Star Trek fans, Would you be watching Strange New Worlds

[Celgress]

How many Vietnam parables did TOS do? How often did the TV shows comment on current events? I'd also point out that the idea of modern-day Trek being pessimistic just doesn't track; while it shows the Federation and Starfleet to be flaws (which is old new, DS9 deconstructed that years ago), in DSC and PIC, the classic ideals always win out in the end. We do see more of the bad, but it's to a point, specifically to build up the good. "Without the darkness, how would we recognize the light?" - Tuvok (VOY, "Cold Fire")....

You are misrepresenting the facts. These parables seldom directly involved the Federation they were things encountered outside. The crews did their best to answer these challenges according to their evolved values, Federation values.

Oh, and I don't think the Fed represents America at all or is meant to rather it is meant to be an actually effective UN.

Take this famous scene the Federation does not understand racism because humans evolved beyond the horrid concept, that's the future I want -



Edit - Sadly, I can't find the extended clip in which the Bridge Crew briefly discusses the two aliens' puzzling & futile feud and it is asked if hatred is all they ever had to which Kirk replies "perhaps".

[Celgress]

Another scene I love from that episode: Kirk and Spock don't understand racism and low-key ridicule it -

[stargazer01]

Like I said, I haven't seen Discovery or Picard, so I can't judge them.

DS9 definitely showed more flawed people, including Sisko, and many think it's the best Trek show.

Star Trek definitely needs to be more hopeful than grim, tho. But it also needs some realism. It can't be a complete utopia. Not even TOS and the movies were. Kirk even hated the Klingons for the death of his son.

[Celgress]

Like I said, I haven't seen Discovery or Picard, so I can't judge them.

DS9 definitely showed more flawed people, including Sisko, and many think it's the best Trek show.

Star Trek definitely needs to be more hopeful than grim, tho. But it also needs some realism. It can't be a complete utopia. Not even TOS and the movies were. Kirk even hated the Klingons for the death of his son.

Of course, people are fallible. I have no issues with humans being weak especially in the face of tragedy what I will NEVER approve of is tearing down the ideal of the Federation and evolved human values of freedom, equality & unity of species (or races). We need such a beacon of hope now more than ever. But, I've already stated my case. I'll now let others say what they feel and if they'll watch this new show or not. I'll wait until the direction is confirmed before I watch it. I'm exhausted by Grim Trek.

[stargazer01]

Of course, people are fallible. I have no issues with humans being weak especially in the face of tragedy what I will NEVER approve of is tearing down the ideal of the Federation and evolved human values of freedom, equality & unity of species (or races). We need such a beacon of hope now more than ever. But, I've already stated my case. I'll now let others say what they feel and if they'll watch this new show or not. I'll wait until the direction is confirmed before I watch it. I'm exhausted by Grim Trek.

well I want to give this show a chance, unless the trailer and more details on the show turn me totally off..

[Celgress]

well I want to give this show a chance, unless the trailer and more details on the show turn me totally off..

I'm the opposite. I don't want to give anything they make a chance at this point. They have to prove themselves to me, but I digress.

[DrNewGod]

... I don't want to give anything they make a chance at this point. They have to prove themselves to me, but I digress.

How are they to do the latter if you stick to the former?

[Cyke]

How are they to do the latter if you stick to the former?

I think they have to actually knock on doors with gift baskets and foot rubs.

-----

Anyway, I'll be tuning in. The strength and fan reception of their version of Pike is what got the show commissioned in the first place, and greatly improved Discovery imo.

Sisko's my favorite captain of all time, but for me even among him,* Janeway, Archer, and Discovery's rotating captains, there hasn't been a captain that I tuned in *just* to watch since Picard. Pike could resume that.

*To clarify, as much as Sisko's my favorite, DS9's strength was in its enormous ensemble, and so I tended to watch for everyone else including him. With TNG, I was much more interested in Picard than virtually anyone else in the show.

[Celgress]

How are they to do the latter if you stick to the former?

Easy, make a good show true to Star Trek's core values. If it is both good and accurate I'll hear about it as will other lapsed fans and perhaps return in droves. In the meantime, I'm done investing any more time in these shows. I gave all three shows a chance and, frankly, didn't like any of them.

Edit - If someone is selling you something you once liked and they change the formula it is up to them to tweak things so you'll like it again. The producer has responsibility for creating a quality product true to the product's history, the long-time consumer is under no obligation to change their tastes. I've simply invested all my time and dollars in another product that remains true to its original vision seeing no need to drastically reinvent things - Star Wars

[Cyke]

Easy, make a good show true to Star Trek's core values. If it is both good and accurate I'll hear about it as will other lapsed fans and perhaps return in droves.

This isn't a dig, but I wonder how much of it one would need to hear in order to change their minds. I bring this up because the Abrams films were better received on average compared to the previous Trek movies (that is, they appealed to a broader audience than most of the other movies), and Discovery's success from word-of-mouth anticipation keeps getting it renewed before the previous season even starts, and from Discovery's ratings have borne all these spinoffs. It doesn't happen vacuum, and CBS would be making poor business choices if it kept doubling down on them out of stubbornness (you don't pour more and more money into bad investments).

I'm not saying everything they do is a hit, of course. Lord knows every week I have more than my share of critiques with each episode. But they're taking the best part of Discovery season 2 and focusing on that, and that's a smart move in and of itself. I'm just reminded that there are still folks out there who love TOS and hate all other Trek because it's "not real Trek," or people who have, to this day, still not tried out DS9 because it wasn't like TNG and their core values, etc.

[DrNewGod]

If it is both good and accurate I'll hear about it as will other lapsed fans and perhaps return in droves. In the meantime, I'm done investing any more time in these shows...

Fair enough. No smack talk intended on my end. I'm glad you'll be open to other people liking it (and I'm hoping that we will), and hope to see you back.

[Celgress]

Fair enough. No smack talk intended on my end. I'm glad you'll be open to other people liking it (and I'm hoping that we will), and hope to see you back.

Thank you, I appreciate the respect and give you respect in return. We all enjoy what we enjoy.

[Celgress]

This isn't a dig, but I wonder how much of it one would need to hear in order to change their minds. I bring this up because the Abrams films were better received on average compared to the previous Trek movies (that is, they appealed to a broader audience than most of the other movies), and Discovery's success from word-of-mouth anticipation keeps getting it renewed before the previous season even starts, and from Discovery's ratings have borne all these spinoffs. It doesn't happen vacuum, and CBS would be making poor business choices if it kept doubling down on them out of stubbornness (you don't pour more and more money into bad investments).

I'm not saying everything they do is a hit, of course. Lord knows every week I have more than my share of critiques with each episode. But they're taking the best part of Discovery season 2 and focusing on that, and that's a smart move in and of itself. I'm just reminded that there are still folks out there who love TOS and hate all other Trek because it's "not real Trek," or people who have, to this day, still not tried out DS9 because it wasn't like TNG and their core values, etc.

I've made my point you are free to agree or disagree. I'm highly skeptical of Discovery's "success" given the lack of data, lack of merchandise, and the widespread negativity I've witnessed online towards the show (more than is typical of online dislike in most cases), but we'll leave it at that.

[Celgress]

And because I think it is counterproductive to complain without offering a possible solution here is what I would have done, my pitch -

Discovery would have been set post-Voyager either in the Gamma Quadrant or more likely the Andromeda Galaxy. Michael Berman would be either a descendant of Spock's brother or Spock himself and a dark-skinned Vulcan or a Vulcan-Human hybrid. Using slipstream technology gained from then Borg the Federation explores further afield than ever before. A small flotilla of ships is sent out to a distance greater than any previously attempted where they encounter strange new aliens some friendly some hostile and equally strange new worlds. Without easy access to the resources of Starfleet, they must live by their wits while doing their best to uphold Federation values in a truly alien environment.

This would solve many of the key problems with Nu-Trek. There would be no going back to established time periods. Plus, while the Federation & Starfleet are still out there they are relative non-factors in the story freeing the writers to go wild but at the same time still preserving facets that long-time fans love. And most importantly without being contrived (i.e. time travel or the mirror universe) it brings Trek back to its roots of exploration.

[Sutekh]

I know some trek fans who have said they have given up on Trek after Discovery and Picard. Some are holding on to hope that this would be the third charm for new trek.

I personally think strange new worlds would turn out to be as average to mediocre as Discovery and Picard but I will watch because it has spock and pike. The series would likely also introducing other characters like Uhura, Sulu and Bones.

For those that choose to watch or not watch, what are your expectations of the show and how can they correct some of the jarring errors of discovery and picard.

I'll watch it, and hope at least for some of the positive vibes of the earlier series. It feels like every series has recently felt the need to double down on shady conspiracies within Starfleet or secret black ops organizations or other such sketchiness, and that works well, once, as a contrast to the shiny face of the organization. But at this point, it's no longer a 'contrast' to show the serpent in the garden. There is no garden. It's just serpents all the way down. And that's bleak and depressing and not at all what I want in my escapist futurism.

If a Star Trek show wants to explore sketchy crap, the Klingons, Romulans, Orions, Ferengi, Breen, Borg, Nausicans, Gorn, Xindi, Terran Empire, whoever can be up to sketchy crap. The bad guys don't *have* to be the Federation or high-ranking no-goodniks in Starfleet.

My biggest problem with Picard was the ending. It was too pat. Some vastly intelligent machine sapients who have left our universe behind left a message for any machine intelligences that arise here that if they ever become so hateful that they want to destroy all life on the way out the door, they can summon these other dudes to come join them in their pretty paradise. Why? If I lived in a machine-intelligence-utopia outside of this universe entirely, I would NOT invite a bunch of hate-filled newbies who are clearly infected with organic emotional thinking to pollute the pool.

Anyone who answered the call and *wanted* the obliteration of all organic life *before they all left anyway* as just as parting screw you to the organics would be manifestly *not* invited, and have failed the test, and get to stay behind in the universe they hate so much and want to die.

Any machine intelligences who just wanted to leave, and not throw a bunch of genocide behind them on the way out the door would prove that they've transcended organic emotional thinking, the pettiness, the hate, the need for vengeance, and be much more welcome to join the grown-ups in the adults-only universe.

And, from a logistical standpoint, machine intelligences don't invent themselves. Organic life self-organizes and evolves. It eventually creates machines to work, and, eventually, to *think*, for it.

Killing off all the organic intelligence in the universe is smashing up the cradle that creates machine intelligences.

It's self-defeating, and a machine intelligence that wants to smash the cradle on the way out the door, well, strike two on reasons not to invite them to the party outside of time and space...

It was just a sucky ending, IMO. No proper sense of wonder. Just, okay, another inexplicable threat averted, even if it didn't make any sense. "Ooh, we shut off the beacon calling out to the AI! And the gateway mysteriously closed for no reason, and the AI apparently forgot that we existed, and won't just flip a switch and come right back! Because, plot?"

Also, "We are working on brain downloading technology, because Dr. Soong is dying! How will we get this information about the Admonition from Dr. Jurati's head? Oh, this robot read a book about Vulcans, so she can do telepathy!" What?

And I've read a book about birds. Does that mean I can fly? Is that how it works?

Ugh.