Why the hate for Alex Kurtzman?

[somebuddyX]

I don't hate Alex Kurtzman but I find his body of work just really shallow and often surface level exploration of some really interesting ideas, albeit this is in service to some popcorn sellers so maybe he did exactly as was asked of him. I didn't mind "People Like Us." He reminds me of a slightly better Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless, those dudes that wrote al those horrible crap like Madame Web and Morbius, and yet they somehow also wrote new "Lost in Space" which I really dig.

 

[BillJ]

However, he never really delivered—almost every piece of Trek content he oversaw in the last decade has been, at best, a mixed bag.

For you. For me? I’ve largely been uninterested. For others? Many love the material. There’s only one right answer. Is he hitting whatever metrics that CBS/Paramount have set for the shows in his charge? Considering we are coming up on a decade of him being in charge, I’d say that he is likely hitting those metrics.

You are a voice in a crowd of many voices.

 

[The Wormhole]

You are a voice in a crowd of many voices.

Completely random and off-topic, but I could totally see the Borg Queen saying that.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

Completely random and off-topic, but I could totally see the Borg Queen saying that.

BillJ could totally pull off a borg catsuit.

 

[Turtletrekker]

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

 

[trekfan_1]

Hate is too strong a word. I don't know him personally. I strongly dislike and disagree with his production style and most importantly, his interpretation of Star Trek.

Section 31 is exhibit A.

Alex Kurtzman seems be totally tone deaf. He just doesn’t get it . The optimistic flair of Star Trek is not just the end result of the story. It’s meant to exist and be the overall tone within its universe. Yes it can have some immoral characters and dark spots, but the overall vibe given is not one of dystopiaon negativity. Thats the vibe I get with most /alot of his productions. Even on DS9, I didn’t get that vibe. DS9 to me was never “dark”. It was many levels of grey perhaps and most of its protagonist characters were likeable and memorable. And the characters that get redeemed, are redeemedin a way tha feels earned.

What really infuriates me is when he says stuff like ” you need to have the dark to eventually get to the light” . Thing is most dystopiaon stories are like that. Even the darkest of dark dystopiaon shows usually involve some level of a happy ending. That’s pretty universal in all tv shows or movies. Just because the protagonists prevail at the end , that doesn’t make it Star Trek by sole virtue of its happy ending. ……..” you see this was never a dystopian/dark story to begin with, it ended optimistic! ” It’s TOTALLY Star Trek and follows Gene’s vision !” Ummm no

The postive end of the movieor tv season doesn’t make it feel like Star Trek all of a sudden. He totally misses the mark with his takes and his over arcing methodology of what Star Trek is. At least be honest that someething like Section 31 is not Star Trek and have balls to say they are doing something different to it's spirit. Admit he disagrees with the postive vision and that he doesn’t feel it’s realistic or sustainable or resonates with modern audiences ( than i can respect at least even though I would still disagree) . . But No he doesn’t do that . He makes something that is fundamentally not Star Trek and then he has this big marketing campaign try to sell this as classic Star Trek at its core. It’s insulting

And with Section 31 even as a standalone movie Star Trek or otherwise, it’s a just plainly and simply a horrible movie that is not fun IMO and filed with shallow characters.

 

[fireproof78]

Star Trek ended on down notes a lot in TOS. Humanity was not meant for paradise was a common theme.

I recall an interview with one writer discussing the Borg. He said part of the concept was was to take the often optimistic idea of technology that Trek portrayed and explore the darker side of tech.

Deep Space Nine showed a very dark side of the Federation with the ease that martial law became commonplace. Or the use of unscrupulous allows to fight a mutual enemy in Garak and Dukat.

I don't think Kurtzman is tone deaf; I think different stories from Trek resonated with him differently than other fans.

 

[HotRod]

Hate is too strong a word. I don't know him personally. I strongly dislike and disagree with his production style and most importantly, his interpretation of Star Trek.

Section 31 is exhibit A.

Alex Kurtzman seems be totally tone deaf. He just doesn’t get it . The optimistic flair of Star Trek is not just the end result of the story. It’s meant to exist and be the overall tone within its universe. Yes it can have some immoral characters and dark spots, but the overall vibe given is not one of dystopiaon negativity. Thats the vibe I get with most /alot of his productions. Even on DS9, I didn’t get that vibe. DS9 to me was never “dark”. It was many levels of grey perhaps and most of its protagonist characters were likeable and memorable. And the characters that get redeemed, are redeemedin a way tha feels earned.

What really infuriates me is when he says stuff like ” you need to have the dark to eventually get to the light” . Thing is most dystopiaon stories are like that. Even the darkest of dark dystopiaon shows usually involve some level of a happy ending. That’s pretty universal in all tv shows or movies. Just because the protagonists prevail at the end , that doesn’t make it Star Trek by sole virtue of its happy ending. ……..” you see this was never a dystopian/dark story to begin with, it ended optimistic! ” It’s TOTALLY Star Trek and follows Gene’s vision !” Ummm no

The postive end of the movieor tv season doesn’t make it feel like Star Trek all of a sudden. He totally misses the mark with his takes and his over arcing methodology of what Star Trek is. At least be honest that someething like Section 31 is not Star Trek and have balls to say they are doing something different to it's spirit. Admit he disagrees with the postive vision and that he doesn’t feel it’s realistic or sustainable or resonates with modern audiences ( than i can respect at least even though I would still disagree) . . But No he doesn’t do that . He makes something that is fundamentally not Star Trek and then he has this big marketing campaign try to sell this as classic Star Trek at its core. It’s insulting

And with Section 31 even as a standalone movie Star Trek or otherwise, it’s a just plainly and simply a horrible movie that is not fun IMO and filed with shallow characters.

These all feel like complaints that should be directed at Ira Steven Behr.

 

[trekfan_1]

DS9 being a dark show is a bit of a misnomer IMO
Between the fun banter between characters that have depth and the Ferengi comedies, I would argue it has more comedy and volume of light heartedness than TNG for example . Yes it had dark themes, war etc. But too me everything was amped up both serous and non serous subject matter. I found myself being amused with levity much more often on DS9 than TNG.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Section 31 is one entry amongst almost a thousand. It was a swing and a whiff. It happens. Move on.

As for the S31 concept itself, if done properly, it could have been a perfect vehicle to explore the darker side of the Trek universe. Despite what some people like to think, Star Trek has never been about the Enterprise, Starfleet, the Federation or a perfect humanity. It has been about exploring the human condition. In a franchise that has this many takes on the same universe, is there really no room for exploring the darker side of humanity? "Darkness-to-light" stories can make fertile ground for great drama, and the whole "perfect humanity" angle of Star Trek doesn't really allow for that kind of storytelling. It could have been something new and unique for Star Trek.

Would this be what we would have gotten if it had gone to series with multiple seasons? None can say. All I know is I would really love to read those 10 completed season 1 scripts that never got made.

At the end of the day, I would rather see Star Trek take a swing and a miss than just churn out another paint by numbers BermaTrek formula show.

 

[fireproof78]

DS9 being a dark show is a bit of a misnomer IMO
Between the fun banter between characters that have depth and the Ferengi comedies, I would argue it has more comedy and volume of light heartedness than TNG for example . Yes it had dark themes, war etc. But too me everything was amped up both serous and non serous subject matter. I found myself being amused with levity much more often on DS9 than TNG.

The thing is when DS9 is dark it's deep dark.

The levity is only a distraction from painful situations sometimes. It's closer to TOS sometimes with the somber ending or heartbreak that then gets shrugged off.

It's not new to Trek is all I'm saying.

 

[Farscape One]

DS9 being a dark show is a bit of a misnomer IMO
Between the fun banter between characters that have depth and the Ferengi comedies, I would argue it has more comedy and volume of light heartedness than TNG for example . Yes it had dark themes, war etc. But too me everything was amped up both serous and non serous subject matter. I found myself being amused with levity much more often on DS9 than TNG.

Thank you!

DS9 was the show that balanced light and dark the most and the best.

 

[trekfan_1]

The thing is when DS9 is dark it's deep dark.

The levity is only a distraction from painful situations sometimes. It's closer to TOS sometimes with the somber ending or heartbreak that then gets shrugged off.

It's not new to Trek is all I'm saying.

Fair point. I think part of it for me comes down to simply whether you find characters likeable or not. If a character feels hollow, your naturally going to find any attempt of humor or redemption feel artificial or forced. With most modern Trek, I would put my ratio of liking a character around 70/30 against. With section 31 it ws 100 against. With previous Treks it was about 80/20 favoring liking the characters. Whether that's liking them as a character ot just how they were written and or portrayed.

 

[fireproof78]

Fair point. I think part of it for me comes down to simply whether you find characters likeable or not. If a character feels hollow, your naturally going to find any attempt of humor or redemption feel artificial or forced. With most modern Trek, I would put my ratio of liking a character around 70/30 against. With section 31 it ws 100 against. With previous Treks it was about 80/20 favoring liking the characters. Whether that's liking them as a character ot just how they were written and or portrayed.

And that's fair. It's why I don't really engage with TNG; I don't care about the characters. No amount of writing is going to fix that.

I don't think I would accuse the production team of being tone deaf.

 

[Tomalak]

I don't really think Section 31 was "dark" or particularly dystopian, the main character's backstory aside. It was essentially about her doing the right thing after her past mistakes caught up with her, and otherwise the tone was of a pretty light and insubstantial heist movie affair, with plenty of jokes.

The issue was that it wasn't a very good script, and the jokes weren't very funny. But that's a separate criticism. Star Trek's had plenty of bad episodes and unfunny episodes. It happens. I'm not surprised it happened in this case given the development hell the scripts went through to end up here.

There's this dual criticism of the shows that Kurtzman has overseen to the effect that it's both dystopian and Not Star Trek, but also that it's too silly and unserious with Tilly and Reno, Lower Decks and SNW's penchant for goofy episodes. Sometimes it's the same people making both criticisms.

DS9 was often significantly darker in tone because it showed good people doing really bad things, often with good intentions. But it had the time to create characters with real depth and growth, which is much more difficult to do in a 10-episode streaming season. But it's not impossible, as plenty of prestige shows like Succession demonstrate. But Star Trek probably isn't going to be able to attract that quality of writer these days, and Paramount's metrics and analytics probably tell them that subscribers want a lighter tone and lots of action.

Prodigy is overall the best of the new crop of shows because it used those 40 episodes to grow the characters and give them arcs.

 

[trekfan_1]

And that's fair. It's why I don't really engage with TNG; I don't care about the characters. No amount of writing is going to fix that.

I don't think I would accuse the production team of being tone deaf.

I think at the very least , there is sizable portion of the fanbase that feels Kurtzman doesn't deliver on conveying the familiar Trek vibe. Now if your in the opinion that Trek needs to branch out and evolve from the familiar vibe, that's a separate discussion. But Kurtzman goes above and beyond to make a point the Trek optimistic style of story telling is still there. Where as I think many would disagree and instead lean towards modern Trek feeling more like most other modern sci-fi. Something that Trek previously stood apart from.

When I watched TNG I didn't see many sci-fi shows lke it. And honestly Sci-fi outside of Star Trek is not super high on my list. Not a fan of all those apocalyptic alein invasion stories for example.

Now when I watch Star Trek, I'm hard pressed to make a case on how it differs with other current Sci fi shows.

 

[Tomalak]

I think you're right that a lot of the criticism is basically down to vibes. It doesn't feel like TNG or DS9, just like how lots of fans didn't like those shoes as much in the nineties because they didn't have the same vibes as TOS.

 

[fireproof78]

I think at the very least , there is sizable portion of the fanbase that feels Kurtzman doesn't deliver on conveying the familiar Trek vibe. Now if your in the opinion that Trek needs to branch out and evolve from the familiar vibe, that's a separate discussion. But Kurtzman goes above and beyond to make a point the Trek optimistic style of story telling is still there. Where as I think many would disagree and instead lean towards modern Trek feeling more like most other modern sci-fi. Something that Trek previously stood apart from

I don't think it did as much as us Trek fans thought. Bye, even the vibe argument doesn't bother me because TOS had a variety of tones.

I think some fans miss the TNG vibe.

 

[trekfan_1]

I don't think it did as much as us Trek fans thought. Bye, even the vibe argument doesn't bother me because TOS had a variety of tones.

I think some fans miss the TNG vibe.

TOS had a variety of tones but for me underneath it's skin , it still felt that it was portraying an overall positive vibe and human outlook . Part of it is the cinematography too .Modern Trek is filmed much more with dark lighting. Like allot of TV is .Even darker than DS9 was shot. That only adds to the dark vibe that makes it even less feel like Star Trek and blends in with other sci-fi. Some would argue it adds a cinematic feel to it. To a degree maybe but I still think its over used. Star Trek 6 had a dark theme but the lighting wasnt too dark. And I don't think the movie suffered for it.

 

[Lord Garth]

I see this whole thing as transactional. If shows I like are made under his watch, I'm for him. If there are no longer shows I like being made under his watch, I'm not for him. Simple.

All the shows are too different from each other. I can't say "all the Kurtzman shows are like this!" or "all the Kurtzman shows are like that!" because it wouldn't be true.

There's this dual criticism of the shows that Kurtzman has overseen to the effect that it's both dystopian and Not Star Trek, but also that it's too silly and unserious with Tilly and Reno, Lower Decks and SNW's penchant for goofy episodes. Sometimes it's the same people making both criticisms.

DS9 was often significantly darker in tone because it showed good people doing really bad things, often with good intentions. But it had the time to create characters with real depth and growth, which is much more difficult to do in a 10-episode streaming season. But it's not impossible, as plenty of prestige shows like Succession demonstrate. But Star Trek probably isn't going to be able to attract that quality of writer these days, and Paramount's metrics and analytics probably tell them that subscribers want a lighter tone and lots of action.

Prodigy is overall the best of the new crop of shows because it used those 40 episodes to grow the characters and give them arcs.

This. Either 1) the people are leveling different criticisms to different shows or different seasons of shows, applying what they have to say to where it fits... or 2) they're not keeping track of what they're complaining about and reacting to whatever they see in Congress-style "if he's for it, we're against it" fashion. Hopefully it's more #1 than #2, but I think there's a mix of both in there if you put everything together overall.