Is it time to put Star Trek to rest?

[Starflight]

They basically started anew each episode and the previous episodes events didn't really figure into things so much. Not to say they were never brought up again. Just not very often.

I love the lack of continuity in TOS. James R Kirk of UESPA and his Vulcanian sidekick Spock, on the Earth Ship Enterprise.

I'm not even joking, I actually do love it; there's something to be said for an almost anthology-esque model where nothing really matters outside the story of whichever episode you're watching at the time, and writers simply don't have to care about keeping things consistent, instead being free to tell whatever story they want in the moment.

TNG was fairly good at it too - characters' motivations and beliefs shift markedly between episodes, but the more you watch, the more you start to get a sense of who these people broadly are, even if there's a lot of contradictions. In a lot of ways I think it's got advantages over the modern model of everything everyone says having to be loaded with meaning that contributes toward some longform character arc.

It was also really cool in older TV how you'd get different writers' takes on characters and ideas - is Kirk an impulsive hot-blooded fighter, a cool-headed military commander, a jovial good-natured adventurer, or a compassionate humanitarian? Is the Federation a utopia, a hard-nosed military, or a well-intentioned but questionable empire? You don't get that kind of variance nowadays when stories are focus grouped and subject to endless "continuity check" rewrites by a tiny handful of staff writers.

 

[MikHutch]

I can't really get into that. Calling something you dont like "focus grouped" is peak Redditor

 

[Starflight]

I'm using it as shorthand for however you'd describe the process that leads to the approach of new shows in long-running IPs hyper-focusing on "canon" and becoming insular and excessively self-referential. Come up with a non-Peak-Redditor term if you can think of one.

 

[bdub76]

TNG was fairly good at it too - characters' motivations and beliefs shift markedly between episodes, but the more you watch, the more you start to get a sense of who these people broadly are, even if there's a lot of contradictions. In a lot of ways I think it's got advantages over the modern model of everything everyone says having to be loaded with meaning that contributes toward some longform character arc.

I do like character development. But I also like anthology TV shows as well. One that was kinda both was the show Midnight Club. The show overall had a plot, but the stories the kids told basically make each episode a part of an anthology. The stories told were based on short stories by the same author as the guy that wrote Midnight Club. We also got a little bit of this with the two season Goosebumps show, where novel plots from various books were merged into the overall story-line.

However, it feels like 8 episode seasons has become the norm post the last writer's strike. Before that we saw 13 episode seasons. And it's going to be rare to see 22+ episode seasons for anything outside of a handful of shows.

 

[MikHutch]

I'm using it as shorthand for however you'd describe the process that leads to the approach of new shows in long-running IPs hyper-focusing on "canon" and becoming insular and excessively self-referential. Come up with a non-Peak-Redditor term if you can think of one.

It just feels like you're coming down on any show that actually cares about continuity

 

[Starflight]

It just feels like you're coming down on any show that actually cares about continuity

Not at all, but I do think it's a problem when having a strict (even restrictive) continuity is seen as inherently the "right", or only, way to do things, and the models used by shows like TOS are dismissed as dated or childish. I think that's unfortunately happened at times in recent years in the entertainment industry, especially with long-running franchises.

 

[MikHutch]

Not at all, but I do think it's a problem when having a strict (even restrictive) continuity is seen as inherently the "right", or only, way to do things, and the models used by shows like TOS are dismissed as dated or childish. I think that's unfortunately happened at times in recent years in the TV industry.

Well, tbh, I do think TOS is dated in that way. I do like seeing characters actually have progress across a series. Not just reset to zero. I wouldn't say its childish

 

[Starflight]

I don't think it's dated, it's simply a different model of storytelling that brings its own strengths and advantages separate from that of serialised structures.

There's a huge amount of value in regarding certain fictional worlds (and characters) as canvases for creativity, rather than treating them as "real" places that must follow pre-defined rules, avoid contradictions, and be seen to aim for consistency or verisimilitude.

 

[MikHutch]

I don't think it's dated, it's simply a different model of storytelling that brings its own strengths and advantages separate from that of serialised structures.

There's a huge amount of value in treating certain fictional worlds (and characters) as canvases for creativity, rather than treating them as "real" places that must follow pre-defined rules, avoid contradictions, and be seen to aim for consistency or verisimilitude.

We can agree to disagree there. While I think anthology formats can work, I like to see continuation of characters. The reset to 0 style of 60s TV doesn't really work for me. I like world building too much

 

[fireproof78]

The 2009 film began production late 2009

Now that's a real trick. I know time travel was involved in the story but not like that.

Trek needed at least 10 years of NOTHING. Give it a true break. But we really haven't seen it.

To do what, exactly?

You would think they would have learned their lesson when they ran two 24 episode shows at the same time during the Berman era.

Who would have learned what? Those people in charge now we're not charge then. What were they there to learn?

 

[kkt]

People were complaining they talked too much in S1 (And they want a President Archer show? )

Nothing short of President Archer jumping into a starfighter and kicking alien boo-tay a la Independence Day is going to impress anyone.

Hate to tell you, but that's the kind of movie that would NOT impress me.

 

[MikHutch]

Hate to tell you, but that's the kind of movie that would NOT impress me.

Archer was already too much of a cowboy

 

[kkt]

My two biggest issues with DS9 are: watering down the Klingons and the Dominion. The Klingons became far less serious in DS9 than they were depicted in TNG, and once we got the Dominion gathered together in episodes, it became a bit ridiculous. Some scenes reminded me of Power Ranger villains gathering. It wasn't dark enough.

Wow. First time I've heard that particular complaint about DS9...

 

[bdub76]

Wow. First time I've heard that particular complaint about DS9...

Compared to what has followed, it was dark at all. Maybe it was about the same level of dark as Blake's 7, but it wasn't close to BSG or the Expanse.

 

[fireproof78]

Archer was already too much of a cowboy

A space cowboy!

 

[Danja]

I understand. It's just that being an older actor makes it a bit hard to take him as someone who's still 'green'

Any younger and the Fandom Menace would be calling him a kid!

There's just no pleasing some people!

TNG was fairly good at it too - characters' motivations and beliefs shift markedly between episodes, but the more you watch, the more you start to get a sense of who these people broadly are, even if there's a lot of contradictions. In a lot of ways I think it's got advantages over the modern model of everything everyone says having to be loaded with meaning that contributes toward some longform character arc.

When you only have ten eps per season, you have to make every word count.

 

[MikHutch]

A space cowboy!

Which kinda can work but didn't always in practice

Any younger and the Fandom Menace would be calling him a kid!

There's just no pleasing some people!



When you only have ten eps per season, you have to make every word count.

ugh the fandom menace.

 

[Lynx]

90s Trek was a mixed bag.

Are you talking about the sunny optimism of Voyager and TNG? Or are you talking about the politicking, backstabbing Machiavellianism of post-S5 DS9?

Why are you so critical when it comes to DS9?

A great series with great actors and a great continuing story with continuity and some twistss and turns here and there in the tale. It's a masterpiece

It really is. That is the problem. No matter what CBS makes, they will never be able to replicate who you were when you experienced these shows. You are now a different person yearning for some false utopia.

Why are you constantly turning this into some psychological mumbo-jumbo instead of staying on topic?

Not to mention that your logic is flawed. If that was true, I should think that Stargate Universe was a masterpiece but I shouldn't be able to watch series like NCIS and yellowstone because they are made in the "wrong years". Not to mention DS9 which I finally got to watch from start to finish after 2010.

Eight pages of piranhas looking for blood.

There are lots of things I disagree with Lynx about. That doesn't mean I think he should be piled on for eight pages straight. Which, let's be honest here, is just for people's entertainment at his expense.

Thanks!

But it doesn't bother me that much, I'm used to it.
Not to mention that I'm not the hothead I once used to be.

But i do find it a bit annoying when people gets personal instead of discussing the subject as such. Not to mention those who only post ridiculous "laughing emojis" instead of taking the debate. Lack of opinions?

I have.

I don't. As I've said repeatedly the dark tone has always been present in Star Trek. The difference I see in various opinions is lack of interest on that characters.

Deep Space Nine has a story about a war, Starfleet officers committing war crimes, and Earth being invaded. That's not a positive story.

Yes, but as I've wrote before, DS9 handled that in a good way. There were lighter episodes in between the more dark ones. Not to mention that the series had good, likeable characters, something which seem sto be rare in later productions. I mean, even the villains were likabele in some way, like Dukat and Winn.

I always thought DS9 was way overrated by the fan base. This comes from someone whose youngest son is named Benjamin.

It's not overrated. It's a masterpiece.

I think STAR TREK should have been put to rest after "Enterprise". Aside from Season One of "Discovery", I haven't been impressed by the franchise's productions.

That’s a great point.

I wish I had said that.

But as I wrote in the reply to that post:
There's actually a big difference.
If Hubert Humpedink was a great actor in 1600 who participated in many Shakespeare plays, no one could see him act in year 1700 and couldn't compare him with Herman Kerman who was a great actor in year 1700, playing about the same Shakespeare plays and same roles as old Hubert did in 1600.

But we can see Shatner and Nimoy on DVD or streaming today and watch their brilliance in TOS and the TOS movies compared with their "successors"

I guess live theatre is not for you. That’s ok, it’s not for everyone.

Ah, I see. It’s not that you’re not fond of live theatre but that you also don’t appear to quite understand how it works. Simultaneous** productions of stage plays occur all the time and it is impossible for them not to have different actors in the same role. Are you suggesting there should never be such simultaneous productions? Are you further suggesting only one of them can be good? That seems both limiting as a view of stage productions and somewhat insulting of actors (note I am not at all suggesting that all simultaneous productions are equal in quality, but rather that multiple simultaneous productions can be of great quality with different actors playing the same roles).

We can certainly see all these productions AND we can certainly have preferences. But individual preferences do not objective truth make. Moreover, the appearance of a character vs the actor portraying the character is rarely as binding as you seem to think—performance is a more important criterion. Fictional characters are rarely reduced to their visual appearance/descriptions as the sole criterion.

“No one else can play this role” in acting is, frankly, an absurd notion if invoked as an objective rule. It may be one’s personal opinion owing to one’s admiration of a particular performance, but that’s hardly grounds for rejecting future performances by other actors.

**Simultaneous here means productions occurring within a span of time short enough for multiple productions and performances to have been seen by one person as opposed to a century or more gap as argued above.

No, I'm not against live theatre. I can accept that too.
If it's well played, it doesn't bother me if it is Harrison Ford or Izzy gomorski who plays Hamlet in a play.

But it's a difference when it comes to TV series and such when the original actors is available on DVD, streaming or re-runs.

I think Wesley is doing fine.

Doesn’t blow me away, but I can totally buy him as Kirk.

I had nothing against Wesley. An OK character who I actually started to like when I got Internet and saw all the hatred against him. That really annoyed me.

But I would never want to see Wil Wheaton as Kirk.
But I would like to see him as captain Wesley Crusher in some new series.

We're never getting that many episodes in one season of Star Trek again. Probably best to accept that now.

Isn't that a part of the decay? is it so difficult to come up with stories for, let's say 20 episodes?

 

[XCV330]

But I would never want to see Wil Wheaton as Kirk.
But I would like to see him as captain Wesley Crusher in some new series.

What you are doing is called Faulty Analogy. It's a logical fallacy. The previous poster did not suggest Wil Wheaton play Kirk. Frankly, I think he probably could. He's a decent actor, and Kirk isn't exactly the hardest character to play. But no one suggested he play Kirk. The difference is that Wheaton was already known for one important character. It might be jarring to see him move from that role to another one that's even more iconic. However that in itself isn't necessarily a problem. Two words: Jeffrey Combs.

 

[Danja]

I had nothing against Wesley. An OK character who I actually started to like when I got Internet and saw all the hatred against him. That really annoyed me.

But I would never want to see Wil Wheaton as Kirk.
But I would like to see him as captain Wesley Crusher in some new series.

We're talking about actor Paul Wesley playing Kirk on Star Trek: Strange New Worlds.

Just so we're clear.