Trek's future according to Paramount's new owners...

[johnjm22]

In pop entertainment, that's never anything other than "What I like and think is cool."

Artistic integrity usually implies someone cares about their work and isn't in it purely for profit.

Pop culture has always been a combination of the creative and the commerce. Many who've worked in that system have been passionate, talented, and sometimes profitable. Only one of those terms fits Alex.

Starfleet is, without question, a military organization within the stories. Nonetheless, it's been flunking basic tests of plausibilty as a navy since the day of its inception. Virtually all of its Starfleet characters who show any volition in the stories would end their careers in disgrace and, most likely, military prison.

Trek has as much plausibility as you decide to grant it. No more.

I'm not asking for complete realism.

 

[Noname Given]

Exclusive: Alex Kurtzman On Starting Discussions With Paramount Skydance Over The Future Of Star Trek TV

TrekMovie spoke to the man in charge of Trek TV.

trekmovie.com

 

[Starflight]

I found Voyager's emotionally restrained crew unrealistic (These people may not see their families and loved ones again in their lifetimes and they're just supposed to pretend everything is normal?)

They get trapped in clown-nightmares and turned into lizards once a week on average, they don't have time for depression!

Honestly though I actually thought they gave it pretty much the right amount of focus - Janeway sometimes mentions Mark, Paris writes the letter to his dad, the crew get their hopes up when the letters start coming through, etc, but for the most part there's just so much going on that they're totally focused on the journey, and of course the constant sense of forward momentum prevents anyone feeling hopeless.

It strikes me as believable in the same way as Lister and Rimmer's situation in Red Dwarf - the occasional pang of sadness would hit you in waves or when you get a reminder of Earth, but for the most part you'd adapt pretty quickly and start focusing on what can be done to actually reach home. For people like Paris and B'Elanna there's also the added aspect that their lives stranded in space are basically better than their lives on Earth.

 

[Turtletrekker]

They get trapped in clown-nightmares and turned into lizards once a week on average, they don't have time for depression!

Except for Torres in that one episode.

 

[Mudd]

Artistic integrity usually implies someone cares about their work...

Talking about artistic integrity is wrapping one's preferences in a mantle of undeserved moral authority. It fools no one.

 

[johnjm22]

Talking about artistic integrity is wrapping one's preferences in a mantle of undeserved moral authority. It fools no one.

It's a common implied criticism of him. Don't nobody think the man is a visionary.

 

[eschaton]

One thing I think we need to consider is that it's possible the next generation of Trek doesn't have a Kurtzman/Berman type person, at least not initially.

The idea of a single EP coordinating brand management across a franchise is a relatively new thing, which seems in part to have been spurred by the (initial) success of the MCU under Kevin Feige. Even here, the studios are moving away from this, as both the DCU and Star Wars are now managed by a team involving a finance guy and a creative.

My guess is that if Kurtzman is let go, they may decide to bring in a few different folks to be showrunners of TV shows, and directors of movies, before settling down and offering someone the role of creative coordinator of the franchise.

 

[Mudd]

There will be a "Star Trek czar."

 

[eschaton]

There will be a "Star Trek czar."

The problem (for the studio) in having a "Trek czar" is that it will be in their own self-interest to develop exclusively as many Trek properties as possible. Which honestly might not be in the interest of the studio.

 

[Danja]

The idea of a single EP coordinating brand management across a franchise is a relatively new thing, which seems in part to have been spurred by the (initial) success of the MCU under Kevin Feige. Even here, the studios are moving away from this, as both the DCU and Star Wars are now managed by a team involving a finance guy and a creative.

My guess is that if Kurtzman is let go, they may decide to bring in a few different folks to be showrunners of TV shows, and directors of movies, before settling down and offering someone the role of creative coordinator of the franchise.

The problem with not having one person in charge of Trek is that you run the risk of having each show existing within its own little silo with no influence from any of the other shows/movies in the franchise (such was the case in the Berman era).

 

[eschaton]

The problem with not having one person in charge of Trek is that you run the risk of having each show existing within its own little silo with no influence from any of the other shows/movies in the franchise (such was the case in the Berman era).

I'm not sure why this is a problem? Kurtzman Trek isn't really trying to tell one big story like the MCU. Indeed the Berman Trek Maquis storyline which was introduced in TNG, explored in DS9, and used as setup for VOY was way, way more ambitious in terms of a multi-show arc than anything that modern Trek has tried.

Part of this is the curious decision to have essentially every modern Trek series take place in its own time period. You have 23rd century (DIS 1-2, SNW), late 24th (LDS, PRO), 25th (PIC) and 32nd (DIS 3-5, SFA). So actually doing a multi-series arc is pretty difficult (doesn't help that modern Trek doesn't even do multi-season arcs, though.)

But really, you just have:

• SNW being a spinoff of DIS Season 2 (though aside from Pike "knowing his fate" the events of that season have almost nothing to do with what the show has become. We don't even see Spock mention Michael being his sister.
• SFA being a spinoff of latter-day DIS. This is a bit stronger, admittedly, with Reno, Vance, the guest appearance of Tilly, etc. Though aside from the general post-season 3 background of The Burn, it's unclear even when it's happening exactly.
• Those Old Scientists on Strange New Worlds.

The vast majority of what is referenced, though, is TOS and Berman Trek stuff. Which I guess makes sense, because it was/is trying to ingratiate itself to long-term fans. But the MCU and even modern Star Wars has gotten away with self-referential interconnected universes. It's just weird they didn't try and build towards this with Trek, and just kept it scatershot.

Taking that away, of course it's better to have consistent practical and VFX, one science advisor, etc. However, it's not like modern Trek hasn't been inconsistent here too. Klingons have looked different on DIS, SNW, and now SFA. We got a weird over-engineered Ferengi design in DIS, then a normal Ferengi in PIC Season 3, than back to the DIS design for SFA.

 

[Mudd]

The problem (for the studio) in having a "Trek czar" is that it will be in their own self-interest to develop exclusively as many Trek properties as possible. Which honestly might not be in the interest of the studio.

Everyone knows who they report to.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Anybody remember Mister Broccoli? When, after Picard put his foot down, he was the one who let it slip to Barclay's face? Gods, Starfleet officers were so much more normal, mature, composed, and professional back in the TNG era, of all eras.

 

[Detached Nacelle]

• SNW being a spinoff of DIS Season 2 (though aside from Pike "knowing his fate" the events of that season have almost nothing to do with what the show has become. We don't even see Spock mention Michael being his sister.

Episode 1 and 4 of season 1 has Spock talking about her.

 

[Cicero]

Most unhappy fans just want to recapture the magic they felt watching Trek with younger, less jaded eyes back in the day. And that’s simply never going to happen.

I think there's a split between those (perhaps typified by fans calling for a "return to TNG" approach) and fans who feel that the show's modern philosophy is wrong, perhaps with some crossover between the two.

I'm looking for a slightly-more-philosophically-faithful return to the reboot movie approach (though I would always welcome something close to TOS or II/IV/VI), so I don't know what, exactly, that makes me.

Where the LGBTQ+ community is a "concept" or an "idea" (something other than a lived REALITY for many people).

As much as people depict 90s Star Trek this way, I think "Rejoined" is still one of the best depictions of a non-heterosexual relationship in television. The narrative genuinely doesn't care that both characters are female, even though they are.

The context all comes from the audience's culture—but there's still an important and relevant issue at stake within the story.

I think it comes down to the difference between broadcast vs. streaming.

Up until 2005, Trek was constrained by airing on broadcast TV.

Broadcast TV is heavily regulated (no profanity is permitted). Everything had to be family-friendly. The characters on Trek were reduced to being animatronic set pieces utterly lacking in emotion.

Streaming, OTOH, has no such limitations on language. I found Voyager's emotionally restrained crew unrealistic (These people may not see their families and loved ones again in their lifetimes and they're just supposed to pretend everything is normal?)

People don't always keep it together. People get stressed out. People cuss, cry, yell, and scream. They display a full range of human emotions.

I think a different restriction was at work. Star Trek's traditional target audience was teenagers, older children, and young adults (in manga parlance, it might be termed a Shōnen). Picard was targeted at an older audience of adults (Seinen, though jejune).

Basically, the franchise was PG to light PG-13 (similar to Lucas-era Star Wars), but CBS shifted it to R in search of a different audience. It's now lost a generation of children.

The problem (for the studio) in having a "Trek czar" is that it will be in their own self-interest to develop exclusively as many Trek properties as possible. Which honestly might not be in the interest of the studio.

That might not necessarily be true, if Star Trek is only part of their portfolio. At one extreme, Paramount could put the franchise under a label like a reconstituted Desliu, and at the other, a Harve Bennet-style producer might simply tackle other projects between Star Trek movies (or vice versa).

 

[Danja]

I think a different restriction was at work. Star Trek's traditional target audience was teenagers, older children, and young adults (in manga parlance, it might be termed a Shōnen). Picard was targeted at an older audience of adults (Seinen, though jejune).

Basically, the franchise was PG to light PG-13 (similar to Lucas-era Star Wars), but CBS shifted it to R in search of a different audience. It's now lost a generation of children.

TNG-era Trek died in 2005.

By the time Enterprise came about, B&B were champing at the bit to do something more "adult" (the "decontamination" scenes bordered on softcore porn).

That might not necessarily be true, if Star Trek is only part of their portfolio. At one extreme, Paramount could put the franchise under a label like a reconstituted Desliu, and at the other, a Harve Bennet-style producer might simply tackle other projects between Star Trek movies (or vice versa).

There's been talk of putting Trek under the banner of "Star Trek Studios".

 

[Mudd]

Paramount moved in an R-rated direction in an attempt to follow the people who would watch it.

There's no hope of Trek in its traditional form capturing a younger generation. It's too fundamentally unsophisticated and out of step with the culture.

 

[Detached Nacelle]

There's no hope of Trek in its traditional form capturing a younger generation.

In any form. The brand name makes it niche and always will, sure it'll have some brighter flares of popularity but it'll never crack the mainstream just because of what it is. Even trying to hide it like when Enterprise went two seasons without the Star Trek label doesn't work.

And I'm glad for it in a way, these shows that become the next big thing seem to have the biggest downfalls as they are regularly supplanted by the next next big thing their studio is chasing and take 2-3 years to get another season because the actors get poached so another project can leech off of the popularity.

 

[Noname Given]

I'm not sure why this is a problem? Kurtzman Trek isn't really trying to tell one big story like the MCU. Indeed the Berman Trek Maquis storyline which was introduced in TNG, explored in DS9, and used as setup for VOY was way, way more ambitious in terms of a multi-show arc than anything that modern Trek has tried...

Rick Berman HATED any real serialized story telling in Trek prior to ENT.

Yes, DS9 had it and used it to great effect but only because they IGNORED memos from Rick Berman telling then not to do it. I think the DS9 Executive Producer was of the opinion, if they drop the hammer or fire me...oh, well...

 

[The Wormhole]

By the time Enterprise came about, B&B were champing at the bit to do something more "adult" (the "decontamination" scenes bordered on softcore porn).

The decon rubdowns on Enterprise were mandated by UPN as they wanted all their programs to be "sexier."