odyssey06 wrote: » Came via Dublin (caught up in Easter Rising)
odyssey06 wrote: » The plots with the child age young Indi were very 'educational' as you note. I think it picked up once Sean Patrick Flannery came on board as young Indy. Yes he made it to the trenches in Belgium and fought in East Africa also. They would be the strongest episodes in the series. Came via Dublin (caught up in Easter Rising) and London (caught up with Elizabeth Hurley). Then post WW1 it got a bit random and weird... Jazz episodes? Maybe one in Transylvania.
pixelburp wrote: » Young Indiana Jones, IIRC, was a weird one in that it tried to be one of those "Educational" shows where Indy kept bumping into Important Events / People all the time, getting in the way of an actual plot or storyline. I wanna say it got better when the older Indy came along and joined the Belgian forces during WW1? Wasn't there an extended period of the show set in the trenches?
breezy1985 wrote: » If I remember correctly you are not remembering correctly
Stark wrote: » Young Indiana Jones was pretty great if I remember correctly.
Goodshape wrote: » Hey, firstly - I can appreciate a well made "for kids" TV show. Secondly, I was about 10 to 12 when I first discovered and fell in love with Star Trek, and TNG and TOS seemed perfectly good enough for kids then. I'm entitled to be a little disappointed that Trek4Kidz might now be reduced to silly zany wacky antics with 6 of the most obvious looking personality-tropes-as-character-design characters you're ever likely to see. And also... this looks 0% Star Trek so far. I can write it off on that account if not the others. (would be nice if I'm wrong though! ...still hope.)
JayRoc wrote: » I honestly don't get why the producers of a new kids show would want the Star Trek name attached to it, really, or what difference it would make. What small children would base their choices on the "Star Trek" brand being on something? Maybe more likely for a parent familar with the franchise to let their kid watch it?
AMKC wrote: » Honestly that poster looks like it would be more suited to a fantastic Fours cartoon or even Star Wars certainly not Star Trek. But as long as its respectful to Star Trek and if it gets more kids into it then great. I am glad that my first show do was TNG and not that.
breezy1985 wrote: » I bet most people who enjoy James Bond are blissfully unaware of James Bond Jr. and it hasn't "diluted" the movies. Same goes for Indiana Jones, Star Gate and Highlander. And ya if people start crying that X is not canon or ruins the timeline about a kids show it will be that that might ruin Trek for me not the quality of a kids show
Goodshape wrote: » It's all well and good not caring about something you've already decided to entirely dismiss out of hand Not that I think I'm "railing against" anything, but I do have an interest in kids watching Star Trek. I think the "sheer ****ing hubris" of treating Trek like some edgy adults-only affair is as misguided as anything else in modern Trek.
pixelburp wrote: » Takes some surfeit of possessiveness, and an utter absence of self-awareness to rail against a kid's cartoon FFS. [...] but I just don't have any interest in kids cartoons in general anyway
pixelburp wrote: » Ah lads, we're not going to enter the whole "I've been watching Trek since I was a zygote, and I TURNED OUT FINE" argument? Nickelodeon aims for a wide range of ages, so looking at the designs, I'd speculate they're angling for something suitable for the younger scale of things. Kids like cartoons, and if this acts as a gateway drug to the overall universe, isn't that a Good Thing in the end? If I see a thread appear on this forum, dedicated to this series and it turns into a deep-dive on the .. I dunno, nacelles of the ships, I may just unsub from the forum altogether
Evade wrote: » No it's a "Star Trek used to be suitable for all ages" argument. There were elements that were scary for young kids, watching Where Silence Has Lease at seven years old in a dark room at night comes to mind, but it was still fine.
pixelburp wrote: » Ah lads, we're not going to enter the whole "I've been watching Trek since I was a zygote, and I TURNED OUT FINE" argument?
JayRoc wrote: » I think some concern is understandable tbh. Every time something comes out under the Star Trek banner that is sub-par generic action/sci-fi it is obviously going to "dilute" the brand. If that went on for long, it would mean there was more bad Star Trek out there than good...and who wants that fate for a franchise they love?
breezy1985 wrote: » The characters do look like maybe they were made for another show originally but it's sad to see a show made for Nikelodeon which isn't even out yet and is for kids is getting the #notrealtrek bashing from the fanboys already. I loved Star Wars but thought the Clone Wars and all that was crap so I just didn't watch em and moved on. Will probably do the same with this
breezy1985 wrote: » What age are you cause this is a show for kids so unless you are 12 or something it doesn't really matter whether you think it "can be written off already" or not
Spear wrote: » Prodigy looks very generic, and not very Trek. I suspect this can be written off already. Source:https://intl.startrek.com/news/breaking-star-trek-prodigy-first-look