If you like my work, buy me a virtual cup of coffee at Ko-Fi.

After the controversial Star Trek Strange New Worlds musical episode and whatever latest mess actor Robert Beltran (who played Chakotay on “Star Trek: Voyager”) stepped in, the question once again comes up, “What is a true Star Trek fan?” We could just rephrase it as “What is real Star Trek?”

I’ll say right now that there’s no one right answer. However, fandom being what it is, every perspective in Star Trek fandom believes it has the one, only, and right answer to those questions.

For instance from Quora:

The five series; TOS, TNG, DS9. Voyager, Enterprise.. plus the first 10 movies.. are what I consider canon, because they are aligned with Gene Roddenberry’s vision of what Star Trek is supposed to be, which is the exploration and development of humanity and its borders, and the conflict that comes with it.

All those that violate this established canon, is not what I’d call “real Star Trek”.. and that includes all the Abrams films and ST Discovery. Now I’m not saying that they are not fine pieces or work.. I am just saying that it is not really Star Trek.

Then from reddit:

There is no such thing as real STAR TREK.

Every series is unique and has its own voice. As someone who grew up with TOS I found TNG to be boring, tedious, ugly and no fun. It was not “real STAR TREK” to me. I couldn’t imagine anyone watching this flying Holiday Inn lounge and its crew of soporific nobodies and thinking their adventures compared at all to those of Kirk, Spock and Bones.

But for many people THAT is TREK. And I accept that, even though it has no resemblance to the two-fisted action and wacky scifi premises of the 60s show I loved.

Then came DS9, which many people said wasn’t “real TREK” because nobody boldly went, and because it was dark. Then came VOYAGER – I don’t remember many arguments over the Trekkiness of that show when it first aired, but I do remember many arguments over its quality.

Finally there was ENTERPRISE, which showed us a very different vision of the early Federation, and brought more human foibles and problems into the future. Many argued about that show as well, complaining about its lack of TREKness from its dark war storylines to its very goofy theme song.

Let’s not even get into the movies.

There is no such thing as “real TREK.” There’s TREK you like – a series you click with, a character you identify with – but there’s no fundamental, unchangeable core of what TREK is. TNG is totally different from TOS, DS9 is its own beast, etc. DISCO is also its own thing.

You don’t have to like DISCO, but to argue that it isn’t TREK? Well, besides rehashing 30 years of tedious nerd arguments, it just isn’t true. Because there’s no solid state THING you can point to and say “That is the platonic ideal of TREK.” You can find stories, characters and themes from all over 50 years of canon that range from light to dark, funny to heavy, goofy to deep. TREK is ALL THESE THINGS.

That’s what TREK truly is – a franchise that embraces the totality of the human experience, from good to bad, and that has the scope to examine it from many different angles.

The article 10 reasons why STRANGE NEW WORLDS feels like “REAL” Star Trek while DISCOVERY and PICARD don’t… (editorial review, part 1) is too long to quote. You can click the link and read it yourself.

Nearly four years ago, I wrote an article expressing my hope that fractured and toxic fandom could heal itself. I think I was wrong.

I did have a “spirited discussion” with a “true Star Trek fan” on twitter (or X) and he believes that A) the Studio owning Star Trek defines Star Trek and someone named Chris Gregory defined Star Trek in his book Star Trek: Parallel Narratives. He further stated that Kurtzman and company are following Gene Roddenberry’s “true vision.” That was after I pointed out Roddenberry had problems even with most of the ST movies and The Next Generation before he died.

By the way, I checked. When he says he’s an “older fan,” he’s 33 years old.

I think we know from how badly Disney has managed the Marvel universe and Star Wars that just because you own something doesn’t mean you know what to do with it.

In some ways, the fans “own” Star Trek just as they do any other popular phenomena. We fall in love with the characters, the stories, and entire universe of Star Trek and we will not let go of what we love ever.

But what if what we love changes over time?

That’s a problem.

I was twelve years old in 1966 when the original Star Trek episode “The Man Trap” launched the series and the entire franchise. At the time, Roddenberry thought it would be like any other show. It would be born, live for so many seasons, and then die.

How wrong he was. After all, are there any “Gunsmoke,” “Wagon Train,” or “The Man from U.N.C.L.E” conventions? Do versions of any of those shows exist today as newly made episodes? Nope.

People have made a good point to me that whatever a person defines as “Star Trek” depends on their entry point. For very young fans, that could be “Prodigy” or “Lower Decks.” For those slightly older it might be “Discovery,” “Strange New Worlds” (which was designed to appeal to older fans like me…ha), or “Picard” (which technically should appeal to TNG fans).

My brother, who is ten years younger than me would probably say TNG is his Star Trek. By modern standards, the original series can feel very clunky, with bad special effects, and archaic attitudes, especially toward women. It might not appeal to a twelve year old today.

To add social justice and progressivism to the mix, the shows and characters that are popular, and especially those that have fallen out of favor, depends on characters/actors being in and out of popularity with those doing the judging.

I reference Robert Beltran drawing the ire of that special circle of fandom because, at a recent convention, he chose to disregard the SAG-AFTRA actors’ strike agreement that certain shows and characters would not be mentioned. He name dropped all over the place, and with the strike being popular with many, made himself a very conspicuous target.

As if that weren’t enough, when this (see the subsequent image) happened, everyone went nuts at Beltran’s apparent “homophobia.”

Here’s part of the result. Click the image to see the entire conversation on “X” (“Pastor” Luke is a real hoot):

If you go through the various comments, the formerly popular character “Chakotay” is now scum. Not just the actor, but the character he played. People seem to have retroactively adjusted their memories to say they always hated Chakotay and that even the really annoying Neelix (played by Ethan Phillips) was far superior and popular.

That’s “toxic fandom.”

I can’t find any other commentary or context to modify how Beltran is depicted in all this, but I know from past “drama and trauma” on social media, that Beltran’s politics and attitudes seem to skew a bit right. Right-leaning actors or anyone else in the entertainment industry tend to be demonized in the eyes of “the powers that be”. Consider Dean Cain, Rob Schneider, Kevin Sorbo, Jon Voight, Gina Carano, and James Woods.

If you don’t express “correct thought,” and especially if you are found guilty of “wrong thought,” no matter how well you were considered before, you are now the soul of evil and a literal Nazi.

And these are the folks who insist on defining “Star Trek.”

There are a lot of ways to define “real” Star Trek or “real” Star Trek fans, but at the end of the day, it’s a matter of what you like and what connects with you. Yes, a very conservative fan can be a real Star Trek fan just as much as a very leftist fan.

Remember, although Roddenberry created, for its time, a pretty progressive show, he also had Scotty say this:

That probably wouldn’t have gone over well on even Picard’s Enterprise, let alone SNW Pike’s.

I have no issues with those folks who love and are devoted to “Picard,” Disco,” “SNW,” “Prodigy,” or “Lower Decks.” I just want them to stop trying to make me change my mind so that I’ll feel the same zeal for those shows. I don’t. I’ve tried “Picard,” “Disco,” and “SNW” but they didn’t do it for me.

Last night, I watched the original Trek two part episode “The Menagerie” followed by the second pilot “Where No Man Has Gone Before.” I’ve seen them hundreds, maybe thousands of times in the almost 60 years since they first aired.

I had a blast.

I also still enjoy Beltran’s performances as Chakotay.

I’ll like what I like regardless of the attitudes of other people. Your mileage may vary.

Just stop trying to make me into you. I’m not. Toxic fandom and the bullying of the perpetually offended doesn’t have the right to control me.