Your honest opinion on the Berman era

[Lord Garth]

In 2018, if someone told me I'd like the Berman Era better than the Kurtzman Era by the time the dust settled, I would've thought, "Are you on drugs?!?!!," but here we are. At this stage, looking at it overall, I'll say that unlike the Kurtzman Era, the Berman Era doesn't look like it's all over the place.

 

[DonIago]

TBF, the Berman era was also essentially one show at a time with fairly minimal overlap, versus several shows running simultaneously, all arguably trying to cater to different audiences.

 

[Farscape One]

DS9 ran concurrently with another series during its entire run... except for the first 10 episodes of season 3, when it was solo before VOY premiered in January 1995. So there was definite overlap.

None of the Kurtzman era shows ran concurrently, since they all ran after another ended their season.

 

[Lord Garth]

versus several [Kurtzman] shows running simultaneously, all arguably trying to cater to different audiences.

Trying, that's true.

 

[Starflight]

TBF, the Berman era was also essentially one show at a time with fairly minimal overlap, versus several shows running simultaneously, all arguably trying to cater to different audiences.

This was their own doing; the profoundly cynical approach of "Star Trek is a name that can be slapped on anything and we can pump out shows aimed at every demographic" was always gonna end up pretty much exactly where we're at now - diluted brand recognition, viewer alienation, and, uh, Star Trek: Scouts.

 

[Qonundrum]

In 2018, if someone told me I'd like the Berman Era better than the Kurtzman Era by the time the dust settled, I would've thought, "Are you on drugs?!?!!," but here we are. At this stage, looking at it overall, I'll say that unlike the Kurtzman Era, the Berman Era doesn't look like it's all over the place.

To be fair, variety is the spice of life. Berman's era did get too samey. VOY feels like an attempt to loosen things up, but it doesn't always work... Kurtzman's era clearly runs the gamut and that's honestly not unimportant, even if one isn't always keen on the end product. But both eras ran out of steam in the end, and a fanbase isn't always going to embrace it all if it rubs them the wrong way, regardless of how good the subject material is. Among a slew of other factors and possibilities. Berman's run did get burnout, but it didn't deviate too far off of its core tenets. Even then, they had to try different formats and hope to breach the cultural zeitgeist or whatever "appealing to mass audiences" can otherwise be called as well.

 

[DonIago]

I suppose another way of looking at it is that back in the day, if there were 1-2 Trek series on the air at the same time and you only liked one, then hey, you liked half the Trek that was currently available. But during the era of multiple series being on the air, if you only like one series, you proportionally like much less of the currently airing Trek even though in Ye Olde Days one series might be the only option you had, so it feels like TPTB are making a lot of Trek that you don't like.

I wonder whether some of the disenchantment these days is that Trek fans want to like everything that's being released, so not liking any of it diminishes the current franchise entire for them. Or essentially, whether there's a lot of 'glass half-empty' and less 'glass half-full'.

For example, if when DS9 and VOY were the options I mostly liked DS9, then hey, I'm doing pretty well at enjoying 50% of the series (this doesn't include non-canon materials that might increase my enjoyment). But nowadays, if I like LDS but don't care for DISCO or PIC, then mathematically I'm only enjoying 33% of the series, even though it could also be argued that in the past I enjoyed one series and in the present I'm continuing to enjoy one series.

This is obviously an oversimplification, and I'm not even sure I know what I'm trying to say, but I think maybe my point is that I wonder if there's too much concern over what Trek fans don't enjoy and too little appreciation for the things they do enjoy. It's, of course, axiomatic that people are more likely to talk about the things they don't like than the things they do.

 

[DonIago]

This was their own doing; the profoundly cynical approach of "Star Trek is a name that can be slapped on anything and we can pump out shows aimed at every demographic" was always gonna end up pretty much exactly where we're at now - diluted brand recognition, viewer alienation, and, uh, Star Trek: Scouts.

Is that cynical, or is that a recognition that e.g. fans of TNG, fans of the Kelvinverse, and people under the age of 20 might be looking for different things in a Trek series, and trying to accommodate them (while admittedly hoping to make a profit at the same time, because entertainment is, in the end, a business) versus just trying to pursue a 'one series fits all' approach?

 

[Starflight]

Is that cynical, or is that a recognition that e.g. fans of TNG, fans of the Kelvinverse, and people under the age of 20 might be looking for different things in a Trek series, and trying to accommodate them (while admittedly hoping to make a profit at the same time, because entertainment is, in the end, a business) versus just trying to pursue a 'one series fits all' approach?

But surely people under twenty who are interested in a new Star Trek series would already be fans of a prior Star Trek series, and thus looking for more in a similar vein (or perhaps looking for their first Star Trek series, and so still hoping for something recognisable).

It seems obvious that you're never really gonna hook people into a franchise by twisting it into unrecognisable shapes that go down a checklist of "this was made for ____ demographic" tropes. They might as well have said "we're going to diversify the Sopranos brand by making a Cocomelon knockoff where Tony learns what sounds farmyard animals make" - or indeed, "we're going to make a gritty Cocomelon prestige crime drama to bring more adults into the Cocomelon brand".

 

[DonIago]

But surely people under twenty who are interested in a new Star Trek series would already be fans of a prior Star Trek series, and thus looking for more in a similar vein (or perhaps looking for their first Star Trek series, and so still hoping for something recognisable).

It seems obvious that you're never really gonna hook people into a franchise by twisting it into unrecognisable shapes that go down a checklist of "this was made for ____ demographic" tropes. They might as well have said "we're going to diversify the Sopranos brand by making a Cocomelon knockoff where Tony learns what sounds farmyard animals make" - or indeed, "we're going to make a gritty Cocomelon prestige crime drama to bring more adults into the Cocomelon brand".

I don't feel that any of the newer series have been unrecognizable?

 

[Starflight]

I don't feel that any of the newer series have been unrecognizable?

I do, but obviously I'm not sure what either of us can say in response to each other there.

I suppose the thing I'd ask is what the name "Star Trek" communicates, if all the Kurtzman shows (including Scouts - I know it's such a minor thing, but it cracks me up) join into something that feels creatively coherent to you.

At the point we're at, I could not tell you what "Star Trek" means, other than "a show or film that CBS/Paramount have put the Star Trek name on".

 

[DonIago]

When DS9 premiered, there were many Star Trek fans who would have claimed it was "unrecognizable" relative to TOS or even TNG.

And yet, it remains my favorite Trek series of all time, and I suspect many of the people who initially called it unrecognizable might feel the same way now, or may no longer claim that they feel it's unrecognizable relative to the Trek that existed at the time, or may even claim that it's unrecognizability is one of the things they like about it.

 

[Ceridwen]

I suppose the thing I'd ask is what the name "Star Trek" communicates

"Discover. Grow. Boldly go!"

 

[Starflight]

When DS9 premiered, there were many Star Trek fans who would have claimed it was "unrecognizable" relative to TOS or even TNG.

And yet, it remains my favorite Trek series of all time, and I suspect many of the people who initially called it unrecognizable might feel the same way now, or may no longer claim that they feel it's unrecognizable relative to the Trek that existed at the time, or may even claim that it's unrecognizability is one of the things they like about it.

I feel like you've sort of sidestepped what I asked there.

If the answer is just "Star Trek is a wrapper for literally any sci-fi story" then that's fine, but you can surely also see why people would start asking "what does Star Trek actually mean if it can be literally anything" - and that was an entirely reasonable question for people to ask in 1987 or 1993 too (I think DS9 largely sucks, FWIW, so the idea that people were always wrong to question a new production doesn't quite hold up for me...).

 

[DonIago]

Why does Star Trek have to "mean" anything? Why can't it just be entertaining and sometimes thought-provoking (not that the two are exclusive!) stories that take place in a shared multiverse?

If you feel that DS9 is recognizable but the newer series are not, then I ask you: What is it about the newer series that makes them unrecognizable? What fundamentally changed between the newer series and the older series?

Please don't say it's that the older series told their stories in a more nuanced manner.

 

[Ceridwen]

Ever since the initial pitch, Star Trek has been a format. It's a way to package anthology science fiction with the cost saving benefits of standing sets and a consistent cast.

That isn't the most concise or inspiring statement, though; for that see the Star Trek: Scouts quote above.

 

[Starflight]

If you feel that DS9 is recognizable but the newer series are not, then I ask you: What is it about the newer series that makes them unrecognizable? What fundamentally changed between the newer series and the older series?

I don't think DS9 from S4~ onward is recognisable, I think it feels like a generic WW2-in-space military sci-fi series that just uses Star Trek iconography in very thin ways. I would agree with you that people who consider DS9 "true Trek" but trash DSC/PIC might have a tough time explaining the distinction, though I'm sure people could come up with something.

Why does Star Trek have to "mean" anything? Why can't it just be entertaining and sometimes thought-provoking (not that the two are exclusive!) stories that take place in a shared multiverse?

You can say this about anything, but surely the point of a creative endeavour is to have some kind of unique selling point or distinct attributes.

If I put on an episode of "Murder, She Wrote", I'm going to get Jessica Fletcher solving a mystery. If I put on an episode of "Seinfeld", I'm going to get a certain comedy style with a consistent group of characters. If I put on an episode of "Mission: Impossible", I'm going to get Barney fiddling with a remote control for 30 minutes while Peter Graves tricks a dictator into thinking he's his own mother or something.

If I put on a production with "Star Trek" written on it, there's no consistent tone, characters, format, theme, premise, or even setting at this point since we're cut across four different centuries which all have no consistency anyway. It's just anything. It could be a 3-minute show aimed at toddlers or it could be a gritty prestige drama. It may not even be set in space. That's not a sign of a franchise in good health, IMO. I think even people who genuinely enjoy everything that's had the Star Trek name on it would have to agree that it's impossible to define what the title actually represents at this point, as I think you tacitly did there.

I'd also go at it from another angle and suggest that, in addition to Star Trek being eroded by so many conflicting and unrelated productions, it's a millstone around the neck of anything it's tied to, too. Discovery might have succeeded better on a creative level if almost everything was the same but it just wasn't called Star Trek, and thus didn't have to deal with the baggage.

 

[DonIago]

I rather think the point of a media franchise is precisely to tell different types of stories to ultimately try to embrace as broad an audience as possible (pragmatically for the money, idealistically to enable different types of stories to be told).

It sounds to me, and I'll be the first to admit that I'm oversimplifying, like you want Star Trek to basically be one thing, but even TOS wasn't consistent in this regard. You had everything from "The Trouble with Tribbles" to "City on the Edge of Forever" to "Mirror, Mirror" to "A Private Little War". You couldn't turn it on knowing what kind of story you were going to get (or whether it would be well told), only that it would be about the adventures of the Enterprise (and sometimes marginally so at that) and involve the same characters. If you were new to Star Trek and turned on CotEoF mid-episode, would you even necessarily recognize it as being an episode of TOS?

Needless to say, with multiple series, the franchise only diverges further.

But what you seem to see as unrecognizability I see as diversity and the franchise exploring new directions even if they don't always pan out or aren't always well-executed. You say that DS9 S4+ is unrecognizable, but I say it was an opportunity for the franchise to examine how the Federation handles itself when it faces an existential threat and to see the effects that threat has upon the universe and the people we've been watching for however many years at that point.

 

[Starflight]

I rather think the point of a media franchise is precisely to tell different types of stories to ultimately try to embrace as broad an audience as possible (pragmatically for the money, idealistically to enable different types of stories to be told).

It sounds to me, and I'll be the first to admit that I'm oversimplifying, like you want Star Trek to basically be one thing, but even TOS wasn't consistent in this regard.

It's an episodic adventure format - The Twilight Zone did lots of different things too but you can recognise it as The Twilight Zone.

If we said "the point of The Twilight Zone is simply to tell interesting stories", we could then commission:
- A sitcom set in modern day New York, called "Twilight Zone: The Apartment"
- A Cocomelon-style show with a chibi Rod Serling called "TZ Kidz!"
- A gritty 13-part prestige drama about drug addiction called "twilight."
- A detective show about a talking dog called "Twilight Zone Mysteries"
- A Die Hard ripoff action film called "Twilight Zone: Countdown To Zero"
- A prequel called "Twilight Zone: Eye of the Beholder" which is a series focused on that lady who was persecuted for not having a pig-face; ten episodes of her brooding

The fact that the Twilight Zone was built as a format that can tell all different types of story, and that you may be able to find analogues to these within the original TZ series, wouldn't make this a logical direction to take the franchise in. It'd be bizarre, and people would rightly be saying "what's this got to do with the Twilight Zone, this is a weird use of the name", even if some of these were good as standalone things.

 

[DonIago]

I feel you still haven't answered this:
If you feel that DS9 is recognizable but the newer series are not, then I ask you: What is it about the newer series that makes them unrecognizable? What fundamentally changed between the newer series and the older series?

If you're going to call the newer Trek series unrecognizable, then you should at least be willing to say what you feel is required for a Trek series to be recognizable.