Here comes another unpopular opinion. Nerd alert! Nerd alert! I've just been reading YouTube comments on a fan-made critique of a recent Star Trek Short Treks piece from earlier this season. The Short Trek was about the man who gene-spliced the tribble into the born-pregnant "trouble" that made it legendary: a geek loner on a lower-rung Federation ship with his own agenda. Maybe you saw it, I shouldn't spoil it for you, other than to say, the young, inexperienced Captain tried to have him removed for his distractions, he disobeyed orders, and it all went south. The YouTube poster who took this genre short to task, juxtaposed the meat of the piece, with the TNG scene where Picard is ordering everybody to stop whining about geek loner Barclay, and help him fit in. It makes his position pretty clear, and does it well. I can't say I'm totally on board with it, but he makes a valid position. What I was not prepared for, was the lockstep "burn the witch!" mentality of the comment section below it. And "burn the witch!" it is. I could see perhaps six rational arguments to counter the original poster's position, but I could not see hide nor hare of anybody else to whom these caveat might (should) have occurred. What I did see in its' place, was such a devolved, angry mob of Trek fans incensed by practically everything "that's gone wrong" with Trek since Abrams p*ssed in that pool fifteen years ago. But what they really hate, is seeing the modern "woke" take on trying to make a Trek in this day and age that speaks to uninitiated audiences in this day and age. As unpopular with that niche demographic - and I suppose, it should be - as it is, I was really not prepared for the vehemence on display as every offended fanboy got his licks in to Kurtzman, CBS, "Karens" feminism, "The Left", "woke" Management trends, and practically everything down the the new design of Klingons. It was like the bachelor party before Comic Book Guy's wedding (as if that were even feasible), but sponsored by Fox & Friends.
I like classic Trek and I like the new Trek. Each has different strengths & weaknesses. Fans who hate the latter are too wedded to the former. each series reflects it’s time. Like with different people, different characters will react differently to the people that are outliers. people don’t like change. it’s a tv show. He needs to get over it.
FWIW, The actress in question is Roza Salazar, who starred in James Cameron's Alita: Battle Angel last year. This is of course a different character this talented professional was hired to play according to a script approved by The Powers That Be. None of the venal running commentary appears to be taking her to task for that, thank heaven for small miracles. But, the abhorrent aghastness and rattling of pearls in the comment section beneath the video, gives no benefit of any doubt to either whomever wrote the script, who approved the script, and apparently, the vast pick-your-own-wing-conspiracy that allowed this (what, 8 minute...?) episode to exist in Saint Roddenberry's Cathedral Of Correct Canons.
There are legitimate criticisms to be made of post-Berman Star Trek. Into Darkness was kind of a mess, Discovery's writers room was in upheaval during both seasons of production (Bryan Fuller the first season, the later showrunners being ousted during the second season), and Picard had a scene comprised of cookiecutter CGI starships that failed to impress for some. But this pants-on-head spittle-drenched bile that some Trekkies seem to have for anything made after 2005 (and some of it before then; apparently nobody liked Nemesis, so there's that) is just utterly baffling to me. It'd be almost funny (and occasionally is) if it weren't so toxic. Comment sections on Facebook and Twitter accounts like the STD SUCKS guy (using a fan-abbreviated misnomer for the Discovery TV series), plus Youtubers like the one mentioned, Doomc*ock, Nerdrotic, Midnight's Edge...it's a lot. That said, this thread is technically a negative thread, which is frowned upon here, as well as many of the "complaints" these fans are slinging are more related to their baffling-in-a-Trek-context political views so, uh, RIP this thread?
I don't think it's specific to Star Trek - online fan culture has become rabidly toxic regardless of whether it's Star Trek or Marvel or pretty much any genre oriented material. I try not to take it terribly seriously because I still believe that people who spend all their time foaming at the mouth about these things are in the minority, but it clearly does impact the creators and their ability to express themselves freely. The latest vitriol about the recent Star Wars movies is insane. I don't know why anyone would want to make a Star Wars movie now and have to deal with those freakin' fans and their freakin' expectations, which are all over the place and are impossible to fulfill. I truly believe if they don't knock it off, they are going to get hoisted by their own petard and end up with stuff that is so tame and safe as to be dishwater dull or nothing at all. Repeat to yourself - it's only a movie, it's only a movie.
Star Trek is so splintered that I can't pay attention anymore. I like the tree, but not the branches!
I'm not seeing the problem. What's "splintered" about it? It's similar to the mid-90s Trek bubble except we so far have shows leapfrogging each other instead of the new show -> new show alongside old show -> new show process back then.
I saw that a lot in the comments, as well. And I had to wonder...why single out Janeway in this? Because she is also a female, therefore the only valid role model availablefor this character to learn something from, in fan's eyes? Clearly there is a presumption of expectation within the fan base, that underlines their lack of awareness of why they reacted so strongly to her. There was also a lot of criticism of modern female management figures in these comments, with seemingly no similar offense to poor male managers in the discussion at all. I found that very illustrative. I also found it very enlightening that there was so little "defense for that offense". Practically nobody made any even-handed attempt at empathizing with either the character, her situation, her reason for being the character they chose for the story, or even the motivations of the writer or production staff. There just wasn't anybody capable of giving anybody in this chain of command the benefit of any sort of doubt...despite the clear understanding of what they expect out of a "good" command figure. It was just as embarrassing as the characters' own actions.
And that brings up a yet more interesting subject to this. Could the production team, "in all its' wisdom", actually have known how this scenario was going to be accepted by fandom as a whole, and...might they have been intending to tell us something through that...? Could this, for instance have been an intentional swipe at all the outstanding and legendary Captains as the only examples of Starfleet in real life? Could they have specifically been illustrating how a lesser-experienced, young command figure in the lower rungs of the institution, might have acted less than professionally (cue sidelong glance toward one James Tiberius Kirk)? Might they have been intending to show us, "This is what happened early in the formation of Starfleet, when not everybody in place was the level of a Picard, or a Sisko, or even a Matt Decker."? Or, "This is the frustrating experience you get when not everybody on the team is playing the same gameplan." Far too many viewers seemed to be to focused on how inappropriate the "Captain" both acted while trying to deal civilly with an untenable situation, and her outburst in the end. But could not for the life of them, take the narrative seriously as presented, and recognize, no, Picard would have done it differently, but there wasn't a 'Picard' in this narrative.
OK. Wait a minute. Wasn't the original Star Trek series considered "woke" in its day? An interracial crew that included an alien from another world. The first on-screen interracial kiss. I mean, really! Hasn't this been Star Trek's thing from the beginning? Am I missing something? PS: I liked Nemesis and still do. I don't get the hate for that film.
From a Reddit discussion (source link below): Posted by NichelleNichols 5 years ago I Am Nichelle Nichols, Star Trek's "Uhura", first black woman on television in a non-stereotypical role, and recruiter for the first minorities in NASA. AMA! Roper92391: "I heard a story that you were considering leaving Star Trek to pursue a Broadway career, but that Martin Luther King Jr. convinced you to stay. Is this true? What was this conversation like?" NichelleNichols: "This is true. I had several conversations with him over the years, and it sounds like the stories have gotten mixed and confused. I was offered a role on Broadway. I was a singer on stage long before I was an actress, and Broadway was always a dream to me. I was ready to leave Star Trek and pursue what I'd always wanted to do. Dr. Martin Luther King, quite some time after I'd first met him, approached me and said something along the lines of "Nichelle, whether you like it or not, you have become a symbol. If you leave, they can replace you with a blonde haired white girl, and it will be like you were never there. What you've accomplished, for all of us, will only be real if you stay." That got me thinking about how it would look for fans of color around the country if they saw me leave. I saw that this was bigger than just me. I got to do a lot of singing after the series ended." thefoolofemmaus: "Part of the popular story goes that when Roddenberry heard what Dr. King had said, he said something like "finally, someone gets it." Any truth to that part of it?" NichelleNichols: "That is true." From: I Am Nichelle Nichols, Star Trek's "Uhura", first black woman on television in a non-stereotypical role, and recruiter for the first minorities in NASA. AMA! : IAmA (archived dicussion)
Janeway is more of what I would call Captain material; cast in the same mold as Jean-Luc. Makes me wonder if Captain Lynne Lucero's badge came from a packet of Cornflakes Honestly, thought I was watching Spaceballs II from the clip!
No, because there was no "woke" as the term is used today. It implies a lot more, both in meaning, and perceived meaning by its' detractors. At that point, there was also not fifty years of dogmatic fans taught to assume the concept of "canon". What it was, was perhaps a predecessor of the "woke" concept, injecting current events less-easily dramatized on current television through allegorical scenarios, and over-acted soapbox speeches written for its' actors. FWIW, Nemesis seemed to me to be a way to do an end-run around established constrictions within the current Trek universe, and still find a way to tell a story that would resonate with TNG fans. Just look at DC comics: the more bizarros and super-horses and Legions you cram into that overarching continuity, the harder it is to tell a significant story without scraping up against agreed-upon events from earlier storytelling. It's like realizing you launched so many weather satellites up there, the atmosphere is running of space for communication satellites. So, finding a story worth telling that doesn't do that, becomes next to impossible: the writers already wrote their future options into a corner. Yer gonna haveta do it with less Borgs and more Captain Sulu's (or in this case, "short Treks"), or ya gotta hire JJ Abrams to throw the whole bible out, and start writing on a fresh legal pad.
I've only watched that clip but to me, it's a casting blunder and a script problem. Combine the two and it is bound to suck big time (which it looks like it does.)
Kurtzman's assumption of the control of the franchise has never been popular with the base. But, it seems to be doing okay with the actual viewership...and new fans not locked into expectations.
I'm sure that was exactly the point. A lot of Trekkies are still hung on "Gene's Vision" as codified by early TNG, where everybody's friendly in Starfleet, humanity are utopian ideals to the man, and it's a Very Serious military institution.
"Gene's vision", was more of a workable business plan for getting a series on the air in the age of "Kennedy's Vision", than it was a manifesto.
I watched the video, and the clips that they showed of Star Trek - is that really the new Star Trek? Seems more like something from The Orville. Looked pretty awful, and unless the show is supposed to be an out and out comedy, that "captain" doesn't seem like much of a captain at all. I haven't seen Star Trek Discovery. And I liked Nemesis.
Nah, at that point (remember, we're talking late 1980s here) Gene believed his own bull$hit. This is the same Roddenberry that pitched, on three separate occasions, a film for the original Trek cast that involved the assassination of JFK, time travel, and Spock somehow being involved in the alleged conspiracy. Gene was slowly edged out of his own franchise in the TOS film years, and by the time TNG rolled around, he was doing his damndest to keep a firm grip on it. Hence the overstated utopia of early TNG, which has inspired such, ah, powerful nostalgia that newer Trek with a Federation and Starfleet daring to have personnel issues isn't going over well with some.
Actually, that wasn't the "same" Roddenberry. That was the one who grew to believe it. The one I was referring to, was the writer who had freelanced for one show, and then produced one other, The Lieutenant, before he actually pitched the space show to CBS.
