I really would love Kurtzman to fuck the fuck off at this point.
He has never understood Star Trek at its core. The intricacies and nuances that never should have been messed with; and the superfluous excesses that could be. This is obvious in so many ways. But none more than how he has pushed the narrative in lazy directions repeatedly; yet consistently these were shown not to work. It took him the entire run of discovery to learn this lesson! And even then, never completely.
It has only been relatively recently, when the shows have embraced Trek’s historical strengths in order to create a new vision, that shows have started to truly excel and grab both fans and public attention. But even then, there’s a lack of bold vision and gut. These shows are timid when it comes to exploring ethics and philosophy in ways the 90s and 60s shows never were for their time.
For me, I think fundamentally it speaks to a dumbing down of story telling. It speaks to a lowest common denominator prioritisation by shown runners. It speaks to networks who never take chances.
With Kurtzman it has seemed that each iteration had a predictable path involving a big threat that must be extinguished by the end of season. High stakes with extreme predictability. Because of this prioritisation, so often it felt like the characters served the story, rather than the other way around. That’s not how you get people to care for characters on a show.
Trek was never about this. Historical Trek was about exploring modern ethical dilemmas in a safe sci-fi environment first and foremost. Secondary to that it was about showing how human beings could exist in balance with each other and other species. We need this positive vision now more than ever and yet modern trek feels like a shadow of its former self. It feels too often like skin deep lip service. But, it is improving iteration to iteration.
So please Alex, fuck the fuck off and give some other splendid bastard a shot in the big chair. Unless Ellison intends to replace younwithba fascist. In which case I’m your biggest fan.
PS (and slight SFA spoilers): Did no one else briefly turn off starfleet academy after they tased Nus Braka, even though he was in court, unarmed and only mouthing off? I was outraged that SFA began in such a manner, it didn’t serve the plot, and was wholly unnecessary and disporportionate. It made no sense in the context of the rest of the season.
SFA then ended with a slap and punch to Nus’s face. The casual brutality bookended an otherwise great series. It was a baffling choice, unless it is viewed as being a means of desentising the audience to unnecessary violence from the state. Then it makes perfect sense. That, that is perhaps the thin end of the fascist wedge.
I thought the opening scenes were clearly there to show how the Federation had lost its way after the Burn - it had survived, but only barely - not wholly in body or in spirit. It is a shadow of its former self. Ake’s resignation and her reluctance to return to service were also ‘about’ this.
The redemptions of Ake and Caleb (and, to a smaller extent, many of the other characters) are only possible because the Federation is also redeeming itself. And both their and its redemption are fragile, precious things that require vigilance to sustain. That’s been a theme throughout the entire series.
For 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?
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.
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.
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:
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 hybrid 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…
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.
!a driven engineer who becomes the head in Houston only to fall into a honey-trap and feed the Soviets information!<
!an astronaut who played up her physical beauty and whose top-gun husband became a despondent alcoholic when she leaves him responsible for the kids!<
!an astronaut who hides her sexual preference through a fake marriage!<
!the neglected wife of an astronaut who is stalked and manipulated into a one time sexual encounter with a young man she once looked after as a child, then carries the burden of responsibility for the impact of his obsession.!<
I really would love Kurtzman to fuck the fuck off at this point.
He has never understood Star Trek at its core. The intricacies and nuances that never should have been messed with; and the superfluous excesses that could be. This is obvious in so many ways. But none more than how he has pushed the narrative in lazy directions repeatedly; yet consistently these were shown not to work. It took him the entire run of discovery to learn this lesson! And even then, never completely.
It has only been relatively recently, when the shows have embraced Trek’s historical strengths in order to create a new vision, that shows have started to truly excel and grab both fans and public attention. But even then, there’s a lack of bold vision and gut. These shows are timid when it comes to exploring ethics and philosophy in ways the 90s and 60s shows never were for their time.
For me, I think fundamentally it speaks to a dumbing down of story telling. It speaks to a lowest common denominator prioritisation by shown runners. It speaks to networks who never take chances.
With Kurtzman it has seemed that each iteration had a predictable path involving a big threat that must be extinguished by the end of season. High stakes with extreme predictability. Because of this prioritisation, so often it felt like the characters served the story, rather than the other way around. That’s not how you get people to care for characters on a show.
Trek was never about this. Historical Trek was about exploring modern ethical dilemmas in a safe sci-fi environment first and foremost. Secondary to that it was about showing how human beings could exist in balance with each other and other species. We need this positive vision now more than ever and yet modern trek feels like a shadow of its former self. It feels too often like skin deep lip service. But, it is improving iteration to iteration.
So please Alex, fuck the fuck off and give some other splendid bastard a shot in the big chair. Unless Ellison intends to replace younwithba fascist. In which case I’m your biggest fan.
PS (and slight SFA spoilers): Did no one else briefly turn off starfleet academy after they tased Nus Braka, even though he was in court, unarmed and only mouthing off? I was outraged that SFA began in such a manner, it didn’t serve the plot, and was wholly unnecessary and disporportionate. It made no sense in the context of the rest of the season.
SFA then ended with a slap and punch to Nus’s face. The casual brutality bookended an otherwise great series. It was a baffling choice, unless it is viewed as being a means of desentising the audience to unnecessary violence from the state. Then it makes perfect sense. That, that is perhaps the thin end of the fascist wedge.
I thought the opening scenes were clearly there to show how the Federation had lost its way after the Burn - it had survived, but only barely - not wholly in body or in spirit. It is a shadow of its former self. Ake’s resignation and her reluctance to return to service were also ‘about’ this.
The redemptions of Ake and Caleb (and, to a smaller extent, many of the other characters) are only possible because the Federation is also redeeming itself. And both their and its redemption are fragile, precious things that require vigilance to sustain. That’s been a theme throughout the entire series.
For 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?
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.
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.
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_the_2007–08_Writers_Guild_of_America_strike_on_television
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 hybrid 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…
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.