Useless Question: How do you group Star Trek?

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

Useless Question: How do you group Star Trek? I don't mean the entire franchise, but rather the Star Trek you like, how do you group it together? I will go first to give an example of what I mean. First of all, it's easy to look at it like 12 TV shows plus 13 (soon to be 14) movies. I like to look at it like this:

Broadcast Era
Star Trek (original) + animated series + 6 films
Next Generation + 4 films + 2 spin-offs: DS9 & VOY
Enterprise - the prequel show

Reboot Trilogy
Star Trek (2009) / Into Darkness / Beyond

Streaming Era
Discovery (revived Star Trek) & Short Treks (companion show)
Picard (TNG revival)
Lower Decks (4th show to 90's Trek)
Prodigy (Voyager spin-off)
Strange New Worlds (Disco spin-off / TOS prequel)
Section 31 (Disco spin-off movie)

What about you? I told you this was useless, but let's discuss anyway.

 

[Sim]

I thought about that when I tried to get a friend into Star Trek, and realized I grouped them differently for the purpose of introducing a total newbie:

TOS -- the classic, old but charming 60s show that started it all (plus 6 movies that also shaped the franchise and built a bridge to TNG)

TNG -- The most successful Star Trek show so far, basically an update for an audience 20 years later. Next to TOS, probably the most defining Star Trek show that invented many things fans consider "classic" now

DS9, VOY, ENT -- optional spin-offs, spawned due to TNG's success. But fans are much more divided about the question how crucial their contribution to the franchise was

Kelvinverse movies -- optional, not really canon remakes that have more of Marvel or Star Wars action blockbuster flavor -- basically "Star Trek digestable for a broader audience of non-fans"

DSC -- the show that relaunched the "3rd generation" of Star Trek, but which includes many elements that set it apart from what I think is typical Star Trek ... stylistically more to the likes of people who have seen the Kelvinverse movies

PIC -- basically a sequel and closure to TNG and the TNG movies. Doesn't make sense to watch it when you haven't seen a lot of TNG yet

SNW -- after TNG the 2nd approach to a reinvention and update of TOS, this time for an audience 55 years later. When you have watched the selection of TOS episodes I've provided you with, but you don't feel like watching another "old" show (TNG), you can as well go right to SNW directly from TOS, and you'll feel familiar

(LD and PRO -- better not mention them too early, in order to not make things even more complicated ...)

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

I thought about that when I tried to get a friend into Star Trek, and realized I grouped them differently for the purpose of introducing a total newbie:

TOS -- the classic, old but charming 60s show that started it all (plus 6 movies that also shaped the franchise and built a bridge to TNG)

TNG -- The most successful Star Trek show so far, basically an update for an audience 20 years later. Next to TOS, probably the most defining Star Trek show that invented many things fans consider "classic" now

DS9, VOY, ENT -- optional spin-offs, spawned due to TNG's success. But fans are much more divided about the question how crucial their contribution to the franchise was

Kelvinverse movies -- optional, not really canon remakes that have more of Marvel or Star Wars action blockbuster flavor -- basically "Star Trek digestable for a broader audience of non-fans"

DSC -- the show that relaunched the "3rd generation" of Star Trek, but which includes many elements that set it apart from what I think is typical Star Trek ... stylistically more to the likes of people who have seen the Kelvinverse movies

PIC -- basically a sequel and closure to TNG and the TNG movies. Doesn't make sense to watch it when you haven't seen a lot of TNG yet

SNW -- after TNG the 2nd approach to a reinvention and update of TOS, this time for an audience 55 years later. When you have watched the selection of TOS episodes I've provided you with, but you don't feel like watching another "old" show (TNG), you can as well go right to SNW directly from TOS, and you'll feel familiar

(LD and PRO -- better not mention them too early, in order to not make things even more complicated ...)

Why are LD and PRO at the end like this? LOL Other than that bit, great read and great approach to ST as a franchise.

 

[Sim]

Why are LD and PRO at the end like this? LOL Other than that bit, great read and great approach to ST as a franchise.

Well I thought I didn't want to suffocate my friend with even more information and details than I already had, plus as much as I enjoy LD and PRO, I rather see them as "nice bonus additions" than "the real thing". Maybe due to my bias against animation (vs life action drama).

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

Well I thought I didn't want to suffocate my friend with even more information and details than I already had, plus as much as I enjoy LD and PRO, I rather see them as "nice bonus additions" than "the real thing". Maybe due to my bias against animation (vs life action drama).

If I were to bring a friend into Star Trek, I'd start with the reboot trilogy. If they like it, it's a good entry point. If not, they watched a fun movie trilogy. What which show or movie would you use as Newbie Trek?

 

[Sim]

If I were to bring a friend into Star Trek, I'd start with the reboot trilogy. If they like it, it's a good entry point. If not, they watched a fun movie trilogy. What which show or movie would you use as Newbie Trek?

I think for most people, your approach is good.

But in case of my friend, I knew that he doesn't mind older or more niche stuff (by the standards of an audience used to polished modern sf shows), like TOS, when I tell him it's historically important to really get a feeling for the franchise. In order to still not burden his patience, I picked just 20 of the more defining episodes (plus the movies II-IV). And it worked, he said he finds TOS "charming", and "more like theatre".

I then told him if he wants to see more, he should either try TNG, or directly go to SNW, if he's curious what today's approach looks like. But he hasn't done that yet.

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

I think for most people, your approach is good.

But in case of my friend, I knew that he doesn't mind older or more niche stuff (by the standards of an audience used to polished modern sf shows), like TOS, when I tell him it's historically important to really get a feeling for the franchise. In order to still not burden his patience, I picked just 20 of the more defining episodes (plus the movies II-IV). And it worked, he said he finds TOS "charming", and "more like theatre".

I then told him if he wants to see more, he should either try TNG, or directly go to SNW, if he's curious what today's approach looks like. But he hasn't done that yet.

If I have a friend who's never seen Star Trek beyond YouTube clips, this is how I would describe each show.
TOS - The old 60's one, as colorful as fast food, hammy acting, very passionate.
TAS - animated 4th season
TNG - 80's/90's sequel, new Enterprise, new crew, "the dramatic one."
DS9 - Space station, 90's sci-fi, kind'a dark, kind'a serial, memorable characters, lots of fun.
VOY - Lone ship on the far side of the galaxy looking for a fast way home, girl in charge, lots of action and comedy, lots of splosions.
ENT - More aimed at "die hard fans," showing the beginning of Star Trek.
DIS - First modern show, meant to be newbie friendly.
ST - Disco companion show.
PIC - Liked TNG? This is the sequel!
LD - If you liked TNG, DS9, or VOY, this is a follow up to that.
PRO - If you liked Voyager, this is a follow-up to that, but can always be watched on its own.
SNW - Branched off Disco S2, also a TOS prequel.

Fair enough if I'm going for elevator pitches?

 

[Bad Thoughts]

I have a loose approach:

Trek I watch religiously (like DS9 and LDX)
Trek I watch a lot (like TOS and Undiscovered Country)
Trek I watch sometimes (like 09)
Picard

 

[F. King Daniel]

Useless Question: How do you group Star Trek? I don't mean the entire franchise, but rather the Star Trek you like, how do you group it together? I will go first to give an example of what I mean. First of all, it's easy to look at it like 12 TV shows plus 13 (soon to be 14) movies. I like to look at it like this:

Broadcast Era
Star Trek (original) + animated series + 6 films
Next Generation + 4 films + 2 spin-offs: DS9 & VOY
Enterprise - the prequel show

Reboot Trilogy
Star Trek (2009) / Into Darkness / Beyond

Streaming Era
Discovery (revived Star Trek) & Short Treks (companion show)
Picard (TNG revival)
Lower Decks (4th show to 90's Trek)
Prodigy (Voyager spin-off)
Strange New Worlds (Disco spin-off / TOS prequel)
Section 31 (Disco spin-off movie)

What about you? I told you this was useless, but let's discuss anyway.

Like this, but TOS is it's own thing. It doesn't fit with TNG or even it's own movies, really.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

Star Trek
TOS s1 to LD s5

Other
TAS

 

[King Bob!]

Multiverse here.

Timeline A: Star Trek, The Animated Series, The Motion Picture
Timeline B: Star Trek II-VI, TNG, DS9, VOY, Generations, First Contact, Insurrection, Nemesis, LD, PIC, PRO
Timeline C: First Contact, ENT, SNW, DISC
Timeline D: The Abramsverse

Broad strokes are largely the same, details are different.

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

Multiverse here.

Timeline A: Star Trek, The Animated Series, The Motion Picture
Timeline B: Star Trek II-VI, TNG, DS9, VOY, Generations, First Contact, Insurrection, Nemesis, LD, PIC, PRO
Timeline C: First Contact, ENT, SNW, DISC
Timeline D: The Abramsverse

Broad strokes are largely the same, details are different.

Doesn't the ENT finale prove that Enterprise leads into TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY?
I've heard a lot of people say Disco & SNW feel like an alternate timeline or soft reboot.
Abramsverse is definitely its own thing, but I like that it kept Enterprise canon.
Why is TOS, TAS, TMP separate from what came after?

 

[King Bob!]

Why is TOS, TAS, TMP separate from what came after?

Largely different creative teams.

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

Largely different creative teams.

You divide TOS/TAS/TMP from what came after in the same way I break Trek up into broadcast era, reboot trilogy, streaming era? Fair enough.

 

[FredH]

If you mean different eras of production, I’d basically slice it as

The OG TV era: TOS, TAS, and that certain 70s “Trekmania” some of us will remember of posters, fold-out magazines, novelty books, Bantam novels and the Tech Manual.

The Main OG Movie era: TMP through TVH. [EDIT: Also, this was a HUGE era for Technical Fandom homegrown starship blueprints and handbooks and such.] (There’s a reasonable argument for putting TMP in the previous era, but it generates a lot of the seeds of what I’d otherwise call the Wrath of Khan era. Which would also include ST5 & 6 if they weren’t really part of—)

The Syndicated/Berman era: TNG all the way through ENT.

The Kelvin/Reboot era: ‘09 - Beyond.

The Streaming era: Discovery through the present.

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

If you mean different eras of production, I’d basically slice it as

The OG TV era: TOS, TAS, and that certain 70s “Trekmania” some of us will remember of posters, fold-out magazines, novelty books, Bantam novels and the Tech Manual.

The Main OG Movie era: TMP through TVH. (There’s a reasonable argument for putting TMP in the previous era, but it generates a lot of the seeds of what I’d otherwise call the Wrath of Khan era. Which would also include ST5 & 6 if they weren’t really part of—)

The Syndicated/Berman era: TNG all the way through ENT.

The Kelvin/Reboot era: ‘09 - Beyond.

The Streaming era: Discovery through the present.

I can get behind that. TOS/TAS is definitely a unique feel to everything after. Once we got TMP in 1979, it really was non-stop Star Trek until Enterprise ended in 2005, wasn't it?

 

[FredH]

I can get behind that. TOS/TAS is definitely a unique feel to everything after. Once we got TMP in 1979, it really was non-stop Star Trek until Enterprise ended in 2005, wasn't it?

Yes, though it really felt that way from 1987 on, since that’s when it came back to TV. Until then you still had two- or three-year gaps between films. (After 1987 you still did, but TV Trek was back.)

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

Yes, though it really felt that way from 1987 on, since that’s when it came back to TV. Until then you still had two- or three-year gaps between films. (After 1987 you still did, but TV Trek was back.)

Did audiences at the time know the next movie was already into production, or was it not known until movie posters and trailers drop? Pre-internet and all.

 

[FredH]

Did audiences at the time know the next movie was already into production, or was it not known until movie posters and trailers drop? Pre-internet and all.

I think people usually knew, but then again I was a Starlog Magazine kid, so I may have had a biased (that is, me-based) viewpoint. And for a while after TMP, a second Trek movie seemed iffy, until Starlog confirmed it one day.

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

I think people usually knew, but then again I was a Starlog Magazine kid, so I may have had a biased (that is, me-based) viewpoint. And for a while after TMP, a second Trek movie seemed iffy, until Starlog confirmed it one day.

OK, what is Starlog Magazine? When I was a kid, my parents were very anti "merchandise," so I didn't have magazines or anything like that. I had to rely on trailers at the start of VHS tapes and TV commercials to know what movies were out there until the internet.