Star Trek Prodigy

[karamazov80]

I've poured a lot of hours into "Top 10s" over the years. Not genre fiction, in general. Now, I just don't care. At least not enough to go through ~150 hours of Trek. Like I said, I like the concept of "spaceship going exploring" appeals to me, but a bunch of smug mouthpieces going about their daily lives in the American 60s Space Age Futurism just isn't to my liking. I couldn't take anymore "nations/cultures/religions/politics are fokin stoopid n barbaric and not worth fighting for and you should be heckin embarassed" speeches by Q & Picard. I get the "message", I just find this type of thinking appalling. Maybe it gets better. I don't know. I don't care to know. I watched clips/skipped to episodes with supposed highlights and... eh. I don't get the appeal. I'm not going to rain on anyone's parade, preferences and all. I'm just saying, I'm firmly in the TOS camp and that's where I'll stay.

Understood. Personally, the level of thoughtfulness and introspection, and ultimately presenting an ideal of what humanity could be without glossing over its problems is a big part of what sets that show apart for me. Again, you have to look at it in totality, but there is limited time to spend watching tv shows, so after a certain point there is no need to keep watching something you just aren't getting into.

 

[Vkh]

Right.

Well! Star Trek Prodigy is getting a second season!

20 episodes in Season 1 and 20 more in Season 2.

It turns out that there’s also going to be a quarter season break after episode 5, presumably so the new season of Discovery can take the main stage. Then Prodigy will return and break again before Picard starts up.

My guess is Paramount+ is using Prodigy as weekly ST filler between the live shows and sort of a preview for fans/subscribers.

It makes sense since the entire first season will debut next year on Nickelodeon (after airing on P+), which has a broader reach for the intended younger audience. I’m waiting for the toys!

 

[ebor]

This is good news. Let's face it Star Trek has mostly had an greater appeal to a mostly older audience since it's inception in 1967--it was never geared/catering to a younger audience--this is exactly what this franchise needs--a younger base audience to guarantee it's future.

 

[Victοr]

Understood. Personally, the level of thoughtfulness and introspection, and ultimately presenting an ideal of what humanity could be without glossing over its problems is a big part of what sets that show apart for me. Again, you have to look at it in totality, but there is limited time to spend watching tv shows, so after a certain point there is no need to keep watching something you just aren't getting into.

I get that part, I just never found the core of it convincing. Why do humans in the Trekverse have all this wondrous tech? Well, there was a Nuclear War between Eugenics Babies and then the survivors joined hands, sang kumbayah and hey presto, tech made massive leaps forward! From the start it's pure fantasy, so whatever comes next still follows this same line of thought and work. I can deal with different viewpoints from my own if it's something tangible. I can read various political or philosophical works from actual people discussing the actual world, ie non-fiction literature. That's just data gathering, creating a more complete worldview. I can put the time into a piece of art that is well-made yet differs from my stance if it's set out to tackle one thing. But I cannot go into an IP with hundreds of hours into it, when its core is completely disconnected from how reality works, yet attempts to twist concepts in its favour to make a "profound" statement. I'm not here to argue 40K or Wars that I prefer are "smarter" franchises; they're IPs I like for the aesthetics and are more or less adventure/pulp series. My character is just one that in the limited time I alocate to simple, pop entertainment (and that's what Trek is IMO), I don't look for anything more than a good time. If I want brain teasers I'll go for the actual works. Trek's not got anything that I found particularly clever. It contains far too many contrivancies and exists in such a fantastical setting that whenever it tries to be "grounded", I think that it comes off as biased and silly. Maybe if I liked the aesthetic more I'd have stuck with it to a later point.

Anyway, I'm just reiterating the same things now. I'm not passing judgement on the quality of the IP, it's just not for me. Trek's Asimov, and I'm not an Asimov fan either. Apologies for the derailment.

 

[Wor-Gar]

 

[matticus]

This is good news. Let's face it Star Trek has mostly had an greater appeal to a mostly older audience since it's inception in 1967--it was never geared/catering to a younger audience--this is exactly what this franchise needs--a younger base audience to guarantee it's future.

I agree. Wish we could get that 90's Trek tone/look back for at least one show. Picard and Discovery look so dreary. Seems like post-9/11 has continued to make media so dark and bleak for the most part.

 

[Wor-Gar]

We are a dark and bleak country right now.

 

[ebor]

Hmmm not much better in 1967 USA...Vietnam war in full effect. Race-riots. I don't mean to dredge up the past. But Roddenberry Trek took the then current socio-political situations/current events, salient at the time, and transposed them to the show with allegory to show that the alien worlds' having similar issues, could better understand the issue/and possibly solve them. That is why I find Trek so meaningful.

 

[jal76]

What even is this response? Trying to retract from your passive aggrassive stance by pretending that, what, you were posting in jolly-good spirits but somehow this dastardly villain inferred it as "rage"? I am terribly sorry, but when I read something like

then I infer that you've gotten irritated that your favourite Genre Soap has been mocked, which is why you resort to such defenses. You are somehow able to insult people, and yet you cannot take any sort of criticism.


Oh, so now it's not enough to have watched TNG itself to comment on TNG. In order for one to judge TNG, he'd have to watch DS9 and all the other spin-offs. I see. Oh, how foolish of me, to decide on whether I'll waste 500 more hours based on 100 hours of interaction. Truly, I am quite a vile delinquent. My mind is not prepared for wisdom such as Trek's...


If you can't see the difference between War & Peace, and a pulpy serial created by a hippie coomer who died from an overdose, then this discussion is even more debased than I thought.


So, by your admission, you made a rude assement and yet, you're offended over... some generalisation? In the same vein that you made? One that you're not even proving false? "Honest"? What does that even mean? Your generalisations are "honest" and the rest are "gobbledegook"? You're not consistent in your arguments even on a basic level. Christ man, this is just sad.


No, I think you're just looking for a lifeboat, so to speak. You're cornered, and thus you're deflecting by pretending that not engaging with you, and ridiculing your antics as I am doing, puts one on a higher ground. In truth, he made the correct choice, for he dismissed your ramblings whereas I gave you a chance. Alas, you're proving to be exactly the ill-tempered, poorly behaved, badly argued type your postings betrays you as.


This is a forum. People talk. If I see something I want to reply to, I will. It's just asanine to me that anyone would try and claim that a Serial Soap...IN SPACE is thematically complicated enough to trouble anyone. And yet, you are exactly what I imagined you to be. It's quite astounding really...


Mate, you're a grown man, with, as you said, young kids, on a dolly forum, in a thread about a cartoon, getting your knickers twisted over the Space Soap you watched as a toddler being called subpar. You're posting like you're having a stroke, or you skipped every grade after the fifth, you're passive aggressive, you deflect every counterpoint with flimsy excuses, and you're ending all of your posts with a smiley face. You're terribly insecure, for you're not even truthful hiding behind a codename, conversing over pop culture. Nothing about your arguments or stance is genuine, merely a facade of indifference hiding your crippling lack of any sort of point or honesty. To be disappointed, I'd first have to care...

I won't respond to anything else. You're too sad to be worth my time. If any mods wish to delete this "argument" for clean-up reasons, it's understandable.

I’m…not reading that…I’m sorry, it’s too long…

 

[Wor-Gar]

Hmmm not much better in 1967 USA...Vietnam war in full effect. Race-riots. I don't mean to dredge up the past. But Roddenberry Trek took the then current socio-political situations/current events, salient at the time, and transposed them to the show with allegory to show that the alien worlds' having similar issues, could better understand the issue/and possibly solve them. That is why I find Trek so meaningful.

Trek also got canned at that time for lack of viewership.

 

[ebor]

True but came back insanely strong due to fandom and syndication/re-runs.

 

[Wor-Gar]

True but came back insanely strong due to fandom and syndication/re-runs.

The astro kids discovered it. You know, the generation that went from cowboy to astronaut.

 

[S. Griffin]

I'm not even sure how much of TNG season 1 and 2 I've seen. I would always skip right to season 3, same with DS9. The Riker/Sisko beards comment was funny because it's true. Add the bald head for Sisko.

There's really important character development and world building in the first two seasons of Deep Space Nine, including some of the show's best episodes like "Duet,""Whispers," and "The Wire." With TNG, you don't really miss any character development in the first two seasons, because that wasn't important to Gene Roddenberry, but "Measure of a Man," "Ship in a Bottle," and "Q Who" are all pretty great. Pretty much the rest of the first two seasons of TNG are crap. There are a few crappy DS9 episodes in those early seasons while the show was still finding its footing and the writers were figuring out what it was supposed to be, but there are fewer of them.

 

[matticus]

There's really important character development and world building in the first two seasons of Deep Space Nine, including some of the show's best episodes like "Duet,""Whispers," and "The Wire." With TNG, you don't really miss any character development in the first two seasons, because that wasn't important to Gene Roddenberry, but "Measure of a Man," "Ship in a Bottle," and "Q Who" are all pretty great. Pretty much the rest of the first two seasons of TNG are crap. There are a few crappy DS9 episodes in those early seasons while the show was still finding its footing and the writers were figuring out what it was supposed to be, but there are fewer of them.

I like the bookend episodes with Q putting mankind on trial. Pretty awesome. Only Trek could get away with a character like Q. The juxtaposition of Picard and Q played so well. Trek was so great in finding the spirit and soul in humanity.

 

[e30ernest]

I've caught up with the latest episodes for this. I must say I hated Dal on the first few episodes, but the character and the entire "crew" were developing episode to episode. Kate Mulgrew as Holo-Janeway was also very much welcome.

If you frame this as a total stranger to Star Trek, I think it does a good job of introducing the basics of that world to its target audience (kids). It does that while giving a few winks here and there to the older fans.

You know what? I like this much better than Discovery or Picard.

 

[Galacticat]

OH I was just wondering about this show- I kinda want to see it (or put it on for my kid) but don't want to get "Paramount" just for this one cartoon unless it is really amazingly good.
Sounds like it is fine, but not amazing, so I guess I'll just wait.

 

[e30ernest]

It's a solid second behind SNW for me.

 

[e30ernest]

Been watching this again since it came back from hiatus. The new episodes are pretty good too.