More like 20 answers. Someone asks "How many episodes were in the first season of Picard?" The honest answer is ONE, just busted into ten parts. That's one extreme, TOS was the other, where no real sense of progression happened and you could watch any episode or any other episode in any order. I'd prefer an approach like maybe "Babylon 5" where each ep was a complete story (with the occasional two-parter), but all were in service to a larger story. Or maybe like the old non-SF series "Wiseguy", where you'd have, say six episodes (now it would be four) of the same story, a transition episode (or two) in between, then on to another mini-arc. That could work really well.
Poll Which era of Star Trek would you rather see continue?
- Thread starter Saul
- Start date
The other problem with talking about "the fan base" is that it almost always leads to talk of "true fans" and "real fans" and other such gatekeeping, often accompanied by a dismissive, even sometimes contemptuous attitude toward new fans, casual fans, the general audience, "normies," "mundanes," "the masses," etc.
"All true fans know that . . . ."
Which, of course, usually translates to "My opinions matter more than those of those OTHER folks because they're not 'real' fans."
(Says the lifelong Trekkie who has been informed, on more than one occasion, that "real" fans call themselves Trekkers. Sometimes by folks who weren't even born when I was watching TOS during its original run on NBC back in the day.
)
"All true fans know that . . . ."
Which, of course, usually translates to "My opinions matter more than those of those OTHER folks because they're not 'real' fans."
(Says the lifelong Trekkie who has been informed, on more than one occasion, that "real" fans call themselves Trekkers. Sometimes by folks who weren't even born when I was watching TOS during its original run on NBC back in the day.
)
Last edited:
Here we differ. And before we go any further, I'd like to unambiguously state that I think you're right and I'm wrong in your approach to this.
I've made a point of watching it all, even all of my least favourites at the time, Voyager and Enterprise (which admittedly improved). And purchased them.
I've failed at Lower Decks. I don't find it in the slightest amusing and the kindest thing I can say about it is that it's very annoying.
I got over half way through season one, but enough really is enough.
A real fan wouldn't say that...The other problem with talking about "the fan base" is that it almost always leads to talk of "true fans" and "real fans" and other such gatekeeping, often accompanied by a dismissive, even sometimes contemptuous attitude toward new fans, casual fans, the general audience, "normies," "mundanes," "the masses," etc.
"All true fans know that . . . ."
Which, of course, usually translates to "My opinions matter more than those of those OTHER folks because they're not 'real' fans."
(Says the lifelong Trekkie who has been informed, on more than one occasion, that "real" fans call themselves Trekkers. Sometimes by folks who weren't even born when I was watching TOS during its original run on NBC back in the day.
I think some of the folks that grew up watching the Berman era shows could probably be forgiven for thinking this. When it ended the Berman era shows accounted for around 85% of Star Trek adventures. It was produced by the largely same group of people, so was pretty homogeneous in look and feel. Because a handful of "very special" episodes utilized or recreated visual continuity from the original series and movie the Berman era is viewed to have respected those shows faithfully, even if that really wasn't the case most of the time.
So I think those fans are now experiencing what fans of the original show received during the 1980s/1990s: that the current show runners are interested in creating their own thing, and will selectively choose or reject elements from older productions.
It’s why I think Discovery should have been set beyond the 24th century right from the start. No question then about why didn’t Voyager use a spore drive or whatever… it just hasn’t been invented yet.
But they wanted to do the whole ‘Spock’s Sister’ thing so… some people are mad.
The thing with respecting canon is that what’s beholden and what isn’t exists behind an arbitrary line. It’s alright for TOS to get warp speed or Kirk’s name wrong because of any number of spurious reasons. But for some reason TMP can redesign the Klingons from the ground up and it was fine, but it was fire and brimstone when Discovery did exactly the same thing.
I have decided to call it the Sybok division. It’s okay for Spock to have a previously unmentioned brother because that was then. However, it’s absolutely wrong for Spock to have a previously unmentioned sister because that’s now.
Last edited:
Picard had some nice Easter eggs, but the substantial elements were disappointing (writing and characters). Discovery is the bigger problem where canon is concerned though.
Nothing to do with age. I feel the same about recycled kirk, spock, bones etc. etc. etc. no matter how young the actors are. I mean old as in characters and stories I've seen numerous times. I'm not interested in seeing how cleverly you can shoehorn Picard or Spock into a story. They were great characters, but their stories were finished a LONG time ago. Make new characters.
And it's clear that they didn't bother so enjoy nutrek. But this is a thread asking for our opinions so don't take it personally when you see one that you don't agree with.
Discovery would have been much more forgivable if it was set after Nemesis. Spock having a sister that no one had previously heard about is only one item with which some folks take issue.
Honestly, of all the criticisms directed at DISCO, that one always puzzled me. Spock never talked about his personal life unless he absolutely had to. He didn't tell Kirk who his father was, he didn't mention he had a fiancee, he nearly died before opening up about pon farr, he didn't tell anybody about his secret plot to return to Pike to Talos IV, he never mentioned his black-sheep brother, he didn't tell Kirk he was negotiating a secret peace treaty with the Klingons, he didn't tell Starfleet he was secretly working towards Vulcan/Romulan unification, etc. Spock always played his cards close to his vest.
Spock never mentioning his human sister was 100% consistent with "canon."
Yep. From November 2017 when this topic came up already for the umpteenth time:
Hypothetically, if DISCO was set post VOY, they could have Michael Burnham be Spocks adopted daughter, raised from when she was a orphaned child, and it would work out just fine.
It's fine for Spock to have family members that he doesn't mention.
Most people don't talk about family members unless it's relevant to the conversation.
I'm fine with Spock having family members that he doesn't talk about.
I don't go about bringing family members into every day conversation unless it's absolutely relevant.
I'm sure that applies to most people.
When you're in a professional work place, you focus on work.
And Spock was the consummate professional.
You make good points. I agree that it is not outside the realm of possibility that Spock could have a foster sibling he never mentioned.
TNG/DS9/VOY era for me, easily.
I disagree with the notion that those shows they show their age significantly. TOS does, definitely, but the TNG era? Not so much.
I think there are two approaches to making entertainment/art: try to make the "hip new thing" and it'll age quickly, try to just make a good product without caring about what's "in" right now, and it'll be largely intemporal. Sure, mores and aesthetics will evolve to some extent, so it won't be totally immune to aging, but it'll be more resistant.
That's why TOS aged so much: it was trying to capture the 60s. It's old pop music. (ok, this one's a bit harsh)
DSC is new pop music. In 20 years time, nobody will care about it.
TNG/DS9/VOY is heavy metal, and metalheads don't care if it was released 40 years ago or yesterday as long as it's good.
Or, to piggyback on Greg Cox' example:
TOS is Bela Lugosi Dracula movies.
DSC is Dracula 2000 or Dracula Untold.
TNG/DS9/VOY is Coppola Dracula.
Needless to say, the Coppola version withstood the test of time much better than Dracula 2000/Untold.
I disagree with the notion that those shows they show their age significantly. TOS does, definitely, but the TNG era? Not so much.
I think there are two approaches to making entertainment/art: try to make the "hip new thing" and it'll age quickly, try to just make a good product without caring about what's "in" right now, and it'll be largely intemporal. Sure, mores and aesthetics will evolve to some extent, so it won't be totally immune to aging, but it'll be more resistant.
That's why TOS aged so much: it was trying to capture the 60s. It's old pop music. (ok, this one's a bit harsh)
DSC is new pop music. In 20 years time, nobody will care about it.
TNG/DS9/VOY is heavy metal, and metalheads don't care if it was released 40 years ago or yesterday as long as it's good.
Or, to piggyback on Greg Cox' example:
TOS is Bela Lugosi Dracula movies.
DSC is Dracula 2000 or Dracula Untold.
TNG/DS9/VOY is Coppola Dracula.
Needless to say, the Coppola version withstood the test of time much better than Dracula 2000/Untold.
TNG did not age like Dracula.
This is what it is:
TOS --> Jimi Hendrix
TNG --> Pink Floyd
DS9 --> Metallica
VOY --> Alanis Morissette
ENT --> Kid Rock
Kelvin --> Bruno Mars
DSC --> Yeah Yeah Yeahs
PIC --> Frozen Autumn
EDITED TO ADD: If anyone here has ever heard of and likes those last two bands, you're okay in my book.
Last edited:
I think that’s a bold and rather silly prediction. Don’t you think people in the 80s made similar claims that TOS was timeless and that no one will care about TNG in 20 years time or whatever?
For that matter, could anyone in the late 90s (ie: 20 years ago) have predicted that Voyager would be the Trek series most watched on a subscription service like Netflix?
Last edited:
The CG in Discovery and Picard is far superior to TNG, DS9, VOY, or ENT. However, that just highlights how important substance is (over special effects). Those old shows were so much better to me.
Wow. This is interesting!
So, yeah, I won't vote because, like others have written, it doesn't entirely make sense to me. I love Star Trek. There are episodes I've been less fond of than others, and some that I'm fond of making fun of. I stopped watching Voyager and Enterprise, but I tried them because they're Star Trek. Given things I've read on these boards, I will try watching them again. Hell, given how much I've apparently *forgotten*, I need to rewatch *everything*!
Since it came up, I've been watching Star Trek since birth, as my parents are Trekkies too, and by my own choice since the reruns of TOS when I was a kid, so we'll say 45+ years. I remember being SO excited when TMP came out! New Star Trek! WOOHOO! Same when TNG came on the air. Same for *every* series and movie.
Oh man, no kidding.
I *loved* the political stuff in DS9. I thought it was brilliant. And, yes, there is room for us all.
GAH! I've run into that kind of thinking all over the place (including Paganism!) and hate/d it everywhere. I will cop to making jokes about "mundanes". Thank you for pointing out that it's part of the same BS. I'll try not to do that anymore.
I've heard of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs. They're cool. I'll need to look up Frozen Autumn.
To conclude, I vote "All of the Above".
IDIC
So, yeah, I won't vote because, like others have written, it doesn't entirely make sense to me. I love Star Trek. There are episodes I've been less fond of than others, and some that I'm fond of making fun of. I stopped watching Voyager and Enterprise, but I tried them because they're Star Trek. Given things I've read on these boards, I will try watching them again. Hell, given how much I've apparently *forgotten*, I need to rewatch *everything*!
Since it came up, I've been watching Star Trek since birth, as my parents are Trekkies too, and by my own choice since the reruns of TOS when I was a kid, so we'll say 45+ years. I remember being SO excited when TMP came out! New Star Trek! WOOHOO! Same when TNG came on the air. Same for *every* series and movie.
Oh man, no kidding.
I *loved* the political stuff in DS9. I thought it was brilliant. And, yes, there is room for us all.
The other problem with talking about "the fan base" is that it almost always leads to talk of "true fans" and "real fans" and other such gatekeeping, often accompanied by a dismissive, even sometimes contemptuous attitude toward new fans, casual fans, the general audience, "normies," "mundanes," "the masses," etc.
"All true fans know that . . . ."
Which, of course, usually translates to "My opinions matter more than those of those OTHER folks because they're not 'real' fans."
(Says the lifelong Trekkie who has been informed, on more than one occasion, that "real" fans call themselves Trekkers. Sometimes by folks who weren't even born when I was watching TOS during its original run on NBC back in the day.
GAH! I've run into that kind of thinking all over the place (including Paganism!) and hate/d it everywhere. I will cop to making jokes about "mundanes". Thank you for pointing out that it's part of the same BS. I'll try not to do that anymore.
I've heard of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs. They're cool.
I'll need to look up Frozen Autumn.To conclude, I vote "All of the Above".
IDICSimilar threads
- Poll
