What's your favourite NuTrek?If that's the case then farewell to Matalas. Because some of the stuff you want to reject is better than his.
What's your favourite NuTrek?If that's the case then farewell to Matalas. Because some of the stuff you want to reject is better than his.
Matalas has the advantage of having produced a show that's been well-received critically, seems to be doing well for the network, and has gone over well with a sizable portion of the fanbase much better than any other Paramount+ offering with the arguable exception of Strange New Worlds.Far far far better. I don’t want this much fanwank in my weekly Trek. A little here and there is okay but not on a consistent basis.
NuTrek
I just don't think Paramount teases that Q-Jack scene if they didn't want to come back to these characters and the 25th century time period. They know Matalas has been pushing for Legacy. They know a sizeable portion of the fanbase is pushing for it too. It's stupid to tease a scene like that, and then piss off the same fans a few weeks later when you say: "Nope, we're not doing that."Where do we go from here?
Well, to the early 2260’s with Pike and I guess back to the 32nd century with SFA
I just don't think Paramount teases that Q-Jack scene if they didn't want to come back to these characters and the 25th century time period. They know Matalas has been pushing for Legacy. They know a sizeable portion of the fanbase is pushing for it too. It's stupid to tease a scene like that, and then piss off the same fans a few weeks later when you say: "Nope, we're not doing that."
Calling it "NuTrek" always sounds like an attempt to devalue the newer series in relation the older ones. Intended or not.
Yes, that is exactly what the vast majority of viewers are doing. They compare lazy NuTrek to good and real Star Trek from the 90ies. Since Discovery will never be remembered as a real Star Trek show, there shouldn’t be an issue to name it NuTrek. Facts my friends, bitter but inescapable…
Nah. I adore nuWho and it's a useful term. (Now JJ-Trek, THAT'S derogatory.)Can I just say that I really hate this term.
It's all Star Trek.
Calling it "NuTrek" always sounds like an attempt to devalue the newer series in relation the older ones. Intended or not.
Matalas has the advantage of having produced a show that's been well-received critically, seems to be doing well for the network, and has gone over well with a sizable portion of the fanbase much better than any other Paramount+ offering with the arguable exception of Strange New Worlds.
Paramount would be crazy to cut him loose without at least attempting to discuss another project.
Indeed and I'm curious about it.Where do we go from here?
Well, to the early 2260’s with Pike and I guess back to the 32nd century with SFA
I'm give up 10 years of "Terry Trek" if it meant 1 more year of Strange New Worlds.
But that's me.
Matalas has the advantage of having produced a show that's been well-received critically, seems to be doing well for the network, and has gone over well with a sizable portion of the fanbase much better than any other Paramount+ offering with the arguable exception of Strange New Worlds.
Paramount would be crazy to cut him loose without at least attempting to discuss another project.
I agree. I think calling it "New Trek" and "Old Trek" gets the same point across without sounding like it's trying to make one sound like it's less than the other.Can I just say that I really hate this term.
It's all Star Trek.
Calling it "NuTrek" always sounds like an attempt to devalue the newer series in relation the older ones. Intended or not.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.