We will end up going in circles on this, because my next question would again be “why?”
Spoilers Star Trek biggest problem is Alex Kurtzman
- Thread starter Dales
- Start date
We will end up going in circles on this, because my next question would again be “why?”
That's pretty much the barn burner attitude I see at times. So, some times I reflect it too. Star Trek sucks (for me) so therefore no one can enjoy it!!!!!!!
I have no love for modern Trek and I admit that I was disappointed that it wasn't a modernized, improved version of 90s Trek like I had expected. And I hugely disagree with many of the creative choices the runners have done and there are elements I downright hate (There's also elements I like, but not enough to make the overall product palatable to me)
Yet at the same time I respect the right of the show runners and writers to create whatever show they want to create. And the right of other people to enjoy said show.
After all the existence of Discover or Picard doesn't hurt me in any way, nor does it diminish my enjoyment of the parts of Star Trek I like.
So personally I just don't watch those shows, just like I don't watch TOS. Much less energy and time consuming than getting angry and ranting about them. And with modern streaming services I can watch whatever I like anyway.
Yet at the same time I respect the right of the show runners and writers to create whatever show they want to create. And the right of other people to enjoy said show.
After all the existence of Discover or Picard doesn't hurt me in any way, nor does it diminish my enjoyment of the parts of Star Trek I like.
So personally I just don't watch those shows, just like I don't watch TOS. Much less energy and time consuming than getting angry and ranting about them. And with modern streaming services I can watch whatever I like anyway.
Fringe was good. It was,
in fact, very good.
But I think that kind of thing is more Kurtzman's measure. He's not the worst at procedual crime shows, but most everything he's touched in genre TV or movies has been lacking. He doesn't seem to have the right knack for it.
Even Picard feels like a crime procedural, in structure and tone, more than it does traditional science fiction or even science fantasy.
Perhaps there are multiple points, each containing validity.
It is a reasonable argument that art is subjective. There is no fault on anyone's side by default regarding that.
It is not an unreasonable argument to postulate how some sci-fi has become diluted over the years and decades, supplanted by more generic soap opera elements.
Another aspect might revolve around verbiage and the use thereof and therein: One example - of many, but this one isn't brought up quite as often - is that sci-fi used to say "technology". Now it says "tech" as if the audience has the intellect comparable to that of Barney the Dinosaur. That ranks right up there with plot resolutions given allegedly clever names like "anti-plastic" when, decades ago, "acetone" would be the word stated by a character.
No, opinions are meaningless when everything is equally valid. It also invalidates your later point.
Art's no longer subjective? What is this ideal sci-fi that has been diluted that you are appealing to? It seems there wouldn't be one since you said all art is subjective.
You said art was subjective but make an appeal to elitism in language here. Artistic choices in language are now no longer a matter of subjective interpretation but are now cherry picked as objective criteria.
Short answer, no.
I became a Trek fan with "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" in 1979 and spent all of 1980 trying and failing to defend it to diehard 1960s TOS fans who kept telling me I simply failed to understand "true Trek". Going through back issues of club newsletters from before my time, I found angry letters about how terrible Filmation's TAS was - before it had even started airing.
So no, it didn't "start with JJ Trek".
For what its worth, I knew quite a number of "original" Trek fans who walked out of a theatre after watching "ST IV: The Voyage Home", calling it "the dumbing down of Trek for the masses", and they left fandom forever. Strangely enough, ST IV brought a whole lot of new fans into fandom.
So no, it really didn't "start with JJ Trek". (Which also brought a whole lot of new fans into fandom.)
Perhaps Jean-Luc could escort a group of squabbling diplomats, only *plot twist* ...it turns out a They Are Hiding Something
How could Star Trek’s biggest problem be Alex Kurtzman when he must have been hired by CBS? They probably figured he was no Vince Gilligan and neither was Akiva Goldsman, but at least between them and the other writers / temporary showrunners they could slow down the revolving door and make this franchise reboot work for a while. It may never rise above forgettable TV of the day, but fans will remember everything, money will be made… and that seems to be good enough for the owners.
You know, even as I prefer 90s Trek, I wonder if the older shows being less "dark", more campy/"optimistic" was (at least in part) because they were network shows at a time when families still shared one or at most two TVs and so they had to restrain themselves in what they could depict on screen so that they could get one of the more favourable time slots.
After all it seems like at least a portion of the creative team wanted to go into a darker direction as early as the first season of TNG (Conspiracy, which originally didn't even include the parasites, but just had completely normal Starfleet Admirals being shady)
After all it seems like at least a portion of the creative team wanted to go into a darker direction as early as the first season of TNG (Conspiracy, which originally didn't even include the parasites, but just had completely normal Starfleet Admirals being shady)
Last edited:
I'm late to the party on this one, but I'll bite.
First, while Kurtzman's Trek isn't perfect, it is quite entertaining (at least for me). I think the premise that there is something "wrong" with modern Trek is flawed. I have been actively watching Star Trek since the 1980's and have been in discussions about the series' since dial-up BBS's (which kinda makes me old and definitely nerdy) and have heard arguments against every "new" show. Every original series film after The Motion Picture was too militaristic right down to the uniforms. TNG was bad because it was this wierd new crew with hologram rooms and a British captain. DS9 was bad because it was too dark and it completely abandoned any "boldly going." Voyager was bad because there were no consequences to the ship being alone in deep space, the two crews came together too quickly, and any tech found to move them close to home was doomed to fail (lookin' at you Sikarians). Finally, Enterprise was accused of being a rehash of TNG. It was also around this point that people thought "Berman Trek" needed a rest and new people should be brought in.
For better or worse, Kurtzman *is* the new show runner and I'm ok with that. I do think that the tone changes are mostly because the show's are on CBS AA and don't need to be as censored for television. In addition, the new shows are modernized for a modern viewing audience.
Finally, I think some of the darker areas new Trek is exploring were always in Trek, just never the focus. I'm interested to see where it leads . . ..
First, while Kurtzman's Trek isn't perfect, it is quite entertaining (at least for me). I think the premise that there is something "wrong" with modern Trek is flawed. I have been actively watching Star Trek since the 1980's and have been in discussions about the series' since dial-up BBS's (which kinda makes me old and definitely nerdy) and have heard arguments against every "new" show. Every original series film after The Motion Picture was too militaristic right down to the uniforms. TNG was bad because it was this wierd new crew with hologram rooms and a British captain. DS9 was bad because it was too dark and it completely abandoned any "boldly going." Voyager was bad because there were no consequences to the ship being alone in deep space, the two crews came together too quickly, and any tech found to move them close to home was doomed to fail (lookin' at you Sikarians). Finally, Enterprise was accused of being a rehash of TNG. It was also around this point that people thought "Berman Trek" needed a rest and new people should be brought in.
For better or worse, Kurtzman *is* the new show runner and I'm ok with that. I do think that the tone changes are mostly because the show's are on CBS AA and don't need to be as censored for television. In addition, the new shows are modernized for a modern viewing audience.
Finally, I think some of the darker areas new Trek is exploring were always in Trek, just never the focus. I'm interested to see where it leads . . ..
Perhaps Jean-Luc could escort a group of squabbling diplomats, only *plot twist* ...it turns out a They Are Hiding Something
Its Mick Fleetwood isn't it???
Wishing something dead that millions of other people seem to be enjoying, just because it doesn't appeal to you personally, is the height of self-centeredness.
Simply discontinuing your viewing of the show is a far simpler and more effective solution, no?
Even if I wouldn't like any further Star Trek series, I'd be very happy to have Discovery and Picard as my swan song as a fan. I can't think of a better way to go out, if it came to it.
Kurtzman is doing better than anyone else has done with Trek since the end of DS9? Perfect, no.
Don’t forsake the good for the perfect.
Don’t forsake the good for the perfect.
You’d compare showrunning with saving lives?
“Good vs perfect” is in reference to
Picard not making an effort to save more Romulans post-ban as opposed to the Borg Reclamation Project doing what they can for the xBs
I’d much rather see periods of no activity whatsoever punctuated by award-winning, audience-expanding, prestigious installments by visionary showrunners who are given free rein to develop their own creations and thereby motivated to stay for a couple of years (Chabon is leaving, surprise-surprise).
Similar threads
