Would Star Trek Discovery have benefited from an episodic format?

[Agony_Boothb]

DS9 season 6 and Enterprise season 3 showed that you can do both. Enterprise S3 balanced the episodic and the serialised episodes really well. No reason DISCO S1 couldn't have done the same, for example:

- Discovery receives a distress call from a colony and goes to investigate, believing it to have been attacked by the klingons. When they arrive, the crew discovers no life signs on the planet and a fleet of Klingon warships disabled in orbit. Turns out some weird non-corporeal monstrosities ate the colonists and the klingons and try to eat the crew of discovery as well.

- Whilst trapped in the Mirror Universe, Saru leads the crew on a mission to investigate how the USS Defiant became trapped in the mirror universe leading to an encounter with the tholians.

 

[Cyrus]

The one standalone episode (magic/ harry Mudd) that a lot of people here love was my least favorite episode, so I have to say no.

 

[Succubint]

While I have enjoyed episodic shows in the past, the shows which truly became my favourites, that I was most invested in where more serial in format (if not fully, then partially so). Until DISCO, DS9 was my fave Trek. Other shows I've loved: BSG, Babylon 5, Fringe, The Expanse, Farscape, Angel, Dollhouse, Lost etc. While the episodic format is fine, it's better if there are still long term story arcs to explore , shows like the X-Files and Firefly are examples of that.

I prefer not having an arbitrary reset button and mandatory resolution at the end of 45 mins of a TV show. It makes it harder for me to get invested in the characters when there is little character or plot development that has any kind of meaningful impact. Look at how Wesley's character changed over the course of Buffy and then Angel. He was an amazing character with a lot of depth because he was allowed to grow and change over time.

So, no. I don't want the show to be more episodic. One of my chief frustrations is how characters and plots are forced to resolve or act a certain way because the 45 mins is up and everything needs to be sewn up before the credits. Then whatever progress they made or any consequences to their decisions is forgotten by the next week.

 

[KennyB]

While I have enjoyed episodic shows in the past, the shows which truly became my favourites, that I was most invested in where more serial in format (if not fully, then partially so). Until DISCO, DS9 was my fave Trek. Other shows I've loved: BSG, Babylon 5, Fringe, The Expanse, Farscape, Angel, Dollhouse, Lost etc. While the episodic format is fine, it's better if there are still long term story arcs to explore , shows like the X-Files and Firefly are examples of that.

I prefer not having an arbitrary reset button and mandatory resolution at the end of 45 mins of a TV show. It makes it harder for me to get invested in the characters when there is little character or plot development that has any kind of meaningful impact. Look at how Wesley's character changed over the course of Buffy and then Angel. He was an amazing character with a lot of depth because he was allowed to grow and change over time.

So, no. I don't want the show to be more episodic. One of my chief frustrations is how characters and plots are forced to resolve or act a certain way because the 45 mins is up and everything needs to be sewn up before the credits. Then whatever progress they made or any consequences to their decisions is forgotten by the next week.

Well said--I agree!

 

[Vger23]

It confuses me how episodic trek can be seen as a negative thing when they can now afford to come up with new and exciting worlds to show the audience.

Because the format was completely run into the ground.

 

[BillJ]

Because the format was completely run into the ground.

So were the Klingons, yet some folks seem to be eating up yet another dull slog through Sto-vo-kor.

 

[The Wormhole]

Wasn't there also similar trouble on season 2?

In season 2 Harberts and Berg were fired for being physically abusive towards the other writers on staff. Which has nothing to do with the show being arc driven. Don't tell me you're going to suggest that if they did stand alone episodes instead of an arc Harberts and Berg might not have felt inclined hit their employees?

It confuses me how episodic trek can be seen as a negative thing when they can now afford to come up with new and exciting worlds to show the audience.

Honestly, I could take or leave either way. It's a balancing act, if the story can serve an arc of a dozen episodes, then by all means go for it. If there is only enough story for a single episode, best to do that single episode rather than drag things out.

Which was a lot of the problem with episodic Trek, you'd frequently get episodes that spent forty minutes of buildup, followed by a five minute rush conclusion. Even two-parters suffered a similar problem, Part 1 was devoted to establishing and setting up the story, with Part 2 essentially a rush job to resolve everything set up in Part 1. So while I may not necessarily view episodic Trek as a bad thing per se, it is preferable to see the stories now given room to breathe.

 

[BillJ]

So while I may not necessarily view episodic Trek as a bad thing per se, it is preferable to see the stories now given room to breathe.

Except the "arc" in Discovery could've probably been done in a two-parter with room to spare.

 

[CaptainMurdock]

Because the format was completely run into the ground.

With the old team who hasn't worked on Trek since 2005. It's been over a decade and a new team is in charge that could potentially do something great with the format.

Which was a lot of the problem with episodic Trek, you'd frequently get episodes that spent forty minutes of buildup, followed by a five minute rush conclusion. Even two-parters suffered a similar problem, Part 1 was devoted to establishing and setting up the story, with Part 2 essentially a rush job to resolve everything set up in Part 1. So while I may not necessarily view episodic Trek as a bad thing per se, it is preferable to see the stories now given room to breathe.

Perhaps but with the right group of people they could make that work. I feel like the standalone episodes were better than the long winded story arc episodes of season one. Besides it doesn't have to be exclusively standalone.

 

[BillJ]

Perhaps but with the right group of people they could make that work.

This is what it comes down to. The competence of the people running the project. Arc or episodic, poor writing sinks it either way.

 

[BillJ]

Two-to-three years ago, if you had told me a Seth MacFarlane sci-fi project would've had my interest far more than a Trek project led by Alex Kurtzman (I love the Abrams films), I would've laughed at you. But here we are.

It isn't about whether it is arc or episodic, it is about the amount of imagination that has went into Discovery, which is really none from my perspective.

 

[The Wormhole]

Two-to-three years ago, if you had told me a Seth MacFarlane sci-fi project would've had my interest far more than a Trek project led by Alex Kurtzman (I love the Abrams films), I would've laughed at you. But here we are.

Here was my reaction over four years ago when someone suggested MacFarlane should do a Trek series:

MacFarlane has to my knowledge no experience running a live action drama series and his animated sitcoms have shall we say run their course.

I'm not totally against the guy, the early years of Family Guy were some pretty funny stuff and Ted was pretty good movie. But running a Trek series? No, I don't think he'd be the right fit. At all.

Man, I've never been so glad to have been proven wrong. Although Orville is better off as its own thing than it would have been as a Star Trek show, since MacFarlane has more freedom to do what he likes without worrying about Gene's Vision. And when people wander into Orville threads whining about how it violates Gene's Vision, we can say Gene's Vision has no relevance to this show whatsoever.​

 

[Mudd]

Yes, and yes.

 

[Gepard]

And when people wander into Orville threads whining about how it violates Gene's Vision,

People do this?

 

[DaveyNY]

People do this?

What can ya say...
Some folks just loved to be constantly violated.

 

[Yassa Justice]

In season 2 Harberts and Berg were fired for being physically abusive towards the other writers on staff. Which has nothing to do with the show being arc driven. Don't tell me you're going to suggest that if they did stand alone episodes instead of an arc Harberts and Berg might not have felt inclined hit their employees?

i said if it was episodic from the get go the story might not be hurt by the constant behind the scenes drama.

 

[Vger23]

With the old team who hasn't worked on Trek since 2005. It's been over a decade and a new team is in charge that could potentially do something great with the format.


Perhaps but with the right group of people they could make that work. I feel like the standalone episodes were better than the long winded story arc episodes of season one. Besides it doesn't have to be exclusively standalone.

I've watched The Orville, which is basically identical to the format you're looking for, and run by a different creative team. It's nice, I suppose. But I don't care about it. It doesn't illicit a single note of passion or interest from me. Nada. Neither did any of Voyager or any of Enterprise's early seasons. I watch them, but more because I'm "supposed to" and not because I care too much.

So that tells me I'm all set with 45 min stand alone space adventures. I've seen it done before, and done extremely well (TOS, TNG). I don't need any more. I want something different from Trek now. DSC delivers on that just fine for me. I'm confident the new Picard series will as well.

 

[Lord Garth]

I'm passed the point of caring about what people think about how new Star Trek does or doesn't fit into Gene's Vision. So, to me, the issue of Gene's Vision is already irrelevant. As soon as it's deconstructed, you'll start to have people losing their shit. That's their problem, not mine.

And the series isn't episodic because that's not the model they want to use. I myself am more interested in wondering what direction characters are going to go and what will happen to them next and how it will effect their lives. I like speculating about these things and seeing if what I'm speculating about turns out to be right or wrong. That's how I approach any serialized series. In episodic series, you don't have to wonder where they'll be because it'll be the same place as they were last time.

At the end of the day: different strokes for different folks, and there are other options, no need to watch what you don't like. As soon as you feel like you "have to" watch something or you're "supposed to", that's the point when you should stop. And move on. And to those who can't move on, well, then to them I say: Don't be surprised when you see what you don't like continuing to do what you don't like.

 

[CaptainMurdock]

Unfortunately this is a time period of Trek I happen to care about and am very interested in so I can't just not watch it. I gave season one a fair chance and didn't care for it. I'm giving season two a chance as it looks like a significant improvement. Maybe it will turn this around. I can only hope so. However that won't stop me from talking about aspects I don't like about it.

 

[Lord Garth]

I like to think with all these Star Trek series they want to do, they can cater to different subsets.* Maybe they can make some that are episodic. It's just not going to be Discovery.

* They did decide to make the Picard Series. I don't think it'll be episodic but I do think it's an example of catering in action. I think one of the reasons they wanted to make it was to cater to the "We want the 24th Century back!!!" crowd. Another reason I think they're doing it is because maybe they're hoping Patrick Stewart will bring hesitant trekkies over to CBS Trek the same way Leonard Nimoy brought some of them over to NuTrek.

If one of these series is episodic and another one is in the TNG Era and another is this and another one is that, maybe people who don't like what DSC is doing will be more apt to let Discovery be Discovery.