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?
@concrete_baby
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!
The Battlestar Galactica reboot caused an awful trend. Other studios clamored to try to recreate its success.
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.
This is, to an extent, in the eye of the beholder, and I’m not inclined to argue too much about taste.
Except. Except.
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.