The (almost) steady increase in "epicness" of Trek...

[eschaton]

Hey all,

I had a rant about this in the Discovery forum, but it was really about Trek in general, so I thought I'd expand it and post it here. Basically, why as time has gone on has the Trek universe got smaller and more self-referential, while the characters themselves become steadily more epic?

I mean, let's start with TOS. Kirk was an important Starfleet captain, since he commanded one of the twelve Constitution-class ships. But he was just a captain, fundamentally - not all that special. His interactions across the series were mostly with planetary-level crises. Then the TOS movies made him into the Great Hero, saving the Earth from destruction twice, and salvaging the Khitomer Accords. References to him in later Trek basically paint him as the most famous captain in Starfleet history.

Fast forward to TNG. Picard is explicitly made to be much more important from the beginning than Kirk, commanding not just one of the twelve largest Starfleet vessels, but the flagship of Starfleet. He has the only Klingon in Starfleet and the only Android in Starfleet on his bridge. He personally parlays with the Chancellor of the Klingon Empire, who knows Worf. His crew saves the Earth from destruction by the end of the third season, and he does it personally twice in the movies.

I love DS9, but it took "small universe" to new heights, even considering that the station was an important focal point plotwise. At various times the heads of the Klingon Empire, Cardassian Union, Ferengi Alliance, and the Dominion all were on DS9. Martok ends the series as Chancellor of the Klingon Empire - after Worf defeats Gowron in a knife-fight and turns it down! Rom ends up Grand Negus. Sisko ends the series a fucking god! Basically DS9 turned Trek into Lord of the Rings, giving half of the mains this jumped-up, epic role to play which totally didn't suit the focus on character the series otherwise had.

In contrast, while VOY underwhelmed, this was one thing it got right. The ship itself was small and unimpressive, and the crew were for the most part a bunch of nobodies. The series tried to play up the importance of Janeway's conflict with the Borg at the end, but it was ultimately a show about the personal journey of the crew homeward, not quadrant-spanning conflicts.

ENT shit the bed here, creating the (incredibly implausible) character of Jonathan Archer, who after two seasons of flailing around managed to save the Earth. If the series had continued you just know he would have personally won the Romulan War, since we know he played an instrumental role in founding the Federation. Even though we of course never heard about him up until now.

Discovery saw all this and said "Hold my beer, I can top this in the first season."

The Trek galaxy has thousands of inhabited planets, and uncounted numbers of people. It's completely implausible that our dear protagonists will always be at the fulcrum of galaxy-shaping events. I don't want a Trek crew to be comic book heroes - that's why I avoid comic-book media like the plague. I just want compelling characters who do their fucking jobs.

 

[uniderth]

Very interesting observations. I think in our quest for epicness we can lose sight of the importance of small moments. Not every crisis has to threaten an entire planet for it to be meaningful.

 

[Tim Thomason]

Paul Stamets saved the entire multiverse in Season 1. He is the greatest figure in all of space and time in every reality.

He definitely deserved that medal.

 

[bolak]

I don't know what drives it, perhaps other than competition in the 'epic stakes' with other TV programmes perhaps? Audience polls? Trickle-down from the same cast and writers being in big-scope movies?

Maybe a misplaced belief that the audience will only give-a-damn if it's their precious home planet being threatened? The same terracentricity that has it it Sector 001 instead of 7123.

If must endure it then I'd just wish for one Minor Character to turn to the God-like Lead Hero at some point and say "but it's only Earth, we have ten thousand other colonies".

You are starting to convince me to give Voyager another chance...

 

[mos6507]

Star Trek was originally supposed to be a procedural, i.e. professionals just doing their jobs and not being out for glory.

What made it shift towards epic was the big screen as well as the 4th wall aspects of the property, the characters, and the iconography taking on more and more pop culture import.

So I can understand why Kirk settled into "chosen one" status by Trek 2009, although I disagree with it.

 

[Kemaiku]

We're getting a better idea of just how massive the galaxy is, nevermind the universe. Stories have to try and scale up to fit these days. Make the populations, scope etc appropriately larger, which means bigger threats.

 

[eschaton]

We're getting a better idea of just how massive the galaxy is, nevermind the universe. Stories have to try and scale up to fit these days. Make the populations, scope etc appropriately larger, which means bigger threats.

Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with epic scale. In fact I wholeheartedly support it.

The problem I have is if you make the Trek protagonists themselves "epic", it makes the Trek universe seem small and tawdry in comparison - it accomplishes the exact opposite of what an "epic scope" story is supposed to do.

For example, The Ferengi Alliance is supposed to be a medium-sized power, with a good many star systems under its control. But Zek, as the nominal potentate, harasses Quark at least once per year, ends up boning his mom (who runs the entire Ferengi economy for him) and ultimately leaves power in the hands of his brother. The Ferengi Alliance doesn't feel like a major power, or even a planet. It just comes across as being a small city, more or less.

Or, for a more recent example, look at Discovery. Micheal Burnham, adopted daughter of one of the most esteemed Vulcans in the Federation, manages to kill the heads of two Kilingon Great Houses - inadvertently causing a war between the Klingons and the Federation in the first case. She ultimately installs a third Klingon (L'Rell) as Chancellor. Indeed, DIS had basically the entire plot arc of the season boil down to just Burnham, Lorca, Ash/Voq, Tilly, Stamets, Culber, Saru, Georgiou (PU/MU), L'Rell, T'Kuvma, Kol, and Sarek, and Cornwell. Those 13 characters were the only ones which mattered across a season which was supposed to showcase a quadrant-spanning war. To the point that after T'Kuma and Kol were dead, and Voq was in human guise, control of the Klingon Empire fell to L'Rell because she was the last character standing. This doesn't feel epic, it feels cramped.

Our protagonists should not be the fulcrum upon which the galaxy turns. One epic element is okay, but multiple is exceedingly unlikely for any individual in a galaxy with quadrillions of potential characters. Regardless, in drama the stakes that keep us invested are personal. This is why successful war stories typically follow the grunts and not the generals.

 

[Phil123]

Here to this thread. And it's not just Trek. Everything does it now. Look at the Marvel movies. The stakes have to be huge in everything. Smaller, more personal and relatable stakes, that's what I'd like.

I think bigger budgets/CG advances are partially to blame.

Let's have superman save the planet. Can't do it, fine a factory. But now, save the universe, yeah no problem.

 

[Nyotarules]

Maybe one day in the Star Trek universe TPTB would have the guts to have Earth destroyed with no reset button, where the USS Epic starship does not save the day.

 

[eschaton]

I don't know what drives it, perhaps other than competition in the 'epic stakes' with other TV programmes perhaps? Audience polls? Trickle-down from the same cast and writers being in big-scope movies?

I mean, writing 101 is that raising the stakes helps to keep readers (or viewers) involved. Writers are in contrast seldom instructed to lower the stakes. I could presume that in a competitive media environment producers think in a zero-sum manner, thinking that in order to attract viewer attention stakes must not only be high, but higher than the competing products.

Maybe a misplaced belief that the audience will only give-a-damn if it's their precious home planet being threatened? The same terracentricity that has it it Sector 001 instead of 7123.

I mean, I think this thinking is basically sound. But Earth has almost been destroyed now in TMP, TVH, FC, NEM, and ST09 - five times out of thirteen movies. Trek needs a new trope.

If must endure it then I'd just wish for one Minor Character to turn to the God-like Lead Hero at some point and say "but it's only Earth, we have ten thousand other colonies".

This would make sense, save for the fact that in Trek, for some reason, any planet but a capitol only has a few thousand people. Trek just doesn't seem to understand scale well.

You are starting to convince me to give Voyager another chance...

I mean, I still find it unimpressive overall. But aside from a few standouts like Living Witness, basically every good Voyager episode is a quiet character piece.

 

[plynch]

TOS was more an encounters show than exploration. Like Wagon Train, each week was an encounter and what-if. But so was TNG and it is, yes, more small-universe with its chracters mo re epic. I tend to agree it was because of the rep of Trek by then. Playing up to its cultural weight. Great observation about VOY. DS9 gets Mary Sue ish, its characters and location are so important. Great thread. I hadn't thought about this other than the well-deserved criticisms of Burnham's amazingness I have encountered on bbs.

 

[johnnybear]

Hey all,

I had a rant about this in the Discovery forum, but it was really about Trek in general, so I thought I'd expand it and post it here. Basically, why as time has gone on has the Trek universe got smaller and more self-referential, while the characters themselves become steadily more epic?

I mean, let's start with TOS. Kirk was an important Starfleet captain, since he commanded one of the twelve Constitution-class ships. But he was just a captain, fundamentally - not all that special. His interactions across the series were mostly with planetary-level crises. Then the TOS movies made him into the Great Hero, saving the Earth from destruction twice, and salvaging the Khitomer Accords. References to him in later Trek basically paint him as the most famous captain in Starfleet history.

Fast forward to TNG. Picard is explicitly made to be much more important from the beginning than Kirk, commanding not just one of the twelve largest Starfleet vessels, but the flagship of Starfleet. He has the only Klingon in Starfleet and the only Android in Starfleet on his bridge. He personally parlays with the Chancellor of the Klingon Empire, who knows Worf. His crew saves the Earth from destruction by the end of the third season, and he does it personally twice in the movies.

I love DS9, but it took "small universe" to new heights, even considering that the station was an important focal point plotwise. At various times the heads of the Klingon Empire, Cardassian Union, Ferengi Alliance, and the Dominion all were on DS9. Martok ends the series as Chancellor of the Klingon Empire - after Worf defeats Gowron in a knife-fight and turns it down! Rom ends up Grand Negus. Sisko ends the series a fucking god! Basically DS9 turned Trek into Lord of the Rings, giving half of the mains this jumped-up, epic role to play which totally didn't suit the focus on character the series otherwise had.

In contrast, while VOY underwhelmed, this was one thing it got right. The ship itself was small and unimpressive, and the crew were for the most part a bunch of nobodies. The series tried to play up the importance of Janeway's conflict with the Borg at the end, but it was ultimately a show about the personal journey of the crew homeward, not quadrant-spanning conflicts.

ENT shit the bed here, creating the (incredibly implausible) character of Jonathan Archer, who after two seasons of flailing around managed to save the Earth. If the series had continued you just know he would have personally won the Romulan War, since we know he played an instrumental role in founding the Federation. Even though we of course never heard about him up until now.

Discovery saw all this and said "Hold my beer, I can top this in the first season."

The Trek galaxy has thousands of inhabited planets, and uncounted numbers of people. It's completely implausible that our dear protagonists will always be at the fulcrum of galaxy-shaping events. I don't want a Trek crew to be comic book heroes - that's why I avoid comic-book media like the plague. I just want compelling characters who do their fucking jobs.

But Archer, his Enterprise and Discovery were not in the prime universe! So it doesn't affect the TOS reality one bit! There was no NX-Enterprise on Kirk's wall in TMP for starters and the technology shown in DSC is beyond the science shown to us in TOS so the answer is a simple and logical one!
JB

 

[F. King Daniel]

Hey all,

I had a rant about this in the Discovery forum, but it was really about Trek in general, so I thought I'd expand it and post it here. Basically, why as time has gone on has the Trek universe got smaller and more self-referential, while the characters themselves become steadily more epic?

I mean, let's start with TOS. Kirk was an important Starfleet captain, since he commanded one of the twelve Constitution-class ships. But he was just a captain, fundamentally - not all that special. His interactions across the series were mostly with planetary-level crises. Then the TOS movies made him into the Great Hero, saving the Earth from destruction twice, and salvaging the Khitomer Accords. References to him in later Trek basically paint him as the most famous captain in Starfleet history.

Fast forward to TNG. Picard is explicitly made to be much more important from the beginning than Kirk, commanding not just one of the twelve largest Starfleet vessels, but the flagship of Starfleet. He has the only Klingon in Starfleet and the only Android in Starfleet on his bridge. He personally parlays with the Chancellor of the Klingon Empire, who knows Worf. His crew saves the Earth from destruction by the end of the third season, and he does it personally twice in the movies.

I love DS9, but it took "small universe" to new heights, even considering that the station was an important focal point plotwise. At various times the heads of the Klingon Empire, Cardassian Union, Ferengi Alliance, and the Dominion all were on DS9. Martok ends the series as Chancellor of the Klingon Empire - after Worf defeats Gowron in a knife-fight and turns it down! Rom ends up Grand Negus. Sisko ends the series a fucking god! Basically DS9 turned Trek into Lord of the Rings, giving half of the mains this jumped-up, epic role to play which totally didn't suit the focus on character the series otherwise had.

In contrast, while VOY underwhelmed, this was one thing it got right. The ship itself was small and unimpressive, and the crew were for the most part a bunch of nobodies. The series tried to play up the importance of Janeway's conflict with the Borg at the end, but it was ultimately a show about the personal journey of the crew homeward, not quadrant-spanning conflicts.

ENT shit the bed here, creating the (incredibly implausible) character of Jonathan Archer, who after two seasons of flailing around managed to save the Earth. If the series had continued you just know he would have personally won the Romulan War, since we know he played an instrumental role in founding the Federation. Even though we of course never heard about him up until now.

Discovery saw all this and said "Hold my beer, I can top this in the first season."

The Trek galaxy has thousands of inhabited planets, and uncounted numbers of people. It's completely implausible that our dear protagonists will always be at the fulcrum of galaxy-shaping events. I don't want a Trek crew to be comic book heroes - that's why I avoid comic-book media like the plague. I just want compelling characters who do their fucking jobs.

A series about Bob the Sanitation Engineer would not interest me. Give me the galaxy-spanning adventures of larger-than-life characters any day.

 

[at Quark's]

I think it is something you can see in general, as franchises run longer the producers keep upping the scales and 'what's at stake' to keep it compelling to the audiences. Perhaps it's some Second Law of Theatrical Dynamics ("In any closed long-running franchise total amount of epicness can never decrease over time").

 

[Spot261]

Personally I'd like to see a return to the idea the universe is much much bigger than our heroes and they are simply going about their little part of events in their own little corner of it with a very limited perspective.

 

[Mojochi]

It's really just the natural tendency to want to outdo what's come before. It doesn't help that it's surviving now in a marketplace that is inundated with it, such that it's become a prerequisite, & that what's come before is now at half a century of hundreds of stories

To be fair though. It's always been there, & was bound to grow. Spock is a unique figure in Starfleet, as much as Worf or Data are, even if not so wholly unprecedented or influential. Isn't Kirk like supposed to be one of the youngest to ever sit in the captain's chair? He's definitely a maverick. They may not have Earth saving premises on TOS (Mostly because Earth was a taboo in general) BUT they do have some saving the timeline from contamination plots, that are in the same ballpark thematically

I could see a tv show scaling back the stakes (Maybe the new Picard one?) But I really doubt you'll see it in the cinema, where most of the stake raising went crazy to begin with

 

[bolak]

I could presume that in a competitive media environment producers think in a zero-sum manner, thinking that in order to attract viewer attention stakes must not only be high, but higher than the competing products.

I think that's a big factor. But does it work? Perhaps they have statistics that say yes, but frankly if the Earth is threatened in a movie or episode I have no more emotional involvement than if it was Ceti Alpha 5. I know it's only make-believe and they're not really going to kill everyone in the cinema audience if the hero fails. Or are they...?


I gave-up on Enterprise when it went mega-epic. Sounds likes Discovery is even worse. I just want a series that explores the early years of the Federation, with our heroes ( perhaps more than one crew ) stumbling around and being humbled by what they meet. What TOS was, really, but without the fistfights. To add to some ideas from up-thread:

1. Visits to Earth, by any means physical, mental or temporal, are verboten
2. References to Earth should probably also be forbidden
3. The biggest threat encountered is to the ship(s) and its crew
4. No Klingons of any configuration
5. No transporters or particles-of-the-week to save the day
6. No time-travel

Hopefully that leaves enough scope bewteen "Bob the Sanitation Engineer" and "ZOMG Save the Universe"

 

[Tim Thomason]

It's really just the natural tendency to want to outdo what's come before. It doesn't help that it's surviving now in a marketplace that is inundated with it, such that it's become a prerequisite, & that what's come before is now at half a century of hundreds of stories

To be fair though. It's always been there, & was bound to grow. Spock is a unique figure in Starfleet, as much as Worf or Data are, even if not so wholly unprecedented or influential. Isn't Kirk like supposed to be one of the youngest to ever sit in the captain's chair? He's definitely a maverick. They may not have Earth saving premises on TOS (Mostly because Earth was a taboo in general) BUT they do have some saving the timeline from contamination plots, that are in the same ballpark thematically

I could see a tv show scaling back the stakes (Maybe the new Picard one?) But I really doubt you'll see it in the cinema, where most of the stake raising went crazy to begin with

Kirk saved the universe in "The Alternative Factor". Up until the recent Multiverse save, that was the most epic heroism seen in Trek (they saved the universe in DS9 too, but that wasn't imminent annihilation, just a micro-universe causing problems).

The timeline saves are questionable, because arguably they're just creating more timelines instead of "fixing" the original one. I do applaud Discovery for not really utilizing time travel in the first season (except for the quick jump ahead at the end, which barely counts).

 

[The Wormhole]

A series about Bob the Sanitation Engineer would not interest me. Give me the galaxy-spanning adventures of larger-than-life characters any day.

One of the lead heroes of the new Star Wars movies is a guy with a background in sanitation.

 

[Lord Garth]

I had a rant about this in the Discovery forum, but it was really about Trek in general, so I thought I'd expand it and post it here. Basically, why as time has gone on has the Trek universe got smaller and more self-referential, while the characters themselves become steadily more epic?

It's a phenomenon known as Sequel Escalation where every new entry has to outdo the last. As far as smaller and more self-referential: the less unknown The Unknown is, the smaller the galaxy seems and epicness ties back into Sequel Escalation.

I mean, let's start with TOS. Kirk was an important Starfleet captain, since he commanded one of the twelve Constitution-class ships. But he was just a captain, fundamentally - not all that special. His interactions across the series were mostly with planetary-level crises. Then the TOS movies made him into the Great Hero, saving the Earth from destruction twice, and salvaging the Khitomer Accords. References to him in later Trek basically paint him as the most famous captain in Starfleet history.

Yup.

Fast forward to TNG. Picard is explicitly made to be much more important from the beginning than Kirk, commanding not just one of the twelve largest Starfleet vessels, but the flagship of Starfleet. He has the only Klingon in Starfleet and the only Android in Starfleet on his bridge. He personally parlays with the Chancellor of the Klingon Empire, who knows Worf. His crew saves the Earth from destruction by the end of the third season, and he does it personally twice in the movies.

Picard was also almost twice as old and more experienced in TNG than Kirk was during the five-year mission in TOS.

I love DS9, but it took "small universe" to new heights, even considering that the station was an important focal point plotwise. At various times the heads of the Klingon Empire, Cardassian Union, Ferengi Alliance, and the Dominion all were on DS9. Martok ends the series as Chancellor of the Klingon Empire - after Worf defeats Gowron in a knife-fight and turns it down! Rom ends up Grand Negus. Sisko ends the series a fucking god! Basically DS9 turned Trek into Lord of the Rings, giving half of the mains this jumped-up, epic role to play which totally didn't suit the focus on character the series otherwise had.

That's basically because DS9 takes place on a space station, so you get to know the people around you. And being set the same Quadrant as TNG during the same time-period, with the same intergalactic politics still going on and continuing, it's an extension of TNG.

In contrast, while VOY underwhelmed, this was one thing it got right. The ship itself was small and unimpressive, and the crew were for the most part a bunch of nobodies. The series tried to play up the importance of Janeway's conflict with the Borg at the end, but it was ultimately a show about the personal journey of the crew homeward, not quadrant-spanning conflicts.

Yup. VOY doesn't subscribe to Sequel Escalation. Of course, since also it ran parallel to DS9, TOS is Part 1, TNG is Part 2, DS9 is Part 3A and VOY is Part 3B. That's how you have to look at. VOY picks up from TNG, not DS9, despite stopping off at the station first. Part 3B had more space battles than Part 2, but otherwise, it's not an escalation.

ENT shit the bed here, creating the (incredibly implausible) character of Jonathan Archer, who after two seasons of flailing around managed to save the Earth. If the series had continued you just know he would have personally won the Romulan War, since we know he played an instrumental role in founding the Federation. Even though we of course never heard about him up until now.

Enterprise is... Enterprise. We both have the same opinion of this series. So let's just skip it. Entirely.

Discovery saw all this and said "Hold my beer, I can top this in the first season."

DSC started and finished a Klingon War. A war not quite as quadrant-spanning or as large in scale as the Dominion War. So I won't call this an increase in epicness. I completely ignore and disregard ENT. And VOY does not increase epicness from DS9. So, basically the increase stops at DS9.

I mean, you could point out that the Mycellial Network threatened to destroy all universes but it didn't and no one watching thought it would. So that threat meant about as much as the Omega Particle on VOY, which was also stopped.

I just want compelling characters who do their fucking jobs.

I do want compelling characters. But just doing their jobs? I'm not a fan of working-stiffs in space... unless it's Alien, but that's because it's set-up before the Xenomorph is sprung upon them.