Star Trek: Section 31 ... THE MOVIE

If Paramount had been paying attention, they would have given us "Strange New Worlds" in the first place.
I don't think that's really a reasonable attitude, because I think SNW was quite difficult to work out - it wasn't just some format that had been widely requested prior to Discovery.

On the direct contrary, we hadn't had an actual Star Trek TV series for 13 years when Discovery came out. 13 years in which television changed hugely, from a situation where episodic shows were normal, when ENT started, to the "Prestige TV" era by the time Discovery started. During that time, what audiences accepted and were interested in seemed to change absolutely hugely.

Discovery wasn't quite what it needed to be, but I can see, logically, where they thought they were coming from in a "Prestige TV"-era Trek show. And when Discovery launched, people were absolutely advocating for a non-episodic Trek show, and for heavy continuity and so on. And the expectation, after intervening successful "Prestige TV" SF shows, that audiences would want something darker and more action-oriented than previous Trek shows was not an entirely invalid one.

What I'm saying is, SNW just wouldn't have gotten made in 2017. It wouldn't have happened. The money wouldn't have been there. Kurtzman et al could have absolutely advocating for it, saying it was what people wanted, but it wouldn't have happened.

There's a reason why S2 of Disco was essentially a backdoor pilot for SNW, and that's that it took the reaction to S1 of Disco, and the realization that there was demand for a more positive, bright-hearted, more old-Trek-like (but still more action-y) Trek series.

Also there's the Michael issue, which was that Disco piled way too much on to Michael's character:

1) She's the focus of the show, for no apparent reason, and all previous Trek shows focused around the captain/leader (though all except TOS were kind of ensemble pieces and TOS wasn't far off).

2) She's Spock's human sister, which is kind of a big, and initially very random-seeming deal, and which hamstrung the actor in S1 because she was initially clearly being directed to like "act like a human trying to be a Vulcan", something they later largely gave up on, and once they did, things improved.

3) She was a young-ish Black woman in an era when the chuds of the world were really doing everything they could to drag down any non-white male characters (leading to the famously insane "Star Trek has gone woke!" stuff, like wth do you think TOS and TNG were doing, mate?).

4) She's called Michael and it's never explained. Like, yeah you can have a masc name, but you're clearly femme as hell, so what's that about?

If they had removed any one of 1, 2 and 3, like say, made her in charge of scout ship (or even a full-size ship but she's seen as a sort of prodigy), so it made sense to focus on her, or made her just a human, not Spock's rando sister, I think that would really have helped how the show was received, though it might have caused people to focus more of some of the other weaknesses.

And actually Michael is representative of Disco's S1/S2 issues in general re: "having way too much going on".

But anyway they learned from Disco and SNW only took so long to get here because of the pandemic, I think.

Here's the UK version of the trailer - for me @Umbran's one shows "video unavailable" so I suspect there may be some geo-blocking going on in a weird way. I've noticed recently Youtube isn't always saying "Video not available in your region", which is extremely annoying.

 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

If Paramount had been paying attention, they would have given us "Strange New Worlds" in the first place.
Not really. Everyone "in charge" was die hard set on the "diversity inclusion" spin on Star Trek to be 100% different then all the other five shows. The same way they were dead set on being a "prequel" to TOS and doing the Star Trek "Andromeda" Fall of the Federation.

Same way "everyone" has been dead set on doing Star Trek: Hogwarts 90210 and "ho no, who will the space foot ball quarterback take to space prom". And that will happen...
 

Ryujin

Legend
I don't think that's really a reasonable attitude, because I think SNW was quite difficult to work out - it wasn't just some format that had been widely requested prior to Discovery.

On the direct contrary, we hadn't had an actual Star Trek TV series for 13 years when Discovery came out. 13 years in which television changed hugely, from a situation where episodic shows were normal, when ENT started, to the "Prestige TV" era by the time Discovery started. During that time, what audiences accepted and were interested in seemed to change absolutely hugely.

Discovery wasn't quite what it needed to be, but I can see, logically, where they thought they were coming from in a "Prestige TV"-era Trek show. And when Discovery launched, people were absolutely advocating for a non-episodic Trek show, and for heavy continuity and so on. And the expectation, after intervening successful "Prestige TV" SF shows, that audiences would want something darker and more action-oriented than previous Trek shows was not an entirely invalid one.

What I'm saying is, SNW just wouldn't have gotten made in 2017. It wouldn't have happened. The money wouldn't have been there. Kurtzman et al could have absolutely advocating for it, saying it was what people wanted, but it wouldn't have happened.

There's a reason why S2 of Disco was essentially a backdoor pilot for SNW, and that's that it took the reaction to S1 of Disco, and the realization that there was demand for a more positive, bright-hearted, more old-Trek-like (but still more action-y) Trek series.

Also there's the Michael issue, which was that Disco piled way too much on to Michael's character:

1) She's the focus of the show, for no apparent reason, and all previous Trek shows focused around the captain/leader (though all except TOS were kind of ensemble pieces and TOS wasn't far off).

2) She's Spock's human sister, which is kind of a big, and initially very random-seeming deal, and which hamstrung the actor in S1 because she was initially clearly being directed to like "act like a human trying to be a Vulcan", something they later largely gave up on, and once they did, things improved.

3) She was a young-ish Black woman in an era when the chuds of the world were really doing everything they could to drag down any non-white male characters (leading to the famously insane "Star Trek has gone woke!" stuff, like wth do you think TOS and TNG were doing, mate?).

4) She's called Michael and it's never explained. Like, yeah you can have a masc name, but you're clearly femme as hell, so what's that about?

If they had removed any one of 1, 2 and 3, like say, made her in charge of scout ship (or even a full-size ship but she's seen as a sort of prodigy), so it made sense to focus on her, or made her just a human, not Spock's rando sister, I think that would really have helped how the show was received, though it might have caused people to focus more of some of the other weaknesses.

And actually Michael is representative of Disco's S1/S2 issues in general re: "having way too much going on".

But anyway they learned from Disco and SNW only took so long to get here because of the pandemic, I think.

Here's the UK version of the trailer - for me @Umbran's one shows "video unavailable" so I suspect there may be some geo-blocking going on in a weird way. I've noticed recently Youtube isn't always saying "Video not available in your region", which is extremely annoying.

Paramount had been put directly on notice that at least some people wanted a more nostalgic type of Trek, when an independent film company managed to bring in more than $2M, through voluntary donations, to produce a nostalgic Trek series. I thin the totals were closer to $3M IIRC, between both the Kickstarter and Indiegogo campaigns, but the quoted $2M was likely actual funding after deductions by the hosting sites. No one can claim that they didn't know about it, as they actively sued those producers. There are more than rumours that the lawsuit was at least in part due to Paramount having immediate plans to produce their own series fell somewhere between the time period of "Enterprise" and TOS, which turned out to be "Discovery."

"Enterprise" only really started to get many more positive comments when they started down the road to the formation of the UFP which is what everyone I spoke to had been expecting from the show, before it finally aired.

So yeah, they need to pay more attention.
 

Ryujin

Legend
Not really. Everyone "in charge" was die hard set on the "diversity inclusion" spin on Star Trek to be 100% different then all the other five shows. The same way they were dead set on being a "prequel" to TOS and doing the Star Trek "Andromeda" Fall of the Federation.

Same way "everyone" has been dead set on doing Star Trek: Hogwarts 90210 and "ho no, who will the space foot ball quarterback take to space prom". And that will happen...
Doing a nostalgic Trek doesn't preclude diversity, as "Strange New Worlds" shows.
 

Paramount had been put directly on notice that at least some people wanted a more nostalgic type of Trek, when an independent film company managed to bring in more than $2M, through voluntary donations, to produce a nostalgic Trek series. I thin the totals were closer to $3M IIRC, between both the Kickstarter and Indiegogo campaigns, but the quoted $2M was likely actual funding after deductions by the hosting sites. No one can claim that they didn't know about it, as they actively sued those producers. There are more than rumours that the lawsuit was at least in part due to Paramount having immediate plans to produce their own series fell somewhere between the time period of "Enterprise" and TOS, which turned out to be "Discovery."

"Enterprise" only really started to get many more positive comments when they started down the road to the formation of the UFP which is what everyone I spoke to had been expecting from the show, before it finally aired.

So yeah, they need to pay more attention.
I don't agree at all.

They hadn't been "put on notice", because that was fan nonsense, and actual hardcore "Trek fans" (way more hardcore than me) of that kind are like less than 1% of the people who actually watch Trek shows. Further, they trend pretty old, which is not an ideal audience to target.

And ENT was 100% irrelevant, because:

A) It didn't get "more positive comments" because of the formation of the Federation, that's an absolute joke. It got more positive comments because the writing got better because Manny Coto took over as showrunner (from Berman & Braga).

B) That was an entirely different era of television, where things worked completely differently.

So yeah, you're absolutely grasping at straws there. There was no way anyone could have got SNW made in 2017. Even on Trek forums, it was absolute NOT the kind of show most people were proposing that should be made next. The vast majority of people were just suggesting TNG follow-ups. They still are!
 

MGibster

Legend
"Enterprise" only really started to get many more positive comments when they started down the road to the formation of the UFP which is what everyone I spoke to had been expecting from the show, before it finally aired.
We all wanted more Temporal Cold War! Give the people what they want!
 

Doing a nostalgic Trek doesn't preclude diversity, as "Strange New Worlds" shows.
Well remember everyone defines words differently.

There is a big difference between:

*The main cast member is a well rounded developed named character that is part of the story and plays at least a small part of the shows ensemble cast in nearly every episode.

And

*We hired a non binary actor to play an non binary character that is in love with their "ghost/memory" partner, and they will both will be in every couple of episodes to say a line or two."
 

Vael

Legend
Such revisionist history. SNW came out of S2 Discovery, that's where the core 3 actors were cast and it was their obvious chemistry plus the fact that Discovery was a success that made SNW possible. I'll never claim the show was perfect, it was experimental, and that's what allowed for the present diversity of Trek content.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
Well remember everyone defines words differently.

If you don't define them similarly to your audience, you will not be able to communicate.

*We hired a non binary actor to play an non binary character that is in love with their "ghost/memory" partner, and they will both will be in every couple of episodes to say a line or two."

When you say this, I have to wonder what show you were watching, because that does not accurately represent what I saw.

I gave up on Disco. Disco has some issues, no argument. But those issues have nothing to do with their choice to lean into diversity.
 

Dire Bare

Legend
Such revisionist history. SNW came out of S2 Discovery, that's where the core 3 actors were cast and it was their obvious chemistry plus the fact that Discovery was a success that made SNW possible. I'll never claim the show was perfect, it was experimental, and that's what allowed for the present diversity of Trek content.
Yup.

Discovery isn't every Trekkie's cup of tea, and that's fine. But to pretend "everyone knows" it's subpar is to ignore reality. Discovery has been a well-regarded and successful show, all four seasons so far.

The show has had its issues. And, like EVERY TREK SHOW EVER, hardcore fans get all bent out of shape if Klingons look different or technology looks slicker than TOS (etc, etc) . . . but the show is good and has lots more folks who enjoy it than those who don't.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top