Strange New Worlds spins off from Discovery and carries on plot elements established there. Section 31 continues Georgiou’s story, and Starfleet Academy is picking up on the 31st century setting and characters. That’s a lot of ongoing influence.

Now see, if they’d had Jokester Data drop that pun right before the credits rolled, I’d have forgiven the whole thing.

I thought the crossover element of Generations really brought it down. The original cast had a far better farewell in Star Trek VI, and I don’t think the writers of Generations had enough to say about Kirk’s character to justify the tortured story logic that brought him in.

Give me a Kirkless cut and I’ll be so much happier. All the pure TNG elements work fine for me, McDowell is great, and the D looks beautiful with cinematic lighting.

I was raised a Trekkie, can’t rightly say what my first contact was. My earliest memory of it was me expressing a preference for “the one with Spock” over TNG, the only other option at the time.

Kirk. Pike’s undershirt ruins the look, and Archer just doesn’t fill it out the same.

You just inspired me to search for the original broadcast as I saw it, live from the Skydome. It was such a huge event:

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLiNzW5uoz4_tqNDirrP9rPcDEhp-YHye8&si=XhfmDjqlByOWEK3_

Canon is a little tweeting bird chirping in a meadow. Canon is a pretty flower… which smells bad.

That footnote points to an uncredited trekplace article from 2004 that itself has no citations. There was never an “original vision" that Klingons have bumpy heads, that was an idea entirely original to TMP.

Anyway, how do we feel about the Star Trek III redesign? In TMP it was one hairless bump that was supposed to represent a spinal column, running all the way from the back over the cranium. TSFS and onward, suddenly it was a flatter, wider set of ridges that was localized only to the forehead, with a full head of hair behind it. For some reason I’m always seeing people act like those are the same design, but to me the differences are glaringly obvious.

TV and movie productions are collaborative efforts undertaken by a huge number of creative people, and I don't think any of them make their decisions for no reason. The "original creator" of the Klingons was Gene L. Coon, who had nothing to do with their portrayal in TMP.

Because Wesley was a super annoying character, particularly in the first season? https://youtube.com/shorts/TzdnutR02NY?si=H5ihPkhP--hepd4H

Also, the second panel of this meme is just perfectly captured and captioned. It'd be hilarious whoever they were talking about.

Who wanted a visual reboot of the Klingons?

Gene Roddenberry, I guess. IMO the guy really fell off when he turned Trek into a saturday morning cartoon show. But yeah, sweaty orc is right, just look at these monstrosities:

I honestly don't think I've ever noticed "nuTrek" being used to refer to anything more specific than "Trek produced since 2009" until this thread.

Yeah, I’m facetiously comparing the 1979 arguments over bumpy headed Klingons to the 2017 arguments over cone headed Klingons. What’s “new” keeps on changing, but the arguments about it stay eerily familiar.

NuTrek started when they did a full visual reboot, including completely changing the look of the Klingons: TMP.

Then it got worse, when they followed that up with a grimdark shoot-em-up that felt nothing like Trek. These people aren't even fans of the show!

The distinction is lost on me, but cheers.

I like to think that, whatever it is that earns O’Brien that distinction, it had already happened by the end of DS9. Probably some technical wizardry he came up with while hacking together Cardassian and Federation technology. Just something he did to get the job done, but that would be fully appreciated as a genius piece of work with huge applicability sometime well after his death.

Picard is super relevant, though. If we're talking about an alternate reality where Picard S3 never happened, then yeah, I'd agree that complaints about nostalgia are a little over blown. I don't see why that would be a discussion worth having, though. Picard did happen, and so did a whole lot of discussion about a possible Legacy show, and if you're wondering why you hear complaints about nostalgia, that's a big part of why.

That's not the entirety of it, though. Outside of Picard, I'll say that Strange New Worlds and Lower Decks absolutely trade heavily in nostalgia. I can't agree with your view that either don't count. Having a fresh style doesn't change the fact that SNW is set on the classic Enterprise and is continuing to introduce more and more classic Trek characters. And Lower Decks built a whole episode around the reuse of a specific cave set from TNG, of all things. A huge amount of its humour and appeal is definitely based in nostalgia.

I will say that it looks like Starfleet Academy on a good course to do it's own thing, Picardo notwithstanding, so I'm not saying the franchise has gone completely bankrupt or anything. I just think there's enough nostalgia going around that it's pretty valid to feel a little put off by it if one is so inclined.

It's more about the trajectory of nuTrek than the whole of it. Discovery and the first two seasons of Picard did try to do new things and move the franchise in new directions, but now Discovery is cancelled in favour of SNW and Picard season 3 discarded so much the first two seasons had done in order to dive into nostalgia hard - and its success led to a lot of speculation about a "Star Trek Legacy" series that would double down on the fanservice approach even further. So it does feel like there's a trend towards "safer" nostalgic content.

And sometimes even fairly minor things just rub me the wrong way, like the Daniels reveal in Discovery. They just feel so arbitrary, and make the universe feel so mush smaller for no purpose.

If anyone earned their retirement, it's Miles O'Brien. Maybe he could show up for one scene, where he lets the rest of the team know that, just like Wolverine did in First Class.

Thinks she's Sisko, but she's Kai Winn.