• StillPaisleyCat@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 hours ago

    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.

    • data1701d (He/Him)@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      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.