• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Is SNW too much of an ensemble show?

The reason we're only getting ten episodes is the cost of making them is so high that they can only afford to do ten.

that’s where bottle episodes that don’t need a ton of effects work come in. Something like “Carbon Creek” or “Shuttle Pod One” from Enterprise come to mind. Not every episode needs to have ‘splosions and shots of the gigantic Engineering section.

I vote for 17 episodes per Annual Season.

That is the perfect amount IMO.

I’d say 18. Give us an even number.

When was the last time Michael Piller was mentioned in trek fandom. I hate that he seems to be already forgotten.

or Ira Behr for that matter.
 
I’d say 18. Give us an even number.
17 works better for Trimesters in a Year.
3x 17-week or 17 episode seasons = 1 Trimester Season

The Floating 1 week is for X-mas/New -Years time off.

That's why I picked 17 eps or 17 weeks.

Plus you can have Double-Length Season Opening / Season Ending episodes anyways ^_-
 
. DS9 not only managed to successfully flesh out the main cast but a half-dozen secondary ones as well. .

Honestly half dozen is a tremendous understatement!

Bareil
Nog
Rom
Brunt
Leeta
Garak
Dukat
Damar
Weyoun
The Female Changeling
Kai Winn
Admiral Ross
Michael Eddington
Joseph Sisko
Martok
Gowron (continuing from TNG, true!)
Vic
Ziyal
Kassidy
Zek

The producers had of course scores of episodes a season to do that, but honestly DS9 has such extensive, successful secondary characters.
 
The only way they would be a killer is if there were all bad. If the majority of the season is great, I can never get enough.
Okay, you do you. Personally I find more than twenty episodes a season, even if I do enjoy all or a majority of them is just too much for a rewatch.
I couldn't disagree more. From TOS thru Enterprise, even the worst seasons had more than 10 "good ones." Most of them had close to twenty good ones and some were so solid that there were very few I'd call stinkers.
One of the main reasons why that joke on Futurama about TOS being "79 episodes, about 30 good ones" is so funny is because it's so true. And yes, TNG through to Enterprise have a similar percentage ratio of good episodes.
And 26 episodes is rough on cast and crew.
Very true. Back in the 90s they would spend at least 16 hours a day filming the Trek shows and each episode usually took 6 days to film. They got one day off before starting the next episode. And that was the pattern they maintained for twenty-six episodes. That kind of shit is inhuman. With ten episodes, it's nowhere near as exhausting for everyone.
 
And 26 episodes is rough on cast and crew.

I don't agree. Most US Network TV shows still clock in at 22 episodes on average and the cast and crew of those shows are just fine. Imagine if these folks did this in the 50's when 36 episodes was common and the show were lead driven. In fact, with larger ensembles, long seasons are easier on the cast since you can split them up. (much like SNW does already) The days of actors like David Janssen carrying the load in 30 episodes per season to the point of exhaustion are over.

It's probably more about budget and streaming platform standards. Shows like SNW and DISCO look like features (and a lot of the Disney + shows). I imagine the money wouldn't go nearly as far spread over 22 episodes. I also would imagine a shorter season makes it easier for the cast to pursue other opportunities, but they could certainly handle a 22 episode season with no sweat.
 
Last edited:
In answer to the question as posed: no.

This is exactly what I want to see out of a modern Trek series, set in the days leading into TOS.
 
I think there are better, more interesting characters in SNW and I think there are ones who aren't as good. They are all great, but as with everything, there is a relative continuum.

I do think the show would be better served, with only 10 episodes per season, to really focus on the stronger characters more. That doesn't mean turning Number One (for example) into Bryce from DSC. It just means that I think the show would be best-served using their best characters and actors most frequently, and having the others support and have their moments. That's still "ensemble," but it need not be "everyone gets paid equal attention over 10 episodes ensemble."
 
They've got a solid cast. Use them.

That said, I do wonder if ten episodes is a little lean for this style of storytelling. It feels like we only just kicked off and we're only 4 away from another year (or two) gap.

10 is a good length for serialized shows (not serialized Trek obviously; 10 episodes is about 4-5 too many). There are options between 10 and the traditional 26, though. I think 12-16 would be the sweet spot for giving everyone some time to shine, several more evenly distributed ensemble outings and most importantly, keep the filler at bay.
 
Were we not still in mid-Pandemic, I'd be inclined to agree with the desire for more episodes per season. As it is, I worry about pushing the luck of cast and production crew alike.
 
I think this kind of storytelling, episodic with underlying story threats running, is exactly what works best for Star Trek. What I really love about this show is there is no "universe ending" big bad. It's all about the weekly plots with character concerns continuing, Much like Hill Street Blues used to do. This allows for different styles of stories like comedy, drama, hard SF and so on, without feeling like a "filler" episode on the way to some blockbuster conclusion. I missed this kind of format in Trek.

(I don't watch Lower Decks of Prodigy so I don't know how they do things).
 
Were we not still in mid-Pandemic, I'd be inclined to agree with the desire for more episodes per season. As it is, I worry about pushing the luck of cast and production crew alike.

The whole world has gone back to business as usual. Certainly the entertainment industry has. I think they're still taking some additional precautions like a lot of the crews masking up on the soundstages, which is more than I can say about any of the hospitals I've visited in the last month.
 
Very true. Back in the 90s they would spend at least 16 hours a day filming the Trek shows and each episode usually took 6 days to film. They got one day off before starting the next episode. And that was the pattern they maintained for twenty-six episodes. That kind of shit is inhuman. With ten episodes, it's nowhere near as exhausting for everyone.

Brent Spiner tells a story of how he found out that Masks was another Data heavy show just before they filmed it and he was so rushed that he and the other cast kept laughing on set at how bad his "characters" were...
 
TNG tended to schedule seven or eight day shoots depending on how complex the episode was.
 
I see this series as being more about "the voyages of the Starship Enterprise" rather than the adventures of Captain Pike, though he certainly gets the focus. I think they have struck a good balance in featuring the cast. Also, James Kirk is fair game for this series and I am enjoying the first serious exploration of his character since the original series and the odd movie bit.
 
Last edited:
We’re “mid-pandemic” 3.5 years later? What are you basing that on?
I'll stop masking up, and swabbing myself once a week, and buying N95s by the 25-pack, when we get to Washington's Birthday without a significant outbreak.

Star Trek has always been an ensemble show. So was M*A*S*H. So was WKRP In Cincinnati. So, despite being named after their nominal lead characters, were Barney Miller and Welcome Back, Kotter.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top