I’m just gonna say it: Is anyone else not really interested in a show about Starfleet Academy? I’ll give it a shot, and it could be phenomenal, in which case I will enjoy watching it. But on the whole, that’s just not a setting that interests me in the slightest. I want Legacy.
I’m okay with it. My problem with Disco is how high stakes breathless it is all the time, visiting the timeline with a lower stakes Academy lens could be cool. Being far future means it won’t be a TOS/TNG cameo fest (SNW’s biggest flaw) and I wouldn’t mind being able to do some actual character development on Tilly / other Disco crew if they weren’t just constantly in mortal danger.
Of course it’ll probably end up being flashy bullshit again, but I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt for now.
I’m not but I also was not interested in a show about a space station and that turned out to be my absolute favorite so I will judge it on its own merits.
I kinda hope that “Legacy” does get off the ground, if for no other reason than that all the folks champing at the bit for it will be confronted by the fact that once you take out the TNG cast, what you’re left with is show created by the same dude who was showrunner for season two of PIC and who thinks owning a BttF DeLorean is a personality trait, featuring the Scrappy Doo of Star Trek.
Who’s angry? I just don’t think he’s a particularly good showrunner, and if not for people being blinded by his over reliance on fan service and nostalgia, it wouldn’t even be a question.
@billmason@startrek I'm skeptical. I fear they ruined trek with discovery. By showing the universe nearly a millennium in the future, now any new stories they will be "filling in the timeline" where we already know at some level how it all works out. The dramatic tension is gone.
Or, stories set after any time we haven't already seen will be so far into future as to be disconnected from what came before.
Makes me sad. Abrams damaged Trek. Kurtzman may have killed it.
@ValueSubtracted I mean, it's not binary, but it is a factor. I've watched the same movie, or even single episodes, many, many times. But there is a reason people, like myself, want to avoid spoilers before watching something new. Knowing how it ends ahead of time just hits different.
@ValueSubtracted but part of st vi laid out how the Federation and klingon empire became the allies we see in tng. That's the kind of "filling in the blanks" stories I'm talking about. VI is my 2nd favorite movie after Khan, so I'm not saying those kinds of stories can't be good as well.
Strange New Worlds is “filling in a timeline” that we absolutely know how it works out - even the characters do! It’s part of the plotline - but it’s a decent show. Sure, I have plenty of objections to the episode authors and character details, but after Abrams it’s almost refreshing. I don’t think knowing the future renders making an enjoyable series impossible, do you?
Actually, TrekMovie makes the case that the references in the reply to the need to ‘time things out’ for the franchise was the answer. I would parse that as their having other Star Trek franchise products ahead in the queue.
The person asking really let Cheeks off the hook though with their final question being, “Is Trek still a priority for the company?”.
No matter how specific the preceding preamble was to Legacy, the question they got to was super general and let Cheeks take it wherever he wanted.
@ValueSubtracted@startrek Yeah, just general talk of spacing out future projects. But since it's the only potential future project we know of (I think?) it's a straw to grab. 😂
Personally I wouldn't be shocked if the idea dies because people move on to other projects and then if/when Paramount decided to do it you suddenly can't get the band back together on the timeline they want.
Add comment