Sounds like the sort of terrible decision that Paramount would make.
this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2024
210 points (98.6% liked)
Star Trek
1071 readers
1 users here now
/c/StarTrek: Your safe harbored Spacedock in these Stellar Seas!
Fire up the inertial dampeners, retract all moorings and clear space dock. It's time to boldy go where no one has gone before!
~ 1. Be Civil. This is a Star Trek community and lets keep that energy. Be kind, respectful and polite to one another.
~ 2. Be Courteous. Please use the spoiler tags for any new Trek content that's been released in the past month. Check this page for lemmy formatting) for any posts. Also please keep spoilers out of the titles!
~ 3. Be Considerate. We're spread out across a lot of different instances but don't forget to follow your instances rules and the instance rules for Lemmy.world.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
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. Youβre 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 doesnβt 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/
load more comments
(8 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
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.
load more comments
(9 replies)
load more comments
(19 replies)
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.
load more comments
(5 replies)
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.
load more comments
(15 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Ehehehehe... Wait, you're not joking.
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.
Oi, don't forget Prodigy!
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Sometimes I feel so out of touch with society. How can you cancel a show as good as this?
Shows often get terrible with time.
Maybe itβs for the best it ends on a high note?
Maybe, but I feel like the show still had a lot of stuff to explore.
load more comments
(2 replies)
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)
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.
Yes but, who says the show couldnβt evolve around its cast and follow them on their path to become officers? Iβd certainly watch that. Would even be interesting to see some slightly higher ranked non bridge officers do their thing in their daily lives.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(10 replies)
This had better come back 2 or 3 times like Futurama.
Underrated advantage of animation β¦ voices donβt age that much.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Why? Were the numbers terrible or something?
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.
Paramount is a mismanaged mess currently in search of a buyer. Itβs ridiculous considering the franchises and back catalogs it owns.
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.
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.
Ahhhhhhh, that was my favorite one. So much fun.
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.
Noooooo! Why! Can't we take a some of the money completely wasted on discovery and use it on lower desks?
Noooooo!
view more: next βΊ