"Star Trek is dying." How would you sell it to a younger audience?
"Star Trek is dying." How would you sell it to a younger audience?
In a TrekCulture interview a week ago, Rob Kazinsky, who plays Zeph in Section 31, talked about his reaction to the S13 movie.
He revealed one interesting point from behind the scenes about why the movie was made:
When I got this job, I was like, "Ugh, Section 31 movie, why are they doing a Section 31 movie? It's gonna be hated from the get-go. No ones gonna want to watch a Section 31 movie. We're doing a TV-budget movie. This isn't going to be what people want..." And I spoke to Alex [Kurtzman] and I spoke to Olatunde [Osunsanmi] and they explained to me that Star Trek is dying. And I don't know if people know that. You know, I was talking about Star Trek at my gym where I fight. You know, I'm a boxer where I fight with a lot of kids - you know, I don't fight them but train them - none of them knew what Star Trek was. Could you imagine that?
He went on to say that Star Trek had never had a base as big as Harry Potter or Star Wars but the small fanbase was passionate. He says that fanbase is aging and "we are going to lose Star Trek if we don't bring in new fans, new eyes and new ways of getting people to love the things that we love."
I think that's a valid point but Section 31 is not the answer. It's not particularly interesting for kids (I think) or for adults, whether or not they're Trek fans already. And for fans, this type of storytelling sacrifices the optimistic ethos (though not immune from criticism along the lines of DS9) that's at the heart of the Federation and the franchise. And I'm not even arguing this from a canon or gatekeeping point of view. It's not utlilizing Star Trek's niche and unique selling point in the market. Why should kids watch Star Trek instead of Captain America, Suicide Squad, or any MCU movie?
Here comes the question: If you're in Alex Kurtzman's position, how are you going to sell the franchise to a new, young audience? How are you going to convince kids who spend their time playing Roblox and watching Mr. Beast that Star Trek is a good show to watch?
It's dying because its repeating the old mistake of trying to go back to the exact same formula, and because it's less accessible.
In my opinion, Paramount taking Disco off of Netflix, in favour of sticking it onto its own streaming service, was a mistake. Although it meant that people were less able to access it, either because Paramount Plus wasn't available in their region, or because they couldn't justify the cost of spending money on another streaming service.
And in the meantime, it keeps trying to go back to the same thing. That was what killed it back at the start of the 21st century. Enterprise and Voyager were variants of exactly the same kind of thing as TNG, with better special effects. Everything keeps trying to go back in time, and cater to Nostalgia. Remember Captain Kirk? What about Picard? Or the Constitution-class Enterprise? There doesn't feel much like there's anything interesting in Trek any more. It's basically all rehashing or nostalgia.
For all its flaws, part of what made Discovery interesting was that it was (not unlike the ship itself) an experimental testbed. Writers would, and did, just throw everything at it, for good and ill, and I'd argue it worked. Having that flexibility gave us the second wave of Trek, and I'd argue just as much that Discovery settled into being some kind of 32nd century TNG was either a harbinger, or hurt it severely.
What Trek really needs for a revival is something that the network would never allow (CBS/Paramount would never risk their cash cow.), and that is to go back to its roots. Not in the Federation-and-Enterprise way, but in what made TOS.
TOS stood out because it wasn't like the other cowboy shows at the time, or like the rocketty sci-fi of the era. It was distinct. It pushed the social-progressive line so hard it was nearly pulled off the air, and if Roddenberry had had his way with including an LGBT member in TOS like he'd wanted, might have done so outright.
Newer Trek (TNG and onwards) is much safer and more conservative by comparison, to the point of being boring. It barely pushes the line, if at all. The Orville, by virtue of having less brand baggage behind it, arguably does a better job of being progressive.
Visually, too. Every Federation starship basically follows the same template, even into the far distant future. Trek is not glued to the appearance of the Constitution-class Enterprise, or a variant of such for its hero ships, nor does every ship need to use warp engines and that.
A minor side tangent, but reverting to the same kind of thing is why I was rather disappointed with what Discovery did with the 32nd century. It would have been far more interesting if they'd gone to a time when all the powers we know and are familiar with, and even the tech aboard Discovery were ancient and long-deprecated.
Discovery in the 32nd Century, as an Equinox counterpart of the Voyager plot could have been amazing, both from them being an outdated starship in what used to be familiar territory and what it would mean to maintain Federation values when the Federation doesn't even exist any more.
Honestly, I think bits of Picard and Strange New Worlds had the right idea when it came to the Synth ban, and the Illyrian extinction. Show us the downsides of Federation policy for things that might have been well-intentioned, but had negative or mixed effects, and how they fixed/improved it. That's something we've rarely seen in Trek, in a way that wasn't just "we don't like this rule, so we'll ignore it".
Here comes the question: If you're in Alex Kurtzman's position, how are you going to sell the franchise to a new, young audience? How are you going to convince kids who spend their time playing Roblox and watching Mr. Beast that Star Trek is a good show to watch?
The young audience isn't a monolith, and I'd argue that Star Trek is better off not competing head-to-head. Could you imagine DS9 or Voyager with their totally not-a-square radical groovy Teenage Mutant Starfleet Captain? It would be unwatchable. Hell would be upon us.
Instead, Trek could benefit by competing through simply not competing, and stand out, rather than copy other sci-fi. Give us what Trek has always been, a nice slow comfort watch, where everyone is competent, and everything isn't always at stake or fisticuffs all the time. That may work to its benefit, when everything else is dark and gritty, since it would be distinct compared to other things.
Un-cancel Lower Decks. 😉
Honestly, though, I feel like most media groups in general forget why the streaming model worked in the first place. They want Office-level hits, but forget that The Office wasn’t immediately successful. Not immediately killing it just because of that gave it time to find a fandom.
Most shows should automatically get 2-3 seasons, and they often aren’t getting that.
As for the whole “none of them knew what Star Trek was” anecdote - I find that a bit exaggerated. I’m a college student, and I wore a Boimler costume for Halloween- most could identify that I was something Star Trek. Around other people my age, they can at least think of Spock or Patrick Stewart.
How I got into Trek as a kid was my mom would be watching it, and she’d let us join even though we were supposed to be doing homework. TNG was the one I saw the most during that.
P.S: As I’ve floated around this forum several times, I think an animated anthology series of strange new crews would be awesome.
I wore a Boimler costume for Halloween
Nice
There are plenty of good responses here already, but to me the main thing in marketing Trek to new audiences would be stop the frigging nostalgia fest.
- don't circle back to the TOS characters at the tip of a hat. Yes, JJ Abrams, I'm looking at you, but also every other recent attempt at new Star trek movies.
- All the stories around those characters have been told already. Make something new and current within the same universe.
- Don't shoehorn canon and continuity onto every new show. Having Bones make a cameo in the TNG pilot was cute. Making Burnham a previously unmentioned lynchpin in Spock's character was... unnecessary. Don't get me started on SNW.
- The wealth of continuity from previous shows shouldn't be a namecheck scorecard, but a backdrop that curious current viewers can track down and explore on their own.
Twenty years ago when the BBC relaunched Doctor Who, they played down all the background stuff for most of the first season, only drip feeding lore to the audience.
- The stories, the characters had to be appealing on their own
- The 26 seasons worth of classic Who wasn't required watching to keep up, but it gave resonance to the new show.
Star trek needs to learn from that approach to focus on good stories and engaging characters — and to aim outside of the established but dwindling fan group by allowing the almost 60 years of canon to play second violin.
Stop trying to be ‘cool’ (or whatever you think is cool). Star Trek was never cool. Just do Star Trek and the right people will find it.
Make it episodic again, focus on the story instead of the action, and basically just do TNG, but with even better sets, costumes and make-up. Stop trying to be dark, gritty and edgy. If there is an over-arcing narrative, make it the B or C plot in most episodes, to keep it episodic by nature.
Reminds me of what I heard from a comedian a while back, about how restaurants slowly lose what made them great in the first place, until they become a poor imitation of Applebees, or similar restaurants, because “that’s what people want”. They then eventually fail, because if you want Applebees, you go to Applebees.
But how is Star Trek not doing so hot if I just read this:
Re runs and free yt uploads of TNG with advertising like "here's a future we can have, with quality leadership. Keep fighting for decency"
Give them Andor instead of Ahsoka; they need to make more content that speaks to the universal human condition and less about the cool worlds and characters they've got. The people want Squid Game and Severance, not another cinematic universe.
A lot of writers seem to have forgotten that scifi uses aliens and new worlds to talk about humans. They just think that scifi uses aliens and new worlds.
It's more TV is dying and Kurtzman hates Star Trek as a concept and can only write one kind of story. There is this thing we need to find that thing. An entire season about finding that thing.
When star trek is done right it works and gets shared around and does well. The five OG star trek series. Strange new worlds, The Orville Prodigy
It also kills me that Kurtzman misses the entire point of what Section 31 was in DS9. When he said a utopia can't exist without someone doing the dirty work like S31. That kinda of undermineds the entire point of star trek and If we have gotten to that point star trek is already dead and a dystopian zombie is wearing it's face.
There is this thing we need to find that thing. An entire season about finding that thing.
Ah yes, the season-sized adventure that feels like a bunch of yak-shaving fetch-quests in an rpg.
we must find the progenitor macguffin, but first we must find the treasure map, but first...
If we look for it we probably see this pattern is common across many trek episodes, but across a season they managed to do it in such a way that feels very obvious and hard to miss.
Yeah an episode is fine if you can put a twist on it but a "full campaign" I mean "Season" of story telling. I would expect more from my group's DM and he doesn't get paid.
Free to air. It's how we all got hooked
Star Trek was never a show for kids, so it's not surprising kids don't know about it. Star Wars and Harry Potter were for kids
Star Trek has always been more about solving things without violence when possible, which means action sequences don't happen often, so a significant portion of people won't find any interest in it.
To me, personally, Trek fails at simply not having "anything really going on". I don't know about more recent Trek shows, but there's never anything that feels like a real threat, or any threat that goes beyond 2 episodes. Some of the exploration feels like "Oh, we're just fucking bored, I guess, let's see what we can find over that star system", everything feels unbelievably safe. Sure, Kardassian assholes might capture you and torture you for shits and giggles, you never know when something with literal godlike powers might decide to show up and challenge the crew out of boredom, but that's not a risk you're at while exploring a weird world or solving a Sherlock mystery in the holodeck. For comparison: Battlestar Galactica had a permanent worry about (lack of) resources, being a fleet on the run with a single military ship to protect it against an overwhelming enemy and an "anyone could be a sleeping agent of the enemy" conflict. Not everything BSG did was good, but that overall setting and premise permeated everything.
Put another way, what would be the most common answer to "What is Star Trek about?"
I'd say it's about a lovely utopia where everyone is equal, money and poverty are gone and progression of humanity itself became the main driving force of everyone.
Besides that it's about many encounteers with new species, discoveries, ethical and moral questions that are (tried to be) solved for the good of everyone. It's conversation, not conflict. It's discovery, not extinction. It's fairness, not exploitation. Et cetera.
And I'd counter your argumrnt. There always is some looming threat. Voyager has a gazillion of enemies, the ever hanging threat of never coming back home and being stranded for good. TNG had...well...the Borgs? Sure, there are many soap-opera-moments, like the sherlock Holmes holodeck filler-episodes, but they're not defining elements I'd say.
Star wars is like a western in space. Pew pew instead of bang bang. No wonder it's so much more loved than trek.
Sorry, I don't care what Kurtzman says about this (or an actor that is obliged to defend a project he was in) when it's justifying putting out schlock for mind share. If that's the best we can do, let it die - it doesn't make anything that exists any worse.
Trek needs a good show that stands alone and isn't aimed at us but a fresh audience. That means no cameos, limited references, not animated (that is a stigma as much as I love LD), and actually taking the time to get people invested.
Basically, they needed Discovery to not be garbage. I know non-Trekkies that were actually excited for a new sci-fi romp and got turned off almost immediately by the nonsense writing. Not the cast, or stupid out of universe concerns about being "woke" or some shit, just plain out "this makes no sense and isn't fun to watch" and it was hard to disagree.
Everything since then has lived in Discovery's shadow in terms of new audience and has mostly dealt with that by being aimed at fans of 90s Trek and nobody else. Prodigy may be an exception here, but that suffers from being oriented at kids.
I agree in some senses with the stand-alone part, but not necessarily the animated part. I feel like it would just need to be marketed right. Executives are convinced for the most part that animation is either only for kids or for irreverent adult comedies, when it really should be viewed as a general medium.
I think Infinity Train is the best evidence of my point (look it up if you don't know); it really transcends the typical bounds assigned to animation. Book 3 especially is truly just a great fantasy/sci-fi drama. However, it was basically killed by executives who wanted a tax write-off and couldn't see its potential outside a "kids show". Now some of the series is purchasable on various online storefronts, but the only legal way to watch all of Book 3 is to pirate it.
If executives and people alike would liberate themselves from the stigma of animation, I feel like you could pull off high-quality, TNG-length seasons that allow less rushed charater development for a reasonable budget compared to an expensive live action streaming show. In some ways, Prodigy was an example of this - I felt like I got more time with the characters than almost any other modern Trek (granted SNW is still going on).
I've never met a person where I mentioned Star Trek and they went, "Ew, Discovery. I'm never watching any Star Trek ever again"; I think Discovery had its flaws (and strengths), but it made little impact on franchise popularity.
Usually (which you touch on), it's more like they're just bamboozled by the cannon. Like, I was watching DS9 once, and my roommate asked if it was the original, which then brought a long and complicated explanation from me. I think you're right that it'd be very nice to have a Star Trek show that one could show to people where when old lore is brought in, it's delivered in such a way that people can pick it up as they go.
They really need to find ways to get Star Trek to an audience beyond Paramount+
Hell, why not put the new shows on normal TV a couple of years after they air online? I know fewer people watch traditional TV these days, but it's still a way to get the show out to a more general audience
We just need more star trek memes to take over and we'll save star trek
This is what brought the prequels back from the dead.
I think the sensibilities of the audience has shifted since the new millennia. Multicam feels claustrophobic to the modern audience and that’s one of the main aesthetics of retro trek.
The other thing is that every Trek series, aside from DS9, depicts a pretty rigid, hierarchical, militaristic environment. Maybe not as much as Klingons or Cardassians but I think this setting, the nomenclature, the general vibe is becoming alienating to a modern audience. Keep in mind, people have become highly cynical toward predominately white and Westernized institutions, and the Federation is very much that. It feels like America with Aliens on board. English is the only language ever really spoken aside from some alien languages.
In my opinion, there needs to be a show that pulls heavily from DS9 while maintaining some of that optimism and sincerity we love from retro Trek. It needs to oscillate between these juxtaposed tones. The show should be told from the perspective of multiple equals that make consensus based decisions instead of a primary Captain like Picard, Sisko, or Janeway who supersedes all decisions. Everyone has specific roles but there is no hierarchy.
Also, remove the white savior element that retro Trek holds over many of the beings they come across in the franchise. The group, whomever they are, would be far more interesting as some kind of nomadic space commune that is extremely removed from federation involvement. If anything, I’d say at most there is one person with ties to the federation but perhaps they left for unknown reasons providing rich backstory and future storylines if they do come across the federation.
This perspective is more akin to the actual lens the average viewer sees the world. We are not making cosmic decisions, we’re just trying to survive. And, when we see the government, we see a dark looming presence hovering over us, trying to tell us the best way to live our lives, and it’s fucking annoying, right?
That should be the New Trek.
Write great scripts first
Honestly, the things that made me start to like it again was Below Decks, because it was different and fun and animated, sure, but what made me like Star Trek again was the moments of optimism and niceness that were in the show. Sometimes it was as a joke where you think something is going to be bad and it turned out fine, which is fine, but if reminded me of the thing that separates Star Trek from other shows is that it has this sense of optimism. Optimism for the future, that things are going to be ok, and humanity will get it's act together and live up to our own ideals.
The edgy remakes don't feel like that.
section 31 was pretty cringe. There were some pretty cool concepts and ideas but, overall not executed well at all. It seems section 31 is made up of a bunch of dumbass rejects? Georgiou character was way over hammed compared to how she was in Discovery. Driving the movie like it was a video game was an interesting idea that could have been done better. The couple twists with the whole "whos the traitor?" was interesting if not rushed, seemed like an afterthought.
its one of those movies you watch once.
To me Section 31 was just closeups of Yeoh’s grinning face. Every shot.
What is the age range they are classifying as young? Are they talking like teenagers or mid-20s to 30s? The thing with Star Trek that I think attributes to the non-fans not watching would be the stylization. Going back to the comparison of MCU, HP, and Star Wars: they all have something unique (be it the directing, photography, acting, writing, music, special effects, etc.) that if you pay attention for a significant period will find. Star Trek is no different. When you watch a MCU movie or TV show you probably see the sleek costumes and fast paced fight choreography. With HP, it was probably all the special effects, makeup and set design. For Star Wars it might be the writing, special effects and music.
I’m being non-specific here of course. Star Trek like I said is no different. There are visual and non-visual language being utilized that we find enjoyment in. For anyone not currently into these properties, it could be difficult to enjoy. Especially if you haven’t been someone who watched these properties from a young age or from the early years. For example, if you had someone exposed to only the Kelvin Timeline try to watch TOS or TNG with no context for how it relates, a disconnect might form. Visually those series are not as sleek or modernized as those movies.
As for the comparison to video games… that is simply a different medium. What appeals to one person to the next will be hard to gage. That doesn’t preclude the likes of Fortnite players from enjoying Trek, but culturally that kind of entertainment is very different from what a kid who grow up with TNG was exposed to.
I'm struggling to find it now, but I read a Jonathan Frakes interview last year (I think) where he expressed a similar sentiment.
Basically, he said that the fans that he sees at conventions are getting noticably older, and there aren't as many younger people joining the fold.
I fell in love with Star Trek through TNG and reruns of the original series. I remember watching reruns of both for hours on end. DS9 and Voyager were great as well. What kept me interested and engaged was the network accessibility. I haven't watched any of the series since Voyager because they weren't available without a subscription.
You want a growing fanbase, you need to remove the walls.
They need to take the “end of money” angle and zoom way in on that. Make that the actual story, not just some blurry fact in the background. How did that transition come about? What are some human stories of why? Make sure it has enough sci fi action elements to be interesting, but show a society leaving money behind and I guarantee it will spur some conversation amongst the youngs.
My personal experience is that one should be ready to watch star trek.
When I was 20 I simply wasn't ready and didn't try watching any of it despite a friend insisting it was worth it.
Two years ago, instead, I was so ready that I could enjoy TOS too
I'm still not at discovery, so I need to see the nuTrek to say more. But I really just think you can't advertise trek too much.
When TOS aired the first time in my country, I was 9-10 years old. I found it mind-blowingly good compared to other shows at the time. I had learned to read when I was 4 and I read a LOT. And not just books for children, I also read classics and nonfiction natural science as much as I could.
I was a strange kid, but all my reading had made me ready to understand the social commentaries in TOS and the fictional scenarios really opened the concepts up for me. I often went to the library to research stuff that was explored in the latest episode to make sure I had understood everything.
My son is 13 now, we started to watch the TOS DVD-set together and he loves it. Although he is older than I was, he is not an avid reader like me. He needs many of the concepts explained and subtle guidance to understand the underlying larger themes, but he has shown advancement and after every episode we have a small discussion. I love teaching him this way.
We just finished season 1 and my son noted: "Athough this show is ancient, this stuff is still relevant and happening even today, isn't it?"
Exactly, you need a specific setup to enjoy it, and you need to give it focus!
I don't think that making content specifically to be liked by people who wouldn't enjoy the typical style is a good concept... It can be explored sure, but they also need to make sure to make new trak-like content too
But again I really need to see discovery and snw to see how things are going right now. I also don't want to judge the s31 movie before watching it
I think the current approach is the correct one, even if it produces a few misses here and there.
A variety of tonally distinct projects, aimed at different demographics, telling stories.
I'm inclined to agree, and the series from the past decade have definitely attracted a younger audience, though I'm guessing probably not to the degree the producers were hoping and also without holding onto as many of the olds as they were hoping.
I also think the latter half of the 20th century was a unique time where families were sitting down to watch family-friendly (it's true don't deny it) TV like Star Trek together.
They had the good idea with the Kelvinverse as a more approachable, mainstream friendly variant to classic Star Trek. Then they made Discovery and killed all momentum, alienating both old and new fans.
I would lecture the little weaklings on how life was like in my day, and tell them to get off my lawn.
Ultimately, Star Trek isn’t going to succeed as a giant billion dollar franchise like Marvel or Star Wars and trying to turn it into one is likely to kill it. What it can be is an ongoing series of shows which are financially and creatively successful. However, it needs is a creative refresh. Too often Star Trek and other tv/movie sci fi is just remixing decades old science fiction concepts.
If I was running Star Trek, I would recruit a collection of great science fiction writers and/or buy a bunch of original science fiction stories to bring in ideas people haven’t seen multiple times. Set the show in a new region with some separation to explain why we aren’t seeing Klingons and Romulans and all the rest and tell some great science fiction stories. Ideas will drive buzz which will bring in new viewers.
Strap them to a chair and put the worst one on DS9!
Either reboot it or let it die. If I wanted to make the effort to dive into such an convoluted world, I'd get into LotR. I will never understand everybody's fascination with decades old franchises with impenetrable lore. Nothing against Star Trek specifically, I'm just tired of seeing media and thinking "Oh, that looks interesting, I'd like to get into that" just to find out there's a backlog of 47 years of world building I have to catch up on before I get to enjoy it. This is why I never got into Dr. Who, Star Trek, LotR, Warhammer, WoW or One Piece.