Skip Navigation
Star Trek Social Club @startrek.website
Tyler K. Nothing @startrek.website

I figured this article might find interest here | Star Trek Opinion

I wasn't even aware of Lemmy when I wrote this. I only joined yesterday, but not for the intent of promoting my pieces. I don't monetize them, so there's that. Aside from book work, this is one of the longest pieces I've ever written, and I write about a range of subjects. I hope you all like it :)

21 comments

  • JJ’s Trek films and Kelvin timeline would inject a cancer throughout Paramount’s Trek productions, namely Discovery.

    JFC, this is pathetic.

    Disco might not be to everyone's taste, but to claim it's a "cancer" is a tad bit dramatic, isn't it. Especially when the writer goes on to praise most of the series which we never would have had if not for the success of Disco.

    Not to mention the childish oversimplification of the spore drive, which has been explained on screen. Sci-fi fans really out here still complaining about "magic" mushrooms facilitating travel, but perfectly cool when it's crystals like dilithium.

  • I found myself nodding along to a lot that was said in this article. I also would trace a lot of recent issues to JJ Abrams' take. What I said then is still (I think) true today: "They are good movies, but they aren't good Star Trek movies." Discovery and Picard suffered for it, but I think that the ills are being corrected. My hope is that Paramount greenlights "Legacy" as the TNG-spiritually-successor as SNW is the TOS-spiritual-successor.

    Where I will disagree, though, is that Star Trek isn't broken. Five-ish years ago, I would have said that, but after SNW, Lower Decks, and Picard season 3, I think the powers that be have a better understanding of what is needed. We were in a bit of a "dark-ages" from 2006-2020, but I think we're back on the upswing. We may not be quite at 1990s golden age Trek, but we can get close.

  • Welcome to lemmy!

    And great article!

    Discovery can sometimes be a touchy topic around here, as it prompts some arguably toxic negativity, but I thought it was important to try to outline, as you did, what the whole JJ reboot thing was about and how it has been problematic for Trek, Discovery being ground zero. Thanks!

    • The thing that people have to remember is that Discovery gave us Anson Mount and Ethan Peck. That alone should make up for any problems with pacing or character development.

      • It’s kind of a cursed defence though isn’t it?

        The thing that redeems a new trek show, which has traditionally always been about doing new and interesting things within the values of the franchise IMO …

        is the longish cameo of essentially rebooted characters that in many people’s view salvaged the franchise through their own successful spin off. Where, in my view, despite liking SNW a lot, it’s biggest problem as a contribution to the franchise is that it’s very close to being a reboot of TOS1 (though it’s not quite there yet and I hope it stays away) … which means we’re talking about a prequel giving birth to another prequel that verges on a reboot.

        All of that, for me, connects Discovery+SNW to the JJ/Kelvin legacy of what new and compelling Trek has to look like in a way that feels very distant from the legacies and approaches of TOS/TNG/DS9.

        1. Since and including the finale of season 1, either Kirk or Scotty have played major non-cameo roles in a majority of SNW episodes while taking air time from the other SNW characters. For me, this is unnecessary and is clearly toying with TOS reboot/prequel territory, while the interesting promise of SNW was to simply continue from the first pilot, doing what is technically a prequel but really filling in a missing gap of TOS era trek with its own premise and characters and so allowing a re-imagining of TOS trek without reverting to old (and tired IMO) characters.
21 comments