• The Tavern needs to be a safe place and comply with the law. In the UK the OSA requires us to know the age of our members and posters, and yet the UK Govt. has not provided a method to do this that is affordable to small voluntary BBS like ours. To that end, all members are safe and secure, we know you must be adults by now. However if you wish to join as a member, please contact us using the form at the [very] bottom of the page and we shall do a one to one verifiaction.

Star Trek

Neil Gow

Neil Gow

Demi-God
In case anyone hasn't been told, ST:Disco S4 is being made available to the UK starting tomorrow, with a few interesting wrinkles.

1. It is being shown on Pluto TV, an obscure streaming platform owned by CBS. If you have NowTV you can download it from the App Store for free. Apparently it is also on Fire Sticks etc. Otherwise you can get an app or go to a website (apparently)
2. Tomorrow has a double header and then its one episode a week
3. Episodes are being shown at 9pm on Fridays, and then repeated at 9pm on Saturday and Sunday

and this is the important bit

4. They WILL NOT be available on-demand, for free. You have to sit down at a TV at a specific time, to watch them. Like its the 1990s or something. OK, you have three slots to do this, otherwise you have to pay to get them on Amazon or whatever

So we get it, but in a right fucked about way.
 
I gave up on Discovery after the first few episodes of S1, but I see plenty of people still enjoy it.
Am I missing out, or did it stay with the same sort of tone?
 
With my normal caveat that my opinion of something has little impact on anyone else's, it most definitely had a change of tone! Heavy use of spoilers ahead

Season 1
After the initial nonsense with the Klingons, you have an extended sortie into the Mirro Universe and then the resolution of the Klingon issue. It is like a series of three parts. Oh, and it ends with the arrival of the Enterprise

Season 2
Season 2 has Captain Pike taking over Discovery and the search for the Red Angel and the cause of various issues around the galaxy. Things happen... and it ends with an OTT space battle and everyone yeeting forward to...

Season 3
900 (?) years in the future, where the Federation is on its last legs due to the fallout of something called The Burn. Things happen and the Federation, not shockingly, gets a bit of a rejuvenation

Now, it isn't everyone's cup of tea but I ADORE ST: Disco and have loved every episode. As it moves on, you get more character development for the peripheral characters, and new characters introduced as well.

You, however, might still dislike it? Who knows?!
 
Thanks for indulging a Next Gen trekkie! The fact that you called the Klingons out as "nonsense" gives me a bit of confidence we may be on the same page.
I may try another punt.
 
The messing about they have done with Discovery, followed by this, combined with the fact that I may have grown up (see other post, I know @First Age is not convinced) means I can't be bothered.... watching TV in linear format at a set time, pah!

But thanks for telling us all @Vodkashok
 
For those who are interested, the new season of Strange New Worlds lands on Paramount+ later this week.

I'll probably watch it because I'm hoping they stop treading over old ground by repeating plots, stories, and themes they've used multiple times already, to do something new and original.
 
Can't wait for Strange New Worlds, we love it.
 
The first trailer for Star Trek: Academy has just dropped. I might gives this a watch. However, I'm worried that it will be just another nostalgia fest, frightened to do something new and bold with the franchise.

 
I think something bold is to not use the franchise.
 
After watching the opening episode to the new season of SNW, finding it very disappointing, and then hearing about a shark jumping future planned episode, for now, I’m done with the franchise.

I’m hoping they bring back The Orville for a fourth season.
 
With respect to whether Trek (or Wars, or Who, or Bond, or whatever) can ever be anything other than a 'nostalgia fest', Sean Ferrick on Trek Culture said this recently on a video which touched on Star Trek Legacy.

"There is nothing so new as not to be iterative. Quantum mechanics aside, you can't innovate from the vacuum. After nearly 60 years of incremental variation, Star Trek is now its own inheritance. To move forward is to look back. And in that sense, all Star Trek must be Star Trek Legacy to be Star Trek at all."

I thought it was a very interesting take.
 
Doctor Who and Bond get a soft reboot every time a new actor and/or showrunner takes over. This keeps things fresh and draws viewers back. Star Wars has done well by building on its foundations by bringing in a new generation of fans with each film trilogy. The franchise also has a framework of Disney+ shows that takes viewers from pre-school to mature content like Andor without any gaps in age demographics.

On Paramount+, Star Trek seriously lacks a similar framework.

If you’re aware of the posts I’ve been making about the average age of viewers, Trek has the highest average of the aforementioned at 55, compared to Dr Who (40) and Star Wars (34). Dr Who has the highest number of viewers aged 16-30 on BBC1, which works out to be 24% of the total audience. Trek clearly has an aging audience.

With the obvious exception of Dr Who, which always is in the top 30, a number of Star Wars streaming series have had episodes chart in the BARB top 50. None of the new Trek series has had a single episode in the BARB chart.

I’m of the belief that to get new blood to watch Trek, it needs a series that’s new, innovative, and doesn’t lean into the nostalgia. I agree that Dr Who did fall into the same trap that Trek finds itself now, by a heavy reliance on nostalgia during the Capaldi era. It was during series 9 that we saw the ratings take a dive. I know many of my friends who were casual viewers gave up on Who during that time. Now I’m seeing a similar trend with friends who use to watch Trek religiously.
 
Star Trek: Year One is the name for the proposed follow up to Strange New Worlds. It's about Kirk's first year in command of the Enterprise. Effectively, SNW has become a backdoor for another hard reboot since the Kelvin movies. Come on! Can't you guys at Paramount think of something new to do with the franchise!?

trekmovie.com

‘Strange New Worlds’ Showrunners Have A Name For Follow-Up Star Trek Series Set On Kirk’s Enterprise

They want fans to help pitch the potential show to new Skydance owners.
trekmovie.com trekmovie.com
 
Nathan said:
Doctor Who and Bond get a soft reboot every time a new actor and/or showrunner takes over. This keeps things fresh and draws viewers back. Star Wars has done well by building on its foundations by bringing in a new generation of fans with each film trilogy. The franchise also has a framework of Disney+ shows that takes viewers from pre-school to mature content like Andor without any gaps in age demographics.

On Paramount+, Star Trek seriously lacks a similar framework.
Click to expand...

Except it sort of does.

Star Trek: Prodigy was the kids version, like Star Wars: Resistance
Star Trek: Lower Decks was a 'cool' (definitions of cool may vary) show with an eye to a more comedic tone.
Star Trek: Picard was definitely aimed at the older viewer
Star Trek: Discovery was eventually something pushing the franchise to a new, farther, frontier.
Star Trek: Strange New Worlds is a sort of rework of older trek with modern effects and storytelling
Star Trek: Section 31 (remember that) even tried a Mission Impossible style schtick.

It's not Andor, but the Trek output of the last few years has never been monotone. Possibly one of the problems is that the aging vocal fanbase only really want one of those threads. (Picard)
Nathan said:
With the obvious exception of Dr Who, which always is in the top 30, a number of Star Wars streaming series have had episodes chart in the BARB top 50. None of the new Trek series has had a single episode in the BARB chart.
Click to expand...

I would respectfully suggest that this has a lot to do with the Disney+ having double the subs (7.5m, O2, 2025) in the UK, compared to Paramount+ (3.1m, Q1, 2025). A lot, but not all, admittedly!

Nathan said:
I’m of the belief that to get new blood to watch Trek, it needs a series that’s new, innovative, and doesn’t lean into the nostalgia. I agree that Dr Who did fall into the same trap that Trek finds itself now, by a heavy reliance on nostalgia during the Capaldi era. It was during series 9 that we saw the ratings take a dive. I know many of my friends who were casual viewers gave up on Who during that time. Now I’m seeing a similar trend with friends who use to watch Trek religiously.
Click to expand...

I think that's the point Ferrick is making. To be a Star Trek show, you have to reference Star Trek, You cannot be a 'new' Trek anything, without riffing off what Trek is already. Even Andor, blessed TV show that it is, riffed off Rogue One, which riffed off the Skywalker Saga.

A whole new show 'set in the X universe' only makes itself set in that universe by having the trappings of that universe draped around it.

To make a hypothetical, if they did a Dr Who spin off, but it just involved alien investigators, but none of the aliens were recognisable Who aliens, no mention of time travel was made, none of the characters were linked to the main Dr Who series, there were no cameos, no call backs, no UNIT, nothing - would it even be a Dr Who spin off?

Where Andor succeeded is that it was set in the Star Wars universe, but managed to stay as far away from the Skywalker Saga as possible. Notably, almost no references to the Force or Jedi! To do the same for Star Trek would mean a series almost certainly not on a Starfleet ship/station, and not a Star Fleet crew. I'm not 100% sure that's still 'Star Trek' at that point.
 
Neil Gow said:
Except it sort of does.

Star Trek: Prodigy was the kids version, like Star Wars: Resistance
Star Trek: Lower Decks was a 'cool' (definitions of cool may vary) show with an eye to a more comedic tone.
Star Trek: Picard was definitely aimed at the older viewer
Star Trek: Discovery was eventually something pushing the franchise to a new, farther, frontier.
Star Trek: Strange New Worlds is a sort of rework of older trek with modern effects and storytelling
Star Trek: Section 31 (remember that) even tried a Mission Impossible style schtick.

It's not Andor, but the Trek output of the last few years has never been monotone. Possibly one of the problems is that the aging vocal fanbase only really want one of those threads. (Picard)
Click to expand...

Except it doesn't. When I'm talking about the framework, it's about the age demographics, and not about the type of shows. Practically all the new Star Trek series have been clearly aimed at the existing fan base.

The problem with Prodigy, there wasn't many under 18s watching it. The biggest demographic was men aged 18-34. It also suffered from really poor ratings on Netflix, which lead to the streamer dropping the series. The other issue was despite being an introductory series to the Trek universe, it relied heavily on continuity and nostalgia to drive it. Having characters like Janeway, Chakotay, the Doctor, and Wesley Crusher as main characters, the new, younger viewers wouldn't recognise them or care about their backstories. They're not likely to go away and watch Voyager afterwards.

With Star Wars Rebels, they had new characters to begin with, and only later did the series have guest cameos from recognisable characters, but only for a few episodes. In later seasons, Thrawn became the only established character to return. However, he was from the expanded media, so those who had watched other series and movies were unlikely to be aware to who he was.

Neil Gow said:
To make a hypothetical, if they did a Dr Who spin off, but it just involved alien investigators, but none of the aliens were recognisable Who aliens, no mention of time travel was made, none of the characters were linked to the main Dr Who series, there were no cameos, no call backs, no UNIT, nothing - would it even be a Dr Who spin off?
Click to expand...

A spin off usually has a recognisable supporting character or two from the parent show to lead it. Captain Jack in Torchwood or Miles O'Brian in DS9 are both prime examples. What's more, a spin-off is completely different to a reboot. A reboot takes recognisable leading characters and recasts them. Strange New Worlds was a spin-off to start with, but it later became a backdoor reboot - the second in the space of a decade, if you count the Kelvin timeline movies.

Neil Gow said:
Where Andor succeeded is that it was set in the Star Wars universe, but managed to stay as far away from the Skywalker Saga as possible. Notably, almost no references to the Force or Jedi! To do the same for Star Trek would mean a series almost certainly not on a Starfleet ship/station, and not a Star Fleet crew. I'm not 100% sure that's still 'Star Trek' at that point.
Click to expand...

Like the MCU, Star Wars has done well to create a wide range of shows for the various demographics. We've had Skeleton Crew aimed at a family audience with younger children, with no connections to the Skywalker saga. The Mandalorian, which is a show for the wider family, and an indirect sequel to the Return of the Jedi. The Acolyte that attempted to try and do something new, aimed at the 18-34 demographic, and was far removed from the Skywalker saga as possible. Ahsoka was made for fans of the animated series such as The Clone Wars and Rebels. Obi Wan Kenobi series was for fans of the prequel era trilogy, who had been calling for a stand alone movie for years. Whilst Andor was for the older, mature people who were probably fans of the original trilogy or Rogue One.

Prodigy was aimed at a younger audience, whilst Discovery was initially aimed at 18-34 year olds, before the silly fan backlash. Lower Decks maybe a cartoon, but it's certainly not a family show. However, Picard, Strange New Worlds, Section 31 were clearly aimed at older, established fans of the franchise.

Neil Gow said:
I would respectfully suggest that this has a lot to do with the Disney+ having double the subs (7.5m, O2, 2025) in the UK, compared to Paramount+ (3.1m, Q1, 2025). A lot, but not all, admittedly!
Click to expand...

That's a fair point. However, when Amazon Prime had Picard and Netflix had Discovery, neither series were ratings winners compared to other streaming series on those platforms. Despite both having larger potential audiences, neither were a draw for viewers.
 
I'd like to see something low tech, grungy, non Federation.
 
I think people like different things, right?

I'll hoover up any Trek I can find, even if it operates in a standard operating system... while Dr Who can get in the bin with any other Blue Peter sci fi series. I'm happy for anyone else who can deal with flying wheely bins to enjoy it, but it's not for me. But I'll happily watch Klingons get a bit aggressively emotional till the cows come home. Ratings schmatings!
 
An episode of Doctor Who may cost only half the money of a modern Star trek episode, but you wouldn't have guessed that would be the case with the recent, high production values. The series has thrived on being low budget ever since its conception, and that's part of the charm. But does having a lower budget derail the storytelling in a Sci-Fi show? Absolutely not.

Babylon 5 had some terrific story telling, in my opinion, better than Trek, and on half the budget. However, it was budget constraints that forced writers on Dr Who and B5 to come up with complicated, thought provoking, imaginative television, rather than write the spectacular week in, week out. I will admit there were some great thought provoking Trek episodes throughout the years, but overall I found the writing to be very much rinse and repeat, with what a lot of "filler" episodes.
 
This thread appears to have drifted from "where to watch star trek" into "why star trek is rubbish" which is a shame.

Different people like different things, whatever ratings say. For me, Babylon 5 is also rubbish, especially the man with the triangle hair. Still better than Dr Who though 🤷

Anyway, an excellent reminder for me to watch some more Trek. Maybe even finally get a STA AP recorded. You'll find that really easy to locate for a watch when we finally get round to it.
 
I can't say I love Trek any less. I still sneak in a TOS episode or three now and then, enjoy Andor and I have idle thoughts of a DS9 rewatch when I finish my B5 rewatch. Indeed it's the same with Who, I watch it all and dip into the archives now and then. My first genre love was probably crime, but SF surpassed it in my tweens, and frankly I can glean joy in all of the Quadrology of Wars-Trek-Who-B5.

However, like all series, there are lumps of coal amongst the diamonds and the rubble. I can shrug and move on. Even a duff story may contain an idea or a performance or a staging that brings delight.

But... None of it is as good as reading science fiction.. IMHO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top