I mean, if they struck a balance, it could be enjoyable enough.
It’s not a dynamic we’ve fully explored in Trek. We kind of got it with adult Jake and Captain Sisko in the later seasons of DS9, but we haven’t really fully seen the experience of a Starfleet empty nester.
Still, drama after drama is rather annoying.
After being disgusted by the horribly-done pre-school show, I’d much rather see a Star Trek done in the spirit of Craig of the Creek and Bluey that’s about a friend group of kids running around a star base and getting into fun and trouble and low-stakes ethical dilemmas, preferably while their parents (the crew and civilian residents) deal with DS9 levels of heavy stuff. After saying this to my younger sibling, they have a more developed pitch, having sketched up some concept art for fun.
I think you missed the point on this though - it’s not a show for or with children.
It’s another go at selling an younger ensemble based on they’re being the offspring of a legacy character.
The article says Archer’s four adult children would be in their twenties and thirties. They would be in different roles and services.
I didn’t like the nepobaby, ‘children of’, angle in Picard and I didn’t really like Archer, so I can’t imagine why they would think this would be the way to draw in an audience.
TNG made a point to avoid doing this as much as possible, and it ultimately worked and arguably usurped the original.
I guess that’s also part of the strength of Lower Decks and somewhat Prodigy; both shows are the only ones of this wave to be mostly focused on original characters. Lower Decks does bring in legacy characters frequently, and Prodigy does have Hologram Janeway and later starts to heavily feature legacy characters as part of the storyline, but both have an original cast as the core of the show that isn’t anyone we know’s brother or cousin. I superficially thought about this, but didn’t think about it in comparison to the other newer Treks before.
While many older fans are disappointed that Starfleet Academy is set in the far future 32nd century, I am hopeful that it’s focus on original characters, will be a strength.
Having a few recurring Discovery characters around, and Robert Picardo as The Doctor, doesn’t negate that it’s fundamentally about new characters and not legacy ones or their immediate family.
Like the apparent ‘no technobabble’ edict from on high, with so many ‘kids of’ and ‘sibling of’ characters in the new era, I have to wonder if the IP holder had laid down some kind of structure forcing the creators to tie new main characters to legacy ones.
I am wondering if Pelia was created as much to give Holly Hunter’s character a legacy tie and check the required box for linkage to another character as much as she was to provide a vehicle for Carol Kane.
On the other hand, they could pick up Vanguard for a more serious show.
I’m actually disappointed that United would focus more on Archer’s kids than his government
I mean, if they struck a balance, it could be enjoyable enough.
It’s not a dynamic we’ve fully explored in Trek. We kind of got it with adult Jake and Captain Sisko in the later seasons of DS9, but we haven’t really fully seen the experience of a Starfleet empty nester.
Still, drama after drama is rather annoying.
After being disgusted by the horribly-done pre-school show, I’d much rather see a Star Trek done in the spirit of Craig of the Creek and Bluey that’s about a friend group of kids running around a star base and getting into fun and trouble and low-stakes ethical dilemmas, preferably while their parents (the crew and civilian residents) deal with DS9 levels of heavy stuff. After saying this to my younger sibling, they have a more developed pitch, having sketched up some concept art for fun.
I think we share a view on Scouts.
I think you missed the point on this though - it’s not a show for or with children.
It’s another go at selling an younger ensemble based on they’re being the offspring of a legacy character.
The article says Archer’s four adult children would be in their twenties and thirties. They would be in different roles and services.
I didn’t like the nepobaby, ‘children of’, angle in Picard and I didn’t really like Archer, so I can’t imagine why they would think this would be the way to draw in an audience.
When you put it that way, I agree.
TNG made a point to avoid doing this as much as possible, and it ultimately worked and arguably usurped the original.
I guess that’s also part of the strength of Lower Decks and somewhat Prodigy; both shows are the only ones of this wave to be mostly focused on original characters. Lower Decks does bring in legacy characters frequently, and Prodigy does have Hologram Janeway and later starts to heavily feature legacy characters as part of the storyline, but both have an original cast as the core of the show that isn’t anyone we know’s brother or cousin. I superficially thought about this, but didn’t think about it in comparison to the other newer Treks before.
While many older fans are disappointed that Starfleet Academy is set in the far future 32nd century, I am hopeful that it’s focus on original characters, will be a strength.
Having a few recurring Discovery characters around, and Robert Picardo as The Doctor, doesn’t negate that it’s fundamentally about new characters and not legacy ones or their immediate family.
Like the apparent ‘no technobabble’ edict from on high, with so many ‘kids of’ and ‘sibling of’ characters in the new era, I have to wonder if the IP holder had laid down some kind of structure forcing the creators to tie new main characters to legacy ones.
I am wondering if Pelia was created as much to give Holly Hunter’s character a legacy tie and check the required box for linkage to another character as much as she was to provide a vehicle for Carol Kane.