Professorozone ,

Ahhhhhhh, that was my favorite one. So much fun.

pjwestin ,

This makes me sad, but it also may be for the best. Lower Decks is great, but it has one of those premises that relies on the characters remaining stagnant. I don’t really want to watch 10 seasons of these characters being junior staff while still being at the center of the most significant events on the ship, or have Mariner’s character regress every few seasons so she can relearn the difference between questioning authority and self-sabotage. I’m not saying that’s happened yet, but they had to promote the characters once already. There’s only so long they can go before either their lack of development becomes a problem or the characters have to stop being Lower Deckers. I’d rather they end too soon than too late.

Dasus ,

There’s only so long they can go before either their lack of development becomes a problem or the characters have to stop being Lower Deckers.

I don’t know man. I see your point and don’t entirely disagree, but… Lower Decks is an animation show. My point being that for example, Lisa Simpson is obviously very gifted academically, and has done a lot of things in her life, but she’s still a 2nd grader. As another example, Cartman, Kenny, Kyle and Stan have only advanced from the 3th grade to the 4th grade, and they’re pretty often involved in global problems.

So I really don’t think that would be the issue. Not for me, at least.

pjwestin ,

Yeah, but the Simpsons is a story of the week sitcom. Lower Decks has season long story lines with status quo changing results, like Mariner and Freeman’s relationship being reveled, or Rutherford getting his memory back. They even had to acknowledge in Season 3 that the Lower Deckers were kinda famous for all of the big events they’d been involved in. They definitely recognize the passage of time and consequences of actions, unlike things like Simpsons, Futurama, Family Guy, Bob’s Burgers, etc. (South Park is kinda a whole different beast, but I’d argue it’s changed so much over the years it could be considered 3 or 4 different shows at this point.)

Dasus ,

Animation shows can engage in it, or choose not to. Simple as.

Real life shows are more constrained by actors aging.

A season could be days or years, or nothing at all, depending on the decisions of the writers.

There’s no problem with it. You’re making a mountain out of a molehill.

pjwestin ,

I don’t know what to tell you man, there’s a difference in storytelling between Futurama and Disenchanted. I think most people would find it jarring if they went from season-long story threads and character progression to a weekly status quo reset.

Dasus ,

The emphasis being on:

I think most people

pjwestin ,

Well, I’m trying to be polite as I explain that going from serialized storytelling to a, “Status Quo Is God,” sitcom would be an extremely weird choice that would probably ruin the show.

Dasus ,

I’m trying to politely explain that I understand what you’re saying, but that I think that it is a false dilemma.

I don’t know if you watch Doctor Who, but it is notorious for not being consistent with it’s own established canon. One could say the established canon is that there is no established canon. This isn’t too unrelated, because Trek does a bit of it too. Some implications in certain episodes are left just ignored even though they’d actually have massive implications. Transporter incidents, holodeck mishaps, instant across the universe speeds, all that jazz. They need them for an episode, but weirdly the whole Trek world isn’t changed by the implications of something. Also unimaginably weird and universe upsetting things are pretty normal in Trek.

So why would it be that weird for the Lower Deckers to just be themselves for X seasons? Progress as needed, or don’t. You seem to think your opinions mean that somehow it would be so weird none would watch it. Not true. In the slightest.

pjwestin ,

So, cannon and serialization aren’t the same thing. Cannon is the general mythos of the show, while serialization is the method of storytelling. Specifically, it’s having a story unfold over many episodes, a season, or even several seasons. Dr. Who treats its cannon very lightly, but the show is fairly serialized, with small hints being dropped throughout the season on larger plot lines, even in stand-alone episodes (the Pandorica, the Silence, Bad Wolf, etc.). It also has large changes that last from season to season, regeneration being the most obvious.

Compare that to TOS, where everything is a stand-alone story and all the characters return to their status quo positions at the start of the next episode. Pretty much nothing carries over from week to week (except Harry Mudd, I guess). You could watch every single episode of TOS out of order and it would make perfect sense (aside from the two-parters, obviously). If you watched every episode of Doctor Who out of order, you’d wonder why the companions keep swapping, why David Tennant keeps getting replaced with Peter Capaldi, and God help you if you’re trying to follow any of Moffat’s later episodes.

Lower Decks is pretty serialized, with things like the Texas class ships and the Pakleds developing over the course of or in between seasons (the Locarno storyline is probably most involved of these). But, aside from story, there is a lot of character development that goes on over the series. Mariner has a completely different relationship with her mother, Ransom, and the Federation now than in season 1. Boimler is more self-assured and less obsessed with rules and rank. D’Vana is more open about her Orion upbringing and even changed career tracks. There’s a lot of growth and change compared to the characters in TOS.

So, I’m saying that if they keep going for too long, they’ll either have to promote these characters out of the lower decks or it will be weird that they’re still stuck at menial ranks. You seem to be saying they should just place the characters in a state of arrested development and only have them, “go be themselves,” in wacky adventure-of-the-week stories. I think that would be a very weird direction for the show to take after giving them 4 years of character growth, and I’m willing to bet most fans would feel the same. If you don’t, fine, then we just have to agree to disagree.

Dasus ,

I’m sorry but I have a hard time respecting anyone trying to correct me about what canon is when they can’t spell the word.

Yes, I know what you’re saying, and I’m telling you why I disagree with it. I’m also amazed that you don’t understand that saying “I’m willing to bet most fans would” is also completely subjective. It’s literally the same thing racists use to base their incredibly narrow views; the idea that because they think something, other people do as well. Now let me be clear, I am most certainly not implying you’ve said or done anything racist, ever. I’m just talking about a general cognitive lack of empathy.

You’re just spewing your personal opinions, without any reasoning for them. I don’t see a point in continuing the conversation.

pjwestin ,

Yeah, my phone autocorrected from canon to cannon. That doesn’t change the fact that it is not the same as serialization.

If you want evidence that fundamentally changing Lower Decks from a serialized to adventure-of-the-week show would piss people off, I obviously can’t prove that, but funny enough, a show you brought up did try something like this: South Park. They tried serialization for a few seasons, which ended with the disastrously bad, “member berries,” storyline. The final episode of that season is actually called The End of Serialization as We Know it.

Anyway, maybe you’re right; maybe people want to watch Boimler whine about the captain not noticing him for 10 seasons. I doubt it though. We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. Either way, your comments are becoming increasingly weird and pedantic and I’m losing my patience for it, so I’m just gonna stop here before I say something I regret. Have a good one.

BobApril ,
@BobApril@c.im avatar

@pjwestin @nateno12 I see your point, but Star Trek has a long history of ignoring that sort of thing, or at best giving a nod to it as they decide against it. TNG - was ANYONE promoted before Worf in Generations? Oh, yes, Deanna became a full Commander, but she had to specifically seek it out - it was clear she could have remained at her lower rank indefinitely, as long as she didn't want to jump into Command track. Certainly Riker stayed where he was for an unbelievable time. DS9 - Sisko got a promotion, Jadzia got a promotion to command Defiant, but Julian, Miles, and Odo stayed at the same rank the whole time, and Nerys only got bumped to Colonel near the end of the series. Voyager is a special case, but even so, Ensign Kim is a running joke in the fandom. We've seen very old lieutenants including Picard himself in Tapestry. And those are heroes on the hero-ships right at the front lines of the biggest events in the Federation. Our merry little Lower Deckers could stay at their current ranks for a long time, even while exhibiting great personal growth, without it being unbelievable.

pjwestin ,

That’s true, but there’s a line from season 7 of the Simpsons that feels relevant. Burns asks who Homer is for the 100th times and Smithers says something to the effect of, “Simpson, sir. All the recent events of your life have revolved around him in some way.” Lower Decks is starting to feel a bit like this. Watching the Lower Deckers be at the center of events that affect the entire Cerritos or even the whole Federation while still being nobodies is starting to get a little silly.

That being said, I don’t think the show needs to end after this next season either. I think they could get at least 2, maybe even 3 good seasons out this premise and these characters. But having the showrunners know they’re working on their last season and bringing it to a good conclusion isn’t the worst thing in the world. It’s definitely better than running until it jumps the shark and getting unceremoniously cancelled between seasons. And maybe we’ll get a good follow-up show, like something based around a Commander Mariner, or even a Lower Decks set in a different era (I would love a TOS style Lower Decks).

accideath ,

Yes but, who says the show couldn’t evolve around its cast and follow them on their path to become officers? I’d certainly watch that. Would even be interesting to see some slightly higher ranked non bridge officers do their thing in their daily lives.

pjwestin , (edited )

Yeah, I’d definitely watch that, my point is just that it doesn’t really feel like that would be Lower Decks anymore, that feels like a new show (“Star Trek: Middle Management”?). Who knows, if there’s enough enthusiasm for Lower Decks, maybe we’ll get a follow up that’s like what you’re describing, or maybe Mariner and friends having misadventures on their first command.

And don’t get me wrong, they definitely could keep going with this show as-is for a while longer. But it feels like eventually this is going to stop being, “the untold stories from Starfleets low-ranking support crew,” and just be, “TNG but irreverent.” Which is also fun, but also a different show (in fact I think that’s called The Orville).

accideath ,

Fair. I hope, that they replace LD with something as good. The best Trek we had in a long time, besides maybe SNW. And with the other already announced future star trek shows n films not sounding as exciting to me, I really hope we get something new worthwhile

blahsay ,

Noooooo! Why! Can’t we take a some of the money completely wasted on discovery and use it on lower desks?

inclementimmigrant ,

Fucking Paramount…

Anticorp ,

Indeed. They’re the worst thing that’s ever happened to Star Trek.

downpunxx ,
@downpunxx@fedia.io avatar

I'm seeing I'm in the vast minority of one who didn't enjoy Lower Decks. I found it loud, frenetic, and shrill. I caught most of the first season before tapping out. I haven't liked Discovery. Picard season two went to the zoo and I didn't go along on the ride with it, or returned to check out season 3.

But I am very much enjoying Strange New Worlds (the musical episode aside). Looking foward to more SNW, and Starfleet Academy, and since the "movie" coming out is an offshoot of Discovery I'm not all that jazzed for it even with Michelle Yeoh, but I'll probably check it out.

maegul ,
@maegul@lemmy.ml avatar

I’m in the middle where I felt like I could see the end coming over the last season. The premise seemed exhausted and the plots a bit of a stretch. I think I even posted somewhere that it wouldn’t last much longer.

So while I’m sad to see it go, as someone that was a fan of the show, this feels somewhat natural to me.

Summzashi ,

You should definitely watch season 3 of Picard. While the fanservice is fun, it was actually written by a competent team that retconned much of the bullshit from the other seasons and gave TNG the swan song it deserved.

SurfinBird ,

This had better come back 2 or 3 times like Futurama.

Zorque ,

And be slightly worse each time?

NoIWontPickAName ,

Bite my shiny metal ass

Maalus ,

Ha ha funny quote, but really, the latest revival is just… Tragic. Disenchantment was supposed to be a second Futurama too, but in the end it came with unfunny jokes and an uninteresting premise. It kinda feels like Groening stopped being funny.

JWBananas ,
@JWBananas@lemmy.world avatar

In this household we can’t ever remember what the show is even called. Did we ever finish watching Past-o-rama? Oh, cliffhanger? That sucks.

Liz ,

Disenchantment was just jam packed with bad meta-jokes for writers and characters that literally just state their inner motivations. It felt like he was either 1) tired of trying or 2) trying to write show for comedy writers, and failing.

Maalus ,

Sureee, but jt js not comedy writers that will be watching it. And if you see the latest season of Futurama, it’s all meta jokes and digs at stuff that is 5 years late from when it aired.

maegul ,
@maegul@lemmy.ml avatar

Underrated advantage of animation … voices don’t age that much.

towerful ,

Lower decks is such a fantastic exploration of the universe of star trek.
It adds more than its own isolated contribution to the federation universe!

Literally the embodiment of star fleet.
I had written so much more, vut it van be simplified…
Voyager eventually had to come home, every star trek series has had it’s final goal.
Every ship has a lower deck crew of unsung hero’s - that’s at least 6 ships to explore (maybe more, maybe less… I don’t mean to faux pas). Never mind significant engagements (is movies)

BigilusDickilus ,

This and SNW are their only good shows. You can easily tell from watching Lower Decks that the show runners love and get Star Trek. Hopefully they have been given enough time to wrap up the series the way they want.

buddascrayon ,

Oi, don’t forget Prodigy!

FlyingSquid Mod ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

I started watching Prodigy this year and I was honestly surprised at how good it was considering I don’t generally go for shows about kids.

Anticorp ,

I wish I liked SNW. It looks beautiful. But I’m not convinced by any of the characters and the first few episodes I saw didn’t seem very trekkish.

BigilusDickilus ,

I would give it a bit longer, but in fairness I liked it from the start so it might just not be for you.

I like that it’s properly an ensemble show and it does a much better job of living in the established universe than disco does in my opinion.

Huschke ,

Sometimes I feel so out of touch with society. How can you cancel a show as good as this?

Deceptichum ,
@Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works avatar

Shows often get terrible with time.

Maybe it’s for the best it ends on a high note?

Huschke ,

Maybe, but I feel like the show still had a lot of stuff to explore.

buddascrayon ,

Considering what happened to Rick and Morty, this might be right.

Liz ,

As far as I can tell, Dan Harmon got mad that he accidentally started writing a decent continuing plot into his show that was supposed to be about nihilism or something. Either that or he sabotaged the show after breaking up with his girlfriend and writer on the show. Point being, I don’t think there was any reason for Rick and Morty to go tits up beyond Dan making terrible decisions for bad reasons. He literally made that “storyline” episode, apparently mad that fans gave a shit.

FlyingSquid Mod ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Noooooo!

Blue_Morpho ,

Lower Decks is the only reason I subscribe to Paramount. Although I do it strategically: wait for season to end, subscribe, watch it all, unsub.

wahming ,

Why? Were the numbers terrible or something?

FlyingSquid Mod ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Which numbers do you mean, the numbers of people who enjoy it or the numbers of people who are willing to pay Paramount a monthly fee to watch it? Because the latter is the problem, and they think this will save them money, but they are fucked. Paramount Plus does not have enough programming for a lot of people, myself included, to justify their monthly fee. Their selection is paltry. I love Star Trek, but not enough for that.

reddig33 ,

Paramount is a mismanaged mess currently in search of a buyer. It’s ridiculous considering the franchises and back catalogs it owns.

FlyingSquid Mod ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

It’s going to destroy Star Trek in the near future. Like the end of TOS did and like Insurrection did. But at least it keeps bouncing back.

Rakonat ,

This was always a problem and something that I fear is going to curse streaming until it dies. Everyone saw how well Netflix did for itself, and wants a cut of the pie, failing to realize that Netflix’s success was entirely because the pie was all in one place for people to enjoy.

All these smaller streaming apps that fizzle out after 2-5 years would have made more money for themselves if they had just negotiated out licensing deals with Netflix or any other major shareholder. Exclusivity is anti-consumer and sooner or later anti-consumer tactics will kill a product or service as soon as something better comes a long or the consumers decide they really don’t need it.

Bishma ,
@Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

Sounds like the sort of terrible decision that Paramount would make.

FlyingSquid Mod ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

But don’t you want to watch Starfleet Academy set hundreds of years into Star Trek’s future starring Commandant Tilly and a bunch of teenagers in San Francisco?

Bishma ,
@Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

They know what middle-aged men like me want. Teen melodrama.

FlyingSquid Mod ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

It’s really what all Trekkies have been hoping for.

Stamets Mod ,
@Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

    •
    Bishma ,
    @Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

    Not making a statement, just answering the question I was directly asked.

    Stamets Mod ,
    @Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

    That’s fair. I responded to the wrong person.

    BigilusDickilus ,

    That’s not something that are considering I hope.

    FlyingSquid Mod ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    startrek.com/…/new-series-star-trek-starfleet-aca…

    The Tilly part is just being assumed at this point, but it would be the obvious choice. I predict suckage regardless.

    Edit: Now confirmed to be in the 32nd century, Tilly still a maybe. trekmovie.com/…/mary-wiseman-really-doesnt-want-t…

    Stamets Mod ,
    @Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

    I find this to be an incredibly reductive stance. To just anticipate it’s going to suck and act negative towards the thing before there’s anything even done for it. I don’t understand it. In a franchise that pushes so frequently for the forefront of hope and positivity it just blows my mind that people are so angry about something that they might not like made for people other than them.

    Blue_Morpho ,

    It’s teen drama. It’s not my cup of tea no matter how good. I understand Dawson’s Creek was very popular. I didn’t like it.

    Stamets Mod ,
    @Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

    Okay. Doesn’t change a single thing about what I said though. You aren’t every Star Trek fan and not every Star Trek show has to appeal to you. If you don’t like it, don’t watch it.

    stevecrox ,

    While there is nothing wrong with trying something new, the point of using a franchise is to leverage the existing fanbase.

    If you can't get the fanbase enthusiastic you have a problem. Since you aren't leveraging the existing fan base and the franchise will alienate some of your new target fan base.

    Replying to every comment that expresses an ambivalent or pessimistic view about a new show doesn't change that. It just makes this space seem hostile to discussion.

    Stamets Mod ,
    @Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

    That’s… Not the point of a franchise. The point of a franchise is to continue a story or path in a world from perspectives beyond that of our originating characters. The only criteria of a franchise is that it must take place in the same world. There is nothing about a franchise that’s specifically built to cater to the same fans endlessly. Defining a franchise as “Something to leverage existing fans” is just strange.

    If you wanna be negative or pessimistic that’s fine. My issue comes with the outright gatekeeping that is going on here. If you don’t wanna like the show, fine, but just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it bad. Just because it’s for a different demographic than normal doesn’t make it bad. And just because one demographic might not like it when they’ve had every other piece of Trek catered to them doesn’t make it bad. Every single complaint I’ve responded to has used demographics as the core argument by saying that its alienating the core fan base but that doesn’t matter. Not everything has to be made for that core fan base. Acting like it’s a problem if something isn’t made for them and is made for a new group of people is outright gatekeeping.

    mycodesucks , (edited )
    @mycodesucks@lemmy.world avatar

    That’s… Not the point of a franchise. The point of a franchise is to continue a story or path in a world from perspectives beyond that of our originating characters. The only criteria of a franchise is that it must take place in the same world.

    That’s a bold claim to make, and it’s not unreasonable that someone would disagree with you on it. The point of an established universe is obviously the background that the universe brings. Otherwise you may as well just create an entirely new universe. And given that the background is the value of the universe, there is a limitation to how far you can reasonably expect to bend it before the interpretation of the universe shifts from “fresh” to “hostile”.

    For example, I’m not a particularly big fan of the Avatar movies, but they’re clearly pushing a naturalistic, shamanistic anti-corporate utopian vision. It’s not my cup of tea, but that is what the universe IS. If the next movie comes out and the Nav’i create planet-wide Walmart franchise and spend two hours boosting their stock price, it is absolutely reasonable to look at that at the VERY least as a wasteful use of the franchise, and it is not negativity for fans of the franchise to complain that it is not what they signed up for.

    Now, we can argue all day about where that line is, but to suggest there ISN’T one at all is extreme.

    Stamets Mod , (edited )
    @Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

    We’re talking about two different things here. You’re talking about lore accuracy and new shows needing to stick to that and not hard countersteer into a new behavior/world building/etc that doesn’t make sense with what’s been previously established.

    I am saying that there is no part of a franchise that is supposed to bow to the whims of older fans, fans that have been around longer, or a specific core demographic. That you can show stuff to other demographics and people that do not violate established lore/world building in any way. That it’s just a new view and that not everything has to be about that same core demographic over and over and over again.

    They are two very different things. there isn’t an argument to be had here.

    mycodesucks ,
    @mycodesucks@lemmy.world avatar

    There’s more to an established universe than just the lore and plot. The tone, setting, and ethos of the world are every bit as important as the factual nature of what’s already happened. I’m not going to make a claim that the idea of a teen drama in the Star Trek universe is inconsistent with reality of the Star Trek franchise’s universe, but it is fair to say it is inconsistent with the established tone. I’m not making the claim that’s going to mean it’s bad, but it is completely fair and valid for existing fans to voice concern about that tonal shift. The tone is no less important to a series than the events that take place within them. If Luke’s hand being sliced off in Empire Strikes Back was played as a comic, silly moment, even though the events are consistent with the established universe, and in fact exactly the same, the nature of the scene and the franchise in which it happens are altered. These are not trivial concerns.

    Stamets Mod ,
    @Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

    Ignore the previous deleted comment. I was copying part of your comment to quote and hit enter while hovering over the post button. Apparently that’s a thing with my browser or something. Sorry. To the response.

    Edit: I had to edit this comment because the same thing happened AGAIN.

    but it is fair to say it is inconsistent with the established tone

    I disagree. We’ve seen episodes that focus on periods during Starfleet Academy for specific characters, we’ve had the episode with Wesley in TNG, the slew of stuff in Discovery that is comparative between Tilly and the crew as well as the entirety of Prodigy. Then there’s Star Trek The Animated Series and Lower Decks which are also a pretty big tonal shift but is no less consistent than anything else with how they fit into the world.

    Even if that tone wasn’t pre-established in the world, the world itself still allows for it. We’ve seen the tone shift when we focus on Klingons or on Ferengi or on Vulcans or on Romulans. Entire episodes and sections of movies are spent on them. That’s a pretty heavy tonal shift but it’s done because Star Treks whole thing is the exploration of new worlds, new peoples, new views and new tones. I’m just not sure why everything else in the galaxy gets a complete pass but focusing on young adults who are learning the ideals of Starfleet (which, again, is pretty similar to Prodigy) at an academy in the future is suddenly a huge problem.

    but it is completely fair and valid for existing fans to voice concern about that tonal shift.

    There is a difference between showing concern and outright gatekeeping which is what I was responding to originally.

    f Luke’s hand being sliced off in Empire Strikes Back was played as a comic, silly moment, even though the events are consistent with the established universe, and in fact exactly the same, the nature of the scene and the franchise in which it happens are altered.

    This is a flagrantly disingenuous comparison. The creation of Starfleet Academy and focusing on a new view with new characters in an area that we know deals with these things is no where close to taking a pre-established moment and playing it in a different tone completely. The existence of this show does not undermine or overwrite the tone of any other show like you’re suggesting with that comparison. This is a new show with new characters showing a new side of the same coin. It is not rewriting anything or relighting anything.

    mycodesucks ,
    @mycodesucks@lemmy.world avatar

    This is a flagrantly disingenous comparison. The creation of Starfleet Academy and focusing on a new view with new characters in an area that we know deals with these things is no where nearly comparable as taking a pre-established moment and playing it in a different tone completely. The existence of this show does not undermine or overwrite the tone of any other show like you’re suggesting with that comparison.

    It’s possible I wasn’t clear here. I’m not suggesting changing the tone of it as it already exists, but that if its original tone had been different the entire tone of the film and the universe would have been completely different as well. And while I agree that Star Trek has often had many different tones over the course of all the series and media, it’s one thing to have a tone for a particular episode or two parter, and another to have such a drastically different tone for an entire series. Additionally, while we DO explore Wesley’s situation at Starfleet academy, and other aspects of younger Starfleet cadets in episodes like the DS9 episode where a ship is entirely staffed by cadets, it’s still usually viewed not primarily through their eyes, but through the eyes of the established crew, keeping the tone of the series consistent overall. This is very different than say, hypothetically, changing gears in season 6 of TNG and deciding to make Wesley the main character.

    That said, the TNG episode Lower Decks handles this idea extraordinarily well, so it’s entirely possible the entire thing will work and be fine. But it’s also equally possible it could be such a drastic tonal shift that it does not. I don’t see it as unreasonable or overreacting for longtime fans to, sight unseen given the scant information we DO know, view it with wariness.

    Stamets Mod ,
    @Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

    It’s possible I wasn’t clear here. I’m not suggesting changing the tone of it as it already exists, but that if its original tone had been different the entire tone of the film and the universe would have been completely different as well.

    Ah okay, my mistake there and I apologize for misunderstanding. I agree on that end but my response would be just reiterating what I said earlier in my comment so I won’t annoy you with just repeating myself for no reason.

    it’s one thing to have a tone for a particular episode or two parter, and another to have such a drastically different tone for an entire series.

    Again, I disagree with this pretty heavily. Every Trek show (with maybe the exception of Voyager) has set it’s own very distinct and individual tone. TOS and TAS are leagues apart but so are both of them from TNG. DS9 took on a darker tone. VOY, as much as I love it, strikes a very similar tone to just a combo of DS9 and TNG. ENT went out of their way to set a tone so hated that it nearly killed the franchise. DSC came back with it’s own very distinct tone that is darker and more action oriented than the other series before it. LD then sets it’s own extremely specific comedic tone and Prodigy sets another that’s focused on kids themselves. SNW doesn’t so much set it’s own tone as update and revamp the tone from TOS. But like I said, why do all of those other shows get a pass but suddenly Starfleet Academy is such a problem? As mentioned with Prodigy, it’s not even a first for a series to be focused on younger audience in the Trek universe and it was so beloved that a fanpush got it taken over to Netflix to continue its story.

    I don’t see it as unreasonable or overreacting for longtime fans to, sight unseen given the scant information we DO know, view it with wariness.

    Again, the person I was originally responding to was not showing a basic concern. It was outright gatekeeping and a very different thing than what we’re currently discussing.

    mycodesucks ,
    @mycodesucks@lemmy.world avatar

    But like I said, why do all of those other shows get a pass but suddenly Starfleet Academy is such a problem?

    I don’t know if it’s necessarily that they get a pass. As you said, Enterprise was very poorly received by many fans, and that’s more or less directly attributable at least in part to its different tone. The other series have their naysayers too, although not necessarily on a tonal basis. It’s easy for us to look back now with the benefit of hindsight and say what worked and what didn’t. So I guess the question is, we live in an era now where we get more information about what is coming that we have ever had before. When Enterprise launched, it was more or less a black box to the fans until it was actually on the air. If we had known in advance the writers/directors’ intent about Enterprise’s tone while it was in production, and voiced concern, could the final product have been altered into a version of the show that would’ve succeeded better? We can’t know now, of course, but we’re in this situation with Starfleet Academy, and if there’s enough gut feeling that there’s potential for it to be handled badly, a cautious approach might be warranted. Being left in the production’s hands WITHOUT fan feedback on potential tonal shifts HAS backfired on trek shows before.

    Again, the person I was originally responding to was not showing a basic concern. It was outright gatekeeping and a very different thing than what we’re currently discussing.

    Fair enough.

    Stamets Mod ,
    @Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

    I get being concerned about a potential tone conflict but this is for an entirely different group of people and demographic. I’m just not sure that the weight of adult fans get to have on a show for teenagers. That’s my concern with all of this. A lot of the complaints have just been a bunch of adults saying that the tone of the show is too far from what they’re used to. Well, yeah. Because it’s not for them. Enterprise had it’s naysayers but it also has plenty of people who are for it. Because there are some naysayers who don’t like it, does that mean that their opinion suddenly have more weight than the people who like it? The people who don’t like it, well, they can stop watching it. Do they have the right to say “Stop making a thing I don’t like for people who aren’t me”?

    mycodesucks ,
    @mycodesucks@lemmy.world avatar

    A totally valid point of view.

    But it’s also a valid point of view to point out that in spite of its fans, Enterprise was still canceled. And shows in the franchise being killed off frequently due to unsustainable interest is ultimately not good for the franchise as a whole, regardless of individual interest in particular iterations. The ultimate fear is that such a wide range of tones attempting to capture different audiences ultimately results in none of them capturing enough of an audience to justify their existence, and then the whole franchise gets written off for another dry spell like we had post-Enterprise. That’s not good for anyone.

    Stamets Mod ,
    @Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

    The ultimate fear is that such a wide range of tones attempting to capture different audiences ultimately results in none of them capturing enough of an audience to justify their existence, and then the whole franchise gets written off for another dry spell like we had post-Enterprise.

    That’s a gatekeepers argument. It’s not an argument for the strength of the show itself, it’s fear of something new and to shun that new thing because it might shake the status quo. It’s nonsense. Especially when we’re talking about a franchise like Star Trek which is specifically dedicated to the idea of representing different audiences and peoples. The idea that the series is being “too diverse” is just ridiculous. That’s literally the point of everything in the shows. To show diversity and inclusion through that strength. There are numerous quotes from the shows specifically saying that.

    I also still am not giving any weight to what you’re saying here because you’re not part of that demographic. At no point in this conversation have you ever considered them. Every single retort of yours has just been “Yeah but it might make things worse for me and other older fans. Who cares about the new ones?”

    Fear of the unknown, fear of something knew, and hiding behind tradition is the exact type of shit that Star Trek goes out of its way to say is a terrible thing to hold onto. Especially, again considering you have repeatedly ignored me saying this, every single show has had a radically different tone to varying degrees of success. Fearing that this new tone is going to break it is just the same argument that’s been made since TNG was released and I’m not entertaining this nonsense any longer.

    Goodbye.

    mycodesucks , (edited )
    @mycodesucks@lemmy.world avatar

    That’s a gatekeepers argument.

    I’m not saying that IS what’s going to happen. Please don’t put words in my mouth. But to say there is ZERO concern that it CAN happen is to ignore a very realistic scenario.

    You’re right, I’m not a part of the target demographic. But that’s not point. The point is if that demographic wants what is being offered. Sure, this is targeted at them, but is their audience out there asking for this? If there is an audience, absolutely, they should have the show they want.

    I’m not ignoring that there have been varied tones in various Trek shows. I am however, pointing out that not all of those tones have been successful, and that’s a cause for concern. Star Trek isn’t some public domain franchise that can be picked up at any time by anyone, Paramount’s begrudging allowance for fan projects not withstanding. The success of the franchise and the ability to keep new Trek coming depends on the success of the series that are produced. If a series cannot sustain an audience, it hurts the viability of the franchise as a whole in the eyes of the people who fund production, and that is a legitimate concern.

    But while I don’t know that there is a teenage Star Trek audience looking for a show targeted at them, I KNOW there is an audience looking for the tone of the older Star Trek show tones because they are vocally and visibly looking for it right now.

    I’m not arguing a Star Trek show targeted to teenagers shouldn’t exist because I don’t want it. That’s a nonsense argument. I’m arguing the simple reality that there are limited resources for producing these shows, and Paramount is the only company that gets to make them. This is not some projected negativity - this is simple reality. And for all the idealized, lofty goals there are, if they don’t establish and keep an audience, Paramount will shut them down. It’s not gatekeeping to suggest building an audience where one doesn’t exist yet is harder than keeping an existing one, and it’s a gamble with the future of the franchise to paint such a wide target, particularly without an anchor series that you can point to and say “This is the secure flagship series we’re building these other series around.” That doesn’t exist. Every single one of the current series is in a precarious position. That is a cause for concern.

    Also, on a side note, I would like to point out that many of us became Star Trek fans during the TNG/DS9/Voyager era, and we were teenagers then. Those shows were not specifically targeted at us, but they still captured our imagination and won us over. A show doesn’t have to be about teenagers to appeal to teenagers. Again, this is not to say this SHOULDN’T exist, but you are making it sound like the idea that thinking Paramount could focus their efforts elsewhere instead is somehow an attack on teenagers, and some form of discrimination. I assure you, that is not my intent, and I don’t think it’s anybody else’s either. There are lots of reasons to be concerned this is not the right path, or that it might not succeed, other than having some kind of agenda against the young.

    I see your last response to me as a bit of an overreaction, but regardless, it’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. I apologize for allowing it to overcome me and overreacting myself to make this response seem overly hostile, but at the end of the day it certainly sounds like there is no argument that could be made to you that would legitimize someone’s concern that Starfleet Academy might not be the right path for the franchise to take, and if that’s the case, you’re right that there’s no point in continuing the discussion. I hope you continue to enjoy the franchise we love and wish you the best, regardless.

    Goodbye.

    FlyingSquid Mod ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    As I said below, it feels like a money saver and a way to appeal to an untapped demographic, not a way to make good Star Trek. If it’s good despite that, great. But I don’t think it will be. I don’t even blame anyone involved with the actual production. This is Paramount killing its own brand because they think it will get younger people to sign up for Paramount+.

    Stamets Mod ,
    @Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

    Not a way to make good Star Trek

    And that’s what I mean by gatekeepy comments. ‘Good Star Trek’ is completely subjective, not objective. It does not fit one specific mold or one specific criteria. Just because it’s not for you doesn’t mean that it’s bad Star Trek. Just because it’s for a different demographic doesn’t mean that it’s bad Star Trek. More over, It has not been released yet. You are basing this entirely off of concepts and theories thrown around not even the content itself and holding up to a personal card as to what Star Trek is. There’s no allowance for evolution or even leeway when the show isn’t released. It isn’t “killing its own brand” to introduce people to the franchise who aren’t you or the same demographic that’s been appealed to for the past 60 years.

    This is a really dangerous and negative mindset to have and one of the reasons why I have avoided Star Trek fanbases for so long. Why so many people I know avoid the fanbase. Because we’re tired of seeing people act like they’re the arbiter of Trek and like there’s some golden framing that Star Trek fits into and has never stepped outside of. It’s also the exact same mindset that went after TNG when it was released for not being like TOS, after DS9 for not being like TNG or TOS, Voyager for not being like everything else, Enterprise, Discovery, Lower Decks, Strange New Worlds, etc. It’s just another in a long line of really negative behavior and one that I genuinely never expected from you.

    FlyingSquid Mod , (edited )
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    I think you’re missing what I’m saying here. As I said, if it’s good despite that, that’s great. I’m just not optimistic about it because Paramount is going down the same road as Max. It’s really not about the people behind Star Trek. It’s about the people behind Paramount.

    If Goldsman and the others can take Paramount trying to screw them over, and that’s what I believe Paramount is doing, and turn it into something good, I hope they can. I just am not optimistic about it because this sounds to me in every way like executives saying “find a way to get young people into it without costing us too much money” and not producers and showrunners saying “let’s make a really good show.”

    As you know, this is an industry I have a lot of experience with. Executive meddling is something I can smell. This is totally executive meddling.

    Can good things come out of executive meddling? Yes. But much more often no. And that isn’t the fault of Akiva Goldsman or the Roddenberry family or anyone who actually likes Star Trek.

    That is my issue. That these decisions are not coming from people who like Star Trek, they’re coming from people who want to use Star Trek for the most greedy reasons.

    Edit: You brought up Discovery already. Discovery was not meddled with, at least not at first. The showrunners were given a huge amount of creative freedom because it was a free-for-all at that point and they were able to do all sorts of things executives might have turned down otherwise. The entire media landscape has changed since then.

    Stamets Mod ,
    @Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

    in every way like executives saying “find a way to get young people into it without costing us too much money” and not producers and showrunners saying “let’s make a really good show.”

    So TNG. And DS9. And Voyager. And Enterprise. And the Kelvinverse. Literally every show/movie ever made in Trek has been with money at the forefront and none of them have been made with “lets make a really good show” as the core concept. No show in history has been made with that as the core concept with maybe the exception of Mr Rogers. There are no bright eyed idealists who sit at Star Trek meetings and invent the show. Every single one of them has been calculated and tested and based 100% off of profit figures. This isn’t a new concept. Berman controlled Trek longer than anyone else and none of those shows were made with ‘Good Star Trek’ in mind which is proven from behind the scenes stories from every cast member of every single show. TNG had problems with Berman on making certain episodes to the point that they became famous for never being made as well as the casting/contract negotiations for the women who were put through hell. DS9 was a story that was outright stolen from another and creator after he pitched the idea to CBS and was meddled with so much by Berman and production that the show runner had to actively lie to producers and keep things from them to make good Trek. Voyager was largely left alone but only due to the testament of Kate Mulgrew being awful enough on set. Enterprise was purely a creation of Berman and is demonstrated through every gross decontamination shower. The Kelvinverse is largely hated by people for many reasons but not least of which being the JJ Daily Show line of him not liking Star Trek and wanting to make Trek for people outside of the core group.

    Discovery was not meddled with, at least not at first. The showrunners were given a huge amount of creative freedom because it was a free-for-all at that point and they were able to do all sorts of things executives might have turned down otherwise. The entire media landscape has changed since then.

    This is actually the opposite of what happened. Discovery came in originally as an anthology series to follow individual crews across individual ships per season. It was also set to have a darker and spookier theme from the show than was in other shows. Bryan Fuller actively said that he was trying to make the ‘Star Trek answer to American Horror Story’ and literally none of that DNA is left in the show. The studio then kept pressing more and more until the only thing that was left was a darker tone and 1031 being left as the registry. That ID chosen specifically because it is the date of Halloween and was supposed to reflect spookiness. The only other thing Bryan had his foot down on that didn’t shake was the lead actress. He wanted a woman of color as the role and Sonequa was his first choice but it would have required waiting for her contract with AMC to be up which led to tensions with CBS execs to the point that they asked him to step down as a showrunner. They then replaced him with two other people who were already working on the show and both of them were fired in the second season. Kurtzman then took over until Michelle Paradise (a writer on the show up until this point and a lesbian) became co-show runner in Season 3 onwards. She’s the reason why got so much more LGBTQ representation on the show in Season 3.

    Discovery was heavily meddled with at first to the point that the show isn’t reflective of the original pitch and the show runners were fired. From then the show has been able to do basically whatever it wants. Helps that Kurtzman is a co-showrunner in that regard so more weight but the show is blatantly not swaying to company interests when it pisses people off to no end. Discovery gets far more negative press coverage than positive press coverage. Discovery barely got any coverage at all from Paramount themselves in the lead up to the final season of the show.

    But that being said, my issue with your comments is exclusively the demographics bit. Nothing in this comment I particularly disagree with. But I’m reading your responses in other comments and will address that there. Sorry.

    FlyingSquid Mod ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    Well, again, I have no issue with the demographics thing in a specific show. I had no criticisms of Prodigy’s being a Star Trek show catered for a specific demographic. It’s that it’s looking like it will be the only show.

    And, I admit, I’m suspicious of what the executives will do with this project.

    Stamets Mod ,
    @Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

    It’s that it’s looking like it will be the only show.

    No dude, it isn’t. You keep saying this but it’s not true. They’re currently working on Season 3 of SNW and the concept of it ending after 5 seasons is pure speculation. They’re also currently working on two different Star Trek movies. They also were working on SNW long before it was announced because it takes time behind the scenes to write out the concept for a show, work on the idea, figure out the cast/crew and what not. The push for Legacy by fans is as intense as SNW but it took them almost two years to announce SNW because they had to make sure everything behind the scenes lined up.

    There’s no reason to believe that it’s going to be the only show.

    FlyingSquid Mod ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    I already said I was speculating. But I my speculation is based on the fact that every new Trek show so far has gotten five seasons or fewer. I don’t know that SNW would be an exception to that.

    Stamets Mod ,
    @Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

    Yes. Because middle aged men are the only Trek fan base.

    I find a lot of these complaints to be kind of gatekeepy. Like the only people allowed to enjoy Star Trek are middle aged people and anything outside of that is sacrilege. There exists an entire range of people who have tastes that differ than yours. Getting frustrated that they’re making something not aimed at you is just bizarre when a whole other range of Trek exists. We got stuff for us. Now other people are getting stuff for them. Frankly I’m just glad that Trek is continuing and pulling in other people in new values instead of being stuck, dying, in the same echo chamber without anything new ever being added to the continuity. Without any new angles being explored.

    FlyingSquid Mod ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    I’m not trying to be gatekeepy. I would be okay if this show if it wasn’t going to soon apparently be the only Star Trek show other than maybe Prodigy, something else that is there just for young viewers. The long-term legacy of Star Trek should not rest on the shoulders of a YA show and a kids animated show.

    canis_majoris ,
    @canis_majoris@lemmy.ca avatar

    Wasn’t Prodigy cancelled entirely? Didn’t they sell the final animated season to Netflix?

    FlyingSquid Mod ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    Last I heard it was up in the air whether or not Netflix would keep funding it.

    canis_majoris ,
    @canis_majoris@lemmy.ca avatar

    Did they also say they were ending SNW? You’re sounding like they’ve cancelled like the entire slate just to have this Starfleet Academy show.

    FlyingSquid Mod ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    They have not, but do you really think it will continue past season 5?

    canis_majoris ,
    @canis_majoris@lemmy.ca avatar

    I don’t mind a planned finale.

    They’re definitely not going to just have the one show, if history repeats itself. TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT were all overlapping by a season or two each.

    I can’t imagine they’re going to just have a young adult show, a Michelle Yeoh Section 31 movie or whatever, and then nothing else. There’s definitely no way Prodigy is part of this plan, especially if Netflix is the one seeking to fund it. If three things are ending, then they have the production budget and staffing to produce three more different things. Star Trek is one of their most valuable IPs, it would be hilariously terrible if mismanagement led to it just totally floundering.

    FlyingSquid Mod ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    I don’t think I have the faith in Paramount not self-sabotaging itself in a combination of desperation to get people to sign up for Paramount plus and saving money.

    Star Trek might bounce back eventually, but I think this era is likely coming to a slow stop.

    canis_majoris ,
    @canis_majoris@lemmy.ca avatar

    I think they should replace Kurtzmann with Seth Macfarlane for the next round.

    FlyingSquid Mod ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    I would definitely not complain about that.

    canis_majoris ,
    @canis_majoris@lemmy.ca avatar

    It’s insane to think the creator of Family Guy is perfect to spearhead Star Trek but he made an entire three seasons worth of Fox-sponsored cosplay with Orville and fuck me if I didn’t love every bit of it.

    If they kept it semi-in house, they could also bring up Mike McMahan. I think he’s the Dave Filoni of Star Trek.

    Stamets Mod ,
    @Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

    You may not be trying to be gatekeepy but every single comment of yours in this thread directly fits that definition. Discovery was the only show for a time and then others came about. Just because it is going to be the only show active at the moment means nothing. Especially when Legacy has been pushed hard. Could be they’re gearing up for the release of that. Could be a thousand other things. But it doesn’t help anyone to be negative, focus on the downsides and then suggest that its not even worth it because its not for the typical Trek demographic.

    FlyingSquid Mod ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    See my other comment. This really isn’t about the show itself, this is about Paramount executives dictating what a show should be rather than let the creative team do so.

    Legacy has been pushed hard by the creative team. I don’t see any sign of Paramount executives going for it… probably because it would be a lot more expensive.

    All Paramount cares about right now is getting people to join and stay on Paramount Plus. Everything Star Trek (apart from maybe movies) has to be viewed through that lens at the moment.

    I wish the entertainment business wasn’t all about money, I really do. But it is. And that doesn’t make for good television most of the time.

    Stamets Mod ,
    @Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

    Kurtzman has actively said he’s trying to get Legacy done but that he cannot snap his fingers and make it happen because Paramount exists. I’d say that’s a pretty big sign along with two other Trek shows winding down and opening budget for a new show. Legacy won’t be cheap to make and Discovery and Lower Decks are the two more expensive shows to make. Discovery also uses CBS stages in Toronto at their newly built studio, stages which will now be available after Discovery ends.

    Viewing everything through the lens of money is fine and should be done that way all the time because it is a profit driven company. But you’ve been phrasing this like even the concept of appealing to a different demographic is bad. That is my primary issue with what you’ve been saying here. That appealing to someone who isn’t a straight white dude is not a good thing. You suggested as much with your first comment saying “what, you don’t wanna watch teenage drama?” I know a lot of people that would but you’re not reflecting their opinion here. You’re just insinuating that because it’s for a different demographic that makes it immediately bad and suspicious without ever considering the perspective of someone in that demographic. You’re reducing them to a profit point and suggesting that they only matter in the sense that money can be gotten from them. No consideration has been given to whether or not they’d want that type of show or what that demographic thinks. It’s just “they’re only using them for money” which is accurate about your demographic too and extremely reductive to discussions.

    FlyingSquid Mod ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    Kurtzman has actively said he’s trying to get Legacy done but that he cannot snap his fingers and make it happen because Paramount exists.

    But that’s my point. Kurtzman is not the one greenlighting these shows. That’s not in his power. He can want to make Legacy more than anything in the world, but Paramount is the one that gets to say which show gets made. And maybe even Kurtzman suggested, “let’s do a Starfleet Academy show.” But him suggesting it is not the reason it was greenlit.

    But you’ve been phrasing this like even the concept of appealing to a different demographic is bad.

    As I said, my issue is that this, right now, looks like it will be the only Star Trek show left after SNW is over (and I doubt it will last more than five seasons either), which I maintain is a terrible idea, specifically because it is intended to appeal to a specific demographic. Animated shows aside, Star Trek has never been created with the intention to appeal to a specific demographic. It has always been a show for everyone. Paramount is explicitly calling this a YA show.

    A YA Star Trek show is just fine. I think it’s great if it is a good show and introduces a new audience to it.

    A YA Star Trek show being the only thing left is a terrible idea. And that is what is the case right now. Maybe Legacy will be greenlit and I will change my tune, but as it is right now, I will maintain that a YA Star Trek being the only Star Trek show left is a bad thing and is not what most current fans want.

    Is it really a good idea to introduce a new audience a new audience to Star Trek at the expense of the current audience? Because I don’t think it is.

    And before you say it, I would definitely not say that Discovery would be the same sort of thing. Discovery was not sold as a show made to a specific audience.

    FlyingSquid Mod ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    Let me add one thing I am hopeful about for the show, since I have only said negative things so far. I am hopeful that the show does more to flesh out the Star Trek of the 32nd century. I think that would be a fine thing. Discovery started down an interesting path and continuing down that path is not a bad idea.

    Just not, again, at the expense of the rest of Star Trek.

    Edit: One more thought, since you brought up LGBT+ representation in Star Trek, something you know I support and wish had happened much earlier… If Paramount announced a show, selling it as “LGBT+ Star Trek,” wouldn’t that make you at least a little suspicious about the motivations behind the show and what executives might demand of it?

    Stamets Mod ,
    @Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

    Edit: One more thought, since you brought up LGBT+ representation in Star Trek, something you know I support and wish had happened much earlier… If Paramount announced a show, selling it as “LGBT+ Star Trek,” wouldn’t that make you at least a little suspicious about the motivations behind the show and what executives might demand of it?

    No. I would have been excited as fuck that they finally saw me and gave a fuck about me. After being ignored for years to cater to the straight white man I would have been fucking ecstatic that they were bothering to announce that they would be showing stuff aimed towards people like me. I would have been surprised that they did so because I would know it would piss off a bunch of fans who would be frustrated that it wouldn’t be made for them as well as the fans who were just homophobic/bigoted assholes. I would have thought that it was a calculated move but one they clearly were confident in which meant that the product they were going to be making would have been heavily geared towards my specific demographic (thus the announcement) which would loop into more excitement. If we’re using current DSC alum then I would be even more excited knowing that the creator of the show (Fuller) was gay, that a number of writers on the show were gay and that they were casting gay/trans/enby actors to play gay/trans/enby roles. I wouldn’t have cared about the motivations behind the show. I would only care that after 60 years of watching the same people being waited on hand and foot I finally got a tiny slice of that treatment and got to see a world with people like me in it dealing with problems like the ones I deal with and facing challenges that are reflective of challenges in my own life.

    FlyingSquid Mod ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    Okay, fair enough. It would make me instantly suspicious. Hopeful since it would represent me, but very suspicious.

    Let me use a different example to explain why I would be suspicious. But I also used an example that you were too close to.

    Let’s use the example of “Black Star Trek.” A Star Trek that represents the black experience? Wonderful idea! Look at the explorations of it on DS9 already!

    But until these questions were answered, I would be very suspicious:

    How much black representation would there be behind the scenes? How much would it lean into stereotypes? Would this be a 1950s “romance stories written for women by men” scenario? Would “Star Trek” be put on the back burner over “black” to the point that it is only a Star Trek series in name and it isn’t really “Black Star Trek?”

    So yes- LGBT+ Star Trek with a lot of queer input behind the scenes and with actors like Anthony Rapp representing the community on camera, that would be great… but that is not guaranteed and I was in the entertainment industry too long to not be cynical about this sort of thing. And in the case of YA Star Trek, I am not convinced yet that it will not be a bunch of sappy romance bullshit written by people who aren’t Star Trek fans and don’t understand sci-fi rather than exploring strange new worlds and seeking out new life and new civilizations.

    I am never optimistic about these things when they’re announced this way until I find out exactly who will be involved in putting them together. I’ve seen this sort of thing go south way too many times now.

    Stamets Mod ,
    @Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

    I am never optimistic about these things when they’re announced this way until I find out exactly who will be involved in putting them together. I’ve seen this sort of thing go south way too many times now.

    And therein lies the massive difference between us. I’m looking at this new show and I am for sure being cautious but I’m optimistic. I’m looking at this from the side of more representation for more people, more Star Trek stories told in a new light, more exploration of a new world, more world building, more characters, more time to spend with concepts and core tenants of Star Trek, more time to see parts of Trek that we’ve never seen before. I’m not blind to the fact that it could go wrong but I’m thinking about this by focusing on the good because my entire life has been dark, depressing and filled with suicidal ideation every day that I wake up. I’m also not seeing it from the perspective of “other people”. I’m seeing this as the same way I saw Discovery. That they’re showing parts of the Star Trek world to people who’ve never seen it for them before and who are finally getting attention and the spotlight put on them for a moment and get their chance to shine.

    FlyingSquid Mod ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    That is fair enough, that’s something we will just have to disagree on. But for both of our sakes, I hope you turn out to be correct. I really do. The last thing I want is to be right. Honestly.

    FlyingSquid Mod ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    I should add that a YA show about Starfleet Academy sounds like a way to save a hell of a lot of money on effects. No strange new worlds, no new life and new civilizations. Because cadets don’t leave the academy until their senior year.

    This whole thing, to me, says “we’ve found a demographic we can tap into and save money in the process” and not “we need to make good Star Trek.”

    Stamets Mod ,
    @Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

    Sounds like a way to save a hell of a lot of money on special effects

    Dude some of the best Trek episodes are bottle episodes like Measure of a Man or (blanking on the name) the flute episode. Neither have flashy effects and Trek in general didn’t have flashy effects until recently. So suggesting that effects themselves being saved is nefarious when people have been complaining that the shows are too focused on effects and battles is odd. Especially when for decades Trek did not have a budget for effects in general and made them as simply and cheaply as possible. Saving money or spending money isn’t a bar onto whether the show will be good or not. Especially when Trek historically didn’t have money to use on effects and had to keep to a small budget.

    " We’ve found a demographic we can tap into and save money in the process" and not " we need to make good Star Trek"

    Again, the definition of “good Star Trek” is completely subjective and not an objective thing. Star Trek does not fit one specific mold and there has been plenty of bad Trek made over the years. Also plenty of very different Trek from new perspectives.

    But my main problem here is the demographic line. You’re suggesting that the only reason to make for another demographic outside of the core Trekkies that have been catered to for decades is for money. Now businesses are gonna business and wanna make money but why is doing it for another demographic bad? Are they not allowed to enjoy it? Do their opinions not matter? Why is it such a bad thing that more demographics are being catered to with Trek? We’ve had 60 years. We can’t give them a single one? That is blatant gatekeeping. The opinions of other groups and demographics don’t matter as long as the core group is placated. It’s okay for everyone else to like it but only as long as that core group likes it too. That if it’s made for people other than the core group there is some inherent problem with that.

    The reason I am so eagle eyed on this is because the same argument was thrown at Star Trek Discovery specifically due to LGBTQ characters. The fact that there are many meant that a lot of people kept complaining and have used the exact same argument that you have. That it was pandering to another demographic for the sake of money and that it wasn’t good. Meanwhile every LGBTQ person I know who loves the show has been ecstatic that were finally getting representation and that the show is embracing another demographic instead of just straight dude/straight woman yet again.

    It’s fine to be concerned about the quality of something. Personally I think it’s extremely early to worry about that when we don’t even have the cast confirmed or any solid information about the show but quality problems is fine. Suggesting that appealing to demographics outside of the stereotypical nerd is bad or should be treated with suspicion doesn’t help anyone in anyway. It just makes people from that demographic feel like they’re alienated and don’t matter.

    (I apparently didn’t hit send last night)

    FlyingSquid Mod , (edited )
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    But my main problem here is the demographic line. You’re suggesting that the only reason to make for another demographic outside of the core Trekkies that have been catered to for decades is for money.

    Yes. 100%. It’s always about money. Paramount does not greenlight Star Trek shows unless they think it will make them money.

    Now businesses are gonna business and wanna make money but why is doing it for another demographic bad? Are they not allowed to enjoy it? Do their opinions not matter? Why is it such a bad thing that more demographics are being catered to with Trek?

    Another demographic isn’t bad. Relying on that demographic as one of maybe two shows when it has not traditionally been a Star Trek demographic is a huge risk that comes entirely from bean counters.

    The reason I am so eagle eyed on this is because the same argument was thrown at Star Trek Discovery specifically due to LGBTQ characters.

    This is entirely different. This is not pandering. This is trying to get Paramount+ an entirely new viewer base at the expense of everything else because it’s what desperate Paramount+ executives feel their failing streaming service needs to survive. “We’re adding a few queer characters to get a gay audience” would be pandering, because it’s about gratification. This isn’t about gratification, this is about subscription fees. This isn’t “okay, we’re throwing you kids a bone so you’ll watch too,” this is, “we are creating this show entirely around the idea of getting new viewers to pay for Paramount+.”

    And again, this isn’t the creative team behind Star Trek saying so, this is Paramount executives.

    Suggesting that appealing to demographics outside of the stereotypical nerd is bad or should be treated with suspicion doesn’t help anyone in anyway.

    It isn’t bad, but it should be treated with suspicion. Because all streaming service tentpole shows that get greenlit should be treated with suspicion right now. It should also be treated with suspicion because there’s zero movement on Legacy, Prodigy was shunted over to Netflix and now Lower Decks, despite being super popular, is ending with only 50 episodes total.

    This is not the early streaming era where anything went and people had lots of creative freedom. This is an era where demographics are everything to executives.

    I am absolutely cynical about such things because I have seen how such things play out over and over again.

    Edit: If you haven’t read this post yet, this article supports my point: hollywoodreporter.com/…/paramount-earnings-stock-…

    Stamets Mod ,
    @Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

    Another demographic isn’t bad. Relying on that demographic as one of maybe two shows when it has not traditionally been a Star Trek demographic is a huge risk that comes entirely from bean counters.

    But there’s no evidence that they’re relying on them. You are basing all of this off of assumptions. You say elsewhere that SNW isn’t going to last more than 5 seasons but you don’t know that. Moreover, they’re currently only working on their 3rd. So that’s another 3 released seasons of show over a few years which would demonstrate that this YA show would not be the only Star Trek show. Then there’s the two confirmed Star Trek movies (S31 movie and a new Prequel movie) that have been announced as well. You keep acting like the only thing that’s going to be left is Starfleet Academy but there is no evidence of that.

    “We’re adding a few queer characters to get a gay audience” would be pandering, because it’s about gratification. This isn’t about gratification, this is about subscription fees. This isn’t “okay, we’re throwing you kids a bone so you’ll watch too,” this is, “we are creating this show entirely around the idea of getting new viewers to pay for Paramount+.”

    Personally I find that to be splitting hairs. Both are the same thing. Both are the company looking at a demographic and using that demographic for the sake of their own gain. But even then I do not understand this argument in any way whatsoever. It’s like saying “they are only doing the things people might like so they will vote for them.” Like… isn’t that the point of a for profit company? To do things people like and then get the money from them because they like it? Why is it so suspicious that they’re doing what they do to survive.

    Because all streaming service tentpole shows that get greenlit should be treated with suspicion right now. It should also be treated with suspicion because there’s zero movement on Legacy, Prodigy was shunted over to Netflix and now Lower Decks, despite being super popular, is ending with only 50 episodes total.

    Then be cautiously optimistic. I just find it insane that the show hasn’t been released and there’s not even promotional stuff for the show but the immediate assumption is that it sucks, will only be pandering towards an audience to get their money and should be treated with extreme suspicion. Doesn’t matter that the writers involved are people who have proven they legitimately care about the show, like Tawny Newsome.

    This is not the early streaming era where anything went and people had lots of creative freedom. This is an era where demographics are everything to executives.

    It’s the exact same era. Demographics have only ever been used for the sake of money. That’s just how for profit companies work. If you make something that appeals to a certain demographic then you can get the money of that demographic. That’s not a surprise or a sudden groundbreaking thing that’s only now happening. Moreover, it’s not a bad thing and has been my exact problem with the comments about demographics in this thread. It’s reductive to almighty hell and relates to another comment where I used LGBTQ in Discovery as an example. You are saying “They are only using demographic for money” but that is not a new thing. Kids shows are aimed towards a specific demographic because money can be made from them because the market is there for it. If money can be made from a Young Adult audience and they make a show for a Young Adult audience it isn’t surprising or suspicious that they’ve done that. Would you react the exact same way if another Trek show was made for the middle aged, white, straight audience? They’re a pretty big demographic and one that money can be made from which is why they’ve been milked ad infinitum. Why is it that when another demographic gets the same treatment now it’s suddenly problematic? You’re phrasing this entirely from the perspective of yourself. You’re not seeing it from the perspective of people in that demographic. You’re taking this too coldly and too calculated from solely a executives side and not considering the people who are going to get the show, whether they’d like it or whether they want it. Personally I’m not willing to make a single discussion about demographics in anyway until that demographic themselves actually weighs in. They might like it and love it and that’s awesome. Then they get Trek for them. They might hate it and the show gets cancelled. That’s just how media works. Not everything is going to be a hit, not everything is going to be safe and not everything is going to be for the same demographic endlessly.

    FlyingSquid Mod ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    I agree. I’m entirely speculating. But I am not hopeful, I’m just not. I’m sorry.

    Would you react the exact same way if another Trek show was made for the middle aged, white, straight audience?

    If it were sold by Paramount as “Middle Aged Star Trek” or “White Star Trek” or “Cis Star Trek” or whatever, yes. I have, aside from Prodigy, never heard Paramount, Vicacom, whatever, sell a Star Trek show as ‘we’re designing this show around this group of people.’

    It instantly raises my suspicions.

    Stamets Mod ,
    @Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

    I have, aside from Prodigy, never heard Paramount, Vicacom, whatever, sell a Star Trek show as ‘we’re designing this show around this group of people.’

    And what happened with Prodigy? Nothing. The world carried on spinning and nothing happened because catering to a specific audience isn’t a problem or problematic. It just means that a new audience gets to see a world with reflections of themselves that they normally would not be able to see.

    FlyingSquid Mod ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    I think you keep missing me saying that I hope it’s good, I’m just not optimistic that it will be.

    Stamets Mod ,
    @Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

    I probably am. Stressed about a few things and yeah. I am sorry if I came off aggressive or anything here.

    FlyingSquid Mod ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    We’re good, dude! I told someone elsewhere in the thread that you’re very passionate about this and I think that’s a good thing.

    Stamets Mod ,
    @Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

    I’m also just very particular about language which quite often doesn’t help.

    orrk ,

    the “lgbtq+” characters in STD were borderline offense with the level of stereotyping they pulled, it’s not like we didn’t have LGBTQ+ characters before, of course they weren’t a fucking caricature…

    Stamets Mod ,
    @Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

    it’s not like we didn’t have LGBTQ+ characters before,

    No. We did not. There was no real LGBTQ+ representation on the show prior to DSC. Also the acronym is DSC or DIS, not STD. Not unless you’re going around saying STO for Original, STT for The next generation, ST9 for Deep Space 9, etc.

    Saying that the representation was ‘borderline offensive’ is also laughable considering that the show and actors have won numerous awards from people like GLADD specifically for the representation of LGBTQ+ peoples.

    orrk ,

    considering you only see LGBTQ+ if it’s a stereotype, you must think Rain-man a decent representation of ASD…

    then again, I love how you pretend at some argument of consistency when all the “one word” series are known mainly by said word (Voyager, Enterprise), and TOS just meaning the original series, so you have two examples here, both of which, if we went with their naming convention, would leave it called “D”.

    Stamets Mod ,
    @Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

    considering you only see LGBTQ+ if it’s a stereotype, you must think Rain-man a decent representation of ASD…

    Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it a stereotype. Once again, it has won awards from international organizations that step up for LGBTQ people and talk about our representation. What do you do?

    then again, I love how you pretend at some argument of consistency when all the “one word” series are known mainly by said word (Voyager, Enterprise), and TOS just meaning the original series, so you have two examples here, both of which, if we went with their naming convention, would leave it called “D”.

    No, there’s one naming convention. I was chosing a singular word from the series name and using it. I also avoided D because that is the only way that one could logic themselves into the acronym supposedly being STD. I mean unless you have some better explanation as to why you use STD.

    I am not continuing this discussion with you when you’re violating the rules of the community.

    melmi , (edited )
    @melmi@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    There is a standard naming convention, and it predates the creation of Discovery. Voyager is VOY, and Enterprise is ENT. No one calls Voyager “STV”, as that would cause confusion with Star Trek V, the movie. If you’ve ever used Memory Alpha or participated in a fan community like Daystrom you’ll know that this has been standard for a long time. By extension, Discovery is DIS, Picard is PIC, and Prodigy is PRO.

    DSC is a special case because it’s used internally by the production (even shows up in the show itself once or twice) so some people have taken to using it, but it’s not consistent with the other naming schemes we use so it’s not standard. In fact, when it came out that Voyager was referred to internally as VGR, basically no one switched because everyone was so used to calling it VOY.

    melmi ,
    @melmi@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    Out of curiosity, who do you see as the LGBTQ+ characters? I can think of a few, but outside of mirror universe eps no one is actually established as queer. It’s all subtext, or implied.

    Then there’s the big lesbian kiss with Jadzia, and that’s awesome, but immediately after they decide that they shouldn’t be doing this and they go their separate ways, and Jadzia never to my knowledge expresses her attraction to a woman again. Even in that case, it’s unique because said woman used to be a man. It’s not Jadzia just being attracted to a woman on her own merits.

    What’s big about new Trek is that the characters are actually queer in the text, not just subtext. I’m a big fan of reading Garak and Bashir as queer, but they’re fundamentally not good representation because as far as the story itself is concerned, they’re two straight men. It’s only through the actors’ performances that the queer implications shine through.

    canis_majoris ,
    @canis_majoris@lemmy.ca avatar

    The franchise should appeal to other demographics other than the ones that are currently enjoying it to broaden its portfolio and horizons, but not at their expense.

    Discovery pissed a lot of people off, I know you like it, but it undeniably annoyed a lot of people alongside Picard. It feels like it was a middle ground between nostalgia plays and trying something new. Eventually it did lead to Strange New Worlds which a lot of established fans really like, but it took Discovery the average two seasons to figure out and find its footing. When it freed itself from being beholden to nostalgia grabs in the TOS era it became something unique that stood on its own in my opinion.

    I really like both Strange New Worlds and Lower Decks, and Mike McMahan did a great job of creating something that was made with reverence for the source material despite being jocular in tone. I’m upset because I’ll miss it when it’s gone because the replacement is not something I am interested in. It’s like having a really great coworker move to another department and having a replacement who just doesn’t get you.

    Stamets Mod ,
    @Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

    The franchise should appeal to other demographics other than the ones that are currently enjoying it to broaden its portfolio and horizons, but not at their expense.

    No. Utterly wrong. A translation of this is “People should make stuff for others to enjoy but only as long as I get to enjoy it too.” Not everything is about you, not every show is going to be made to your tastes. Get over it and just don’t watch it. Just because it isn’t made for you or your demographic doesn’t mean that it isn’t worth making. Other people exist.

    canis_majoris ,
    @canis_majoris@lemmy.ca avatar

    I want to enjoy my favorite franchise and you’re calling me an asshole because other people exist. I understand other people exist, I am a person, and I want to watch Star Trek just like you are a person who wants to watch Star Trek. Your strawman argument is needlessly hostile when all we both want to do is have and watch different kinds of Star Trek. Just because my preferential parts of the franchise happened to come before yours does not make it invalid. The three concurrent airing shows proves they can all exist at the same time. They should continue to do so in different forms, exploring strange new worlds.

    You can make more than one show that appeals to multiple demographics.

    Stamets Mod ,
    @Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

    I have never at any point called you an asshole. I’m not continuing any conversation with you if you’re going to stuff words down my throat and flagrantly lie about what has been said.

    canis_majoris ,
    @canis_majoris@lemmy.ca avatar

    Bro you literally strawmanned my argument. You literally put words in my mouth. I don’t get why you’re always on edge. We’re literally just discussing fucking science fiction on the internet. Did I need to say “essentially calling me an asshole?” Should I have said “being hostile about opinions?”

    I really don’t get you Stamets. Every time we interact you’re just super aggro.

    It makes me feel like I can’t contribute in any meaningful way to threads around you because you’ll just call me super rude things like “utterly wrong” which I think is massively aggressive for no reason just on the basis that we disagree on something.

    Stamets Mod ,
    @Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

    No. I did not. Your argument was that “they should make stuff for other demographics too but to not alienate the current demographic.” It does not make sense. It is centric to the core demographic and pretends that the only demographic that matters is the originating one of fans of previous Trek. That the shows should always keep them in mind and that they should be a core consideration of everything that comes forward. That does not even make sense with the core philosophy of Trek which is inclusion and always looking for the forefront. To change and to grow.

    You can appeal to more than one demographic but not appealing to a certain demographic does not make the show bad. Your argument is in bad faith and is a gatekeepers argument. That is why I boiled it down to “no one else matters but me”. Because that is exactly what you are arguing for. “Make stuff for other people but you need to make it for me so I can enjoy it too.” Like I said, just don’t watch it. It makes no sense and is extremely self centered to look at a show and go “It isn’t for me therefore it isn’t good.”

    I am not continuing this or any conversation with you if this if your behavior is going to be lying about what was said, stuffing words down my throat and then insulting me on top of it.

    canis_majoris ,
    @canis_majoris@lemmy.ca avatar

    I don’t want to discuss Star Trek with you anymore either. It seems we’re unable to do so amicably.

    Stamets Mod ,
    @Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

    👍

    FlyingSquid Mod ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    I think you are mistaking Stamets’ passion with aggression.

    If you look at our discussion, I think you can see that, while he vehemently disagrees with me, he’s not attacking me. And he wasn’t attacking you either.

    Stamets feels very strongly about this and when he feels very strongly about something, he argues about it with a lot of passion. And I think that’s a good thing.

    canis_majoris ,
    @canis_majoris@lemmy.ca avatar

    That’s definitely a part of it, but the line gets crossed when we stop talking about the series and start talking about how we’re talking to each other. We don’t actually discuss Star Trek so much as point out different ways we could have communicated to one another.

    I am just not going to comment and interact with Stamets, because I acknowledge the passion, and agree it’s great, but you can have passion and still know how to communicate with people without being seemingly hostile. When you call somebody “utterly wrong” they’re going to be upset, even if you just meant “I vehemently disagree with you” there’s simply more diplomatic ways to get your point across.

    I think we would probably get along better if we heard each other vocally. I know a lot of people who I disagree with when we’re typing but they come off totally different when they’re speaking because you can hear the tone.

    muse ,
    @muse@kbin.social avatar

    Unironically yes. But that's beside the point

    RootBeerGuy ,
    @RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

    Ehehehehe… Wait, you’re not joking.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • tech
  • [email protected]
  • kbinEarth
  • testing
  • interstellar
  • wanderlust
  • All magazines
    •