Spoilers Does it feel to anyone else that SNW is cynically mining Trek's past glories?

[Mudd]

TOS couldn't even flesh out most of its cast.

It wasn't an ensemble show. It was, in fact, of an era and style that's removed by a generation from the syndicated Trek shows.

Weirdly enough, 1960s television is more watchable - and more watched - in syndication than most 80s-era dramas, and both are less dated than 1970s-era stuff.

I'm not "bashing later Trek." I like the syndicated Trek shows. But I know the difference, and I don't find the stories all that memorable now. Berman developed a narrow formula and style to which the narratives were required to adhere. That's a large part of why Trek wore itself out at the time; the shows became so conservative that they were even more repetitive than the sheer quantity of output made likely.

 

[cooleddie74]

Hell, ENT was produced between 2001 and 2005 and aired every single one of its episodes in the Post-9/11 Era and even it let some of its lead characters fall by the wayside, in at least one case embarrassingly so. ENT followed the TOS formula for three main characters and the rest of the main cast falling into supporting roles and that's a big-budget television series produced in the 21st century.

 

[MikHutch]

Not sure that's how it works.

So how does it then?

It wasn't an ensemble show. It was, in fact, of an era and style that's removed by a generation from the 1980s syndicated shows. Like most dramas of the time, it was about the weekly narratives and the starring characters, and it was stronger and more memorable for it.

I'm not "bashing later Trek." I like the syndicated Trek shows. But I know the difference, and I don't find them all that memorable now.

You not remembering it doesn't make it less memorable though. TOS not being a ensemble doesn't mean later shows didn't improve on the concept. DS9 actually followed through wirh storylines whereas TOS like most 60s shows tended to reset every week.

 

[Yistaan]

Hell, ENT was produced between 2001 and 2005 and aired every single one of its episodes in the Post-9/11 Era and even it let some of its lead characters fall by the wayside, in at least one case embarrassingly so. ENT followed the TOS formula for three main characters and the rest of the main cast falling into supporting roles and that's a big-budget television series produced in the 21st century.

It's Discovery that went back to the 3 main characters routine style of TOS to the point it's impossible not to notice. Enterprise doesn't even come close.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Hell, ENT was produced between 2001 and 2005 and aired every single one of its episodes in the Post-9/11 Era and even it let some of its lead characters fall by the wayside, in at least one case embarrassingly so. ENT followed the TOS formula for three main characters and the rest of the main cast falling into supporting roles and that's a big-budget television series produced in the 21st century.

Even TNG dropped the ball on a lot of characters. I've a feeling the writers would have been happy just doing Picard, Data and Worf stories.

 

[MikHutch]

Even TNG dropped the ball on a lot of characters. I've a feeling the writers would have been happy just doing Picard, Data and Worf stories.

Yeah Riker and Troi and Beverly weren't well fleshed out either

 

[cooleddie74]

It's Discovery that went back to the 3 main characters routine style of TOS to the point it's impossible not to notice. Enterprise doesn't even come close.

Yeah, I'm sure we and all the myriad fans and critics over the past 20+ years hallucinated the painfully obvious Archer-T'Pol-Trip troika that drove so many episodes of the show. Yeah, DSC mimics that same formula but ENT beat it to the punch by sixteen years.

 

[MikHutch]

Yeah, I'm sure we and all the myriad fans and critics over the past 20+ years hallucinated the painfully obvious Archer-T'Pol-Trip troika that drove so many episodes of the show. Yeah, DSC mimics that same formula but ENT beat it to the punch by sixteen years.

Yeah we rarely got anything about Travis or Hoshi

 

[Yistaan]

Yeah we rarely got anything about Travis or Hoshi

Didn't we see Travis' brother and parents and family at some point? That's more than we ever got for Rhys or Detmer

 

[MikHutch]

Didn't we see Travis' brother and parents and family at some point? That's more than we ever got for Rhys or Detmer

Lol DSC is pretty poor at it too

 

[Mudd]

You not remembering it doesn't make it less memorable though.

It being less memorable makes it less memorable.

Weirdly, there's probably less awareness of DS9 now than there is of Voyager - and DS9 is a better show. But then, I started noticing almost twenty years ago that people who were only passingly aware of Star Trek often knew who Seven of Nine was, for some reason. Nobody else post-TNG stood out to them, just her. TNG? Picard and Data and Worf were widely recognized, and that was about it. If you put a gun to my head I'd venture that non-fans were more aware of Worf than of Data.

 

[MikHutch]

It being less memorable makes it less memorable.

Weirdly, there's probably less awareness of DS9 now than there is of Voyager - and DS9 is a better show. But then, I started noticing almost twenty years ago that people who were only passingly aware of Star Trek often knew who Seven of Nine was, for some reason. Nobody else post-TNG stood out to them, just her. TNG? Picard and Data and Worf made an impression; no one else.

First of all, that's subjective. Second, not being remembered doesn't make something inferior. People remember TOS because it's the first and always promoted as ST, and had several movies, something DS9 disnt get afforded

No offense but you haven't really give any reason why you think TOS is peak trek that I can follow.

 

[Nerys Myk]

It's Discovery that went back to the 3 main characters routine style of TOS to the point it's impossible not to notice. Enterprise doesn't even come close.

Actually it didn't.

Didn't we see Travis' brother and parents and family at some point? That's more than we ever got for Rhys or Detmer

Rhys and Detmer weren't meant to be on the same level as Travis or Hoshi. Anthony and Linda's names were in the opening credits. Patrick and Emily's are in the closing credits. That tells all you need to know.
Disco's main cast included characters likes Lorca, Georgiou and Pike. They're the "secondary leads" like the folks below Picard, Sisko, Archer and Janeway on the call sheet, not the DISCO bridge crew.

 

[The Wormhole]

Ever since The Powers That Be misinterpreted the lower ratings of DS9/VOY compared to TNG, they have fretfully gone back to the past (ENT, Abramsverse, DISCO, and now SNW) assuming that is the only type of Trek viewers want to absorb.

That's not an accurate version of events at all. Enterprise was a prequel because Berman and Braga became burned out from the 24th century and genuinely wanted to do a series set a century prior to TOS. Paramount was vehemently against the idea, wanting themselves either another 24th century show or a 25th century one. They eventually relented and agreed to a prequel, though they forced a lot of compromises on Berman and Braga, including rejecting their originally proposed story arc for the first season set exclusively in Earth's solar system and being about the NX-01's construction and forcing the Temporal Cold War into the show.

The Abrams movies were a reboot of TOS in reaction to the franchise's collapse in popularity and the belief that by revisiting TOS they would reinvigorate the franchise. Which it did. Well, Trek XI did anyway. A failure to capitalize on that success and strike while the iron was hot led to the other two movies getting more tepid reception at the box office.

Disco began in the 23rd century because Bryan Fuller had a very specific connection to a TOS storyline in mind when he planned the show, though after he left his replacements were either unaware of it or dropped it. While SNW is more or less a direct reaction to the positive audience reaction to Anson Mount as Pike in Disco's 2nd season and therefore would need to be set in the 23rd century.

 

[DarKush]

I don't think TOS was peak Trek. Of course, it started it all, and it was popular in its day-to some extent-but it also got canceled after three seasons, and was saved from being forgotten or made a curiosity of the 1960s by syndication. I think 1994 was the year of peak Trek, with TNG going to the movies, DS9 on the air, VOY in the wings, and Kirk and Picard on the cover of TIME magazine.

 

[MikHutch]

I don't think TOS was peak Trek. Of course, it started it all, and it was popular in its day-to some extent-but it also got canceled after three seasons, and was saved from being forgotten or made a curiosity of the 1960s by syndication. I think 1994 was the year of peak Trek, with TNG going to the movies, DS9 on the air, VOY in the wings, and Kirk and Picard on the cover of TIME magazine.

While I think the lackluster Generations brings 1994 down, what you're saying makes sense. TOS is awesome and foundational but had issues nostalgia can't obscure

 

[The Wormhole]

TOS couldn't even flesh out most of its cast.

The main cast of TOS was only Kirk, Spock and McCoy. And McCoy didn't become main cast until the second season.

 

[MikHutch]

The main cast of TOS was only Kirk, Spock and McCoy. And McCoy didn't become main cast until the second season.

I didn't say only the main cast

 

[Mudd]

TOS...had issues nostalgia can't obscure

Not really.

I'm not nostalgic about TOS.

 

[MikHutch]

Not really.

I'm not nostalgic about TOS.

I wasn't saying you were, but yeah, it did have issues. And even when it was good, later series were able to improve on it (better effects, more exciting battles, more realistic aliens, more fleshed out aliens, wider variety of main characters, more complex storylines, better representation of female and non-White characters)