It occurs to me I should probably have put the Section 31 film thread here too. Oh well.
Right. So, do we want more 25th-century Star Trek? That holy grail we pursued for so long, the post-TNG/DS9/VOY show?
Now, we can’t be certain that Terry Matalas’s Legacy pitch is that. From what he’s said, it could be more of a shifting anthology show in the Fargo or True Detective or American Crime Story vein. But the way PIC left it, it’d be very surprising if at least the first season wasn’t a Seven/Raffi/Jack on the Ent-G - if it didn’t expand to be the whole show concept, of course.
And how do we feel about that? Is any Trek, even bad, better than no Trek? For all that we’ll still have SNW, LDS, PDG and 90210 of course! I suspect I may have said that no Trek is better than bad Trek at some point (during the low points of VOY and ENT) here! Of course I then got my wish! 2005 to 2009, did I miss Trek? Probably, I can’t recall. I had other things on my mind then, being a new father. 2009 to 2017, well, I don’t know if the Kelvinverse films helped, they probably provided some brief welcome distraction from the many problems we had with our second child…
So I think I’d like to see it. I can be balanced and critical where necessary. I do tend to roll my eyes at some of the more enthusiastic responses to PIC s3, but it just goes to show, Trek can be all sorts of things to all sorts of people.
I’m especially leery of some fellow travelling I’ve seen in social media, between the “I only like THIS sort of Trek that aligns to my personal tastes” crowd and people who aren’t Trek fans and never were and seek to exploit them to slate a product they see as “woke” by having, well, anyone in it that’s not like them, so, women, minorities, LGBTQ+ representation. That shit needs to be stamped down on.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Is any Trek, even bad, better than no Trek?"
As someone who watched DIS seasons 1 and 2 and PIC season 1 and then completely gave up on new Trek (and can't bring myself to feel like I'm really missing anything)... I guess my vote has been cast.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
A couple of years ago I would have prefered no Trek over bad Trek. Because even if it were bad I would've felt obliged to watch it.
But The Michael Burnham Show taught me to stop watching Trek I don't enjoy. Personally, after PIC S3 I have no interest whatsoever in another Matalas show.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
"Is any Trek, even bad, better than no Trek?"
No. The existence of new Star Trek branded entertainment products is not invariably positive.
Let's posit a parallel universe where the CBS shows never existed but we were on JJ-Trek's eighth outing by now. After number four tanked they sold off the movie rights to one of those direct-to-DVD outfits that was hiring Bruce Willis for two hours just to get him on the cover and it looks like the old Action Pack shows from circa 1990 . . . I'm thinking "Super Force", here, or that "Knight Rider" TV movie with the asymmetric car that was the guy's wife in a post-apocalyptic Mad Max low-budget hellscape.
Okay, I think we'd all agree that would be a "no", unless we were just itching for cringe and MST3K-level hate-watch commentary comparing it to the long-lost glory days.
Now give that same quality a somewhat bigger budget that allows for decent CGI, sometimes, and maybe a writer who thinks he's the next Roddenberry but he's like super-monarchist and pushes ruling-class weirdness and has the characters being all for natural leaders every other episode. It looks good, in other words, but it hardly matches the spirit of the old show. There's occasionally even interesting pop sci-fi concepts, but a lot of glaring plot holes. A bunch of monarchists love it.
Do you still want it? Do you feel obligated to support it? Would it be better if it didn't exist at all?
Posted by Zipacna (Member # 1881) on :
I personally have no problem with another 25th Century series in and of itself. However it would need to be one where they learn the mistakes (and there have been some fairly egregious mistakes) from Picard especially, one that isn't yet another edition of "fanwank of the week", and one that doesn't regurgitate obscure easter eggs for the sake of showing that they're capable of reading MemoryAlpha for a few hours. If they put even half as much effort into producing a logical script as they do in churning out obscure minutiae that even the nerdiest of fans don't care about, then we might have a chance of a half-decent series. Until that happens, I'd rather they didn't bother.
The frustrating part is that they're capable of doing it...I mean 'Strange New Worlds' and 'Prodigy' have got the balance right, in my opinion (although they're not completely innocent either). There's just something about Discovery and Picard where it's fairly difficult to suspend disbelief long enough to ignore the plot holes big enough you could park a Voth City Ship in them.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
I don't know about SNW. They got bolder with their retcons as the show went on and I felt kind of insulted by the show runners' asinine explanations how their retcons aren't retcons.
They just should've called it a reboot because that's what it is as far as I'm concerned.
Basically, they made the same mistakes as with TMBS. Doing a prequel but ignoring the limitations that come with it. What makes it more enjoyable is the likeable cast and the episodic format since modern Trek writers can't pull off a sensible season long story arch.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I guess it just reminded me of where we were back in 2001. When VOY was ending and we were more relieved than anything, because there was a LOT to complain about with that show sometimes, and oh boy did we. And we knew that the show that was going to be replacing it was being done by the same team, plus was a prequel (a new departure for the franchise at the time), AND it had a ship that looked way too much like an Akira. I’m sure I said at the time they should rest the franchise, then come back solidly with something new that was more in keeping with the golden age of TV that was then dawning. I wanted to see things like The Sopranos, not more endless seasons of 43-minute long episodic dross.
Of course, ENT surprised us in the end, and we were mostly sorry to see it go in 2005!
So what I’m asking is, if there is a show called Legacy, would you watch? You don’t have to. Tim doesn’t watch Trek now. I don’t watch PDG, and I probably won’t watch 90210 (we need a proper acronym for it - Starfleet Academy, SFA? lol*). I’m not the audience for it. I’m in my fifties, I can’t be doing with shows about teenagers. I’d probably give LEG (!) a go…
* also short for Sweet Fuck All
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I don't see them doing two shows aboard an Enterprise at the same time.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
They might only do three seasons of SNW. Certainly no more than four; but if it was three, then it’s likely they’ll be starting production on s3 soon what with s2 about to air. I’m not even sure if they’re starting production on SFA (90210) this year. DSC s5 is either in production now or has finished I think?
So it’ll be SNW s2 next, then that may be it for live Trek this year. Then next year, probably DSC s5 first, then the S31 movie, then SFA s1… with LDS and PDG dotted around in between. LEG s1 might start production next year, but I doubt it’d cone out until the year after.
It’s looking a bit sparse really! Not only are they settling around shorter runs of seasons (and fewer episodes in a season), they’re also spreading them out further. That time, was it last year of the year before, when there was a new episode of a Trek show every week for about seven months, we won’t be seeing that again anytime soon.
So, in reply to Spike’s point, they wouldn’t be on at ge same time, but yes (if SNW gets a fourth season) they could potentially be on consecutively.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
More news: Prodigy effectively cancelled by P+. Though season 2 will be completed, it’ll be shopped around for pickup by another network/streamer.
Have P+ overreached? Or is this just the end of an inevitable phase of throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks? It doesn’t feel like Trek saturation, not when there is a lot less new Trek this year compared to last when there was a new episode of something every week for months on end.
But yes that means no more PDG, and no DSC after next year, with PIC already gone that leaves SNW, LDS and the Georgiou/Section 31 TV movie. Plus the 32nd-century Starfleet Academy series nobody is excited about. So it feels like there’s space (lol) for Legacy..?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Fuck Legacy, because it's stupid, & fuck hack-ass moon-faced Terry fucking Matalas. But more importantly, fuck this bullshit because Prodigy was fucking ACES.
Posted by Zipacna (Member # 1881) on :
The problem isn't so much Trek saturation, in my opinion, but that the vast majority of NuTrek is poorly-scripted fanservice that will only ever appeal to the nerdiest among us. It doesn't make for a good way to make money, which is ultimately what Trek is...a business. Ironically Prodigy was one of the better outings (and being animated, arguably cheaper and easier to produce), but was shafted from the start given how it was a Paramount+ exclusive at a time when only the US could get Paramount+...so it's doubly ironic that they'd look for an alternative platform for it now that we're actually able to pay to watch it! Frankly, though, if all they're going to replace it with is another round of fanservice, I'd rather they didn't bother.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
My understanding is that P+ did a survey/analysis to see why they've got subscribers, and while franchises like Yellowstone are popular, the overwhelming answer was: Star Trek.
Could just be that Star Trek aimed at kids isn't quite working ...
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
I'm rather meh about the idea of Legacy. If they hadn't killed Shaw and then headstratchingly changed the Titan-A to the Enterprise-G, I'd be more supportive.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Couple of industry analysis pieces which suggest Paramount Global’s problems are more intrinsic, and P+ itself may be at risk:
So at this point it may be less about their (still unprofitable, fifth-ranked) streaming service being “the home of all Star Trek” and more about consolidating the franchise library to present the most attractive package for buyout. The wisdom of cancelling PDG as part of that is debatable however.
Regarding Shaw, Matalas was on the Trek Politics podcast and said that a) Shaw was always meant to die, b) implied he has - and has always had since LEG was a plan he was already formulating - a way to have Todd Stashwick as part of the possible cast. He denied there was ever an oh-shit moment when he realised that Shaw had become a breakout character - who he’d already killed off…
So if P+ goes to the wall and Star Trek finds a new home, doubtless all sorts of proposals will be made. It’s possible that Matalas could get lost in all that, although obviously having a pitch that is heavily tied to one (or more?) of the more higher-profile and successful and popular strands of the franchise probably won’t hurt. Maybe it’ll never happen and Legacy will be just another could-have-been along with Noah Hawley’s idea and whatever Bryan Fuller’s original plan for DSC was…
Strange New Worlds wasn’t formally announced until a year after DSC s2 (which introduced this Pike, Spock & Number One) ended, so don’t despair or rejoice yet (depending on how you feel about Legacy), it may not happen, the decision may be taken away from the lunatics currently running the asylum!