Sounds like you might like The Orville. There's no need to watch multiple TV shows that you don't enjoy.
Spoilers Star Trek biggest problem is Alex Kurtzman
- Thread starter Dales
- Start date
Here's the analysis of how it did.
He got Star Trek after being co-writer and co-executive producer of the hugely successful 2009 and 2013 Trek movies.
That's one of the most ridiculous things I've read on this board. And that's saying something.
"Star Trek in the title" doesn't mean jack shit to anyone outside our little nerd circle-jerk. In fact, it was probably a repellant at the time.
JJ infused new life into a franchise that had become stale, with consistently dropping box office. '09 opened up all the other possibilities we're seeing now.
I don't think Kurtzman's the main problem with current Trek TV. I think the problem is how both series so far have gone for the same grimdark, violent tone as damn near every other US genre show right now. It's depressing so much apparent creative talent didn't have the imagination or the courage to try something different, especially with Trek.
I'm not yearning for rehashes of TOS or TNG, but it feels to me like that optimistic spirit has been suffocated. I believe it was noted in the build-up to Discovery that more graphic stuff would only feature where truly necessary, but I have to wonder why it was even necessary in the first place, and why the current Trek writers seem so unable to write stories that don't require it. Whatever happened to restraint, subtlety, nuance? Or do viewers now only respond if the gore's shoved in their faces?
I don't expect any future shows beyond the reported Nick one - be they Section 31, or Pike, or Academy, or anything else - to break that mould, which would be a shame. Not exactly much to attract the, excuse the pun, next generation of young Trekkies, is there? Not exactly much true variety, either. Trek feels like it's taking the easy route right now, the one they know is most likely to sell in the era of grimdark, and Kurtzman definitely has to take some responsibility in that.
I'm not yearning for rehashes of TOS or TNG, but it feels to me like that optimistic spirit has been suffocated. I believe it was noted in the build-up to Discovery that more graphic stuff would only feature where truly necessary, but I have to wonder why it was even necessary in the first place, and why the current Trek writers seem so unable to write stories that don't require it. Whatever happened to restraint, subtlety, nuance? Or do viewers now only respond if the gore's shoved in their faces?
I don't expect any future shows beyond the reported Nick one - be they Section 31, or Pike, or Academy, or anything else - to break that mould, which would be a shame. Not exactly much to attract the, excuse the pun, next generation of young Trekkies, is there? Not exactly much true variety, either. Trek feels like it's taking the easy route right now, the one they know is most likely to sell in the era of grimdark, and Kurtzman definitely has to take some responsibility in that.
Neither Discovery nor Picard are grimdark. Warhammer 40000 is by definition grimdark, and nothing in Star Trek even comes close to its relentless hopelessness.
Star Trek has lasted over fifty years, I believe, because it's been so different from other franchises. To make it "change with the times" is to lose something important at the heart of Star Trek.
As for restraint, lots of writers on the show hated the Roddenberry Box but Michael Pillar loved it. Restraint can breed creativity. That's why they went through so many writers during TNG until you get left with a team that knows how to write Star Trek.
I think Star Trek can both adapt and change without losing the qualities that have made it endure for so long.
While I don't think Star Trek should discard it's episodic roots entirely, serialized storytelling on Star Trek is fine by me so long as it is well-written and compelling, like Mad Men or Justified.
I would love to see a serialized Star Trek that explored new worlds and had a wild west feel to it.
There's a balance to be had, because in order to keep going you have to give modern audiences something that they are looking for. "Optimism" doesn't represent a huge selling point right now.
Though the "fall of the Federation" storyline is getting a bit tedious already with two seasons of Discovery being about stopping it from being overran and Picard showing us things fraying.
Why oh why did they have to make Discovery a prequel? The show runners tacitly admitted that the first two seasons didn't matter by swearing everyone to secrecy and sending the ship into the future. Why should the audience care about these characters if the people in charge don't seem to?
I loved Mad Men. It had some of the best character arcs I've ever seen. There wasn't any huge overall arc with that show. Themes I would say, but no main arc. Just a bunch of little arcs that all came together.
It's sad that optimism isn't a selling point anymore. You said that they have to give modern audiences what they're looking for. I think you should give them something that they didn't know they wanted, like an optimistic future.
No. It’s silly to expect Star Trek to stay the same forever.
Why?
“The best we have ever seen of Trek” implies that you are fully aware of the clear scale in quality of Trek over the years, from good to awful, so why are you comparing 34 episodes of Kurtzman governed Trek to only “the best” of the 700 episodes that came before his arrival?
Also, that whole argument is flawed anyway, as many have said, as Kurtzman is not the writer of all things Picard and Discovery, believe it or not. He clearly isn’t even in the writers room all that often, as he had no idea of the issues of bullying going on in Discovery’s writers room, and only stepped into the showrunner role on that show when he found out how the writing team was being treated by the then-showrunners.
He’s not writing these shows, friend. Sorry.
I’m assuming this is some kind of negative comment regarding the use of strong ass kicking women in new Trek? I should’ve known this was the root issue of your complaint. Predictable.
What Transformer movies did YOU see....?! Nothing about Picard or the first episodes action scenes have been like Transformers at all...
Your constant reference to only the action sequences in that one episode tells me you haven’t watched past that point, either.
Well, this is awkward, as one look at the writing credits on those shows tells you that they clearly have NOT been written by the guy who wrote those films you mentioned, bar one or two.
Shit, I don’t think he’s got a single Picard writing credit to his name yet, in fact?
You’re comparing Kurtzman to... Tarantino and Nolan?
Yeah, we’re done here. Where’s that crying laughing emoji...?
Also a big LOL at whoever wrote that the 2009 movie only made money because it had the Star Trek name on it. Can someone be that out of touch with Trek’s place in the world, to even think that? Trek’s name works against the damn thing most of the time, for crying out loud.
Hollywood is risk-averse. People like to see things fall apart, so that is the shoe Star Trek now wears.
Why not? Let the audience rest every now and then. It's tiring to just keep beating up the audience with world ending threats and things like that.
Sad.
2005 to 2017 was the rest. On TV anyway.
1999 to 2017 in my case. Because I actually practiced what I preach and stopped watching. I would never encourage people to do something I wouldn't do myself.
While it may not be what some people want, Hollywood is in this to make money. Nothing more, nothing less.
Is Alex the best man/woman to run Star Trek.. Nope! Do i have an alternative.. Nope! In all I enjoy Disco and Picard.. Am I abit more irritated with some of the decisions than past Trek series.. not really Voyager was a dumpster fire at times, I mean.. Warp 10 Newts?? and they thought it was a good episode??
So basically.. Do I wish for better scripts? Yes.. but I wish for good writing on every series..
Its the Battlestar Galactica motto.. We have been here before, we will be here again... in that.. each series, creative director etc will come with its detractors and OMG Trek is dead..
It comes down to a few things
1. Watch it or don't.. up to you..
2. If you don't like it, write a nice letter or email to Cbs.. writers etc to express your disapointment, and ask for X or Y to be done. If enough people bitch, may get it done.. or not.
3. Vent in a forum (like this one) where you will get atta boys or STFU.. and acomplish mostly nothing execpt the venting..
I just wish for the best for Trek.. but there will be stumbles and outright tragedy.. but if we as Trekkies continue to support it, it'll keep on a chugging..
So basically.. Do I wish for better scripts? Yes.. but I wish for good writing on every series..
Its the Battlestar Galactica motto.. We have been here before, we will be here again... in that.. each series, creative director etc will come with its detractors and OMG Trek is dead..
It comes down to a few things
1. Watch it or don't.. up to you..
2. If you don't like it, write a nice letter or email to Cbs.. writers etc to express your disapointment, and ask for X or Y to be done. If enough people bitch, may get it done.. or not.
3. Vent in a forum (like this one) where you will get atta boys or STFU.. and acomplish mostly nothing execpt the venting..
I just wish for the best for Trek.. but there will be stumbles and outright tragedy.. but if we as Trekkies continue to support it, it'll keep on a chugging..
I won't say that Kurtzman is without flaws, but I think he is actually well positioned right now for the franchise. Yes, he's ambitiously pursuing the whole thing with multiple concurrent series and several media platforms, etc. On the other hand, he's not directly involved in the writing; he's turning over the direction of each series to people with interesting talents, some from the past, some new literary people; he cares that everything looks in a manner that can compete with other science fiction productions (so what if it's the same shuttle craft). I like that he is involved in Star Trek as a whole, while those under him are focused on the specific products.
Honestly, if I hear "THIS DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE!" one more time after the same thing's been explained to someone 100 times, I think I'll throw up. At that point, it's not that they're confused. They want to be confused. They want every single thing to be spelled out for them and spoon-fed. "But we didn't see it!" If it can be figured out, we don't need to. But they don't want to connect the dots themselves, even when they're all laid out and the writers credit us with being able to put it together.
I see this asked a lot, and here is the answer: Because Bryan Fuller wanted it to be. CBS wanted to be in the Bryan Fuller business, thinking Fuller was a buzzy name they could attach to Star Trek, and that's the story Fuller wanted to tell. He wanted to tell a story set in that era. Frankly, his earliest pitches were for an anthology series with a season being from each era, but that's what they settled on. Fuller wanted it that way, and had a story he wanted to tell there. Everyone else has been playing the cards Fuller dealt before leaving the production.
Similar threads
