Is Star Trek Dying?

[Bloop]

I had read the dark horizons post and immediately took issue with some points. Like saying "Star Trek is dying" is akin to people constantly declaring, "jazz is dead." Obviously, they're very different, as jazz is a larger art form, a style of music that is not only it's own thing but encompasses many other styles within it, while Star Trek is a media franchise, an "I.P.," if you will. But the sentiment is the same - both face dwindling "relevance" within pop culture and are easy targets for people to set their negative views upon. I don't see jazz "dying" anymore than other genres of music like opera or classical music. Star Trek will never completely "die" because it still exists in it's prior forms of TV, film, books, video games, toys, and models. It has impacted other media, so any "new" sci-fi that's created ultimately is based on what Roddenberry started, however small, whether the creators did so consciously or not.

Another issue I had was them saying the reason Section 31 was made was to try to bring in new fans. Uh, then why cast 62 year old Michelle Yeo as the lead "action hero?" How is that supposed to bring in new fans? It certainly didn't appeal to me, an "old fan."

They clearly don't understand why people were, and still are, Star Trek fans, and just see it as a "franchise" to be mined, trying to make it "relevant" to younger people while not understanding either demographic.

I've got a pretty simple formula: hire good writers and creators that understand good storytelling and allegorical tales, then work that storytelling into the established Star Trek universe. Don't try to "recapture" the old shows be forcing in prequels or inbetweenquels or reboots or multiverse versions. Set the timeframe after Picard S3 and keep it moving forward, as Roddenberry intended (ignore Discovery completely). Don't try to make it into something else that you think is popular with "kids today." Just make good stories, with unforced character development.

 

[Lightning]

Another issue I had was them saying the reason Section 31 was made was to try to bring in new fans. Uh, then why cast 62 year old Michelle Yeo as the lead "action hero?" How is that supposed to bring in new fans? It certainly didn't appeal to me, an "old fan."

It was supposed to bring in people who are fans of Michelle Yeoh. They cancelled the series for logistical reasons after she won her Oscar, but she specifically requested the streaming movie still be made since she was invested in the character and didn't want to leave the character in limbo.

 

[Bloop]

It was supposed to bring in people who are fans of Michelle Yeoh. They cancelled the series for logistical reasons after she won her Oscar, but she specifically requested the streaming movie still be made since she was invested in the character and didn't want to leave the character in limbo.

My point is that they supposedly want younger fans. Fans of Michelle Yeoh are NOT young.

 

[Bloop]

They need to get writers without agendas

Here we go again with the old, veiled complaint of "agendas" in Hollywood. I agree there's issues with the people trying to make new Star Trek stories but it's like you never watched Star Trek at all. Was Kirk kissing Uhura the result of a writer's "agenda?" Or when Jadzia Dax kissed another woman on DS9? Riker falling in love with a person from an androgynous society who was forced to hide that they considered themselves female? Or how about the episode of TNG where Picard was tortured? Patrick Stewart consulted with Amnesty International to prepare for the episodes, so I guess you could say he had an "agenda" too.

The stories of Star Trek are allegorical in nature. Some are more obvious than others, but they're all written to reflect and question our own societal norms. Writers always bring elements of themselves into whatever they write, things they want to convey to an audience. If they didn't, they wouldn't be very good writers. You can complain that some don't do a good enough job in writing their stories, or if they're too opaque in their message, or failed to connect with the audience, or other literary complaints, but please don't keep going on about "agendas."

Everybody has "agendas." When you use the word in an accusatory way, you're saying more about yourself than you are about the people of whom you're accusing.

 

[Lightning]

The stories of Star Trek are allegorical in nature. Some are more obvious than others, but they're all written to reflect and question our own societal norms.

"All of his people are white on the right side". Anything Disco or SNW has done is solidly more subtle than that.

 

[Cephus]

My point is that they supposedly want younger fans. Fans of Michelle Yeoh are NOT young.

They want fans that don't exist. That's the problem. They have entirely unrealistic expectations and they're spending hundreds of millions of dollars proving it.

 

[CB2001]

They want fans that don't exist. That's the problem. They have entirely unrealistic expectations and they're spending hundreds of millions of dollars proving it.

And losing hundreds of millions of dollars trying to prove it.

 

[Bloop]

I know my last post may have sounded a bit harsh, so let me say that I get that there's times when writers' messages feel forced. And while I think there's good cause for stories and casting to highlight people who have been historically underrepresented, I felt there was a trend where it felt like everything new I watched had prominent lesbian characters, which made it feel more like pandering than being organic within those stories. But I try to put myself in the place of those writers and creators who are finally getting the chance to tell stories about themselves, even if it might be in some relatively small way of having a gay character depicted onscreen, or having a larger influence of entire stories written about them. It's hard to swing from one extreme - with little to no gay people or minorities represented - to the other without it seeming forced.

 

[Lost in Trek]

I think Trek should speak to today’s issues. My problem is the current writers simply aren’t telling compelling stories. Nor are they writing complex, compelling characters.
Add to that I don’t think any of the current makers (writers, designers, costumers) really understand what make good science fiction.

 

[batguy]

Good sci-fi is normally hard to write. It's intended to be either controversial or at least thought-provoking. That's what the genre is about.

Good 'Trek' is no exception.

If you want to make 'Trek' shows that are more distopian, action-heavy, and steering clear of controversy . . . then you don't really want to make 'Trek'. That is more like generic space/future content.

 

[Cephus]

I think Trek should speak to today’s issues. My problem is the current writers simply aren’t telling compelling stories. Nor are they writing complex, compelling characters.
Add to that I don’t think any of the current makers (writers, designers, costumers) really understand what make good science fiction.

I don't, at least not how they do it. If you can be subtle and speak about it obliquely, fine. That's not what Hollywood is doing anymore. Modern writers stand up in the middle of a scene and say "I hate Trump!" It's not quite that bad, but it's close. So why are so many modern writers so terrible at their jobs? That's what I want to know.

 

[joberg]

Good sci-fi is normally hard to write. It's intended to be either controversial or at least thought-provoking. That's what the genre is about.

Good 'Trek' is no exception.

If you want to make 'Trek' shows that are more distopian, action-heavy, and steering clear of controversy . . . then you don't really want to make 'Trek'. That is more like generic space/future content.

That's right because with these types of bases you'll have a Blade Runner Trek instead

 

[Prop Collector]

Star Trek is already dead. The producers killed it when they underestimated the demand for real Star Trek, with limited action and philosophical storytelling, in favor of boring action schlock written for morons (no offense to anyone here who enjoys it).

 

[Laspector]

Just bring back The Orville. That's all you have to do.

 

[Lightning]

I don't, at least not how they do it. If you can be subtle and speak about it obliquely, fine. That's not what Hollywood is doing anymore. Modern writers stand up in the middle of a scene and say "I hate Trump!" It's not quite that bad, but it's close. So why are so many modern writers so terrible at their jobs? That's what I want to know.

Comes down to not enough life experience. Think about how much Roddenberry did before he started writing. US Air Corps, Pan Am, and LA Police, all by the time he was 30.

I've also noted less willingness to take advantage of allegorical storytelling. I assume it's seen as passe, and no longer needed since you are now allowed to address things directly. If true, a misguided point of view, in my opinion.

 

[Cephus]

Comes down to not enough life experience. Think about how much Roddenberry did before he started writing. US Air Corps, Pan Am, and LA Police, all by the time he was 30.

I've also noted less willingness to take advantage of allegorical storytelling. I assume it's seen as passe, and no longer needed since you are now allowed to address things directly. If true, a misguided point of view, in my opinion.

Oh, I agree. Most of these people have never had a real job in their lives and that's what causes their writing to suck. This is only going to get worse. Luckily, I have thousands of DVDs to watch.

 

[batguy]

I think it's a clash of cheap young writers + corporate content.

Young writers are more fast & loose and that lends itself to low-budget content. But low-budget content is basically dead in Hollywood now. Everything is focus-grouped to heck.

Mainly, it's just the huge budgets & corporate takeover of the industry. "Bad writing" might explain what happened to some certain movie, but the cost & corporate issues are WHY it got such bad writing today.

Bad writers are not a new invention. The difference nowadays is that corporate forces have shifted the industry's priorities.

 

[asalaw]

Dead as a doornail.

 

[Captain Dunsel]

Oh, I agree. Most of these people have never had a real job in their lives and that's what causes their writing to suck. This is only going to get worse. Luckily, I have thousands of DVDs to watch.

They write what they know about…in the case of Strange New Wolds, their life experience is limited to high school / college and YA novels and TV shows..:

To that point, SNW is written like a YA television show about a high school:

- The “buddy” principal that you can smart-off to and he just chuckles like it’s cute and offers to cook you a grilled cheese sandwich in the cafeteria: Captain Pike

- The misfit nerd that “just needs help”: Spock

- The disrespectful “Rebel”: Ortegas

Etc…

 

[Gregatron]

We’re currently around Stage 17-18, by the way.

Understanding Various ‘GeekerGates’ & Deploying Countermeasures

Herein is my outline detailing the basic tactics of so-called ‘Geeker Gates’, which seek to infiltrate, assimilate, and transform various pop culture IPs. It’s important to understand,

bleedingfool.com

TOS is my favorite show of all time. I enjoy the later shows up to ENTERPRISE to varying degrees, and respect the fact that they tried to do their own thing, without strip-mining or rewriting the original show. Okay, fine.

NuTREK, on the other hand, BEGAN by rebooting, rewriting, and strip-mining the original show. ENTERPRISE had started the rot and the franchise fatigue by doing a prequel (and more of a TNG prequel than a TOS one), but the Abrams movies were nightmare fuel. STAR TREK made by people who didn’t understand or like STAR TREK. A brain-dead pastiche of all the TREK catchphrases, tropes, misconceptions, and parodies floating around in popular culture.

And it proved to have no legs, and no long-term impact. A flash in the pan, driven by nostalgia and novelty.

It’s only gotten much, much worse since then, with STD (another prequel) taking a wrecking ball to the lore and rewriting history, all while insisting it was canon, PICARD trotting out and nostalgia-milking TNG, a self-aware cartoon parody built on wink-wink references and Easter Eggs, etc. And then there’s STRANGE NEW WORLDS.

Yes, STRANGE NEW WORLDS, which, for all intents and purposes is a rewriting and reshaping of TOS from top to bottom, since it uses “The Cage” as its launching point. A TOS skinsuit.

“Insulting” isn’t a strong enough word.

STAR TREK has been trapped in a descending cycle of prequels, reboots, parodies, and rehashes for 24 years and counting. It has become a parade of failed, embarrassingly bad shows on a failed streaming service, with no cultural impact or merchandising footprint to speak of. Virtually everyone I know in the real world is totally unaware that STAR TREK shows are still being made. Conventions now look like AARP meetings, and the “modern audience” doesn’t watch the shows which have been made to pander to them at the expense of alienating the core fanbase.

What was once appointment TV for nerds around the world has become an afterthought at best, and a source of bitter Us vs. Them arguments at worst.



It’s dead, Jim.

I’m just waiting for the body to stop twitching.