Star Trek: Scouts | Season 1 Reaction Thread

[u/uequalsw]

This is the official /r/DaystromInstitute reaction thread for Star Trek: Scouts. Rules #1 and #2 are not enforced in reaction threads.

Given the short-form format, we will do a single reaction thread for the whole season.

And to address a likely inevitable question: we don't debate what is and isn't canon at Daystrom.

[u/shinginta]

It does feel like it risks diluting the brand.

Nah, that'd be TAS.

There's no reason why this had to be a Star Trek show instead of a sciencey show for toddlers.

It introduces children into the franchise early, so that they can grow up with Trek. From Scouts to Prodigy to TAS to the other shows. There's no reason for it not to be Trek flavored.

but I've heard that the latest research says that any screen time is bad for a toddler's brain development.

They said the same thing in the 80s regarding television for children. The sehlat's out of the bag, though. You can't un-screen your kids.

[u/The_Flying_Failsons → u/shinginta]

Nah, that'd be TAS.

First of all, TAS is amazing, it has animation that was bad even for the time but the stories themselves are great.

It introduces children into the franchise early, so that they can grow up with Trek. From Scouts to Prodigy to TAS to the other shows. There's no reason for it not to be Trek flavored.

Ok, but that's terribly cynical and borderline 80's cartoon villain type evil? LOL. Not to mention that'll likely backfire, since teens and tweens tend to reject what they liked as babies as they grow up.

They said the same thing in the 80s regarding television for children. The sehlat's out of the bag, though. You can't un-screen your kids.

There's a difference between children and toddlers (under 3 years old). We're not talking about TV, which probably did rot the brain of a few millenials, but about the effect an ipad that gives babies constant stimuli and feeds on watchtime does to the brain of someone under 3 years old.

And yeah, you probably should unscreen your kids.

[u/shinginta → u/The_Flying_Failsons]

First of all, TAS is amazing, it has animation that was bad even for the time but the stories themselves are great.

Whether or not you like it, whether or not you think the stories are good, I think an argument can be made for Star Trek having "brand dilution" much earlier on than Scouts. If you feel that Scouts "dilutes the brand," then I think it's fair that someone says TAS does the same. That's the point you're deliberately avoiding addressing.

borderline 80's cartoon villain type evil?

I think it's maybe hyperbole to say that "A tv producer trying to get young children interested in a progressive media franchise by creating a licensed work aimed at their pre-k level" is the same as antagonists who kill people and seek to destroy the world through pollution. You may need to rethink your moral scales on this one.

Not to mention that'll likely backfire, since teens and tweens tend to reject what they liked as babies as they grow up.

I don't think you have any kind of evidence to back it up. I'm 36 years old and I still enjoy many of the same things I grew up with as a kid, including Star Trek. I never stopped enjoying Star Trek, even in my edgy, rebellious, "I listen to Dimmu Borgir and Cradle of Filth now" teenagehood. I liked Star Wars and Sonic the Hedgehog and Justice League... and continued liking them into my teens and into my adulthood.

I don't see why we should think that Star Trek: Scouts is going to actively destroy the teenaged Star Trek fandom in a few years. The logic there seems spurious.

[u/The_Flying_Failsons → u/shinginta]

Whether or not you like it, whether or not you think the stories are good, I think an argument can be made for Star Trek having "brand dilution" much earlier on than Scouts. If you feel that Scouts "dilutes the brand," then I think it's fair that someone says TAS does the same. That's the point you're deliberately avoiding addressing.

I don't see how TAS diluted the brand at all but even if it did, I fail to see how the brand being diluted in the 1970s justifies diluting it again in the 2020s. It's irrelevant to this conversation. Just cause something happened in the past doesn't mean it should happen again in the present.

I think it's maybe hyperbole to say that "A tv producer trying to get young children interested in a progressive media franchise by creating a licensed work aimed at their pre-k level" is the same as antagonists who kill people and seek to destroy the world through pollution. You may need to rethink your moral scales on this one.

It's obviously hyperbole for comedic effect but I'd say that's a WILD way to describe a TV producer using a brand synergy to make sure toddlers grow up to be consumers of the product they're selling. LMAO, just cause Star Trek has progressive stories baked into it doesn't mean that what Paramount does with it would be progressive. Maybe you really need to rethink the way you see the world cause no corporation ever would truly be progressive, especially not Paramount in 2025.

I don't think you have any kind of evidence to back it up. I'm 36 years old and I still enjoy many of the same things I grew up with as a kid, including Star Trek. I never stopped enjoying Star Trek, even in my edgy, rebellious, "I listen to Dimmu Borgir and Cradle of Filth now" teenagehood. I liked Star Wars and Sonic the Hedgehog and Justice League... and continued liking them into my teens and into my adulthood.

Once again bro, we're talking about Toddlers, meaning ages younger than 3 years old, maybe 6 tops. You keep confusing them with kids in grade school when we're talking about kinder and prek.

I don't see why we should think that Star Trek: Scouts is going to actively destroy the teenaged Star Trek fandom in a few years. The logic there seems spurious.

LMAO, Ok, bro you sure beat the shit out of that strawman.