Why People Resist New Treks

PREFACE: My apologies for not having a new post for you last week. We were in hurricane-watch mode, and I didn’t have time to write and pre-schedule anything before we evacuated. (Family and property are unscathed, btw.)

Why are some people so resistant to, or even harshly critical of, new Star Trek series and movies?

I know people have been talking about this for years, now. Of course, I have already written a little about it in my reviews of “Star Trek: Discovery”. But, for some reason, I started thinking about it again a few days ago and decided to put a few more thoughts down.

Most agree that the casting for these movies (i.e., the Kelvin timeline / Nu-Trek / JJ-verse “reboot” films) and TV series (i.e., so far, only “Star Trek: Discovery”) has been pretty good. Still, we all have that one or two characters who get under our skin and/or the casting seems all wrong (e.g., Cumberbatch as “Kahn” in Star Trek Into Darkness). Plus, it’s always going to be difficult to re-cast iconic characters, especially when the original actors have become so strongly identified with those roles.

We gripe about lens flares and confusing or dumbed-down plotlines and “lazy writing”. As I’ve mentioned before, my main concerns run more along the lines of maintaining continuity with previous films/series and other issues of canon. The most obvious and serious ones involve the look and level of technology at particular points in time and the appearance of established races/species of sapient beings. Some of the violations may be excused by an alternate timeline, but not everyone wants an alternate timeline. Nor do we want things to change for no good reason.

But, as I’ve indicated in my STDisc reviews, I can forgive some of what they’ve done, hold out judgement for other things which may yet be resolved to my satisfaction, and just enjoy the series for what it is.

I think one of the biggest factors that holds people back from liking a new show or film reboot is precisely the fact that it’s new. Whether we were weaned on the Original Series (TOS) (with subsequent films) or grew up with the TNG/DS9/VOY series, THAT is what Star Trek looks and feels like to us. We generally prefer what is familiar, so when a new show or film introduces new actors, new ships, new looks for “old” things, we balk. It doesn’t look right. Doesn’t feel right.

Of course, as many have pointed out, when TNG first debuted back in 1987, many of my fellow-Trekkies/ers were quite slow to accept the “new kid” as legit Star Trek. (I’d wager that a few die-hards still haven’t.) But, after the actors, writers, producers, etc., got their collective feet under them, they put out some really great (or, at least, fun) episodes, and even the old holdouts began to get into it. Plus, it obviously pulled in new viewers, meaning there was a whole “next generation” of fans.

Another major aspect to this whole thing has to do with the tone and type of stories that are told in the newer productions. Part of this has to do with Gene Roddenberry’s “vision”, which people have been debating for many years. (Remember the hubbub over DS9?) But, that’s a can of worms I don’t really want to get into. More generally, I’m thinking of the way that the best of Star Trek has hearkened back to the early days of “speculative fiction”, which addressed serious topics — even quite controversial social issues — while dressing them in elements of the fantastic.

Star Trek has always been at its best when balancing the “action” aspects with looking (subtly or not) at ethics and philosophical topics, often reflecting current, real-life issues. I have heard/read many fans complain that the reboot movies and STDisc don’t do this, or at least not very well, and that there is too much “action”, especially in the movies. In some cases, I think these people just need to look a bit harder and perhaps try to be more… objective. But, I also can’t deny that the JJ-verse movies in particular are much heavier in the “action” and F/X (inc. lens flares 😉 ) than most of their predecessors.

On the other hand and to be fair, I imagine it’s not easy to tell a “cerebral” and philosophically-reflective story while simultaneously trying to please a generation (or two) that grew up on action flicks, many of which barely had a coherent plot to speak of. For me, I generally enjoy the JJ-verse films as action flicks with some familiar Trek names and concepts, but for the most part they don’t really feel like Star Trek.

This leads directly to the final factor that I think has been a problem for the newer films and series. Namely, time. The original series (ST:TOS) had only three seasons before going off the air in 1968. But, then it experienced a resurgence of popularity through reruns in the 1970s, official novels and short-stories were published (along with comics and fan-fiction, of course), and 22 episodes of The Animated Series (ST:TAS) aired, all before the first film premiered in 1979. The original crew made three more movies even before TNG debuted and two — well, two-and-a-half — after that.

My point is that TOS had over a decade of stories for fandom to enjoy, in which the setting and the characters — via relationships and character arcs — were well-established, before a film was even attempted. We knew these beloved characters and the actors who played them. Even those TOS-based movies that are less well-liked still had a familiar look and feel, the characters could be counted on to behave consistently with how they had in the past (unless a temporary lapse served the plot), and the stories still dealt with big issues (e.g., environmentalism, religion, revenge & forgiveness).

TNG had a different-yet-similar foundation. Seven seasons aired from 1987-1994, and the first TNG film (shared with TOS cast) premiered 6 months later. Scads of novels based on TNG and related characters were published and consumed by rabid fans (like me) throughout the series and the three films that followed and (as with TOS) continue today. There were also the related series, DS9 and VOY, which also had several seasons, novels, etc. Again, fans had several years to learn and grow with these characters (and the actors).

Say what you will about the JJ-verse films, they never had this luxury. New cast + alterations (due to new timeline) + action-heavy plot = serious issues for most long-time franchise fans to get past. (New fans, of course, didn’t have the “baggage”.) Yes, the TOS and TNG films had more action than most series episodes did. But, they still worked, because they already had the many-years-long foundation built by the respective TV series.

“Star Trek: Discovery” shares many of the same issues with the Kelvin timeline films. But, since it’s a new series — and a prequel at that — ostensibly set in the main Star Trek timeline, it has it’s own set of problems, too. (And I won’t rehash them here.) But, since it is a new series, I hope that more people will give it a chance, just as we older fans did TNG and the rest.

Now that I’ve said what I had to say, some of you may be thinking, “Duh! That’s what I’ve been sayin’!” And that’s fine. I never assumed I was the only one to think along these lines. If you disagree with my assessment, that’s fine, too. But, if your reaction is more like, “Huh! That actually kinda makes sense….”, then, well,… Happy to be of service!