[gabereiser]

And for this, Paramount will never be the Trek fan's friend. CBS/Paramount have done nothing but been hostile towards new Trek ideas and suing fan-films out of existence. Not cool, not cool at all. They are under the impression that it has to be TNG cast or not-at-all. Maybe that's in Jonathan Frake's contract? I dunno but it's gone the way of Mattel and not the Roddenberry way.

[dragonwriter]

> CBS/Paramount have done nothing but been hostile towards new Trek ideas

Very much not true, much to the consternation of the less flexible wing of the fandom.

> and suing fan-films out of existence.

Despite plenty of legal grounds to shut them down, they were quite tolerant of fan efforts up until Axanar, and even after that the fan guidelines were still generous compared to most media properties.

> They are under the impression that it has to be TNG cast or not-at-all.

What are you talking about? Except for a couple of cross over main cast characters in DS9, and of course Picard, Trek has been basically TNG-cast free but for guest spots through Voyager, Enterprise, three Kelvin-timeline films, Lower Decks, Discovery, Strange New Worlds, and (I think) Prodigy.

[gabereiser]

>Except for a couple of cross over main cast characters in DS9, and of course Picard, Trek has been basically TNG-cast free but for guest spots through Voyager, Enterprise, three Kelvin-timeline films, Lower Decks, Discovery, Strange New Worlds, and (I think) Prodigy.

Do you hear yourself?

I’m waiting for the day it all goes Mickey Mouse. Then, we’ll get some real Star Trek. What do I mean by that? Take away the special effects for a moment and look at the characters. Picard: There was never a better suited actor to be captain. Kirk: The machismo was sexual assault but somehow his band of rando’s made it out. Captain Sisko: Man who tamed the wormhole, and the politics that went with it. Janeway: Need I say more? She showed that woman are up for the job.

I’m not saying the cast of the current Gen shows isn’t good, it’s that their characters have been Marvelized. Everything’s a big end-of-world event or taps into your familiarity with a previous character to tend credit to the new. I’m a fan until the end but c’mon… Star Trek Discovery is Avengers. Strange New Worlds is trying to bring back the Abrams spark but lacks depth. Cheesy one liners and fast scene switching so that it makes you feel you’re on a ride at the fair.

I’d love for it to slow down, do the character development. How about a different ship during a familiar timeline or some way to explain the now 4 (P/K/AP/AK) timelines?

[dragonwriter]

I really don't know what your real argument is, since you seem to have abandoned the “They are under the impression that it has to be TNG cast or not-at-all” for a bunch of different and directly contradictory arguments, from which the only coherent thing is you don't like new Trek and everything, and that's fine, like what you like and dislike what you dislike, but I don’t think there is anything that supports productive discussion here.

[gabereiser]

My real argument is that the current trek lineup is vastly different than what trek has traditionally been. Story driven with nods to science that push our understanding of the universe. Examples with counter examples:

- TNG "The Measure of a Man" : explores the rights of androids and non-human lifeforms that are sentient and given a choice. Whether that choice should be honored or not. Where the line of rights of man are drawn.

- Discovery "An Obol for Charon" : A giant all-knowing sphere shows up with "sphere data" that the enterprise must protect like it's a database of user data with PII.

- DS9 "In the Pale Moonlight" : Sisko and the Federation are taking heavy losses in the Dominion War, this episode is about how far a leader will go to accomplish victory, who, or what, they are willing to sacrifice.

- Discovery "Unification III" : Tear jerk for the late Leonard Nimoy.

I'm saying that it's lost its way. While the universe is still amazing and detailed and all, the story/plots are just meh. I mean, we had a whole story arch of Tardigrades. Not exactly riveting science but ok, I'll bite, what about tardigrades? That they are on the moon? No? Time traveling tardigrades, yeah I'm out.

[ethbr1]

> CBS/Paramount have done nothing but been hostile towards new Trek ideas and suing fan-films out of existence.

Are we watching the same Strange New Worlds?

[adamesque]

Oof. I tried to make it through the first season and don’t think I’d put “new ideas” near the top of my list of descriptors. But I get that many people are enjoying it.

[hotnfresh]

It’s mostly remakes of earlier trek episodes and rip-offs of existing non-Trek stories (as in the The Ones who Walk Away from Omelas episode). In a familiar setting and pulling in (with varying levels of success) characters we already know. It’s had a couple original ones (or, more likely, rip-offs of stories I’m not familiar with) like the amnesia-society-planet (which isn’t quite just a Lotus Eaters type story) but that’s not the norm. The framework for it is the same as TOS and TNG, so that's not new either.

Not one I’d have selected for “new ideas”. Though I am mostly enjoying it. At least it’s not the narrative train-wreck that Picard S1 was.

[ethbr1]

If you're open, recommend skipping to the first 3 episodes of season 2.

[gabereiser]

We are but you seem to be enjoying the carnival ride, while I see a show lacking intellectual depth.

[ethbr1]

We are talking about Star Trek here...

The bar isn't high.

Its sweet spot has always been good characters/acting + some veneer of plot.