Star Trek: Lower Decks to Conclude with Fifth and Final Season
Star Trek: Lower Decks to Conclude with Fifth and Final Season
The hit original animated series will arrive later this fall.
It looks like the upcoming Lower Decks season will be the last one 😭😭 I didn't have any expectations for this show but it has quickly grown to be one of my favorites. I'll miss it
You're viewing a single thread.
Sounds like the sort of terrible decision that Paramount would make.
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?
They know what middle-aged men like me want. Teen melodrama.
It's really what all Trekkies have been hoping for.
Permanently Deleted
Not making a statement, just answering the question I was directly asked.
That's fair. I responded to the wrong person.
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.
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."
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)
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: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/paramount-earnings-stock-cash-content-1235328376/
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.
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.
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.
Yes. 100%. It’s always about money. Paramount does not greenlight Star Trek shows unless they think it will make them money.
Yes. That is how a business works.
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 "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...
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't want to discuss Star Trek with you anymore either. It seems we're unable to do so amicably.
👍
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.
Wasn't Prodigy cancelled entirely? Didn't they sell the final animated season to Netflix?
Last I heard it was up in the air whether or not Netflix would keep funding it.
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.
They have not, but do you really think it will continue past season 5?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
That's not something that are considering I hope.
https://www.startrek.com/news/new-series-star-trek-starfleet-academy
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. https://trekmovie.com/2024/04/10/mary-wiseman-really-doesnt-want-to-talk-about-tilly-returning-on-star-trek-starfleet-academy/
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.
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+.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It’s that it’s looking like it will be the only show.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ehehehehe... Wait, you're not joking.