Poll The ever-changing Trekthusiam thread!

[Tim Thomason]

I watch an episode of Trek almost every day.
It keeps my mind fresh when the franchise is away.
It's coming back with Prodigy
And much more in store.
But I can't wait just for Prodigy.
I need much more to explore.

Trek doesn't discriminate
between the stinkers
and the greats
It makes and it makes and it makes
And I keep watching anyway
I laugh and I cry
And I clap
And I love their mistakes
And if there's a reason I'm all inside
While so many decry
Then I just can't wait for it.
I just can't wait for it.

For many years I was a TNG believer
Believer, believer
But there are things beyond that show and its features
its features, its features
Deep Space Nine was genius (genius, genius)
Enterprise earns respect (respect, respect)
But they along with Voyager
Started a legacy of neglect

Trek doesn't discriminate
between the stinkers
and the greats
It grates and it grates and it grates
And it keeps lasting anyway
Through rise and a fall
And some movies
That were made by JJ
And if there's a reason it still thrives
When everything else won't survive
Then I just can't wait for it.
I just can't wait for it.

Can't wait for it
wait for it
wait for it
wait for it

These are the greatest shows. I've seen them all.

Can't wait for it
wait for it
wait for it
wait for it

I love the animated
I love the original

Can't wait for it
wait for it
wait for it
wait for it

Lower Decks and Picard are just both great

Can't wait for it
wait for it
wait for it
wait for it

And Voyager should have had a Season Eight.

Eight
Eight
Eight

The quality of Trek continues to climb

Climb
climb
climb

Trek has a lot to lose
But gives a lot to choose

Choose
choose
choose
choose

This new Trek era seems endless
Covers all time

Time
Time
Time

What era is left to peruse?

 

[tomalak301]

I'm really in the "It depends" camp. I wasn't a fan of Picard or Discovery Season 3, but I will watch them because I like Star Trek and they weren't insultingly bad. More Star Trek is always a good thing, I guess.

If I were to rank the new Treks only, it would be something like this:

Short Treks - The Escape Artist
Short Treks - The Brightest Star
Short Treks - Children of Mars
Lower Decks Season 1
Discovery - Season 1
Short Treks - The Girl who Made the Stars
Discovery Season 2
Short Treks - Calypso
Short Treks - Q & A
Short Treks - Ephrim and Dot
Short Treks - Ask Not
Discovery Season 3
Picard Season 1
Short Treks - Runaway
Short Treks - The Trouble with Edward

Ranking what I'm looking forward to:

Strange New World
Picard Season 2
Lower Decks Season 2
Prodigy
Discovery Season 4

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Less is more when it comes to Star Trek.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm always happy with more Trek even if it isn't to my tastes.

 

[Vger23]

I'm always happy with more Trek even if it isn't to my tastes.

1001%

I hate the selfish BS approach most fans take to the franchise. Open it up and make Trek accessible / enjoyable to everyone possible. I could care less if a certain iteration isn’t for me. I love that there’s something for everyone.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

1001%

I hate the selfish BS approach most fans take to the franchise. Open it up and make Trek accessible / enjoyable to everyone possible. I could care less if a certain iteration isn’t for me. I love that there’s something for everyone.

Except there isn’t. The latest “buffet breakfast” approach is either for hardcore fans who’ll watch anything or someone who just happens to run into one of the shows via streaming menus, and decides maybe to check out an episode or two.

The only way to reach the widest possible audience (not quite “everyone possible”) is to wait for someone to put their own creative stamp on Star Trek, which usually works when there aren’t too many conflicting interests pulling in different directions.

To give a simple example, following the bloated vanity project with a recycled story that was Star Trek: The Motion Picture, it took Nicholas Meyer and Harve Bennett to pick up the pieces (and there were good pieces in the shambles) in order to come up with one of the best Star Trek movies on a lower budget with most of the original parties long gone.

As an outside example, Battlestar Galactica largely works because Ron Moore was in charge of his writers’ room and stayed that way to the end. It wasn’t a matter of franchise owners being precious with their catalogue: there was no franchise, and there shouldn’t be one for Star Trek either (or we should just give up and recognize that it’s become a product too “distinguished” to have fun with).

The less people are afraid to take risks with the show, the better Star Trek becomes.

 

[fireproof78]

or we should just give up and recognize that it’s become a product too “distinguished” to have fun with).

Too late.

 

[Lord Garth]

The only way to reach the widest possible audience (not quite “everyone possible”) is to wait for someone to put their own creative stamp on Star Trek, which usually works when there aren’t too many conflicting interests pulling in different directions.

I just bolded the key part. One direction for Star Trek is not going to happen in the 2020s. Maybe at another point, but that's not what's going to happen right now.

At best, you can pick a lane and stay in it. I chose DSC and PIC. Someone else will choose something else.

As an outside example, Battlestar Galactica largely works because Ron Moore was in charge of his writers’ room and stayed that way to the end. It wasn’t a matter of franchise owners being precious with their catalogue: there was no franchise, and there shouldn’t be one for Star Trek either (or we should just give up and recognize that it’s become a product too “distinguished” to have fun with).

I thought Battlestar Galactica was great during the mini-series, the first two seasons, and the opening part of the third season. After that, it began to collapse underneath its own weight, then it went completely off the rails in the fourth season.

I prefer that any new Star Trek series get a little bit more mileage out of its run than just that.

The less people are afraid to take risks with the show, the better Star Trek becomes.

Keeping a character like Georgiou around for three seasons of DSC sparked a lot of outrage. I know because I'm still worn out from arguing about it. Having so many LGBT characters in one series, also on DSC, also causes an uproar. Granted, I want the people who are disturbed by that one to be upset about it. That's where my phrase "All the right people hated it" comes in.

And the discrete, low-key sexism leveled at DSC reminds me of what I used to see with VOY in the '90s. "You can just not like the series without being sexist!" Yes, I know. Voyager wasn't exactly my favorite Star Trek series either. But I recognized the sexism that was out there back then with VOY, and I see it now with DSC. Regardless of whatever you think of these shows, quality-wise, the sexism exists and shows our society and viewing audience aren't as far along in general as we like to think they are. Like it or not, it's going to take lifetimes for attitudes to change so completely.

Finally: I've noticed that there have been people who've gone back to watch Discovery after watching Picard (a show they checked out only because they used to watch TNG) and I'm getting retroactive likes for old posts of mine.

Paramount+ is playing the long-game.

Honestly, I think the real future of Star Trek begins with Prodigy. Whatever someone might think of it. That's where you're going to get the "next generation" of fans. The Kelvin Films could've been, but they took too long to come out, Star Wars came back with a vengeance, and that window was lost. But you don't strike me as the type who'd be a fan of either the Kelvin Films or Prodigy anyway.

Frankly, I think you'd be happier pursuing another franchise. One that's at the beginning. You're not going to get anything you want out of Star Trek at this point. To think you will is an unrealistic expectation.

 

[fireproof78]

Frankly, I think you'd be happier pursuing another franchise. One that's at the beginning. You're not going to get anything you want out of Star Trek at this point. To think you will is an unrealistic expectation.

I completely agree on this point. I get that Star Trek has a longevity to it that inspires a certain level of loyalty in fans. Certainly I have stuck around with Trek even after entries that I regard as sub-par, disappointing or lackluster (VOY, ENT, Generations) but that also comes with a huge awareness that Star Trek probably isn't going to do all these different things that a new franchise could do. And that's not a slam against Trek; it's an awareness of the Star Trek shaped sandbox that the franchise has created for itself.

 

[eschaton]

1001%

I hate the selfish BS approach most fans take to the franchise. Open it up and make Trek accessible / enjoyable to everyone possible. I could care less if a certain iteration isn’t for me. I love that there’s something for everyone.

I'd also make the point that Trek has always, always had quality control issues. Even the most consistent seasons of Trek (TNG Season 3, TNG Season 6, DS9 Season 4) had some stinkers. Some have blamed this on the 26-episode seasons - that with that many ideas being thrown against the wall, some are bound to stink. Yet even though modern TV has seasons half the length, I don't think the good/mediocre/bad ratio has changed much.

To me this is the strongest argument in favor of as much Trek as possible. If you want the maximum number of "great Trek" episodes possible (ones I would rate 8 or higher on a 10-point scale) you need to just make a lot of Star Trek, and see what turns up.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

After that, it began to collapse underneath its own weight, then it went completely off the rails in the fourth season.

It maintained a focus on characters and individual stories throughout, even if the overall arc suffered a bit as a result of RDM’s exploratory approach to the show. The series had a great cast, innovative VFX in terms of shot design as opposed to merely technical quality. And the music, of course, with memorable thematic writing throughout.

Keeping a character like Georgiou around for three seasons of DSC sparked a lot of outrage. I know because I'm still worn out from arguing about it.

Well, yes, because she becomes a cardboard cutout saying villainous lines completely out of context, a former mass-murderer adopted by the Discovery crew as if any crimes in the mirror universe were fictional for all practical purposes.

Having so many LGBT characters in one series, also on DSC, also causes an uproar. Granted, I want the people who are disturbed by that one to be upset about it. That's where my phrase "All the right people hated it" comes in.

Creating and casting characters with diversity in mind is only one aspect of showrunning. The question here is what you do next: write entire episodes exploring those characters and their relationships, or leave them in broad strokes like Culber (“Stamets’ partner, fiercely loyal but also troubled by his death and resurrection”), Reno (“makes dry, sarcastic comments”), Stamets (“Culber’s partner, loves opera, makes arrogant comments”). Only Adira had a lot more going on with Gray and even an entire episode to explore it, but if DSC were made with the approach taken by TNG or shows like Lost, the seasonal sci-fish mystery/conspiracy wouldn’t completely sideline the characters and their relationships.

And the discrete, low-key sexism leveled at DSC reminds me of what I used to see with VOY in the '90s. "You can just not like the series without being sexist!"

“I was there” for VGR in the 90s but I don’t see that it was especially progressive (compared to other shows I watched back then, like B5), and of course its writing was fairly bland next to that on TNG or DS9, but quite a bit more character-driven than on DSC.

But you don't strike me as the type who'd be a fan of either the Kelvin Films or Prodigy anyway.

I do like the Kelvin films better (the characters are much more fun and interesting, even if the Star Wars approach isn’t what I’d have chosen for Star Trek), though I’ll have to see about Prodigy.

You're not going to get anything you want out of Star Trek at this point. To think you will is an unrealistic expectation.

As noted before, I basically watch it for the lore, but it’s fun to think about a version of Star Trek that’s more about independent showrunners than the franchise as a whole.

 

[fireproof78]

Georgiou is probably one of the more interesting characters that is explored in DSC, aside from Michael or Saru. Character development must mean different things to me.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Georgiou is probably one of the more interesting characters that is explored in DSC, aside from Michael or Saru. Character development must mean different things to me.

When I think of her I think of ‘grimdark’, or a holodeck character stuck in their programming. I would’ve kept the original Georgiou.

 

[fireproof78]

When I think of her I think of ‘grimdark’, or a holodeck character stuck in their programming. I would’ve kept the original Georgiou.

Yeah, I don't get "grim dark" or whatever at all.

I would have kept the original Georgiou too. But, she ended up having one of the more Trekkian arcs of most characters.

 

[eschaton]

IMHO the issue with (MU) Georgiou is she barely had an arc until Terra Firma. She was consistently an amoral, spontaneous character who enjoyed throwing zingers and had an uncharacteristic soft spot for Michael. That was basically all she was in the last two episodes of Season 1, all of Season 2, and the first eight episodes of Season 3.

Terra Firma had some great character work, to be sure. Among the best in Discovery. It's a shame that up until that point the writers felt the best uses for Michelle Yeoh was insulting the entire crew, kicks to the face, and general campy evil-ness.

 

[fireproof78]

Georgiou, as a character, didn't have much of arc so much as she was symbolic. She represented Michael's bad choices in the past. Which is why I have no problem with the evil and the snarkiness. It was her way of saying "I'm not who you thought you were rescuing." There's a beautiful poetry of Michael constantly looking to the past for her guidance, not realizing that it is actually guilt guiding her.

 

[eschaton]

Georgiou, as a character, didn't have much of arc so much as she was symbolic. She represented Michael's bad choices in the past. Which is why I have no problem with the evil and the snarkiness. It was her way of saying "I'm not who you thought you were rescuing." There's a beautiful poetry of Michael constantly looking to the past for her guidance, not realizing that it is actually guilt guiding her.

While I understand what you mean, I think it's better to treat supporting characters as actual human beings rather than representations of issues that the main character has.

 

[fireproof78]

While I understand what you mean, I think it's better to treat supporting characters as actual human beings rather than representations of issues that the main character has.

I think it depends on the story told. And Georgiou still was a character, but he progress was tied to Michael's because of that symbolic relationship.

I'm not explaining this as well as I like but I think it was both. Just one part was emphasized and then the other part took focus.

 

[Lord Garth]

I do like the Kelvin films better (the characters are much more fun and interesting, even if the Star Wars approach isn’t what I’d have chosen for Star Trek), though I’ll have to see about Prodigy.

That's interesting. I like the Kelvin Films but I put them in the 7 out of 10 range. Which basically sums up as, "I like them but I don't love them." The TOS Films still reign supreme for me. I haven't really thought about what I think of Prodigy. If I see more than one or two episodes, I'll have surprised myself.

 

[Quinton]

I like the TOS films a ton despite not being too big on the show itself. (It does have some all-time 10/10 classics strewn throughout, but yeah.)

Alongside late TNG, The Undiscovered Country was my gateway, so I reckon that has a thing or two to do with it. But still!