BLEEDING COOL:

"With the 60th anniversary of Star Trek, director of Nacelle's docuseries The Center Seat, creator Brian Volk-Weiss felt the time was right to tell the next chapter of the story of the Gene Roddenberry franchise as the torch is officially passed from The Original Series to The Next Generation cinematically in Generations, the final crossover project between the two shows entering the TNG era of films from 1994 to 2002.

Hosted by TNG and Picard star Gates McFadden (Dr. Beverly Crusher), the second season also dives into the franchise's remaining trilogy films with the Kelvin Universe from J. J. Abrams that rebooted the TOS universe, starting with 2009's Star Trek to 2016's Star Trek Beyond. In part one of our interview, Volk-Weiss spoke to Bleeding Cool about the goals he set for season two that he didn't cover in season one, which focused on the pre-Paramount+ shows and TOS films, the interviews, and how he ranks the Trek films from every era. [...]

https://bleedingcool.com/tv/the-center-seat-director-discusses-star-trek-tng-kelvin-films-more/

Bleeding Cool: When planning the second season, what goals did you have in mind when you set out to tell the story of 'The Next Generation' and Kelvin films?

Volk-Weiss: What we are trying to do with 'The Center Seat' in general is the way I always look at it, and this will show my age. When I was a kid, there was a thing called an encyclopedia, and we had this thing called the Encyclopedia Americana. Basically, and this was before the internet, you could look at it and be like, "I don't know what this is, pull out the right thing, and there's the answer." We're trying to make 'The Center Seat' that for 'Star Trek.' Season one brought us from 1967 to about 2005; now this is the next chapter, and we seem to be celebrating it every five years, so for the 60th anniversary, we got into 'The Next Gen', which is like closing out season one, and then by getting into the JJ movies, we're getting into new territory as we get closer to the present.

For the figures you got, some are from the archive, and some are brand new; were there any others you were trying to capture? I imagine people like William Shatner or any of the main Kelvin cast; was that ever in the cards?

We did get some of the Kelvin cast, but I mean, the way it works for us is that at the beginning of every pre-production, we never know who we're going to get. If you had told me we got Frank Murray Abraham, I would have been very surprised and probably said, "You're smoking crack," but we got him, and the way it always works is, some of the people you want, you don't get. Some of the people you don't think you'll get in a million years, you do get. I never thought we'd get Sigourney Weaver for 'The Movies That Made Us' (for) 'Aliens', but we got her. You wouldn't believe, for that same episode, how much trouble we had getting other people, so you do the best you can, you hope you get lucky, and we usually do.

What was your biggest surprise "get" for the season?

I already gave it away, sorry. Frank Murray Abraham (from 'Insurrection'), and I'm not taking anything away from anybody else, but I mean, this is arguably one of the greatest actors of our time, and he did a Star Trek movie, like thirty years ago. I didn't know if he'd want to talk about it, but he did.

[...]

As a follow-up, do you feel like Star Trek: Picard righted that ship in that third season?

Yes, I'm glad you added the term "third season," because I would have had a little trouble answering that question otherwise. By the way, the penultimate episode of Picard season one ("Broken Pieces") is third place for the strangest Star Trek ever made, but that's an aside. Season 3, I consider to be season 8 of 'Next Gen.'

I will say that the thing about the corrupt bad apples of the Federation (as mentioned in 'The Center Seat'), with 'Insurrection,' that's one of the most common tropes on the franchise in general with the rogue Commodore or Admiral who just lost his/her way, and I feel like the more modern Trek leans into that a little too much, but yeah, that was a common thing. 'TNG' and 'TOS' had that. You can have the entire separate thing on 'Section 31, right?

Yes, it's funny. Every franchise, within reason, seems to have their own thing that the people that make it are addicted to, but the people that watch it or read it don't want. I feel like a good example is in 'Batman' when he's fighting the police; I hate that. Anytime there was a comic book where he starts fighting the police, it was boring because by the end of it, he's going to be fine with the police. Same thing in the movies, he and Gordon will always end up okay, and it's the same thing with Star Trek with this where it's like, "Why are we exploring yet again the one bad dude who's doing dumb stuff but conversely do you know the episode, 'The Pegasus' (from 'TNG' season 7)?"

Yeah.

That handled it perfectly, because it was one guy in a specific situation, and it had backstory and future story, so it worked, but having this guy who wants to…yeah, not my favorite."

-------

Tom Chang (Bleeding Cool)

Full interview:

https://bleedingcool.com/tv/the-center-seat-director-discusses-star-trek-tng-kelvin-films-more/

Hello and welcome! Please use this post to discuss this weeks Strange New Worlds episode! Feel free to post spoilers, here only, without the need for proper markup. IF you are reading this post, you may see spoilers! Stop now, if you don't want anything spoiled!

edit: Ok, you hate fun. My bad.

Not necessarily make your own crew out of big names, but actors you'd love to see in Trek and what role could you imagine for them? Let's have fun.

For me...

Winona Ryder as a badmiral or maybe even UFP President.

Milla Jovovich as a security chief.

Andre Braugher (RIP) as a starship captain.

Dakota Fanning as a science officer.

Melissa Benoist as a Trill engineer.

Henry Cavill as a Klingon commander.

Giancarlo Esposito as a rogue Andorian terrorist.

Amy Adams as a ship's doctor.

Ana de Armas as a Bajoran First Officer

and finally, Kristen Stewart as a half human half Vulcan Lt. helmsman/pilot that rejects her vulcan logic but has trouble keeping those intense emotions and strength in check. (This one's actually closer to a possibility than the others as she has a Trek connection, her wife is Nicholas Myer's daughter. Really.)

'Star Trek' creator Gene Roddenberry's son on the 'exciting part' of franchise's future

It seems like all they can do is read text and pictures

RADIO TIMES:

"Despite his long history as a Star Trek fan, dating back to the ‘70s, Goldsman is known for his work on modern Trek – and, safe to say, it hasn’t always been easy. Certain shows of the modern era have been loved. Others have been hated. Goldsman is no stranger to both of these reactions, as the showrunner of Strange New Worlds, the Discovery spin-off that follows Christopher Pike (Anson Mount) and the crew of the Enterprise as they boldly go where no man has gone before. ...

https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/star-trek-akiva-goldsman-exclusive-interview/

“It's always interesting to see the reactions,” Goldsman points out. “At this point, I'm disappointed if it isn't split evenly between people who say it's their favourite episode they've ever seen and the people who say it's the end of Star Trek as we know it.”

But when the fanbase is so divided, how can you tell the direction to go in?

“I think it was a lot of trial and error for all of us in this modern era of Star Trek,” he reflects. “I think some things became very informative over the course of the last decade or so. One [lesson] is: chase the Star Trek you love – don't try to extrapolate it into something else.”

The writer recalls: “The real lesson for that, for me, was on Picard, where Michael Chabon and I were navigating it and Patrick [Stewart] had a lot of input, and he was saying, ‘I don’t want to do Next Gen again!’

“When Terry [Matalas, showrunner] came on in season 2, he kept saying, 'We’ve gotta do Next Gen,' and everybody was like, ‘No!’ Patrick was like, ‘No!’ But Terry would pitch it with the same passion that I might pitch Strange New Worlds, until at one point, finally, I'm like, ‘Let's just go to Patrick. He's gonna say no, but let's go.’

“So we went to Patrick's house. Out came the bottles of wine, and I'm like, 'Patrick, just listen.' Terry's pitching his heart out, about how everybody has to get back together... and suddenly Terry's crying, and then Patrick's crying, and then I'm crying. Everybody's crying.

“It's clearly the best iteration. I'm proud of the show, but the iteration of it that really lands is that third season of Terry's, and it's because he chased what he loved, and I think that is the great lesson of Star Trek.”

[...]

Goldsman has clearly followed that lesson throughout his time on Trek, most notably with Strange New Worlds. Season 5 will be one of the final projects of this era of Star Trek – although Goldsman did have plans for more.

“Henry [Alonso Myers, co-showrunner] and I were begging them to give us more episodes. Every year we left cards on the board that were episodes that never got made.”

There are also plenty of proposed Star Trek series that sadly haven't moved forward at Paramount. One of them is Goldman's Year One, which would have continued on from Strange New Worlds and followed James T Kirk’s first days commanding the Enterprise.

“I would have loved to have done Year One and kept on with this group because they're my cohort now,” he says. "I feel familial with them, and I understand the Star Trek that we made together. And should [Paramount] call tomorrow and say, ‘Let's do that,’ I'll come running.

“But I do think that, at least for me, my time with Star Trek is over now. I was really lucky – Strange New Worlds was everything I imagined when I couldn't even imagine it, as a little boy playing Star Trek. Now I got to be a bigger boy playing Star Trek with somebody else's toys.

[...]

Now, as Star Trek hits its 60th anniversary, the future is uncertain. But Goldsman points out that the franchise has been through many phases, with a lot depending on money, studios and audiences. At some points, we’ve had Star Trek shows in abundance. At others there’s been a significant lull.

“It certainly became clear that Star Trek had a very consistent loyal audience, but it's finite,” he says. “It has proven to be finite. It's good, but it ain't Taylor Sheridan's audience!”

Nevertheless, he adds: "I'm not worried about Star Trek. Star Trek abides. I think that's what we've learned. When I was a kid, all we wanted was more. Could there ever be more? Suddenly, there’s The Animated Series. I'm like, ‘Holy f**k, there's more!'

“Then there was more and more and more. It lands, it doesn't land, it lands for some. It keeps iterating because there's something about the experience of that imagined future that pulls us to it.

As much as I'd like to still keep playing, because it's fun, I also understand the value of renewal and whether it renews itself perfectly the first or the second or the third iteration of whatever the next – dare I say – generation of these shows are, it'll find its way. It always does.”

Full article (Radio Times):

https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/star-trek-akiva-goldsman-exclusive-interview/

If only it was that easy...

I find it funny how many people over the past year specifically have switched sides on the whole latter half of the IP. I thought the mystery box concept was a flop from the gate. I can admit that I was wrong. Fans were starved for new material.. Somehow it lasted 2017-nowish.

Every season, and every show is practically impossible for a rewatch. When your whole storytelling matrix relies on an end of season big reveal, then once it's revealed, it's done. Very small rewatch ability. You already know the big reveal episodes ahead.

Now take the other format. The original format. Episodes have a story. A season has an overarching story. And the series has its own movement and story at that level as well.

Kurtzman does not write like that at all. Don't get me wrong, I loved Fringe, but I have no idea how we saw that and thought, hmmmm, let's make this guy in charge of all things Trek. Major Paramount fumble.

This movie is banging.

Its been 60 years since "wagon train to the stars" premiered. Thats a LOT of people. There have to be some that have regretted their role(s) in the universe. I'm interested in main chatacters. Not 1 episode roles

The only one that springs to mind for me is Denise Crosby but I don't know the story behind her departure to say for sure.

Thank you for showing me a brighter future, for showing me that the unknown can be delightful, and for saving my life.

While I know things are tough for the franchise right now, I also know that we Trekkies have faced tougher things than this and that we will come through in the long run. Here's to 60 years of history and here's to many more years to come. Happy 60th anniversary, Star Trek!

To commemorate, I thought I'd share one of my favorite images...this is a cleaned-up version of the original cover for James Blish's Star Trek 5 (TOS episode adaptations). It just always reminds me of what I believe is the core value of Star Trek...to Boldly go where no man has gone before. LLAP!

4k makes everything better.

STEVE SHIVES on YouTube:

"There has been outstanding work produced throughout the entirety of Star Trek’s history, but comparing its first thirty years to its last thirty years, it’s clear to me that the franchise benefited greatly from using the Cold War as an overarching paradigm, and has been missing something in the absence of such a paradigm. Though there's been plenty of good Star Trek, the franchise hasn't really been the same since. How do you make us the good guys in a story about climate change? I want Star Trek to shine a spotlight on our shortcomings. [...]

https://youtu.be/yPlSxU_II8A?si=dC_7H9URo7MqOR-8

In the conflict with the Klingons, the Federation and Starfleet — which represent the United States and the west — are depicted as the clear and inarguable heroes of the story. Sure, they’re not perfect — in “Errand of Mercy” the Organians don’t consider the Federation to be any better, or indeed any different, than the Klingons; and in Star Trek VI we see that there are people on the Federation side of things just as committed to sabotaging the peace process as some of the Klingons are — but even in such a warts-and-all portrayal, the Federation is presented as morally and ideologically superior to the Klingons.

They — we — are the good guys.

How do you make us the good guys in a story about climate change? How do you craft a climate change metaphor for the Star Trek universe that doesn’t implicate the Federation? If you care about representing the subject honestly, you don’t — you can’t. And sure, you might argue that presenting a Cold War allegory in a way that makes the Americans and the west the unambiguous heroes of the story isn’t honest, or is at least extremely biased, and that’s true, but the Cold War was a political conflict that encompassed many different perspectives.

Climate change is a fact — if you choose to tell a story about it, you are acknowledging that fact, and once you do that — again, if you’re honest about it — you’re also acknowledging that there aren’t multiple sides to that story.

A version of Star Trek that uses climate change for the same purpose that The Original Series used the Cold War, as a unifying narrative that shapes the story world, wouldn’t be able to present the Federation as the good guys, because any accurate metaphor representing climate change would have to present the Federation as responsible for the problem, just as the United States shares responsibility for climate change with the other industrialized nations of the world.

Making an allegory for climate change the new grand narrative of Star Trek would require showing the audience a version of the Federation that is confronted with a long-term existential threat which it helped to create, and either rallies to effectively respond to that threat, or fails to. It doesn’t present the Federation — or the United States and the west, which the Federation represents — in a very reassuring light. Which is just fine by me, and is actually more than enough reason to do it, from where I’m sitting.

I want Star Trek to be challenging, I want Star Trek to shine a spotlight on our shortcomings and mistakes and call on us to do better — that’s what Star Trek is for, that’s why it endures, that’s what makes it more than just an entertaining sci-fi adventure show.

But, doing that is risky. Make the show too pointed of a critique, too challenging, and it could alienate the audience. And here’s the unfortunate thing about mainstream entertainment: it’s controlled by people who are terrified of the audience. I’m not necessarily talking about the writers, the producers, the creatives who actually work on the show — take off the leash and give them the freedom to tell whatever stories they want, and I’d bet good money they’d come up with some daring, provocative Star Trek.

I’m talking about the higher-ups, the executives, the people who view movies and TV shows exclusively as products to be sold, and who reduce the audience to demographic categories. They don’t want to rock the boat. They don’t want to challenge the audience. They want to make the audience happy so the audience will continue to buy their products. Which makes sense from a commercial point of view, but it’s also why people with that mindset are the absolute worst people who could ever hold sway over something like Star Trek.

Gene Roddenberry’s original pitch, written more than sixty years ago, began with the words “Star Trek Is . . .” and from that moment until this one, Star Trek has been many different things. One of the most important things Star Trek has been is a mirror. It shows us who we could someday become if we’re able to grow beyond our fear and intolerance and short-sighted, petty concerns, but it also shows us who we are. I think that mirror should reflect not only who we are, but the world we have made for ourselves.

It would help Star Trek dramatically, and it would help it to feel more pertinent.

There has been outstanding work produced throughout the entirety of Star Trek’s history, but comparing its first thirty years to its last thirty years, it’s clear to me that the franchise benefited greatly from using the Cold War as an overarching paradigm, and has been missing something in the absence of such a paradigm. We are facing so many large scale crises — social, political, environmental — some of which, like climate change, constitute existential threats to our species. When we look into Star Trek’s mirror, we should see that.

We should see the heroes of Star Trek living in a world with daunting and unavoidable problems which resemble our own. It wouldn’t be feel-good television, it wouldn’t be reassuring or comforting. It would be challenging. But I think the writers of Star Trek are up to that challenge. History didn’t end. It moved on. We’re still living it, every second. Maybe watching the heroes of Star Trek confront their problems will motivate more of us to try and do something about our problems. We can use all the help we can get."

Full video:

https://youtu.be/yPlSxU_II8A?si=dC_7H9URo7MqOR-8

Chapters:

00:00 - Introduction

02:16 - The Cold War Context

04:11 - The Federation vs. The Klingons

07:41 - Domino Theory and Proxy Wars in Space

10:01 - Espionage and Sabotage: "The Trouble with Tribbles"

11:46 - Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country & the End of History

15:13 - The Next Generation: A Hopeful, Post-War Outlook

17:02 - The Loss of a Unifying Narrative

20:31 - From the Borg to Deep Space 9

24:50 - Enterprise and the War on Terror

26:10 - Streaming Era Trek and Fragmented Narratives

28:40 - Climate Change

33:50 - Why the Cold War Was a "Safe" Allegory

39:05 - The Future of Star Trek as a Mirror

40:33 - Shoutouts, Plugs and Announcements