One thing I've seen bandied about often when talking about Star Trek in particular, is the assumption that a show like TNG or DS9 would not work today because it would not be interesting or popular to any current generation of viewers. It's treated as a forgone conclusion that 26 episodes of low-budget/mediocre effects TV about ideas that's mostly people standing in a room talking just would not appeal to anyone who isn't old, so there's no sense in even trying to make that anymore. I don't see anyone questioning that premise, only accepting it as true and then arguing that something new has to be attempted. Even if one is on the side that hates things like nuTrek, Disney Star Wars, etc, I only see people starting with 'well we simply can't do what they did 30 years ago. It could not work. We have to make something modern, they just haven't done it the right way yet'.
And I find myself wondering why this is assumed to be true. Are people not people anymore? Did human beings and their brains evolve in some way over the past 30 years that basics of storytelling that have worked across all mediums for thousands of years simply broke, and the only way anyone knows how to even try to understand a story is if it's an 8 hour movie cut into a dozen segments telling exactly one interconnected linear story? If a 13yo boy watched TNG in the 90s and found it entertaining, why is it assumed a 13yo boy in 2026 would just absolutely hate it?
It's treated as a natural inevitable evolution from 24-26 episode serialized TV shows to "prestige TV" seasons of half a dozen episodes telling one big single story because that's just what happened. But I content it was never proven that's what had to happened, or that the old model would fail. I don't believe that only the binge streaming cut-up-movie design can work. That's just all they make now, and so that's all people watch. And then they use the fact that's all people watch as evidence why it's the only thing that works. The whole argument is circular and the underlying premise relies on assumptions being true that have never been proven.
Mate I'd say the OPPOSITE is true. I have an 11 year old nephew who despite talking in 'zoomer brainrot' (he's a good kid but man is that annoying at times) is mostly playing Team fortress 2. There are A LOT of the younger generation turned off by 'new' things and turning to vintage games and music.
The 'they wouldn't be interested in the old stuff' is just a talking point for ideologues to justify changing and tampering franchises for the MODERN AUDIENCE, despite it failing EVERY time. Just look at Doctor Who, Starfleet Academy, the new Star Wars film, no one cares because these new things lack the authenticity of the old media. I bet I could get zoomers hooked on Farscape if I showed them the first 5 episodes over ANYTHING currently released.
How is he playing TF2? I quit playing years ago because every server was 90% bots and it seemed like humans quit playing.
I got no clue, think he was on custom servers as I swear he server searched before he started to play.
He's very much into VR games though so there's a difference I can't tell if it's unique to him or a prominent thing of younger generations that people my age prefer the analogue of a controller or keyboard and mouse more whereas younger are into VR more.
Same, my son had a huge TF2 phase. Most of the "modern" stuff he plays is because other friends are playing it and even then it's usually 5-10 years old.