“Tellarites do not argue for reasons. They simply argue.”
I thought about that Sarek quote from the TOS episode “Journey to Babel” as I pondered what I like to call TREKKIE GRIEVANCE SYNDROME. Those who suffer from TGS (or make the rest of us have to suffer THEM having it) say things like:
- Star Trek is dead! CBS/Alex Kurtzman killed it!
- The crap that CBS is putting out is NOT Star Trek!
- I’d rather there be NO Star Trek than what’s on Paramount+!
- Alex Kurtzman/CBS/JJ Abrams/Bad Robot doesn’t care about us longtime fans; they just want to destroy real Star Trek and replace it with Star Wars!
- Anyone who likes these new shows is living in denial and not a true fan!
- The ratings/viewership for Star Trek is way down, which is why Alex Kurtzman was/is about to be/has been/is being fired!
- We fans have been loyal to Star Trek through these many decades, and we deserve better than this drivel they have the gall to make us pay for!
It’s that last item that led me to dub this Trekkie GRIEVANCE, as the fans complaining seem to take it quite personally that new Star Trek isn’t living up to their expectations. Fan “deserve” better! And maybe we do—but I gotta say, some of us are not acting very deserving!!!
Y’see, there’s a difference between critiquing, criticizing, and just plain bashing. Critiquing is what I do in many of my blog review editorials. There are things I don’t personally like in some Trek series and certain episodes, and so I analyze why something isn’t working—whether it’s STAR TREK: DISCOVERY‘s storytelling pace being too fast and not giving the characters a chance to breathe and develop or PICARD’s plot dealing with the suicide of Jean-Luc’s mother not feeling particularly compelling to me. I critique in a mature, measured way…nothing wrong with that.
I also criticize. Discovery‘s new Klingon make-up was a total misfire, and even the show’s creators realized it by season two. The last two episodes of STAR TREK: PICARD‘s first season were a rushed mess with a Federation fleet made up forty of the same class of starship and Romulan bad guys who would have twirled their mustaches with an evil cackle if they actually had mustaches to twirl. Some creative choices are atrocious enough that you don’t need to “analyze” in a mature and measured way. If there’s something you don’t like, you can certainly gripe about it. That’s fine, too. Fans have been doing that since TOS was first airing in the 1960s.
But there’s a difference between griping/criticizing and outright bashing. Bashing looks like this…
Edward and Chris were responding to a Facebook post linking to my blog from a few weeks ago listing 10 reasons why I think STRANGE NEW WORLDS feels more like “real” Star Trek than either Discovery or Picard. And it wasn’t just them. Every episode review I post draws its fair share of “grievance commenters” who seek not to discuss these new shows in a mature and measured way but to blindly bash and lash out at both Star Trek and those who dare to say enjoy it.
But since I have Edward and Chris’ comments readily available, let me point out the ways that what they are doing differs from simply critiquing or criticizing….
- They aren’t simply bashing the shows themselves but also the FANS who like the shows. Edward claims fans who are fawning over SNW are “desperate.” Why? Just because they like something that you don’t like?
- Their judgements are stated as absolute facts, not opinion. “They are all crap,” says Chris, rather than, “I really think these shows are all crap.” There’s a significant difference. In this way, Chris is echoing Edward’s disdain for any fan who dares to enjoy SNW or any of the new CBS-produced Star Trek because that person likes “crap.”
- Not only is there a seemingly total absence of respect for anyone who doesn’t agree with them., they have no respect for the many individuals at CBS Studios who work so hard to produce these shows. I have no idea what Chris and Edward do for a living, but I’d imagine that they wouldn’t appreciate filmmakers from CBS bashing the work that Chris and Edward do all day (or used to do…maybe they’re retired). Anyway, “judge not lest ye too be judged” doesn’t appear to be a part of Trekkie Grievance.
I actually wasn’t going to write this blog, but shortly after reading those two comments (and a few others), I saw the following Facebook post from my friend Brian Holloway that got me thinking…
And indeed, that’s what folks like Edward and Chris are doing: pissing on Star Trek. Now, I know they will immediately say something knee-jerk like, “It’s CBS that is pissing on Star Trek!” But is it? Is it really? CBS doesn’t seek to insult anyone or anything. CBS doesn’t BASH. They just make shows for us to watch.
No, I think it’s Edward and Chris—and others like them—doing the pissing.
After all, there are actually fans out there who do like some, or even all, of the new shows…even Discovery! What have they done to earn the scorn and disdain of the grievance commenters other than not agreeing with them and, possibly, make them doubt yourselves…maybe just a teensy bit? After all, if these shows really are as bad as as Edward, Chris, and their fellow bashers believe them to be, then shouldn’t everyone hate them, too?
The assault to their deeply-held belief that all CBS-produced Star Trek is “crap” becomes most acute to the grievance comments when it comes to SNW, which has been so widely embraced by fans across the spectrum (Spocktrum?) that positive fan reaction has even been reported by major news outlets like Variety. To resist the obvious conclusion that SNW might actually be decent, Edward concludes that fans who like SNW must be “desperate” while other grievance-holders simply challenge the conclusion that most fans (or even many fans) actually like the new show. Who needs facts when you have grievance!?!
Of course, in addition to being rude and self-deluding, Trekkie Grievance Syndrome is just plain dumb—and self-sabotaging. And here are five reasons why…
5. JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN SAY SOMETHING DOESN’T MEAN YOU SHOULD
When confronted about pissing in the punch bowl and killing the buzz for the rest of us, most of the grievance-commenters will proudly retort, “I have a right to speak my opinion!” Of course, most times they’re not bothering to say, “In my opinion…” before stating their opinion(s), but that’s kind of beside the point. The real question isn’t so much CAN they say what they want to say but SHOULD they?
Let’s imagine that my best friend has just gotten married and posts photos of the wedding on Facebook. Now, I CAN say, “Dude, your new wife looks really fat in that dress, and her hair is awful!” I could even phrase it, “Dude, in my opinion, your new wife looks really fat in that dress…” But seriously, is that comment really welcome? Or maybe I decide to post something factual on their wedding announcement that no one can argue with: “Did you know that almost 50 percent of all marriages in the United States will end in divorce or separation?” Or maybe I just try to be funny in a negative way, “Hey, does your new wife know that you’re banging one of the interns at work?”
Newlyweds wouldn’t welcome any of these comments, and especially not on the Facebook post with all the beautiful wedding photos. In the same way, people who are saying positive things about the new Star Trek shows aren’t inviting resentful fans to pop onto their thread(s) and tell them how wrong (or “desperate”) they are.
In this way, grievance-posting isn’t so much dumb as rude and unwelcome. What makes it dumb, though (and I’ll get to this again below) is that, if these negative-nellies are trying to win over friends and influence people’s opinions, they are doing it in completely the wrong place in completely the wrong way. That’s dumb.
4. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE RAKTAJINO (PART I): ALEX KURTZMAN IS STILL VERY MUCH EMPLOYED
Speaking of dumb, do you remember back in early 2021 how the QAnon conspiracy theorists were predicting that Donald Trump would be “reinstated” as President on August 13, 2021? And it wasn’t just the fringe! Even as late as last December, nearly 1 in 5 Republicans polled by The Economist and YouGov said that Trump was either somewhat likely or even VERY likely to be reinstated as president before the end of the year. Of course, it’s mid-2022, and Joe Biden is still president (and the Constitution doesn’t even allow for a president to be “reinstated”).
Just as delusional are the grievance-posters who keep claiming that Alex Kurtzman is out at CBS because Star Trek has performed so badly. Of course, that totally ignores the record-breaking five-year $160 million development development deal inked with Kurtzman last August to lead the Star Trek franchise through at least 2026.
You don’t give $160 million to a guy whom you don’t believe in and want to fire. So if you believe that Alex Kurtzman has been booted, sidelined, is on the way out, or in any way walks on thin ice with CBS/Paramount, well, I won’t say you’re dumb so much as living in some kind of alternate universe. Or maybe, just maybe, you are dumb.
3. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE RAKTAJINO (PART 2): STAR TREK IS THE OPPOSITE OF DEAD
If you’re one of those people trying to argue that “Star Trek is dead!” then you really need to buy a better dictionary…or just look up “dead” online. And if you’re gonna try to claim that, “No, what I mean is that REAL Star Trek is dead, it’s completely gone…” then let me tell you what else is gone: VCRs, fax machines, and TiVo. Oh, sure, you can still find people who kept their old records and some vintage music shops that will sell these cherished antiques. Some folks out there might still have their VHS tapes and a VCR to play them on, and many doctors offices still use fax machines. But in general, you won’t find these items in modern stores because they’ve been replaced by new and improved versions of things that do what these items used to do!
Now, maybe “old” Star Trek really was better than “new” Star Trek. But that doesn’t mean mean Star Trek is “dead” any more than the functionality that TiVo offered is dead. We now have DVRs and streaming television. The world moves on.
So let me tell you what it looks like when Star Trek really IS dead…
It looks like mid-2005 to early 2017 when there was no new Star Trek on television and only a rebooted movie every 3-4 years. Okay, maybe that was only mostly dead and not completely dead, but back then, if you wanted to see “new” Star Trek, you had to wait years! Now, in 2022, we’ve already had SIX MONTHS of uninterrupted new Star Trek episodes weekly…sometimes two a week!! Heck, it feels so weird to me writing this on a Thursday knowing it’ll be another few weeks before I can watch another new Star Trek when season three of LOWER DECKS premieres in August!
There are currently FIVE different Star Trek series in active production (with another two series in early development), all of fine production quality and each, likely, with much higher per-episode budgets than their five predecessors. Granted, these new series consist of only 10-13 episodes per season, but that’s the new normal for streaming. And honestly, I’m not sure I have enough time to watch more Star Trek than that! That’s a “problem” none of us could have imagined back in 2005-2017.
So even if you don’t like any of the new Star Trek shows, saying “Star Trek is dead” is just—say it with me—dumb.
4. SERIOUSLY, NO ONE WHO MAKES STAR TREK IS READING YOUR FACEBOOK POSTS…NO ONE!
Look, everyone wants to feel special, everyone wants to be heard, and more importantly, everyone wants to feel like they have some kind of influence in the world.
Sorry, but most of us don’t.
Oh, sure, there’s the “strength in numbers”/”speak with the voice of unity” argument, but this is a 56-year-old, billion dollar science fiction franchise owned by a multi-billion dollar Fortune 500 company (the 116th largest company in the world with over $29 billion in gross revenue last year). Trust me: they aren’t reading angry Facebook posts or paying attention to irate podcasters or bloggers. Even if they wanted to, there just isn’t time.
I’m certain some fans imagine a low-level staffer (or department of low-level staffers) tasked with monitoring social media to see what the fans are saying and then compiling some kind of “report” to show to management. But think about how ridiculous that is in reality. There are MILLIONS of Star Trek fans around the world posting BILLIONS of comments to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, TikTok, and a slew of others. And despite grievance-commenters’ belief that everyone in the world thinks the exact same way they do, they don’t. Believe it or not, some fans LOVE Michael Burnham and think she’s as powerful a role model for women of color as Uhura ever was…maybe more so. Many fans love Strange New Worlds, think Lower Decks is brilliant and hilarious, and can’t wait for more Picard and Prodigy. Others, of course, disagree. The world is like that sometimes.
But the point is that there’s no single “unified” voice of fandom, no agreed-upon opinion that can be “reported” to the higher-ups. So instead, a handful of producers and writers and other creatives take their best guess at what viewers will want to watch, and they try their hardest to make decent shows. And rather than using some mythical “report” compiled by equally-mythical low-level social media “monitors,” these producers use data generated from the number of requested media streams through Paramount+ to see which shows are doing the best and getting viewed most often and for the longest period of time. Compared to that hard, measurable data, a lone Facebook post kvetching about how bad Star Trek is right now is laughingly meaningless and irrelevant…a complete waste of time.
So if it’s a waste of time for them, then isn’t it also a waste of time for whoever wrote the grievance comment in the first place? Dumb.
5. THE DOG WHO CAUGHT THE CAR…
There’s that old adage of the dog who chases the car, barking loudly, running after it as fast as he can. Then the car stops, the dog stops, and…now what?
Whatever endgame the grievance-commenters imagine in their minds, it’s based in total fantasy (and not the good kind of fantasy!). Let’s look at each of their possible goals and how “realistic” it is…
CANCEL STAR TREK – “Better no Star Trek than this crap they’re producing now!” say many of these keyboard agitators. But of course, CBS/Paramount is never going to do that. Star Trek is a tentpole property, along with the NFL on CBS, it is the central foundation around which Paramount+ is able to operate and expand its audience. Without Star Trek (and exclusive access to new episodes), Paramount+ becomes almost as irrelevant and uninteresting as NBC’s Peacock streaming service. So if canceling Star Trek is the endgame, it certainly won’t happen because of snarky Facebook posts…dumb!
Of course, if a grievance-commenter really wants there to be no new Star Trek, there’s an easy solution: JUST DON’T WATCH IT! That way, for them, it’ll feel exactly like CBS has stopped making Star Trek. And for the rest of us, we can still enjoy the new shows…AND we don’t have to read the idiotic grievance comments. Everybody wins!
GET BETTER WRITERS – It’s easy to criticize, a little harder to make suggestions on how to fix things, and super-hard to make suggestions that are realistic and actionable. For example: “Get better writers! That’ll fix nearly everything about these shows!” Sounds easy enough, except…
How does a show actually go about finding “better” writers? I mean, it’s not like they tried to find “awful” writers to begin with! I can’t imagine the producers reached out to industry agents across the industry and said, “Who’s your worst writer? Send ’em up to Toronto!” And indeed, to write for Discovery and Strange New Worlds, a writer needs to relocate to Mississauga, Canada and work for several straight months at CBS Stages Canada (nice tax credits there!). Not every writer is willing to do that. For those that do, it takes time to get a work visa if the writer in question isn’t a Canadian citizen, eh? And of course, the writers who are already working on these two shows aren’t exactly expecting to lose their jobs just because of some griping fans. In fact, a number of these writers have multi-year contracts because CBS/Paramount doesn’t want to lose a writer who is familiar with a show, its characters, story arcs, and processes for developing and breaking down scripts.
In other words, expecting to simply jettison the current writing staffs, bring on “better” writers en masse, and start over is beyond naive and unrealistic. It’s (say it with me) DUMB!
CHANGE PEOPLE’S MINDS – Let’s face it, the real reason that Edward and Chris (and others like them) post their comments isn’t because of some grand dream of “saving” Star Trek. They were pissed that someone not only disagreed with them but was actually willing to write an entire 6,000-word 2-part blog about it!
I mean, that’s gotta be generating serious cognitive dissonance, right?
Of course, the best way to relieve the pain and torture of cognitive dissonance is to try to convince the people who don’t agree with you that you are right and they are wrong. It happens all the time with religion and politics…and definitely with Star Trek and other sci-fi! You see it all the time on Facebook and elsewhere. And you know what?
It never works!!!
Okay, maybe it works sometimes, but not with just one or two snarky and insulting sentences! This is where dumb is actually superseded by LAZY. It’s almost a knee-jerk reaction: someone likes Star Trek, so the grievance-commenter must respond with something negative. After all, no positive comment about new Star Trek should ever go unchallenged, right?
But if you want to change someone’s mind, minimal small-minded effort ain’t gonna cut it. I spent three days writing two 3,000-word blogs. Do you really think you’re gonna change my mind with two or three sentences??? Get real!
And it’s the same for those others who might happen to see the grievance comment. Unless they already agree with the negativity, in which case you’re not changing anyone’s mind but simply preaching to an already-singing choir, then one little drive-by snarking isn’t going to do much to overcome a well-reasoned and solidly-supported argument. All you’re doing is trying to make people who disagree with you feel bad about disagreeing with you. But pretty much every time, you end up achieving the opposite. Congratulations.
Look, if you don’t like spinach, don’t eat it. There’s no need for you to walk up to someone in a restaurant who is eating a spinach salad and start insulting their menu choice just because you don’t like the way it tastes.
And the same goes for new Star Trek.
UPDATE: Well, look who was the first person to comment on Facebook…!
I guess some people will never learn. Sigh.
Jonathan, seriously now. There are ALWAYS going to be people that will complain and bitch about EVERYTHING, just because they can. Their opinion matters to none but themselves. Most of them have no idea what critical thinking is or how to use it. Being constructive is not in the vocabulary of internet trolls. You know that old saying about opinions …… we all know it is true. Everybody has one! And they all stink to everyone else.
Take it in stride Jonathan. I am happy with most of the new shows and so are you. Be happy! I am. I could care less what other people think. Good Trek, bad Trek, it’s what you get out of it that matters.
Yeah, I know. I consider posts like Edward’s and Chris’ to be like graffiti tagging my own Facebook posts, though. And while I can’t do anything about graffiti, it still pisses me off whenever I see it, and occasionally, I go on a rant.
Right on, my friend.
Trek isn’t dead, by a long shot. And just because it isn’t exactly like it used to be, it’s still Trek. Celebrate the diversity (gee, sound familiar?) and let it take you places. You might even enjoy the ride.
Right on the money… honestly… feel free to post a mild critique and walk away! Or just… move on!
I think Discovery S2 and SNW have been some of the best Trek ever! If you don’t like it you can change the channel. And… when it comes to series that are now more than half a century old, expect the canon to be changed and new ideas to surface. These properties can’t be expected to stay static within one person’s narrow definition of what they should be. The last time I checked nobody was required to watch them either… although I haven’t actually checked on that…
The negative comments,”no true Trek”, are to me examples of the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy. We see that in politics, religion and Trek. The wikipedia example is:
Person A: “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”
Person B: “But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge.”
Person A: “But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
We’d all be a lot better off if recognizing logical fallacies were a school subject.
Indeed!
I stepped completely away from the online scifi, community in general, and Axanar, in particular, a couple of years ago. for reasons, you may remember. (or not LOL!!)
Discovery has gotten better, (notice I didn’t call it STD) But it’s gotten better because they have toned down the Identity Politics. And because they’ve made a conscious effort to make Burnham more likable. (still, a long way to go)
The major thing it suffers from, in my opinion. Is that it feels like it’s written by a committee.
It doesn’t feel different or special, At one point I was like have I gotten too cynical to enjoy things the way I used to when I was a young man. (Trying to invoke my best ST6 here)
But there is cool stuff out there. it’s just getting harder to find in general.
With Something like Babylon 5 – you got JMS’s, whole philosophy and no one knows those characters better than he does. I’m sure it was a ton of work, And the actors performances are Top Notch.
I was watching a video on Twilight Zone’s 3rd from the Sun, it talked about how Serling stayed true to Richard Matheson’s Story making minimal changes. Writing his monologue a few tweaks.
In the STTNW – Finale – My son and I thought it was OK but then we watched the original Balance of Terror, and for him, the thing that stood out was that The original actors Cared about the story, and it’s also probable that the lack of SPFX gave them the change for the performances to take center stage.
A lot of times, and in this episode, in particular, it felt like the Actors were going through the motions.
If you watch Nimoy, when they see the Romulans for the first time – Spock is speechless. (which of course never happens – so it’s a big moment. Lol)
Anyway Picard – Meh. STNW – Improved but they should have stayed away from the Gorn or at least made them more traditional. But that’s Kurtzman Trek for ya!!
Lower Dorks – No! just no…
The best of the bunch is probably Prodigy. At least it feels exciting.
This is maybe the whole problem – Star Trek can be exciting but it should also explore big ideas.. Maybe not every episode.
Not enough of that these days.
In fact Orville is doing a better job.
Y’see, THAT is a proper critique/criticism! There’s no bashing or implying that people who don’t agree with you are wrong or desperate to like and support anything with a Star Trek label on it. Your points are all well-made and supported, and one could easily get into a civil discussion with you about them (and I might when it comes to Lower Decks…my favorite Star Trek series after DS9!). But I applaud you, Mickey, for an oh-so-fine comment!
Well, Thank-you!
Look I have very strong feelings about the direction of storytelling today. That has to come first and foremost. Great storytelling, should make you think and feel.
If others have those sorts of strong feelings. They should make those known. That’s never a waste of time.
If the powers that be, are smart they will do more listening to what the audience really wants.
There are signs that’s happening. Hopefully, the pendulum will continue to swing back in that direction.
There is no question that CBS-produced Star Trek is, overall, improving. Discovery season 4 was infinitely better than season one and most of season two. Picard might have broke even. Lower Decks gets better and better. Prodigy came out of nowhere and surprised nearly all of us with a very compelling storyline. And Strange New Worlds, while still not (in my opinion) as good as the Paramount-produced Treks, is till coming out of the starting gate far ahead of where Disco and Picard did. So the trend line is positive.
That said, none of the current shows holds a candle to The Orville. But that’s setting the bar really high. I don’t even think most of what’s come out from ANY sci-fi franchise (Trek, SW, The Expanse, Stranger Things) can compare with what Seth and his crew have achieved. But just because you’re not playing quarterback at the level of Tom Brady or Peyton Manning, that doesn’t mean your football team shouldn’t bother playing!
To be fair, much of your article and criticisms are stated as absolutes- the exact thing that you criticise Edward et al for. I don’t see the qualitative difference between what you have done and what they are doing in terms of criticism. Or, if there is, it’s at most a question of degree.
Then I don’t think you read closely enough, Nadav (and to be fair, I did write more than 3,000 words!). But look a few paragraphs down where I define my terms and note the differences between critiquing, criticizing, and bashing. I criticize often when it comes to the new CBS-produced Star Trek. I’ll joke about some things and explain why others are absolutes. For example, when there’s an A-, B-, C-, D-, E-, and F-story simultaneously in an episode, I don’t need to “think” that minimizes the amount of storytelling time for each plot, it actually does minimize it. Or when the writers used to rush from story beat to beat, that did not give the characters a chance to breathe, to react, and therefore, to develop into people whom we would care about as viewers. That was a criticism of an absolute. The writers and directors were rushing through the action without taking any breaks. It was exhausting to watch Discovery early on (and sometimes still is). It’s fine to criticize.
What’s NOT okay, in my opinion (and apparently the opinion of others who concur) is to simply bash and say broad-stroke things like “All new Star Trek is crap” or that fans that like it are desperate to show their approval no matter how bad the show is. That’s not criticizing intelligently. It’s straight-up lazy bashing…and not only bashing the show but the fans who enjoy it. As I said, it’s pissing in the punch bowl. If you don’t like the punch, then don’t have any. No need to ruin it for the others at the party. Who wants to feel bad for enjoying a TV show?
And that, my friend, is what this blog was about. Were I to simply bash Edward and Chris and others like them, the blog would have been MUCH shorter! 🙂
I think we all agree that all-out bashing such as in “NuTrek isn’t Star Trek” and “Kurtzman runs Trek into the ground” is stupid, and that ad hominem attacks should be an absolute no-go. But I am disappointed that your commentary solely targets one end of the spectrum, although you find the same kind of fanaticism and the same degree of intolerance among the fervent new Trek supporters just as well. Many of them put down any well-founded criticism of the direction of the franchise as gatekeeping. Some resort to personal attacks when they run out of arguments or when they are only triggered by an unfavorable Discovery review. And even many of those who abstain from ad hominem routinely use a wide range of fallacies, from strawman to bandwagon.
As a matter of fact, while it is deemed acceptable in today’s social media to state that Voyager or Enterprise sucked and will have no consequences, just try to say the same about Discovery or Strange New Worlds! On Twitter! Find fault with Janeway, and no one will care — point out character flaws about Burnham and you’re being labeled a racist. Criticize casting choices of classic Trek series and it’s fine — do the same regarding the new series and you’re roasted alive. Say that you don’t like the classic Klingons, and it’s okay — but if you don’t agree with the total redesign the reaction is “you can’t accept change… gatekeeper… basement… getalife… yaddadyadda.”. Ridicule the design of TOS and you will find many that agree with you, state that the extent of the “reimagining” was wrong and people will ridicule you as someone who wants cheap cardboard sets in a modern TV series. The list goes on and on.
I know it is not your intention, Jonathan, but speaking of a strawman, your blog post on the outgrowths on one side only fuels the prejudices of the other side. I think we should dissociate us from the extremists on both sides.
You make some strong points, Bernd. And you’re right: bashing is bad in both directions. But frankly, I see the folks like Chris and Edward as being worse because they turn something positive (I like new Star Trek) into something negative (you like something that is absolute crap). When someone attacks the show or criticizes the character of Michael Burnham, and someone else escalates it into “Then you’re a racist,” then the starting point is negativity to begin with. So it simply becomes a pissing contest to see who can be the bigger asshole. But when all someone has to say is something nice and someone else does a drive-by bashing, that’s just pissing into what had originally been a perfectly good bowl of punch!
I can see the asymmetry because as soon as you criticize something that other people hold dear it is not a discussion on equal terms. I don’t want to get into an argument where “negativity” really starts because I think you have a good sense for it. I also don’t want to discuss where the limits of permissible criticism should be drawn in order not to offend anyone, because for every “don’t like it, then don’t watch it” there is a “can’t stand criticism, then stay away from it”. But I strongly disagree that a fan (or ultimately a Twitter mob) should be entitled to counter criticism of a TV show with ad hominem attacks. This escalation level is just indecent, and not a justified reaction to comments, as unfair as they may seem.
Quote from a radio show in the UK called The Infinite Monkey Cage (science show mixing in a bit of humour). I think they were talking about real science in Sf shows at the time. Anyway, one of the cohosts said “Have you ever noticed that Star Wars fans don’t like Star Wars?” As you say, TV execs go by viewing numbers, not the opinions of the outspoken minority.
That’s one of the reasons why, here in America, that ultra-progressives are not winning as many elections as they seem to think they can. Overall, America is pretty centrist. But the very few who yell “Defund the police!” do it through megaphones, and so it sounds like there’s more than there are.
Im not sure how to put this into words. But back in the day i started watching tng as a child and watched all of it, went to ds9 but dropped off and picked it up again later, watched all of voyager, went to enterprise and dropped off because of losing interest but with the intention of coming back later. Unfortunately there was no later as it was cancelled. I think for any trek series, you may or may not bond with the characters, get into the story, or many other reasons, but if you personally get something out of it and keep watching thats great. For me there is a certain feeling i get from watching older trek that i dont get from any trek after 2009,and the feeling is different if its tng, tos or the movies but still feels like trek. I cant really explain it and maybe when enterprise ended that was just the end of an era. I grew up with the tos movies, but call tng my trek, and to new fans the new trek is their trek. I read something that said the makers of a show should make the show they want to make, and the fans can choose to follow, i think thats why voyager and enterprise failed, network interference, a changing tv landscape and wanting more of the same ship show stuff just made trek stagnant. Trek had to change to survive or it would be totally dead. New trek is a chance for trek to be around in the future, and we may find something that appeals to all of us, but we dont have to like everything.
Just to clarify. I didn’t mean trek fandom was dead, but there was no new trek being produced. In the eyes of the studio dead.