The incredible multi-media phenomenon known as Star Trek has been around for over half a century. And in that time, the creators and fans of the franchise have weathered change and all manner of updates necessary for the show to maintain its relevance, reinventing itself again and again across television, movies, comics, novels, and even in games.
The franchise currently includes thirteen motion pictures, eight television series (with two more in development), and two animated series (with one on the way). No other franchise can hang its hat on such wide-ranging, consistent success…arguably not even Star Wars, with a measly eleven motion pictures, three live-action shows, four animated series, and (of course) one Holiday Special.
Since 2009, however, when the J.J. Abrams-directed Star Trek debuted, initiating what’s known as the Kelvin timeline, a vocal segment of the existing fandom have insisted that more recent versions of Star Trek are not “real Star Trek,” complaining that these newer movies and shows do not fit into their conception of what the franchise should be.
Since that time, bashing “NuTrek” has become a staple of online discussions and articles; for the simplicity of this article, I will refer to the following as “NuTrek” as well:
- The movies Star Trek (2009), Star Trek Into Darkness (2013), and Star Trek Beyond (2016)
- Star Trek: Discovery, Picard, and Lower Decks
Though Trek has stood the test of time, decade in and decade out, things have not always gone smoothly when transitioning from one era to the next. The cast of The Next Generation (TNG) were famously faced with hate and derision from fans of the original series for years before people eventually came around. Same with the actors of Deep Space Nine (DS9). For proof, just watch the first few minutes of the DS9 documentary What We Left Behind to hear the cast read some of the hate mail they received back in the day.
Some fans of previous versions of Star Trek have continued to take aim at current shows online and on social media, mostly visibly on platforms like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Reddit. It’s gotten to the point where Jonathan Frakes, TNG’s Commander Riker and a veteran of Trek both as an actor and director, recently opined that some viewers watch Discovery and Picard mainly “to make sure they hate it.”
I think it might be helpful to take a look at some of the frequent complaints from those who dismiss and deride NuTrek for not being “real Star Trek,” why people feel this way, and try to put these criticisms into perspective. I realize that some of these points, as with any criticisms about one’s favorite show or series, can inspire strong feelings and responses, so the goal here is to be respectful, and to try to be constructive even where we disagree the most. With that in mind, here we go:
Complaint: NuTrek does not honor Gene’s vision
Gene Roddenberry was a visionary, and I’d like to think that most Trek fans would agree that his idealistic view of what the future could be is something we would do well to strive for, here in the real world. But those higher values don’t always translate to good stories.
Roddenberry thought that humanity would be highly evolved by the 23rd century. By then, he supposed, we’d be beyond petty disputes and conflict, and without money, we wouldn’t need to compete with each other for the same material goods. Instead, the pursuit of knowledge would be humanity’s ultimate goal, rather than the pursuit and accumulation of “stuff.”
Moreover, as discussed in Manu Saadia’s book Trekonomics, by the 24th century (TNG-era shows and all that followed), the pursuit of stuff was made even more pointless because the replicator meant that anyone, anywhere, could acquire the latest widget. By this point, humanity had to change for the better…
Unfortunately, these tenets of Roddenberry’s utopian vision of the future do not always make for the best storylines and dramatic stakes for TV or the movies. Because of Gene’s mandate that there be no conflict between humans, writing for TNG was reportedly rather difficult…eventually, Roddenberry was pushed into a consulting position.
Buy the Book
Remote Control
The same thing happened to Roddenberry on the greatest Trek film of them all—The Wrath of Khan. Roddenberry famously wrote a nine-page letter to producer Harve Bennett in which he spelled out his anger over many of the film’s plot points. These included:
- David Marcus’ negative view of Starfleet
- The Genesis Device
- The Kobayashi Maru test
- Human conflict and weakness
…along with a few other things, which are integral and beloved parts of the film.
It may not be a coincidence that once Roddenberry’s involvement in The Next Generation began to wane (after the end of Season 2), the show found its own footing, and is considered among many fans to be the very best Trek series ever created (with DS9 a close second). Michael Piller and Rick Berman took over the series beginning with Season 3, and Roddenberry had less to do with the show’s day-to-day decision-making.
In a way, it reminds me of Friedrich Nietzsche’s famous declaration that “God is dead.” As the demiurge of Star Trek, Roddenberry created the Trek Universe, then had to step aside in order for the world to grow and evolve, making room for disciples Berman, Abrams, and now Kurtzman to continue to spread the gospel. Roddenberry created Trek—a magnificent achievement, to be sure—but the fictional world must be able to change and adapt to the times, and ultimately become bigger than one person’s ideas, in order for it to live on.
Speaking of God, Roddenberry was famously non-religious. If he were around, would have he allowed for an entire series about the Bajorans and their wormhole aliens?
Complaint: NuTrek is science fantasy, not science fiction
I tend to hear this a lot from those who do not like Discovery’s spore drive tech, protesting that it’s clearly not based in hard science. For years, Trek fans have held this as a point of pride over Star Wars fans: Our shows and films are more realistic, more science-based, than yours.
But if you stand back and take a long look at the history of the franchise, there are a ton of elements that don’t have any real basis or parallels in hard science. Things like:
- Landing on an alien planet where everyone speaks perfect English
- Visiting planets that are “just like Earth”
- Using the Sun to “slingshot” and go back in time
- Q, Trelane, and other super-beings
- The transporter
- Tuvix-style merging and successful splitting of people
Some of those can, of course, be chalked up to the fact that Roddenberry, Gene L. Coon, and others were making a low-budget TV show in the ‘60s, and they needed aliens who could speak English. Discovery explains this away with the use of the Universal Translator, which earlier Trek uses as well. The Original Series used this a few times, but for the most part, did not. We just assumed that when Kirk and Spock beamed to the surface, everyone would speak the same language.
Speaking of “beaming,” or quantum teleportation, that was created by Roddenberry and other Trek writers as a way of getting the crew down to the planet’s surface without the use of some landing some craft. The shuttlecraft was created for TV for the episode “The Galileo Seven,” and furnished by toy manufacturer AMT. This was the 16th episode of The Original Series.
Current science can “beam” photons from one place to another. This is a far cry from the massive energy required to convert a human being or other complex forms into molecules to send to different locations. The computing power needed for a task like that would be otherworldly.
But Trek fans bought it at the time, and we all continue to suspend disbelief when it happens on screen. Old School Trek fans might criticize Discovery for the spore drive, but that is just as unrealistic as the transporter.
Complaint: The Kelvin Films have no Star Trek soul
This is true… from a certain point of view. In Paramount’s defense, when they decided to make the Star Trek reboot with director J.J. Abrams, they needed to change how the world perceived the franchise. Why? Because people weren’t watching Trek.
There’s no shortage of charts reflecting the fall in ratings from TNG’s heyday to the end of Enterprise, proving that with each new version of Trek, the audience shrunk, and the ratings fell lower.
Many fans of those years will say that Voyager and Enterprise’s low ratings were due to the shows being aired on a new network (UPN). The fact is that, in most cases, if a show is excellent and appealing to a broad audience, then people will find it (even if they have to subscribe to a channel or streaming service, as was the case with Game of Thrones).
When Abrams created his new version of Star Trek, the focuse was on action and adventure stories, which seemed like a departure from Voyager and Enterprise. Audiences got to see Kirk and Spock on the silver screen again, with a 29-year-old Chris Pine starring as Kirk, and the rest of the classic TOS crew was just as young and vibrant.
This was a smart move, designed to allow for multiple sequels to the reboot and bring in younger people who were not familiar with the older films or shows. Believe it or not, there are people who consider TOS “campy” and the effects “primitive.”
Star Trek had to change to suit younger audiences and court new viewers. If it did not, then Trek might have become one of those franchises that once was in the popular zeitgeist, but faded into irrelevance, commercially or artistically (or both). Without NuTrek, there would only be reruns.
Complaint: Discovery and Picard’s writers are terrible
A massive swath of NuTrek haters insist on the truth, which they hold to be self-evident, that the writers of Discovery and Picard are awful. While I have no doubt that their criticisms are sincere, I can’t get this perception to square with reality, especially considering that Picard‘s showrunner (Michael Chabon) has won a Hugo, a Nebula, and a Pulitzer Prize for his work. That’s… kind of an amazing track record.
Could it be that instead of being objectively terrible, the current writers’ room for the Star Trek shows on CBS All Access are writing stories that are significantly different than what we’ve seen in the past? Both Discovery and Picard are serialized. They took a note from the Kelvin series of films and function more like long movies, rather than 50-minute standalone missions per episode.
DS9 had already proved that these sorts of stories would work for Trek, but perhaps they got away with it because the “planet of the week” stories were running on TNG and Voyager at the same time.
Many have pointed out that in the finale of Discovery Season 2, Georgiou reported that the threat from Control (the evil AI) had been “neutralized”—so why did Burnham and the Discovery still go into the future? Could it be that Georgiou meant the AI-controlled fleet of ships and the Leland-bot were disabled? The threat from Control still existed on Discovery.
If Arnold Schwarzenegger has taught us anything, it’s that an all-powerful, evil AI cannot be defeated so easily. It makes sense to take the AI-infected ship into the future, to ensure that it could not take over again.
Different, my friends, is not necessarily terrible.
I will admit that Season One of Discovery was a bit rough—largely because there were no characters to really root for (the grouchy Burnham, the snobby Saru, the sarcastic Stamets, etc.). But we gave TNG a couple of seasons to figure things out without burning it to the ground. Why not give Discovery the same chance?
Complaint: It’s just not the same…
Yeah. Yes. Can’t argue there. But I stand by my earlier statement: In pop culture, you either learn to reinvent yourself or the franchise dies.
For those fans who grew up watching TOS and are upset about the changes in recent years, think of it this way…let’s compare what was popular when TOS premiered in September of 1966 versus what topped the charts when Discovery aired on Sept 24, 2017:
#1 Song on Billboard Charts:
- 1966: The Supremes’ “You Can’t Hurry Love”
- 2017: Taylor Swift’s “Look What You Made Me Do”
# 1 Box Office Film:
- 1966: A Man for All Seasons
- 2017: Star Wars: Episode VIII—The Last Jedi
# 1 Top-Selling Mobile Phone:
- 1966: Not yet invented
- 2017: Apple iPhone 8/8 Plus
Okay, I threw in that last category to mess with you, but also to illustrate how much the world has changed in just five decades. Many older fans found the lens flares and multiple action sequences in the Kelvin films and Discovery to be jarring or otherwise objectionable. But those types of action scenes and visuals are typical in popular movies and shows of this era. If the expectations of a new generation of action-hungry viewers weren’t taken into account, then the new generation of Star Trek might well have been doomed to the same fate as Enterprise—cancellation.
In Nicholas Carr’s book The Shallows, he explains how the Internet and its accessibility have changed the way people read and consume information. He argues that people’s brains have actually altered to accommodate this new technology. Think about what it was like before the Internet (if you’re able to). Now, imagine being born after 2003 or so, and ask yourself to imagine what life would be like without the Internet and the way it’s shaped (and continues to shape) culture and society.
How do fans who reject NuTrek expect the show to gain a new audience when using the same old tactics which got Enterprise canceled? Especially when you consider the rise of a new, younger, tech-savvy audience who grew up with the Internet and connected devices. They watch movies on their iPads and phones, and Netflix and other streaming services let you binge through entire series in one sitting. The world has changed, and Star Trek—fittingly, for a show about change and about progress—has been updated to reflect and embrace that evolution.
Complaint: NuTrek uses curse words; Classic Trek did not
Maybe you don’t count “dammit,” “shit,” and other classics as cursing. Here’s a great article that summarizes the greatest hits of cursing in Trek, before Discovery. Yet Classic Trek fans lost it when the F-bomb dropped first on Discovery, and later on Picard.
Picard showrunner Michael Chabon said this, when asked why he chose to use profanity on his show:
No human society will ever be perfect, because no human will ever be perfect. The most we can do … is aspire to perfection. Until that impossible day, s**t is going to happen. And when it does, humans are going to want to swear.
That’s a pretty decent explanation, and it makes sense. It could be that Classic Trek fans got upset because that word is, in particular, upsetting to hear. It may also be the case that, as described before, society has changed, and words like “damn” and “shit” no longer affect people like the F-word does.
But, seriously folks… the Federation is a quasi-military organization whose mission is primarily one of exploration. The word “military” is critical here. For those of you who have not been in the military, you may not know, but the guys and gals in the Armed Forces curse. A LOT. I worked for the U.S. Navy as a contractor for four years. I heard terrific and incredible combinations of curses on a daily basis.
They even curse at NASA.
Can you imagine if you were serving on a ship in space, and things started to go wrong… you wouldn’t utter a swear word or two? Or would you say “gosh darn it, the Klingons just fired at us, and our shields are down. Shucks!”
NuTrek is not canon
This is the thing… it is. Classic Trek fans can choose to pretend that it is not—and plenty do—but if it says Star Trek, and it’s on television or on a movie theater, it’s canon. Some say that the NuTrek shows ignore what happened in the past, but that’s just not true. Here are some examples:
- Watch any episode of Lower Decks, and it’s riddled with references to prior Trek shows and movies
- Captain Pike sees his own future disfigurement in Discovery (which we know will happen thanks to “The Menagerie,” Parts I and II)
- As mentioned before, Picard is entirely based on events that occurred in Star Trek: Nemesis, Star Trek (2009), the TNG episodes “Family,” “The Best of Both Worlds,” “The Measure of a Man,” and more.
Heck, Picard got people to go back and watch the very first appearance of the Romulans in the TOS episode “Balance of Terror” to make sure there was no AI or advanced computer systems in their society.
I’m not quite sure why those opposed to NuTrek say this sort of thing, other than they “just don’t like NuTrek.” That could be it. Because Trek Czar Alex Kurtzman is undoubtedly a giant nerd and is all about making sure the new shows align with the old shows and films.
Eventually, reality’s going to catch up to the Trek timeline. According to canon, the infamous Bell Riots are supposed to start in September 2024. What will we say when we get to 2024, and the Bell Riots don’t happen? We’ll recognize that Star Trek is a show and a story, and will likely need to start over.
NuTrek is not Star Trek
I see this all the time, especially on Twitter, where fans of classic Trek dismiss the Kelvin films and CBS All Access shows as simply “not Star Trek.” Let’s compare Trek to something very dissimilar—namely, American football—to make a point.
If you transported a football player from the 1920s to the 2020s and had them watch the NFL, what do you think they’d say? They’d probably note that the game had changed a lot, but the basics of blocking, tackling, and running with the ball are all still there.
In the same vein, if we beamed DeForest Kelley in from 1967 and asked him to play the doctor on Star Trek: Discovery, he’d probably think that while the uniforms and set had changed, the basic elements of the series are all still there.
In a recent interview I conducted with Deep Space Nine’s Armin Shimerman, I asked him what he thought of people dismissing NuTrek as “not Star Trek.” The man who played Quark for seven years would know a little something about this, since his show was disliked by so many when it first debuted back in 1993.
“Star Trek is what Star Trek is,” said Shimerman. “If you say it’s Star Trek, then it becomes Star Trek…” He continued:
When we started Deep Space Nine, people said “this is not Star Trek, you don’t have a ship. You’re not going anywhere.” It took a while for fans of Star Trek to come and take a second look at us, and say, “you know what, this is Star Trek.” We were just telling a different story.
If you tell the same story over and over again, it gets repetitive, and nobody wants to see the same thing again. To push the boundaries, and expand the envelope is what every creative artist should be doing.
If, currently, someone is saying that your particular Star Trek show is not Star Trek, I say to them, what I said to Nana [Visitor] about five weeks into our run on Deep Space Nine. When we were beginning to understand that fans of The Next Generation were not particularly pleased with Deep Space Nine, I said wait 20 years, they’ll discover us.
In conclusion…
Author Madeline Miller recently noted that the Ancient Greeks told story after story about their heroes, and these stories often did not align. You might have overlapping timelines and multiple stories about the same gods or titans doing essentially the same thing. This happened because people liked hearing about figures like Hercules as much as possible, so the oral storytellers would embellish and borrow from each other, and change the mythos and stories in the process.
In a way, our Trek characters are a bit like those heroes from Greece. Spock has been played by half a dozen actors over three different TV series, two separate film series, and one animated show. Though we have Netflix and Blu-ray players, we’re still hungry for more stories about those great heroes and the worlds in which their exploits take place. If purists want to hold on to their specific visions of Spock, Kirk, Sisko, Picard, Janeway, and the rest, that’s okay—but we shouldn’t try to deny the fans of the present and the future who want to tell their own versions of Star Trek stories, too.
I think that if you don’t like something, especially if you’re expected to pay for it, then don’t—don’t watch it. Yet folks take it upon themselves to actively and aggressively campaign against shows and movies they don’t enjoy, online and across social media, attacking and deriding anything that differs from their sense of how these stories should be told. This goes beyond Star Trek and entertainment in general, of course. To me, this kind of reaction to NuTrek seems very much against one of Trek’s most significant tenets.
…No, not the Prime Directive, but IDIC: Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. This inspirational mantra comes from Vulcan philosophy, and, according to Gene Roddenberry himself, means “an ideal based on learning to delight in our essential differences as well as learning to recognize our similarities.”
Some fans consider the period from TNG’s debut to the release of Nemesis to be Star Trek’s Golden Age—a time when there were new films in the theaters and fresh Trek on TV. I propose that this current era is Trek’s Silver Age (to borrow a term from the comic book world), in which we get to explore the new and different facets of the franchise brought to us by Discovery, Picard, Lower Decks, and future shows like Strange New Worlds, Prodigy, Section 31, and more.
So if you can, try to relax and enjoy the phasers, ships, special effects, and Starfleet-delta wearing crew in action, like you’ve never seen before. It is a great time to be a fan of Star Trek. And besides…in 25 years, the “new” NuTrek will probably arrive to make us look back at Discovery and Picard the way we look at The Original Series from our vantage point here in 2020.
Eric Pesola (he/him) lives in Virginia with his wife, children, shitzhu, and cats named Archer and Hoshi. The dog is not named after a Trek character. He writes about Star Trek at Trek Report.
If I don’t like something in Star Trek, or any other franchise, I simply dismiss it from my personal canon. Whatever else I may have said about Discovery or any other new show, I have never said it isn’t Star Trek.
Personally I really like Lower Decks. Yes it’s wacky and maybe tries to pack in too much but it feels like it loves Star Trek to me. Hoping for more time for Tendi and Rutherford.
I’m just now catching up on Discovery through the broadcasts, and not loving it (I didn’t love DS9 mostly because I was a B5-head, but Voyager never caught with me, and Enterprise fell off our watch list when schedules changed, but I never hated it), but not hating it.
Picard, on the other hand, I thought was a terrific expansion from what had been done in TNG and subsequent films, and one hell of a good SF story. And hey, Make Romulans Sexy Again.
I wonder how fans are going on given how Discovery has pivoted towards showing the crew working together a lot more in the new season.
Discovery’s writing is just awful, I’m sorry (at least, up to and ESPECIALLY S2, I haven’t checked out S3 yet because they so turned me off). Picard has some rough spots, but it’s not too bad. Lower Deck’s fun for what it is. It’s not all-or-nothing.
But I think we’re past the point of “give it a chance, previous Trek shows took a couple seasons to get good.” That’s a lazy answer and encourages mediocrity. If Discovery had 80s quality effects and rubber masks, you wouldn’t say “Previous Trek shows did fine with effects like that!” We’ve evolved since then in effects, as we should have in storytelling. It’s 2020, if you can’t make a show GOOD out of the gate, a show that’s in territory as charted as Star Trek, you don’t deserve to be watched. But not, they’re resting on the fan affection.
Thank you for this article. I’ve been having this argument for as long as I’ve been a Star Trek fan, which goes back to the 1970s…..
—Keith R.A. DeCandido
I find it ironic that Nicholas Carr’s The Shallows is tellingly misnamed The Hallows and used as an argument in favor of change based on marketing choices. That section and the earlier “no Star Trek soul” section both talk about cinematography and style. The objections I’ve heard about the Abrams films focused on character. I don’t feel the author of this piece ever directly engages that question.
Re: The Shallows–typo in the book title fixed.
I’m sorry but this is absolutely true. Growing up I loved watching Voyager… until which ever broadcast channel they were partnering with in my area -I think Fox- ended the partnership and we didn’t get UPN anymore which made being a Voyager fan very, very tough. As for Enterprise, well, by the time that was airing I was in college and just didn’t watch a lot of tv anymore. (Still don’t, tv is not my bag but I can be suckered into watching This Old House and Antiques Roadshow.)
@@@@@ 5 “It’s 2020, if you can’t make a show GOOD out of the gate, a show that’s in territory as charted as Star Trek, you don’t deserve to be watched” really? really?!? so, because it’s 2020, casts don’t need time to gel; writers don’t need time to become familiar with the characters and direction of the show? particularly if they are trying to introduce new ideas (whether or not they are is debatable). the case in point, TNG, was not trying to push new ideas or be much of anything beyond “star trek with a new cast and bigger budget”. and season 1 was bad. maybe not B5 season 1 bad, but pretty close. because it evolved into excellence, most of us forgive the time it took to find their footing. time, and an established world don’t really change that actors and writers are human, and sometimes need time to grow and develop. i don’t think it is a lazy answer, nor does it encourage mediocrity. it only encourages patience. personally, if there is at least something enjoyable, and potential there, i see no harm in giving a season or two for a show to really find its footing.
i haven’t really watched discovery or lower decks, but i very much enjoyed picard. particularly how it forces him to examine his legacy and character.
How do you write a piece like this without acknowledging that a lot of nuTrek hate is specifically expressed in sexist, racist, and homophobic language? All the howling about Star Trek being PC SJW garbage now?
The other problem is some fans’ focus on TNG as the be-all and end-all of what Star Trek should be. It isn’t. TNG is one of many Star Trek spinoff series. It’s not the heart and soul of the franchise, it’s not the foundation on which all Star Trek is built, and it’s not the show that the people making the new movies and Discovery, or publishing the novels and comics, focus on. The original Star Trek is, and you can see its influence — the idea that Star Trek isn’t about perfect people in a perfect society, it’s about flawed people trying their damnedest to build a better society — in DS9, Discovery, and more.
Hi, all–just a reminder of our community guidelines, which you can find here; we know opinions and emotions tend to get a bit heated when it comes to Trek, but please keep the tone of your comments measured and civil if you want to take part in the discussion.
Just a note that Star Wars has 2 Holiday Specials.
But the choice to present a woman’s breasts in closeup with (Klingon) makeup, in a highly sexually charged context, including repeatedly in flashbacks, was not necessary and an audience betrayal. Star Trek never needed explicit bedroom scenes.
Because of it, I can’t recommend Discovery to most people I know unfiltered or without reservation. That grieves me, as I love the series.
Why this now? It is not an evolution in narrative nature or presentation that the series needs to be relevant. On the contrary it writes out a large audience segment. If you can omit something and invite a larger audience segment in the process, but communicate the same story essence another way, you absolutely should.
That should be edited out and the edited update should be pushed out to replace episodes with it.
I’ve seen most of NuTrek except the last couple episodes of Lower Decks and the third season of Discovery- and only because I’m pacing myself on those to have an episode a week to discuss with my sibling. I’ve enjoyed them all to greater or lesser degrees- in general the shows more than the movies. I found the mushroom thing goofy, and spent most of the first season looking for Alice in Wonderland references, and wondering whether Brian Fuller had ever met the real Paul Stamets (who has, as far as I’m aware, never proposed cosmic fungi as a medium for FTL travel, but who does advocate their use for just about everything else).
My favorite Trek so far is probably Deep Space Nine, and I grumbled quite a bit about Enterprise committing the heresy of using a theme song with lyrics. I also rolled my eyes at plenty of decisions in the NuTrek movies- such as the recurrent element of a woman unwillingly or unwittingly undressing in front of Kirk (and the camera). They didn’t ruin the movies for me, but if they had, I’m not sure that “Don’t watch it,” would be a particularly convincing counter-argument? Like, how would I know whether I liked the movies before I watched them, and why shouldn’t I express criticism of elements of them?
I don’t want to think the worst of my fellow human beings, but I’m surprised that the author didn’t bring up the segment of the fandom that hates NuTrek because of a perceived “wokeness.” Or, more specifically, that Trek would dare represent the diverse population of humanity that includes LGBTQ+ people. That is, unfortunately, my experience on various message boards.
Is it, though? I’m honestly not sure how much I really buy into this sort of pseudo-appeal to authority in making the argument, and even award winning authors can write bad things. I’m not really familiar with Chabon’s works over all, but he doesn’t really seem to write all that much science fiction– and it kind of shows in how Picard is put together. His biggest novel, the one that won the Hugo and Nebula is the The Yiddish Policemen’s Union which may be speculative fiction, but I’m not sure I’d consider it to be Science fiction in the way Star Trek is. And it kind of shows in how badly Picard seems to handle the source material. And his successes in general seem to be mixed; he helped write Spiderman 2, but he also helped put together the screenplay for John Carter, a movie that did so badly it lead Rich Ross resigning as the head of Walt Disney Studios.
I don’t feel like this is off base, considering Picard somehow manages to drop the ex-Borg plot line at the last minute because (IIRC) Chabon didn’t think it was important.
And this is to say nothing of the various writing problems we see in Discovery. It’s all very good to suggest that what Georgiou is actually saying that the ships are just disabled (Although I’m not convinced this is what the writers actually meant), but if Control is still a threat, one has to wonder why going into the future would be a reasonable move at all. After all, Control is a computer program and is therefore immortal. 900 years might be well outside the lifespan of most species, but certainly within the realm of possibility for Control. And, Control is a time traveler too– it’ll just take it 900 years to reach the same end point as Discovery. Not to mention, if Control isn’t defeated with the death of RoboLeland, there’s a good possibility the program would just squirrel itself away, bide its time, and manipulate itself back into a position of power while it waits for Discovery to pop out of a hole in the sky. And this is just one example of the bad writing on the part of the Discovery writing room.
I really feel like most of these ‘complaints’ are only ever examined at the most basic levels, rather than with any sort of depth. Even, arguably, the comment about nuTrek being ‘science fantasy’ rather than ‘science fiction’ seems to be missing the fact that the Spore Drive is operating on Voyager’s Threshold level of science fiction. It’s just bafflingly absurd, as is going so fast you turn into a salamander.
I think a lot of is just the generational gap. Trek, Wars and Who are all now on their third generations of fans (if not fourth) and there’s grumbling from a lot of people who have their own conception of what those franchises are and have now had to readjust based on changing tastes and aesthetics, and don’t like it. That doesn’t mean there aren’t weak entries to the canon in all three for their latest iterations and things that were mishandled (not having “a plan” for the Star Wars sequel trilogy was a horrendous mistake; focusing so hard on obscure backstory mysteries for Chibnall’ Doctor Who arc seems ill-advised), but the same is true of prior generations as well.
With Trek I note that it seems to be that the oldest generation, those who grew up with TOS and the movies, seem much more at home with the newest shows then those who grew up with TNG as their primary frame of reference. It seems to be that TNG-megafans are the ones who really seem to hate the new shows, believing the antiseptic, often overly bland view of the future presented in TNG is the Trek default and anything that strays from that is “not real Trek.” This ignores the fact that the writers themselves pointed out it became almost impossible to tell stories under those restrictions and DS9, Voyager and Enterprise were all attempts to find ways out from under them (DS9 by having non-Starfleet regular characters who did not share the Federation’s ideology, so there could be conflict there; Voyager by putting the crew on the other side of the galaxy; and Enterprise by just being set before that time).
The criticisms I think do have a lot of merit in the newer shows and films is the sometimes overly-goofy humour, the lack of subtlety and, in particular, the extremely manic activity levels with people running around, things unfolding so fast they don’t quite make sense, the lack of reflective character moments and the seeming insistence on a phaser having to go off at least twice an episode. Discovery‘s third season has been pretty good at actually slamming on the brakes and having slower-paced stories with much clearer stakes. The dinner scene in the latest episode was a good scene for character development and reflection that the show should have really been doing more of near the start so we got to know the characters better. Picard had a couple of scenes like this but probably not enough. If anything, Trek going in that less-subtle, more loud direction in the last decade was really odd when so many other shows are doing well by investing in slower-paced, richer and deeper storytelling.
@10: TNG Season 1 is far worse than Babylon 5 Season 1. TNG’s first season had episodes that were outright racist, sexist and almost breathtakingly stupid. B5 S1 had a few clunkers, but it also had some outstanding and classic episodes (something no post-TOS Trek series bar DS9, with Duet, can boast).
One thing I’m fairly surprised to see omitted from this piece is discussion of how fanfic authors have taken to certain incarnations of NuTrek. TOS may be the Ur example of Trek & fic, but AOS — the Alternate Original Series — has an absolutely bonkers amount of stories written for it over on the Archive of Our Own, far outstripping TNG/DS9/VOY. (Discovery also puts in a decent showing, though there are fewer stories than for any of the completed series.) An analysis of whether and how these stories address or critique NuTrek would probably make for a fun dissertation, if I was still doing that sort of thing…..
There are episodes of TOS that we just skip right on over. Like the one where an alien culture managed to both fight the metaphor-for-Vietnam AND recreate the preamble to the United States Constitution word-for-word. Or the planet that was geographically identical to Earth with no explanation.
Trekkie for over 40 years, and if I can survive the Enterprise theme and conclusion, I’m going to stick around.
You can call it different if you like, but I don’t think the writing has been there for the most part. Chabon has an impressive record, without a doubt, but Picard ain’t exactly a shining example. And you know, sometimes that happens. Sometimes they can get away from you. Gene Coon created a lot of great Star Trek. He also created “Spock’s Brain.”
But maybe if there were fewer cooks, Picard and Discovery might’ve been more focused. Every season has felt like ten seasons worth of material crammed inside. Ease back and just tell one story.
Apart from that, my least favorite aspect has been the odd tendency for melodrama in NuTrek. Maybe it’s because the target demo has shifted, but there are all these questions of faith and spirituality and emotionality laid on so thick at times it makes Hallmark Channel movies look cold in comparison. It’s an odd fit for Star Trek. Takes some getting used to, this kind and gentle scented candle space opera future, people crying, emotions all over the place, telling us how emotional the emotions are, how much we are all like family, and we are special and regretful — oh, but then suddenly shifts into hardcore violence! No, don’t do that to his eyeball?! What is that? Oh man, you made the dog leave the room. Who are they making this for?
It’s a big ole weird gumbo this NuTrek.
I’ll copy and paste an answer I gave to the question “Admiral Picard yells at the interviewer: This is not the federation. Did Kirk’s Federation, Sisko, the Admiral of the USS Voyager cease to exist?” on Quora:
“I’d say the Federation in the new shows is in an ‘in between’ state.
The Federation in the old shows has always reflected what we, in the West, aspired to in light of how we saw ourselves at the time.
Kirk’s Federation shows Americans and Russians as having overcome their differences and working together (think about Chekov serving in the Enterprise). Sure, there are enemies out there who resemble the old differences between those two, but having done it once (in show, not in reality), the hope was we can do it again (in the show, or for the first time in reality).
Picard’s Federation, similarly, shows a world in which the then (in reality) Pax Americana hadn’t merely triumphed, but had expanded so much it wasn’t one sided anymore, but managed to overcome the very notion of unipolarity vs. multipolarity into the higher concept of holistic unity of differences.
Sisko’s Federation went with a similar thematic, but focusing in a religion vs. science dichotomy that turns out to be false, and then a war that ends up also uniting old enemies, without the all too common expedient of utter annihilation of the defeated side, among many other topics.
And so on and so forth. In other words, to put it more philosophically, what each of those older shows provided was the synthesis of two previously acknowledged opposites, of a thesis and its respective antithesis, speculating about the challenges this synthesis, already achieved, would face, and how it’d deal with it. Sometimes it did great, sometimes not, sometimes it’d have to face its own newly minted antithesis, having become but a thesis. But the act of moving forward was always at the core of every movement.
The new shows, on the flip side, are comparatively weaker since they restrict themselves to showing the thesis and its antithesis, but without managing to rise to any synthesis. They’re, at best, prequels to the ‘something’ that an actual Star Trek show would be focusing on. So, in a way, they fit, but as background: those things, people and events in the past which “we overcame”, about which the actual characters of the actual show would refer to during short conversations in the canteen or during a pause in the mission.
Interesting? Sure. But not as much as the actual Star Trek shows we aren’t watching, the ones that haven’t been made (yet), would have been.
And the dark Federation these new shows show, is precisely the Federation at those transition points. The short, empty shells that exists in between what it was, and what it will be, acknowledged, but overcome, by the time the actual shows begin.”
As someone who was part of the STAR TREK community from the days of classic TREK, I’d say the biggest problem is the franchise owners not even bothering to pretend that they care for the fans except for their money. A bunch of us walked away, no longer caring. I may check back in to see what’s going on, but do I truly care about the franchise and all its iterations? Nope.
I’ve been reading a bunch of retrospectives on SUPERNATURAL as it heads to its end in two episodes, and one important thing I’ve come away with is how the loyal fans brought in new fans to keep the show going for 15 seasons and how the actors, producers, etc., have been equally as loyal to the fans. That’s the way to run a franchise.
Star Wars has “eleven motion pictures, three live-action shows, four animated series, and (of course) one Holiday Special.”
I count 12 theatrical motion pictures (plus the two Ewok films, and not counting future projects), around 5 live-action shows°, at least 9 animated series*, and two holiday specials.
°Mandalorian, Jedi Temple Challenge, and the upcoming Kenobi, Cassian Andor, and Leslye Headland’s show, not counting any rumoured spin-offs or other projects, nor canned/cancelled programs.
*I’m counting Droids, Ewoks, Clone Wars, The Clone Wars, Rebels, Resistance, Bad Batch (because I think you’re counting the coming-soons), Feeemaker Adventures, and All Stars. Arguably if we count All Stars we should also include The Yoda Chronicles and Droid Tales and….
Not to mention the web series like Forces of Destiny, Galaxy of Adventures, Roll Out, Star Wars Blips, etc.
Not counting the shelved-but-completed Detours because I’m already being excessively pedantic.
18: a whole lot of yes.
24: a whole lot of nope. I’m 57. My first encounters with Star Trek were around 1971 or ‘72, and within a year or two I was a devoted fan. I see a lot more love for Star Trek and a lot less cynicism and/or interference from suits in new Trek than I did in Voyager or, especially, Enterprise. I’m greatly enjoying all the new Star Trek we’re getting, and I think there’s a lot of respect for what Star Trek is about, and a lot of thought about what Star Trek means more than 50 years after it premiered, in what we’re seeing now. Have a nice day.
Enterprise is a lot better than anyone gives it credit for. And I think that was a great time for a show and my only regret is that it didn’t go one more season. It really should have built more into the birth of the federation.
#24: I can also speak as someone who grew up on the original series, and I just can’t agree with the assertion that the makers of newer Trek material don’t care about “the fans”. Too many of them are self-described fans themselves (notably including J. J. Abrams and Michael Chabon) for that to be the case, and too many of them (notably including Discovery writer/producer Kirsten Beyer) have come up through long associations with other parts of the franchise. As much as we may disagree with some of their creative choices, I don’t think we can deny their fannish credentials.
There’s also a key aspect of the matter that isn’t addressed in the essay proper: namely, the shape of both fandom and mainstream media has changed dramatically in the decades between the TOS era, the TNG era, and today’s mediaverse. In the 1960s and ’70s, active science fiction fandom was a small and very concentrated pool, but it constituted a non-trivial portion of the core audience for genre SF. Nowadays, geek culture has won the war, and SF/fantasy is arguably the most commercially successful storytelling genre across all media. Romance has the edge in prose fiction, but in the visual media, between Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, the MCU, Disney, and various other franchise properties, science fiction and fantasy are where both the money and the viewers are.
The catch is that the organized fandom community – that is, those of us who actively hang out together online or show up at conventions – hasn’t changed or grown nearly as fast as the larger audience for genre SF and fantasy. We’re not a static population by any means, but we’re a much smaller proportion of the total viewership (or readership) than we used to be. And the consequence is that today’s novelists and TV showrunners and movie directors are influenced proportionately less by organized fandom and proportionately more by ticket- and book-buying not-so-fannish consumers, who outnumber us by a significant margin.
As to Supernatural: mileage evidently varies. There are a few fervent fans of the show in my very narrow Twitterstream, and they’re mostly outraged by a particular twist in the next-to-last episode (the phrase “Kill Your Gays” has been invoked). OTOH, the show’s creators and stars are clearly fans themselves, as demonstrated by various episodes involving crossovers and fourth-wall metafictional elements.
My own take on Star Trek as a whole largely mirrors that of Trek fan and novelist Susan Shwartz, who’s compared the franchise to the “matter of Britain”, aka the body of Arthurian lore and narrative now stretching from the 6th century to the 21st. The larger Trekverse already incorporates several popular variant elements – Diane Duane’s Rihannsu, John Ford’s Klingons – and however much we may dislike aspects of the 2009 movie or Discovery, Zachary Quinto and Ethan Peck have both been largely and appropriately praised for their Spock portrayals.
And that, in itself, is one of the prime measures of fictional immortality – once a narrative has embraced the value of multiple perspectives or portrayals, it’s likewise accepted that it’s evolved past the control of any one creator or consumer. Like Shakespeare and Sherlock Holmes, I think Star Trek should and will endure – and if I have issues with any particular script or series, there’s always hope for the next one, whether fannish or professional in origin.
I agree with Shimmerman and have thought this way for decades. What is Star Trek? Star Trek is whatever The Powers That Be say it is. The studio owns it. It’s their call to make through their showrunners.
CLB often says that later Trek got the Prime Directive “wrong”. Nonsense. Compare the definitions we got in TOS where someone literally says “The Prime Directive is…”. The definition is whatever it needs to be to suit that particular episode. Now, expand that to an entire series or movie.
We’re told in Balnace of Terror that invisibility is something new, never before seen. Then, Discovery gives us cloaking devices and from the Klingons first, not the Romulans. Why? because that’s how they decided to write the episode. That’s all.
I’ve watched all the series right from the beginning. I stopped watching Voyage around the end of season four. Enterprise, halfway through season two but came back for season four. Discovery, still watching, although it’s not on my :Grab as soon as it’s available” list. But I’ll see it in a day or two. Picard, short season, saw the whole thing. Lower Decks, dropped after the fourth episode because Mariner is very, very annoying.
I count myself as a fan, having started watching TOS back in the 60s. Like DS9 more than TNG. TOS is number one because it was first and for a long time, only.
The new stuff? Take it or leave it but I’ll give it a chance. Just don’t expect me to watch the Kelvin movies again. Ther’s just too many things that get under my skin about the, But, nobody can force to watch them again so, if they’re your thing, go for it. The cool thing is that you don’t HAVE to like them all. And if you create your won canon, that’s cool too. It’s not as if CBS Police will show up at your door.
I enjoy parts of NuTrek. I think the casting and the characterization are great. I just don’t enjoy the stories in those movies. I hate that they blew up Vulcan and Romulus. It’s tragic and lazy. Let’s turn the similarities and cultural differences between these to people up to 11 by making them come together by blowing stuff up. Heck I hate that plot point on Doctor Who. The Master is back he destroyed Gallifrey ,and the Cyberman are off to conquer the universe again. Do we really need a repeat of the the Doctor and the Master are the last of the Timelords. NO! but here it comes again.
I also didn’t like Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan. I thought if they were going to dip into that well again they could have cast an Indian actor. It would have added an interesting layer the discussion of eugenics and the Eugenics wars . Heck they didn’t even get to the Eugenic wars in the movie. The third movie was about Kirk laying his doubts about himself to rest and a blow’m up pow pow movie. I do like that Spock is dating Uhura and they’re exploring that and they made Sulu married to a guy with his daughter. That stuff I enjoy.
The new tv stuff is hit or miss. Season 1 Discovery has hit the point where I stopped watching it on CBS and I’ll finish season 1 that way. I hate the way they did the Klingons makeup on the show. They look nothing like Klingon’s at all they just should have made them a different race entirely or toned the ridges way down. I also don’t think it lands the Science vs. Military in Starfleet thing it was aiming for but it gets better. I have to catch up on season 2. Season 3 recaps sound great so far I just need to sit down and watch it. Picard I enjoyed and am looking forward to season 2 . I just hope they stop killing off characters for the sake of drama . I’m looking at you Icheb and Hugh. I’m looking forward to the stuff coming out later like the Pike spin off and the teen/show on Nickelodeon. I will hate section 31 because I hate the existence of section 31 now that’s not Star Trek but I really enjoy Michelle Yeoh.
NuTrek or old Trek I will watch it and find bits I hate and bits I love just like anything else I watch as a fan. Thanks for letting me post my rambles.
I see a lot of people that complain about Burnham and her lynchpin status as a character. Which is odd as she is the main character. I actually kind of understand that as much of the series revolves around her as center of the universe. But it also revolves around her grand mistakes, how her misconceptions around events are damaging, and how she can’t in fact fix everything. I find the accusations of her Mary Sue-ness lack merit overall. Mary Sues don’t fail as hard as she often does. That said, Star Trek is at its best as an ensemble production.
My primary issue with Discovery is the grand overhaul of the visuals. Not the style itself, though honestly I find the CGI of the current era too…artificial? If you look at the Star Destroyers in Rogue One, it’s very hard to distinguish them from being higher quality models of the original Star Wars era. But there’s no confusion, Discovery is CGI. It lacks a certain…tangibility that say The Motion Picture had. And as the Star Wars example I mentioned demonstrates that’s a stylistic choice, not a fault of the medium of special effects.
Visually, I hated everything about the Klingons. The new make up was wholly unnecessary and added nothing, their ships would’ve been fantastic if they’d belonged to other aliens, even the design of the Bat’leth established to be centuries old was altered. Which leads to a lingering feeling over the NuTrek productions. While I don’t doubt that these guys are Star Trek fans, there is a feeling with the exception of Lower Decks that they are basically trying to overwrite all that came before. For many fans there’s likely a hard feeling that many of the things that fans had filled in the blanks about were also ignored. A Canon vs Fanon dispute where longstanding fanon instead of being embraced and canonized was cast aside. For instance you have a Klingon War, but no mention of the Battle of Axanar or anything else. Things that were built up in people’s minds that weren’t followed up on despite being in the right era to see them.
I often came across old creator complaints about being constrained by canon, which I find insane. Canon is the history of the world Star Trek exists in. You don’t erase it and make something new, you grow what’s already there. Discovery season 3 is the ultimate expression of this idea. They traveled to the farthest point in Star Trek’s future where nobody remembers the history, shattered the galaxy, and now have to rebuild everything in their image.
At the other end of that, is the obvious care that they take when they are respecting canon as it was. The Trill Pools in the Discovery episode “Forget me Not” was a brilliant reproduction of the DS9 set. I like the Disco Enterprise. The bridge was a little bright and colorful instead of warm and cozy, but the ship was beautiful and an excellent update…should’ve been white though. The new uniforms were also awesome.
Then there’s Picard. Picard is the first Star Trek series to just actively make me sad. Bringing back long standing and beloved characters just to kill them off is….this is Star Trek, not Game of Thrones, there was no catharsis in that at all to me, it just felt mean spirited and again unnecessary. Then there was Nepenthe, which is by far the best episode of the season which was warm. It ended up being a very dark season, even if it did have a more or less happy ending. Also not bringing along Picard’s two Romulan caregivers was a huge mistake.
But all that said. It’s still Star Trek. It’s still about inclusiveness and letting our better angels guide our decisions, working towards an ideal, bettering ourselves, and beautiful ships flying through space…even mushroom space. Discovery Season 3 seems to be slowing down and seems to be the best yet. One thing about NuTrek versus OG and Golden Age Trek is NuTrek is too fast. They seem to be slowing things down. This is good. Trek has its own pace and works best at that pace.
I like the newer series alot more than I did Voyager or Enterprise. I think network interference, the price-performance special effects gap, and most importantly the writers’ need to reset after every episode caused some major problems with those last two. Star Trek has always been hit or miss for me, however. I think too much fan service has caused alot of problems with the more recent movies, especially, and somewhat with the newer TV shows.
I guess what I like most about Discovery is they’re more willing to take risks and throw new ideas and scenarios out there even if they don’t always work. Their first 4-5 episodes had some major problems for me, but at least they didn’t feel like breathing the same recycled plots and ideas. Picard managed to do that as well, and I think being willing to just go back and examine the legacy and to bring in an older character with different priorities is also an interesting change that you can’t do for very many shows (maybe Doctor Who).
I guess what I’m thinking right now with my taste in TV is that I would rather see an interesting show that fails sometimes rather than a boring comfortable show that never takes any risks. Which is why I like the current crop of Star Trek TV, though I’m a bit more ambivalent about the newest movies.
Funny how a show that most thought would a mere spoof, the Orville, understands Trek better than the new stuff the IP holders are giving us. Just watch “Sanctuary” from season 2, where a planet of female Moclans want to become an independent “nation” under the Union.. and you will see the Star Trek episode that you always wanted to see that they never did.
I am a new fan of Star Trek, I started watching Enterprise about 10 years ago, after I watched the first new Star Trek movie. After that I watched TOS, TNG, DS9 and just finished Voyager last week. In parallel I watched the new movies and Discovery and Picard when they came out (I haven’t watched Lower Decks yet). So I have no nostalgia whatsoever, but still, I think the spirit of NuTrek is different. What I love most about the older series is the optimism, the integrity of the characters and their scientific enthusiasm. I cannot count how many times while watching TNG or DS9 or Voyager I thought “wow, I want to leave in a society where everyone are such decent people”. I wanted to be friends with these people. They had flaws, but the society as a whole strived for goodness and improvement. It may be naïve, but I loved this. This is largely missing in the new series. Everything is gritty and dark and depressing. There are some sparks here and there but the balance between optimism and grittiness has changed dramatically. This is what I think is the most valid objection. I still find NuTrek interesting, but it doesn’t touch my heart the way TNG, DS9 and Voyager did.
Been a trekkie since I could walk, grew up as the only kid in my kindergarten class who knew who Worf was. Saw TOS in marathons done for Trek Anniversaries and now that’s my favorite. I love this franchise.
My main problems with nuTrek are actually mostly centered around 2009 and Into Darkness. To me, both felt like Star Wars movies with Trek names. You had some of the big ideas that make Trek great, but they flew by so fast it was like they were tacked on for the older nerds. Beyond fixed this problem for me. That movie felt like Star Trek, different for sure, but very familiar too.
I’ve just started Discovery thanks to the network broadcasts (already had two subscriptions and money’s tight) which takes care of my biggest problem, the language. Trek was formative in my life, up there with my religion, and that wouldn’t have happened with the cussing. I think Trek should stay at around a PG-13.
My only minor complaint with Discovery so far is the Klingon redesign. Change the look, fine I’ll headcanon it as a racial difference or as an attempted fix to the Augment virus, but the makeup seems to interfere with the line delivery. Also what did they do to the bat’leth? I mean for all that is holy!
*twenty page essay cut for space*
I absolutely loathe and detest the attitude that ‘NuTrek’ is not STAR TREK – shows like DISCOVERY & LOWER DECKS aren’t always the Best STAR TREK … but then neither were some of the other productions under that aegis, television or cinematic; every franchise has its rough spots and errors of taste or judgment, yet you take the Bad with the Good or you would do better to walk away seeking Perfection.
In which case you’d better lay in a good supply of shoes, for you’ll be walking a long & lonely while.
Also, I can’t understand how anyone could watch the opening of STAR TREK (2009) and think the films lacked that special TREK spark – didn’t they hear that marvellous Giacchino soundtrack over one of the more heartbreakingly gallant moments in the entire franchise?
31: “For instance you have a Klingon War, but no mention of the Battle of Axanar or anything else.” There’s nothing in Trek canon that says the Battle of Axanar had anything to do with a Klingon war. As far as I can remember, linking Axanar to the Klingons originated in a FASA rpg supplement. My problem with the first season of Discovery is that it has a Klingon war at all, because “Errand of Mercy” suggests the Klingons and Federation had a number of minor scraps but hadn’t had an all out war before that point. But in the grand scheme of Star Trek, that’s arguably no worse than what Enterprise did to the Vulcans, or the many ways TNG and Voyager kept retconning the Borg.
“Also not bringing along Picard’s two Romulan caregivers was a huge mistake.” YES. Especially Orla Brady, who made one heck of an impression in her limited screen time.
33. Honestly, I don’t understand why people love The Orville. It’s likeable despite itself, but it never transcends Seth MacFarlane’s self-indulgence, and the humour is just horribly out of place.
People forget this, but Trek was always pushing envelopes. Not just Kirk and Uhura kissing in “Plato’s Stepchildren,” and the costumes on many of the women, but also language. Trust me, Kirk saying, “Let’s get the hell out of here” on NBC in 1967 was way way way more controversial than Tilly saying, “This is so fucking cool!” on a streaming service in 2017.
—Keith R.A. DeCandido
Maybe this is covered under “not adhering to Gene’s vision,” but my main reservation with Picard (I haven’t seen much Discovery or Lower Decks) is that it portrays humanity’s future as grimy and not all that utopian. I already have plenty of places to get a grimy future in sci-fi — Star Trek was where I liked to see that humanity as a whole had its act together. (As opposed to, for one example, the Federation being easily duped into abandoning a species in need.) I liked this article overall, but it would have been nice to see this point addressed a bit more explicitly.
That said, I’m not a particularly vocal critic of Picard, and while I thought it had its flaws, there were also things I enjoyed about it. I guess I figure, if I don’t like what’s new in Star Trek, then I can easily go back and watch the older stuff. No one’s taken it away from us! :)
–Andy
29: ‘Compare the definitions we got in TOS where someone literally says “The Prime Directive is…”. The definition is whatever it needs to be to suit that particular episode.’
Not so: the wording differs from episode to episode, but the Prime Directive is always the principle of non-interference in the development of planetary civilizations.
I’m really only a casual fan; I’ve watched TNG, DS9, Picard and a few of the movies across both timelines. I personally don’t care for the Abrams movies but that could also be a style preference as I don’t care for his Star Wars movies either (and I bounced hard off of LOST).
But a lot of this seems pretty similar to the type of things going on in the Star Wars fandom (both with the prequels and the sequels) which I’m way more plugged into. I do have a general dislike of several franchises going ‘gritty’ and there being some ‘sameness’ to it all but overall I’ve learned it’s okay to pick and choose :)
@21 – the eyeball thing, yes! I know exactly what you are talking about. I was NOT EXPECTING THAT and almost turned the show off at that point; I hadn’t really psyched myself up for that type of gore.
I think it can depend on whether you consider Trek just a product or the unique creation of an individual (made by a team but overseen by the Great Bird, certainly). It isn’t like Robin Hood or King Arthur that were left lying around and open to multiple versions—at least, according to Paramount’s legal department.
If it is considered one person’s creation, then the reactions make more sense. Rather than football, compare it to Oz. It was created by one person and has a limited set of canon. Yet, along comes The Wiz, Tin Man, Emerald City, and Wicked. Creative, certainly, but derivative.
Yes, the studio/publisher/family trust own the rights but whose baby was it? The makers are trading on the label instead of making their own. If they are going to go so far afield to adapt it for modern use, why not brew their own with their own label? This is how we get new things that are, well, shiny . . .
41. RustyM – “Not so: the wording differs from episode to episode, but the Prime Directive is always the principle of non-interference in the development of planetary civilizations.”
“A starship captain’s most solemn oath is that he will give his life, even his entire crew, rather than violate the Prime Directive.” – Kirk – The Omega Glory.
“If we do what it seems we must, in my opinion, it will be in direct violation of the non-interference directive.” – Spock – The Apple
SPOCK: Then the Prime Directive is in full force, Captain?
KIRK: No identification of self or mission. No interference with the social development of said planet.
MCCOY: No references to space, or the fact that there are other worlds, or more advanced civilisations.
-Bread and Circuses
Violations start as early as The Corbomite Maneuver when they ignore the warning buoy (although the PD had not been mentioned yet), through numerous contacts with planets less advanced than the Federation including A Taste of Armageddon where the Enterprise is told in no uncertain terms to stay out, they ignore it and then Kirk embarks on a mission to totally change two planets while coming within minutes of rendering one of them totally lifeless.
We’ve got TNG’s Justice and Code of Honor where Picard acts as if the laws of the planets they contact don’t apply to him or his crew.
In Pen Pals and Homeward, we see that the PD forbids rescuing species that are at risk of extinction.
In A piece of the Action, Kirk basically turns the planet over to a single mob boss, a dictator, because the inhabitants of the planet chose of their own free will to pattern their culture on a book left behind a hundred years ago.
In the beginning of Into Darkness, Kirk & McCoy steal a sacred relic from a primitive civilization and allow them to see the Enterprise rising from the water. Some have said that this was to draw them away from the volcano but we’re also told that the eruption will lay waste to the planet. Moving the natives the distance Kirk & McCoy can run away from it won’t make the slightest difference.
The PD is all over the place as to what is permitted and what is allowed. Most times it’s mentioned, it’s because plans are afoot to break it in some way. It’s a story telling device, not a well thought out regulation. Basically, they were making it up as they went along and not paying any attention to how the PD had been portrayed in prior episodes.
I pretty much agree with everything in this article, however I do think the focus on toxic fandom doesn’t allow much room for legitimate criticism of the show.
This article does a good job or explaining how – essentially all Star Trek series have the same flaws, inconsistencies and benefits as each other – but the outcome is that not all Star Trek series are equal. Some simply are better than others. Critical consensus on Enterprise was that it was poor compared to previous incarnations. That’s not toxic fandom – that’s just a poor quality show.
There are a few features that make Discovery and Picard different from previous incarnations that are legitimate to point out – the budget is higher per episode (by a considerable margin) and perhaps as a consequence there is a greater focus on action and spectacle. The episode count is much smaller (no 24 episode seasons anymore) so while TNG got better after season two, it already had about 48 episodes under its belt. We actually have less time with these new characters and less time to shake out the kinks. Finally, the callous deaths of named recurring characters are greater in DSC/PIC compared to other series – the writers even boasted as much during DSC’s first run. In DSC s1 2 captains were killed off, not to mention the main security officer and main Klingon antagonist.So all this amounts to series which has a greater focus on action, a limited run time and a darker feel. None of these things are necessarily bad, but they are legitimate points.
Toxic fandom is filled with hyperbole, hypocrisy and rage. But not all Star Trek shows are equal: few people would opt to watch ENT over TNG. But within this polarising narrative of We fans are right vs toxic fandom is bad, there needs to be room for some fair criticism of what is a decent, but not great show.
I think the writers made a huge mistake in giving us Mirror Lorca as the captain of Discovery in Season 1. Since it was the very first season, the writers hadn’t yet proved that they “got” Star Trek, and what did we see on the screen? A captain who clearly did NOT hold to Starfleet values! This turned out to be part of the point, but when you’re rebooting a well-known franchise, FIRST you prove that you get it, THEN you do this kind of thing. A lot of viewers were so turned off by the kinds of things Mirror Lorca did that they didn’t stick around long enough to find out that he was MIRROR Lorca.
If the writers had given us a very Trekkian Season 1 then done the S1 story during Season 2, I think fans would have been more willing to assume that Mirror Lorca was acting like a very BAD Starfleet captain for a reason. But they hadn’t established trust with the audience yet, so many people left (though I, personally, stuck around).
I’m an old-school TOS fan who’s loving Season 3 of Discovery. Saru is a wonderful alien crew member in the tradition of Spock, and I love Tilly, Stamets, Culber, Reno, and Owo. It takes a special kind of actor to play a Vulcan well, and I didn’t think giving Burnham a Vulcan upbringing did the character any favors during the first two seasons, but she’s been a lot more relatable this season.
As for TOS being campy, it was GLORIOUSLY campy, and that was a great deal of its charm. I’ve enjoyed all of the Star Trek shows, but to me, TOS has a charm that the others can’t match. Maybe they need a little more camp. :-)
Star Trek fans have been making these arguments for decades. The same ones, over and over. It seems more prominent now, but that’s just because we live in the social media age.
The big problem’s really that a subset of fans don’t understand the concept of subjectivity. There really isn’t an objective standard of good and bad in these things, its up to individual taste. So even if two people agree something is negative, they may not agree on how important it is overall. Yet, some people basically declare themselves the ultimate arbiters of quality and try to shout down those who don’t agree with them.
It’s one of the major reasons I don’t really engage much with other fans. I love the franchise, but it’s really not worth pointless arguments that come down to I like it and they don’t.
And as a side note – Enterprise is remembered as a failure, but got one more series than the original show.
I remember watching the original series and getting hooked. I remember using it years later as a soporific; it was campy and predictable. I remember TNG being the reason to be home at 4:45 on Thursday night; it was everything that TOS was not. Voyager was Trek Lost in Space, while DS9 was was Trek with Quark hosting at Cheers. Later I found all 3 bland and safe. while the prequel Enterprise had become dark and dangerous and far more complex in its exploration of species relations. I had a love/hate relationship with the first season of Discovery because while Trek was finally unarguably back and wilder than ever, the distortions to the Klingons made watching them tedious and jarring. The first episode of Lower Decks left me reeling, but I persisted; it was still Trek … while Lower Decks sarcastically poked fun at the Federation, the sarcasm was an accolade. Finally, I agree with Shimerman wholeheartedly on DS9; I’ve returned to it often over the past 2 decades and found more each time. Without reinvention, Star Trek would be a cultural footnote; instead it’s an ongoing argument which has kept Roddenberry’s dream alive.
It’s interesting reading the comments and seeing the perspective there – because as a Star Trek fan, Discovery is one of my favorite shows. I always thought that Roddenberry’s dream was about hope – and Discovery provides that for me in a whole manner of ways. And Picard provided the melancholy that the Roddenberry’s hope is still a long way off.
A lot of the comments talk about subjectivity, so just wanted to say that for me personally, NuTrek has been the best trek.
Thanks for a great article :)
Discovery is my favorite Star Trek since Deep Space Nine. Picard didn’t work for me as Star Trek, it felt like a Star Wars fanfic mashup. Still, I’m thrilled with the energy of the new shows.
Don’t count out ALL us “classic” Trek fans.
By way of pedigree, the first episode of Trek that I every watched was “The Man Trap,” when it debuted on Sept. 8, 1966 to usher in some show called “Star Trek.” So, it’s hard to be a longer-time fan of Trek than that.
Personally, I watch all of it, NuTrek and old, big screen and small. Do some series start slow? Yes. Do some loose steam? Sure. But nothing is 100% all the time. Nothing. And I give Trek credit for trying new things. I thought “Lower Decks” started off great and got even better week by week. The season finally was amazing. I think “Discovery” struggled at first, mostly due to all the behind-the-scenes drama, but it found its way in Season Two and Season Three is now on fire. Oddly enough, the weak spot for me so far has been “Picard.” Its pacing and resolution were muddled. Notice I did not say that the story was not Trek, but that the execution was poor. And, you know what? I’ll be anxiously awaiting Season Two — not preparing to hate it, but hoping to really, really enjoy it.
Shake off the haters. They’re like the trolls that try to spoil everything else you love. Don’t bother with their consistently negative videos, “anonymous source” blogs or whining post replies. You know what you like. So, like it.
Live long and prosper, Trek, and ditto to its fans — like me!
Re: Picard’s writers are terrible.
“I can’t get this perception to square with reality, especially considering that Picard‘s showrunner (Michael Chabon) has won a Hugo, a Nebula, and a Pulitzer Prize for his work.”
Can you tell me what Soji’s mission was? Nobody I know can tell me. That either means that they neglected to tell us, or that it was told in a way that most viewers missed. Her purpose was kind of important, so that’s a massive writing problem.
And don’t get me started on Picard intentionally and uncharacteristically antagonising a group of people who then threatened his life. That was the moment where I had to mentally separate this Picard from the existing Picard.
Saying that someone has won awards for their other work is NOT a declaration that an individual work is good quality.
One of my earliest memories is my dad watching TNG during its original run, and he was a fan during the TOS days. Star Trek is in my blood. It’s a family affair – he passed it down to my sister and I as a matter of course.
So as a longtime Trek fan, I’ve been LOVING Discovery Season 3, after a rough season 1 and a slightly better season 2 that was still hampered by decisions made before those writers took over. It really seems to have hit its stride. It finally feels like Trek to me, with a crew that has gelled into a great ensemble and a captain who’s worthy of standing alongside Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway and Archer. Now that it’s not stuck in the 23rd century, it’s finally moving the Trek universe forward, which was desperately needed and a lot of why the first two seasons didn’t work, at least for me.
I also really enjoyed Picard. I thought they were both good updates of Trek’s core philosophy for a slightly less hopeful age.
Perhaps that’s because I tend to fall on the DS9 side of the fandom, the only Golden Age Trek that really engaged with reality instead of utopia and easily the most consistent in terms of quality. At least, I fall that way if you ask me objectively. If you ask me subjectively, I am and always will be a TOS girl, but that isn’t based on its actual quality or any rational weighing of the merits of each iteration of Trek. It’s my comfort show, and it’s purely because I love Kirk, Spock and McCoy more than anything else the franchise has done in nearly sixty years. There’s more than one way to judge these shows; it doesn’t just have to measured against how well it articulates Roddenberry’s vision or how closely it adheres to canon. Sometimes it’s just love.
Nothing against TNG but I do think its overall quality is exaggerated. When it was genuinely good, it was truly one of the best TV shows ever produced. I still think it had the best series finale of all time. But it just wasn’t that good all the time. There are just as many horrible episodes as great ones, and most are just in the middle. The show is carried by the iconic crew and Patrick Stewart’s acting ability, and it was hampered by Roddenberry’s insistence on no conflict.
VOY suffered from the reset button and the prominence given to storylines that just weren’t that interesting (Neelix and Kes, Paris and Torres, the Kazon) to the detriment of the ones that were (Janeway’s everything, Seven of Nine’s rediscovery of her humanity, the EMH’s journey to true sentience). ENT suffered from being a prequel, unable to break new ground. By the time it was finding its stride in S4 it was too late. There are still things to enjoy about both, it’s just a personal preference that DSC and PIC feel fresher to me than either VOY or ENT. There’s enough in this franchise and it’s many, many iterations for everyone.
In fact, the only Trek I don’t like on some level are the Kelvin timeline movies. They’re too action-oriented for me, with none of the reflection and vision of the Prime Universe TV series. But that’s OK. It’s an AU, so it doesn’t take away from my beloved Prime Universe, and as an intro to TOS, as the author puts forward, it’s a good bridge. TOS is so dated now and was, at the very least, wildly inconsistent to start with.
But it is such a large franchise that I think there’s something to each of them. To me, each are recognizably Trek on some level, engaging with the core philosophies in different ways and taking different things from them. I don’t want to see each one do the same thing. Reinventing itself is how it’s survived this long as a franchise, how it’s continually broken new ground and had something important to say each time, while maintaining loyalty to its roots. That’s not something every franchise can manage, and it’s a testament to its strength that it’s largely done it and stayed relevant.
@40: According to some reports, Picard had a much more in-depth backstory developed by Chabon it was revealed that the Federation had been rocked to its core from the massive losses sustained during the Dominion War (not to mention the losses at Wolf 359 a few years earlier, the brief war with the Klingons, the near-coup by Starfleet, the infiltration of Starfleet by alien parasites and so on) and that had engendered a more isolationist viewpoint and a reconsideration of what the Federation was really about. Those backstory elements were apparently undermined by Alex Kurtzman, who is not a huge fan of Deep Space Nine and apparently seems to be under the delusion that no-one watched it (despite DS9 getting far higher first-run ratings than any Trek series that has come since, although reportedly it doesn’t do as well as Voyager in reruns) and nixed any references to it in the new series (I mean, how do you visit Trill and spend a whole episode there and not even drop a Dax reference just once?). That undermined the very premise of Picard.
@55: TNG gets a massive pass for basically having three very weak seasons (1, 2 and 7), with a few great exceptions (Q Who, Measure of a Man, Pegasus, Lower Decks), because Seasons 3-6 are so great, although with a few clunkers here and there. Everyone remembers The Best of Both Worlds and The Inner Light so kind of brush over scores of episodes like Code of Honor and Up the Long Ladder that make even the worst episodes of Discovery and Picard so far look respectable (or at least tolerable). Voyager and Enterprise have an even lower hit rate, although their weakest episodes were generally deeply boring rather than, as in TNG‘s case, outright racist (Voyager‘s horrible, horrible Irish holodeck duology excepted).
My wife is from South Korea. Often, in watching Korean TV, exclamations will be translated in the subtitles as: “Gosh!” even in adult series. I always find this hilarious.
I LOVE nu Trek. It’s a great update to current storytelling and it holds most of the old styles if you dig into it. Yes, the new series do serialized stories, but they do theme of the week storylines nestled within that overarching plot. On re-watches the story of the week format stands out even more than the first go through (at least for me).
Also most of the “non starfleet” concerns people have with the first season of Discovery (characters not acting in accordance with protocols, etc) have a story reason by the end. And the same with the cast slowly coming together, yes it doesn’t seem like as many people to root for at first. But the team is collectively finding each other as much as we are, and as audience members we get to find them together. You don’t have a captain giving star date logs, but the character chosen to guide us into the series connects us to Starfleet even more than super noble captains like Picard.
The longer I live the more clearly I see. Some people are wired for change and some are wired to hold back and try to appeal to tradition. You’ll never convince the ones that are wired to hold back, they’re wired to fear change and avoid it. Sometimes this can be frustrating and good as they slow progress a bit so it can take a better shape or get rounded out. But in the case of “Nu Trek” they’re wrong :D
Star Trek has always inspired people to heatedly discuss about it, Tng was just hitting the tv when I was a kid, and I thoroughly enjoyed it, not having seen a lot of tos. Then deep space nine came around and at least I enjoyed the longer narrative style more than the episodic TNG, full disclaimer I still believe B5 is superior in storytelling and characters. The dominion war showed a different side of the federation, and I didn’t care too much for that story, but I put that down to personal taste. Voyager left me largely cold because it was the return to the formulaic episode style of storytelling. Enterprise was better than voyager but didn’t keep me spellbound enough to keep watching.
I was super excited when I saw the first trailer for Abrams Star Trek movie, and still was excited when I left the cinema, those characters where fun to watch, there was excitement and overall great popcorn cinema. I don’t mind the kelvin timeline as long as they are making sound movies, the Kahn reveal was not.
on the newer hows I have no opinion, if they are not running on regular tv they are not Star Trek to me. I’m not going to pay for cbs all access. I think they did themselves a great disservice of putting Star Trek behind a paywall. This might be generalization but a show available to everyone has a chance of garnering momentum by being accessible to every tv owner, but the paywall will attract fans of the old shows, having extra money they come with additional expectations. Anything new will be a risk, possibly offending the hard core of fans. With the internet as it is, this can quickly get nasty anD you have dwindling numbers, as there are no new people discovering a show by just switching through the channels.
I’ve been a fan of Star Trek since I was a little kid watching TOS in the 60s. I watched the animated series, the movies, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, the new movies, DSC, TLD, PIC, and Galaxy Quest. I read all the TOS books and about half the others (there are so many!).
There were always things to love and things to roll my eyes at in each of those, typically many more of the former then the latter. There are individual pieces that I think are just terrible, but there are so many more that are good or great.
The thing about Star Trek is that everyone comes to it with a different vision of what makes it a great show, and they execute their new stories from there. Everyone else is going to agree or disagree to their own particular degree. But I feel like most people could find commonalities between what they love and what others love, enough to make those new visions part of their own. Heck, in the spirit of the Federation, they might even make it a pleasure to find those commonalities. I know I do.
Sadly, there are portions of the fandom that have left that spirit behind. The main sub on Reddit doesn’t allow open discussion, and bans people who express any criticism but the most innocuous. Other forums are nothing but bitter hatred of everything new. Both of these are born of tunnel vision, forgetting that Star Trek is big enough to embrace and express everybody’s vision. It’s sad that as the franchise moves on Roddenberry’s inclusiveness seems to be falling away a bit. I continue to hope for the future because anyone who loves Star Trek has to in the end come back to positivity. At least that’s what I believe.
Look, I don’t begrudge anyone their enjoyment of new Trek.
But if we’re on the same page about the show having gone more commercial, more action-heavy and spectacle-focused, then hey, that’s a valid point for those who cared about Star Trek for very different reasons.
If the writing has been miserable (and much of Discovery‘s has), it’s fine to say “maybe it will get better” — and maybe my opinion of the new material will get better once it does.
Most of this article is saying “This is modern-day Star Trek. Of course it’s going to be different, and you should be open to that.” And I’m essentially in agreement with that.
But if it’s radically different, it needs to be measured along new axes; it needs to have created something new and different in order to gain any more appreciation than “oh yeah, I recognize those references.”
TOS, TNG and DS9 broke ground, and did so uniquely, for all their flaws. TOS and TNG brought SF ideas and concepts to screen, while imagining a kinder, more enlightened future. DS9 did a marvelous job interrogating those ideas and that future, while also staying loyal to the ideals the earlier shows established.
What does DSC do, though? At least over its first two seasons, it was generic action and adventure, in space. I mean, OK, that’s fine. It can do well it that; it can do poorly at that; it can start out rough and get better. But: it’s not hard to see why people who loved older Trek for literally everything other than that, just aren’t finding much to enjoy or appreciate.