Star Trek going forward: ‘Tomorrow isn’t Yesterday’–nor should it be…

Not Yesterday’s Enterprise.

This is one of those columns I wish I didn’t have to write, but I wanted to make a one-stop column addressing much of the simmering, seething anger I see online for just about any Star Trek made beyond 2005—or beyond 1987, for some.

For as long as I can remember, each new incarnation of Star Trek has received its own brand of criticism for one reason or another: “Star Trek: The Animated Series” (“kiddie crap”), “Star Trek: The Motion Picture” (1979) (“Star Trek: The Motionless Picture”, etc), “Star Trek: The Next Generation” (1987) (“too much diplomacy–needs more fists.”), “Deep Space Nine” (“needs a real spaceship”), “Star Trek: Voyager” (“hate the chick captain”), and “Star Trek: Enterprise” (“no way that ship predates Kirk’s Enterprise”). All of these ‘arguments’ against the post-TOS Star Trek spinoffs are counterweighted by the legions of fans each of those spinoffs have amassed, so there’s no point in rehashing them. Tomorrow isn’t yesterday, nor should it be.

The Bad Robot Kelvinverse movies had their own naysayers as well.

I won’t even get into the hatred for the rebooted Kelvinverse Star Trek movies.

Note: Even in the late 1980s, Star Trek’s own creator Gene Roddenberry refused to validate the existence of “The Animated Series”, until its release on VHS cassette in 1989, when Roddenberry, in failing health, relented and ‘canonized’ it (a point still debated in fandom circles). For me, TAS has always been legitimate Star Trek–it features the voices of the original cast, and it has many of the same writers of TOS as well. I don’t see how it could be any more legitimate, to be honest.

For my Federation credits, the 1973 Animated Star Trek series was as canonical as any other–it even featured Leonard Nimoy and Mark Lenard reprising their roles of Spock and Sarek, respectively.

Another topic I don’t want to rehash too deeply here is the tiresome topic of how today’s Star Trek is “too woke,” because, as I wrote in another column, “Star Trek” has been, and always shall be about diversity and social justice. From Kirk and Spock getting schooled on violence by the Organians, or McCoy telling Zefram Cochrane to allow himself to fall in love with an electric cloud, to Kirk taking a stand on contraceptives for the inhabitants of Gideon. Star Trek is all about politics, social justice and contemporary issues. It always has been. The Star Trek that some fans seem to yearn for—a bareknuckled, swashbuckling space opera with no social content— is a Star Trek that never truly existed.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is sickbay-forcefield.jpg
Captain Lorca (Jason Isaacs) clashes with Dr. Hugh Culber (Wilson Cruz) over the treatment of his lover, Paul Stamets (Anthony Rapp) in the first season DSC episode “Despite Yourself.”

Much of the hatred I see directed at new Trek has to do with the show’s more inclusive casting, which includes several LGBTQ+ cast members. While some fans are okay with inclusive racial casting (so gracious of them, right?), others are apparently less okay with prominent LGBTQ+ characters, like Hugh Culber (Wilson Cruz) and Paul Stamets (Anthony Rapp) being in a steady relationship, or their recent unofficial adoption of their non-binary ward, Adira (Blu del Barrio). What some of these fans don’t seem to realize is that they sound exactly like the bigots who objected to Kirk kissing Uhura in the original series, simply because Uhura was black. Bigotry is bigotry, whether it’s directed at race, religion, body-shaming, gender or sexuality.

The universe of Star Trek was always meant to show humanity acting on its better impulses, but sadly, it was also a commercially-driven art form that was too often bound by conventions of its day. These days, Star Trek isn’t a show reliant upon network ad revenue; it’s a streaming series beholden to subscribers, not commercial advertisers. This newfound liberation means the show can now feature characters and situations it never could within the limitations of network or syndicated television. Some find Star Trek’s new era invigorating—others are frightened by it.

Seeing Past Star Treks Through Rose-Tinted Visors.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is isthereintruthnobeautyhd0068.jpg
Some of us older Trekkies have a tendency to see past Treks through our own personal filters…

I realize that personal tastes in Star Trek vary, but something I see a lot of, particularly in older fans of my generation, is the tendency to view past Star Treks through rose-tinted glasses (or VISORs). Star Trek, for me, has always had a healthy ratio of great, average and mediocre-to-bad. The franchise has reached great heights with stories like “City on the Edge of Forever,” “Trouble With Tribbles, ” “Yesterday’s Enterprise,” “Inner Light,” “In the Pale Moonlight,” and “The Visitor,”; but there have also been plenty of clunkers (“Alternative Factor,” “Omega Glory,” “Night Terrors,” “Sub Rosa,” and “Move Along Home”). We fans often have a tendency to glorify the past simply because it is the past, and when we allow ourselves to be led by our nostalgia pangs rather than true quality.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times: attorney Melvin Belli guest stars in TOS’ “And the Children Shall Lead.”

Being perfectly honest, I would much rather watch just about any episode of “Discovery” or “Picard” over a repeat of “And the Children Shall Lead.” No one needs to see attorney Melvin Belli scaring children while wearing a shower curtain…

Something For Everyone.

Now we have a slew of new Star Trek series; more than any other time in Star Trek’s 55 year history. With “Star Trek: Discovery,” “Star Trek: Picard,” and “Star Trek: Lower Decks,” with others on the way (“Star Trek: Prodigy” “Star Trek: Strange New Worlds,”), it’s a new ‘golden age’ of Star Trek–an explosion in output that surpasses Star Trek’s former heyday of the mid-1990s. There is something for just about everyone.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is uniforms1.jpg
Recent trailers for Star Trek Discovery’s 4th season promise a uniform color scheme that echoes TOS and TNG.

So why are so many Star Trek fans so unhappy? From what I see on social media and in one-on-one conversations, much of it has to do with ‘gatekeeping’–those fans who feel overly possessive of Star Trek. In fandom circles, a gatekeeper is someone who takes it upon themself to decide just who is a ‘true’ fan based on a very specific set of tastes and/or criteria, usually decided by that person alone, or a small consensus.

For full disclosure, “Star Trek: Discovery” (DSC) didn’t always knock my socks off in its first year, either. It had astonishing production value, of course, but I felt that it had many signs of a troubled production with regards to its inconsistent storytelling, just as “Star Trek: The Next Generation” had in its own coltish first two seasons. That said, season two of DSC was much improved, especially with the introduction of Anson Mount’s Captain Pike, but the stories were still uneven, with a few genuine standouts (“If Memory Serves,” “Such Sweet Sorrow,” Parts 1 & 2). It felt like it was an intermediate stage towards something better.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is captain-burnham.jpg
Fly Girl: Discovery’s new captain Michael Burnham finally fits the ‘big chair’ after a rocky first couple seasons.

So, I stuck with DSC, and season three has made a dramatic turnaround under new writer/showrunner Michelle Paradise, just as TNG’s third season found a more successful storytelling groove under the late writer/producer Michael Piller (1948-2002). The third season of DSC had a more clearly defined arc, and the secondary characters were given many more moments to shine. The leap into the far future of the 32nd century also shot the show clear of its arguably tiresome prequel status. In my opinion, DSC has finally reached maturity, just as TNG, DS9 and other Trek series all found their respective ways. I was really feeling it when Michael Burnham (Sonequa Martin Green) finally assumed the captain’s chair and said, “Let’s fly!”

Note: Once again, my assessments and opinions of DSC are strictly my own; they are no more ‘definitive’ for what makes a ‘good’ Star Trek than anyone else’s. But hey–my column, my musings.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is picard-107-nepenthe-254.jpg
Picard: “Nepenthe” sees a warm reunion with Jean-Luc Picard, Will Riker and Deanna Troi Riker.

“Star Trek: Picard” offered a nice reach out to fans who perhaps missed some of TNG’s familiarity and wanted to catch up with that beloved character of the franchise. Showrunner Michael Chabon imparted an elegance and poignance to Picard’s journey, which gave closure to 2002’s “Star Trek: Nemesis” as well as Picard’s unofficial role as Data’s advocate (TNG’s “The Measure of a Man,” “The Offspring”). With cameos from TNG/VGR cast members Jonathan Frakes, Marina Sirtis, Jeri Ryan and Brent Spiner, the series was a warm hug for 1990s Trek fans, while offering them something new as well.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is picard-110-eiae-part2-727.jpg
Star Trek: Picard sees a tainted hero seeking closure to a few open wounds of his past.

As a man who’s getting up in years myself, I found the story of an older Jean-Luc Picard (Patrick Stewart) living past his glory days to be deeply cathartic. Picard is at odds with the current leadership of a more reactionary Starfleet, following his unwavering support of the Federation’s deadliest ‘foes’; Romulans and renegade android slaves, who also have a curious connection to each other. This connection between Romulans and androids is the mystery to be solved, as well as an opportunity for Picard’s own (literal) transcendence; an elegant blending of story and character arcs. In fact, the series could’ve ended for me with its last episode, but next season teases the return of “Q” (John de Lancie), and that’s just too delicious to pass up.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is thecagehd0046.jpg
“The Cage” (1964) was the first, unsold pilot of Star Trek, now finally being greenlit for a series in “Strange New Worlds.”

For TOS Trek fans, there is also the promised return of Captain Pike and the crew of the original Constitution-class USS Enterprise and its adventures before he turns the keys over to Captain James T. Kirk, with “Strange New Worlds,” with a heavier emphasis on standalone, episodic storytelling. Anson Mount has already proved himself to be a memorable Christopher Pike in the second season of DSC, as did Rebecca Romijn as Pike’s cool, enigmatic first officer, “Number One,” and Ethan Peck’s Spock, who took a while for me to warm up to, but he made the role his own, and I respect that very much). At any rate, Star Trek’s SNW might just be the longest gestation period ever between original pilot (1964’s “The Cage”) and series (2022).

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is short1-spock-number1-pike.jpg
Right back where it all started; Spock, Number One and Captain Pike on the bridge of a reimagined USS Enterprise in the Short Trek, “Q & A” (2019).

We also have a new, family-friendlier demographic animated series, “Star Trek: Prodigy” (2021), which sees a young crew of aliens taking over an abandoned Starfleet vessel for themselves and learning what it means to be Starfleet officers with the help/guidance of a command hologram of Captain Kathryn Janeway (voice of Kate Mulgrew). From the trailer below, this series has me intrigued by its gorgeous, near Pixar-level animation and imaginative vistas. A part of me wishes that the 1973 Animated Series might (someday) get this kind of treatment…

The latest trailer for 2021’s “Star Trek: Prodigy.”

Whether one is pining for the past (“Strange New Worlds,” “Picard”) or yearning for something new (“Discovery” “Lower Decks,” “Prodigy”), there seems to be a Star Trek to fit just about every taste these days. As a fan of Star Trek for most of my life, I find such unprecedented diversity in Star Trek offerings to be almost overwhelming. It’s an embarrassment of riches.

“People Can Be Very Frightened Of Change.”

Speaking only to my own opinion, the reason so many Trek fans direct so much hostility and vitriol towards these new incarnations of Star Trek was already summed up in the words of no less than Captain Kirk himself: “People can be very frightened of change.” It isn’t that newer Star Trek is better or worse written than anything that’s gone before—it’s simply different. Differences alienate, and differences frighten.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is tuchd2463.jpg
Kirk said it best, when speaking of our general fears of that which is yet to come…

Another common criticism I keep hearing is that the more recent Star Treks don’t physically ‘align’ with the vision of the future seen in 1966, and I can understand that, and sympathize, since continuity errors have been a major issue within the show since its first season onward (“United Earth Space Probe Agency” “James R. Kirk”, etc). In fact, I once put together my own column on why Star Trek’s continuity is seemingly all over the map; Star Trek isn’t a universe–it’s a multiverse. It changes, just as our own future changes minute to minute. I don’t care if a producer tells me that DSC is the same universe as 1966’s Star Trek; I’ve decided, for myself, that they are all subtly different versions of the same future: The issue of Star Trek and its continuity.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is two-enterprises-2.jpg
While DSC’s versions of the USS Enterprise isn’t a perfect match for TOS’ version, I believe there is a logical explanation (see: above link).

Many of these self-appointed gatekeepers have been fans of Star Trek for decades, as I have, yet their proprietary sense of the show is much stronger than mine. I love Star Trek very deeply, but I don’t own it. None of us do, in fact. We can write fanfic, host podcasts, and make fan films till we’re blue in the face and sore in the fingertips, but it won’t change the fact that Star Trek is the intellectual property of Paramount, not ourselves. Yes, we fans kept the show alive during the lean years of the 1970s, culminating in the release of “Star Trek: The Motion Picture”—which disappointed a lot of gatekeepers in those days as well—but we don’t own it. We cheer it on, we attend the conventions, and we buy the merch. But that’s where the line in the sand is drawn.

I am an older fan; in fact, I was born the same year TOS debuted. I grew up with Star Trek. The show has been a part of my life for nearly fifty or so years, and has allowed me to meet many wonderful people, but it’s not mine. I am free to critique, and I’m also free to ignore that which I don’t enjoy.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 103-gang-margaritas.jpg
Mariner and the “Lower Decks” gang just aren’t my cup of Earl Grey…or salty margaritas.

So, do I like every single series and episode of each Star Trek incarnation? No, of course not. There are swaths of Star Trek I find repetitive, or not personally inspiring or entertaining for one reason or another. I was very honest in my criticism of “Star Trek: Lower Decks” in the last review I wrote for that show, and I watched a few more episodes before I gave up. Ultimately I decided that particular venue of Star Trek was just not for me (“Rick and Morty” is not my bag, either–sorry). That’s all. I won’t knock anyone who enjoys it, and I wish the series success, because its success only brings new fans to the fold, and guarantees more Star Trek down the road.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 101-cerritos-holodeck-02.jpg
Computer, end program!

So, with regard to “Lower Decks”? I’m perfectly okay with sitting out one dance, especially when I see others so enjoying it so much.

If you only enjoy one incarnation of Star Trek, you are still a Star Trek fan. No one can ever tell you otherwise. We are all entitled to enjoy what we enjoy, and no one can take that away from us. If one doesn’t like any new Star Trek after TOS, that’s okay. If one doesn’t like any new Star Trek after TNG or DS9, that’s okay, too. There will also be many new generations of fans whose first gateway into Star Trek is Discovery, or Picard, or Lower Decks, and that’s all okay as well. With over 800 hours of TV shows and movies to choose from, there’s a Star Trek out there for every branch of Star Trek’s fandom.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is tomorrowisyesterdayhd633.jpg
TOS was remastered with all-new digital visual FX, yet my DVD copies of the originals were left curiously un-erased

One of the fears I perceive within fandom is that new Star Treks will somehow ‘erase’ the cherished incarnation of Star Trek that they grew up with and loved. This simply isn’t so. No one has erased my old Star Trek DVDs and Blu Rays. In fact, Star Trek has been very accommodating in preserving its past for all to see, much like the “Guardian of Forever”. Even the remastered Blu Rays of TOS Star Trek, which debuted in 2007, offered fans the option of seeing the series with either the new CGI effects, or with the original opticals.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is tumblr_inline_ns99cm5iz31shsvef_1280.jpg
Unlike Star Wars’ endless digital updating and tinkering, Star Trek has shown greater respect for the integrity of its own past by offering both new and older incarnations of TOS on Blu Ray.

So the fear that newer Star Trek is somehow undermining or erasing the older series is unjustified. Star Trek has done a much better job of preserving and honoring its past than George Lucas has done with the original Star Wars trilogy, which seems to come out with a new ‘special edition’ each time we see it—even newer versions of those films are now available on DisneyPlus, with even more changes added. Argh….

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is img_3597.jpg
A recreation of the TOS Enterprise bridge, from the Star Trek Las Vegas convention.

In the meantime, the only thing I would hope for is that we can all recognize each other’s right to be a fan of all Star Trek or just a corner of Star Trek. In two weeks, I’ll be driving to Las Vegas for the first time in two years to attend the Star Trek Las Vegas Convention, and one of the things that always impresses me most about the convention is the incredible diversity of fandom–there is room in that fandom for just about everyone, and no one has a definitive lock on what constitutes ‘good’ Star Trek, beyond those elements which each of us responds to in our own ways.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is img_0550.jpg
IDIC in action: The great diversity of Star Trek fandom is on display as fans mix it up with cast members of Star Trek: Discovery, from the Star Trek Las Vegas Convention, 2018.

While I wouldn’t presume to tell fellow fans to enjoy each new incarnation of Star Trek, I would offer only this piece of advice; if you give DSC, Picard or Lower Decks a try and you don’t like them? Don’t watch them. You shouldn’t force yourself to enjoy something, because in that mindset, you probably won’t. If repeated attempts to enjoy a new series of Star Trek fail, then perhaps it’s best to let go of that iteration of the franchise—the very same reason I voluntarily divorced myself from “Lower Decks” with no regrets. However, that divorce shouldn’t give me, or anyone else, the impetus to rain on another fan’s parade.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is dead-stop-046.jpg
I still remember when “Enterprise” divided fandom as well, with objections to Scott Bakula’s more reactionary Jonathan Archer, whom some perceived as a George W. Bush in space.

Remember, there is no merit badge given for watching every single episode and movie with the Star Trek name on it. Your only obligation is to stick with what you personally enjoy, even if that means ignoring a branch, or multiple branches of the Star Trek tree. When one finds their niche of Star Trek, I’d say enjoy it, and let others be. Let’s all try to remember the Vulcan philosophy of IDIC (Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations) by celebrating Star Trek in one or all of its forms–being faithful only to those which strike our fancies. There are plenty to pick and choose from.

To quote Spock, we all recognize that “change is the essential process of all existence,” but accepting the reality of said change is a different matter. One can withdraw from change, or one can choose to embrace it. Whatever one’s choice, 1966 isn’t coming back– but the future of Star Trek is happening right now.

Live long and prosper, folks!

Final Note: I will be masking up and covering the 2021 Star Trek Las Vegas Convention for this column, so stay tuned!

Viewing Options.

All Star Trek TV series and most of the movies can be streamed on ParamountPlus (aka Paramount+). To my readers, I once again wish you and all of your loved ones good health and strength during the current coronavirus pandemic. The current number of COVID-related deaths in the United States are around 608,400 as of this writing.  Meanwhile, vaccines are widely available and inoculations are widespread, though a certain level of vaccine hesitancy (roughly 40% of the US population) is slowing herd immunity and giving the virus room to fester and mutate. The overwhelming majority of COVID-related deaths in the United States are with unvaccinated persons. Even fully vaccinated, it’s still be possible to catch the coronavirus (and its variants), though a fully vaccinated person’s chances of getting seriously ill are slim.  So, if you haven’t already done so, please get vaccinated as soon as possible and let us immunize our way out of the COVID pandemic.

Images:, ParamountPlus, Disney, Author.

8 Comments Add yours

  1. Well said! I am constantly rolling my eyes at the number of online fans who have nothing but hatred for the new versions of things because they’re not properly Trekkish enough or whatever (or because they don’t want LGBTQIA stories “shoved down their throats” [aka, they’re mad that Trek is telling any LGBTQIA stories at all…]).

    Personally, I’m thrilled with the new incarnations. Sure, Discovery had a bumpy start and I’m not sure about Picard’s next steps (though like you, I’m looking forward to seeing what Q is up to), but there’s more that I like than not, so I’m happy to keep watching. I love these new characters, I love the production design and visual choices, and if Discovery continues improving, it’s going to rival DS9 as my favorite Trek show.

    I started watching TNG in its first run back in 1987, and I’ve loved it ever since, but when I look back and watch some of those episodes, I find a lot of them to be extremely cringey- especially where it comes to their treatment of female characters. Even in Voyager, which would theoretically be “better” when it comes to the treatment of women, I’m frustrated by how much time they spend trying to make Seven into someone date-able, rather than helping her to become a full human in her own right. That’s why I love what they’ve done with her character in Picard.

    You’re absolutely right, too, in that you don’t have to watch every episode- or even every show- to be a Star Trek fan, and if the gatekeepers want to just keep watching TOS or TNG and not bother with anything past that, then fine. But I’m with the new generations who appreciate the spirit of Roddenberry’s original, inclusive vision. I’ll take the new shows with their new stories. I’m thrilled to see myself and my friends (more often and more accurately) represented in one of pop culture’s most enduring universes.

    1. Thanks, Kim.
      And yes, I remember each new incarnation of the Star Trek brand getting its own measure of hate, only to be fondly remembered a few years on.

      I predict that DSC, PIC and others will undergo the same revision with enough time and distance.

  2. This may simply be because I’m not as involved in the fandom as I used to be, but I haven’t seen nearly as much hate toward the newer stuff as some of the later Berman/Braga era Trek got. Indeed, a common refrain from the fans of Discovery et al seems to be, “At least it’s not Voyager/Enterprise.”

    That said, I certainly don’t deny haters exist.

    As someone who has been less than thrilled with the new direction of Star Trek but who tries to keep an open mind, I can kind of see both sides.

    You are right that people complaining about the new shows being “too woke” have fundamentally misunderstand the nature of Star Trek, and such complaints are absurd. However, I do also feel like the other side of fence is so over-joyed by some concessions to diverse casting that they turn a blind to some very problematic elements of the new shows (mostly Discovery). For instance, as someone suffering from mental illness, I am deeply upset by Discovery’s cavalier attitude toward the issue, but no one seems to care about that. And that’s just one example.

    I think the most cogent argument I’ve seen against the newer incarnations of Trek is that the people behind just fundamentally don’t understand what the franchise is supposed to be. It all just feels too bleak and cynical to be recognizable as Star Trek.

    Like, I enjoyed Picard. It had a few stumbles, but the acting was superlative, I really love some of the new characters, I *adore* the way they fleshed out Romulan culture, and overall it was a good ride. But does it feel like Star Trek to me? No, I can’t say it does. It’s a good sci-fi show, but it’s not a good Star Trek show.

    You can move the franchise forward without betraying the principles at the heart of the universe. For proof, I’d cite the last season of Discovery. I still had my issues with it, but alone of all the post-Enterprise Trek, it did actually feel like I was watching Star Trek. Despite the darker setting, it felt like optimism and making things better was at the heart of the story, and that was very refreshing.

    I hope we see more of that. I have a lot of expectation riding on Strange New Worlds and its supposed return to traditional Star Trek values. I don’t dislike all of the new Trek; I enjoy some of it. But I really want Star Trek that actually feels like Star Trek again.

    1. I think my point (that perhaps I didn’t make so clearly) was that, in time, these newer incarnations of Trek will be as authentically Star Trek as any other, just as DS9 feels authentically Trek today–I still remember many at the time (1993) who weren’t convinced of DS9’s Trek cred.

      Like yourself, I had issues with DSC as well, but in hindsight, I realize I have issues with all incarnations of Trek to one degree or another; each one has their strengths and failings.

      Star Trek’s not perfect (nothing is, of course), but it’s still very enjoyable.

  3. Travis says:

    Congratulations you’ve succeeded in turning a Twitter post of ‘If you don’t like it. Don’t watch” into a full on blog post at the same time shilling to get the jab. Not sure what one has to do with the other.

    As for your prediction of these shows being loved years later. How did that work out for the Star Wars sequel Trilogy?

    1. Funny you should mention that.
      The Star Wars prequels are enjoying an immense popularity among younger fans these days. In fact, I see and hear from many millennial fans and Gen Z fans who absolutely love them.

      And if I’m ‘shilling’—where’s my check? We’re in a pandemic where over 4 million people have died. Not incentive enough for ya?

  4. legobrick100 says:

    I can sum up my problems with new Star Trek with a single scene from Discovery’s third season. Specifically, a scene in which a main character (Jett) demeans a junior officer who’s cleaning-up Leland’s remains from the Spore Drive chamber.

    Firstly, a superior officer should never demean a junior officer who’s doing his job, who’s presumably been ordered to do it and is contributing.

    Secondly, it mocks real-world janitorial staff, portraying them as awkward, annoying, and flimsy – a stereotype largely dropped by most of Hollywood by now.

    Thirdly, the plot established that Leland was being controlled by, well, Control. He wasn’t responsible for his actions. So why does no one mourn his death as a fellow officer? There’s no memorial, just treating his remains like garbage to be cleared away.

    Where’s the heart? These aren’t the people I want to admire or look-up to. None of previous Star Trek had that issue; their main characters were sometimes annoying at worst. Even Abrams’ movies were fine in that regard (and many others). As a child, Star Trek’s characters inspired me, taught me how to behave with respect toward others – even those I would want to hate. I dread how I might’ve learned from Discovery and Picard’s characters.

    Nevermind the fact that the guy’s name was Gene (and he explicitly tells this to the audience), which was either a tone-deaf coincidence, or an intentional jab at Star Trek’s creator. Either possibility is troubling.

    1. Gary Mitchell wasn’t responsible for his actions in TOS, but he was killed with a vengeance as well.

      As for ‘mocking the janitorial staff,’ I remember many jokes on TNG and DS9 about low-ranking crew being forced to “clean the impulse intake manifolds” or other crappy jobs on the ship, so sorry, but I fail to see your point.

      And TOS/TNG Trek had many characters on the ship who were less than ideal people (Marla McGivers betrayed her entire crew to help a 20th century tyrant, for goodness’ sake).

      Once again, our collective tendency to view the older series’ with rose-tinted visors is a dangerous thing…

Leave a Reply