What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

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.

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.

 

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.

 

Kurtzman elaborating on SFA at the NYCC.

 

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.

 

The show's premise is supposed to be about Starfleet Academy re-opening for the first time since the Burn. Kind if hard to use that premise in the 25th century.

 

I liked the changes to the Klingon makeup in DSC Season 2, and hated that SNW went back to more TNG looking makeup. Though I am glad they stopped using the DSC Season 1 ship designs and weapons.

Except the Cleave Ship, I liked the Cleave Ship, it's so very Klingon to have giant blade ship.

 

I'm on record not liking most things about the DSC Season 1 and 2 Klingons but yeah, the Cleave Ship was a badass design and something you could totally see the Klingon Empire building and using in any era of warp flight.

 

I found The 100 to be boringly repetitive with the basic plot of each season being the same as the previous.

Group of cataclysmic holocaust survivors (or descendants of survivors in season 1) fights natives in an attempt to establish a foothold of a colony on Earth (or nearby planet) with the season ender being another cataclysm that resets the story.

I stopped watching season 6. So close to the end...

 

They can change the premise =D

 

That every series after Voyager and DS9 are so outside of the history that they shouldn't even be considered to be a part of Star Trek

 

Yeah, that’s not going to happen. All the sets from PIC have been struck. The entire point of making SFA is that they can use the DSC assets after that show ends.

 

What should they be considered?

 

NOW WE'RE COOKING WITH WARP PLASMA.

Buckle up!

 

Good thing I had that crash bar installed on my couch.

 

"Devil in the Dark" is about a colonial power sending a ship to put down a local uprising that's interfering with their profitable mining operation.

The ship captain's solution is to get the surviving indigenous inhabitants to work the mines of the invaders who slaughtered thousands of their siblings.

Consider a few choice pieces of dialogue:

Note that Spock has just established the sophisticated intelligence of the planet's inhabitants.

Later, Kirk will say:

He's been told. He's culpable.

All hail the humane ideals of the Federation!

 

I totally agree, and I think Spock would, too.

There's a fan fiction piece I have read where Spock convinces Kirk that they have to bring this to the Federation Council to get justice for the Horta. I'll try to find it and I will edit this post with the link when I do.