this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2024
206 points (98.6% liked)
Star Trek
1180 readers
2 users here now
/c/StarTrek: Your safe harbored Spacedock in these Stellar Seas!
Fire up the inertial dampeners, retract all moorings and clear space dock. It's time to boldy go where no one has gone before!
~ 1. Be Civil. This is a Star Trek community and lets keep that energy. Be kind, respectful and polite to one another.
~ 2. Be Courteous. Please use the spoiler tags for any new Trek content that's been released in the past month. Check this page for lemmy formatting) for any posts. Also please keep spoilers out of the titles!
~ 3. Be Considerate. We're spread out across a lot of different instances but don't forget to follow your instances rules and the instance rules for Lemmy.world.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I should add that a YA show about Starfleet Academy sounds like a way to save a hell of a lot of money on effects. No strange new worlds, no new life and new civilizations. Because cadets don't leave the academy until their senior year.
This whole thing, to me, says "we've found a demographic we can tap into and save money in the process" and not "we need to make good Star Trek."
Dude some of the best Trek episodes are bottle episodes like Measure of a Man or (blanking on the name) the flute episode. Neither have flashy effects and Trek in general didn't have flashy effects until recently. So suggesting that effects themselves being saved is nefarious when people have been complaining that the shows are too focused on effects and battles is odd. Especially when for decades Trek did not have a budget for effects in general and made them as simply and cheaply as possible. Saving money or spending money isn't a bar onto whether the show will be good or not. Especially when Trek historically didn't have money to use on effects and had to keep to a small budget.
Again, the definition of "good Star Trek" is completely subjective and not an objective thing. Star Trek does not fit one specific mold and there has been plenty of bad Trek made over the years. Also plenty of very different Trek from new perspectives.
But my main problem here is the demographic line. You're suggesting that the only reason to make for another demographic outside of the core Trekkies that have been catered to for decades is for money. Now businesses are gonna business and wanna make money but why is doing it for another demographic bad? Are they not allowed to enjoy it? Do their opinions not matter? Why is it such a bad thing that more demographics are being catered to with Trek? We've had 60 years. We can't give them a single one? That is blatant gatekeeping. The opinions of other groups and demographics don't matter as long as the core group is placated. It's okay for everyone else to like it but only as long as that core group likes it too. That if it's made for people other than the core group there is some inherent problem with that.
The reason I am so eagle eyed on this is because the same argument was thrown at Star Trek Discovery specifically due to LGBTQ characters. The fact that there are many meant that a lot of people kept complaining and have used the exact same argument that you have. That it was pandering to another demographic for the sake of money and that it wasn't good. Meanwhile every LGBTQ person I know who loves the show has been ecstatic that were finally getting representation and that the show is embracing another demographic instead of just straight dude/straight woman yet again.
It's fine to be concerned about the quality of something. Personally I think it's extremely early to worry about that when we don't even have the cast confirmed or any solid information about the show but quality problems is fine. Suggesting that appealing to demographics outside of the stereotypical nerd is bad or should be treated with suspicion doesn't help anyone in anyway. It just makes people from that demographic feel like they're alienated and don't matter.
(I apparently didn't hit send last night)
Yes. 100%. It's always about money. Paramount does not greenlight Star Trek shows unless they think it will make them money.
Another demographic isn't bad. Relying on that demographic as one of maybe two shows when it has not traditionally been a Star Trek demographic is a huge risk that comes entirely from bean counters.
This is entirely different. This is not pandering. This is trying to get Paramount+ an entirely new viewer base at the expense of everything else because it's what desperate Paramount+ executives feel their failing streaming service needs to survive. "We're adding a few queer characters to get a gay audience" would be pandering, because it's about gratification. This isn't about gratification, this is about subscription fees. This isn't "okay, we're throwing you kids a bone so you'll watch too," this is, "we are creating this show entirely around the idea of getting new viewers to pay for Paramount+."
And again, this isn't the creative team behind Star Trek saying so, this is Paramount executives.
It isn't bad, but it should be treated with suspicion. Because all streaming service tentpole shows that get greenlit should be treated with suspicion right now. It should also be treated with suspicion because there's zero movement on Legacy, Prodigy was shunted over to Netflix and now Lower Decks, despite being super popular, is ending with only 50 episodes total.
This is not the early streaming era where anything went and people had lots of creative freedom. This is an era where demographics are everything to executives.
I am absolutely cynical about such things because I have seen how such things play out over and over again.
Edit: If you haven't read this post yet, this article supports my point: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/paramount-earnings-stock-cash-content-1235328376/
But there's no evidence that they're relying on them. You are basing all of this off of assumptions. You say elsewhere that SNW isn't going to last more than 5 seasons but you don't know that. Moreover, they're currently only working on their 3rd. So that's another 3 released seasons of show over a few years which would demonstrate that this YA show would not be the only Star Trek show. Then there's the two confirmed Star Trek movies (S31 movie and a new Prequel movie) that have been announced as well. You keep acting like the only thing that's going to be left is Starfleet Academy but there is no evidence of that.
Personally I find that to be splitting hairs. Both are the same thing. Both are the company looking at a demographic and using that demographic for the sake of their own gain. But even then I do not understand this argument in any way whatsoever. It's like saying "they are only doing the things people might like so they will vote for them." Like... isn't that the point of a for profit company? To do things people like and then get the money from them because they like it? Why is it so suspicious that they're doing what they do to survive.
Then be cautiously optimistic. I just find it insane that the show hasn't been released and there's not even promotional stuff for the show but the immediate assumption is that it sucks, will only be pandering towards an audience to get their money and should be treated with extreme suspicion. Doesn't matter that the writers involved are people who have proven they legitimately care about the show, like Tawny Newsome.
It's the exact same era. Demographics have only ever been used for the sake of money. That's just how for profit companies work. If you make something that appeals to a certain demographic then you can get the money of that demographic. That's not a surprise or a sudden groundbreaking thing that's only now happening. Moreover, it's not a bad thing and has been my exact problem with the comments about demographics in this thread. It's reductive to almighty hell and relates to another comment where I used LGBTQ in Discovery as an example. You are saying "They are only using demographic for money" but that is not a new thing. Kids shows are aimed towards a specific demographic because money can be made from them because the market is there for it. If money can be made from a Young Adult audience and they make a show for a Young Adult audience it isn't surprising or suspicious that they've done that. Would you react the exact same way if another Trek show was made for the middle aged, white, straight audience? They're a pretty big demographic and one that money can be made from which is why they've been milked ad infinitum. Why is it that when another demographic gets the same treatment now it's suddenly problematic? You're phrasing this entirely from the perspective of yourself. You're not seeing it from the perspective of people in that demographic. You're taking this too coldly and too calculated from solely a executives side and not considering the people who are going to get the show, whether they'd like it or whether they want it. Personally I'm not willing to make a single discussion about demographics in anyway until that demographic themselves actually weighs in. They might like it and love it and that's awesome. Then they get Trek for them. They might hate it and the show gets cancelled. That's just how media works. Not everything is going to be a hit, not everything is going to be safe and not everything is going to be for the same demographic endlessly.
I agree. I'm entirely speculating. But I am not hopeful, I'm just not. I'm sorry.
If it were sold by Paramount as "Middle Aged Star Trek" or "White Star Trek" or "Cis Star Trek" or whatever, yes. I have, aside from Prodigy, never heard Paramount, Vicacom, whatever, sell a Star Trek show as 'we're designing this show around this group of people.'
It instantly raises my suspicions.
And what happened with Prodigy? Nothing. The world carried on spinning and nothing happened because catering to a specific audience isn't a problem or problematic. It just means that a new audience gets to see a world with reflections of themselves that they normally would not be able to see.
I think you keep missing me saying that I hope it's good, I'm just not optimistic that it will be.
I probably am. Stressed about a few things and yeah. I am sorry if I came off aggressive or anything here.
We're good, dude! I told someone elsewhere in the thread that you're very passionate about this and I think that's a good thing.
I'm also just very particular about language which quite often doesn't help.
the "lgbtq+" characters in STD were borderline offense with the level of stereotyping they pulled, it's not like we didn't have LGBTQ+ characters before, of course they weren't a fucking caricature...
No. We did not. There was no real LGBTQ+ representation on the show prior to DSC. Also the acronym is DSC or DIS, not STD. Not unless you're going around saying STO for Original, STT for The next generation, ST9 for Deep Space 9, etc.
Saying that the representation was 'borderline offensive' is also laughable considering that the show and actors have won numerous awards from people like GLADD specifically for the representation of LGBTQ+ peoples.
considering you only see LGBTQ+ if it's a stereotype, you must think Rain-man a decent representation of ASD...
then again, I love how you pretend at some argument of consistency when all the "one word" series are known mainly by said word (Voyager, Enterprise), and TOS just meaning the original series, so you have two examples here, both of which, if we went with their naming convention, would leave it called "D".
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it a stereotype. Once again, it has won awards from international organizations that step up for LGBTQ people and talk about our representation. What do you do?
No, there's one naming convention. I was chosing a singular word from the series name and using it. I also avoided D because that is the only way that one could logic themselves into the acronym supposedly being STD. I mean unless you have some better explanation as to why you use STD.
I am not continuing this discussion with you when you're violating the rules of the community.
There is a standard naming convention, and it predates the creation of Discovery. Voyager is VOY, and Enterprise is ENT. No one calls Voyager "STV", as that would cause confusion with Star Trek V, the movie. If you've ever used Memory Alpha or participated in a fan community like Daystrom you'll know that this has been standard for a long time. By extension, Discovery is DIS, Picard is PIC, and Prodigy is PRO.
DSC is a special case because it's used internally by the production (even shows up in the show itself once or twice) so some people have taken to using it, but it's not consistent with the other naming schemes we use so it's not standard. In fact, when it came out that Voyager was referred to internally as VGR, basically no one switched because everyone was so used to calling it VOY.
Out of curiosity, who do you see as the LGBTQ+ characters? I can think of a few, but outside of mirror universe eps no one is actually established as queer. It's all subtext, or implied.
Then there's the big lesbian kiss with Jadzia, and that's awesome, but immediately after they decide that they shouldn't be doing this and they go their separate ways, and Jadzia never to my knowledge expresses her attraction to a woman again. Even in that case, it's unique because said woman used to be a man. It's not Jadzia just being attracted to a woman on her own merits.
What's big about new Trek is that the characters are actually queer in the text, not just subtext. I'm a big fan of reading Garak and Bashir as queer, but they're fundamentally not good representation because as far as the story itself is concerned, they're two straight men. It's only through the actors' performances that the queer implications shine through.