The streaming era shows still look and feel exactly like Star Trek.
I firmly believe that all types of stories told in streaming Trek happened in prior Trek. So, I struggle with the concept of Trek's ruination because of streaming. Even if I don't agree with the choices of shows I can't see ruined.
I have to agree here. The season arcs of DISCO really were a major weak point of the series... they could never get it done right. PICARD had similar issues, most notably season 2.
The shorter seasons did them no favors, either, but LDS was able to do a remarkable job with 10 episode seasons... with runtimes of half the length. The characters felt alive and you saw them grow, so it can be done. SNW did a fantastic job in season 1, and was still pretty damn good in season 2. But season 3, and what we've gotten with 4 so far? Just not very good.
I'd honestly prefer longer seasons again... not saying a 26 one like before. More like how THE WALKING DEAD did most of its seasons, with 16 each. I think that's a happy medium of what we have now and what we had then. Gives shows more room to breathe.
Streaming itself isn't the problem, not when there's shows like FOUNDATION, FOR ALL MANKIND, and PLUR1BUS out there. But they have, quite honestly, better writers overall, which will always be the foundation of what makes a show great. ST needs some of that level of writing.
I don't think the delivery method -- traditional broadcast network, cable, syndication, streaming -- has much effect one way or the other.
What I think has hurt Trek is the modern TV model of maybe 10 episodes max per season. I think Trek was much better off when it had 26 episodes a year.
What I think has hurt Trek is the modern TV model of maybe 10 episodes max per season. I think Trek was much better off when it had 26 episodes a year.
Something is generally better the first time you experience it, when you're younger and more impressionable. When you don't have decades and decades of that thing already.
I don't think Trek was suited to Discovery or Picard's 10-part long story model.
Prodigy is better than most of classic Trek, it kept a story arc while putting more emphasis on individual stories.
Strange New Worlds is the exact same model as classic Trek, except in 10 parts instead of 29 or whatever. The episodes are extremely hit or miss, but as Fry said of TOS: "79 episodes, about 20 good ones"
well i think it all depends on the star trek series
because on streaming channels the star trek streaming era episodes are somewhat longer
because on streaming channels the star trek streaming era episodes are somewhat longer
That’s one reason it was great growing up with Star Trek airing on the BBC in the UK. I think they always showed the unsyndicated version too, since they didn’t cut anything out to insert ads.
It's not streaming in itself, it's a lot of the conventions that come with it and wanting to be seen as "prestige tentpole TV" or w/e, which network TV often seems totally uninterested in obeying.
Ruined? No, but Trek is not the most natural fit with the conceptions of streaming TV of the last decade.
The concept of Star Trek was originally specifically designed to work within the possibilities and limitations of old-style 20+ episode seasons. That is its native environment, and thus where it will thrive most easily.
But there's no reason it can't continue to evolve into new formats and thrive there just as much. It just takes progressively greater amounts of talent to execute the further you get from the native environment.
If I wasn't so sure we were going into a long period of no Trek, I'd be saying the right next approach is to put it on "The Pitt" model. Design the show with an eye on affordability from the beginning (Kurtzman often seemed like he was trying to spend as much money as extravagently as possible, making the bar for success so much higher). Construct it so that you can have a season of at least 15 episodes every year. If you think you need more time than that for post, simplify your version until you can make the regular year turnaround. Refocus on personal/moral drama on the standing sets or real locations and don't spend so much on wild visuals at every turn.
We're back in an era of budget austerity, so it would be time for Trek to pull out all the old budget-saving tricks of previous eras. Which could potentially be a creative boon, moving the primary drama back to conference room debates and the like.
But by the time Trek is returning to TV, we'll probably be several cycles past "The Pitt" and on to some new ideal streaming form, so who knows yet what the right Trek show will be for that moment.
The concept of Star Trek was originally specifically designed to work within the possibilities and limitations of old-style 20+ episode seasons. That is its native environment, and thus where it will thrive most easily.
But there's no reason it can't continue to evolve into new formats and thrive there just as much. It just takes progressively greater amounts of talent to execute the further you get from the native environment.
If I wasn't so sure we were going into a long period of no Trek, I'd be saying the right next approach is to put it on "The Pitt" model. Design the show with an eye on affordability from the beginning (Kurtzman often seemed like he was trying to spend as much money as extravagently as possible, making the bar for success so much higher). Construct it so that you can have a season of at least 15 episodes every year. If you think you need more time than that for post, simplify your version until you can make the regular year turnaround. Refocus on personal/moral drama on the standing sets or real locations and don't spend so much on wild visuals at every turn.
We're back in an era of budget austerity, so it would be time for Trek to pull out all the old budget-saving tricks of previous eras. Which could potentially be a creative boon, moving the primary drama back to conference room debates and the like.
But by the time Trek is returning to TV, we'll probably be several cycles past "The Pitt" and on to some new ideal streaming form, so who knows yet what the right Trek show will be for that moment.
Last edited:
No it is fine. Actually a longer season would help the quality, maybe 15 per season instead of 10. The old 26 per season is over and for the sake of the actors that's a good thing.
Last edited:
Similar threads
