In the many decades after the original series, I heard numerous times that they were musing about a Star Fleet Academy based show. It was all for naught though. Until 2026, when they 12th series based of Gene Roddenberry's concept was launched. For quite some time the idea was this to be a movie where Kirk and Spock meet. The re-launch of the Kelvin timeline in 2009 had an origin story for Kirk that had him go to the Academy but it was all sped along to where he was acting Captain of the Enterprise. Quite a bit for one movie but it was exciting.
The truth is that there are so many producers, writers and actors proposing stuff in the Star Trek universe that it just dies in development. The best chance anyone ever gets to see a Star Trek TV series or movie is when someone has a development deal and they let them run with the ball. It can still end up being tanked by new executives at CBS Studios or Paramount. Even today that studio has more problems than the average bear.
As a rule, I watch all Star Trek series and movies. I don't love all the series. And I don't love every season of the series I do love. And I don't love every character of every series. I often find series that incorporate kids in a drama series do terrible jobs of it. For Next Generation, I think Wesley was a weak a character and annoying. This is a reflection of the writing as Will Wheaton and Levar Burton were the best knows in the case when the show came on the air. Likewise DS9 had two young actor and I felt their storylines were weak.
Shows that run as long as Star Trek have different versions and timelines. The animated series is not considered canon. It was darn entertaining through. The reboot movie in 2009 led to a different timeline. It shared enough Trek lore as to win fans. The TV series changes often makes it difficult when creative choices are abandoned along the way. Ask Star Wars about that.
The problem with trying to to keep decades long running franchises going is that you have to satisfy old fan while building a base with new fans who have never seen the series before. The original series had a diverse cast with women in senior positions on the crew. However, the network pushed back and did not want a women as second in command. They also pushed back on Spock's ears which they called demonic. The battle on Spock's ears was won, senior officer as a woman lost.
Science Fiction was an allegory of real world issues in the 1960s. And while the FCC and network censors might not allow certain drama in a police or medical show, they let things slide in Star Trek. Hence, the Klingons were Russians, the Romulans were Chinese, issues on black and white American discourse were raised in an alien species in dispute because one side of their face was while and one side of their face was black. And let's not forget the first back and white kiss on TV with Kirk and Uhura.
Gene Roddenberry was trying to push a positive outlook on the future even if was one where war, slavery, political interference and violence happened fairly regularly. Beware if you have to wear a red shirt on Star Trek. You're toast! The criticism on some of the later Star Trek iterations is that they were too to negative. However, if all was well after, it struck many as overly optimistic. For example, Voyager was always back to a clean, well run ship after every awful encounter. Many called it "the re-set" because there were never any long lasting effects from the battle to get home. It was the introduction of Seven of Nine that helped define the series in later years.
Starfleet Academy had quite a backlash from MAGA conservatives for too many characters and storylines they thought were woke. Some of these conservatives professed to be fans of the old Star Trek. It seems some forget how the show has always been progressive. William Shatner, Captain Kirk, dismissed those criticisms even though he wasn't part of this iteration of the series. Just another example of him defending the show's long history. If anyone knows the fans of the series, it is him.
The corporate takeover of Paramount/CBS Studios by Skydance and subsequent purchase of Warner Brothers has meant and will probably mean lots of layoffs. Old deals with the studio are not necessarily being renewed. And television and cable are thought to be dead mediums. The focus is on streaming. And now just by Paramount. By all of them. Star Trek is just another asset purchased. However, for now, debt has to be paid and producer deals will change or end. By 2027, there will be no Star Trek anywhere in film or TV unless the studio orders something soon. Even hot producer Taylor Sheridan of Yellowstone fame didn't get a new deal.
As for what I thought of Starfleet Academy? I liked the idea of a ship and earth-based school. However, I thought the idea of it landing and taking off excessive and a logistical nightmare. Gene Roddenberry invented the transporters because the cost of landing and taking off a ship as a physical effect was a lot. I'm assuming the producers got a budget for various sets and wanted to make sure they had a ship that could function like this. This was a cost issue for the show. Visual effects seem to have a huge budget.
To be sure the series is as glossy as you are going to see. Bursting with colour and graced with designs that are as posh as you can imagine. Costuming and make-up are amazing. They still struggle to provide pockets for anything. This is something Babylon 5 managed to do. Garibaldi shrugging his shoulders with hands in his pockets was a thing. Star Trek has never been exactly practical on these things. Of course, I did notice pockets on the Artemins crew so maybe they still have a function in space?
I have no problems with the characters per se. However, there is a lot to go through and speeding along as they do, it is too superficial. Teleporting aboard a ship and it puts you in a uniform and cuts your hair seems over the top again. It is jarring. You would think writers and producers would think these things over. A teleport device that could undress you and cuts your hair without consent is not funny. It also raises questions of consistency in technology. Even the Star Trek movies have had to address some of their outrageous tech plot points. The 2009 movie has Scottie and Kirk teleport aboard the Enterprise halfway across the galaxy. The next movie explained that Section 31, took the tech away from Scottie. Still, why travel by starship at all if the teleporter could place you anywhere in the world?
Star Trek has at least tried to keep technical aspects consistent but it would appear that some of those people who are historians and tech writers on the show, are not present. Or perhaps the producers think we'll fall into the technobabble and not see that it can wreck the show just as any continuity error in film and TV does. Nothing more obvious that characters who go from wet to dry in by next scene. This would be the original Star Wars and the garbage chute scene. In terms of tech questions on Star Wars, the Han Solo Kessel Run measured in parsecs as if it was a speed drove some people nuts.
For some, this inside baseball knowledge is not important. What is more important is story and character. Old Star Trek has fewer characters and more episodes. It must seem shocking now but series in the 1960s could have as many as 30 or more episodes a season. And with fewer characters, you would get to see a lot of Kirk, Spock and McCoy. New Star Trek is lucky if they get 10 episodes and you have more that a dozen regulars in the cast. The budgets are insane for new TV which means Starfleet Academy, like previous recent Treks, is filmed in Canada. The tax credits and just better costs has made it necessary. And the skill level of the crews is amazing. This isn't early Degrassi level of TV crews.
The result is a that all the new Treks, Starfleet Academy included, look absolutely slick and have some of the best effects seen on TV. Picture, sound, editing, costuming are top notch. Casting attracting top flight performers like Holly Hunter and Paul Giamatti drew everyone's attention. A suitably diverse young cast made up the cadets. There were also some familiar faces of Trek series such as The Doctor in the cast. But with ten episodes how does any actor get enough to work with? And add action, I had a hard time telling who was who in the show and why I should care.
Paramount+ put in so much money (estimated between $10 to $15 million) and looked to the series to be a reason to subscribe to the streamer. In Canada, Starflect is first broadcast on CTV Sci-Fi Network. With so much riding on the series, it not difficult to imagine the pressure. It is a soup where everyone is putting something in which is sometimes just too much. And without, the show was trying to attract teenagers and young people in general. A lot of series often get cut even when ratings are solid but corporate is not happy with the demographic.
So, how did they do? It appears the ratings were around 2 million per episode. And the demographic was all wrong. Too many older audience members and not enough Gen Z and Alpha. Which raises the question? Can any TV show attract teenagers. The answer is yes and the show would surprise you. It is ABC's The Rookie. It is getting great TV ratings and streaming ratings for episodes after. Many kids watch Hulu when they want to watch a show. The ratings are younger and higher than they have ever been. The show is also far more affordable for ABC than Starfleet Academy.
How is this possible? It would appear that The Rookie has one of the most watched social media platforms out there bar none. Other shows have tried to copy a bit but have paled in comparison. If you haven't seen any of their stuff, do look. It isn't promotional stuff of The Rookie. It is mostly of them on set, in costume goofing around, dancing and enjoying themselves. And the teens are there for it. As a result, they are watching the show in big numbers. Recurring characters, guest stars from shows the kids love and a general mission to just put it out there is winning fans. I'm talking about your Rookie Zombie episode.
Now there was some social media from Starfleet Academy but you have a young cast, they should have been there every day letting people get to know them. The media push in general was flat. Meanwhile, you have Nathan Fillion, a middle aged guy with a podcast find a show that hits with the kids. Do better Paramount.
As for the cost of the show, both The Rookie and Starfleet Academy get production tax credits. The Rookie gets them from Los Angeles and California. Starfleet uses Canadian tax credits. The Canadian tax credits are more but how a show does it's budgets really matters. Special effects really can take up a lot of money. But it is possible to do sci-fi that is good and not break the bank? The Canadian movie Cube is an example. A small set with character development can go a long way. The original Star Trek kept getting their budgets trashed and still managed to stay entertaining
I personally enjoyed the show but I figured it needed far more than ten episodes to hit its stride. So I don't judge too harshly. It took ER at least ten episodes to become the show it eventually grew to be. Strange New Worlds needed some time before they could do a musical show and hit it out of the ballpark. That series was able to find their way and it shows.
Paramount has brought to an end both Strange New Worlds and Starfleet Academy. I will watch both as as I always do and hope that both have great final seasons. As for Paramount and producers for their shows, they will have to figure how to appeal to the demographic they want without being asses about it. The Rookie has figured it out. And they still do an entertaining show. I expect Strange New Worlds will leave people wanting more. The question is whether Starfleet Academy does that as well.
Lastly, beware of toxic fan bases. Or as a producer cater to fanbases overly so. Let some of the humour, tension and character development grow even if it is only a limited ten episodes. And for gosh sakes, leave a little bit of mystery there.
No comments:
Post a Comment