I would not recommend paying to read a lot of literature and stories. One of the biggest aspects of fiction is telling us things that are uncomfortable so that we make differences, not that we believe "Happily Ever after" happens post credits.
Could a new Trek show done in the 90's TNG/DS9 style work today?
- Thread starter The Rock
- Start date
They tried a more serialized approach in DS9, and the ratings kept going down.
The ratings for Star Trek in general peaked with TNG and EVERY subsequent iteration of Star Trek lost overall viewers. For better or worse TNG was pretty much (after the syndication success of TOS that lasted for nearly 2 decades prior to TNG) the ONLY series that at first grew Trek viewership - plateaued - and everything Trek related afterwards bled viewers.
(And I not a big TNG fan, but I can't deny what it did in really creating a larger Star Trek franchise. For me as the years go on - more of the show becomes unwatchable to me - in contrast with TOS where some TOS episodes I didn't care for when I was younger have improved and become more watchable to me.)
YMMV of course - but 53 years after I saw my first TOS episode (at age 6) <--- I still find TOS the most rewatchable and most enjoyable incarnation of what has become the 'Star Trek franchise' for me. And for me Star Trek Discovery Season 2 was absolutely enjoyable for me overall BECAUSE they went back to a 'more TOS' style with Pike and Spock and the other Enterprise characters.
What really draws me to - and makes me excited for Strange New Worlds is that from what I've seen in the trailers so far, they are going 'back to basics' WRT 'Star Trek' and bringing in more of what I really to this day still enjoy from TOS. I like that they don't seem to be taking everything so drop dead seriously <--- And for me that was a BIG weakness of TNG in that at times it (and it's characters) took some things WAY too seriously...and a lot of the 'fun' was just sucked out as a result.
Time will tell; but I HOPE the trailers weren't just well edited and what we saw translates in the actual execution of this new series.
That's just how TV series work in my experience. Sometimes the show's quality gets much better, sometimes they have stunt casting or epic crossovers, but despite an occasional spike the ratings graph keeps going down. There are exceptions, like TNG and Game of Thrones, and Doctor Who can regenerate, but generally the best they can hope for is that the ratings will fall slower.
discovery changed a lot from the doom and gloom of the first season.
There's a lot about the 90s shows I like, like the semi-serialisation and the one and done stories, but I think you can do a successor show to that with modern sensibilities look. I think "Fringe" did a similar thing to what I'm saying, looking at a lot of weird concepts and several character and plot arcs. That's kind of what I want to see. Maybe SNW will be that. Who knows.
Why not - a new Trek show done in the style of the 60s worked in the late 80s.
Whatever show that might have been, it wasn't TNG.
I was 24 when TNG premiered, and during TNG's run I was reading letterzines, then CompuServe's Trek forum, and then usenet groups. Plenty of us had grown up with TOS and were happy to watch TNG, but there were two other types of fans: the old diehards who didn't think the new series was real Trek, with its characters who'd sit around and have meetings instead of going out and kicking ass, and the TNG converts who found TOS a slow, campy, badly made, unwatchable load of drek. Even now there are still a lot of fans who consider TNG the true beginning of Star Trek, with TOS as some forgettable and failed first draft.
TNG was not done in the TOS style. TOS didn't use that A and B story structure, for a start. The approach to lighting, to music, to continuing plot threads, they were all different.
TNG quickly evolved into something different, but many episodes of the first couple of seasons could have easily been done on TOS.
...Have you watched it lately?
I've watched every episode. I like the music, I like Adrianne Palicki and Penny Johnson-Jerald, and I'm not immune to the TNG nostalgia factor. And I don't think the more serious episodes work, because McFarlane can't carry that weight.
It depends on the type of show.
If it was a series set in the Romulan War, Mirror Universe, some Klingon conquest, or within decades of the Burn, then the blood spattering and gloominess makes sense. It’s where Berg & Harberts/Chabon would make sense as showrunners.
If it is a live action, feel good show in the vein of LD, then the blood spattering and gloominess would be completely wrong
If it is a thought-provoking show, even thought the blood spatter & gloominess could happen a la “Conspiracy”, its also completely unnecessary.
The only settings that would encompass the feel of ‘90s Trek in my eyes are the Lost Era, something set in the Dyson Sphere in the mid 25th century, or a 29th century timeship like the Relativity.
The main thing to take away from TNG/DS9 is that the development of the characters are what needs to be serialized, more so than the episodes themselves. There shouldn’t be a reset button for their character development; it should carry over week to week, both good and bad.
I think it could today’s shows leave you hanging every episode it would be nice to miss one once in awhile and not be totally lost
I will NEVER comprehend this attitude. Even if it becomes all “doom and gloom”, that’s not, in and of itself, a strong argument for cancellation. There are, literally, hundreds of shows that I don’t like (some quite strongly) on right now. I don’t wish cancellation on any of them. Apart from the unemployment it would create, I have no desire to punish others whose tastes are not like mine. Much easier (and fairer) to simply change the channel.
I feel very similarly to you. I do not understand this attitude of "Well I don't like it so cancel it." But, then, I also don't understand the idea that a show can "disrespect" the Star Trek name, or that Star Trek can't deal in doom and gloom scenarios, however that is defined.
To me, Star Trek works best as a variety storytelling platform, including more sorrowful moments. Even Orville managed to do that early on in Season 1, but left that somewhat behind.
These days no-one has to miss anything. As for being lost, that's what "Previously on..." is for.
there is people who only watch occasionally, usually partners of someone that watches regularly.
The “watch occasionally” crowd is simply not the target demographic for many shows these days. C’est la vie.
Which is ironic, given that discovery is back on something like regular TV in many countries, where you don’t have the option of pausing and going back if you miss something.
The "watch occasionally" crowd would have had a hard time with Twin Peaks thirty years ago, to cite just one example. Sitcoms and certain formulaic police procedurals like Law & Order are good "watch occasionally" shows, but a lot of prime time dramas have had significant serialized elements for quite a few years.
Similar threads
