I gave up on it after the first season. It wasn't that it was "bad", I'm simply burned out on nostalgia for the sake of nostalgia.
Why the hate for Alex Kurtzman?
- Thread starter HotRod
- Start date
I gave up on it after the first season. It wasn't that it was "bad", I'm simply burned out on nostalgia for the sake of nostalgia.
I gave up after the first season as well, because its attempts at nostalgia were all "Hey, we've brought back the thing you remember and it's entirely different now!!" Uh, thanks, but that's actually the exact opposite of what I want and makes me the opposite of happy.
Though the Lower Decks crossover dragged me back in.
Though the Lower Decks crossover dragged me back in.
Like I said earlier in the thread, if you had told me in 2018 that Discovery would end up being the most original CBS Trek after five series, I would've laughed my ass off.
Agreed. I think "Under the Cloak of War" and the season opener were fantastic stories in their own right.
Under the Cloak of War was pretty good, I can't lie.
I'm not finding much nostalgia in the show. Yes it has characters from the past, but the stories are new and interesting and not just rehashed memberries.
I'll get back to it, at some point. Without a doubt. Just not the right show for this moment in my life.
If it's time to move on from the Berman-era, than why do 3 of the 5 NuTrek shows have Berman-era memberberries hooks?
PIC: Sequel to a legacy show from the 80s, named after a legacy character with legacy characters galore, especially in season 3.
Lower Decks: One giant memberberries show. It's all about the references.
Prodigy: Janeway, a legacy character, is at the center of this show.
Upcoming shows:
Academy: The Doctor.
And don't get me started about all the gushing in the fandom about the Legacy show and bringing back Seven of Nine.
Strange New Worlds: We have people singing the praises of Pike, Kirk, Scotty, Chapel, Uhura, and Spock. We've got the Gorn!
Berman-era memberberries are bad but TOS-era memberberries are good?
I think we're past the point of making sense.
It's time to move on. To what exactly? Who will be the next leader to do whatever it is Trek is supposed to do?
Anybody?
Buller?
It's time to move on. To what exactly? Who will be the next leader to do whatever it is Trek is supposed to do?
Anybody?
Buller?
Cameron.
Strange New Worlds: We have people singing the praises of Pike, Kirk, Scotty, Chapel, Uhura, and Spock. We've got the Gorn!
Berman-era memberberries are bad but TOS-era memberberries are good?
You are putting words in my mouth. I haven't said anything about TOS-era memberberries. They are equally bad. I have been consistently outspoken against nostalgia bait and memberberries in NuTrek.
Bringing back Ronald Moore or Naren Shankar, who wrote some of the best Star Trek episodes and have multiple highly acclaimed and successful SciFi shows as showrunners under their belt (BSG, The Expanse, For For All Mankind (very woke, but sill well-made)) does not mean bringing back Berman-era Trek. It just means bringing back their talent. But this won't happen, the chance is over. Naren Shankar recently singed a contract with Amazon for more "The Expanse" shows and Ronald Moore for a "God of War" show.
You lost me right there.
People hate Alex Kurtzman because his "creative" output is just bad. It always was, even before Star Trek.
All this talk about about how people hate him because he is the face of Star Trek or Star Trek fans always hated change (TNG was a ratings hit) is just deflection.
Only people with a corporate toxic-positivity fanboy mindset ("Don't ask questions, just consume product and then get excited for next product") or people who like the divisive identity politics he injected into Star Trek can like what he created (or is responsible for as the man in charge). Even without looking at the divisive politics of NuTrek and all the antagonization it caused (I don't want to go into that any deeper here), Alex Kurtzman's body of work is not just not good, it's outright horrible on every level.
Kurtzman was the wrong choice for Star Trek:
Alex Kurtzman collaborator with Michael Bay on multiple projects. That alone should disqualify him to work on Star Trek.
Alex Kurtzman wrote 3 Michael Bay movies:
The Island 2005
Transformers 2007
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen 2009
One reason why I don't like JJ Abrams' Star Trek 2009 is because the Kelvin timeline Kirk is written as an immature, brattish, infantile, bumbling buffoon, like Shia LaBeouf's Sam Witwicky.
Chris Pine's Kirk was written like Shia LaBeouf's Sam Witwicky. The screaming, the running, the Shia LaBeoufing, the timing of some of the "comedic" scenes (Kirk/Witwicky bed scene). And Chris Pine does his darndest job trying to do a Shia LaBeouf impression.
Thanks Alex Kurtzman (and JarJar Abrams).
Alex Kurtzman also wrote:
Cowboys & Aliens 2011
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 2014
And Alex Kurtzman wrote and directed The Mummy 2017, a total disaster on every level.
"The Mummy", the last project Alex Kurtzman worked on before Discovery, got him 8 Golden Raspberry Awards nominations and Tom Cruise, the actor he directed and wrote the script for won the Golden Raspberry for "Worst Actor".
Alex Kurtzman has a "Worst Screenplay" Razzie for "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" and Transformers 2, the movie he wrote, also got a Razzie for "Worst Picture", Michael Bay got a Razzie for "Worst Director" and Transformers 2 got 4 additional Razzie nominations.
Before he was involved with Star Trek Alex Kurtzman killed two franchises.
The second iterations of Sony's Spider-Man franchises with Andrew Garfield (Sinister Six) and Universal Pictures's Dark Universe cinematic universe. The "Dark Universe" was dead on arrival and is still dead and Spider-Man had to be revived by Kevin Feige, a far more talented producer.
BTW:
The current showrunner of Strange News World (and Picard S1/S2), Akiva Goldsman, also worked for Michael Bay. He wrote the fifth and last Michael Bay Transformers movie. A financial and critical disaster.
Both Alex Kurtzman and Akiva Goldsman had huge cinematic disasters in 2017 before working on Star Trek Discovery.
Akiva Goldsman's "Transformers: The Last Knight" has even more Golden Raspberry Awards nominations (10) than Alex Kurtzman's "The Mummy" (8).
Akiva Goldsman had a second cinematic disaster in 2017 with "The Dark Tower".
Alex Kurtzman and Akiva Goldsman are both in director's and writer's jail.
And these ware the people who are in charge of Star Trek.
Can we have people in charge of Star Trek that
A) Didn't work with Michael Bay
B) Don't have Golden Raspberries (and even one Raspberry, and no even nominations)
It's also a logical fallacy to say that after 2005, the direction Abrams/Kurtzman took Star Trek was the only possible way for Star Trek to move forward.
Alex Kurtzman wrote Star Trek '09 (a huge hit).
Maybe ... Just MAYBE ... he has a grasp on what Trek needs to draw a crowd again?
It be great to have Trek be so popular.
It would be great if Trek was loved, but I'd love it if Trek was great.
If you brought in someone like Ronald Moore, he'd probably want to do a square one reboot.
Moore has been advocating that since First Contact, where he's given interviews saying the lore of Star Trek is too much now for writers. That you shouldn't have to remember what happened in an episode 30 years ago when pitching an idea in the writer's room, or conversely the audience shouldn't have to go back and watch an episode of TOS or TNG in order to fully understand the significance of something.
As for Strange New Worlds ... I don't think Strange New Worlds is "memberberries," but it doesn't feel original to me either. Even though I have some issues with it, I think Anson Mount and the rest of the cast are great in doing their roles. But, to me, it gives the vibe of a good cover band. They're putting a different spin on old elements to create their own version of a TOS-ish Star Trek.
However, it doesn't define itself on its own terms the way TNG separated from TOS. Arguably, none of the Paramount+ shows have really done that (e.g., Lower Decks is firmly referential to the Berman era, Prodigy is directly tied to Voyager, etc.). After season 3 of TNG, people no longer felt like it was an updated imitation of the TOS ideas. It had created it's own vision of Star Trek that was its own. And I don't think Strange New Worlds has done that. It still feels like a show with one foot dangling out the door to do musical episodes and other original ideas, while the other is still trying to desperately stay firmly planted, begging you to believe it's all connected to TOS while sitting in the shadow of it.
I would also argue that for fans who are passionate about an IP, some are assholes and some really care because that IP is tied to core memories in their life. Some have dumb reasons for their rants, and some have legit critiques that are based on their opinions of what makes for a "good" Star Trek story. Now, a lot of that is going to be subjective, but sometimes there's good insights in there.
Al Franken once wrote about the differences in loving something. When you're a young child, usually you love your mommy. And mommy can't do anything wrong. What mommy does is good because she's mommy. But when you grow older, and the concept of loving something becomes more complex, if you love something you understand that you can love it while recognizing its flaws. And sometimes with love, you hope to see the person or thing you love become better and overcome those flaws.
You don't just love it because you're supposed to love it if you're a fan. Sometimes you engage with material that you don't like because you still love the core of what it is, can acknowledge the flaws in its direction, but hold out hope that it'll get better.
Moore has been advocating that since First Contact, where he's given interviews saying the lore of Star Trek is too much now for writers. That you shouldn't have to remember what happened in an episode 30 years ago when pitching an idea in the writer's room, or conversely the audience shouldn't have to go back and watch an episode of TOS or TNG in order to fully understand the significance of something.
As for Strange New Worlds ... I don't think Strange New Worlds is "memberberries," but it doesn't feel original to me either. Even though I have some issues with it, I think Anson Mount and the rest of the cast are great in doing their roles. But, to me, it gives the vibe of a good cover band. They're putting a different spin on old elements to create their own version of a TOS-ish Star Trek.
However, it doesn't define itself on its own terms the way TNG separated from TOS. Arguably, none of the Paramount+ shows have really done that (e.g., Lower Decks is firmly referential to the Berman era, Prodigy is directly tied to Voyager, etc.). After season 3 of TNG, people no longer felt like it was an updated imitation of the TOS ideas. It had created it's own vision of Star Trek that was its own. And I don't think Strange New Worlds has done that. It still feels like a show with one foot dangling out the door to do musical episodes and other original ideas, while the other is still trying to desperately stay firmly planted, begging you to believe it's all connected to TOS while sitting in the shadow of it.
I like Star Trek. I've watched (or tried to watch) all of the shows and movies since I was 11-years old. I go into each episode or movie wanting to like it, and wanting it to be good. But when I don't think it's good, I have those feelings and critiques. Yet, the next week I usually still watch because I like Star Trek and hold out hope it'll get better.
I would also argue that for fans who are passionate about an IP, some are assholes and some really care because that IP is tied to core memories in their life. Some have dumb reasons for their rants, and some have legit critiques that are based on their opinions of what makes for a "good" Star Trek story. Now, a lot of that is going to be subjective, but sometimes there's good insights in there.
Al Franken once wrote about the differences in loving something. When you're a young child, usually you love your mommy. And mommy can't do anything wrong. What mommy does is good because she's mommy. But when you grow older, and the concept of loving something becomes more complex, if you love something you understand that you can love it while recognizing its flaws. And sometimes with love, you hope to see the person or thing you love become better and overcome those flaws.
You don't just love it because you're supposed to love it if you're a fan. Sometimes you engage with material that you don't like because you still love the core of what it is, can acknowledge the flaws in its direction, but hold out hope that it'll get better.
For many, it never seems to never get better. But, I'm slowly accepting that some fans will stick around in the misery of it in vain hope of it doing something. What, I don't know.
I read Stephen King's thoughts on the matter. I don't agree with him but it gave me a better view. But, to my mind, it seems that part of the reason things like SNW and Picard Season 3 got made is because fans demanded something familiar. Yet it remains unfamiliar, and outside the grasp.
Hmmm...reminds me of something else (just the speech, not the visuals):
Disco TRIED tearing itself away from established canon. It tried being its own thing (it's one reason it jumped to the 32nd century).
The fans squawked, "But whAt AbOuT CaNoN?" So they brought in Pike and Spock.
The fans say they want Trek to be its own thing (and when they get it, they complain!
)Similar threads
