, but the studio agreed to spend $1.3 million and have the set crew spend 6 months faithfully recreating it, so it wasn't "just" Terry.
As a reunion show, it worked and it had some plausible plot to bring the gang back together. At least they didn't try to bring Selar back.

Which why I'm not entirely sold on a Star Trek: Legacy, even though I enjoyed Picard Season 3. The temptation to rely solely on nostalgia is too strong. Even Lower Decks and Prodigy are steeped in Berman-era lore.

Lower Decks has a ton of easter eggs referencing Berman Trek but for the most part it stands on its own.

 

[UssGlenn]

I also completely disagree that fans are in the best position to get a vibe who should be running tings, fans as a collective are a dumb blob and don't know anything, as a group we love and hate every iteration of Star Trek and every showrunner is both the best and the worst, we want serialized standalone episodes and stories that explore completely new ideas and corners of the Star Trek universe while also being familiar bringing back everything and everyone from before.

The best evidence for this is the when Brian Fuller was announced as the showrunner for Discovery. I haven't seen fans that united in agreement since I don't know when. Everyone thought it was an inspired choice. And we all see how that turned out. The most disliked parts of Discovery appear to be holdovers from his decisions.

 

[trekfan_1]

This is probably the worst idea I've ever heard. How would this even work, you can't just vote for a showrunner, they'd have to be available and willing to take the job, they would have to run a campaign up to the election and refuse any other work they might be offered to not interfere with their potential Star Trek obligations just for the chance to be voted in? Who would do that and why would Paramount let fans make a decision like that?

I also completely disagree that fans are in the best position to get a vibe who should be running tings, fans as a collective are a dumb blob and don't know anything, as a group we love and hate every iteration of Star Trek and every showrunner is both the best and the worst, we want serialized standalone episodes and stories that explore completely new ideas and corners of the Star Trek universe while also being familiar bringing back everything and everyone from before.

My chiming in to this thread was a bit of a thought bubble personal idea like having 2 trekkies talking in a bar.. I don't expect it to be reality. May not be a good idea but the worst idea you ever heard? Are you talking in this forum or every day life? Is having fans control every little aspect rigidly/holding referendums on every topic better than my ideaf? I hate to think what you think of ideas that are downright toxic. Probably should of added some qualifiers to my idea as it wasn't intended to be something Im necessarily pushing hard for. A democratic process to oversee Star Trek seemed reasonable to me at least in premise. Granted probably not in reality.

 

[Takeru]

My chiming in to this thread was a bit of a thought bubble personal idea like having 2 trekkies talking in a bar.. I don't expect it to be reality. May not be a good idea but the worst idea you ever heard? Are you talking in this forum or every day life?

The worst idea about how to run the franchise, this is completely unworkable.

 

[trekfan_1]

The worst idea about how to run the franchise, this is completely unworkable.

Probably right. I will conceed my idea is not a good one in practice. But I disagree in that I think having fans controlling every little detail episode to episode, line by line ( like fan controlled football) is a more chaotic and and an even worst idea. You apply that to the current political system ( people voting on everything , even on which pothole to fill) and it would be worse than the current democratic process.

 

[trekfan_1]

Maybe my interpretation of this thread is wrong?. I saw it as half tounge in cheek. The ideas floated around will likely not be practical. But based on some of the responses ( including mine) some are treating this concept as more than just toung in cheek.

 

[fireproof78]

Maybe my interpretation of this thread is wrong?. I saw it as half tounge in cheek. The ideas floated around will likely not be practical. But based on some of the responses ( including mine) some are treating this concept as more than just toung in cheek.

I thought it was serious question as to how it could (potentially) be run. I mean, so often with the franchise (from merchandise to shows) we fans sit back and go "If I was in charge."

If it is meant more tongue in cheek then of course I have ridiculous ideas. But, I didn't get the impression and more of a thought experiment of how fans running the show could look, and why it wouldn't necessarily work in the best fashion as fans often like to think.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Do we have a consensus on "Star Trek?"

I don't think there will ever be a consensus. Because Trek spans many decades, there will always be some that prefer 'some' Trek over the other. It will always be the decades that viewers grew up in that will be their faves, but each of them have their strong points. Case in point, I've grown up in the 80's and 90's, so TNG is my favourite, but I've also grown up at a time when TOS was also being shown frequently in reruns. While I highly respect TOS for what it is, I find it hard to watch at times. I actually prefer the movie version of the characters, but again because I grew up watching the movies.

In a way, The Orville is a perfect encapsulation of why fans are so divided on Trek.

 

[The Wormhole]

ST:Picard was a vehicle for nostalgia/fanwank from the outset. If not for nostalgia, what purpose would there be to bring Patrick Stewart back to lead his own show for 3 seasons?

The first season at least tried to do something new, with Picard now disgruntled and retired and it was our first in-depth look onscreen on what life in the Trek universe is like outside of Starfleet. Season 2 tried to do a sort of melding of sorts with everyone a Starfleet officer again, but in circumstances where they were completely cutoff from Starfleet and the Federation. Season 3 basically abandoned all the worldbuilding and new characters established in the first two seasons and just went wild with fanwank.

 

[Jedman67]

Honestly I found all 3 seasons difficult to watch and didn't even finish 1&2.
We're it not for the heavy nostalgia I prob would have done the same with S3. It wasn't a great show but it was decent, it was Star Trek and it was watchable.

 

[JoseNoodles]

Lower Decks has a ton of easter eggs referencing Berman Trek but for the most part it stands on its own.

The fact that a lot of it is done in a lovingly tongue-and-cheek way is what makes it endearing. I recall a comment from Matalas about doing sequels to episodes from the 90s and I'm like, "C'mon man, you can be more creative than that".

 

[Greg Cox]

I don't think there will ever be a consensus. Because Trek spans many decades, there will always be some that prefer 'some' Trek over the other. It will always be the decades that viewers grew up in that will be their faves, but each of them have their strong points. Case in point, I've grown up in the 80's and 90's, so TNG is my favourite, but I've also grown up at a time when TOS was also being shown frequently in reruns. While I highly respect TOS for what it is, I find it hard to watch at times. I actually prefer the movie version of the characters, but again because I grew up watching the movies..

Not unlike another franchise born in the sixties: the James Bond movies.

Nobody will ever make the "perfect" Bond movie because different generations of moviegoers have very different expectations of what a Bond movie should be. Some like their Bond flicks outrageously over-the-top and comic-booky, with laser death rays, ejector seats, and secret volcano hideaways, while others want more grittier, more "realistic" spy stories, with the franchise itself swinging like a pendulum between these approaches.

You can never satisfy everyone.

 

[TheAdmiralty]

In some kind of Star Trek parody they should have a prominent character who is always there but just says "Yes sir/ma'am" all the time and that's it. You could have done that video with Travis saying Aye Sir but it would have been like half as long because he barely even said that.

Anyway, if the fans were in charge we'd be watching Sisko in the Bajoran afterlife and an Enterprise revival right now. SNW and even Discovery are better than that and I say that as a relative purist.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Not unlike another franchise born in the sixties: the James Bond movies.

Ahh, good point. Same could also be said of Dr Who as well. I'm just glad that Trek's been around long enough to have such a degree of variety.

 

[Tosk]

I don't think there will ever be a consensus. Because Trek spans many decades, there will always be some that prefer 'some' Trek over the other.

I don't think the length of the franchise really matters, you can't even get consensus on a brand new movie that's only had one screening. It's simply the fact that people are all different. (And why I hate it when someone says, "Oh, the fans want this, but then they want this. You can't win!"

 

[ScottJ85]

Alec Peters

Axanar had so much potential, until Peters decided he liked the smell of money too much.

 

[Herbert]

Should fans be in control? If we're talking about me, then yes. Otherwise, no.