An interesting, deliberately thought provoking 🤔 question for a lazy long weekend Sunday morning…

Setting aside whether specific fans like specific ‘gimmicks’ (crossovers, musicals, bringing back Kirk or Khan) or tropes (transporter malfunctions), Space.com is posing the hypothesis that the proportion was too high in Strange New Worlds second season.

There’s no arguing that the season was successful in drawing in large audiences week after week. Taking a look back though, was there too much trippy-Trek™ dessert and not enough of a meaty main course? YMMV surely.

For my part, I can both agree that trippy Trek is something I’ve been wanting more of, and that I would have welcomed 2 or 3 more episodes were more grounded or gave the opportunity to see more of Una as a leader and dug into Ortegas backstory.

The 90s shows seemed to be bit embarrassed by trippyness, although Voyager found its pretext allowed even stern Janeway to pronounce ‘Weird is our business.’ One can argue that the high proportion in SNW is a feature, not a bug.

I’d still prefer a 12-15 episode season though.

  • ValueSubtracted@startrek.websiteM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    2 years ago

    I really don’t think the inclusion of Kirk should be considered a “gimmick”. There was no stunt-casting, nor were the episodes in which he appeared particularly gimmicky (well, okay, “Subspace Rhapsody” was a gimmick episode, but in a way that wasn’t structured around Kirk specifically).

    Like it or hate it, it’s clear to me that the producers are including Kirk because they think it’s worth exploring the character at this point in his career. I wouldn’t call that a gimmick.

    • StillPaisleyCat@startrek.websiteOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I found that the opinion-piece from Space.com didn’t distinguish classic tropes and use of legacy characters from ‘gimmicks.’

      While my personal preference prior to the show’s premiere had been to hold on the introduction of so many TOS legacy characters, to allow the others and original ones to breathe, as long as having Kirk there is bringing new insights to his character (and others’), it’s all to the good. At this point, I’m eager to see more of young Scotty.

    • CRR@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      I’m up to the third season of TOS right now and it dawned on me the other day that I’ve already seen more TOS than I probably will ever see of SNW. I know they’re putting more time/effort into SNW episodes, but it’d be great to see some longer seasons.

    • PuppyOSAndCoffee@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 years ago

      M’Benga has a dark dark chapter.

      I love SNW; the point with more episodes would be to give more leg room for the writers and actors. No more cliffhangers though…at least not quite like that “CUT!”

    • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 years ago

      Some of the episodes of SNW S2 are amongst the darkest things ever portrayed in Trek at all. The swinging from the Lower Decks episode to the M’Benga/Chapel episode was intense

      Ad Astra and Among the Lotus Eaters were also pretty serious episodes.

  • PlasmaDistortion@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    In my opinion it is the best Trek in a very long time and blows the recent movies out of the water. SNW deserves the right to add in some fun to keep things interesting.

  • HWK_290@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    What turns me off about SNW is that The Orville is a better return to form to “classic Trek” than actual Star Trek. The episodes revolving around Topa’s gender and identity is some of the best scifi commentary on modern society out there right now.

    I think it’s good that CBS never gave MacFarlane his own ST show, lest he be beholden to all the history of the franchise (the same thing that is, in part, weighing down SNW). Who knew that khan was Kirk’s father’s brother’s nephew’s cousin’s former roommate?!

    • T156@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      I’d argue that the Star Trek history weighs it down more than that. Even without the historical references, much of the shows seem to be held back by the trying to live up to it, or having to stick to the same formula. Enterprise and Voyager famously suffered from considerable network meddling to try and recapture TNG, for example.

      It could work, but it also means that much of any social commentary that does show up is a bit hampered, since the network wants a safe, conservative star Trek show (and the fans might be partly to blame, because they also want more of the same too, so much of the time).

      A modern TOS that pushed boundaries as the original could never be made under the same brand. It’s far too controversial for the network to accept, with all of its progressive and social commentary elements intact.


      Not that it’s a fault of Star Trek’s specifically, just an issue with how big it has become. If the Orville became a similarly established brand, instead of Star Trek, it would almost certainly have had the same issues.

  • Corgana@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 years ago

    Betteridge’s law of headlines in action here. Season 2 was the best season of Star Trek since Voyager season 6.

  • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 years ago

    Yea I think the season just needed more episodes to breath.

    I’ve argued elsewhere that the whole Kirk thing and embracing being a TOS prequel rather than its own show is a bad thing. Whether true or not, it adds even more to what the show is trying to do, on top of musicals and cross overs, so yes it needs more episodes and hopefully they get them.

      • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        Oh I’ve got nothing against the portrayal or actor or even the inclusion of Kirk in the show … I just think the amount of TOS stuff (including Scotty) got distracting in S2, and that treating the show as a TOS prequel, which seems to be the case given what the showrunners have said, isn’t going to be healthy for the show in the long run.

        In general, my take on season 2 is that I’ve mentally prepared myself for it to mark the point at which it went bad or stopped being actually good. We’ll have to see, and I’m obviously hoping that I’m paranoid … but I do not trust Kurtzman or paramount or the temptation some executives must be salivating over to just reboot the original series.

      • caseyweederman@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        He’s a dead ringer for a younger original Pike though. I wonder if he auditioned for that role but they brought him back for Kirk instead.

        He’s doing a great job as Kirk! But he looks more like Pike than Pike does.

  • Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    I did want more strange new worlds than we got this season, so I somewhat agree with the headline

  • Dojan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    I really enjoyed it. Season 3 of discovery really put me off the show, and SNW felt a bit like a return to form. Season 2 managed to be lighthearted and fun while also tackling more serious subjects.

    It was a good season, and the gimmicks added rather than removed, I feel.