Comment on Alex Kurtzman On Starting Discussions With Paramount Skydance Over The Future Of Star Trek TV
TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day agoFor what it’s worth, I also found those opening court room scenes in SFA absolutely maddening. The whole scene made so little sense. Why was Caleb even in that room? Why did the Federation rip a child away from his mother like that anyway? Even if his mother was arrested, why did they go about it in the most trauma inducing way possible? If Nus is so dangerous, why was he just allowed to stand next to the person accusing him of abuse?
I feel like we already have solutions to so many of the issues in that opening scene alone in the backwards 21st century, why were we again struggling to solve them in the 32nd?
flabberjabber@lemmy.world 1 day ago
You’re absolutely right friend.
But I also think there’s an argument for exploring the effects of trauma in modern Trek.
As a modern society, we are so much more aware of how trauma is perpetuated today. But there’s also so much room for depth in that understanding. This is narrative fuel. It’s definitely a topic rich with potential for exploration within Trek. But it needs to go deep and remain clever. Psychologically and philosophically grounded.
But, this is where their line of inquiry seems to stop in the writers room. Instead of coming up with novel and unique ways to create traumatic situations for our characters, that don’t challenge and eventually break the universe these stories inhabit, and that delve deeply into the nature of trauma and its effects, we find our characters living in a quasi-utopia that speaks more to our time period and asks questions but gives no answers.
This utopia is one that I could imagine might have existed more in Archer’s time. But in the 3100’s is, even with the burn taken into account, unbelievable and disappointing.
This is where a show runner with a bit more awareness, intellect and gut could create more believable and novel scenarios for our characters.
What I wouldn’t give for Ronald D. Moore at the conn.
StillPaisleyCat@startrek.website 7 hours ago
We’re going to need to differ on Ronald D. Moore.
I wish Trek fans would stop calling for him to helm the franchise when we have not seen adequate evidence that he can carry through to make the kind of Trek that represents IDIC for future.
What I am seeing from him is a pattern of starting great new shows but not having as great ideas about following through long multi season arcs.
The Battlestar Galactica reboot was riveting for the first two seasons and then spiralled to a disappointing conclusion.
For All Mankind spun out in seasons two and three with an Oedipal storyline about a kid who becomes obsessed with his foster mother and wreaks havoc. Not to mention that all the heroic women characters in from season one had to be shown to deeply flawed by season three in a very male-perspective way.
For All Mankind isn’t as bad in terms of having a cisgender-male viewpoint writing women leads as say the Sheridan show Lioness, but it’s not succeeding as a show women see themselves in.
flabberjabber@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
I can’t comment on For All Mankind, I haven’t watched it yet, so I will take your word for it. I can only speak about what’s in my sphere of awareness, but it sounds like you’ve not had a good time with it.
I have to ask, did you not mean to level your criticism of BSG post season three, rather than post season two?
Three is arguably the best season of the series. It had so many highlights, from the devastation of New Caprica, to the climax at the end of the season that the series spent three seasons building towards. There’s so much to point towards in that season that was truly excellent sci-fi.
If you made a typo/mistake, and you actually meant post season three, I can understand your view point and completely agree that from then onwards it wasn’t quite the same. But where we differ is in regards to blame. I think you’re missing important context.
There was a writers guild strike at the end of season three, and it completely derailed the series from then onwards. In fact, it wasn’t the only series that suffered in such a fashion at that time. It’s worth having s read about it if you have the time:
en.wikipedia.org/…/Effect_of_the_2007–08_Writers_…
I don’t think it’s just to lay this particular criticism at Ronald D. Moore’s feet.
I am also struggling to reconcile what you’ve said about his weak portrayal of women in For All Mankind when he did such an incredible job on BSG. If that’s the case I’m heartbroken.
The reason why I am so enamoured with the idea of an RDM helmed Trek is because Trek has shown consistently that it thrives when it leans more into standalone series over serialisation.
Its current hybrid approach is a strength that SNW and SFA has shown works. This is something I feel RDM has shown he can do excellently in the past. BSG was an excellent example of serialisation until the strike. And for his series work, his writing credits in TNG alone are exemplary:
“Yesterdays Enterprise” “Data’s Day” “Ethics” “Disaster” “Tapestry” “Sins of the Father” “The Pegasus” etc…
StillPaisleyCat@startrek.website 5 hours ago
I’m going to say that I saw some of the problems to come in BSG season three, but I still bought the physical media up to that point.
I don’t think you can blame it all on the writers strike, any more than you can blame Picard season two or Discovery season four’s weaknesses on the pandemic.
Other shows managed better. It’s the test of a good senior production executive to manage through those situations.
I was deeply disappointed in where For All Mankind took its women characters. I was hoping that having Naren Shankar join after he finished with The Expanse would redeem it, but it just kept getting worse in its treatment of women.