The Problem with Star Trek Plots

[Anwar]

I think that was sort of the point. They didn't WANT the audience to care or be depressed, just for them to be out of the way so they could quickly move through the plot.

It's not like other shows do that much better. I mean, did anyone care when a lot of the folks in NuBSG got blown away in the nuclear attack in the mini-series? Like the real President and stuff?

 

[The Wormhole]

Well, BSG did want us to feel something for those losses, as evidenced by scenes like Cally crying over the dead mechanic and Captain Kelly collecting the dog tags.

But you're right, we weren't meant to feel anything for Voyager's actual crew. They were just a means to an end, their positions had to be filled so that death could leaev them vacant and the main characters step in to fill them.

And I'm actually glad they didn't spend four or five episodes of Voyager with its original crew. We have too many shows these days that spend way too much time going nowhere (I'm looking your way, SGU) so it's nice to watch old shows where get into the action right away. Hell, I think they made it into the Delta Quadrant within the first half-hour of Caretaker. That was entertainment.

 

[Anwar]

An idea I had (and I thought this up before SGU) was for the first episode of Voyager to be the 1st season finale, with everything already all set up and the character relationships all established as far along as they are. Then the last few minutes flashback to the previous year and we start the story from the second episode onwards to explain how they got to the first episode.

So the premiere would have a lot of action and plot establishment (in a manner that is a little confusing the first time around but makes a lot more sense if you watch things chronologically), and the next 2-3 episodes can be slower and take place entirely in the Alpha Quadrant to introduce everything else properly before they get sucked away.

 

[The Wormhole]

Meh, I'm still satisfied with the way Caretaker turned out. Besides, back in 1995 episodic event of the week shows were an easier sell than serialized continuing story arcs week after week.

 

[Anwar]

Yeah. A show like VOY was better suited to be aired sometime in 2000.

 

[Gary7]

"Caretaker." *sigh* One big problem I had with that episode was the lack of one very obvious consideration: a time-delay detonator. They were so worried about the Kazon getting a hold of the Caretaker array, so Janeway ordered it destroyed with a tricobalt explosive. C'mon, in the 24th century they don't have timed detonators? Nobody could improvise one? I know... then there would be no story. NO... the idea would be to foil it somehow. They activate the array to head home and somehow a residual field of energy given off accidentally trips the explosives, leaving them stranded in the Delta quadrant. At least if such an obvious consideration was given due, it would be a much more plausible plot element. But I guess they wanted Janeway's choice of deliberate destruction to be a cause of friction for dissenting crew members. It didn't last, anyway... and it took me a long while to develop respect for the character.

Another was in TWOK movie. They didn't try beaming the Genesis device out into space, scattering its atoms into oblivion. At least TRY... it could have been attempted with Chekov saying "We can't get a lock--the field emanating from the device is causing too much disruption for the transporter beam."

These are the kind of problems I have with Star Trek plots. An obvious possible choice isn't given due consideration. Even if for but a brief moment, to at least dispel it in some way, so that it doesn't look like an obvious intelligent choice wasn't considered.

 

[Anwar]

Actually, in Caretaker they mentioned that it would take hours to figure out how to go home and that Kazon reinforcements would arrive before then. So it was a choice of fighting and likely dying, or just blowing up the place and getting out of there before the Kazon arrived. They just didn't do a good job conveying it.

 

[Gary7]

^ Thanks, Anwar. I missed that somehow...

So in that case, the idea being that if they don't destroy the array, the Kazon would seek to utilize it, not destroy it, and so they'd have a possible chance to use it later on. If the advanced Voyager crew couldn't figure out how to work it in time, I'd imagine it might take the Kazon a lot longer... months? A better bet would be to take a key component of the array and leave with it. Then come back another time with possible allies to deal with the Kazon and get the array back.

 

[Anwar]

Given how massive the Array was, I doubt they could take anything important enough to really cripple it. And leaving the Array in the hands of the Kazon while they go to look for allies that may not exist (surely Neelix would have tried that earlier, or the Caretaker have asked local races for assistance) would be pretty risky.

 

[23skidoo]

The main problem with Trek plots is that you know none of the regulars will die.

So, it's the same problem as any other plot on any other show?

That's the thing. It's an issue that faces all TV series with continuing characters. There are rules you must abide by for logistics reasons if nothing else. You can't be recasting a series every week and you can't keep killing off the characters. On the other hand, when a character really is killed off (due to an actor leaving the role) then the emotional impact is stronger because it is a rare event (i.e. Tasha Yar, Jadzia).

You know The Doctor won't get killed off in Doctor Who, and the odds are in favor of the companion surviving, too (not 100% certainty, but the odds favor survival). Jethro Gibbs isn't likely to take a bullet in NCIS. The Six Million Dollar Man isn't going to accidentally jump off a cliff.

That's perhaps why the mini-series or "set-length" series concept is in some ways superior to the "multi-season, open-ended" concept of most American productions (and many British productions, too). If you have only 3 episodes, or 17 episodes, or 22 episodes to tell your story, then you can take risks and kill off lead characters if you want because there's no pressure to bring them back. It might be argued that DS9 and VOY and Enterprise were set-length series because none were expected to go past 7 seasons given the precedent of TNG (ENT never got that far, of course). But even then, they were still open-ended because the assumption was that characters from these shows would be needed for future movies. We never got a DS9 movie, but Worf was needed for Nemesis so they couldn't kill him off. Ditto Janeway. And at one point Seven of Nine was going to appear in Nemesis, so they couldn't kill her off permanently in the finale, either.

The problem is Voyager and to a lesser degree DS9 and TNG went back to the "big red reset button" well far too often. They would indeed kill off a regular, but knowing that the status quo had to be maintained, a deus ex machima would come out of nowhere and by the end of the 42 minutes everything was back to normal, often without the characters having any memory of the events. Or they'd pull the "kill a character off and replace him with the exact same character" ploy that was used with both O'Brien in DS9 and Harry Kim in Voyager.

I guess my point is the "they can't kill a regular" rule can't be considered a failing of the Trek franchise because it's a general rule. What's important is how a series works with that limitation, and it could be argued that the Trek franchise had mixed results in that area.

Alex

 

[stj]

Personal jeopardy is not the foundation of "drama." Making meaningful choices is drama. This is why in fact personal jeopardy is often trite, melodrama perhaps but unsuccessful as drama. The personal lives of the regulars are not particularly dramatic in a meaningful sense which is why serials that focus on personal lives so often lapse into absurdities. This sort of thing is called soap opera. That is a pejorative phrase for good reason.

 

[BillJ]

If what makes a plot interesting is wondering if they'll REALLY kill off the Regulars, than nearly no show in existence is "interesting".

But when you present a show with "danger" as part of the concept (as Voyager did), you have to be willing to make changes. Or else the audience no longer buys into the "danger" aspect.

Then the audience begins to lose interest.

Then you end up with low ratings... see Enterprise.

 

[The Wormhole]

If what makes a plot interesting is wondering if they'll REALLY kill off the Regulars, than nearly no show in existence is "interesting".

But when you present a show with "danger" as part of the concept (as Voyager did), you have to be willing to make changes. Or else the audience no longer buys into the "danger" aspect.

Then the audience begins to lose interest.

Then you end up with low ratings... see Enterprise.

Enterprise did not get low ratings because it didn't kill main characters. It got low ratings because it sucked.

 

[BillJ]

If what makes a plot interesting is wondering if they'll REALLY kill off the Regulars, than nearly no show in existence is "interesting".

But when you present a show with "danger" as part of the concept (as Voyager did), you have to be willing to make changes. Or else the audience no longer buys into the "danger" aspect.

Then the audience begins to lose interest.

Then you end up with low ratings... see Enterprise.

Enterprise did not get low ratings because it didn't kill main characters. It got low ratings because it sucked.

But one of the reasons it sucked was because Enterprise didn't take any chances early on. Take the episode Strange New World, they had an opportunity to show that the transporter was a serious piece of equipment that could f*ck you up, ala The Motion Picture.

Instead they gave us a tepid "human skin is a resilient organism" bullsh*t.

Sometimes if a dynamic doesn't work... you need to change it. Reed, Sato and Mayweather were all dull as dirt and it wasn't all the writers fault. Even when they were given something to do it was like watching paint dry. It wouldn't have hurt this show a bit to have had Reed blown to bits in Minefield. It would have provided some nice drama. Which the show sorely lacked.

 

[plynch]

Occasionally principals die suddenly.

But all the "person X is danger plots": no harm ever really comes to him or her. No real drama, just watching because it's Trek and it's on. Also: "The ship is in danger" plot. It's always fine in the end. Ho hum.

Plots with moral dilemmas, decisions, or character growth are good. Somebody clued me into the fact that the B plots I once disliked actually have more of that, where the A plots are the action plots which ironically are duller. To me anyway.

Good thread.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

That's perhaps why the mini-series or "set-length" series concept is in some ways superior to the "multi-season, open-ended" concept of most American productions (and many British productions, too). If you have only 3 episodes, or 17 episodes, or 22 episodes to tell your story, then you can take risks and kill off lead characters if you want because there's no pressure to bring them back.

No you can't, because what if the show is a success? Then your so-called mini-series becomes a regular series. If you rashly killed Character X, and Character X is vital to the series' success, then there will be some way contrived to bring him/her back (especially if it's sci fi, where resurrections are infinitely contrivable). If the showrunner refuses to play ball, the network fires their ass and brings in someone who will resurrect Character X and make the network some damn money!

If your show is not a success, it gets cancelled, and then all the characters are "killed." Either way, the characters' fates are out of the showrunner's hands and in the hands of the network and the ratings.

There's a reason the mini-series format is virtually dead: it's not financially viable to deliberately plan for a short run of a series, in a hit-driven business where your few hits need to pay for your many, many failures. All series must be designed to run for 20 seasons, on the hopes that one out of a hundred will do just that, and pay for 67 outright flops and 32 middling successes that putter along for a few years before getting the axe.

So, since it's a given that vital characters will not be killed off, there needs to be something else at stake for the character. Dexter is a great example. Only Dexter Morgan is unkillable; I'd say Deb is probably unkillable as well. Other than those two, it's open season on characters. So there are plenty of shocking twists possible.

But Dexter is the lead character and we need to know that there's something at stake for him. The premise of the show creates a great deal that is important that's at stake for Dexter, other than just his survival. So there is plenty of possibilities for authentic dramatic tension.

 

[The Wormhole]

But when you present a show with "danger" as part of the concept (as Voyager did), you have to be willing to make changes. Or else the audience no longer buys into the "danger" aspect.

Then the audience begins to lose interest.

Then you end up with low ratings... see Enterprise.

Enterprise did not get low ratings because it didn't kill main characters. It got low ratings because it sucked.

But one of the reasons it sucked was because Enterprise didn't take any chances early on. Take the episode Strange New World, they had an opportunity to show that the transporter was a serious piece of equipment that could f*ck you up, ala The Motion Picture.

Instead they gave us a tepid "human skin is a resilient organism" bullsh*t.

Sometimes if a dynamic doesn't work... you need to change it. Reed, Sato and Mayweather were all dull as dirt and it wasn't all the writers fault. Even when they were given something to do it was like watching paint dry. It wouldn't have hurt this show a bit to have had Reed blown to bits in Minefield. It would have provided some nice drama. Which the show sorely lacked.

Killing main characters wouldn't necessarily have imporved anything. Take Stargate Atlantis for example, a show which did kill off main characters (and fan favourites too). It did not improve anything there, in fact it was the beginning of a whole myriad of poblems.

Earth Final Conflict also had a reputation for killing off main cast, including its lead character. I don't see anyone praising that as a pinnacle of television.

 

[JiNX-01]

The main problem with Trek plots is that you know none of the regulars will die.

Yeah, that's been a real problem in this franchise.
Tasha
Trip
Spock
Jadzia
Sisko (sort of)
Dukat (I figure he was recurring frequently enough to be considered a regular)
Data

...oh please, you must be kidding.
I think my point is perfectly clear.

Please feel free to elaborate. You made a blanket statement that is not supported by the facts.

The main problem with Trek plots is that you know none of the regulars will die.

If you accept that death is that state from which you do not return.

Tasha......Death.
Trip ........Death, novels say he faked it.
Spock......Still with us.
Jadzia......Death, although Dax survived.
Sisko ......Kind of tough to say.
Dukat .....Death.
Data........Still with us, everything is inside "B4."

My point is that regular cast members "died" onscreen.
Yes, some of them were resurrected (Trip, Spock) and others had "back up programs" (Data/B4 & Jadzia/Dax). And I already acknowledged that Sisko didn't exactly die, but he has gone to wormhole alien heaven with plans to return at some undetermined date.

 

[BillJ]

Yeah, that's been a real problem in this franchise.
Tasha
Trip
Spock
Jadzia
Sisko (sort of)
Dukat (I figure he was recurring frequently enough to be considered a regular)
Data

...oh please, you must be kidding.
I think my point is perfectly clear.

Please feel free to elaborate. You made a blanket statement that is not supported by the facts.

The main problem with Trek plots is that you know none of the regulars will die.

If you accept that death is that state from which you do not return.

Tasha......Death.
Trip ........Death, novels say he faked it.
Spock......Still with us.
Jadzia......Death, although Dax survived.
Sisko ......Kind of tough to say.
Dukat .....Death.
Data........Still with us, everything is inside "B4."

My point is that regular cast members "died" onscreen.
Yes, some of them were resurrected (Trip, Spock) and others had "back up programs" (Data/B4 & Jadzia/Dax). And I already acknowledged that Sisko didn't exactly die, but he has gone to wormhole alien heaven with plans to return at some undetermined date.

Sisko didn't die and Dukat was a recurring character not a show regular. But my point is... every character on the list wanted to leave. It wasn't because the studio/producers just flat out thought something wasn't working. The studio/producers never took the initiative to make the product better once it was created. This is pretty much true of all Modern Trek.

I'm not talking about wholesale slaughter here. I'm talking about improving dynamics once a show has moved past the creation stage. Not every character nor character relationship is going to come off exactly how they're envisioned in the writers' room. If that were the case Travis Mayweather would have been one of the most interesting characters to ever grace Trek on the small screen.

Take Commander William Riker... his character arc was done post-Best of Both Worlds. There was no where else to take the character, he was promoted to and proved himself as a capable starship commander. That was where he wanted to go when we met him and he made it. Riker became a joke after Best of Both Worlds, Picard's secretary and nothing more.

 

[FormerLurker]

Another was in TWOK movie. They didn't try beaming the Genesis device out into space, scattering its atoms into oblivion. At least TRY... it could have been attempted with Chekov saying "We can't get a lock--the field emanating from the device is causing too much disruption for the transporter beam.".

Seriously? You want them to beam it out into the nebula so it won't blow them up when it goes off? As if it being on the Reliant is the problem? Do you realize how big nebulae are?