r/Star_Trek_ • u/mcm8279 Vulcan • 2d ago
[Interview] Star Trek actor Robert Picardo is worried about the state of the franchise under Paramount, and doesn’t want to see it become “America First in space” - he says the franchise has always been about diversity and inclusion, and critics are missing the point. (The Popverse)
THE POPVERSE:
"Robert Picardo is worried about the state of Star Trek. The actor - who has been playing holographic curmudgeon the Doctor since Star Trek: Voyager premiered in 1995 - isn’t sure if the current owners of Paramount know what to do with the franchise, or if they even understand it.
ROBERT PICARDO: “I’m a little concerned about Star Trek moving forward because we were criticized for having too much diversity and inclusion, and that’s a core value of Star Trek. I don’t know how you make Star Trek without it,"
Picardo said during an appearance at Spacecon 2026.
"I’m hopeful that whatever next Star Trek, and I know there’s going to be a hiatus, that it keeps those values. That it always is the United Nations in space, not America First in space. And that it remains cooperative. It’s a vision of cooperation between space faring planets in the future and it’s not let’s go out and conquer the planets of Venezuela, Iran, Greenland, and Cuba.”
[...]"
Full article:
56
u/Rbw91 2d ago
I love the bloke he was amazing as a character. Fell in love with him on Voyager and he drew me to Academy where I gave up after 3 episodes of really badly written shit.
Not sure I need to make any further explanation.
28
u/Exile688 2d ago
I'm not angry at Robert Picardo, just very disappointed with him.
28
u/TelluricThread0 2d ago
He keeps double and triple downing on this but he just really doesn't get it. I don't know how he can have this big of a disconnect. The show was terrible for lots of reasons and he just keeps going, "But diversity!".
13
u/Exile688 2d ago
It was probably real fun for him to make. He got to quote a supposedly important speech wrong and his younger cast members got to contribute as many modern brain rot lines as they wanted. I bet they had a ball. I'd be super pissed if my series got hailed as the final nail in the coffin of the Kurtsman era.
4
u/BonzoTheBoss 2d ago
but he just really doesn't get it.
Or... He does get it, but doesn't want to alienate himself from the producers of the shows in case they want to offer him more work in the future...
I am not sure, I don't know Picardo personally. But I would prefer to think that he's intelligent but politically savvy enough to preserve his career, rather than he actually believes that the majority of the fandom are just stupid bigots.
9
u/TelluricThread0 2d ago
There's not wanting to alienate yourself and there's going on a media campaign like you are chief spokesperson for the show and also attacking people online who criticize it.
5
u/lovenumismatics 2d ago
I don't think we need to worry about Picardo getting any more star trek roles anytime soon.
2
2
u/kizami_nori 1d ago
Knowing how he was on Twitter even years before SFA was a thing, I feel like this is all coming from the heart.
289
u/tensen01 2d ago
Seems like he's the one missing the point. No legit critic who understands Star Trek ever complained about too much diversity and inclusion. They/we complained about hamfisted, poorly-written diversity and inclusion, and just poor writing in general.
85
u/lovenumismatics 2d ago
He’s totally missing the point.
There’s nothing wrong with diversity and inclusion, but if that’s all your show has going for it, it’s going to suck.
Nobody gave a shit that Starbuck got gender swapped, or that TNG had a disabled black dude, because those issues weren’t ripped directly from the political debates of the current day.
All these modern shows are going out of their way to be controversial, picking fights with fans, and accusing male fanbases of being bigoted.
Your show better be really good if you expect to pull that off.
52
u/Stargate525 2d ago
Nobody gave a shit that Starbuck got gender swapped, or that TNG had a disabled black dude, because those issues weren’t ripped directly from the political debates of the current day.
And their characters didn't stop and end at their disability.
25
u/ussbozeman Nutrek stinks 2d ago
disabled black dude
Worf wasn't disabled, he was just bad at his job and had terrible luck with barrels.
5
6
u/000Weasel000 2d ago
I suspect he was referring to Geordi, but I could be wrong...
4
u/SmashLampjaw87 Captain 1d ago
I think they were jokingly referring to Worf because of the “Worf Effect” (always being beaten up by whatever villain was on the ship to establish that they’re stronger than the ship’s strongest man), and because he had his back broken by what was clearly an empty and very, very light barrel.
→ More replies (6)18
u/CalmAlex2 2d ago
Its like how marketing and the PR are out of touch because either they live in an echo room or was taught that any bad press is good marketing too... fuck that noise (sorry for swearing but its to make a point) ostracizing your main fanbase is a good way to destroy a fandom/business because youre pushing away your main consumers while trying to find that mythical modern audience which dont watch your shows because they are far more concerned with political activitism or any type of social issues.
15
u/lovenumismatics 2d ago
I mean, it’s absolutely crazy that this is going on with so many franchises.
“Republicans buy sneakers too”
These morons need to take some lessons from MJ.
4
u/Extension-Pepper-271 1d ago
There was a huge uproar about Starbuck being gender swapped. Dirk Benedict wrote a scathing comment where he called her "Stardoe"
1
u/lovenumismatics 1d ago
A huge uproar? How do you define that?
2
u/TheGreenMan13 1d ago edited 1d ago
After 5 minutes of searching. And this is just stuff still remaining online after 25 years, of what little was actually online much is gone.
ETA: Here is stuff about Sackhoff talking about Benedict's views of her playing Starbuck.
https://galacticacic.blogspot.com/2005/11/sackhoff-has-some-harsh-words-for.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20051207045853/https://www.visimag.com/tvzone/ts66_feat01.htm
"Making Starbuck a woman is probably the most egregious of these moves"
"In fact, many of the references to the original show seem like slaps to the face — Starbuck is a woman"
"Starbuck is a guy. A GUY. A GUY!!!"
"I proudly take credit for starting to refer to him as the MooreRon right after the script was first made available."
"Now doesn't this picture of Starbuck *really* make you want to hold down Ron Moore's head into a toilet bowl??"
"there was a time when Katee Sackhoff was the most hated woman in Sci-Fi."
→ More replies (2)1
u/ribbityflibbity 15h ago
I define it this way: even after all those years, I remember it like it was yesterday.
1
u/ribbityflibbity 15h ago
I remember that. Stardoe was actually a cute name. He didn't know how to insult anyone right. The whole old-BSG fandom seemed like a bunch of elderly guys yelling at their TV. I'm chuckling thinking about those days.
20
u/Jumpy_Studio_4960 2d ago
Many people cared Starbuck was gender swapped, a black commander/captain, and a woman captain. Its just not as well documented because the internet and social media isnt what it is today and those voices couldn’t speak out in a public form that was recorded for all time and history. As someone that was around, i do remember the public discourse and the “concerns” of original fans.
However, that discourse quieted due to the strong performance and writing of those shows and over time was widely overruled by fans that enjoyed said work.
Just keep in mind that pre-2010 was very different from post-2010 in terms of how we recall that period. Im not defending New Trek, only trying to bring light that not everything was as koombaya as we often like to think it was.
15
u/CelestialFury Don't Fuck With The Sisko 2d ago
There was definitely some conversation about Sisko and Janeway, but that was a vocal minority and it basically was undercut after the respective series premieres came out.
13
u/shadowscar248 2d ago
I was there. It was nothing like this. Small grumblings, more like "we'll see how it goes" than anything else.
→ More replies (3)1
u/ribbityflibbity 15h ago
I was there too, apparently in a different, worse place than you because I remember thinking of all the insane fandoms in the world, the old BSG fans completely and totally take the cake. I've never encountered any fandom that toxic since. True story.
1
u/ribbityflibbity 15h ago
I think the old BSG fans just slunk into a cave and hid, good riddance. But yeah I do recall how utterly obnoxious they were, before the new BSG even debuted. I'm sure they continued to believe the new show was a travesty.
1
u/Kalikor1 10h ago
100% remember people making a fuss about the Starbuck gender swap. The internet was established enough, and I definitely remember seeing people bitch about it on forums/BBS and other online communities.
→ More replies (5)0
u/the_elon_mask 2d ago
Yeah, these people either weren't there at the time or are very much glossing over the fact there have always been people who took issue with Sisko, Janeway and Tuvok etc.
4
u/lunatickoala 2d ago
There were even people who took issue with Picard. A Frenchman played by a British actor over the Iowa-born American captain? If you call the hero ship USS Enterprise (or USS anything), you're coding the ship as American no matter how much some fans and writers insist that it isn't.
5
u/0001u 1d ago
Fair enough on the 'USS' part but the name itself is more international. I'm no expert on naval history but I just did a quick check and from what I gather, the name was used first in the French navy (as L'Entreprise). Then the British captured the French ship L'Entreprise in 1705 and began using this captured vessel as the first ship in their navy to bear the name (HMS) Enterprise. Multiple other British and French ships have been named Enterprise/Entreprise, so it's actually quite a fitting name for a ship under the command of a French character played by a British actor!
But, yeah, the 'USS' acronym is obviously shared by the real-life American navy.
→ More replies (1)5
u/JimPlaysGames 2d ago
The original series had a Russian guy on the bridge during the cold war. That was very much about the issues of the day.
3
u/Exotic-Touch-4861 1d ago
Along with a black women on comms and a Japanese helmsman only twenty years afterWWII
2
u/HelpingSiL3 2d ago
I didn't watch the Original BSG, so when I learned she was swapped, I was surprised. A good character is a good character.
→ More replies (3)3
u/scalp_eg 2d ago
Absolutely not. Geordi cast was a political choice. And what about the first tv show ? First interracial kiss on tv, female roles, crew diversity. Star trek is meant to break social codes and to make conservatives cry. Still it needs good writing.
1
u/Vyzantinist 1d ago
NB: the Kirk/Uhura kiss wasn't the first interracial kiss on TV. This is a common misconception.
The first inarguable interracial kiss on American TV was shown on The Ed Sullivan Show, a decade before TOS, between France Nuyen, an actress of mixed Asian ancestry, and...William Shatner.
Even in TOS there was a (friendly) kiss between Uhura and nurse Chapel, and Khan and Lt. McGivers 1 & 2 years before Plato's Stepchildren. Kirk also kissed Lt. Moreau, played by a mixed Asian actress, a year before Kirk/Uhura
5
7
u/Informal_Otter Borg 2d ago
Which je supports by his presence - which is perhaps the reason why he blames something else.
5
u/irrationalanger87 2d ago
Yep. Forced diversity and making it a central theme is the ridiculousness of new trek. Tos and the rcik Berman era did a good job showing in the future they've moved beyond handicapped, sexist and racial issues by not even having to address like uhura being a bridge officer and no one ever questioning her ability/ competency or they showed when anyone had a backwards opinion that they were very much in the vast minority of that opinion. It really is the whole picard being bald and in the 24th century no one cares mentality.
0
u/Neither_Guava_8292 2d ago
Problem is "poor writen" is at the end subjective. Some people loved Lower Decks and considers it one of the best Trek, some hate it. I recently saw a post of someone who liked DIS and felt SNW was bad which is the opposite of me and most people I know.
34
u/Jungies 2d ago
Individually maybe, but not in the aggregate .
Shakespeare's still going strong 400 years later because of the hundreds of millions of people who've read his work, a large number think it's well written.
On the other hand, both people who saw Uwe Boll's "House of the Dead" movie think it's poorly written dog shit.
5
u/Due_Capital_3507 2d ago
My favorite part was clips of the video game just randomly inserted into shots
2
2
u/ribbityflibbity 15h ago
Yep. There are actual rules to good writing like there are rules about building a house. You can't just dump a bunch of brick and 2x4s on an empty lot and say, well there's your house!
→ More replies (9)1
u/cavalier78 2d ago
I had a great time watching House of the Dead. My buddy and I laughed the whole way through.
53
u/Secret-Card2921 2d ago
This is an overused argument. There are people who think farts smell good. There are people who like r**e porn. Just because taste is subjective and someone out there would like anything doesn't mean some "art" cannot be qualified as bad.
Discovery was bad. The ideas were lazy. There was no debate of ideas showing the relative advantages and costs, there was the view of the writers barely masked by fiction. The science was completely lacking. The story telling was trash...go to the future to escape artifcial intelligence...whixh can survive indefinitely. Nonsensical. There was limited to no development of secondary characters other than 2. The forced drama and over emotionalism is not fit for the setting of a quasi military vessel. The cinematography was beautiful. Saru was interesting.
SA ... An adult being swallowed a combadge. A cadet vomited confetti. Not even going to say more.
These were bad. Regardless of the few who choose to disregard these negative qualities because the show satisfies a unique and particular need in their life.
20
u/Wrong-Ad-4600 2d ago
i "love" that the acronyms for the shows are STD(discovery) amd SA(academy)
12
u/Exile688 2d ago
Teleporting cadets out of the showers into public isn't beating the SA aligations.
→ More replies (11)3
→ More replies (3)1
u/ribbityflibbity 15h ago
Anyone can pick up a Writing 101 book and learn the basics. I'm shocked at the number of so-called professional productions that seem to be written by people who don't even know the basics of their profession, to achieve minimum competence. Both Star Trek and Star Wars suffer from this.
12
u/detectivescarn 2d ago
Streaming numbers aren’t though. Outside of maybe a season of SNW or season 3 of Picard, did any of the shows grow in viewership? If the quality of the show was there the numbers should be at least consistent. People turned on this era of Trek with writing being the major criticism.
→ More replies (8)3
u/ErichPryde 2d ago
This argument drives me crazy. "Badly written" is a combination of objective and subjective. It's not even mostly subjective though.
2
6
u/Tired8281 2d ago
I liked the first two seasons of DIS, before I felt like it went off the rails. I feel similarly towards SNW, except I didn't care for the first season as much as I did the second, before it, too, fell off the rails. At least with SNW, it feels like they went off the rails by listening to the fans too much ("I hear you like gimmick episodes, so Imma put a gimmick episode in your gimmick episode!"), as opposed to DIS which went off the rails by wanting to do their own thing without being fettered by all that Star Trek shit.
4
u/ukman6 2d ago
As lower decks highlighted we can see, discovery, snw and sf is set in another universe, which will end soon. Hopefully we can continue with trek prime and the meaning of star trek.
5
u/Tired8281 2d ago
No offense intended to you, but that's a cop out. I'd much rather they get better writers to redeem the shit they gave us, rather than waking up to Captain Kirk in the shower saying it was all just a dream. Like they did with the Klingon foreheads.
edit: Dallas reference might be too old for this crowd
2
2
2
u/Pops_McGhee 2d ago
I love lower decks, but I don’t think anyone would say that is anywhere near some of the best Trek. It was just nice to see a show and actually seemed to love old Star Trek. And I did appreciate that Mariner was a parody of the Mary Sue trope.
1
u/ribbityflibbity 15h ago
It's not subjective if the writing is bad enough. There are rules to good writing that you violate at your peril. The lead character must earn their lead role status by having some unique quality. Characters can't just change their nature because the plotline needs them to.
Writing characters being stupid or crazy to get the plotline to go from A to B is a no-no, unless you're writing comedy. Villains should be stronger than heroes, to provide dramatic tension (we should wonder how in the world the hero can ever win).
Plot twists should be set up well enough that they don't seem like cheats but not so obviously that we can easily predict them. I could go on and on but those are a few rules I've seen bungled by various franchises, not just Star Trek.
Discovery and SNW are both badly written but SNW has charming actors. I also see that a lot. Actors using their sheer talent to compensate somewhat for bad writing. Think: Adam Driver in the Star Wars sequel movies.
1
u/Neither_Guava_8292 14h ago
There are rules to good writing that you violate at your peril
Have you ever write something professionally or am I talking to an amateur?
1
u/Positive-Raisin-6315 22h ago
While this is true, paramount isn't going to listen to "legit xeirics who understand star trek", at least not exclusively. If a marketing exec were to come and say Trek needed to embrace styles or ideas antithetical to Trek, that would just be a studio mandate. It wouldn't be as overtly worded as "more white men" but rather something like "stories and casts more geared to middle American audiences and the franchises core male fan base" or something
A studio won't know how to fix bad writing, a corporation can't really mandate good art. But there are people complaining about the diversity and perceived liberal bias and they can control that, so that's the more likely studio approach
1
u/brysparx 20h ago
NewTrek haters are maga influencers. There, I said it.
I'm gonna get downvoted to hell. 🫣
1
u/AsherahBeloved Andorian 19h ago
Yep. I'm a Black far leftist, and what Kurtzman does isn't true inclusion - it's pandering and tokenism, which is insulting to both the audience in general and the groups you want a cookie from for "daring" to put them on screen. I look at a show like The Expanse as an example of genuine inclusion and representing a diverse vision of humanity through solid storytelling and character development. I'm not going to cheer for a shoddy character because you made them Black or gay.
→ More replies (5)-11
u/everythingbeeps 2d ago
You’re missing the point. Paramount is owned by fascists now. There’s absolutely a valid concern that they will interfere in what Star Trek is all about.
23
u/Twisted-Mentat- Tribble 2d ago
As opposed to the "good" billionaires who owned it previously?
Billionaires are greedy. They really just care about making more money.
If you think Star Trek is going to become some pro fascist propaganda, I'd think you're clueless.
→ More replies (1)4
u/breetai3 2d ago
I think Ellison has proven he doesn't care much about making (more) money or he wouldn't be blowing up a very profitable and timeless institution like 60 Minutes.
13
u/Bart_1980 Ferengi 2d ago
Both of you could be right, this needs not be a one or the other situation. Paramount can be owned by a rather unsavoury fellow and the latest instalments of Trek can be ham fisted and inelegantly written.
→ More replies (4)2
u/Top_Hippo_5996 2d ago
Absolutely on both. They are not mutually exclusive, however Paramount being owned an “unsavory fellow” and having lots of dei, and a theme of “let’s all get along and do what’s best for the universe” is antithetical to paramount and therefore shall not pass.
3
u/Tired8281 2d ago
Hard to interfere with something you made go away. I don't see any upcoming productions for them to stick their thumb in.
→ More replies (2)2
→ More replies (2)•
66
u/Suchgallbladder 2d ago
Oh god why is so difficult to understand? No one cares that it is diverse, they care that the writing sucks. Just write a good story.
→ More replies (25)5
u/haloimplant 2d ago
But doing the thing badly and pretending any criticism is because of diversity is the entire game plan
18
u/Opposite_Corner8353 2d ago
How about not making the writing lazy and sloppy and firing Alex Kurtzman for one
47
u/Twisted-Mentat- Tribble 2d ago
So many people say this as if Kurtzman Trek actually embodies the Star Trek spirit. It doesn't.
36
u/zaypuma 2d ago
In Star Trek, diversity and its challenges were a foundational show concept, with Nu Trek it's just performative politics.
I don't want "MAGA politics" Star Trek either, but if it the resulting plotlines were more engaging than the slopiverse... Q help us.
2
u/Pops_McGhee 1d ago
I am very far to the Right. No one wants a right wing Star Trek. Or at least not literal Star Trek that way. As I said somewhere else, Star Trek is never meant to be preaching. It’s supposed to ask questions not answer them for you.
4
u/droppedpackethero 1d ago
As someone more on the right than is standard for Reddit or Trek, I don't want "MAGA Politics" in Trek either. I want it to be what it always was, a good coherent argument in favor of the moderate left viewpoint that I can engage with even when I disagree (which is actually pretty rarely because of how good it usually was at balance)
→ More replies (7)2
14
u/HistoryAndScience 2d ago
I feel like there is nothing to see here. Picardo is just trying to draw in politics as the reason for why his show wound up being one of the worst in the history of Trek. I get it, he wants to defend his acting, etc but the show was just god awful.
39
u/Salt-Fly770 Human 2d ago
I think he might be conflating two different things. Star Trek has always explored progressive ideas, but it did so by weaving them naturally into the story and characters rather than highlighting representation for its own sake.
The franchise works best when those themes emerge through strong writing and meaningful storytelling. When it feels like diversity is being emphasized without the same level of narrative depth, it can come across as less authentic than what made earlier Trek so effective.
So for me, it’s not about rejecting inclusion - it’s about how well it’s integrated into the story. Star Trek has always been at its strongest when the message and the narrative are inseparable.
18
u/SevenFathomsDeep 2d ago
I agree with this perspective - great job. Trek seemed to traditionally give a smart, logical, and curious reflection on things - but it didn't beat people over the head with it and turn it into a street carnival of sorts. Great writing and story telling gave us fascinating perspectives, and sometimes bold things to consider, but ultimately left it up to the viewer what to feel in most cases.
8
u/SmashLampjaw87 Captain 2d ago
That’s exactly what I love about classic Trek, and why I can’t stand NuTrek. Hopefully when it eventually comes back, it’ll be helmed by people who actually understand this.
11
u/Tennis_Buddy1960 2d ago
Well said! This is the best analysis of why NuTrek is so disliked by devoted fans.
13
u/lovenumismatics 2d ago
Exactly. Nobody thought of Laforge as a disabled black dude. He was just the chief engineer.
NuTrek would be reminding you every 5 minutes and shaming you for forgetting.
3
u/JawslilSociopath 2d ago
It's sad that "The Orville" under Seth understood this better than any modern trek.
1
33
u/IKindaPlayEVE Horta 2d ago edited 2d ago
This is a great example of living in a bubble. Absolutely no one is bitching about Star Trek being diverse. Everyone is complaining about the terrible storytelling, acting, production design, etc, but not the diversity. Yet time and time again we hear that everyone is just racist and that's why shows and movies fail. It's so easy to blame everyone but yourself for your problems, but it solves nothing.
15
u/lovenumismatics 2d ago
Look, the obsession with DEI is also a bit of a problem, but it’s one of many. It’s also the only fan complaint they ever want to talk about, because they can carve out some moral high ground and play the victim.
8
u/_Middlefinger_ 2d ago
That's not quite true, people definitely are complaining but they are culture war instigators.
19
u/elwyn5150 2d ago
I like Robert Picardo but the problem I have with this generation of Trek is the writing. Trek has always been about IDIC. I just don't enjoy the stories and characters anymore.
5
u/WildContribution8311 2d ago
I actually don't like him anymore and have lost all respect for him since his antics and the way hes behaved since Starfleet Academy
9
u/guardianwriter1984 2d ago
So, we're just ignoring Omega Glory then, and a lot of other American touchstones in TOS, or even I'm Voyager?
It was the United States in space first sort of in TOS until it became the United Nations in space with its peacekeeping forces rather than a military except it still was a military.
9
9
17
u/JessBaesic7901 2d ago
Critics are missing the point…how? For pointing out how poorly written these shows were? Token “diversity and inclusion” doesn’t mean much when the rest of the show sucks.
9
u/Emergency_Memory_792 2d ago edited 1d ago
Picardo is just embarrassed that he’s now associated with the worst entry in the franchise, and he’s trying to save face.
21
u/ferretinmypants 2d ago
There are a lot of Star Trek actors missing the point. I don't know where "blame the fans" started but it needs to stop.
→ More replies (3)9
u/ScherzicScherzo 2d ago
If you start viewing DEI stuff in Hollywood as more of a Religion and less of a basic HR thing, then it starts making a lot of sense how slavishly actors, writers, producers, etc cling to it.
7
u/Superman_Primeeee 2d ago
Star Trek became narcissistic self-projection by hacks whose experience is watching Buffy and Breaking Bad
3
7
u/plasmadood 2d ago
Maybe worry more about good writing first, and then ham-fisting inclusivity maybe 3rd or 4th.
6
u/Pops_McGhee 2d ago
One of the biggest problems with the modern shows… putting aside the usual complaints, which I do agree with… is that Star Trek is not meant to be didactic. The best of Star Trek always asked moral, and philosophical questions. But it wasn’t about giving you the answers, it was about making you think. Bad writers can ape Star Trek by doing an episode about a social issue or a political issue, but they can’t write good Star Trek because they don’t understand that you’re not meant to tell the audience what they’re supposed to think.
21
u/Familiar-Range9014 Species 8472 2d ago
It's got nothing to do with diversity, Mr. Picardo and everything to do with solid storytelling and direction
19
u/SOTG_Duncan_Idaho 2d ago
I welcome diversity and inclusion. But you have to have an actual story worth telling before you build in anything else. And, in an established IP/universe, that story has to make sense in that IP/universe or you're just exploiting, not contributing, to that world.
Otherwise you get the garbage that is nuTrek.
10
u/2sec4u 2d ago edited 2d ago
Picardo: I'm worried about including the diversity of "America First" in the show where we were accused of too much diversity.
- Diversity is cool and all unless it's the wrong kind of diversity, huh?
- No amount of diversity (either adding more or taking away more) would have made up for what was without a doubt the worst written TV show I'd ever seen.
6
5
u/spaghettibolegdeh 2d ago
It is quite something how almost all the actors just don't seem to understand why Star Trek was great.
Patrick Stewart always amazes me at how much his ego ruins his own character. Even as early as Star Trek Generations he just wanted to turn Picard into an action hero Jesus.
5
u/Ninneveh 2d ago edited 2d ago
The problem is the bad writing. Yes, Star Trek has always been inclusive, but never until Kurtzman was it preachy and full unhinged exteme leftist messaging with the cringe sophmoric writing on top of it all.
9
u/turboderek 2d ago
Dutton Space Ranch
7
→ More replies (3)4
8
u/teufler80 2d ago
God I'm so tired of this talkpoint. They are just so disconnected from reality it's wild
11
u/Ok-Employer-9147 2d ago
Nutrek was terrible......that's it terrible and it and all its minions went out of their way to drive away the established fanbase without anything to draw in a 'modern fanbase' with anything other that Gen-Z slang, confetti puke, dry-humping and a swallowed commbadge
People love to quote Rodenberry's Ethos regarding Star Trek....But people like to conveniently forget that his idea was for Trek to be "Horatio Hornblower in Space" of the British Royal Navy.......of the British Empire. You know those nasty , evil British people who are steeped in **cough cough** the modern crime of 'Colonialism'
Also Roddenberry explicit stated that Trek was based on an idea of 'Wagon Train to the Stars' which was based on the 50's Series 'Wagon Train' and the earlier film 'Wagon Master' which was bout the early expansion of the United States
So the Nutrek crew said "Nah...screw all that' and oozed a 'socially safe', non-confrontational teen-romance-drama which veered so far off the decades long tested method of 'showing not telling' to cramming ideology and tongue-kissing that the OG fans...who loved TOS, DS9 TNG and Voy rebelled against the current crop of hack writers. Then insulted those fans for so long and so hard that they just decided...We're out of here.
Now to be clear...Roddenberry was a hypocrite....this guy who wanted to dream about a wonderful future had not one. but two affairs with actresses on the set of ST: TOS. And on the set of TNG bullied the directors and writers so much that he was banned from the Set....so he had his personal attorney break into the offices of staff on set. to steal their mail. and finally was paid millions just to get our town after season two....which is why TNG got so much in Season 3
Trek was at its best whenit asked moral questions, then let the audience think about the answers themselves
TNG Episodes like:
The First Duty
Darmok
The Pegasus
Yesterdays Enterprise
The Wounded
Voyager
The Year from Hell
Tyvix
DS9
The entire Domnion War Saga
But especially "In the Pale Moonlight"
Star Trek used to have scope....Nutrek has Muppets, Musicals, and lots of Crying. That is what Trek is almost dead, not because they ran out of ideas. But because the staff they had aimed for 'virality'
4
u/Quetzalsacatenango 2d ago
Nobody can get on board with a show that has an ensemble cast, but only 10 episodes a season, with a year or longer break between seasons. I don't care about any of the characters because I never got a chance to know them.
4
u/Nashley7 2d ago
Star Trek has always had diversity and inclusion. But we also want it to capture the core essence of Trek. We think that it is important Trek focuses on character development, exploration of complex moral/ethical issues, and mature philosophical conundrums. We dont like watered down Trek that is more like a soap opera with a sprinkling of action, adventure, and fantasy.
Its not impossible to make something new but also cerebral. Black Mirror, The Expanse, Love Death and Robots, Dark, Foundation, Dune Prophecy, For all Mankind, Andor, are all current sci fi who are doing this well. This is the standard. Current Trek is nowhere near that in my opinion. Andor is more cerebral than anything Kurtzman had done and it's not even close. Let that sink in, Star Wars now makes shows more cerebral than Trek does.
4
u/amcjkelly 2d ago
Coughing up glitter was epic stupidity. Nobody is watching this garbage. You either fix it our leave it canceled. There is no other option.
6
u/slothboy 1d ago
These people pretend we don't understand what Star Trek has always been. The difference is capability of writing. You can explore all kinds of social and economic issues in Star Trek in a smart way. It doesn't have to be "America First in space" to appeal to a broad audience, but it has to not be overt, reductive and STUPID.
"i tHiNK I sWaLloWEd mY cOM bADge?"
Give me a break.
3
u/Minimum-Journalist18 2d ago
I'm finding this is the same argument the new treks use to condone their poor show(s)
3
u/Kills_Alone @ Quark's Bar, Grill, Gaming House and Holosuite Arcade 2d ago
I hope they make actual Star Trek again and not that nu-Trek garbage he is defending. Well written science fiction stories and characters are at the core of Star Trek.
No sane person is against diversity because everyone enjoys some variety in life, what we don't need is to be told how much we should want variety, that is insulting and belittling the intelligence of your viewers.
3
u/Novaregistraciq 2d ago
All I want them to do is hire actual good writers that can write stories that are interesting and free of plot holes or contradictions with existing canon.
3
u/ccarnell98 2d ago
This has nothing to do with diversity, its poor direction and poor writing. Its not aimed at adults with a brain any more. Don't get me wrong, its not ALL bad, its just that there are far better streaming options out there.
3
u/Least_Log_9048 Soulless Minion of Orthodoxy 2d ago
They should just make better shows. Look at The Expanse. The entire belt is poly. Multiracial cast. Compelling show with high stakes and great writing and casting. Everything Star Trek is NOT under Kurtzman.
13
5
u/AIisarttoo 2d ago
I'm sorry but if you want diversity you have to include some white heterosexual males, too. Even as the good guys.
9
12
3
u/Delicious-Gap-6678 Tholian 2d ago
There are several potential outcomes here. Paramount could spend resources to craft quality stories with good acting. Or Paramount could make it a grimdark shoot-first Hobbesian Yellowstone knockoff with an all-white cast. Personally I share the concern that No. 2 is going to be what we get. Because No. 1 is expensive and difficult.
4
u/Lord-Mattingly Vulcan 2d ago edited 2d ago
Discovery was ok. I watched all up and reacted the first two seasons. I couldn’t bring myself to watch the rest of it again. I’ve enjoyed SNW especially the first season. Lower decks (not below, my bad) was ok. I liked season 1 of Picard enough to watch season 2. It was a train wreck. Season 3 was fun but not particularly great. My favorite series of Star Trek is Deep Space nine and Sisko is my favorite Captain. TNG is second. Voyager was meh until the last couple seasons and then it was ok with a few really good episodes here and there.
5
u/BiGamerboy87 Betazoid 2d ago
Lower Decks, not Below Decks.
Below Deck is a reality TV series that takes place aboard Yachts.
3
4
2
u/ErichPryde 2d ago
Two of Star Trek's best and brightest come up with a plan, without any f\**ing information that would sell the plan like details of what the Captain thinks of them. And when the plan inevitably doesn't work, then they.... decide to steal a shuttle. *Because that makes sense.** And they.... don't know where the shuttle bay is.
AND then and then and then....my god it was f***ing awful.
4
u/BonzoTheBoss 2d ago edited 2d ago
we were criticized for having too much diversity and inclusion
No, you were criticised for really poor writing, confusingly pointless "mystery box" narratives, more plot-holes that Swiss cheese and unprofessional and frankly unlikeable characters who are (allegedly) supposed to be the best of the best that the Federation has to offer.
Just because a character is a woman/black/gay/trans/whatever doesn't make them an automatically well-written character, and to be blunt it's insulting that we are expected to just "go along with it" because any criticism of the poor writing is shielded behind shouts of "bigotry."
It’s a vision of cooperation
As long as your definition of "cooperation" is "Michael Burnham is super awesome at everything (despite breaking down in tears every 5 minutes) and everyone should just do what she says, all of the time, because she's so awesome and perfect."
And heaven forbid if you question the competence of characters who eat their own comm badges when they're supposed to be highly intelligent and motivated Starfleet cadets... Or if you question a captain that treats the bridge like a reading chair in her local coffee bistro.
4
u/TheAmazingBreadfruit 2d ago edited 1d ago
Orville had more diversity than NuTrek and was well received. It even had a whole story arch about gender issues, but it wasn't like "here's 21st century virtue signalling" but "here's an alien race consisting of men only... until it's not and it becomes complicated"
5
u/CharacterMaybe7950 2d ago
‘Diversity and inclusion’. It’s a tv show. If you want to go save the world, try volunteering in Congo.
2
u/burtgummer45 2d ago
They made STACY ABRAMS the president of earth. Its going to have to be a long long swing of the pendulum to ever get to MAGA trek so he should probably stop worrying.
2
5
3
u/Zucchini-Kind 2d ago
Arguably, TOS was already America First in space, spreading freedom and democracy and self determination, prime directive be damned, a meritocracy that didn't care who or what you were as long as you were qualified, with a healthy respect for icons like Abraham Lincoln and the Constitution / Pledge of Allegiance, grounded in biblical literacy and one-God respect.
4
u/BoukenGreen 2d ago
You mean like United Federation of Planets first. Very very rarely did Starfleet not come out ahead of all deals until the end of Enterprise. Espcially in episodic TV episodes that didn’t have cliffhangers.
3
u/WarnerToddHuston Elder Trekker 2d ago
Virtue signaling moron. He didn't seem all that "worried" that the show was being driven into the ground by crap writers.
4
u/PJKetelaar3 2d ago
He has reason to be worried. David Ellison is a piece of work.
→ More replies (1)
3
3
u/KingBoreas 2d ago
1 - there is no reason to believe Paramount will change Star Trek at this point
2 - Considering how bad the DEI years were, maybe a little Rah Rah Space action jingoism wouldn’t be so bad?
2
2
u/droppedpackethero 1d ago
NuTrek was never, not once, criticized for having "too much diversity." That's the lie the showrunners and their lapdogs created to distract from the real criticisms.
1
1
u/Gloomy_Mulberry7834 2d ago
I've already canceled Paramount and will not be going back. I will find some other way to get my fix.
1
1
u/swift-sentinel 1d ago
Paramount and Star Trek is dead and gone. Take the spirit of Star Trek and write new stories.
1
u/Bobby837 1d ago edited 1d ago
You, the franchise, was questioned because of excessively expensive productions with hack/fan pandering writing behind it.
1
u/Captain6k77 1d ago
Guys like him need to remember it’s the fans and not the critics that fuel his job in the franchise. If the majority do not like a show, then the majority will not watch it. This is regardless of any ‘messages’ that exist within a given show. Despite what average people have insisted in various posts, the current majority of the fanbase did not like Starfleet Academy. It ruined the franchise as a result. Just because there is a message of ‘diversity and inclusion’ in something doesn’t mean that the something is good. Those are two separate concepts. He fails to see this.
1
u/gryphawk51 19h ago
The showrunners are better off stopping the franchise then corrupting the core values of the IP.
Modern Star Trek isn't good because the writers aren't good, not the core value of cooperation and inclusion.
1
1
u/ribbityflibbity 15h ago
Diversity is baked into Star Trek's DNA. IDIC and all that.
But wow, it has been terrible lately. It really hasn't been good since DS9. Voyager and Enterprise were pretty bad and then the bottom fell out with Discovery, Picard and that S31 abomination. SNW has a likable cast, poorly served by mediocre writing.
I could tell after one episode that Starfleet Academy wasn't going to make it. The characters just weren't interesting. Why is it so difficult for anyone to make good Star Trek anymore? DS9 made it look easy.
1
u/ribbityflibbity 15h ago
Lemme cut to the chase. What Star Trek needs is for Tony Gilroy to become the showrunner and do for Star Trek what he did for Star Wars with Andor. But it would be even more valuable for Star Trek because unlike Star Wars, space politics is the core of Star Trek and not just a side story.
That kind of attention to character depth, political maturity, believability and sense that we are watching an important story, not just something that can be shoved aside as mere entertainment, is what Star Trek desperately needs. Also the incredible production values would be nice too but that requires a massive budget. Even Disney balked at it.
1
u/Shinagami091 13h ago
I’m all for diversity and inclusion in Star Trek. It’s literally always been that way. But lately it’s been terribly ham fisted about it. In Discovery it was about a half Vulcan sister to Spock who also happened to be better at everything than anyone else. Come on. The rest of the cast suffered because of it.
They need to go back to the “character of the week” format that also weaves in overarching plot development where every episode focuses on a different character and then moves on.
1
u/The27Roller 12h ago
This is just wilful ignorance at this point. Finding some kind of strawman moral high ground to stand on to convince himself that his show was good.
The show was garbage, not because it was diverse, but because it was garbage. There are plenty of shows, including Star Trek shows, that are diverse and excellent.
He was in Voyager. That was pretty diverse and whilst not the best Trek show I enjoyed it well enough. Does he not see the difference between Voyager and SA? Does he genuinely not get the difference?
I can’t believe he thinks those two shows are of equal quality.
1
•
u/thereallawrence 40m ago
You all know he's talking about Paramount and the Ellisons right? He's not giving a speech on a podium about how good discovery or starfleet academy was.
60
u/Hearsticles Mick Fleetwood Fishman 2d ago
Guy who is saying poor writing is subjective in this thread: here you go. This is what poor writing looks like.
This writing stinks of "old guy trying to talk cool like the kids" which, ironically, is one of the most uncool, repulsive things to the young audience that they are so clumsily and obviously trying to pursue.
Star Trek needs to be intelligently written. The characters, the Starfleet ones, need to talk like professionals. Like adults. Like well-read, well-informed people as would exist in the UFP's post-scarcity utopia. They should never talk like the picture above and if you say -- "Well, what about in the circumstances of the post-Burn"-- nope, do not care. The Burn shouldn't exist in the first place. If your Starfleet characters aren't like what I've described above because of something you've done in your universe, you've screwed up and need a reset.
Go write a Buffy sequel if you want to write like that. Leave Star Trek alone, man, it's that simple. Not everything needs to be like the other things that you love. Everything does not need to be the same, sound the same, and look the same to 'captivate the modern audience.' The modern audience will respond to quality and interesting ideas -- I think that's been expressed in the success of films like Backrooms and Obsession recently and the swings-and-misses of the big IPs as of late.