Spoilers Where do things go from here?

[fireproof78]

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…

How do we know what the vast majority of viewers are doing?

How do we know what will be remembered or not? Enterprise was excoriated at the time of it's airing and now well regarded for reasons that escape me.

There are no "facts" here, but subjective interpretation.

Also, I am highly amused by this definition of "real Trek" which excludes 60s, 70s and 80s Trek. That's quite the feat there!

 

[The Old Mixer]

Getting it out of my system...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Racefuel]

I just wanna say that I really dislike it when someone arbitrarily decides to speak on behalf of every Star Trek fan across the planet.

Just speak your truth and realize that you are speaking only for yourself (unless you get +1'd by others). You cannot enhance the weight of your opinion by pretending to speak for others because its painfully obvious that one isn't.

 

[Tallguy]

I remember disctinctly when people said Voyager and Enterprise wouldn't be remembered with the rest of Trek, also.

Voyager? Seriously? Enterprise was more of a departure and it had the added "benefit" of waltzing all over what people knew or thought they knew about the TOS era. I'm sure the casual viewer didn't care much but it didn't help the fanbase (me, anyway) that Braga was openly derisive of TOS. (Gadzooks! He went to Kent State! What's all this Montana business?!? The U.S.S. Canton wasn't cool enough?)

Voyager was pretty much bone simple TNG era Star Trek with a new cast, wasn't it?

It's funny, DS9 didn't really promise very much but went down a lot of extraordinary paths for Star Trek. Voyager promised to be extraordinary (cut off, low on supplies, a possibly hostile contingent of the crew) and barely followed up on any of it. To be fair I've seen all of DS9 and only a season or two of Voyager.

 

[Lord Garth]

How do we know what the vast majority of viewers are doing?

How do we know what will be remembered or not? Enterprise was excoriated at the time of it's airing and now well regarded for reasons that escape me.

There are no "facts" here, but subjective interpretation.

Also, I am highly amused by this definition of "real Trek" which excludes 60s, 70s and 80s Trek. That's quite the feat there!

I'm surprised Terry Trekkers want '90s Trek, since PIC Season 3 is more like '80s Trek.

 

[fireproof78]

Voyager promised to be extraordinary (cut off, low on supplies, a possibly hostile contingent of the crew) and barely followed up on any of it.

Which is why I think Voyager was the "end of Trek." It presented as this departure from exploration to survival.

 

[valkyrie013]

Which is why I think Voyager was the "end of Trek." It presented as this departure from exploration to survival.

You can still have exploration in a survival situation.
There still exploring to find new species to help them and new ways home.

 

[Paul Weaver]

You can still have exploration in a survival situation.

There's coffee in that nebula!

VOY had more exploration than DS9 s3-7 imo

 

[fireproof78]

You can still have exploration in a survival situation.
There still exploring to find new species to help them and new ways home.

I agree and I think Voyager had a lot of potential. But, I'm speaking more broadly, because that's what tends to happen. TNG got the "it's not Trek without Kirk and Spock." DS9 got the "It's not Trek without a spaceship not on a station!" And Voyager I think got something similar of "It's not Trek with survival." Which, like the other broad sweeping generalizations of the show misses the complete point of what the show actually did.

It just speaks to the history of Star Trek as a franchise, and the assumptions made of what Star Trek must be in order to be Star Trek. To which my attitude has become that Star Trek is an action/adventure science fiction franchise with an optimistic perspective on humanity. That's it. Star Trek can have horror stories (ugh but it can), social commentary, political commentary, allegory and comedy and still be Star Trek. It lacking a particular plot device doesn't make it less Star Trek.

 

[Tallguy]

There's coffee in that nebula!

You beat me to it!

 

[James Cole]

I'm surprised Terry Trekkers want '90s Trek, since PIC Season 3 is more like '80s Trek.

I guess I see season 3 as the natural evolution of late DS9 and ENT, with some TOS films thrown in as well.

 

[Lord Garth]

I guess I see season 3 as the natural evolution of late DS9 and ENT, with some TOS films thrown in as well.

Terry Matalas reverse-engineered the TOS Films and applied it to TNG. It was more than "some". He also used the end of DS9 and the end of VOY as a springboard to launch the story and framed it around the celebration of the launching of ENT, while evolving the look of the TNG Films from FC onward.

So, ultimately, I would say a 1982-1991 skeleton with 1996-2002 flesh.

 

[James Cole]

Terry Matalas reverse-engineered the TOS Films and applied it to TNG. It was more than "some". He also used the end of DS9 and the end of VOY as a springboard to launch the story and framed it around the celebration of the launching of ENT, while evolving the look of the TNG Films from FC onboard.

So, ultimately, I would say a 1982-1991 skeleton with 1996-2002 flesh.

It helps that the time distance between TOS and TUC is the same as FC/INS and Season 3, and that the TOS films didn't have either the syndication reset button or need to strictly stay within the Roddenberry box.

 

[valkyrie013]

I agree and I think Voyager had a lot of potential. But, I'm speaking more broadly, because that's what tends to happen. TNG got the "it's not Trek without Kirk and Spock." DS9 got the "It's not Trek without a spaceship not on a station!" And Voyager I think got something similar of "It's not Trek with survival." Which, like the other broad sweeping generalizations of the show misses the complete point of what the show actually did.

It just speaks to the history of Star Trek as a franchise, and the assumptions made of what Star Trek must be in order to be Star Trek. To which my attitude has become that Star Trek is an action/adventure science fiction franchise with an optimistic perspective on humanity. That's it. Star Trek can have horror stories (ugh but it can), social commentary, political commentary, allegory and comedy and still be Star Trek. It lacking a particular plot device doesn't make it less Star Trek.

Yeah, the MUST BE, is gate keeping by fans that enevitably say.. Not my Trek Etc. As shown by the end of Enterprise, the same ole same ole got stale and failed.

 

[TimeIsAPredator]

How do we know what will be remembered or not? Enterprise was excoriated at the time of it's airing and now well regarded for reasons that escape me.

The captain and 1st officer were straight white men and nobody else was gay. The women were the appropriate pin-up variety and most of all it was not Discovery.

 

[Tallguy]

Terry Trekkers

Really?

Which is why I think Voyager was the "end of Trek." It presented as this departure from exploration to survival.

But how often was it that show? In what I've watched there is survival, but it's usually "Hey we just met the baddie / cosmic force of the week!" just like the Enterprise would have. Immunity Syndrome is as survivalist as Voyager ever got as a rule. And there was more than their share of "Hey, we're here, lets check out this weeks Phenomenon".

I mean, the worst that rationing for long term survival ever got was Janeway had to go without coffee. Now if they'd been forced to shut off the holodecks, that would have been SURVIVAL!

 

[Lord Garth]

Really?

Hey, if I liked ENT instead of DSC, I'd qualify myself.

 

[fireproof78]

But how often was it that show?

That's not really my point. The perception of it being "wrong for Trek" is sufficient, again seeing evidence from TNG, DS9 and ENT all show similar patterns.

Spoiler alert: it's not really the end of Trek but will be treated as such.

 

[JamesRye]

Where do things go from here? Lets take a guess based on some evidence.

Star Trek Picard Season 3 has been amazingly well received. - evidence, Rotten Tomatoes.
PIC season 1, audience score: 58%
PIC season 2, audience score: 30%
PIC season 3, audience score: 98%

Compare this to Star Trek DSC's 20% for season 4 and its clear why that show was cancelled. Picard Season 3 is 'by and large' an unqualified smash hit, which has actually crossed over into the mainstream - evidence, being in the top 10 most streamed shows.

The change.org petition now stands at well over 40,000 people having signed. Smashing the one that (may have) influenced the series Strange New Worlds.

Some call it fan-service, some call it 'true Trek'. Whatever. It does not matter. The audience were there. The audience loved it.

We will get more 'legacy Trek'. I expect the Georgiou show to bomb, but even if it does....At this point, they'd be daft not to be considering a TV movie event for Voyager, DS9 and/or Enterprise. There's also an 'in' for the mightiest ratings killer of them all.

I whisper it.

For I can scarcely believe it.

Shatner could be back.

People have wept tears of joy over the big D. Now imagine Shatner. And a deep fake of Spock and Dr McCoy. True Trek? Fan service? Member berries?. No. Giving the audience what they want. Getting the ratings.

Now just blast a ton of light on the sets and put back the carpet. Everything will be OK.

 

[HotRod]

At this point, they'd be daft not to be considering a TV movie event for Voyager, DS9 and/or Enterprise.

Not one of those 3 shows had the cultural impact that TOS or TNG had. Don't get me wrong, I'd love some kinda continuation for Enterprise, and who knows.... it could happen. But, it's definitely not a sure thing. Same with Voyager and Deep Space Nine, a show that for awhile was treated like the red headed stepchild of the franchise.

And a deep fake of Spock and Dr McCoy.

Please no.