What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[Richard S. Ta]

Bottle shows were a thing of necessity though. Not to knock them, because there are many good ones, but they were a budget saver. When there’s less episodes per season then the need for a cheap one falls by the wayside.

In a sense, in modern TV then such episodes are as much a relic as clip show style episodes (after all, the reason that The Menagerie happened was a need to save cash). It seems SNW is going to some lengths to redress the balance, but we will have to see.

 

[fireproof78]

I for one will not weep a single tear if year-long story arcs are jettisoned in favor of a return to episodic storytelling in every new series of the franchise. It won't happen, but I can sit and hope. Arcs have their place but year after year after year and show after show after show is getting tiresome.

Strange New Worlds will be your thing no doubt.

For one episode

Bottle shows were a thing of necessity though. Not to knock them, because there are many good ones, but they were a budget saver. When there’s less episodes per season then the need for a cheap one falls by the wayside.

In a sense, in modern TV then such episodes are as much a relic as clip show style episodes (after all, the reason that The Menagerie happened was a need to save cash). It seems SNW is going to some lengths to redress the balance, but we will have to see.

I'm not generally in favor of bottle episodes because the restrictions become too much. It's something I find less than enjoyable, either because characters I expect to see don't show up, or the setting is extremely limited. People talk about having more time and money to work with but creating a bottle show basically means creating an episode that has no ties (or limited ties) to the current story and risks pushing audience members off because one character is the focus and they prefer this other character.

Now, this is probably just my personal bias showing up by the way. I prefer less ensemble shows and more main characters to enjoy. But, more than that, I want stuff to matter to these characters. Bottle shows feel like "Oh, you know that crazy adventure on the holodeck we had? Let's never mention it again." It's like, I struggle with a measure of investment at times because the show just doesn't ultimately think that adventure matters.

 

[Farscape One]

I mean, I guess. I guess this is a mileage will vary type of a reaction because end of the galaxy isn't dull to me.

You misunderstand. End of the galaxy CAN be quite interesting and fun to do. It's the frequency and raising of that quotient that I have a problem with, because you can mine that well only so often before it gets boring.

Using my previous DOCTOR WHO example, first season had Earth threatened. Season 2, a dimensional threat. Season 3, Earth again. Season 4, the end of time itself. Season 5, the end of the entire universe. That kind of stakes raising just seems absurd.

With DISCO, they suffered the same problem. Season 1, the Klingon War and the defeat of the Federation. Season 2, the end of all organic life. Season 3, basically the end of space travel with the Burn. Season 4,

Spoiler

the end of the galaxy.

It gets dull because the stakes get more and more absurd. I am all for drama, and stakes and conflict help create drama, but what happened to personal drama, like Nog dealing with the loss of his leg? Or The Doctor losing all his memories? Or Kirk losing his brother and possibly his nephew? Or even just trying to save a single planet from dilithium crystals shattering their world like in "Pen Pals"? You can tell great stories without relying on insanely high stakes.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

Bottle shows feel like "Oh, you know that crazy adventure on the holodeck we had? Let's never mention it again." It's like, I struggle with a measure of investment at times because the show just doesn't ultimately think that adventure matters.

With respect then, how come you hold up TOS as your favourite Star Trek? It’s 79 episodes of adventures that never get mentioned again from story to story. One episode doesn’t ‘matter’ to the next in any meaningful sense at all in TOS.

 

[fireproof78]

ou misunderstand. End of the galaxy CAN be quite interesting and fun to do. It's the frequency and raising of that quotient that I have a problem with, because you can mine that well only so often before it gets boring.

I guess. I'm not bored though. So I guess I don't see the issue.

Not saying it isn't one for other audience members. Certainly smaller stories have their place. I just don't expect them, if that makes sense.

. I am all for drama, and stakes and conflict help create drama, but what happened to personal drama, like Nog dealing with the loss of his leg? Or The Doctor losing all his memories? Or Kirk losing his brother and possibly his nephew? Or even just trying to save a single planet from dilithium crystals shattering their world like in "Pen Pals"? You can tell great stories without relying on insanely high stakes.

I agree that you can. And I think some of Season 3's best work was in the personal with Georgiou. And Burnham and Saru in Season 4 working on their personal struggles. I feel like both are working very well. I don't feel bored by it, stakes or no.

With respect then, how come you hold up TOS as your favourite Star Trek? It’s 79 episodes of adventures that never get mentioned again from story to story. One episode doesn’t ‘matter’ to the next in any meaningful sense at all in TOS.

Because it was the first, as odd as that probably sounds.

 

[Farscape One]

Bottle shows were a thing of necessity though. Not to knock them, because there are many good ones, but they were a budget saver. When there’s less episodes per season then the need for a cheap one falls by the wayside.

In a sense, in modern TV then such episodes are as much a relic as clip show style episodes (after all, the reason that The Menagerie happened was a need to save cash). It seems SNW is going to some lengths to redress the balance, but we will have to see.

That is a fair point that bottle shows are somewhat a relic of tv in the past. But SUPERNATURAL has done them, and only ended 2 years ago. It's more accurate to say it's existence is more likely to happen with 20 episode seasons.

But I'd also argue it forces the writers to be more clever with their characters. We get to know them better. I sometimes feel, as an audience member, I'm being cheated out of some great scenes and details about characters because the focus is so arc heavy.

There's something to be said about restrictions helping to bring out creativity.

 

[fireproof78]

There's something to be said about restrictions helping to bring out creativity.

On this point I do agree. I think restrictions are needed in order to bring out creativity in the production team. I'm not opposed to bottle episodes in principle but I feel like they need to work within the character's growth otherwise it feels very shallow.

Now, I will go slightly counter to my general position and say that "Terra Firma" is probably the best example from Season 3, where it focuses primarily on a secondary character and provides great insight in to the character outside of the main story. I think it works well. Similarly with Dr. Culber in Season 4. The difference is that these are not episodes but moments within a larger whole, so they tend to get missed against the greater arc.

Maybe that's what's being missed? Smaller stories that you can just take in rather than individual moments?

 

[Farscape One]

Exactly! I miss full on stories. Moments are fine, but they seem to rely completely on them. Particularly since it's a streaming series and therefore not bound by broadcast time constraints, you can have much, much more of that.

I'm not saying episodes need to be 80 minutes each, but they damn sure can be more than 40. (Which there have been multiple in both DISCO and PICARD that are under 40, which is shorter than even the average broadcast tv episode. There is simply no excuse for that.)

And you pointed out an excellent example in "Terra Firma". It's the only one in the current live era. (Though Georgiou can arguably still be called a regular, since she is listed with the other leads in the theme.)

 

[eschaton]

With respect then, how come you hold up TOS as your favourite Star Trek? It’s 79 episodes of adventures that never get mentioned again from story to story. One episode doesn’t ‘matter’ to the next in any meaningful sense at all in TOS.

Aside from Harry Mudd returning in Season 2, a mention of the Treaty of Organia in The Trouble With Tribbles, and using the slingshot time travel method in both Tomorrow is Yesterday and Assignment: Earth, I think there's zero continuity between TOS episodes.

Okay, you could go a little further and say that (for example) all episodes with Klingons are in the same continuity, and all episodes with Romulans. But you don't really need to have watched the earlier episodes to make sense of the later ones.

Of course, later media stitched a lot of these into continuity. TAS was much more fankwanky than TOS (we got Spock's childhood, more Mudd, more Tribbles, more Koloth, more Cyrano Jones, more of the Shore Leave planet, more Kor, more Orions, etc. The TOS movies ultimately brought most of the TOS episodes into loose continuity with one another, and then TNG referenced other elements which it didn't manage to (the Daystrom Institute, Zephram Cochrane, etc.)

I personally find TOS most interesting to watch in production order precisely because you can see the unfurling of so many later stories in their embryonic form.

 

[eschaton]

Maybe that's what's being missed? Smaller stories that you can just take in rather than individual moments?

As I said elsewhere, I think a key element of Trek from TOS through ENT is episodes are about something, and aren't subtle about what it is. Often it's allegorical storytelling with sledgehammer metaphors and a didactic "well guys, this is what we learned this week!" at the end. Sometimes it's focus on character X. Sometimes it's just let's have a comedy/western/romance. But it's never particularly hard to pick out what the episode is trying to do in terms of storytelling.

On the other hand, Kurtzman Trek usually seems muddled thematically, even when it's well done. Sure you can point to individual episodes with great action, well-scripted dialogue, interesting sci-fi concepts, etc. But it always seems to be "moments" here and there which briefly brush up against themes/issues, and then back away and do something else entirely.

 

[Vger23]

Aside from Harry Mudd returning in Season 2, a mention of the Treaty of Organia in The Trouble With Tribbles, and using the slingshot time travel method in both Tomorrow is Yesterday and Assignment: Earth, I think there's zero continuity between TOS episodes.

Okay, you could go a little further and say that (for example) all episodes with Klingons are in the same continuity, and all episodes with Romulans. But you don't really need to have watched the earlier episodes to make sense of the later ones.

TOS had other minor instances of continuity, to be totally fair:

1. The Galactic Barrier is a running theme from WNMHGB, By Any Other Name, and Is There In Truth No Beauty?
2. Spock and Kirk discuss the use of his telepathic powers in By Any Other Name, and refer to his use of those powers on Eminiar VII.
3. The idea of a cloaking device being a threat to the Federation ties from Balance of Terror to The Enterprise Incident, as does the idea that Romulans are a species related to Vulcans.
4. Sulu mentions Janus IV during the events of That Which Survives

 

[cooleddie74]

5. The corbomite bluff is repeated in "The Deadly Years" and Sulu and Chekov trade knowing smiles about an event at least one of them was present to experience.

6. Zefram Cochrane is indirectly referenced in "Whom Gods Destroy" when Spock uses the Cochrane Deceleration Maneuver used at Tau Ceti to suss out which Kirk was actually Garth in disguise.

 

[fireproof78]

As I said elsewhere, I think a key element of Trek from TOS through ENT is episodes are about something, and aren't subtle about what it is. Often it's allegorical storytelling with sledgehammer metaphors and a didactic "well guys, this is what we learned this week!" at the end. Sometimes it's focus on character X. Sometimes it's just let's have a comedy/western/romance. But it's never particularly hard to pick out what the episode is trying to do in terms of storytelling.

On the other hand, Kurtzman Trek usually seems muddled thematically, even when it's well done. Sure you can point to individual episodes with great action, well-scripted dialogue, interesting sci-fi concepts, etc. But it always seems to be "moments" here and there which briefly brush up against themes/issues, and then back away and do something else entirely.

Which is probably why both appeal to me. I love heavy handed story at times and I enjoy more subtle, brief and in the moments because they feel a lot more human to me. I don't think it needs to be a either/or but rather an approach in different ways within the storytelling itself. In the past that was perhaps done within one show. Now, it's done differently across shows.

Exactly! I miss full on stories. Moments are fine, but they seem to rely completely on them. Particularly since it's a streaming series and therefore not bound by broadcast time constraints, you can have much, much more of that.

I'm not saying episodes need to be 80 minutes each, but they damn sure can be more than 40. (Which there have been multiple in both DISCO and PICARD that are under 40, which is shorter than even the average broadcast tv episode. There is simply no excuse for that.)

And you pointed out an excellent example in "Terra Firma". It's the only one in the current live era. (Though Georgiou can arguably still be called a regular, since she is listed with the other leads in the theme.)

I guess I don't expect more than that. I'm far more easy going about run times than perhaps others are since I see it get repeated a lot here. People are on about run times like they are paying per minute and I just don't feel the urgency there.

 

[1001001]

I mean, I guess. I guess this is a mileage will vary type of a reaction because end of the galaxy isn't dull to me.

The problem in my mind isn't that the "end of the galaxy" arcs are dull, it's that you know they can't lose. The galaxy is not going to come to an end.

In a "bottle episode", the outcome is less certain. Our heroes can fail. Things can go wrong.

The Outcast. The Defector. Data's Day.

Now, of course they normally don't fail, but with the galaxy ending plots, you know for sure they never will.

 

[fireproof78]

The problem in my mind isn't that the "end of the galaxy" arcs are dull, it's that you know they can't lose. The galaxy is not going to come to an end.

In a "bottle episode", the outcome is less certain. Our heroes can fail. Things can go wrong.

The Outcast. The Defector. Data's Day.

Now, of course they normally don't fail, but with the galaxy ending plots, you know for sure they never will.

I guess I don't ever expect the heroes to fail, at least not nowadays. The outcome strikes me as more or less certain.

 

[eschaton]

I guess I don't ever expect the heroes to fail, at least not nowadays. The outcome strikes me as more or less certain.

I was just rewatching Lindsay Ellis's postmortem of why Game of Thrones came unglued, and she made the point that the stories with the longest staying time are invariably ones where the outcome is always known. In some (like Romeo and Juliet) the narrator just flat-out spoils the ending before the story even begins. The point of the story is never to "surprise" us with "shocking twists" but to have an entertaining journey to an already-known destination.

Lots of serialized TV (not just modern trek) fails at this, which makes it more or less "one and done" with not much of any reason to rewatch once you know the final destination.

 

[fireproof78]

I was just rewatching Lindsay Ellis's postmortem of why Game of Thrones came unglued, and she made the point that the stories with the longest staying time are invariably ones where the outcome is always known. In some (like Romeo and Juliet) the narrator just flat-out spoils the ending before the story even begins. The point of the story is never to "surprise" us with "shocking twists" but to have an entertaining journey to an already-known destination.

Lots of serialized TV (not just modern trek) fails at this, which makes it more or less "one and done" with not much of any reason to rewatch once you know the final destination.

I guess...but I find rewatch more valuable with serialized shows because I love the small moments. I enjoy episodes from time to time, but I'm more apt to revisit moments in a serialized story and the same is true for me in books.

 

[Farscape One]

That's another thing about galaxy ending threats... you KNOW our heroes will win. It kills any possibility of real drama because it's impossible for them to lose.


Regarding run time of episodes, I get that an episode should be as long as the story dictates. But being hamstrung to that comes at the cost of character scenes and beats. Put it another way... DS9 episodes were around 44 minutes and change each, not counting end credits. The story of the episode is really only about 30 minutes or so, leaving all the rest of the episode to be about character beats, different characters perspectives, etc. By cutting down minutes, you cut out potentially great scenes. I have been able to defend really bad episodes just on the strength of a few character scenes, like Tom Paris' plea to make the flight in "THRESHOLD" or learning about Worf's childhood incident in "LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN...".

I keep mentioning that as a sticking point because we as the audience are being cheated out of this, especially with such short seasons and lengthy production times. (Seriously, Berman era shows were able to put out 26 episodes in the same amount of time as a 10-13 season of current shows. I know that's more about the industry itself now than just a STAR TREK thing, but it gives one pause when comparing.)


Regarding dialogue about the current era, that's actually something of a mixed bag.

An example of what I mean. When Sisko is trying to convince Vreenak of what the Dominion will likely do if they win, earlier in the scene, Vreenak says real kalifel should open your noses before the first sip. But after Sisko makes his point that the Romulans would be fully surrounded by the Dominion if they won, Vreenak indicates that for a moment the drink seemed real, if only briefly. That subtle piece of dialogue shows that Sisko was making his point well and almost convinced him, without the need to actually say such a thing. There's a lot of examples of clever dialogue and subtle dialogue in past shows, but in the current era, those kind of examples are few and far between. Dumbed down, for lack of a better term.

Maybe the best way to explain what I am saying is to echo a statement I have seen... past series are a stage play on tv. The current live shows are simply tv shows with a message. While I am happy they still kept the spirit of the franchise by having a message, I feel like it has lost something important by catering to the rest of the industry by taking the stage play element out.

 

[fireproof78]

hat's another thing about galaxy ending threats... you KNOW our heroes will win. It kills any possibility of real drama because it's impossible for them to lose.

I always know our heroes are going to win. I can't recall times when heroes don't win. Strikes me as an odd expectation to say the least.

Drama comes no matter what, at least for me. The characters in their interaction is the drama, at least for me. Perhaps that itself is an indication that galaxy ending threats are not as necessary but to me, truly, I don't expect the heroes to loose. Ever.

Maybe the best way to explain what I am saying is to echo a statement I have seen... past series are a stage play on tv. The current live shows are simply tv shows with a message. While I am happy they still kept the spirit of the franchise by having a message, I feel like it has lost something important by catering to the rest of the industry by taking the stage play element out.

But, isn't that part of the transition to larger more film like elements though? Is it possible that Trek has done that stage play/small form for so long that it creates an inflexible expectation to be efficacious?

 

[Orphalesion]

I always know our heroes are going to win. I can't recall times when heroes don't win.

I mean at the very least at the end of "the Offspring" the heroes don't win. Lal has a massive malfunction and has to be deactivated. That's just the first example that came to mind.

And in general, there is such a thing in fiction as the audience calling the author/writers bluff. We all know that in the end the heroes will likely succeed, but many people like it when the author/writers at least make them consider the possibility that there won't be a success by the end. And the higher the stakes, the more difficult it is to convince the audience that the heroes might not succeed. World/Galaxy/Reality destroying calamities are basically impossible to sell in most cases.

Plus we are by now in an age of television were protagonists failing in some way is a possibility, but again that only works with threats that aren't world ending (unless the Discover writers actually go through with a galaxy-ending threat in Season 5 and Season 6 is about picking up the pieces, that would actually be really interesting!)