In a TrekCulture interview a week ago, Rob Kazinsky, who plays Zeph in Section 31, talked about his reaction to the S13 movie.
He revealed one interesting point from behind the scenes about why the movie was made:
When I got this job, I was like, “Ugh, Section 31 movie, why are they doing a Section 31 movie? It’s gonna be hated from the get-go. No ones gonna want to watch a Section 31 movie. We’re doing a TV-budget movie. This isn’t going to be what people want…” And I spoke to Alex [Kurtzman] and I spoke to Olatunde [Osunsanmi] and they explained to me that Star Trek is dying. And I don’t know if people know that. You know, I was talking about Star Trek at my gym where I fight. You know, I’m a boxer where I fight with a lot of kids - you know, I don’t fight them but train them - none of them knew what Star Trek was. Could you imagine that?
He went on to say that Star Trek had never had a base as big as Harry Potter or Star Wars but the small fanbase was passionate. He says that fanbase is aging and “we are going to lose Star Trek if we don’t bring in new fans, new eyes and new ways of getting people to love the things that we love.”
I think that’s a valid point but Section 31 is not the answer. It’s not particularly interesting for kids (I think) or for adults, whether or not they’re Trek fans already. And for fans, this type of storytelling sacrifices the optimistic ethos (though not immune from criticism along the lines of DS9) that’s at the heart of the Federation and the franchise. And I’m not even arguing this from a canon or gatekeeping point of view. It’s not utlilizing Star Trek’s niche and unique selling point in the market. Why should kids watch Star Trek instead of Captain America, Suicide Squad, or any MCU movie?
Here comes the question: If you’re in Alex Kurtzman’s position, how are you going to sell the franchise to a new, young audience? How are you going to convince kids who spend their time playing Roblox and watching Mr. Beast that Star Trek is a good show to watch?
Make it episodic again, focus on the story instead of the action, and basically just do TNG, but with even better sets, costumes and make-up. Stop trying to be dark, gritty and edgy. If there is an over-arcing narrative, make it the B or C plot in most episodes, to keep it episodic by nature.
They had the good idea with the Kelvinverse as a more approachable, mainstream friendly variant to classic Star Trek. Then they made Discovery and killed all momentum, alienating both old and new fans.
Star Trek was never a show for kids, so it’s not surprising kids don’t know about it. Star Wars and Harry Potter were for kids
Star Trek has always been more about solving things without violence when possible, which means action sequences don’t happen often, so a significant portion of people won’t find any interest in it.
To me, personally, Trek fails at simply not having “anything really going on”. I don’t know about more recent Trek shows, but there’s never anything that feels like a real threat, or any threat that goes beyond 2 episodes. Some of the exploration feels like “Oh, we’re just fucking bored, I guess, let’s see what we can find over that star system”, everything feels unbelievably safe. Sure, Kardassian assholes might capture you and torture you for shits and giggles, you never know when something with literal godlike powers might decide to show up and challenge the crew out of boredom, but that’s not a risk you’re at while exploring a weird world or solving a Sherlock mystery in the holodeck. For comparison: Battlestar Galactica had a permanent worry about (lack of) resources, being a fleet on the run with a single military ship to protect it against an overwhelming enemy and an “anyone could be a sleeping agent of the enemy” conflict. Not everything BSG did was good, but that overall setting and premise permeated everything.
Put another way, what would be the most common answer to “What is Star Trek about?”
My personal experience is that one should be ready to watch star trek.
When I was 20 I simply wasn’t ready and didn’t try watching any of it despite a friend insisting it was worth it.
Two years ago, instead, I was so ready that I could enjoy TOS too
I’m still not at discovery, so I need to see the nuTrek to say more. But I really just think you can’t advertise trek too much.
When TOS aired the first time in my country, I was 9-10 years old. I found it mind-blowingly good compared to other shows at the time. I had learned to read when I was 4 and I read a LOT. And not just books for children, I also read classics and nonfiction natural science as much as I could.
I was a strange kid, but all my reading had made me ready to understand the social commentaries in TOS and the fictional scenarios really opened the concepts up for me. I often went to the library to research stuff that was explored in the latest episode to make sure I had understood everything.
My son is 13 now, we started to watch the TOS DVD-set together and he loves it. Although he is older than I was, he is not an avid reader like me. He needs many of the concepts explained and subtle guidance to understand the underlying larger themes, but he has shown advancement and after every episode we have a small discussion. I love teaching him this way.
We just finished season 1 and my son noted: “Athough this show is ancient, this stuff is still relevant and happening even today, isn’t it?”
Exactly, you need a specific setup to enjoy it, and you need to give it focus!
I don’t think that making content specifically to be liked by people who wouldn’t enjoy the typical style is a good concept… It can be explored sure, but they also need to make sure to make new trak-like content too
But again I really need to see discovery and snw to see how things are going right now. I also don’t want to judge the s31 movie before watching it
Give them Andor instead of Ahsoka; they need to make more content that speaks to the universal human condition and less about the cool worlds and characters they’ve got. The people want Squid Game and Severance, not another cinematic universe.
A lot of writers seem to have forgotten that scifi uses aliens and new worlds to talk about humans. They just think that scifi uses aliens and new worlds.
There are plenty of good responses here already, but to me the main thing in marketing Trek to new audiences would be stop the frigging nostalgia fest.
- don’t circle back to the TOS characters at the tip of a hat. Yes, JJ Abrams, I’m looking at you, but also every other recent attempt at new Star trek movies.
- All the stories around those characters have been told already. Make something new and current within the same universe.
- Don’t shoehorn canon and continuity onto every new show. Having Bones make a cameo in the TNG pilot was cute. Making Burnham a previously unmentioned lynchpin in Spock’s character was… unnecessary. Don’t get me started on SNW.
- The wealth of continuity from previous shows shouldn’t be a namecheck scorecard, but a backdrop that curious current viewers can track down and explore on their own.
Twenty years ago when the BBC relaunched Doctor Who, they played down all the background stuff for most of the first season, only drip feeding lore to the audience.
- The stories, the characters had to be appealing on their own
- The 26 seasons worth of classic Who wasn’t required watching to keep up, but it gave resonance to the new show.
Star trek needs to learn from that approach to focus on good stories and engaging characters — and to aim outside of the established but dwindling fan group by allowing the almost 60 years of canon to play second violin.
Un-cancel Lower Decks. 😉
Honestly, though, I feel like most media groups in general forget why the streaming model worked in the first place. They want Office-level hits, but forget that The Office wasn’t immediately successful. Not immediately killing it just because of that gave it time to find a fandom.
Most shows should automatically get 2-3 seasons, and they often aren’t getting that.
As for the whole “none of them knew what Star Trek was” anecdote - I find that a bit exaggerated. I’m a college student, and I wore a Boimler costume for Halloween- most could identify that I was something Star Trek. Around other people my age, they can at least think of Spock or Patrick Stewart.
How I got into Trek as a kid was my mom would be watching it, and she’d let us join even though we were supposed to be doing homework. TNG was the one I saw the most during that.
P.S: As I’ve floated around this forum several times, I think an animated anthology series of strange new crews would be awesome.
Stop trying to be ‘cool’ (or whatever you think is cool). Star Trek was never cool. Just do Star Trek and the right people will find it.
Sorry, I don’t care what Kurtzman says about this (or an actor that is obliged to defend a project he was in) when it’s justifying putting out schlock for mind share. If that’s the best we can do, let it die - it doesn’t make anything that exists any worse.
Trek needs a good show that stands alone and isn’t aimed at us but a fresh audience. That means no cameos, limited references, not animated (that is a stigma as much as I love LD), and actually taking the time to get people invested.
Basically, they needed Discovery to not be garbage. I know non-Trekkies that were actually excited for a new sci-fi romp and got turned off almost immediately by the nonsense writing. Not the cast, or stupid out of universe concerns about being “woke” or some shit, just plain out “this makes no sense and isn’t fun to watch” and it was hard to disagree.
Everything since then has lived in Discovery’s shadow in terms of new audience and has mostly dealt with that by being aimed at fans of 90s Trek and nobody else. Prodigy may be an exception here, but that suffers from being oriented at kids.
I agree in some senses with the stand-alone part, but not necessarily the animated part. I feel like it would just need to be marketed right. Executives are convinced for the most part that animation is either only for kids or for irreverent adult comedies, when it really should be viewed as a general medium.
I think Infinity Train is the best evidence of my point (look it up if you don’t know); it really transcends the typical bounds assigned to animation. Book 3 especially is truly just a great fantasy/sci-fi drama. However, it was basically killed by executives who wanted a tax write-off and couldn’t see its potential outside a “kids show”. Now some of the series is purchasable on various online storefronts, but the only legal way to watch all of Book 3 is to pirate it.
If executives and people alike would liberate themselves from the stigma of animation, I feel like you could pull off high-quality, TNG-length seasons that allow less rushed charater development for a reasonable budget compared to an expensive live action streaming show. In some ways, Prodigy was an example of this - I felt like I got more time with the characters than almost any other modern Trek (granted SNW is still going on).
I’ve never met a person where I mentioned Star Trek and they went, “Ew, Discovery. I’m never watching any Star Trek ever again”; I think Discovery had its flaws (and strengths), but it made little impact on franchise popularity.
Usually (which you touch on), it’s more like they’re just bamboozled by the cannon. Like, I was watching DS9 once, and my roommate asked if it was the original, which then brought a long and complicated explanation from me. I think you’re right that it’d be very nice to have a Star Trek show that one could show to people where when old lore is brought in, it’s delivered in such a way that people can pick it up as they go.
Is SNW even still a thing? We still have no date for S3 for nearly 2 years now.
I would lecture the little weaklings on how life was like in my day, and tell them to get off my lawn.
Reminds me of what I heard from a comedian a while back, about how restaurants slowly lose what made them great in the first place, until they become a poor imitation of Applebees, or similar restaurants, because “that’s what people want”. They then eventually fail, because if you want Applebees, you go to Applebees.
But how is Star Trek not doing so hot if I just read this:
Re runs and free yet uploads of TNG with advertising like “here’s a future we can have, with quality leadership. Keep fighting for decency”
What is the age range they are classifying as young? Are they talking like teenagers or mid-20s to 30s? The thing with Star Trek that I think attributes to the non-fans not watching would be the stylization. Going back to the comparison of MCU, HP, and Star Wars: they all have something unique (be it the directing, photography, acting, writing, music, special effects, etc.) that if you pay attention for a significant period will find. Star Trek is no different. When you watch a MCU movie or TV show you probably see the sleek costumes and fast paced fight choreography. With HP, it was probably all the special effects, makeup and set design. For Star Wars it might be the writing, special effects and music.
I’m being non-specific here of course. Star Trek like I said is no different. There are visual and non-visual language being utilized that we find enjoyment in. For anyone not currently into these properties, it could be difficult to enjoy. Especially if you haven’t been someone who watched these properties from a young age or from the early years. For example, if you had someone exposed to only the Kelvin Timeline try to watch TOS or TNG with no context for how it relates, a disconnect might form. Visually those series are not as sleek or modernized as those movies.
As for the comparison to video games… that is simply a different medium. What appeals to one person to the next will be hard to gage. That doesn’t preclude the likes of Fortnite players from enjoying Trek, but culturally that kind of entertainment is very different from what a kid who grow up with TNG was exposed to.
I’m struggling to find it now, but I read a Jonathan Frakes interview last year (I think) where he expressed a similar sentiment.
Basically, he said that the fans that he sees at conventions are getting noticably older, and there aren’t as many younger people joining the fold.
He would be a better judge of that observation. However I was at STLV last year and there was a sizable number of younger fans (especially those who are teenage). Maybe not a lot.
Sure, I don’t think anything is absolute. But I think there’s a general impression that as the older fans literally die off, there aren’t enough younger ones to replace them, let alone expand the popularity of the franchise.
I think PRO is a step in the right direction.
Agreed, though it seems unlikely that we’re going to get any more of it, sadly.
Could there be a reboot that decides to go back to the optimistic world view of the original?
It’s not just Trek. Who decided that all SciFi has to be dystopian, brooding, militaristic, or horror?
It’s ironic that if you want Trek with the vibe of the original you have to watch “The Orville”.
I see this take a lot, but it frankly just doesn’t reflect what I see on the screen. Can you give some examples from the shows that influenced you to form that opinion? I agree DS9 could probably be correctly be considered “dystopian , brooding and militaristic”, sure, but Discovery, Picard and SNW are (if anything) cloyingly optimistic and positive!
We already have Prodigy, Strange New Worlds, and Lower Decks under Kurtzman that are considered “optimistic.” The question is, do kids want optimism?
I’d consider Discovery to be optimistic as well - striving to make the world(s) a better place in the face of conflict, uncertainty, and disaster is still optimism. In fact, it’s arguably the type of optimism we need now more than ever before.
The first season of Picard flirted with similar themes, but I don’t think that series ultimately went anywhere with them.
I agree there’s intention to present optimism and humanism in the face of conflict, but I find the execution to be lackluster. An example that comes to mind is Pike objecting to using mines in season 2 of DIS. He raises the issue directly to Cornwell, saying it’s against Federation values. Then for some reason, the discussion becomes finding out why the Enterprise was diverted away from the Klingon war and ends praising Pike being “the best of Starfleet.” The entire discussion about using unethical weaponry during wartime is sidetracked and left unresolved. The mines are still there on the station, and the responsibility of Starfleet Command for not taking down those Klingon mines is not explored.
Another example is the explanation of the Burn. From interviews I’ve seen, the intention behind the crying Kelpien is to highlight the need to understand and sympathize with people vastly different from you even when the universe is as vast with warp travel impossible. The resolution is Burnham and Saru finding this Kelpien and help him understand his visions and thoughts, calm him down, and make warping safe again. But this Kelpien lacks characterization from the beginning. The audience doesn’t know him that well, and we don’t know why we should sympathize with his personal resolution. It would be much stronger if the cause of the Burn is the Emerald Syndicate, which we have established as a hostile force against the Federation. And we know they have good cause to be suspicious of the Federation from Osyraa’s meeting with Vance. In the show, despite this message of reaching out to the vastly different, the Federation and the Chain never understood each other and resorted to using force. Another good candidate for the cause of the Burn is Ni’Var, which has its reasonable suspicions of the Federation at the time.
I find the execution to be lackluster.
This is, to an extent, in the eye of the beholder, and I’m not inclined to argue too much about taste.
Except. Except.
the explanation of the Burn
I honestly think this is the most “Star Trek” thing the franchise has done in…decades. It feels like it was ripped straight out of TOS, and I absolutely adore it.
Agreed - there are different flavours of optimism. TNG presented a promise that one day, humanity will overcome the petty squabbles and bad ideologies it’s mired in today. There’s a place for that, but I think there’s more appetite today for a focus on how we’ll achieve that future - that we can and will fight for it.
Honestly, if I were pitching a concept to attract some fresh attention, I’d go with a “Star Trek: WW3” series. Set it around 2240 to 2250, feature Khan as a big bad, maybe sprinkle in some E.T. interference a la “Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow” to keep that essential sci-fi flavour. You could also mine the Reeves-Stevens novel “Federation” for some inspiration. The point would be to make it feel contemporary and topical, but ultimately show that when that tipping point into Star Trek’s future arrives, we’ll be able to tip in the right direction.
I think there’s definitely room for different tones and ideas, as long as we also have SNW to keep that classic Trek approach alive.
I have a lot of half-baked thoughts about how TNG was more of a product of its time than we realize.
Growing up in the late 80s - early 90s, a lot of us were taught that social injustice were issues of the past, and TNG reflected that perspective.
That…well, even at the time, we were being sold a false bill of goods, and it certainly isn’t the world we live in today.
TNG did try to address social justice issues, but agreed it did so in a way that was extremely of its time. The Outcast is a great go-to example of that. It’s basically an anti-conversion therapy parable, so definitely progressive for its time, but in the process it portrays non-binary gender expression as literally alien to the Enterprise crew.
I think that’s partly why I love and gravitate towards DS9, from the culture wars allegory to analysis of imperialism to the ethics of terrorism and beyond.
I think the beauty of DS9 is you have very different characters evolving together and shows people with different world views can still develop working respect and friendship with each other.
Who decided that all SciFi has to be dystopian, brooding, militaristic, or horror?
The Battlestar Galactica reboot caused an awful trend. Other studios clamored to try to recreate its success.
section 31 was pretty cringe. There were some pretty cool concepts and ideas but, overall not executed well at all. It seems section 31 is made up of a bunch of dumbass rejects? Georgiou character was way over hammed compared to how she was in Discovery. Driving the movie like it was a video game was an interesting idea that could have been done better. The couple twists with the whole “whos the traitor?” was interesting if not rushed, seemed like an afterthought.
its one of those movies you watch once.
