This is TrekBBS. A Star Trek discussion forum. So you're saying I should keep my opinions to myself on this discussion forum?
Trek will be back, and some will complain about whatever comes next.
Because i highly doubt it will be United, Year One, or any of these other pitches.
It will likely be totally different to anything in Berman or Kurtzman eras
Because i highly doubt it will be United, Year One, or any of these other pitches.
It will likely be totally different to anything in Berman or Kurtzman eras
If your opinion is that you don't like it and don't want to watch it, go for it. If your opinion is that those of us who do like it shouldn't be able to watch any more of it because you don't like it, I don't think that's particularly reasonable. And that's the message I get from everyone saying it's good that the shows are cancelled and someone else should come in and fix things.
There's always going to be someone watching something, no matter how bad it is. If they hypothetically cancelled everything and only made Section 31 movies, should we be happy for the 5 people who'd love them or hopeful that they'll change course and do something different?
CBS/Paramount chose to use the Star Trek name specifically to get Star Trek fans to watch. On top of that, they're actively inviting comparisons between their stuff and the older series by constantly reusing ideas and characters. I think it's fair for people to keep watching even if they're finding it overwhelmingly disappointing on that basis, same as how some TOS fans stuck with TNG back in the day even though they thought it was shit.
I felt the same way about NCIS Hawai'i.
I thought it was derivative and didn't offer much of anything new, but I didn't stamp my feet and squawk, "Why can't this be more like the original?"
You don't like something, fine, you don't have to and there's nothing wrong with giving a negative opinion either. But what is really accomplished by going on with rants about how much the show sucks and expressing a desire it be cancelled and everyone who works on it be fired and making the claim this somehow makes the world a better place?
It’s also a bit tiresome when people essentially say that a show is objectively, factually bad, and anyone who claims to like it is dumb or desperate or doesn’t understand what the show is supposed to be.
Honestly, I don't care what they do from here on out, or whether they do anything at all.
It doesn't matter when it's set, what it looks like or how it connects to or violates previous material -- if they make a movie and it looks good, I'll watch it.
Same with TV - but, aside from SNW, they haven't done a thing on TV that I cared about in so long it's a moot point.
It doesn't matter when it's set, what it looks like or how it connects to or violates previous material -- if they make a movie and it looks good, I'll watch it.
Same with TV - but, aside from SNW, they haven't done a thing on TV that I cared about in so long it's a moot point.
Agreed for sure. Back to my TNG days.
I wouldn't watch it
Simple. There's simply no reason to make things more complicated.
The ones that are fucking celebrating a show getting cancelled and all of the cast and crew losing their jobs are the ones I can't stand. That's the point one should really step back and evaluate why they hold so much hate in their heart for a fictional program that has literally nothing to do with the passing of any day in their lives.
I doubt they'll hiatus for very long.
No more "experimental" Trek in the near future (Read: No Star Trek: United. God, the thing sounds like a soccer/football team.)
No more experimental trek agreed. SFA fell flat on its face. Horrible viewer numbers Not sure if the Archer show if ever happens would be experimental. Its just following a different chapter of Archers life. I.hsve to admit I would be interested to see some 22nd century tech again. Maybe tpol. If they had Archer on the newest starships traveling to get more new planets to join the fledgling federation I would be ok with that. As long as they do it better than SFA and dont move the Federation headquarters off of earth. Lol
Experimental does factor into it. SFA was not a traditional trek show and fell way short of success. I suspect we will see more familiar and comfortable Trek after the Kurtman eras last episodes are aired next year.
No one wanted to see anyone lose their jobs. I feel really sorry for Picardo. I'm a big fan and his was the best character. He really felt passionate about it. But it didn't do well. Its part of the business. They should all have no problem finding jobs. As for people celebrating. There are some who think the show was spoiling star trek. They aren't thinking of jobs but of Star Trek snd its legacy. They care about it. So I dont think they are happy people lost work. Good news is they got two full seasons. Not bad for the streaming era. Shows dont last forever .
Last edited:
A certain amount of experimentation is necessary in order to evolve the franchise and to keep it relevant for today's audiences.
Deep Space Nine was an experiment ("How can this be Star Trek? It doesn't go anywhere! It's too dark!")
Lower Decks was an experiment ("This isn't Star Trek! It's too much like Rick and Morty!")
Star Trek: Picard was definitely an experiment. It was the first Star Trek show to be centered around a person as opposed to a ship.
The question is: Would more than 400,000 people be interested in revisiting Archer?
Excellent points. Though DS9 did retool.wuth the addition of the defiant. The first couple of seasons were a bit lackluster. Once the defiant was added we got a bot more space travel and battles.
That is a big question. An Archer series probably won't pull in younger viewers. But it might pull in more long time fans. Fans that have skipped the Kurtzman era. But yeah it will have to do over a million for it to probably stay on.
Last edited:
Well, I suppose a series of Section 31 movies would give them the chance to improve it, at least.
"They" are Kurtzman and Co. NOT the studio. They've now picthed United to the studio directly and we do NOT know the outcome of that pitch.
^^^
That was very much me. After 18n years (and a feature film ever 2 years wince 1979 to that point) - I was HOPING TNG would turn into something I liked because it sure wasn't what I thought Star Trek should be at the time. I came to terms with that view by Season 3 of TNG - it never really turned into a Trek series I wanted though - and honestly, for me TNG hasn't aged well.
As for the Streaming era:
- I liked ST: D S1 & S2 MORE than anything produced in the Berman era.
- SNW is what I WISHED TNG would have been back in the day - am annoyed it only got 4 1/2+1 ep. seasons - and would LOVE to see Kirk: Year One get greenlit <--- But yeah that ain't gonna happen.
I think it's interesting that most of the Trek shows of late have been experimental in that they didn't follow the traditional format of the bridge crew being the main characters. I suppose Disco and Picard ended up being more traditional but SNW is the only one that's been 'classic format Trek' from the get-go and I don't think any shows suffered due to format shakeups. Indeed, one of the criticisms of Voyager and Enterprise was that they felt similar and indeed that Voyager didn't really make more of the impact of the arduous journey back home (which RDM would clearly fully deep dive on in Battlestar).
I think having different types of shows also makes sense if there are multiple shows concurrently, although I do wonder if starting fresh with a new 32nd Century Enterprise as a clear 'main' show may help attract new viewers.
In terms of an Archer show, I'd love one! However, I agree it probably wouldn't have broad appeal. I mean, Enterprise didn't seem to really have an impact in wider pop culture the way other series did. I mean, I knew sci-fi fans (and indeed Trek fans!) who didn't watch it.
Similar threads
