How do the new Star Trek shows compare to The Mandolarian?

[fireproof78]

I don't always do it but sometimes it can be fun to. I just know that when the action is happening in The Mandalorian it feels almost movie quality to me. Something I think will start to happen more in other shows as well as technology gets better and likely even more money is being invested in tv shows , what with movie theaters in the situation they are in.

Jason

I guess the Mandalorian feels line with what I have seen in the past decade. It looks cool and that's fine. But it doesn't always serve the characters or the story which is where it is less informative of them.

If we are talking quality than certainly it certainly is high up there. But action is not a separate metric for me.

 

[Vger23]

I don't know that there can really be any such thing as the greatest sci-fi show -- or the greatest action-adventure show -- of all time, because inevitably shows that fit into those boxes are all chasing after wildly conflicting creative goals that make qualitative comparisons difficult.

There is one candidate in my mind.

It’s a little show from 50 years ago called Star Trek.

 

[Qonundrum]

It looks like Disney is vastly increasing the amount of live action Star Wars in the near future:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...-star-wars-and-10-marvel-series-and-new-films

Star Wars traditionally has not been involved in live action television, but that has changed with streaming, so now Star Wars and Star Trek will be competing for eyeballs in the streaming wars.

With that in mind how do you think the Mandolarian compares with the current Star Trek shows?

I dunno. I've never mixed pickled onions and giraffes into my apple fruit salad. All are tasty*, but they cannot be directly compared.

One might like one franchise as a go-to staple better, but do I want all of them to be the same in look and feel? No, but only because if all the franchises were the same then you wouldn't need as many. If there are franchises ("n") and they're all the same, subtract (n-1) from n and the remainder is all that's ever needed, right, just the one? That's a bit bland, isn't it? If one likes them both, one will watch them both. Liking one more than the other doesn't make much difference. Unless they're both the same, which reminds me of that scene from TOS where Spock addresses two identical androids and promptly tells one he likes it then turns to the other and says he does not like it and both are put into a logic loop after admitting to him both are identical in every way therefore it is illogical he prefers one over the other and yet their circuits don't have an overriding task handler or asynchronous message handler to sandbox or terminate rogue processes that loop that prevent other functions from operating normally by hogging the input queue and preventing other processes from sending signals, especially those used by input controllers such as useless things like touchscreens and mice and keyboards... /nerdMode

Or, in more common vernacular, "You can't compare apples and giraffes".

* well, swap "giraffe" with "chicken tenderloin" and then the phrase might be a little bit more accurate...

 

[fireproof78]

I dunno. I've never mixed pickled onions and giraffes into my apple fruit salad. All are tasty*, but they cannot be directly compared.

One might like one franchise as a go-to staple better, but do I want all of them to be the same in look and feel? No, but only because if all the franchises were the same then you wouldn't need as many. If there are franchises ("n") and they're all the same, subtract (n-1) from n and the remainder is all that's ever needed, right, just the one? That's a bit bland, isn't it? If one likes them both, one will watch them both. Liking one more than the other doesn't make much difference. Unless they're both the same, which reminds me of that scene from TOS where Spock addresses two identical androids and promptly tells one he likes it then turns to the other and says he does not like it and both are put into a logic loop after admitting to him both are identical in every way therefore it is illogical he prefers one over the other and yet their circuits don't have an overriding task handler or asynchronous message handler to sandbox or terminate rogue processes that loop that prevent other functions from operating normally by hogging the input queue and preventing other processes from sending signals, especially those used by input controllers such as useless things like touchscreens and mice and keyboards... /nerdMode

Or, in more common vernacular, "You can't compare apples and giraffes".

* well, swap "giraffe" with "chicken tenderloin" and then the phrase might be a little bit more accurate...

Worst word problem ever.

 

[Vger23]

I dunno. I've never mixed pickled onions and giraffes into my apple fruit salad. All are tasty*, but they cannot be directly compared.

One might like one franchise as a go-to staple better, but do I want all of them to be the same in look and feel? No, but only because if all the franchises were the same then you wouldn't need as many. If there are franchises ("n") and they're all the same, subtract (n-1) from n and the remainder is all that's ever needed, right, just the one? That's a bit bland, isn't it? If one likes them both, one will watch them both. Liking one more than the other doesn't make much difference. Unless they're both the same, which reminds me of that scene from TOS where Spock addresses two identical androids and promptly tells one he likes it then turns to the other and says he does not like it and both are put into a logic loop after admitting to him both are identical in every way therefore it is illogical he prefers one over the other and yet their circuits don't have an overriding task handler or asynchronous message handler to sandbox or terminate rogue processes that loop that prevent other functions from operating normally by hogging the input queue and preventing other processes from sending signals, especially those used by input controllers such as useless things like touchscreens and mice and keyboards... /nerdMode

Or, in more common vernacular, "You can't compare apples and giraffes".

* well, swap "giraffe" with "chicken tenderloin" and then the phrase might be a little bit more accurate...

 

[Boris Skrbic]

From what I’ve heard, they don’t, but I don’t expect TM to be head and shoulders above the rest of recent Star Wars either, though I’ll watch it whenever Disney+ is made available here or the series is released on Blu-ray.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

The thing that gets me about the criticism of Discovery and Picard for being 'too dark'(looking back 40 years to TNG) is that the kinds of stories and characterization on both shows is what fans were complaining TNG didn't have way back in 1987; Picard was the 'Teflon Captain' for being okay after the events of Chain Of Command, according to a reader of Starlog who complained about the show (forgetting that time passages are different on episodic TV and that what Picard had happen to him, the recovery from it must have happened over a month or two), every episode had a reset button, characters didn't change, they never bicker like Kirk, Spock & McCoy did on TOS, not enough action, Crusher & Troi were 'barefoot and pregnant at the replicator'(the title of a actual panel at a local Toronto fan-run sci-fi con in 1987!), and so on (the same thing happened with Voyager, and also included a criticism of it not having serialized plots, IIRC.) I myself have a problem with the Deep Space Nine episode Past Tense, because it did not go far enough, IMHO, in nailing why the Sanctuary Districts were created: the neocon policies of successive governments (mainly Republican ones) in the United States were responsible for creating the socioeconomic conditions that forced their creation in the first place.

History is repeating itself with the new Star Trek shows and movies, only in the 'be careful what you wish for, you might just get it' sense.

 

[Sci]

There is one candidate in my mind.

It’s a little show from 50 years ago called Star Trek.

I can think of far, far, far too many creative flaws with the original Star Trek to accept it as the "greatest science fiction series of all time."

And again, I think that comparing so many different shows with so many different artistic goals makes comparisons like this kind of meaningless. Is Star Trek: The Original Series worse than Babylon 5 or The Expanse because it lacked ongoing character arcs or serialized storylines? Not per se -- because in the context of its era, static characterization and an episodic structure was considered the artistic high point for any drama. In the context of the 1990s, dynamic characterization and semi-serialization was seen as artistically superior. In the context of the 2010s-2020s, dynamic characterization and near-total serialization was considered high prestige.

The creative goals are so different that it becomes extremely difficult to compare them fairly. You might as well compare a Puccini opera to a Mamet play.

ETA:

On the other hand, I have in the past argued that Star Trek: The Original Series is artistically inferior to most modern television, including Star Trek: Discovery, because its static characterization renders it an artistically dishonest program. Even if that was considered the mark of prestige television, an argument could be made that if the goal of any work of art is emotional or thematic honestly, modern TV shows are almost inherently artistically superior because their characters aren't expected to be written in such a way that they don't behave realistically in response to traumatic events anymore. Again -- it depends on your artistic goals.

 

[fireproof78]

This is why I find comparisons rather moot aside from an exercise in philosophy. Ultimately, when I am watching a show I am not thinking about artistic goals, characterization (static or dynamic) the framing, the music or the myriad of elements that compose the work. To do so strikes as deconstructionism of the highest order, insisting that the parts are somehow of more value than the larger work. Or that if I take apart Star Trek and show the VFX against the deconstructed VFX of the Mandalorian or the Expanse that I'll somehow come up with a fair comparison and determine which is the superior art. I don't think the artistic goals of any show is to be dissected like in an autopsy room.

With any show my rules may have become rather simple. One) is it entertaining? Two) Do I care about the characters? If the answer to both is yes then I'll largely be engaged. I won't be thinking "Oh, such-and-such show did this way better."

 

[Vger23]

When I think about the sheer audience reach, longevity, and lasting pop-culture impact, my argument stands.

And I feel extremely good about it.

 

[Lord Garth]

TOS was 79 episodes. 79 different, individual stories. I personally think that if Kirk and Spock radically changed 79 times within three years, these would not be very stable people. I think if their life situations changed 79 times within three years, these would also not be very reliable or dependable people.

DSC and PIC are able to do what they do because they have arcs spanning an entire season. DS9 had arcs that spanned an entire series.

The DS9 or DSC/PIC models wouldn't have worked on TOS, because that's not the way TOS was designed. That doesn't make it inferior. That makes it different. They couldn't shake up the main characters' lives every week. But they could shake up the main guest characters' lives every week, because every week was a different guest.

Every season, there were at least one or two stories that also shook Kirk or Spock's personal world. But unless the way it would've affected them would affect -- or continue to affect -- their abilities to carry out their duties, those affects would never be seen in a future episode. If one episode's plot doesn't advance another episode's plot in an episodic series, then it doesn't make sense to bring it up or follow up on it because it wouldn't come up naturally.

TOS had stories where episodes had a beginning, middle, and end. DSC and PIC have stories where seasons have a beginning, middle, and end.

DS9 was something else. It didn't wrap up storylines at the end of every season, it let them continue. DSC/PIC, on the other hand, will wrap up as much as they can by the time the credits roll on the end of the season.

TNG and VOY were some kind of middle-ground between the TOS and DS9 approaches. ENT? Well, that depended on the season...

 

[Sci]

This is why I find comparisons rather moot aside from an exercise in philosophy. Ultimately, when I am watching a show I am not thinking about artistic goals, characterization (static or dynamic) the framing, the music or the myriad of elements that compose the work.

That's literally how I watch everything. I always want to take apart the watch and see what makes it tick as I'm watching it.

TOS was 79 episodes. 79 different, individual stories. I personally think that if Kirk and Spock radically changed 79 times within three years, these would not be very stable people.

Except no one has ever contended that characters must radically change with each episode in order for the series as a whole to have psychologically realistic or honest writing. Characters can be dynamic and change over time.

Every season, there were at least one or two stories that also shook Kirk or Spock's personal world.

I mean, yes and no? There were episodes that in theory should have shaken Kirk's or Spock's personal worlds, but inevitably there were no real consequences to those things. Kirk fell in love with Edith Keeler, watched her die before his eyes, and then never gave her a second thought in any other episode. The very next episode, his brother was kill on Deneva -- and again, he never gives his brother a second thought the rest of the series.

I understand that that was the fundamental creative conceit of American television at the time, especially because they were trying to imitate the structure of anthology shows that were considered prestigious. But it can be hard to invest in the drama of TOS sometimes because of that.

(One of the reasons The Wrath of Khan is so good is that it deconstructs TOS's habit of refusing to depict the realistic psychological consequences of what its characters went through by re-framing Kirk as a man who spent his youth afraid of commitment and of dealing with the consequences of his choices.)

But unless the way it would've affected them would affect -- or continue to affect -- their abilities to carry out their duties, those affects would never be seen in a future episode. If one episode's plot doesn't advance another episode's plot in an episodic series, then it doesn't make sense to bring it up or follow up on it because it wouldn't come up naturally.

When people lose someone they love, they don't just stop grieving within two weeks because it's not relevant to their jobs during work hours. A story about losing a loved one is inherently a promissory note to the audience that a story about processing grief is going to follow; when it does not follow, the original story is undermined.

 

[Lord Garth]

When people lose someone they love, they don't just stop grieving within two weeks because it's not relevant to their jobs during work hours.

I'm going to stop you right now. You might not know this, but my mother died when I was 18. I do not need to be told about this.

I watched as it took her three days to die from cancer in the hospital. I cried during Day 2. In front of a lot of people and it came very suddenly. But after three days, I more or less expected her to die when it finally happened. It a was a Monday morning. October 20th, 1997 to be exact. About six in the morning. I heard the news, I was sad. But I didn't cry at that point. It had already happened.

I took the week off. I was visibly upset/sad, during the first day. At the wake, things were as fine with everyone I knew as could be, under the circumstances.

After the burial, we all got together at a mutual friend's house. By the middle of it, a member of the god-family (who's into Renaissance Festivals) and is a Trekkie was telling me about how DS9 is a "second-rate show" and that Babylon 5 was so much better. So, within a week, basically, we were back at talking about the usual stuff.

A story about losing a loved one is inherently a promissory note to the audience that a story about processing grief is going to follow; when it does not follow, the original story is undermined.

So after the week off, on the first day, I heard a lot of "sorry about your mom." I appreciated it, but I didn't want to talk about it to them.

I got a new, part-time job (seasonal) at a toy store, less than two weeks later. I'd applied for it before my mother died and she know I was going for it. One of the toys sang a song, one of those things where you pull a string, it made me think about my mother for a moment, then I shook it off. I didn't tell my co-workers anything about what was going on in my life. Other than I was also a student. It was none of their business. They'd never know that I just lost a parent.

EDIT: Not that it's anyone's business here, but the time it hit me the hardest again was 18 years later. The day before October 20th. Upon the realization that my mother had been dead for half my life. It hit me when I least expected it. Some years it bothers me, other years it doesn't. You never know when it's going to strike and this time it struck hard. But it works very differently than what dramas on TV would have you believe.

Two days, later, on October 21st, 2015, I invited friends over because it was "Back to the Future Day" and we watched Back to the Future, Part II at my place as they arrived in 2015. We got a kick out of it, and I even dressed the part. Neon, inside-out pants, the whole nine yards. We didn't talk about what happened two days earlier at all. Even though they all knew about it because I made a huge post about it on Facebook (back at a time when I was posting everything on there).

Probably a good thing I came back to TrekBBS. They'd be sick of me talking about Discovery and Picard by now, otherwise.

 

[fireproof78]

That's literally how I watch everything. I always want to take apart the watch and see what makes it tick as I'm watching it.

I will take it apart after the fact, in discussion with friends, and such. In the moment I am engaging with the work, not what it is composed of. Not saying that people can't do that; obviously they can. But, to me, that's like taking a stew and eating the different parts separately. Yes, you have some of the essence there but it is missing a part of what makes a stew a stew.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

The Mandolorian is beautifully made popcorn and I'd argue it's superior to most of the movies that spawned it. However it lacks the richness of any form of Trek. I've never been a Star Wars fanatic, at least not since I was very young. Star Trek however, in all it's iterations, is a thing I can live, breathe and believe in.

 

[JamesRye]

In terms of cultural impact and viewing numbers, Discovery pales in comparison to the Mandalorian. It's one of those shows that *everyone* has seen and even if they haven't, they know about baby Yoda. Ask the *average* person about Star Trek - and I bet they could name elements from TOS and a handful from TNG.

 

[F. King Daniel]

In terms of cultural impact and viewing numbers, Discovery pales in comparison to the Mandalorian. It's one of those shows that *everyone* has seen and even if they haven't, they know about baby Yoda. Ask the *average* person about Star Trek - and I bet they could name elements from TOS and a handful from TNG.

That's because Baby Yoda was a meme. If that hadn't caught on like it did (and exactly like Baby Groot did a few years before), would as many people care?

 

[JamesRye]

Quid Pro Quo. It became a meme because so many people watch and love the show. And continue to do so because it's Star Wars.

In *some* peoples eyes, Star Trek is no longer Star Trek. Doug Drexler sums up nicely why Star Trek no longer resonates with *some* fans - and also why The Mandalorian holds onto its audience, because it is familiar.

"Roddenberry knew how to grow the Star Trek fan base. He understood the power of engendering a proprietary attitude in his fans. He did this by working to make sure that they felt a part of the show, and that they were not just spectators. He did it by making sure that the melody, and rhythm fans anticipated were there, and like a favorite song, resulted in that all important feel-good endorphin cascade. In the seminal work, The Making of Star Trek by Stephen E Whitfield, Roddenberry referred to it as "The Believabilty Factor", and it applies equally to technology, characters, and the tapestry of it's history. As a calculated plan to cement and assure the future success of Star Trek, Roddenberry wisely suggested that Michael and Denise Okuda organize a compendium of facts, aesthetics, and historical pivot points so that the shows writers, and ultimately its fans, would believe in this sprawling Universe, engage their pituitary glands, and bask in the warm cascade of endorphins."

https://www.facebook.com/doug.drexler.7/posts/10155907067631104

The whole post makes for fascinating reading.

 

[fireproof78]

In terms of cultural impact and viewing numbers, Discovery pales in comparison to the Mandalorian. It's one of those shows that *everyone* has seen and even if they haven't, they know about baby Yoda. Ask the *average* person about Star Trek - and I bet they could name elements from TOS and a handful from TNG.

That's been true for decades now. I always was impressed with ST 09 because it actually got my mom to sit down and watch Star Trek. She hates science fiction, including Star Wars, and hasn't watched a frame of the Mandalorian, despite my dad.

The whole post makes for fascinating reading.

I did read it but I missed the quote you shared. And that last part is supremely unsettling in that it feels like it is manipulating the audience in to liking it because it is comfortable. I know many value comfort, and I have things that I find comfort in as well. But, Star Trek isn't one of them. And being told that the whole reason I like Star Trek is because of engaging pituitary glands and endorphins and continuity is that instrument is the most strange sentence I have read in a while.

But, despite that "ugh" feeling, you are right that it is a fascinating read.

 

[Lord Garth]

I think until Strange New Worlds comes out, we don't have a full idea of what the complete range of New Trek is like.

It seems like Discovery, Picard, Lower Decks, Strange New Worlds, and Prodigy all have different tones, different styles, and different aims.

I also have a feeling that there are going to be a ton of people who say, "I don't like Discovery or Picard, but I love Strange New Worlds!" The same thing happened with Lower Decks.

The same thing happened with Picard too, actually. There are several non-DSC fans of PIC.