Oh, that was a nauseating show to try and watch: The Next Generation. And then there was DS9 - a real Slog, but surely better than ST Voyager. I hear a lot of complaining here about Enterprise, but I though it was a very decent iteration -especially the time war plot. (minus the guy who played Trip -a dead-ringer for G.Bush Jr.). And now the absolutely Bonkers Discovery. Floundering from episode to episode searching for a plot or a lifeline. Ugh ... Picard may bring back a little bit of the Trek magic, hard to say. If Stewart can loosen up a little that is.
4
(Yawn) Nothing new going on in Hollywood. Nothing to see here, move along.
Wouldn't there be some form of anti-aging medical treatments in the years when Start Trek is supposed to take place? Why does Picard look so old? Oh, right...he is! And no matter what the anti-aging medicine is - such a man would not be commanding a fleet ship out in the depths of space!
Why are there even humans on these ships? Why?! The housing of humans on such ships makes for inefficiency and larger then needed spaceships. Wasting precious cargo or instrument space.
1
So many complaints about a paywall. Presumably that is the means whereby actors and producers get the “funding” that facilitates ”work, ” which in turn can produce a revenue-generating product whereby the “workers” are “paid.” Or are these posters hoping Senator Warren will advocate forgiving CBS paywall debt in her “Star Trek for all” plan. Star Trek is a right !
12
Like most, I’m a fan of both Star Trek and Star Wars. But I’m surprised that so many creators of the current Star Trek series belittle their impact compared to Star Wars. Star Trek has always had social consciousness as it’s central theme, Star Wars has not. The potential to inspire, especially in times of political turmoil, is profound.
It’s all in the writing. Just look at Marvel. As a comic book fan since childhood (no surprise), who would have thought that Iron Man - a minor player in the 70’s - would play a major role today? The casting of Downey didn’t hurt either, he was pitch-perfect for the job.
23
@NoLabels JJAbrams and his crew were hired precisely because Paramount believed they could make more money if Star Trek was more bang bang boom and less thoughtful. JJAbrams even stated that he disliked Star Trek, loved Star Wars, and that was why he was hired to reconfigure it. For many of us, you can call your characters Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, but without the thought, it isn't Star Trek. But for others, whatever gets people into the theaters is what is best.
The people running Disco are from the JJAbrams group.
14
Well, I am just an amateur astronomer with a telescope to gaze at the stars.. I learn new terminology in astronomy that I think can come in handy for Star Trek. It seems to me like the current creators of Star Trek are rather clueless cuz they probably never had telescopes themselves. In case, they are in need for vivid imagination, telescopes are a good way to start with and be sure to learn new terminology.. They will come quite handy!
For instance, have you ever seen a globular cluster lately?
4
We need Star Trek (the real Star Trek, not the pale Star Wars knockoffs JJ Abrams came out with a few years back) more than ever. Star Wars presents us which a Galaxy where the fate of everyone depends upon a special, chosen few with magical abilities fighting each other for galactic supremacy. Those who are not among the few, or closely allied with them, are but pawns in their game.
Star Trek is about talented, smart, driven, but essentially ordinary people working together to solve problems through knowledge, diplomacy, and compassion. I understand how some might actually consider this more of a fantasy than Star Wars' galactic soap opera. But it's a fantasy we could badly use these days.
52
I never tire of the original series. Sure, by today's woke standards it doesn't make the grade, but get over it.
NBC rejected the original pilot outright and it was never broadcast. Likewise, they rejected the character of Spock as looking too much like the devil and who would frighten small children.
TOS was going to be cancelled after the second season which meant too few episodes would exist to run in syndication. A passionate out pouring by fans got a third season produced creating enough episodes for a half century of syndication.
Granted, many of the TOS episodes are silly, even cheesy, with sets that one critic described as looking like the lobby of a 1960s Holiday Inn and leading TV actresses of the day wearing costumes that seemingly defied the laws of gravity.
But TOS had action and energy that all of the sequels lacked, substituting the cerebral for the visual.
I strongly recommend all TOS fans to check out YouTube TV's "Star Trek Continues" which is about a dozen contemporary episodes done in TOS format (sets, costumes, music, etc.) often expanding on the stories from the original series.
Gene Roddenberry said he would not enforce TOS copyrights for anyone who created episodes for non profit purposes and all TOS images and characters could be used free of charge.
13
@Paul Star Trek Continues is a fan film series. While many consider it one of the best if not the best Star Trek Fan Film series ever made, it could not be made today due to the guidelines which CBS has published. These guidelines are not always enforced, but mass crowdfunding and the involvement of Hollywood professionals is a thing of the past. The producers of Star Trek Continues got a short exception to complete a shorter series than they had planned.
The guidelines limit fan films in many ways. They are posted on the official Star Trek website. I do not believe that the New York Times would allow me to post a link.
A private website, Star Trek Reviewed, which can be found at Blogspot, lists over 1000 Star Trek Fan Films. It has some of the better ones in a post entitled "Quick Picks." Another series that is worth looking at is Star Trek: New Voyages. The most viewed Star Trek fan film is set in the Enterprise era. Star Trek: Horizon has over 11 million views on YouTube.
5
@Paul Eugene Roddenberry and his estate do not own Star Trek; CBS and Paramount (recently merged) own Star Trek.
Star Trek Continues is a fan film series. While many consider it one of the best if not the best Star Trek Fan Film series ever made, it could not be made today due to the guidelines which CBS has published. These guidelines are not always enforced, but mass crowdfunding and the involvement of Hollywood professionals is a thing of the past. The producers of Star Trek Continues got a short exception to complete a shorter series than they had planned.
The guidelines limit fan films in many ways. They are posted on the official Star Trek website. I do not believe that the New York Times would allow me to post a link.
A private website, Star Trek Reviewed, which can be found at Blogspot, lists over 1000 Star Trek Fan Films. It has some of the better ones in a post entitled "Quick Picks." Another series that is worth looking at is Star Trek: New Voyages. The most viewed Star Trek fan film is set in the Enterprise era. Star Trek: Horizon has over 11 million views on YouTube.
Eugene Roddenberry and his estate do not own Star Trek. CBS and Paramount (now one entity) do, and they have issued guidelines for fan films. Anyone interested can read those guidelines here: https://www.startrek.com/fan-films
Although many people consider Star Trek Continues the best of The Original Series fan film series, there are many others. For a selection of Star Trek Fan Films to sample, try the "Quick Picks" from the most extensive listing of Star Trek Fan Films anywhere, Star Trek Reviewed. Quick Picks offers links to many of the better Star Trek Fan Films: http://startrekreviewed.blogspot.com/2009/06/1.html.
Star Trek is way more cerebral than Star Wars; I always cringe whenever I read someone making comparisons between the two.
32
No mention of cgi and no limits on bringing the writer’s imagination to the small screen. What was so great about sci fi shows in the 60s and 70s was exploding past what people thought possible. Now, everything is possible. It’s so much more of a challenge to impress today’s audience. Joker tried to do that and partly succeeded IMHO. Enjoy the day.
3
I still love TOS but when watching it, it always brings certain questions to mind: How is it that in a galaxy billions of years old, where every planet's history unfolded differently, the contenders for a Federation or Empire are at almost exactly the same technological level? On the other hand, you could argue that less advanced races wouldn't be in space, and more advanced races wouldn't want anything to do with Earthlings, Romulans, or Klingons, so if you were going to run into anybody, they would be like you.
9
I adored The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay.
Why not produce a mini series based on this wonderful book?
Please, Mr. Chabon.
1
So much snark and judgement. Sometimes it’s important to simply enjoy entertainment. Star Trek was and is a great series - from the original (watched every week with my father) to the spin-offs. Yes, not all were “perfect,” and one can argue that James Corey created a more comprehensive universe, but the Trek series had accomplished actors (Stewart being one), was never preachy while it was commenting on society, and had well-constructed plots. (Recall some of the original episodes were written by accomplished SF writers.) I subscribed to CBS to watch Discovery, and for a few dollars, certainly haven’t regretted it. And most importantly, as opposed to the Star Wars franchise, I don’t have to put up with characters designed to be sold as dolls and pillows.
12
As a long-time Star Trek fan, I gave up on the film franchise after seeing Star Trek Beyond, a visually and aurally mind-numbing, dumbed-down combination of CGI and flimsy plot, utilizing a rebooted canon that required tablespoons of salt to swallow. (Spock and Uhura are an item? Give me a break.) Explosions and special effects are not why we love Star Trek; you got no plot, you got nothing.
And now "Star Trek: Picard." Not to lump Michael Chabon in with J.J. Abrams, but sorry, I won't be handing CBS more money when I already pay too much for TV. If I want a dose of Star Trek, there are four wonderful Star Trek series I can binge on any time (excluding "Enterprise," which was an embarrassment). That will have to do.
6
I was glued to the the original broadcasts at age 11+. Then I grew up and they came up with NextGen, and I realized it was about the lives of a bunch of government employees.
The franchise lost me completely with Voyager. Here we are lost in space and we'll never get back home, but we will continue to live in a military hierarchy with titles and uniforms and saluting. Oh, and if some of us want to settle down to a regular life planetside, those "in charge" will treat it as a mutiny. My TV screen was cringing from thrown objects.
4
As an admitted Trekkie, I'd watch it but am not willing to buy into another subscription service. I've got Netflix and Amazon Prime where there is already so much programming, I couldn't watch it all if I lived to be a thousand.
Live long and prosper! Except for you Romulans.👾
13
@Mark McIntyre
As a sci fi person, I couldn’t miss Star Trek Discovery and it was worth temporarily subscribing to CBS All Access for the duration. Martin Green and the younger Spock are brilliant, the plots are tight and production values superb.
I love The Expanse and live for the day that William Gibson’s work will make it onscreen, may he live long and prosper.
9
I will, out of love and respect for Stewart's original performance
catalogue, be completely skipping this series. Stewart's beautiful Shakespearean voice of command no longer serves him well, even as it also abandons many of the rest of us "of a certain age". I heard the man doing the narrative for a PBS Special in which the viewer did not see him, and he now sounds like someone *other than the Picard Character.
So, like watching Kris Kristofferson sing *long after his signing voice had passed its "use by" shelf date - like watching Ali performing in embarrassing "exhibition fights" when the once marvelous specimen of an athlete was over Fifty years old, and naturally becoming "pretty paunchy" ....... I simply refuse to put myself through the pain of watching these once stunning performers being exploited on the basis of nostalgia and name recognition only *for the almighty studio dollar.
1
Neither Star Trek nor any other TV sci-fi compares favorably with "The Expanse" (except possibly the new "The Mandalorian.") "The Expanse" features great characters, very cool spaceships that conform to the laws of physics, and intriguing plots.
5
@globalnomad Couldn't agree with you more. Especially when Mr. Bezos had the guts to revive it after being canceled. It's a great show & no TV Trek has ever lived up to the promise & premise of The Expanse.
4
if they produce good story lines with good acting. plus all good visuals, then it will succede. this needs to happen every episode or movie that gets produced. there is way too much WOW on tv & in the movies that can grab our attention. & please, produce something i can use my mind with. nothing worse than to watch something that makes me feel irrelevant.
2
I had little use for the stilted original series, but raised my son on The Next Generation. That was a fantastic cast and the show is definitely my favorite of all time.
I remember when I saw Dune for the second time: forget Kyle MacLachlan, that's Captain Picard sitting next to him!
I like ST: Discovery well enough, but the preachy attaboys that ended the last episode of the first season made me squirm. TNG had a softer moralistic touch.
I can't wait to see Patrick Stewart reprise his role! Hey, I'm older too, and it looks as if I'll be able to relate to Picard's situation.
11
Well if they can write a decent script it will be fine. If Discovery is any indication tho.... the future looks bleak.
6
A good place to remind us that Star Trek Next Generation was probably the last part of the franchise to include one element of the human experience that's almost disappeared from the popular culture: credible, romantically-charged relationships between grown-up men and women.
Picard and Crusher, Anij (the ever-remarkable Tony award-winning Donna Murphy) and others; Troi and Riker, etc. Very little is actually shown, but the screen seethes with it.
Chalk this one up the lawyers and the bluestocking police. But you just can't suppress this kind of thing from century to century.
(And Murphy is 364 years old! Take that!)
15
They don’t talk enough about how Paramount and CBS had different Trek rights for a while and why the new movies, Discovery, and Picard are all using a new timeline...changing the canon drastically. I think it is a bit hypocritical that Kurtzman said this...
“If you feel that each piece is handcrafted with care, then I think people really appreciate it,” said Alex Kurtzman, an executive producer of the many new “Star Trek” series. “If you feel like a universe is being shoved down your throat for speed and dollars, there’s no faster way to lose an audience.”
...all the new Treks are less a carefully told stories and they are all about speed, special effects and dollars and now confusingly told in different timelines - with that wonderful exploration of humanity is gone. They really botched use of the property when there as so much material to expand on from the older series. I love sci fi, so I’ll watch it and enjoy it all...but the new stuff really isn’t True Trek.
11
I'm looking forward to this although I might need to contract the Ferengi to obtain the episodes if its not available in Australia!
And so in the words of Jean Luc Picard all I want to say is : "Make it So."
And in the words of late great Stan Lee I shall conclude with:
"Nuff Said."
6
@Loomy Try Amazon Prime. I think they have the rights to show it in Australia.
Or do what I'm doing and wait for the blu-ray!
2
Hard to reboot a franchise when you restrict access to a very narrow slice of the audience.
35
What a great talent pool to curate the Star Trek franchise!
I can only hope that Michael Chabon brings Stark Trek to his hometown of Pittsburgh for an episode that channels Scotty but downing synthetic Wigle bourbon instead of single malt. Of course, in an episode that time travels to the Whiskey Rebellion.
The beauty and the longevity of the Trek universe is the adherence to what makes good sci fi good. A relevant moral message that resonates with the audience.
And yes, comparing Star Wars to Star Trek is like comparing a Frappuccino to Foie Gras.
5
Man, they're going to make me sign up for Cbs streaming... somebody please bundle all these things back together so I don't have to keep track of them all.
10
Star Trek is and always has been perhaps hopelessly utopian, but do we not need our utopias?
How else will we reflect and delve into a system of ideals, which sadly the real world all too often crushes underfoot and with little care for tomorrow?
I still believe in boldly going where no one has gone before. And in part I have the spirit of Star Trek to thank for that.
34
The panel of “recommendations” I’ve been offered on YouTube over the past few months has been wall-to-wall Patrick Stewart-related material and old Star Trek clips. I assume this is due to the diligent spending of the marketing department behind the new show. The actor and most of the clips are extremely watchable. (The chance to see, for example, segments from Royal Shakespeare Company master classes involving Mr. Stewart and other acting giants is a noteworthy example of how the Internet can be a good thing, even if you’re subject to manipulation disguised as choice.) I’ve also read a lot of the comments posted by viewers and clearly the wonderful world of enthusiasts who take Star Trek appreciation and analysis to a postgraduate level is thriving. So I wish the new show well and predict it will succeed, although I won’t be a regular viewer.
9
My parents - conservative to the core - deemed the original Star Trek inappropriate for my childhood viewing. I consequently watched it clandestinely and fell in love with the series. I was a girl who loved science and methodical thinking; Mr. Spock was my god.
When Next Gen showed up I was doubtful, but quickly warmed to the new characters and applauded the writers for moving on as opposed to re-casting old beloved characters. Data was the most human amoung the cast.
When Chris Pine took the helm, well the first movie was intriguing with it's back story and timeline distortion but then it became Star Trek 90120. I must admit the casting was eerily spot on for younger versions of the original cast members - there couldn't have been a better match than Zachary Quinto (Spock) or Karl Urban (McCoy)- but it's all CG and blowing things up now.
Since I don't watch network TV, I won't be seeing Picard. Part of me is sad, I enjoyed Patrick Stewart very much, but part of me agrees with his initial rejection - Picard has had his day.
14
When the first episode aired on Sept 8 1966 who could
imagine that ST would still be ongoing 54 years later? ST is more than the TV and movie incarnations for it has morphed into a modern mythology to become the Illad & Odyssey of our times. The best TV episodes have endured because they made us think and reflect upon our society. ST was perhaps the first entertainment franchise to bring people together across the generations from on going conventions to fan fiction whether it was written or filmed. Even when it shown a light on the darkness for example , DS 9 & the Dominion War, there was hope. Perhaps that is the main reason that after 54 years ST endures because it offers hope that we can prevail and rise up to our better nature. Having watched every ST TV series and movies I am looking forward to ST Picard and Sir Patrick Stewart adding even more depth to the main character. I am looking to see how this new ST & Discovery will expand the mythology . To quote Picard at the end of the NG first episode, " Encounter at Farpoint", lets see whats out there. Live long & prosper!
9
The reason the first show in the 60's worked is there was no network oversight (other than the mandate to use of lots of bright colors on the set) and the general tongue-in-cheek attitude of everyone involved directly with hands-on production. All of the following shows seem to continually miss this charm in a kind of successively diminishing slide down to a nadir of sophomoric prognostication: this is the path to our non dystopian future and shouldn't they all deserve merit badges for bringing it to the world?
This ongoing grind keeps reminding me of Shatner's turn on SNL in the 80's in a skit where he plays himself confronted by nerds at a Star Trek convention - he is driven by their exasperating questions to the point of openly berating them for their obsessions: "Get a life! You've turned a fun little job I did as a lark for a few years into a colossal waste of time!"
Bring back network hands-off and let the self satirizing larky tongue-in-cheek attitude prevail and you'll have another not-just-for-nerds hit.
Otherwise it's just yet another dull slog soap opera in space.
7
I wonder why Picard and not Kirk?
1
@Chris For me, Kirk has been covered adequately by the TV show and movies with Shatner, and the first movie with Chris Pine that tells Kirk's origin story (the other Pine et al movies I can take or leave). I definitely want to know more about Picard, both before and after the Next Generation time period. What's his back story?
4
@Chris Probably because the character of Kirk was somewhat 1 dimensional in the original 1960's series (not Shatner's fault but the writers made him that way). Meanwhile Picard was seen as some sort of renaissance man who not only captained a starship, but was also a musician, an archaeologist, a diplomat and a lover of the arts who would try to use diplomacy before resorting to photon torpedoes. And Stewart had the acting skills needed to meet the demands to portray such a character. In other words, Picard was a much more interesting character to write stories about, one who could be an ambassador, head up an Atlantis project or do almost anything - while Kirk always seemed destined to command a starship.
13
@Julia_NOLA Also, Kirk is too old, about 88. Even Picard at 79 is really pushing it.
1
The shows and movies (all of them) stand or fall on two things: technology and the relationships between the characters. With CG being what it is the technology thing is unlimited. The relationship between the characters, however, is where the tension will be, and should be. Spock and Kirk were sometimes at odds. Ditto Kirk and McCoy, Kirk and Scotty. In Version 2, Picard was strong but reliant on "No. 1" and the rest of his crew cared about each other, even to the point of an implied affair between Counselor Troy and Commander Riker. I have loved all the movies, old cast and new.
What I don't like is that you have to buy CBS All-Access. I grew up with totally free TV. Paying for cable is bad enough. (I well remember the arguments of long ago that people would NEVER pay for TV when you could get it free. Wrong.)
Let's see what happens. I wish the new show all success.
11
I don’t understand the protest about $6 a month for two Star Trek series. That’s about $1.50 an episode, 3 to 4 hours of entertainment. A lot less than $12 for two hours at the cinema.
2
@Christian V - but that is with commercials. $10 a month for commercial free. Still less than a movie, but still pretty rich for TV.
5
@Christian V Original Cable was introduced as ad free TV. You had to pay for it of course. Then the usual running dogs of capitalism forged inroads into what we originally paid to get out of.
Thank god for DRV's so I don't have to watch their drivel.
2
You also used to pay to get in a movie and then it was 2 hours of Ad-free dreaming. Now , unless you time it just right and have reserved seats you gotta sit through these dismal pre trailer commercials- "Here's what we're gonna show you. And NOW, we're gonna SHOW you. And Here is what we JUST showed you !". And then 20 more minutes of BOOMING trailers. Finally you get to the movie, which may or may not be filled with product placements. It usually isn't filled with plot anymore...
4
It is worthwhile to expand on the philosophy of diversity in Star Trek. Going back to its beginnings and represented in the fan-created literature that has fleshed out the Star Trek universe, there is always IDIC, that the success of the Federation is due to its respect for Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination. If only in our troubled times, people would understand that opinions may differ, but the value of every person (in the Star Trek world, every being) deserves its own respect, and everyone deserves a chance to contribute to the good of the whole.
9
Next generation and deep space nine were the best because they allowed Roddenberry to expand his sights and treat serious issues in a serious way.
After his death, each succeeding series got further and further from his original vision.
Should I be hopeful because it has Stewart and Michael Chabon? Or should I be frightened because of Kurtzman – the guy that wrote a scene in the reboot in which Spock and Uluru quarrel with each other about a relationship while on a mission - like teenagers?
11
@Marc Kagan Roddenberry and his vision almost destroyed TNG before it hit its stride. Paramount got tired of dealing with him and effectively fired him from the show after the second season. No small coincidence that the show got consistently better in season 3 under new leadership (Rick Berman and Michael Piller). So Roddenberry had virtually no involvement with TNG during seasons 3-7, and was totally out of the picture for DS9.
People like to lionize Gene Roddenberry and speak of his vision as if it were flawless. The truth is that Roddenberry lost his way (just like George Lucas lost his way with Star Wars) and his vision that he tried to enforce in TNG ended up being... well, pretty silly and boring. Star Trek may owe a lot to him, but it has been better off without him.
8
@David Waldo thats an oversimplification. Genes DNA is all over TNG and many of the core concepts came from his ideas. He simply lost his flair for contemporary television.
Also before you go disparaging Mr. Lucas, his films were flawed but had ideas in them. Conpared to the new vapid Disney era he looks much better.
2
@David Waldo Paramount always thought Roddenberry was demanding -- he had, what they thought, too much respect for his fans -- when Star Trek almost came back as Phase II in the 1970s, he had a New York fan who created professional looking phasers make props for the series. And he got involved with TNG because he didn't want Trek done without him. He must have known it could become the dystopian, violent show it has become today.
1
I and most seniors don't know re your headline question because it is not on regular cable.
Either because we don't know the technology to get it or can't afford another TV type device we will not see it.
6
@Paul
We cut the cord because our “regular cable” company was charging us exorbitant fees. Now we pay as you go to NetFlix, Amazon Prime, HBO,Hulu, etc. on a regular basis; when there are cool shows we want to watch coming up, we sign up temporarily to EPIX, Starz, and CBS All Access, but only while the shows are on. If the streaming platform does not provide compelling content, the subscription is cancelled. It works out much cheaper and although I spend more time reading about what to watch, the quality is much higher.
Some people here are complaining that you have to pay to watch Discovery or Picard. I’m fine with paying because I finally get to see gay characters on Star Trek. If it were broadcast on CBS normally, American homophobia would prevent having realistic gay characters. I’ve waited long enough.
9
Well, Disney destroyed Star Wars but has a hit in Mandalorian. Amazon scored big with Expanse.
Star Trek was another icon many of us loved. Let's see if it managed to escape the strictures that strangled Star Wars.
5
Whattaya know, the Times and Trek in the same dimension at once. Maybe David Brooks will watch some and realize that there is a literature of optimism, after all.
7
Star Trek is not Star Trek unless it has episodes written by science fiction writers, as was in the 60’s. The current trend of season-long story will not allow for explorations of a multitude of widely divergent topics and ideas, one after another, by different authors, every week.
I don't care how a new Vulcan is somehow a cousin of a mixed species daughter of a high counsel ambassador who knows Spock or whatever—you can watch Star War for that tripe.
18
@wlieu - It’s not Star Trek to you based on your belief regarding writer’s qualifications. You may be correct but there is no logic behind your reasoning
1
Engage.
8
Not really excited for this (and I'm a huge ST:TNG and ST:DS9 fan). If you were going to bring anybody from TNG back, it would be Riker as captain of a major starship. Heck, I'd watch Geordi, Riker, Beverly, and Data flying around the universe any day.
5
@David Konerding
Except that Brent Spiner has aged and Data of course would not. Oh, wait....they killed him off and left the door open with B4.
1
I have been a Star Trek fan, in all its iterations, since I first saw the original series starting in eighth grade in 1966. There have been ups and downs. Discovery is interesting and I'm looking forward to Picard. However the Chris Pine movies are a problem. The cast is endearing but the plots, which are all the same, have strayed from the original message. The three films all have Kirk defeating some arch nemesis, who is hell bent on destroying either the space station, a planet or the universe. Kirk saves the day at the last possible moment and all is well. Where Star Wars are just cowboy movies in space, Star Trek was always something more. Pine/Kirk needs to meet some superior being(s) who impart(s) knowledge of a better way of living. Or something. Please Captain Kirk don't just wack another bad guy.
23
"The original series lasted only 3 Seasons". Back then a season was 27 episodes or more. Quite an archive for only 3 seasons. I was eleven years old watching on a scratchy black and white TV with a tinfoil antennae upstairs while the rest of the family watched Gunsmoke or whatever downstairs. Hooked for life.
34
"What began in 1966 with a little-seen television series that was often didactic and deliberately paced"...
Didactic and deliberately paced. It seems to me our current moment could use a little more of this.
In addition, Star Trek, at it's best, was always more like a philosophy seminar blended together with an action series, and a dash of romance thrown in to taste.
What more do you need?!
34
The original Star Trek and the more successful of its spawn were 'good' because they did not try to dumb down their contents to engage with the majority of audiences.
I recall echoes of Shakespeare - of Montaigne - of Milton in the very best of the episodes.
I hope this 'classically' trained actor insists on scripts that challenge - and occasionally fall short but always reach for the best of story-telling.
And I sincerely hope that the actors reflect the needs of the story and not some ham-fisted PC version of a future galaxy far... far... away.
22
Um, it’s always been PC. It’s Star Trek. All races and genders right from the beginning. Not sure what show you’re thinking of. Eliminating diversity or liberal ideals would make it not Star Trek.
Interesting the show with the most positive view of the future is also the most progressive.
9
@David
There is a significant difference between PC and Organic.
Organic - see Star Trek Original
PC - see Disnefied Star Wars recent incarnations
You don't see a difference - that is OK as well.
5
It’s been a long and successful run since Star Trek premiered in 1966. What else has lasted so long, so well, other than perhaps The Rolling Stones?
Initially, the gamble Lucille Ball took on the concept was that it showed an optimistic future full of inclusion and adventure to a generation freshly out from under their desks during atom bomb drills, the Cuban missile crisis, Goldwater’s nuclear Sabre rattling, the traumatic assassinations of the optimist leaders pulling the country away from its lingering WWII mindset, a growing engagement in Vietnam, and a foreboding of anything in the future. It was an escapist relief to imagine a future in which mankind had survived at all.
Perhaps it’s next iteration will be able to offer the same treat of optimism in a dispiriting world. May we live long and prosper.
Let’s hope.
30
I’ve loved Star Trek since it’s inception on television back in 1966 and I‘ve watched and loved most of the subsequent moves.
My feeling though is that the franchise is stuck in the past and refuses to move on to more compelling stories about the Federation beyond the 24th century.
Star Trek: Enterprise and Star Trek: Discovery are prime examples of this, although I will readily admit that the last three Star Trek moves, especially Star Trek Beyond, starring Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, John Cho, the late Anton Yeltsin and Idris Elba is one of my top favorites.
Even if they don’t want to move beyond their current orbit (bad pun, so kill me), why can’t they script something way off the beaten path such as a movie called “Vulcan”, that focuses almost exclusively with the history and culture of Vulcan, perhaps Vulcan society prior to the enlightenment of logic.
Vulcan in the throes of civil war, this would be really original, exciting, compelling and mercifully devoid of any further references to the all too familiar references to Kirk, Spock, Sarek, McCoy, Uhura, Chekov, and Sulu.
Maybe the time traversing starship Relativity is stuck in the Quantum Realm; perhaps it’s time for them to acquire a fully functioning Time/Space GPS from Tony Stark.
5
@Larry Chan ST: Picard moves the timeline forward, and (spoiler alert?) so is Discovery in season 3.
2
I'm in agreement with many other commenters here. I have been a Star Trek fan since the original series aired and I rewatch most of the series on various cable TV stations. My choice not to subscribe to CBS's streaming service isn't based on cost but on personal preference. However, there are many loyal fans out there who will never see these recent offerings because they can't afford even a few extra dollars a month.
8
Amazing to think in this day and age that in America there are many (me among them) who do not have access to a limitless, fast internet connection that makes streaming and many other technological wonders possible. Where is the new TVA that will bring all of America into the present?
14
@West Texas Momma
Ridiculous. The same could be argued about the price of a movie ticket.
1
@Sendero Caribe, there are many people in this country who never go to the movies because they can't afford the price of a ticket. There are also many folks who either cannot afford to pay for internet service, cannot afford a computer or streaming device, don't own a cell phone, or live where they do not have access to cell or wifi service.
15
Too bad no one will see this. I've learned to live without a million streaming stations.
6
I recall the original "Star Trek" series with such great fondness. Sure a lot of things were pretty corny and goofy compared to today's highly sophisticated technology. But why I watched and enjoyed the original series was because of the cast - they blended and the chemistry just worked with them all, producing enjoyable, funny and dramatic dialogue, especially the silly gerbil episode.
So when "The Star Trek - the Next Generation" came along, I was not interested in the slightest. I never thought they could improve upon what I gathered was Gene Roddenberry genius.
But they had. That cast and crew were beyond incredible. Every single member of the cast just played off the others so well, like a well tuned orchestra, playing beautiful music.
And the leader of that entire group was Patrick Steward's "Picard" and his rich voice and the power it commanded.
The dynamics and chemistry of these ensemble was as good, if not better, that the original cast. And every episode was exciting and fresh.
I don't know how the new "Star Trek: Picard" will fare out, but I will give it a try. Who knows, I may enjoy it and love it more than its predecessors.
I promise to "Make it So" Captain Picard.
26
The “silly gerbil episode” you mention is about tribbles not gerbils. It’s called “The Trouble with Tribbles”. Lol. When I was a kid I knew all the names of the episodes and some of the dialogue by heart.
4
I don't know if I'll like Picard or not. I'll test it out after the conclusion of its 1st season. It's not a big deal in our family to subscribe for two months, then cancel after we've caught up on the shows we like.
What I'd appreciate is a series that takes place after Voyager concludes... Whether its 50 or 100 years afterwards, I'd love to see an expansion of the world, maybe even a return to the best - Deep Space 9? One can wish.
5
That would be Star Trek: Picard. It takes place roughly 20 years after Voyager concluded and will expand on the universe we last truly saw at the end of Nemesis and the very start of the first Star Trek reboot movie.
Also, Discovery will be focusing on the future of the Federation in its 3rd season. I’ll say no more for fear of spoilers.
My broader point is that both series are now firmly focused on the future. I love all the prequels and reboots of the past 2 decades but I’m thrilled to finally find out the next chapters in the story.
9
I have never watched any of the shows except the original so maybe I missed something, but why is Patrick Stewart wearing what appears to be a rowing club blazer? Is Picard even cooler than I had imagined?
3
@Fighting Sioux
Yes, but not as cool as Spock
8
I'm a Trek fan, but not enough of one to put up with the congestive dissonance of Discovery. The Klingons don't look like either the TOS or TNG Klingons, I just couldn't get past it.
10
Me either.
1
Look, I love Star Trek as much as the next trekkie and the idea of telling the continuing story of Jean Luc Picard has tremendous underlying appeal.
But, on several overseas trips in the past few years, I was able to watch both seasons of ST: Discovery on Netflix International, which allows you to use your US based ID.
I am all for this expanded content, but if I begin to add up all the potential separate memberships, including CBS All Access, it would begin to reflect what my previous cable bill looked like, which is why I migrated to internet based programming years ago.
As much as I would love to see how Picard is updated, frankly, I do not even know what is on CBS anymore and I doubt I am missing anything.
I will wait for my next overseas trip or buy the season when my budget can accommodate it...or, to put it another way, I already have enough content providers when I need these diversions.
Sorry Picard and Sir Patrick Stewart...thrilled you are back...but not thrilled enough to join CBS All Access.
17
@Fluffy's Revenge I susbscribe for a week when I binge-watch the program I want and then end the subscription. That way, I can pay for commercial free. Streaming services have greatly complicated access to entertainment. Cable television is no longer good deal; most of the good programming is behind a paywall that's not accessible through your cable subscription. "More consumer choice" has resulted in less television watching and more reading for this consumer. I don't want entertainment to be yet another management chore, and now it is.
12
@Fluffy's Revenge Also on CBS Access is the new Twilight Zone, with Jordan Peele picking up where Rod Serling left off. It's a bit shaky for the first two episodes, but then really finds its footing.
@Fluffy's Revenge
I called CBS A Access & got 1 year 4 $25.
3
I became aware of Star Trek in 1967 because a dedicated group of kids in my dorm would gather in the basement to watch every new episode together. There weren't many of them but they were a cult. Most of the rest of us took years to catch on. I will follow the new series with enthusiasm.
4
"It [Star Trek] has been eclipsed by its successors — from longtime rivals like “Star Wars” to more recent competitors like the Marvel movies . . . "
If by "eclipsed", you mean they make more money - then yes, that is true.
However, is telling the same, tired story over and over through - what, TEN movies - creative? I'll go out on a limb here: I'm betting ST will still be around long after the SW franchise collapses on itself.
14
Deanna troi is a critical resource for executive decisions. Every presidential cabinet should be required to have her. We have had too many damaged presidents in office.
13
Really look forward to “Picard”. Season one of STD was quite good but season 2 not so much. I hope “Picard” will have more of a throwback style and less action oriented.
5
@BK I had the opposite reaction. I was bored by Season 1 of Star Trek: Discovery and had to be coerced into watching Season 2. But by the end of the season, I was hooked.
I'll definitely check out ST:Picard.
4
I loved Star Trek, the original series and next generation (And Voyager too) because the crew were largely friendly towards one another. You were watching people get along, battle the aliens, play poker, Exchange a few repartees here and there, but overall, it’s simply had a good spirit, plus you were in a world of fantastic technology that was exciting. Plus, there was a lot of humor in those shows. You knew who the characters were, their individual quirks. It was fun. And even though the aliens were often predatory or malevolent in some way, it Never over took the overall good feeling of the shows.
But today shows are so much darker, even nasty. I saw the first episode of discovery and that was also the last episode I saw. I have certainly read enough reviews from other people, but the Star Trek that I knew and loved has died. The new Picard series sounds like a dud. The trailers I’ve seen are all dark and depressing or the aliens attacking and ships exploding. Feh!
8
There is no mention of Star Trek: Voyager. Anywhere. In the article, in the comments.
It was a great show and easily earned its place in that universe.
12
@BGallagher ST:V had some fantastic episodes. "Tsunkatse" is up there with the best ones of any of the series.
2
Long time ( life long ) Star Trek fan with zero interest in watching this Uber Woke mishmash. Way to kill a Franchise.
4
@GregP
With its diversity of life forms, ST was “woke” before it became a concept.
26
I've been rewatching TNG - you can see why it was so good, it had good actors, mainly good scripts, it addressed issues and had Horatio Hornblower as Captain, sorry JL Picard. You put a brilliant actor with a decent cast in front of a good script, you get heaven. Look at Voyager, one excellent actor and two decent supporting cast, you get good. Finally, take DS9 - no actors and just a pyrotechnic fest that went nowhere, rubbish.
The franchise has often addressed a whole gamut of questions, much as Dr Who does, you explore today in tomorrow. From the trailers, this is exactly what it is doing
7
@Richard
DS9 is the best of the last 3 star Trek series in many ways, with some excellent acting and innovative scripts. It also led the way in inclusion with a Black lead. You should consider re-watching it. You are missing out on some fine work.
11
I though the original ST was awful and cheesy (which is apparently it's charm to a lot of people)
I adore PStew and hope this is a success. I think it's great that his love/support for the pit bull breed flows over into the show - Picard has a pibble!
2
@ArgentBelle Your opinion of the original Star Trek is probably based off your young age. Had you been alive when it premiered, you would have been awestruck by how ground breaking it was.
10
@Trekkie
I thank you for that - I'm 58 :)
I understand it's appeal - it's just not there for me personally.
2
I’m 67 and also found TOS cheesy and sexist. I didn’t start enjoying the franchise until TNG. Maybe there is a gender divide here?
2
It's not the "message" that prevents me from watching Picard, it's the "medium". It's like eating a buffet of meat at one restaurant and a buffet of vegetables at another, pasta at another, beverages at another and dessert at still another. Worst still, these buffets have only one or two dishes I find appetizing.
Pretty soon, you just run out of money trying to eat a meal.
15
I loved Jean Luc Picard on TNG and I want to see this show. But I don’t like the CBS streaming service and I won’t be subscribing. I wish Mr Stewart had used his influence to get it off that platform. I fear it may be doom the show.
11
1) Enterprise was good. DS9 was good. The proof is self evident (the number of episodes)
2) discovery tried way too hard. Nothing to do with casting, which of course made angry fanboys rage.
I mean the direction of the production
You can bank on the success of high budget TV shows with lots of CGI, explosions, lens flare, shaky cam action.
But that is untennable beyond a few seasons.
Go to Canada or wherever cheap production is these days
Get a core cast of solid early career/B+-Tier actors
Better to adopt episodic format for production cost.
Sci fi episodic means reusing the set over and over. Everything else takes place in that same rock quarry/British Columbia forest/river with expansive mountain views you have seen 85,000 times before, but who cares.
Maybe thats the plan for discovery.
Burn money through season 1 and 2, then step back to a cheaper episodic format?
This is not an obsolete concept.
All the modern DC and Marvel TV shows at or nearing syndication follow this script.
Arguably the more consistently episodic the better. DC arrowverse shows are the proof.
Sci fi fans, young and old, do not need a 10 hour movie (eg 1 10 episode series).
They need 8 seasons of "their drug of choice".
All of the flailing Marvel shows did not follow this idea.
Agents of Shield did. 7 seasons. Yes. Viewership drops over time. But the point of these shows is:
1) bring in new subscribers/biewers
2) keep them engaged for as long as possible.
2
My brother was the 'Trek' fan in our house, 14 when it debuted in 1966. Being just a bit eccentric, he took to wearing ONLY light blue turtlenecks and cutting his sideburns into a point and then applying a gel to keep them that way. He went around the house criticizing everything anyone else did or said by intoning "That is not logical.' My father actually got angry at him once for saying that.
I am the only remaining member of that household of the mid-60s and now I realize that he wasn't eccentric at all: He was ahead of the times.
62
@Tom I wish I could’ve been a fly on the wall to see that. Hilarious!
10
@Tom I don't think I saw it until it was in syndication. What I remember best is that my mother used to call us to dinner -- pronto! -- exactly 10 minutes before the end of the show. It was years before I saw the endings of many of the episodes. Did the Galileo get rescued? Did Spock and Kirk escape from the gladiator ring? Did they kill the monster that was killing the underground miners? Where did the rabbit come from, and why were there tigers and knights-in-armor and planes making strafing runs on a vacation planet?
10
@Tom
Brotherly love. I was (still am) a TOS fan and my family still thinks I’m a bit looney.
8
Star Trek needs to go back to it's roots of telling thought provoking stories that engage the audience and challenge them to think and discuss the moral and philosophical issues raised. To be an intelligent television series that motivates and not just more mindless entertainment.
Star Trek wasn't special because of the uniforms, starships or aliens. It was special because it exercised the minds and imaginations of the viewers. It inspired a generation of scientists, engineers and astronauts. So until Star Trek becomes 'that' again, it's still sadly a thing of the past.
88
@Scott McElroy I agree so strongly. It's why I've become alienated (no pun intended) by the Star Trek movie franchise that has become more about action and special effects than story. Gene Roddenberry wrote these morality plays for TV. He also wrote for Have Gun Will Travel--same stories, different centuries. It's about the human (or alien) condition, not transporters and replicators, although they are way cool.
40
@Scott McElroy Amen.
6
“What’s weird about ‘Star Trek’ is that it abides.” Hmmm. Here in Houston, we get four hours straight, six nights a week primetime, on channel 2.3 (H&I). TOS, NextGen, DS9, Voyager. We occasionally tune in for a few giggles. Yes, NextGen was a big step up from TOS, initially, but after that ... Maybe some new approaches are in order for TV scifi, along the lines of, say, "Firefly"? (9.0 at IMDB, cancelled after one season.) I gotta go with Sheldon from "The Big Bang": "Upon [Firefly's] cancellation, he brands Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox, a traitor."
7
@Steve Kennedy
Wow, is that a Star Trek channel? I keep hoping for a Law & Order channel but it probably won't happen.
3
Well, that's exactly what we need to breathe new life into the franchise: four white people, three of whom are male. In fact, the three white guys look like demographic clones. So much for diversity.
2
@J: You know next to nothing about who these people are, yet you judge them entirely by the color of their skin. Diversity is more than skin deep, friend.
9
@J Have you seen Discovery?!
2
@J
Have you seen firefly? Terrific performances by Ron Glass.
2
Can’t wait for Picard. Resisted All Access for one show..Discovery. But you can watch the regular CBS shows without commercials. The 10 bucks a month is well worth it. No DRUG ads. Most are moronic and just plain stupid. Watching the news on network or CNN can be painful. Same dumb ads every night. Between Trump news and drug ads make me want to buy drugs for depression! Only the side effects will kill me. Streaming is worth it. makes the ads go away!
8
Goldsman is wrong: I don't think Star Wars is better than Star Trek. Star Wars is about the hero's journey, about good vs. evil; it is essentially a grand, sweeping soap opera. Star Trek has always been about collaboration and diplomacy and the belief that all living creatures have the capacity for good. No one is evil; everything is complex.
Also, the original Trek pilot had a woman as the second-in-command. She was logical, intelligent, and wore pants. The network insisted that the women should be lower ranked and wear miniskirts. Roddenberry was the ultimate egalitarian and hardly gets enough credit for it.
67
@Dottie I agree. I love Star Wars, having been a boy when the first movie came out, but I can't see myself being Luke or Han. I can see myself being Scotty, McCoy, Riker, O'brien, Worf or Quark. While imaginative, even the aliens seem, dare I say, human.
18
What will kill the franchise for good is CBS insistence in hiding it behind a paid streaming wall.
I'll wait until they admit defeat and then squeeze some revenue out of it with blueray disk sales later on.
11
I find it remarkable at how many white guys can have failures in the entertainment industry and still - sometimes simultaneously - be offered major opportunities, while women and minorities often get one or two "big chances" and if those flop we never see them again.
Anyway, good luck to this team!
6
In case Chabon is reading comments in a micro-dosed frenzy:
How about sneaking in a virtual sequel to Yiddish Policemen's..., where an endangered ethno/religious group has been given a temporary off-world refuge enclave after surviving attempted genocide, but now their lease is up and they have to re-integrate into a world that's starting to "get over" the trauma they survived.
3
I can't wait!!!!
1
My big brother was in his aviation phase when this series first aired, so we watched. We watched it again and again in syndication. I was enchanted by the possibility of it all: the diversity, the stories, the Prime Directive. I was never enchanted by Shatner in his portrayal of Kirk. Even back then, through my schoolgirl eyes and before sexism became commonly recognized, it was over the top. And then came Stewart's Picard. Hail to the Star Trek Goddesses! Looking forward to seeing this, probably in a binge watch after the season concludes.
6
@Laura
I felt Shatner was brilliant in the original series, after which he seemed to fall off a cliff in his acting ability. One of the strangest things I have ever seen in a many many years of film and television study. May have been the influence of the great Mark Lenard's direction of some of the episodes.
5
"Though Chabon might not seem like an obvious candidate for a career in franchise entertainment, he said that after he turned 50, he told himself, 'I’m going to start selling out more, so I can cash in on mindless nostalgia and make piles and piles of money.'”
2
I hope Patrick Stewart doesn't let CBS trash his legacy with the horribleness that they made with Start Trek Discovery. I also won't pay CBS to stream this since Discovery was so offensive in all matters of story telling and taste.
16
Would love to watch both new Trek series, however I'm a poor working man who can barely afford basic cable let alone $13 a month to watch two shows. The whole streaming thing is leaving people like me out of the loop. I have never seen 90% of the "ground breaking" shows being made for Netflix, or Hulu, or any of the other special services. I guess I'm doomed to a lifetime of poorly done sitcoms, cop, or doctor shows for the rest of my life. Good thing I like to read!
41
@billd109
Agree! Any night of the week I’d rather read than watch.
5
@billd109 They should do an episode where the planet's well-off residents spend all day glued to their screens while the less well-off spend all their time reading – and plotting revolution!
9
@billd109 They should do an episode where the planet's well-off residents spend all day glued to their screens while the less well-off spend all their time reading – and plotting revolution!
It was the evening of September 8, 1966. I remember it well because I was just a boy and my parents allowed me to stay up past my usual bedtime to watch the first episode of Star Trek ("The Man Trap"). To this day, ST remains my favorite "brand" of science fiction. Sure, there are some SR series and movies that I don't particularly care for, but the core ideas that comprise the universe of ST are compelling and inspiring.
I'm looking forward to Picard!
14
TNG and TOS are my favorite TV versions of Star Trek. I think Star Trek works best on the big screen and I look forward to the next installment of the reboot/prequel which btw was a great way to refresh the series yet keep the basics intact.
3
I was interested, reading the article, wouldn't pay a subscription service for CBS for one show, but interested in the show - till we get to the "Crew behind the newest batch of Star Trek shows" photo.
I mean how much diversity of story, character and plot is really going to come from that bunch? Star Trek: Boomer Picard? no thanks.
2
@Megan Life is more than a dismissive catch phrase that is easy to say and means nothing. Consider evaluating people on the quality of what they do.
14
@David Where do they do that and how do I go there?
1
As a long-time Star Trek fan, I am very excited about a new series focusing on Picard. I hope the new series stays true to quality science fiction - good writing, smart story lines, plots grappling with real and important questions.
Frankly, I think the reason the new movies rebooting the original series haven't done well is that they were dumbed down for the masses and lost Star Trek's intelligence and thoughtfulness. The first movie had a great nostalgia factor but the subsequent movies couldn't stand on that alone. They ended up more like action movie set in space using the Star Trek universe than true Star Trek stories. The movie scene where Spock and Uhura had a relationship argument that could have taken out of a teen movie when the fate of the universe was at stake really illustrated this issue.
I hope Kurtzman recognizes that true Star Trek fans need a smarter and deeper show than mass-market action stories masquerading as sci fi. My family and I are looking forward to Picard and hoping for the best!
86
@eseattle
Weren't Spock and uhura teens, or early twenties, at the time? Interesting that these are the portrayals deemed bothersome to some but the portrayal of Pine/Kirk as a randy frat boy hiding under women's beds is okay.
3
@Lynn in DC All of it was ridiculous. JJ Abrams is a horrible writer and creates pale imitations of the properties he inherits.
2
@eseattle maybe the masses can handle smarter deeper stories, too!
1
I am looking forward to this show! I grew up watching TNG and look forward to seeing Picard's story continue in a complex and nuanced way.
Also, for those concerned about adding yet another subscription service to their monthly bill in order to see the show on CBS All Access: Netflix and Hulu let you cancel or "pause" your membership so consider that option.
4
@AJ - To really save, simply wait till the first season is over, get the monthly pass for one month, binge watch, and then cancel the subscription service for the year.
24
I'm an adult. I make good money and I'm happy to pay for content, but there's simply no way I'm subscribing to a subscription service for just two shows.
Yo ho, yo ho...
20
@Steve M Literally this. Hoist the Skull and Crossbones.
9
Waiting for "Picard", after being severely disappointed by "Discovery". Why? Because even Kirk's fighting were was more convincing than the ones involving all kinds of supposedly ferocious Klingons - just ridiculous C-movie-style. Not that fighting is a the core of the Trek-experience, but it shouldn't make you laugh out involuntarily, either ...
9
Don't forget if not for Desi Arnaz and Lucille Ball, the likelihood that Gene Roddenberry's vision of Star Trek ever getting off the ground was slim. Desilu Studios took a big risk on Gene using an inter-racial, inter-species cast.
109
@Tortuga
THIS, recommend one hundred times.
The visionary genius and shrewd business sense was more Lucille Ball than the still pretty great Desi Arnaz. She was a powerful woman ahead of her time and television would not have been the same without her trailblazing spirit.
42
None of the cast actually belonged to another species. They were just pretending.
7
I’d really like to think that Lucille Ball was not ahead of her time, but that we were and are behind the times.
All this silly gender/race stuff has to end. What better way to give a roadmap than to see our glorious future as one in a few new Star Trek series.
If only...
5
Please, oh please, show the way forward to a world where poverty, hunger, war, disease have all been eliminated. That wish is what has kept me coming back to the Trek universe for over 50 years. LLAP.
58
@doctor art - It is up to you to make it so.
8
I would love to check this out but I don't want any more streaming services, I want less.
14
Wait for DVD release and check them out at the library. Did this for Discovery (and many HBO shows) and loved it!
16
@Dennis McDonald So cancel some of the streaming services you are using. Then you will have less AND be able to watch a show you want to watch.
Easy peasy.
@Victor IN our case it doesn't work like that. One show on CBS versus streaming services with multiple shows? Nah.
1
I am a longtime Star Trek fan (meaning from the 1970s). In fact, I went to one of the earliest conventions, in New York City, around 1975.
Fast-forward about 20 years to another convention I attended, this one in Towson, MD. I got to meet several authors of the dozens and dozens and dozens of Star Trek books. As a writer, I wanted to seek their advice re: writing a Star Trek novel of my own. What did one of them tell me? Essentially "don't bother" because the powers that be weren't interested in new authors, and the pipeline was already full of forthcoming books.
This is possibly the WORST thing an author could say to a sci-fi/Star Trek fan. The words stay with me. To date, I have not written a sci-fi/Star Trek novel for submission for publication. I wish I could remember which author it was.
8
@Satire & Sarcasm Look up StarTrek on Twitter, the publication. You can write and submit pieces there.
2
@Mari Thank you so much!!!
2
Star Trek is behind a gated pay wall. America has changed Star Trek.
23
@Peter Ah, you must not understand how capitalism works. You do know you pay for everything you watch...even on "free tv" by paying more for the products you buy at the store, right?
1
@Victor I do understand how capitalism works. I paid to be on the other side of this wall to read this article and your comment. Perhaps a better metaphor would be a gated community. Ah, that is how capitalism works. And I would never confuse capitalism with democracy.
3
I will not pay for "all access" online, just to watch this show.
14
I’m a long time Star Trek fan. I’m skeptical of Picard mainly because Discovery has been so aggressively stupid. Given that it’s also on CBS All Access, I rather expect it’ll be just as bad.
14
You're not going to keep interest alive by putting it behind a additional paywall.
33
Star Trek is the West Wing of outer space.
47
Actually would like to see more about the politics of the Federation. It's been pretty obscure throughout all the series.
8
@Thomas That is an excellent idea actually
3
Could somebody explain why articles like this have to be headed by a screen-filling splash picture? It's not as if you have to attract attention. The reader has already decided to open the page. Is this just the Art Dept. getting their jollies? Heaven preserve us from boring webpages, I hear them cry.
15
@Daedalus I agree, but at least it's not some ridiculous video. Hate how those distract from the written words, but with the video ads, I guess that's the point.
3
I know this isn't the point of the article but Michael Chabon looks exactly as I imagined he did.
4
Not a big fan of Kurtzman but I’ll give this a go. Fuller leaving Discovery and the subsequent axing of his ‘heirs’ was disappointing.
And hearing that Kurtzman is doing Clarice ... UGH. Bring on a Fuller Hannibal season four!!!
1
What distinguished Star Trek from The Space Opera was science. The current brood of producers have decided to carefully ruin Star Trek by killing science in favour of fancier prosthetics for Klingons.
Just as cosmology is capturing far more attention, Star Trek's animators are wondering why they can't just give Picard et al light sabres. I am sad to watch the demise of a brilliant marriage of imagination and amazing science turn into brutal bang.
12
Stewart declared this new ST will deal with Brexit and Trump. I will avoid this "Woke" version of ST.
1
Bye, Felicia.
5
@KR Apparently you have never watched any ST at all then, since it's always been that way.
9
@KR If you seriously think that any previous Star Trek series was apolitical, you obviously weren't paying attention.
14
Although I do not pay for any cable or streaming services, the new Picard series (bringing back Seven of Nine and Data, among other fan favorites) might just tip the balance towards paying the hefty 5.99
a month (along with Discovery, which on its own wasn’t sufficient motivation).
Given the egalitarian ideals of Star Trek, it’s unfortunate that fans now have to pat extra for the latest installment ...
7
I also really liked some of the philosophical themes this series in particular explored, but Star Wars kind of abandoned after Phantom Menace. For example, in the original Star Trek when two alien lovers 'lost' their bodies and Kirk and a pretty starfleet officer 'lent' theirs, it drew attention to the importance of being embodied if you are going to be in love. Also, do you have to be human in order to be a person. The episode in the Next Generation where Data's personhood was discussed in court was pretty good and I have used it in my classes. It points to future ethical dilemmas with cloning and sentient robots and aliens. Derek Parfit also wondered about personhood in the faulty transporter thought experiment.
22
@jmullan And don't forget DS9 - a series that showed the immense cost and difficulty of maintaining utopian ideals. The episode "In the Pale Moonlight" exemplifies this perfectly.
2
As an original Trekkie (yes, I'm that old!) I actually came to find TNG to be an improvement over the original series.
So I wish this new venture all the success in the Universe (or at least this quadrant of it).
But reading this piece I am concerned about all the other Star Trek projects in the works. It's simply another example of Hollywood so diluting a product that it becomes almost a parody of itself.
All of the writers of all of these "products" would at least do well to fully read and understand the intent of Gene Roddenberry. Something that seems to have been lost in the rush to "compete" with the Star Wars franchise.
23
By offering "Picard" only on its paid streaming service, CBS is failing the ST-TNG ethos, of empathy and understanding for all.
For families with limited budgets, especially for children growing up in poor families who have so little quality science-based education, shows like Star Trek can open their minds in ways we cannot fathom.
Many families, for example black and latino families, recent legal immigrants, and single-parent families cannot offer streaming technologies to their children. In such families, it is unlikely a child will have a smartphone with a broadband data plan, let alone high-speed internet at home.
For such families a streaming service is an expensive luxury: it requires not only the $6/month payment (plus tax) but also requires one to keep high-speed internet costing much more monthly. This also requires technical knowledge of how to setup your WiFi systems correctly to stream, and then how to watch a streaming show.
Forward-thinking sci-fi franchises should be aired on fully free airwaves so they can offer social education, hope, and a multicultural (multispecies) atmosphere to children who most need to see & experience this daily.
40
Like so many others, I found TOS during those awkward pre-teen years. I was (and still am) a nerdy type, never feeling like I fit in anywhere. ST:TOS gave me hope that maybe someday there would be a place that I fit in. I don’t know if I would have made it through high school without it, and I’m forever grateful. I wasn’t crazy about TNG when it first came on, but it grew on me and by season 3 I was all in. Frankly, the subsequent iterations just haven’t held my interest, and the movies...well, I didn’t even bother going to the last one. It seemed that Trek was going to a shoot-em-up place I wasn’t interested in. I hope Picard will get ST back to what I thought it always did best: tell stories about humanity using the framework of sci-fi.
And to nitpick: If you were alive and aware back in the late Sixties, you know that miniskirts were a sign of rebellion and liberation. Let’s not force early 21st century outrage on symbols of mid-20th century feminism.
76
@Buckey Lady
I liked ST:TNG as well -- the subsequent iterations have not been able to build on the genius of that series. And the more recent installments (Discovery) fall well short of that. I gave up on it after only a couple episodes.
I'm hoping Picard will also get ST back to where it ought to be. Chabon being on the writing team gives me hope at least.
1
@Buckeye Lady Deep Space Nine is an awesome show, more or less on a par with Next Generation. Did you give it 2 seasons before giving up?
1
@Buckeye Lady
I began watching TOS at an impressionable age, and although I'm quite aware at this point of all it's absurdities ("A piece of the Action") I can still enjoy it for the characterization, performances, and the technology it introduced. The time I devoted to watching the subsequent spinoffs I regret enormously, not realizing at the time how much they were just permutations of the same elements over and over again, meant to capture my eyeballs for the commercials. It's the same strategy used in the "Star Wars" series to milk it for every last dime, and apparently, even fans are getting sick of being so reliably manipulated. Try living in this universe for a change instead of pouring money into Disney's coffers.
1
This note is to anyone who is listening. I am also really annoyed with the subscription fees. Between cable, internet, phone fees consumers were already paying too much for entertainment - BEFORE - the Netflix, Hulu, Sports subscriptions, and now CBS all access. I have to pick my battles. If I subscribe to everything, including a NYTimes subscription, I won't be able to eat.
That said I might make an exception for ONE MONTH ONLY for Picard.
32
I was in my pre-teens in the 1960s when I first fell in love with Star Trek and for me, even as I've outgrown many things, Star Trek does abide. For me, Star Trek at its best is good-story telling, and at heart, those stories teach that no matter what crises or conflicts or personal failings, no matter the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune life throws at us, we humans are going to make it. Star Trek abides because it says we can abide.
26
@SeattleGuy: I have an older TV without streaming, so there’s an added expense of a streaming device.
3
@Robert Take a look at Roku Express - $24 to turn your dumb TV into a smart TV.
2
@Robert
You don't need a "streamable" television, you can watch these shows on your laptop or desk top computer.
3
@Lynn in DC How? At almost 80, most of this stuff is beyond me. I have loved Star Trek since the very beginning.
1
I was a major fan of the original "Trek" when I was a kid, and of "The Next Generation" some years later. The rather static and boring "DS9" lost me about halfway through the second season, with its tedious and seemingly endless exploration of a fictional religion.
Patrick Stewart got it right when he said that one changes with time— perhaps some things that once fascinated you (like sci-fi adventures) give way to other interests. With these endless spinoffs and reboots of aging franchises, our popular culture is beginning to resemble an old-fashioned phonograph with its needle stuck in one groove of a record, playing the same riff over and over and over again.
The producers must have offered Mr. Stewart quite a substantial paycheck to lure him back after he'd so strongly stated that he'd closed the book on playing Captain Picard.
6
@Rollo Nichols
You are correct about one of the major themes of DS9. That was one of its main points and how it reflects in our lives. However, you gave up too soon.
Once the show hit the 3rd season, much like TNG, it took off. And since it was more or less "landlocked", it was able to focus more and more on character development, and much, much longer story arcs. The beginning of the 5th or 6th season (I think 6th) was a 6 part episode, unheard of for prime time TV (not counting soaps), much less Star Trek. There was a war, which we all know Roddenberry was not a fan of, but they did it right. There was no glory. It was about cause and effect. It was about suffering of the "little people." DS9 is definitely not for everyone, but I found it to be the best series outside of TNG.
28
@Rollo Nichols
They made him executive producer for 8 of the 10 episodes.
1
@Sendero Caribe, AHA!
the Short Trek Chabon wrote was encouraging...people thought now that Star Wars came back that Star Trek could stop being Star Wars, but it hasn't. There is still too much shoot-your-way-out instead of think-your-way-out. Among other moral dilemmas I'd like to see addressed in the new set of shows: if everybody is free and advanced in the federation, then why do we rarely meet anybody who is not under military command?
11
Although I don't have the streaming service, i am happy to see Picard return. And frankly Start Wars is no competition - such a childish collection of movies and the acclaimed special affects were just loud and no competition for much older visions.
14
@MAEC
The supposed ‘acclaimed’ special effects falls flat on its face in Star Wars when the Death Star is seen going through outer space, roaring as it goes. Didn’t anyone tell them there is no sound in space because it’s a vacuum?
4
@SW Of course you are right about the vacuum, but how dull would it be to watch the Death Star doing anything--especially exploding--with no sound?
1
Have loved Star Trek since the 1960's and will sign up for Picard and Discovery.
Also check out The Expanse on Amazon. It is the best!
11
@Keahoukai
The books that The Expanse are based on are even better. I was fortunate to have forgotten about the TV show (which had moved to Amazon by the time I started reading the books), and have gotten through book 6 before I started watching the TV show at all. I'm only 4 episodes in, but it does do a fantastic job of staying with the books, so far. Much better than GoT ever did.
3
"To explore strange, new worlds and seek out new civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before." This is the heart of all Star Trek series and movies. If the writers and producers keep this at the center, all will be well.
47
@SWD It is partly that, yes. I'm an old original "Star Trek" fan. I liked the interplay between the Body (the very physical Captain Kirk), the Mind (the very logical and dry-humored Mr. Spock) and the Spirit (the emotional heart of the show, Dr. McCoy.) I liked the humor, the humanism and the thinly-disguised politics of the original show. It spoke to something deeper and richer and more timeless than subsequent "Star Trek" permutations. That was Gene Roddenberry's genius.
41
I love Star Trek, but putting the series on CBS all access instead of regular tv is cutting off the people who can't afford to buy streaming services. This audience, above all, would be best served by a positive, futuristic program of hope .
I am disappointed, and yet, unsurprised by greed overwhelming all other considerations. Growing up on welfare, I would never have seen Star Trek if it were on a paid basis.
142
@Pat Burns CBS All Access is $6 a month, they offer a free month trial, and you can cancel anytime. I understand people have different financial situations, but this is half the price of a movie ticket and shouldn't price many out of the audience.
12
@SeattleGuy :
You fail to understand @Pat Burns' key point.
Putting this on a streaming service requires not just a $6/month payment (plus tax) but also requires one to keep high-speed internet which costs much more monthly. Not to mention knowing the technical ways of watching a streaming show.
For someone on limited family budgets, especially for children growing up in fractured families who have so little quality science-based education, shows like Star Trek being fully free opens their minds in ways we cannot fathom.
Many families, for example black and latino families, recent immigrants, and single-parent families cannot offer these technologies to their children. In such families, it is unlikely a child will have a smartphone with large broadband plan, let alone high-speed internet at home.
Shows like Star Trek should be aired on fully free airwaves so they can offer social education, hope, and a multicultural (multispecies) atmosphere to children who need to see & experience this daily.
118
@Pat Burns Seattle Guy, you are right in that $6 a month isn't much. However, start adding up the price of all these add ons and now you are talking real money. I had Hulu live until they upped the price by $10 so I dropped it down to their library and now pay $12. I also have Netflix, Acorn and Amazon Prime. AT&T which is the ONLY provider in my area, charges me more for using the net a lot. If I go with unlimited internet, I am back to paying more than if I just go with cable. But then, I am locked into a contract and have to pay for the boxes. So, I won't do it. At least this way, I can cancel any membership at any time. I'm being nibbled to death by ducks.
20
As others have said, Star Trek stands alone in the sci-fi universe in its statement that we—humanity—surmount our differences and work to become a shining example of civilization for the galaxy. In the Star Trek world, disease and famine have been eradicated, and even money is no longer needed. This may seem like fantasy nonsense to fans of the myriad dark, apocalyptic shows out there (why such an obsession with gloom and doom?), but I’d suggest that we NEED a positive view of the future. It’s an ideal to strive for—however far-fetched. And I say this as a fan of the awesome-but-still-depressing sci-fi series “The Expanse,” which like so many other shows, starts with the baseline assumption that we are still greedy, nationalistic, prejudiced and narrow-minded.
56
@Scott Wilkinson : good point. Original Star Trek and ST:NG presented a positive and optimistic view of the future.
That's why the shows are loved for going on 50 years and in continually reruns -- with no sign anybody is tiring of them.
Gloom and doom shows are a dime a dozen, with their "mostly all the same" dystopian visions.
I guess it reflects something about our culture today in 2020 vs. the optimism of the 1960s (though that was never perfect either, obviously).
I can't see anyone enjoying repeat after repeat, for 50 YEARS, of dreary dystopian nightmares.
I'll admit I have not yet seen "The Expanse".
7
Comparing Star Wars and Star Trek is apples and oranges. One is a rinse-and-repeat mythology about heroes and villains where their roles are clear cut. The other is a vast universe of possibilities. I'd site the episode of ST:TNG where the crew is faced with the moral dilemma of being presented with a strategy that would decimate their enemy, the Borg, but would compromise their values as representatives of Star Fleet - Genocide is frowned upon, after all. Star Wars never touched on morality in that way. Star Wars is flashy and entertaining, but it never bothered to ask the big questions that Star Trek has weighed in on through hundreds of episodes now.
265
@OnABicycleBuiltForTwo The most recent set of Starwar trilogy have been soulless and passion-less exercises in greed. Gone are the sense of wonder and adventure. That is why the spin-offs are getting such rave reviews - they have stories with real passion and interests.
14
@OnABicycleBuiltForTwo
Yes, exactly. One of the most brilliant TNG episodes is "Sins of the Father," in which Worf returns to the Klingon homeland to defend his deceased father, who has been accused of treason. During the investigation, it is revealed that the father of a powerful family is the actual culprit. If this were publicly revealed, a civil war would likely erupt and the empire would crumble. So Worf accepts the blame and is excommunicated. He shows more honor than the corrupt powers-that-be by willingly becoming an outcast.
Star Wars would never have a story like this, about politics, betrayal, honor, the decision to keep the status quo for the greater good. Trek, at its best, always dealt with the gray areas.
The trailer for the Picard TV show looks to be a typical "save the world" thriller, which makes sense. Goldman clearly doesn't understand the subtleties of this kind of storytelling. Hopefully I'm wrong.
28
@OnABicycleBuiltForTwo -agreed...Star Wars is great entertainment for teens or adults who have not grown up.
Star Trek is probably the greatest sci fi program ever for adults who speculate about the future and also want to think.
23
Enough with the nostalgia mining and dragging old actors out of retirement for a big paycheck, they already did that with Nimoy in Into Darkness. They even shoehorned Spock and the Enterprise into Discovery season 2 to try to save that clunker.
No more alternate universe movies, or prequel series, make a new show with a new cast set after DS9 and let them explore the universe. Don't make it space Game of Thrones, leave out nudity and swearing, and no more threats trying to destroy the galaxy every episode. Be optimistic explorers with a likeable cast, and take it easy on overusing actors from older series.
19
@SeattleGuy you just described everything that media is not doing--and making bank by not doing it, I should add. I understand where you are coming from--those original series really were "original"--but it appears that audiences today love the reboot, and not the original--perhaps they don't like to have to think too hard.
2
@SeattleGuy I agree with you. Discovery was terrible and I gave up on it after a few episodes. It feels like a sci-fi tv show that they painted with the trappings of Star Trek to dupe people into subscribing to the All Access service. It had no regard for the source material or the ethos that was imbued into the universe.
Dragging back old stars is another example of shoddy / weak writing. I'm hoping that Picard is more in the original vein, but I too would have much preferred a show post DS9 and Voyager, with a likeable cast and good story-writing.
2
@SeattleGuy "Shoehorned Spock and the Enterprise into Discovery season 2", give me a break, the Discovery timeline is set before Kirk assumes command of the Enterprise so it's hardly a stretch that they would cross paths, as a Star Trek fan since the TOS I was delighted to see Christopher Pike, Spock and Number 1 on the Enterprise. Anson Mount was a perfect choice to play Pike and with Spock present they could clear up Burnham's relationship with her Step Brother, that's not "shoehorning", that's storytelling. Spock supposedly served with Captain Pike on the Enterprise for 12 years, I for one would love to see their story told in more depth as a standalone series.
2
I loved Star Trek: The Next Generation and watched it regularly through its run in the nineties. I loved it for its optimism, its faith in the inherent goodness of humanity (or other humanoid life forms) and its belief that when we work together, we can work it out.
But American has changed profoundly since the show's original run. The attacks of 9/11 deeply scarred our country's psyche in a way we're only just now starting to realize. One look at the movies of the past 18+ years shows a world that is much darker, fearful and deeply distrustful of the future.
The Next Generation never shied away from difficult topics, but it always ended on a note of hope - something that seems to be sorely lacking in our PTSD-stricken country. Fingers crossed that Picard can bring a little bit of that optimism back to a world that needs it more than ever.
190
While I loved Next Generation, and am excited to See Patrick Stewart back in action, I'd love to see them build shows from the DS9 platform. DS9 introduced us to so many cultures and added nuance to them. Prior to DS9 every other Star Trek culture, from the Klingons to the Ferengi, to the Romulans were one dimensional. DS9 changed all of that and made these and many other cultures complex, and nuanced -- in other words, real. Besides, I'm dying to see how (if?) Martok and Worf were able to re-shape the Klingon empire.
84
@AP18 Deep Space Nine was the best Star Trek series. Unfortunately, some of its principal actors are no longer with us. And I don't think Michael Dorn wants to put back on the make-up.
But I pray he shows up on Picard.
8
@AP18 I admire SNG as much as anyone else, but I think it is settled that DS9 was the best show by some margin. There were also streaks of VOY that were excellent. People forget how revolutionary that show was in its portrayal of the captain
5
I'm a Trek fan since I watched TOS in the 70's as a teen. Trek always had excellent writers and numerous good ideas. The structure of the Trek universe meant it could explore ideas that Star Wars (essentially an endless battle with one "empire" or another) could not.
Even watched TAS. The animated aspect meant they could explore ideas that a live show could not. More variety.
Enjoyed TNG, DS9, and VOY immensely. STE was a bit of a let down. But, alas, I'll probably not watch STD (wow, that acronym really doesn't work) because it's on CBS All Access and I *refuse* to sign-up for yet another streaming service just to watch one show. Maybe when it hits DVD?
And that's a whole 'nother topic -- the balkanization of TV programming into countless streaming services. sigh...
39
Discovery has been available on disc for a while - both season 1 and 2.
5
@Robert I hear your frustration. But since I "cut the cable" a year ago (canceled my dish subscription, to be specific) I've subscribed to multiple streaming services, and it's giving me plenty of great things to watch and costs less than the dish subscription did. Star Trek Discovery was the main reason I subscribed to CBS All Access, and I'm excited to see how Picard develops as well. I love Star Trek! Currently rewatching DS9, after rewatching TNG :-) Streaming services are the world we're in now, so I'm adapting as best I can, and so far it's been mostly positive. Best wishes for you wherever you journey.
5
@Robert
What many people don’t realize is the Star Trek franchise itself was split up by the endless greed of mergers, acquisitions, and spin-offs of conglomerates.
Both the television and movie divisions belonged to Paramount Studios which itself was bought and sold repeatedly ending up with CBS at Viacom, I believe. Then some idiot in a suit thought the television series and its rights belonged with the legacy television network CBS and sold both off together with CBS, while the movies and movie rights were kept with the traditional movie studio that is Paramount.
Really. Someone boiled the Star Trek franchise down into separate parts for profit.
11
I've been a fan since I was a child and I'm looking forward to this show. It is my hope that they don't overdo it. I like the approach Picard takes and I've really enjoyed the Short Treks. As for value, CBS's streaming service, given what you get, is a pretty good bargain. I would much rather pay for content that I will watch than the bundled 100s of junk channels that that cable offers. I currently buy multiple streaming services and my bill is still way below what I would pay for even basic cable.
9
I would love to watch Picard, but I can't see the value in paying for CBS All Access. All Acess to what? Two decent original shows? Isn't the rest already being broadcast over the air for free? I'm guessing the upcoming Peacock from NBC will be pretty much the same. Sorry. I'm shelling out for Hulu and HBO and Prime and Netflix already in addition to paying for internet service. There are only so many people who are willing to pay for TV, especially for a streaming service that lacks diverse content.
Sorry, CBS. I'm not making it so.
154
@Rick I just switch from one service to the next every couple months, watch the good stuff and move to the next provider. It may seem silly, but saves $$.
28
@Rick
I originally bulked at signing up for CBS All Access. But I really want to see Discovery. On the way I found “The Good Fight” which I think is essential viewing in the age of Trump.
21
@Rick
Exactly right.
CBS is banking on Star Trek to jump start their "me too" pay streaming service.
11
I’m a lifelong fan of Star Trek like millions of others out there. Roddenberry’s vision of humanity’s future resonates even more today I feel than 50 years ago. I just wish CBS didn’t tie the franchise’s fate into its fledgling paid service. CBS is synonymous with Network TV. I can’t get myself to pay extra for a show that rightfully deserves a weekly spot on its flagship network regardless of how much I love Star Trek. Looks like I’ll wait until it’s on Netflix.
116
Big fan, but paying for a streaming service to watch it isn’t worth it. Make these shows accessible. There’s lots of TV out there now. Plenty of good programs without paying more.
50
I love Star Trek. But seriously there are still not enough women or even they in commanding positions. It doesn’t matter Stargate, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, Star Wars, etc.. it’s always white men in power and their stories.
I think we are already for another narrative.
7
@Tar Heel I think you need to expand your Star Trek viewing. Deep Space 9 had Commander Sisko (Avery Brooks) at the helm. Voyager had Capitain Kathryn Janeway (Kate Mulgrew). Star Trek Discovery has Michael Burnham (Sonequa Martin-Green, she's even mentioned in this article and has her picture featured).
Star Trek is also more than "white man stories". It shows also follow all the characters' developments and stories, such has Worf (played by Michael Dorn), or Dr. Bashir (Alexander Siddig) and any other number of characters I don't have time to name, ranging from women to men, from all age groups, ethnicities and species.
You've also missed the mark entirely, because Star Trek is colorblind, and tells the stories of humanity and humanity's struggles for enlightenment, belonging, and cultivation of culture.
72
@Parker Absolutely right. In fact I believe Star Trek has played the PC numbers game as far as it can be or should be played.
2
@Tar Heel
Isn't the captain a woman in Star Trek Discovery?
2
Genre entertainment? You mean like Westerns and Detective/Police shows? Variety shows, Sitcoms? Star Trek was simply a change of location to a new frontier, as it stated in the opening.
@Pank
No, Star Trek wasn’t just a Western with a different setting. Oh, sure, Roddenberry sold it as “Wagon Train to the stars,” but the reality is that Star Trek told stories completely unlike the typical action / adventure show. You could write entire articles detailing how the Original Series and Next Generation explored ideas that other TV shows didn’t.
The sad thing is that when JJ Abrams took over the Trek movies, he said in interviews he didn’t like how intellectual Trek was historically. So he pushed it in the direction of stupid action films instead.
28
@Gus
As witnessed by the shoot-em-up scripts
1
@Gus
So true: the Original Trek had much more in common with Twilight Zone and Outer Limits than it did with Gunsmoke or The Big Valley, or even Lost in Space for that matter. That was what attracted me to it when I was a kid, why I loved TNG during college, and why I won't go anywhere near this new garbage.
If I need a Trek fix I watch Orville — that's how bad it's gotten.
3
I am a huge fan of the original "Star Trek" series. In my humble opinion, I still think it is the best television series ever produced. The writing of the series was excellent. Not one bad episode. Mr. Spock was my favorite character on the original series. I never watched any of the series spinoffs after the original series because there was no Mr. Spock. I started to watch the "Star Trek" movie that J.J. Abrams helmed. The moment that it was revealed that Mr. Spock had a girlfriend in the film, I turned it off and have never watched another "Star Trek" movie (other than the ones with the original cast}. Mr. Spock having a girlfriend was sacrilegious to me. I'll pass on this series too.
7
@susan why was it unacceptable for Spock to have a romantic relationship? He's not a monk, he has friends and family.
I'm a fan of the original series, but I disagree there were no bad episodes. Nimoy and Shatner went on record as being embarrassed by "Spock's Brain."
18
@susan
Oh, come on, “Spock’s Brain” wasn’t at least some delicious shades of campy bad? Bones uttering “His brain is gone” and the alien’s bewildered cry of “Brain and brain, what is Brain?!” Classic.
I’m a bit more expansionist in my deep and everlasting love of most things Trek. Grew up on the original but embraced TNG, DS9, and Voyager as much-needed, engaging, and often thought-provoking reiterations of the original. Enterprise was less solid for me though I loved the intro. Loved all of the movies and even the Kelvin universe movies, though casting Cumberbatch as Khan WAS a big mistake.
Discovery is so far removed from any semblance of the supposed decade before the original series, I couldn’t engage in it all. At least JJ Abrams did his research, consulted with the original actors, and did a superb job in convincing me that they were indeed the same characters in a traumatically changed alternate universe. Discovery did none of that work.
However, Picard is what we need today: an educated, thoughtful, diplomatic leader ready to stand up for the highest ideals of humanity. I’m thrilled he is returning.
As for Spock and Uhuru, he is the child of a human and a Vulcan. Imagining that changes in an alternate timeline might influence his very real yet not as well-expressed in the prime universe emotions towards further exploration with another human is exactly what Star Trek and science fiction is all about. It’s “what if” done pretty well and I loved it.
26
@susan in the original series, wasn't it implied that Spock was a bit of a love-them-and-leave-them? I think Uhura sang a song about it? It was presented in jest, and was before they fully solidified Spock's character, but it's canon :)
2
This series will be an enormous challenge for the writers. They need to look past Roddenberry to Shakespeare's Tempest or Lear for inspiration while keeping something of the familiar (a Vulcan or two)
Give Stewart something to do.
36
@Sendero Caribe
PS--Go Boldly.
3
@Sendero Caribe What a great suggestion.
I remember seeing Patrick Stewart as Oberon in Peter Brooks production of A Midsummer Night's Dream for the Royal Shakespeare Company in the 1970s. He's a Shakespearean actor. A Shakespearean slant on an aging man who is past his glory days would be very appropriate and he could certainly handle it!
5