Do you prefer the shorter, more focused seasons?

[Infern0]

Or did you prefer the TNG era 24 episode seasons?

There are pro's and cons for me, as obviously there are pretty much NO filler episodes (maybe with the time loop mudd last season as an exception)

But I also feel like the occasional "get to know the character" episode would be good.

You know the type where Detmer goes off to win a shuttle race for the federation or something like that, perfunctory but character building

(i really just want a Detmer episode..... sigh)

 

[guyute03]

I like both. I grew up in the TNG, DS9, Voy era... and obviously love the standalones AND the serialized arcs. The shorter more focused seasons seem a byproduct of this Game Of Thrones era we live in, and I'm okay with that, but I wouldn't complain about a 24 or 26 episode season either. The more the merrier I say. I do adore the standalone stories where a ship is off exploring some new place or concept, and hope we get a bit of that on Discovery as well.

And I agree about Detmer and even other "minor" characters, would love some exposition on them.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I'm happier with 10-13 great episodes over 4 great ones, 6 good ones, 10 okay ones and 4 shit ones.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Why not have both? Standalone stories on that-other-show and serialized stuff in Disco.

I just wish Disco broke away from Burnham once in awhile, like after Lorca's heel turn where a Governor-from-Walking-Dead style POV episode showing how he got from the ISS Buran to USS Discovery would have been amazing.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

I definitely don't miss the 26 episode seasons because generally there would be about 16 shit episodes, about 8 ok ones and 2 classic ones. When I do rewatches of the older series, i find myself skipping a lot of episodes, even DS9 and I love DS9.

 

[Mage]

I'm happier with 10-13 great episodes over 4 great ones, 6 good ones, 10 okay ones and 4 shit ones.

Although I do basicly agree with this, I also feel as OP said, that sometimes those bottleshows, focusing very much on one characters could be very good. But mostly, yeah, quality over quantity.

 

[SCE2Aux]

I'm fine with both, there are pluses and minuses for each. Discovery's shorter, more focused season undoubtedly produces a kind of rollercoaster effect for me, which is great, but I often need to watch an episode twice before I feel like I have the measure of it.
Older Star Trek has much more filler, which can be grating at times, but at least the slower pace gives my poor brain a chance to stop and smell the roses hehe.

 

[Infern0]

Why not have both? Standalone stories on that-other-show and serialized stuff in Disco.

I just wish Disco broke away from Burnham once in awhile, like after Lorca's heel turn where a Governor-from-Walking-Dead style POV episode showing how he got from the ISS Buran to USS Discovery would have been amazing.

Agree 100%

I like Burnham but the show doesn't benefit from being centered around her all the time, I always prefer the ensemble approach when it comes to tv series as opposed to movies which often are better with a definitive "main character"

 

[FreddyE]

I thought the Short Treks were more or less supposed to replace the character centered filler episodes and when they´re using it for that they´re pretty effective. I loved Tillys, Sarus and Mudds STs. Calypso on the other hand was pretty "huh? Bla?" for me...I would have prefered it to be about Airiam..about whom we now pretty much zilch.

Why not have DSC, the Picard Show and "that more traditional 24 episode trek"-show...?

 

[Takeru]

I would have prefered it to be about Airiam..about whom we now pretty much zilch.

That's because her look is all she is, she doesn't even have a real job on the ship, "spore drive ops officer" is supposed to be what exactly? Tilly puts in the spores, Stamets navigates and iirc Detmer presses the actual jump buttom which makes sense because she's the pilot. I'm not sure the writers have any idea what to do with her.

 

[cultcross]

I definitely don't miss the 26 episode seasons because generally there would be about 16 shit episodes, about 8 ok ones and 2 classic ones. When I do rewatches of the older series, i find myself skipping a lot of episodes, even DS9 and I love DS9.

This. 24 or 26 episode seasons are just too much for writers to produce with any kind of consistency of quality. There isn't one season of Berman Trek that doesn't have dubious skippable filler. Even my probably overall favourite season, DS9 #5, has Ferengi Love Songs, Let He Who Is Without Sin, and The Assignment.

 

[BillJ]

I just want entertaining stories. It is irrelevant to me how we get there.

 

[eschaton]

I think my personal ideal would be something somewhere in the middle, with say 18-20 episodes. That said, I understand that from the perspective of the actors the modern short seasons are a big plus, because it allows them to juggle two different shows, movie appearances, and other side gigs in.

I'm happier with 10-13 great episodes over 4 great ones, 6 good ones, 10 okay ones and 4 shit ones.

It doesn't generally work out that way though. I'm not talking about Discovery in particular. I'm saying in modern serialized storytelling all the episodes of a season are about equal quality, but there's no guarantee they'll be great. You can and often do get an entire season of meh instead. So, for example, in Game of Thrones you had a great run for the first four seasons, then a slow descent into mediocrity, even though the season length was unchanged.

I do think serialized storytelling raises the bar somewhat, in that a writer's room doesn't just poop out a dog of a script due to deadlines and being out of ideas. But it's no guarantee for great television.

 

[Unimatrix Q]

Or did you prefer the TNG era 24 episode seasons?

There are pro's and cons for me, as obviously there are pretty much NO filler episodes (maybe with the time loop mudd last season as an exception)

But I also feel like the occasional "get to know the character" episode would be good.

You know the type where Detmer goes off to win a shuttle race for the federation or something like that, perfunctory but character building

(i really just want a Detmer episode..... sigh)

I'd love to see a Detmer episode, too

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

I thought the Short Treks were more or less supposed to replace the character centered filler episodes and when they´re using it for that they´re pretty effective. I loved Tillys, Sarus and Mudds STs. Calypso on the other hand was pretty "huh? Bla?"

I agree that all the shorts except Calypso added depth to DSC by adding depth to the characters.

However, and having said that, I think Calypso was the best of the shorts when viewed in a stand-alone vacuum. The setting could have been any ship, it just happened to be Discovery.

Calypso reminded me of the type of short story by Ray Bradbury or someone similar that I might have read in one of those science fiction digests/magazines, such as Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine or Astonishing Stories. That short definitely had the feel of one of the classic short stories from the golden age of literary science fiction of the 1940s through the 1960s that often ended up in one of those digests.

 

[eschaton]

I agree that all but Calypso added depth to DSC by adding depth to the characters.

However, and having said that, I think Calypso was the best of the shorts when viewed in a stand-alone vacuum. The setting could have been any ship, it just happened to be Discovery.

Calypso reminded my of a short story by Ray Bradbury or someone similar that I might have read in one of those science fiction digests/magazines, such as Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine or Astonishing Stories. That short definitely had the feel of one of the classic short stories from the golden age of literary science fiction of the 1940s through the 1960s that often ended up in one of those digests.

Yeah. I never saw Short Treks as being an expansion of Discovery per se, but an expansion of the Star Trek franchise. As such, Calypso was a welcome addition.

I have to wonder if another year or two hence - after the Picard series is launched - they'll start doing a number of Short Treks just checking in on where various 24th century characters are today. Individual shorts seems to be a better way to do it than trying to implausibly place everyone in the same area, or giving randos walk-on cameos.

 

[Lord Garth]

I'm happier with 10-13 great episodes over 4 great ones, 6 good ones, 10 okay ones and 4 shit ones.

This. Saves me some typing.

 

[Rahul]

I'm happier with 10-13 great episodes over 4 great ones, 6 good ones, 10 okay ones and 4 shit ones.

Thing is: Those 10 "filler" episodes sometimes are the absolute best episodes Trek ever mad: DS9's "Duet" was a mere bottle-show to save costs. It's my favourite DS9 episode. DIS "Magic to make the sanest man go mad" was one of the "cost-savers" - only made to feature a time-loop to save on costs. It's often refered to as the best or second-best episode of the entire first season of DIS.

I'm a big fan of one-concept episodes, because that's where we can truly see the imaginative stuff. Whereas their overly plotted "main" arcs often feel created by comitee - which they are. They have to. But sometimes I just like to see writers-gone-wild, giving us two or three bad episodes in a row, only to deliver a truly magnificant stand-alone once in a while.

 

[Rahul]

As to the main topic:
I think right now, it's too little. I thought ENT's last season is about the perfect length: 20 episodes.
Enough to tell a completely, fully fledged out main arc. But also enough to have about half your season be completely independant stand-alone adventures.

I think 10-13 episodes works fine if we'd get them actually every year. Taking ~2 years like now is too little content for too long. Whereas I absolutely agree that 26 episodes every year (like in the Berman-era) simply is untenable to keep at a really high quality.

Overall: Yeah, 15-20 episodes every year would probably be the sweet spot for me.
(For ONE series - if they have multiple series at the same time - go ahead and have only 10 episodes per show)

 

[eschaton]

I'm a big fan of one-concept episodes, because that's where we can truly see the imaginative stuff. Whereas their overly plotted "main" arcs often feel created by comitee - which they are. They have to. But sometimes I just like to see writers-gone-wild, giving us two or three bad episodes in a row, only to deliver a truly magnificant stand-alone once in a while.

One of the issues I have with modern serialized drama is how little often is there, beyond the surface story.

I mean, I've tried watching, in recent years, a number of shows which came out earlier that I missed during the period I had already cut the cord and were just not available through streaming until recently, like NuBSG, Dark Matter, Defiance, Penny Dreadful, etc. In all of the cases I began interested in the show, but I lost interest well before the end. I realized recently what all of these had in common - I had already spoiled the endings of the show, given I either had read about them beforehand or glanced over episode summaries on Wikipedia. With no "mystery" as to how the series ended, there wasn't that much keeping me drawn into the story if I didn't particularly like the characters - which I generally didn't.

I think 10-13 episodes works fine if we'd get them actually every year. Taking ~2 years like now is too little content for too long. Whereas I absolutely agree that 26 episodes every year (like in the Berman-era) simply is untenable to keep at a really high quality.

Yeah. Another aspect of this - at least for me - is that even with the proliferation of modern short seasons, it's not really the case that that many more shows I like are coming out from year to year. Indeed, I feel sometimes like the "choice overload" in the modern era makes me really unlikely to commit to watching anything. Sometimes I stare at Netflix or Amazon for like 30 minutes looking for something to watch, and just close out the browser, because I can't find a single thing I'm in the mood for.