Kurtzman intentionally killed Legacy?

[fireproof78]

There was no real reason why she would have kept him secret from Picard. It would have been easier if they'd had an adult conversation and mutually decided that Beverly would raise him alone.

This. This right here. Even in TWOK Kirk acknowledges that they had a conversation and Kirk "stayed away." That's the mature thing to do. That's the adult thing to do.

Picard Season 3 has its strengths, but this choice is not one of them. Picard and Beverly have a friendship that has enough of a foundation that they could be honest with each other. They could do with a heart to heart over what Beverly needs, and what Picard is willing to do because he loves her so much. There is so much there that would make more sense from both characters point of view.

Instead, it repeats a rather often used trope that father doesn't know about his kid, and basically is told "you have no rights" in this situation. Regardless of Crusher's fears, she isn't so insensitive to say that to Picard. So, it removes agency from a character who is by and large a character I'm used to having a lot of agency.

The reality is that the plot of the season is essentially a rehash of PIC S1, bulked out with other greatest hits from Treks gone by. But it make us fans feel good because it had familiar characters, familiar ships and the other trappings of 90s Star Trek. That's fine, I was a fan who felt good watching it, but I'm not blind to what they did and why it made me feel how it did.

Indeed. It was a warm feeling of familiarity, but didn't offer much new. It even ended the same way that TNG did with All Good Things.

It has its great high points, but it isn't truly progressing in a way that I think is enough to make up the deficits. It relies on familiar enemies and motivations (revenge) that are often considered poor. It relies on Jack's mystery ailment, and makes him a criminal for drama. Shaw is an asshole because...

There is not as much positive in Season 3 as I think the feelings try to tell us there is.

 

[Dukhat]

She says it in the scene that we are discussing. The one you have watched and we are discussing. It is a five minute scene. I have brought it up multiple times.

Are you serious right now? Blocked for trolling. My head is cheddared, you've just spent an hour whinging about a scene you haven't even watched and refuse to watch. Is this how you get your kicks?

You mean it was mentioned in the show where I repeatedly asked you to provide the dialogue to and you didn't? That's on you, dude.

 

[Phily B]

Lad, I engaged you in good faith assuming you had watched the scene and you're not blaming me cause I won't give you the script to the fucking scene while you're also confidently talking about said scene you haven't actually watched cause you keep telling me to show it.

Fucking hell. I thought Reddit was bad, but you lot take the piss.

 

[Tomalak]

Voyager was a beat for beat continuation of TNG wasn't it? Picard set the stage for an interesting concept in many ways and they decided to throw it out of the window for Section 31 and SFA.

I think it often became that, but that wasn't inevitable from the premise. For all its faults, Voyager, like TNG before it, had an entirely new cast with no links to previous Treks except for the Maquis concept. It could have gone anywhere, but the studio wanted TNG: II.

Whereas the next series, ENT, was inherently a backward-looking prequel from conception, which is something Star Trek hadn't done before. And now arguably all they do is backward-looking stuff to one extent or another, I guess because they know it will make the fans watch.

Going back to the OP, in that context it's actually surprising to me that they haven't greenlit Star Trek: Legacy. It would be the easiest possible sell to the existing fanbase. They already did it with SNW, they did it tenfold with Lower Decks, and they sold us all Prodigy with Kate Mulgrew. I'd watch Legacy, and I'd probably enjoy it like I did all those shows.

Which suggests that selling the same product to the dwindling fanbase who post on Star Trek message boards like we have done since the 1990s isn't enough any more. Somehow they need to bring in fresh blood, and another TNG sequel may not do that. I don't know if the decisions they are making will do that, but I can appreciate they have got to try, and it's what they are paid for. I remain pretty sceptical that SFA will catch on with a whole new generation and refresh the fanbase, but I hope it does.

If it fails, I guess they always have the Legacy concept (such as it is) in their back pocket to shake us down for more P+ subs when the time comes.

 

[fireproof78]

Going back to the OP, in that context it's actually surprising to me that they haven't greenlit Star Trek: Legacy. It would be the easiest possible sell to the existing fanbase. They already did it with SNW, they did it tenfold with Lower Decks, and they sold us all Prodigy with Kate Mulgrew. I'd watch Legacy, and I'd probably enjoy it like I did all those shows.

Well, these shows take time, contracts take time, and the whole Skydance buyout is probably putting these things on a bit of small hold in their consideration. After the Aquisition is done then Skydance will set its priorities and see if Paramount can make money without all the measures they've been taking of late.

 

[Phily B]

I think it often became that, but that wasn't inevitable from the premise. For all its faults, Voyager, like TNG before it, had an entirely new cast with no links to previous Treks except for the Maquis concept. It could have gone anywhere, but the studio wanted TNG: II

I think they straight up named it as TNG Season 8 in the production but that could be an urban legend.

Whereas the next series, ENT, was inherently a backward-looking prequel from conception, which is something Star Trek hadn't done before. And now arguably all they do is backward-looking stuff to one extent or another, I guess because they know it will make the fans watch.

In my opinion, Enterprise's biggest failing was that it did all the prequel stuff as a marketing exercise and in actual fact they just changed the names of stuff around. They talk about limited tech, but ultimately it was the same with a different name. They even kept transporters and phasers around. It was so lazy. It's insane to think that BSG 2003 was only a year or two later.

Going back to the OP, in that context it's actually surprising to me that they haven't greenlit Star Trek: Legacy. It would be the easiest possible sell to the existing fanbase. They already did it with SNW, they did it tenfold with Lower Decks, and they sold us all Prodigy with Kate Mulgrew. I'd watch Legacy, and I'd probably enjoy it like I did all those shows.

This is why there has been negativity in the fanbase, it has felt like people were just straight up ignored. The petitions and demand was more than SNW, the social media buzz was very positive even amongst the YTers who peddle negativity.

Which suggests that selling the same product to the dwindling fanbase who post on Star Trek message boards like we have done since the 1990s isn't enough any more. Somehow they need to bring in fresh blood, and another TNG sequel may not do that. I don't know if the decisions they are making will do that, but I can appreciate they have got to try, and it's what they are paid for. I remain pretty sceptical that SFA will catch on with a whole new generation and refresh the fanbase, but I hope it does.

If it fails, I guess they always have the Legacy concept (such as it is) in their back pocket to shake us down for more P+ subs when the time comes.

My problem is they are appealing to an audience that simply isn't interested. You don't change the fundamentals of what made Trek popular in the first place, then add in a dash of "teen drama" . It feels like they are once again chasing the trend and not going with what works. Trek is never going to be a mega franchise but you get the impression that's what they want.

 

[Tomalak]

This is why there has been negativity in the fanbase, it has felt like people were just straight up ignored. The petitions and demand was more than SNW, the social media buzz was very positive even amongst the YTers who peddle negativity.

Sure, I get that. But it's also a different environment and market. SNW was commissioned when the sky was the limit and CBS wanted new Trek all year-round. We're not there any more.

My problem is they are appealing to an audience that simply isn't interested. You don't change the fundamentals of what made Trek popular in the first place, then add in a dash of "teen drama" . It feels like they are once again chasing the trend and not going with what works. Trek is never going to be a mega franchise but you get the impression that's what they want.

Yes, that's my fear. But we don't know what the underlying numbers are looking like. If it's not possible to grow the audience, there may be no more Star Trek.

Well, these shows take time, contracts take time, and the whole Skydance buyout is probably putting these things on a bit of small hold in their consideration. After the Aquisition is done then Skydance will set its priorities and see if Paramount can make money without all the measures they've been taking of late.

I definitely think that's a factor, and that there could be some movement on a Legacy-like show that tickles the tummies of the fanbase. Most likely after SNW ends, perhaps after its fifth season.

 

[Dukhat]

Lad, I engaged you in good faith assuming you had watched the scene and you're not blaming me cause I won't give you the script to the fucking scene while you're also confidently talking about said scene you haven't actually watched cause you keep telling me to show it.

Fucking hell. I thought Reddit was bad, but you lot take the piss.

Funny, I thought you said you 'blocked me for trolling.' Either way, if you can't back up your opinions with the dialogue I repeatedly asked you to post, then your opinion has no more weight than mine does.

 

[Phily B]

Yes, that's my fear. But we don't know what the underlying numbers are looking like. If it's not possible to grow the audience, there may be no more Star Trek.

The obsession with chasing growth at any cost is a hugely negative aspect of modern society tbh. I think the approach taken with Section 31 and SFA reflects this. Yeoh was the flavour of the month for a while, so rush through the movie. SFA smacks of them seeing Wednesday and running with that.

You could even argue Lower Decks too. I simply don't see it, Star Wars made a big push with young girls and while it worked, it barely made a dent on larger scales.

 

[Tomalak]

The obsession with chasing growth at any cost is a hugely negative aspect of modern society tbh. I think the approach taken with Section 31 and SFA reflects this. Yeoh was the flavour of the month for a while, so rush through the movie. SFA smacks of them seeing Wednesday and running with that.

You could even argue Lower Decks too. I simply don't see it, Star Wars made a big push with young girls and while it worked, it barely made a dent on larger scales.

I would agree, but there's "chasing growth" for a bigger slice of an increasingly large pie, and there's fighting to keep hold of the dwindling small slice you have.

Star Trek isn't Star Wars, they had much less to start with. But it's one of Paramount's only reliable IPs, so they will have to try.

 

[HotRod]

Picard set the stage for an interesting concept

Did it? That may be your opinion, but it isn't mine. Everything I've heard about this concept makes it sound like absolutely nothing but a nostalgia fest, tribute to Berman-era Trek. I'm afraid we already have that tribute. It's called The Orville.*

The petitions and demand was more than SNW,

It was a much different time when SNW was ordered. The series was pretty much I'm pre-production before anyone in the public even saw Anson Mount as Pike. When they built the Bridge for the Enterprise, is was built in a far more permanent fashion than if had been just another disposable set. This is the opposite of what happened with the Titan-A bridge set, which was destroyed immediately after filming. SNW had the headstart of a massively expense Bridge set already being built and in Toronto.

the social media buzz was very positive even amongst the YTers who peddle negativity.

Yes, because those are the types of fans they should be appealing to.

You don't change the fundamentals of what made Trek popular in the first place,

And when have they done that? Besides Section 31, which could be argued. Nevermind that no one has seen any footage of SFA, so I don't know how anyone can judge it as being fundamentally different from popular Star Trek.

then add in a dash of "teen drama" .

Why not? The franchise desperately needs young blood.

Trek is never going to be a mega franchise but you get the impression that's what they want.

I think they just want it to survive beyond the current generation of fans.

I think the approach taken with Section 31 and SFA reflects this.

How do you know what approach they are taking with SFA? Are you involved in the production?

SFA smacks of them seeing Wednesday and running with that.

Pretty sure SFA was greenlit before Wednesday even aired.


*That one's for @Jayson1

 

[Tomalak]

Did it? That may be your opinion, but it isn't mine. Everything I've heard about this concept makes it sound like absolutely nothing but a nostalgia fest, tribute to Berman-era Trek. I'm afraid we already have that tribute. It's called The Orville.*

Yes, it’s rather generous to call it a concept when it amounts to Star Trek adventures on the USS Enterprise with some familiar characters. But that’s also why it caught on strongly with some fans, because it allows them to protect their own desires onto it.

I think the most simple reason why it’s not been made is that they already have that show in SNW. That’s also why I don’t think it’s impossible that there will be some movement once SNW comes to an end and Paramount wants to look at a new USS Enterprise show.

 

[Dukhat]

That’s also why I don’t think it’s impossible that there will be some movement once SNW comes to an end and Paramount wants to look at a new USS Enterprise show.

I'd just as soon they didn't do that. Because the last time they did something like that (VOY), it was just a different ship and a different crew doing the same things that a previous show did. Having a show about a crew on an Enterprise end only to make a new show about another crew on another Enterprise seems counterproductive to me, especially since most of the shows look similar no matter what time period they take place in. At least with the SFA concept, the story isn't tied down so specifically to that trope.

 

[Tomalak]

I'd just as soon they didn't do that. Because the last time they did something like that (VOY), it was just a different ship and a different crew doing the same things that a previous show did. Having a show about a crew on an Enterprise end only to make a new show about another crew on another Enterprise seems counterproductive to me, especially since most of the shows look similar no matter what time period they take place in. At least with the SFA concept, the story isn't tied down so specifically to that trope.

I agree, but I think it's what they probably will do, because some suit at Paramount or Skydance or whoever will say that Star Trek’s gotta have an Enterprise show.

 

[Phily B]

Did it? That may be your opinion, but it isn't mine. Everything I've heard about this concept makes it sound like absolutely nothing but a nostalgia fest, tribute to Berman-era Trek. I'm afraid we already have that tribute. It's called The Orville.*

This isn't the concept it sets up. Even from what we've heard, it in no way follows Berman Trek.

It was a much different time when SNW was ordered. The series was pretty much I'm pre-production before anyone in the public even saw Anson Mount as Pike. When they built the Bridge for the Enterprise, is was built in a far more permanent fashion than if had been just another disposable set. This is the opposite of what happened with the Titan-A bridge set, which was destroyed immediately after filming. SNW had the headstart of a massively expense Bridge set already being built and in Toronto.

This is just more examples of mismanagement and short term vision, I personally don't think they ever going to greenlight a Matalas led Trek Legacy series no matter what and hearing about the immediate destruction of sets doesn't fill me with confidence.

And when have they done that? Besides Section 31, which could be argued. Nevermind that no one has seen any footage of SFA, so I don't know how anyone can judge it as being fundamentally different from popular Star Trek.

I will direct you to comments from Kurtzman about Starfleet Academy not being focused on "the good days of the Federation" because you need to relate the youth of today where everything is shit and doomer.

Why not? The franchise desperately needs young blood.

Star Trek has always found an audience and that involves many young people who grew up on the same Star Trek that adults were watching. You just need to make the stories engaging, you do not need to turn it into a teen drama. PRODIGY appeals to both ages with a focus on kids. They have already tried it with JJ Abrams, they made good movies, they did just "ok".

How do you know what approach they are taking with SFA? Are you involved in the production?

See above.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Blocked for trolling.

FYI, it's a longstanding policy in these parts that announcing that you've put someone on Ignore is itself a form of trolling. If you're going to put someone on Ignore, just do it, don't keep bringing it up in the threads.

 

[Phily B]

FYI, it's a longstanding policy in these parts that announcing that you've put someone on Ignore is itself a form of trolling. If you're going to put someone on Ignore, just do it, don't keep bringing it up in the threads.

So is trolling, yet a guy just spent a bunch of time arguing about a scene without actually watching the scene to the point where he was asking me to provide him the most basic of details of said scene.

That ones in the rules isn't it?

 

[The Old Mixer]

He's not obligated to watch the scene. That's not trolling.

 

[Phily B]

He's not obligated to watch the scene. That's not trolling.

He is arguing over a scene that he hasn't watched, admits he hasn't watched, refuses to watch knowing I am engaging in good faith.

And he is part of the dogpile from the other forum.

Personally, I would like to know why he is invested in arguing about a scene he hasn't watched a day after they're in the other place coordinating a dogpile.

Just a concidence.

 

[The Old Mixer]

If you feel that someone is arguing in bad faith, and your method for dealing with them is to put them on Ignore, then you're right to do so. Just do it and move on.