Why the hate for Alex Kurtzman?

[HotRod]

Matalas is disliked for people on here simply because he made Star Trek palatable to people once more

Wrong. He's disliked by some on here because he was in charge of a season that felt like it was written by a 10 year old. That, and he's constantly held up by some as some kinda savior of Star Trek. Trek doesn't need saving. It's doing fine.

rather than universally reviled.

If Trek was universally reviled, I don't think we'd have got 5 seasons of Discovery, 5 seasons of Lower Decks, 3 seasons of Picard, at least 4 seasons of SNW, 2 seasons of Prodigy, and at least 2 seasons of Starfleet Academy. 21 seasons of television. Not to bad for apparently being reviled.

I remember with Enterprise it was the same thing when Coto briefly made it a logical series that felt somewhat like Trek.

Enterprise always felt like Star Trek. That was part of it's problem in the first 2 seasons. It felt to much like Trek that had come before.

 

[TRON JA307020]

Nope. You'll still hate them.

No. Ill say it again. Not if they respect the source material.

 

[Detached Nacelle]

There are people here who are so obsessed with ratings, they post 5,000 word diatribes with charts and graphs on it. They get giddy at the prospect that they’ve found the nugget that will take Kurtzman down. Why does that matter? Honestly?

Sometimes I do care about ratings and like to know them but for the opposite reason, I don't have a fetish about someone getting fired I don't understand it at all but I am always eager to get more and more content I enjoy. I'm a maximalist and don't feel any sense of content overload or fatigue, if I like something I need more of it and for it to last forever. Ratings are, sometimes, a vehicle for getting my hopes up. Only for half the time them to be dashed quite expertly.

 

[HotRod]

No. Ill say it again. Not if they respect the source material.

Berman respected the source material, and look how much shit he took back in the day. And I'll also say that Kurtzman respects the source material, regardless of what some might think.

 

[TRON JA307020]

Berman respected the source material, and look how much shit he toom back in the day. And I'll also say that Kurtzman respects the source material, regardless of what some might think.

I never complained about the berman era. He respected TOS. Kurtzman doesn't.

 

[Campe]

Sometimes I do care about ratings and like to know them but for the opposite reason, I don't have a fetish about someone getting fired I don't understand it at all but I am always eager to get more and more content I enjoy. I'm a maximalist and don't feel any sense of content overload or fatigue, if I like something I need more of it and for it to last forever. Ratings are, sometimes, a vehicle for getting my hopes up. Only for half the time them to be dashed quite expertly.

Hey, that’s totally cool. I used to be very interested in ratings. Just like I used to be very interested in tech manuals. Priorities shift. If ratings interest someone because they have a genuine interest in it, cool by me. But if they’re just using it for another trolling data point, that’s where you lose me.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Hey, that’s totally cool. I used to be very interested in ratings. Just like I used to be very interested in tech manuals. Priorities shift. If ratings interest someone because they have a genuine interest in it, cool by me. But if they’re just using it for another trolling data point, that’s where you lose me.

I haven't looked at ratings or reviews in years. I just watch the films and either I'm entertained or I'm not.

 

[fireproof78]

I never complained about the berman era. He respected TOS. Kurtzman doesn't.

Berman really didn't and got the flak no matter what.

Kurtzman is walking well trodden ground.

 

[Detached Nacelle]

Hey, that’s totally cool. I used to be very interested in ratings. Just like I used to be very interested in tech manuals. Priorities shift. If ratings interest someone because they have a genuine interest in it, cool by me. But if they’re just using it for another trolling data point, that’s where you lose me.

I'm quite sure half the trolling youtube channels and the people that watch them don't actually look at these numbers and make wild declrations out of thin air.

I'm pretty sure Kurzman was first getting fired right around the time it was revealed a black lady would be the lead. Oh but it must just be a coincidence.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Berman really didn't and got the flak no matter what.

Kurtzman is walking well trodden ground.

He tolerated TOS at best. He followed Gene's "No TOS stuff rule" at first. Guys like Moore were the ones pushing TOS related stuff. And even Moore didn't "respect" TOS on occasion. His version of the Klingons was not TOS's. He (and others) pretty much remade them from the ground up. They could have respected Scotty a little more, too.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Berman respected the source material, and look how much shit he toom back in the day. And I'll also say that Kurtzman respects the source material, regardless of what some might think.

I'd even go so far to say that Kurtzman respects the source material more than Berman. It's no secret that he and Braga were not fans of the original series.

 

[nightwind1]

Damn autocorrect

Autocorrupt

 

[TedShatner10]

Wrong. He's disliked by some on here because he was in charge of a season that felt like it was written by a 10 year old. That, and he's constantly held up by some as some kinda savior of Star Trek. Trek doesn't need saving. It's doing fine.

Season 3 is fanwank when looking at the dry cliffnotes, however the cast ensemble, the starship duel, the right mix of realistic violence and principled optimism, plus attention paid to small details that really made it very successful (IMO).

 

[Tomalak]

Season 3 is fanwank when looking at the dry cliffnotes, however the cast ensemble, the starship duel, the right mix of realistic violence and principled optimism, plus attention paid to small details that really made it very successful (IMO).

I'm conscious that fanwank is so-called because it pleasures fans in particular ways, and a TNG cast reunion we never thought we'd get is the ultimate in pleasuring the largest number of Star Trek fans possible, and that was shown in the broadly positive reception it had.

I've criticised a lot of elements of that season, but on the whole I still thinks it hangs together and I enjoyed it. But I know I'm a fan who was expertly tugged off by Terry Matalas and team, and I don't want Star Trek to only be that.

 

[JamesRye]

I suggest listening to Rob Kazinsky who starred in Section 31. He has a revealing interview on Trek Culture.

"I spoke to Alex and I spoke to Tunde and they explained to me that Star Trek is dying, and I dont know if people know that"

"This film wasn't made for people that love Star Trek. EDIT It was to introduce new people to the world"

And here you have the problem with Alex. He's trying to make Star Trek popular by turning it into something that it hasn't been in the past. And that's why some fans have beef with him. It's because he's trying to sell more product and its homogenising Star Trek with Star Wars. It's loosing whats made Star Trek unique. But maybe that's OK - just make generic action schlock with a more realistic and less utopian outlook.

 

[Turtletrekker]

I suggest listening to Rob Kazinsky who starred in Section 31. He has a revealing interview on Trek Culture.

"I spoke to Alex and I spoke to Tunde and they explained to me that Star Trek is dying, and I dont know if people know that"

"This film wasn't made for people that love Star Trek. EDIT It was to introduce new people to the world"

And here you have the problem with Alex. He's trying to make Star Trek popular by turning it into something that it hasn't been in the past. And that's why some fans have beef with him. It's because he's trying to sell more product and its homogenising Star Trek with Star Wars. It's loosing whats made Star Trek unique. But maybe that's OK - just make generic action schlock with a more realistic and less utopian outlook.

Conversely, I agree with Jessie Gender's take on that exact same quote.

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

Star Trek, like all art, has to evolve or it will stagnate and die. It has to try new things to reach new audiences. If Star Trek doesn't try new things, If it doesn't change and evolve, if it doesn't bring in new audiences, it will cease to be. Section 31 was, due to a variety of factors, a swing and a miss. Shit happens. But believe me, I would rather see Star Trek try new things and not be successful than simply regurgitate the same safe, boring BermaTrek formula that caused Star Trek to so thoroughly stagnate the way it did in the early aughts.

Also, I disagree with anyone who says that Star Trek should be just one thing. The Star Trek universe is a wide canvas filled with different types of storytelling opportunities. Simply telling the same types of stories over and over and over again, like in the latter days of the Berman era, is the definition of stagnation.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

I think they do need to try new things, but every miss like Section 31 has a risk of backfiring and losing some of the audience they already have.

Star Trek fans gave Section 31 a chance out of curiosity, out of completism, and maybe some people thought they might enjoy it. There will be less curiosity about their next attempt at a film, and if that also fails then Star Trek's streaming movies are going to start looking like Sony's Spider-Man villain films. You don't build an audience by damaging the brand.

 

[fireproof78]

, I disagree with anyone who says that Star Trek should be just one thing. The Star Trek universe is a wide canvas filled with different types of storytelling opportunities. Simply telling the same types of stories over and over and over again, like in the latter days of the Berman era, is the definition of stagnation

Exactly this.

Whenever I hear "this is Trek" it often sounds like that this is the only way and I don't want stagnation. Even if it means Trek I don't like.

 

[Tomalak]

For most of the first thirty years, "Star Trek" simply meant the adventures of the crew of the USS Enterprise.

They took a big swing with Deep Space Nine, which many fans thought was a terrible idea. It met with pretty mixed critical and commercial success, but is now widely regarded as one of the best shows.

Lower Decks was a big swing too - fans hated the idea of a cartoon satirising Star Trek. But it's been one of the most popular of the new shows.

They've already got the "adventures of the crew of the USS Enterprise" show after much lobbying from fans, so they should be free to experiment with other shows.

 

[Turtletrekker]

They've already got the "adventures of the crew of the USS Enterprise" show after much lobbying from fans,

Which is one of many reasons why I've always found the idea of the Star Trek Legacy show to be unlikely. We already have an Enterprise show, and of the two I would much prefer to see Strange New Worlds. Also, a Legacy show would not film in Los Angeles as that was done solely for the sake of Sir Patrick. Legacy would film in Canada, which would require Jeri Ryan and Michelle heard, among others, to move to Canada, which I find unlikely to happen.