Will SFA Season 2 Actually Air?

[Starflight]

That's the thing; I don't think it haunts characters constantly but if it's recent it is relevant. And given the current modem attitude of pull yourself up by your boot straps around things s place where people actually talk about stuff is appealing to me.

Maybe not as often as SFA characters but definitely more often than one and don't like trauma was cured.

I definitely get the appeal for some, but it's a theatrical dramatic style that some people are going to love and others are going to be bored or annoyed by, same as the "bootstraps"-type narratives its presents one alternative to.

People's replies in this thread seemed at times to try and hold the dual contradictory positions of "Star Trek has always been this focused on trauma" and "this new more trauma-focused approach is better than older Star Trek". I think at the core of it, everyone knows the tonal and stylistic choices the writers make now are markedly different from previous shows (and previous shows were often tonally different from each other). Some people love the new direction but TRON finds it tedious, and I'm with him on that, and I think that's a fair subjective artistic disagreement on both sides.

 

[fireproof78]

I definitely get the appeal for some, but it's a theatrical style that some people are going to love and others are going to be bored or annoyed by, same as the "bootstraps"-type narratives its presents one alternative to.

People's replies in this thread seemed at times to try and hold the dual contradictory positions of "Star Trek has always been like this" and "this new approach is better than older Star Trek". I think at the core of it, everyone knows the tonal choices the writers make now are different from previous shows (and previous shows were often tonally different from each other). Some people love the new direction but TRON finds it tedious, and I'm with him on that, and I think that's a fair subjective artistic disagreement on both sides.

The part I pushed back was the laughing at the idea of trauma or that it somehow would not be present in the future. The dismissive attitude of how traumas impact and persists in a person's life or something that has reflected across Star Trek. Conscience of the King being the best example.

I agree it's fair to disagree with the presentation and that's fine. That wasn't my personal disagreement.

 

[Campe]

Hell, The Cage and WNMHGB both have examples of trauma that their leading character faces.

I also agree with @fireproof78 on the idea that the presentation of how trauma is presented can be disagreed until the cows come home. It is definitely the concept that trauma isn’t a thing in the future I find disheartening.

 

[Michael]

My beef is not with someone saying they are not entertained by the way the show is presenting characters with trauma and I think it’s a mischaracterization of the discussion in this thread. As I said, I think it’s totally fair if that’s just not what one wants their escapist sci-fi show to be.

The actual problem is with saying that a character like Caleb should stop “whining” and “complaining” (which frankly is a bizarre reading of the handful of times it even comes up in these ten episodes) and that it’s somehow too “childish” or not “manly” enough that he brings up the mother he’s been looking for since he was a small child. Of course the show didn’t have to be about Caleb’s childhood trauma, but that’s what the writers chose to write the show about. So it’s weird to expect them to not take that concept seriously. Caleb being separated from his mother isn’t just some fucking character trait they mention in passing to spice up the drama or whatever, like Troi’s farther being dead or Riker growing up without a mother. It’s what sets the whole frickin’ story of the show in motion. It’s the through line / arc of season one. Why any viewer would watch those first minutes of the show and then expect the character to never mention it again for the rest of the show is beyond me. This has little to do with 60s/90s Trek approach to character trauma vs. today’s approach.

 

[TRON JA307020]

My beef is not with someone saying they are not entertained by the way the show is presenting characters with trauma and I think it’s a mischaracterization of the discussion in this thread. As I said, I think it’s totally fair if that’s just not what one wants their escapist sci-fi show to be.

The actual problem is with saying that a character like Caleb should stop “whining” and “complaining” (which frankly is a bizarre reading of the handful of times it even comes up in these ten episodes) and that it’s somehow too “childish” or not “manly” enough that he brings up the mother he’s been looking for since he was a small child. Of course the show didn’t have to be about Caleb’s childhood trauma, but that’s what the writers chose to write the show about. So it’s weird to expect them to not take that concept seriously. Caleb being separated from his mother isn’t just some fucking character trait they mention in passing to spice up the drama or whatever, like Troi’s farther being dead or Riker growing up without a mother. It’s what sets the whole frickin’ story of the show in motion. It’s the through line / arc of season one. Why any viewer would watch those first minutes of the show and then expect the character to never mention it again for the rest of the show is beyond me. This has little to do with 60s/90s Trek approach to character trauma vs. today’s approach.

Its not just Caleb. Its near every character. So many in kurtzman Trek. Most seem to be dealing with trauma. Whatever happened to exploring strange new worlds? Seeking out new life and new civilizations? It seems more about exploring trauma. I have no interest in that. The original series was much more mature in these matters. Yes kirk lost his best friend, his brother etc. He shown to be sad or grieving in the episode or at the end. We know hes upset. Thats all we needed to see. But did we really want to see him in an entire season dealing with the trauma? Kirk was a captain of a starship. We are pretty much told in the show its a special thing to be chosen to do that job. Kirk moves on with his life, does his duty and explores. Thats what I wanted go see and thats what TOS gave us. I had no desire and still don't to see Kirk dealing with his trauma on a weekly basis.

 

[Turtletrekker]

What a ridiculous hill to die on.

 

[BillJ]

The general attitude in older Star Trek series was that people aren't defined by loss or abuse, whereas the attitude of the newer series is more often that these things fester, reassert themselves perpetually, haunt characters indefinitely, and are the governing lens through which characters see themselves, the world, and each other.

It’s an example of the human condition and something extremely relevant to Star Trek.

I'd say it is about finding the right balance. Of course, that right balance is going to be different for each and every viewer.

 

[fireproof78]

Its not just Caleb. Its near every character. So many in kurtzman Trek. Most seem to be dealing with trauma. Whatever happened to exploring strange new worlds? Seeking out new life and new civilizations? It seems more about exploring trauma. I have no interest in that. The original series was much more mature in these matters. Yes kirk lost his best friend, his brother etc. But did we really want to see him in an entire season dealing with the trauma? Kirk was a captain of a starship. We are pretty much told in the show its a special thing to be chosen to do that job. Kirk moves on with his life, does his duty and explores. Thats what I wanted go see and thats what TOS gave us. I had no desire and still don't to see Kirk dealing with his trauma on a weekly basis.

Yet we had episodes on that.

Star Trek is the human journey, not just the strange new worlds.

 

[Michael]

Its not just Caleb. Its near every character. So many in kurtzman Trek. Most seem to be dealing with trauma. Whatever happened to exploring strange new worlds? Seeking out new life and new civilizations? It seems more about exploring trauma. I have no interest in that. The original series was much more mature in these matters. Yes kirk lost his best friend, his brother etc. But did we really want to see him in an entire season dealing with the trauma? Kirk was a captain of a starship. We are pretty much told in the show its a special thing to be chosen to do that job. Kirk moves on with his life, does his duty and explores. Thats what I wanted go see and thats what TOS gave us. I had no desire and still don't to see Kirk dealing with his trauma on a weekly basis.

Good thing then that SFA was not about Caleb’s trauma on a weekly basis.

To me, Trek has always been about the characters first and foremost. An episode might be high concept science-fiction, it might be a light comedy adventure, it might be a morality play, it might have something to say about the world we live in — it’s all of that, but the key thing is that it’s always viewed through the eyes of the cast of characters of any given Trek show. It’s interesting to see a human being corrupted by superhuman powers, but in the end I actually care about Kirk wresting with having to fight his best friend. Characters phasing out of existence is a neat sci-fi concept, but what makes ”The Next Phase” worthwhile is having two characters come to grips with their own mortality. Non-linear aliens are a cool concept and all, but I’m interested in what they mean to Sisko and how they are able frame what he has experienced …

And I think Starfleet Academy is continuing this perhaps oldest of Trek traditions: Presenting us an eclectic cast of characters existing in a science-fiction universe being confronted by elements from that universe and having to deal with them as human (or not so human) beings.

 

[TRON JA307020]

Good thing then that SFA was not about Caleb’s trauma on a weekly basis.

To me, Trek has always been about the characters first and foremost. An episode might be high concept science-fiction, it might be a light comedy adventure, it might be a morality play, it might have something to say about the world we live in — it’s all of that, but the key thing is that it’s always viewed through the eyes of the cast of characters of any given Trek show. It’s interesting to see a human being corrupted by superhuman powers, but in the end I actually care about Kirk wresting with having to fight his best friend. Characters phasing out of existence is a neat sci-fi concept, but what makes ”The Next Phase” worthwhile is having two characters come to grips with their own mortality. Non-linear aliens are a cool concept and all, but I’m interested in what they mean to Sisko and how they are able frame what he has experienced …

And I think Starfleet Academy is continuing this perhaps oldest of Trek traditions: Presenting us an eclectic cast of characters existing in a science-fiction universe being confronted by elements from that universe and having to deal with them as human (or not so human) beings.

We saw how kirk felt when he fought his best friend and had to kill him. Its all there in the episode. Its there when he was fighting Gary and after. We don't need anymore after that. To continually mining his trauma in later episides would dilute to the viewer overtime. It was perfect as it was.

 

[fireproof78]

We saw how kirk felt when he fought his best friend and had to kill him. Its all there in the episode. Its there when he was fighting Gary and after. We don't need anymore after that. To continually mining his trauma in later episides would dilute to the viewer overtime. It was perfect as it was.

Thankfully, SFA isn't about Kirk.

 

[BillJ]

We saw how kirk felt when he fought his best friend and had to kill him. Its all there in the episode. Its there when he was fighting Gary and after. We don't need anymore after that. To continually mining his trauma in later episides would dilute to the viewer overtime. It was perfect as it was.

I agree that it was perfect as it was, for storytelling in 1966 (for me, it is still a great episode). Audiences have changed over the decades, as have their expectations.

 

[Campe]

I just did a search for the original Star Trek writers guide. I get that some like the technology and futurism of Trek, but that’s not what the series set up to be back in the 1960s and it isn’t now. Like many of us has said, it’s about the people. The current Trek team has chosen to explore traumas to some regard. That might not be for everyone. But it’s not the only thing that Trek has to explore. I don’t want to get into too much spoiler territory here but yesterday’s episode of SNW had Pike working through the trauma of Marie’s disappearance. But he dealt with it and moved past it choosing to focus on the present by the end of the episode. Thats a great way to deal with trauma on a show like this. It affects a character and they move on. It’s very similar to Geordi’s trauma dealing with his mother’s disappearance. He doesn’t want to accept it but he does in the end and he works to move past it.

As for Caleb, it’s very different when you’re 18 years old and you’ve been trying to find your mother for most of your life. And no, it’s not been the primary course of the season, but it was an important part of his character throughout the season, but not the only part of his character.

 

[Michael]

We saw how kirk felt when he fought his best friend and had to kill him. Its all there in the episode. Its there when he was fighting Gary and after. We don't need anymore after that. To continually mining his trauma in later episides would dilute to the viewer overtime. It was perfect as it was.

Look, I don’t know how old you are (nor do I think this is just an age thing, but more a question of mindset), but I’m in my mid forties and I definitely start to feel more and more that I don’t understand the world around me anymore and that not everything that’s coming out is going to be tailored to my demographic. And frankly, that’s just life. I don‘t begrudge you wanting your entertainment to be made like it was 60 years ago. But personally I try to be realistic and recognize that the world around me is constantly changing and that not everything will be handled like I would want it to be handled. In the long run I do think it’s healthier to just let things go once I don’t feel they are made for me anymore.

 

[Firebird]

I agree that it was perfect as it was, for storytelling in 1966 (for me, it is still a great episode). Audiences have changed over the decades, as have their expectations.

This. Folks need to accept that the 1960s are sixty years behind us. The world changes. Audiences move on and want different things.

 

[The Wormhole]

Besides the premiere and two-part finale (episodes which actually feature his mother) I'm pretty sure Caleb only mentioned his mother something like twice the rest of the season.

 

[BillJ]

This. Folks need to accept that the 1960s are sixty years behind us. The world changes. Audiences move on and want different things.

Problem is how do you marry modern storytelling to a universe that is sixty years old and get younger people interested in it? Especially when it is clear that the people who are watching these things aren't interested in letting go of what came before. You can see it in what merchandise is constantly being pumped out.

I think the Star Wars franchise is beginning to run into the same kinds of problems. How do you get people interested in a universe that was well defined before they were ever born?

 

[Firebird]

Problem is how do you marry modern storytelling to a universe that is sixty years old and get younger people interested in it? Especially when it is clear that the people who are watching these things aren't interested in letting go of what came before. You can see it in what merchandise is constantly being pumped out.

I think the Star Wars franchise is beginning to run into the same kinds of problems. How do you get people interested in a universe that was well defined before they were ever born?

I wish I had an answer for you. Honestly, it seems like most media right now is being heavily pushed with Gen X nostalgia because that's the generation that's in the producing age range at the studios. There doesn't seem to be much of an effort to reach out to younger generations, and it's hurting the industry. Gen Z and younger have moved on to short-form entertainment or to outlets like YouTube because Hollywood kinda left them behind.

 

[Campe]

Problem is how do you marry modern storytelling to a universe that is sixty years old and get younger people interested in it? Especially when it is clear that the people who are watching these things aren't interested in letting go of what came before. You can see it in what merchandise is constantly being pumped out.

I think the Star Wars franchise is beginning to run into the same kinds of problems. How do you get people interested in a universe that was well defined before they were ever born?

I’m not ready to admit total defeat, but it might be that you either need to reboot the universe with no real connection to the past OR let it go. It’s a hard thing to admit, but maybe both of these examples have had their time. I don’t know if it’s true but it’s something I’ve been thinking more about these days.

 

[BillJ]

I’m not ready to admit total defeat, but it might be that you either need to reboot the universe with no real connection to the past OR let it go. It’s a hard thing to admit, but maybe both of these examples have had their time. I don’t know if it’s true but it’s something I’ve been thinking more about these days.

I'm right there with you. I love Star Trek. It literally saved my life when I was a kid. It was someplace my mind could go when "unpleasantness" was all around me.

I'm definitely not sure what the right answer is that can get people to reengage with the franchise. I'm not sure there is a right answer.