I could ask you the same question.
Let’s stop derailing the thread and move on, shall we?
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
I could ask you the same question.
Let’s stop derailing the thread and move on, shall we?
I was just being insecure.
I thought I was missing the point / not getting the joke because it seems like everybody else but me liked this episode. I think I'm over it now tho.
I was just being insecure.
I thought I was missing the point / not getting the joke because it seems like everybody else but me liked this episode. I think I'm over it now tho.
I didn't like it, either. Only episode in the franchise I'll never rewatch. But that's only because I don't like musicals. So you're not alone in not liking it.
So if characters in the episode can hear the music during the songs, who is actually playing the music?
SFA takes place in the 32nd century, and will use existing DSC production assets to keep costs low.
Yeah I thought Tilly was supposed to be in charge?
O'Brien wasn't.
Tilly is an Academy instructor but not in charge of the entire organization.
If anything, that would be Kovich.
Tilly is an Academy instructor but not in charge of the entire organization.
If anything, that would be Kovich.
Fair enough.
I still think STA is going to be in the DSC era.
The Starfleet Academy co-showrunner (with Alex Kurtzman) is Noga Landau. Her WGA profile lists her most recent credits as TOM SWIFT and NANCY DREW. Both were CW YA dramas and are available to stream on HBO Max in the US.
Just as 12 MONKEYS gave a good indication of what we might expect from a Terry Matalas-run Star Trek series, these might forecast what direction SFA would take... Someone here should sample them and report back...
I'll wait for the book to come out.
I watched Picard Season 3 without watching any of Matalas' previous works, and I'll do the same here.
In Terry Matalas' case, I watched The 12 Monkeys. (Technically after PIC S3 not before, but that's splitting hairs... )
In Noga Landau's case, I don't think I'll watch Tom Swift or Nancy Drew. I'm in my 40s. I really doubt CW Young Adult Dramas will appeal to me. I'm not the target audience.
Believe it or not, you're actually too young for the CW... The median age viewer for the CW was 58 when CBS and Warners sold it to Nexstar. The only reason 2010s CW shows lasted as long as they did was the Netflix output deal and selling the different shows abroad for cheap, but then they were among the first casualties of the streaming bubble bursting.
SFA is a very circa 2019, peak streaming bubble idea that would have been questionable on the CW in its prime. Is their desired target audience outside a few thousand vocal Tumblr/Twitter people even on Paramount+?
If you want to bring in new fans, it's far better to target young Gen X and older Millennials with a show that would appear to both them and their older children.
That said, THE 100 was actually pretty good for a CW show...
I hope they change the era to Early 25th century, during ST:Legacy's purported time frame.
They still have time to adjust everything =D.
That would be nice, I'm sure we can Timey Wimey Wibbley Wobbly some way to get Tilly into that era via Time Travel if you really want her in the show.
The original press release announcing the series implied Starfleet Academy is set in the 32nd century post-burn, since it says SFA will take place at a Starfleet Academy that's reopening "for the first time in over a century." They also indicated in that press release this is really going for the YA audience since it talks about Academy applicants "16-years old" or greater who will be seeking service in Starfleet.
Again, this seems like a situation where the concept itself is self-limiting. If you make a good series, people of all ages will watch it. Pre-Kurtzman era, none of the Star Trek series were positioned this way. They did their best to make a good drama centered around a general concept, and people of all ages watched.
But if you make Star Trek: Riverdale, then you're going to turn off a segment of the audience from the start and limit the the potential audience that will give it a chance, within a series that has limitations based on its concept to begin with.
I find the entire idea of attempting to target Star Trek IP to specific demos a really dubious proposition.
Again, this seems like a situation where the concept itself is self-limiting. If you make a good series, people of all ages will watch it. Pre-Kurtzman era, none of the Star Trek series were positioned this way. They did their best to make a good drama centered around a general concept, and people of all ages watched.
But if you make Star Trek: Riverdale, then you're going to turn off a segment of the audience from the start and limit the the potential audience that will give it a chance, within a series that has limitations based on its concept to begin with.
Last edited:
I agree with you in principle, and I think you're right, but I did still get a kick out of Paramount aiming Picard specifically towards my demo.
If I said otherwise, I'd be lying.
Except, that's what Trek has done of late.
It might be dubious and success might be questionable but I welcome things targeting my own interests. Rarely does Trek do so, nor do I require it to do so. But, I won't look a gift show in the mouth.
I watched both shows. Hubby and I really loved Nancy Drew (we're both 55) - it was a fresh take on the character and setting and most of the time it was enjoyable fun. Tom Swift was better in the concept than the execution, which is why it didn't even make a full season.
Similar threads
- Poll
