Is star trek as we knew it in the 90's dead? lets ask the spirit guides.

[Vger23]

Exactly, one character. That doesn't even come close to making a show.

There was very little character evolution in any of the previous iterations of Star Trek. Every episode virtually felt like a reset button. I don't really blame the shows, as that was the nature of episodic television....but to claim otherwise is to live in a massive rose-colored haze of bias and nostalgia.

With 28 episodes per season, yes, you would get entire episodes of Data learning to tap dance or Nog trying to sell stembolts. What you call "character development" was nothing more than budget-saving filler. It was generally that or just singular episodes focusing on one particular character trying to solve an episodic problem. Rarely, if ever, did it actually provide any kind of deep insight or lasting evolutionary change to the character. It's more like "Shit, we haven't featured Beverly yet this season....let's have HER be the one that gets stuck in the warp bubble" or "Man, we've shortchanged the piss out of Geordi lately....can it be HIM who transforms into an invisible lizard man?" Or "Let's have O'Brien be the one to have this shitty experience!"

They are generic sci-if stories that plug various members of the cast in. They rarely cause any lasting effect or character changes to take place.

So yeah, I suppose if we want one episode of Raffi looking for her sneakers in the holodeck and an episode where Detmer realizes her Christmas card didn't make it home in time...then sure, these new series are definitely not for you. Instead, they are generally short-arc stories that focus primarily on the journey of the one major character (Picard or Burnham in this case). It's fine if that's not to your liking. Everyone has different tastes.

But it's absolute horseshit to say the shows are shallow and not about characters. That's just rationalizing your bias.

 

[F. King Daniel]

STP was totally a reset button, it just took ten episodes of plot holes and linoleum sock skating to get around to it.

To say that you've missed the point entirely. A story is much more than the legal status of androids or whether a character is dead or alive.

Spoiler: Picard

Picard has grown, he admitted he loved Raffi and Data. He's moved on from Data's death. Raffi's begun turning her life around and climbing out of the gutter. Rios has gotten over his first captain's death.

But yeah, everything's EXACTLY as it was at the end of Nemesis

 

[fireproof78]

But it's absolute horseshit to say the shows are shallow and not about characters. That's just rationalizing your bias.

I think a lot of personal opinions around Trek is rationalizing personal preferences, and ignoring past Treks doing the exact same thing.

To say that you've missed the point entirely. A story is much more than the legal status of androids or whether a character is dead or alive.

Spoiler: Picard

Picard has grown, he admitted he loved Raffi and Data. He's moved on from Data's death. Raffi's begun turning her life around and climbing out of the gutter. Rios has gotten over his first captain's death.

But yeah, everything's EXACTLY as it was at the end of Nemesis

Again, its a matter of rationalizing personal opinion. For many the end of the journey is more important than how it happened.

 

[BlueStuff]

During the '90s, I was online and there were people who wondered if '60s Trek was dead.
Now it's the 2020s, I'm online and there are people who wonder if '90s Trek is dead.

I guess I know what to look forward to 30 years from now...

One day, there will be fans online pining for the "classic" era of Discovery and Picard!

 

[Nerys Myk]

Based on the fact that the narrative structure is objectively bad. Its full of holes and doesn't make logical sense. That doesn't mean people can't like it or think its fun. Its perfectly fine if people enjoy the spectacle. It also doesn't mean there aren't some good things in it. But major part of the story don't make sense.

So... you're saying it's Star Trek?

 

[The Wormhole]

When Paramount became a network, they made Voyager its "flagship" show even though DS9 is only 2 years older.

That one actually makes sense. IIRC, Voyager's premiere more or less synced up with UPN's launch. They were going for the synergy of having a new network and a new show taking off at the same time.

And sometimes it led to intentionally shitty deaths like Jadzia's because if legend is true Rick Berman was mad at her. And she never reappeared in the finale flashbacks again because Berman didn't want her to have any royalty payments.

There's a bit more to that story. What happened was an earlier season 7 episode used audio clips of Jadzia without paying Terry Farrell royalties, which she lodged a complaint about, and as a result of that they weren't permitted to use clips of her in the flashback sequences in WYLB.

 

[Lord Garth]

I don't know what Midnight's Edge or Doomcock are, and I'm not part of any tribe. My only agenda in watching STP was in thinking that it might be good. As far as toxicity goes, on this BBS I've mostly seen criticisms of the show answered with criticism of the poster and self-aggrandizement about how one's own way of interacting with fiction is the right way.

You're better off not knowing who they are. Just so we're clear: we're cool. I have no problem with you whatsoever.

The thing I'm talking about it is something else. Let's just say I've dealt with people who've treated their videos like gospel before...

 

[JonnyQuest037]

There's a bit more to that story. What happened was an earlier season 7 episode used audio clips of Jadzia without paying Terry Farrell royalties, which she lodged a complaint about, and as a result of that they weren't permitted to use clips of her in the flashback sequences in WYLB.

Geez, that's screwed up. Good for her and her people for going after them about it, even though it was horribly strange not having anyone flashback to any memories of Jadzia in the finale.

 

[Nightdiamond]

For the others you mention, I basically agree with the criticism, though I think Worf, rather than Riker, was one of the "big three".

True, I think Worf got more attention and focus on TNG than the others. I think it definitely helped set him up for DS9 where he got even more character attention. DS9 did miracles with how it made supporting characters the most iconic in the franchise.

TNG was a lot more fairer than TOS, since each character got a few episodes dedicated just to them, while that was impossible for TOS, with characters like Uhura. I would have loved to have seen her in more scenes and more details about her personality.

I'm not really a fan of the Nu Trek movies, but this is one of the things I like about it. It gave those characters a lot more to do and say. In ways you couldn't from the TV show.

When people die in these new shows, no one cares because there is no emotional attachment to them. That is a key element to a successful long lasting show.

I think there is some truth to this, mainly because some shows are overdoing the "anyone can die" trope. And that easy to spot. One thing worse though, is the "hero armor" thing, that 90's Trek overdid.

Eventually you stop feeling suspense if you know the crew is going to solve the plot in time and all the "important" characters make it out OK. They would sacrifice Red Shirts just to show us how dangerous the plot was, and then of course the heros would solve it. And they did so much, they sometimes forget and laugh and crack jokes at the end. Very outdated now.

Even DS9 suffered from that on occasion, like that Cardassian boy raised by Bajorans to hate Cardassians who in the end had to leave with his Cardassian father. Whatever happened to him? Why get emotionally invested in the episode? We'll never know his story.

By the way, there's a really really good novel out about what happened to him. All the characters in it are fleshed out, no matter how minor. It shows Cardassia in a very interesting light.

I hardly read that many Trek novels, but this one is good. It's like watching a 4 hour movie in your mind.

 

[Sakonna]

Heck, I just remembered that Neelix episode where he lost his faith after some near death experience and was so bereft he contemplated suicide (the details are fuzzy as I haven’t seen it in a decade). Fair enough, but incredibly his faith was never mentioned either before or after that episode, so whatever ‘character development’ took place was utterly meaningless.

And I can never get over how this episode introduced Seven has the ability to BRING THE DEAD BACK TO LIFE, which is never again used or mentioned! So many dead red-shirts she stood over as everyone looked sadly at the bodies, and no one ever jumps in to prompt "Hey Seven, maybe you could... ?"

These days, there would be no need to back away from it because that could be an arc -- they become their own little cult on the ship, the crewmembers brought back from the dead with Borg tech.

 

[at Quark's]

^But that's normal in Trek.

- Discoveries/experiments with astonishing potential that would revolutionise medical technology (or any other area of technology) are shelved, never to be heard from again
- Experiences that would leave any sane 21st century person permanently psychologically crippled, or at least deeply troubled for years, are overcome and even mostly forgotten by the next week.

I suppose that all falls under we're Starfleet officers. Weird is part of the job.

 

[Qonundrum]

Based on the fact that the narrative structure is objectively bad. Its full of holes and doesn't make logical sense. That doesn't mean people can't like it or think its fun. Its perfectly fine if people enjoy the spectacle. It also doesn't mean there aren't some good things in it. But major part of the story don't make sense.

That depends on which parts don't make sense and what one can roll with. I'd leave it to the original fan to like or dislike after a certain and reasonable point, and all the youtube channels.

It's no secret I like the Kurtzman Era better than the Berman Era.

BUT

I just watched the first season of ENT. I rated the episodes as I went along. Because I wanted to compare it with what I thought of everything else. For some perspective, I also just finished re-watching TNG before Picard and did similar. I rated each episode on a four-star scale. These are how I rated the each season of TNG and the first season of ENT.

TNG S1 --> 2.52
TNG S2 --> 2.70
TNG S3 --> 3.02
TNG S4 --> 3.08
TNG S5 --> 2.96
TNG S6 --> 3.06
TNG S7 --> 2.90
ENT S1 --> 2.46

What does this tell you? I like the first season of ENT about as much as the first season of TNG. Doesn't sound too good, does it? But look closer. I gave them both two-and-a-half stars. Whereas I gave most seasons of TNG three stars.

So it's true, I didn't like ENT or the first season of TNG as much as the other seasons. But the gap between them was less than arguments of TrekBBS would imply. The internet has a bad habit of exaggerating what's out there and exaggerating our perspectives.

I also ranked ENT on a 10-scale at the same time. Which is what I use for DSC and PIC. So how did the first season of ENT compare to the three seasons of CBS All Access Star Trek?

ENT S1 --> 7.0
DSC S1 --> 8.4
DSC S2 --> 8.7
PIC S1 --> 8.7

Once again, while it's still true I like DSC and PIC better (which will surprise absolutely no one who's even remotely familiar with my posts), the gap in my opinion of them isn't as much as I thought it would be. I like some Star Trek better than other Star Trek. But it doesn't mean the Star Trek I like less is total garbage and it doesn't mean that I can't recognize any of what's good in it.

To flip it around: I think some people's perceptions between the differences in quality are also exaggerated. Do you really, honestly think the Kurtzman Era series are that much worse? Really? Or is it the perception online that takes on a life of its own that's what's really fueling it?

ENT was at the tail end of Trek's burnout period, of course it will have lower ratings than many superseding it or prior to it... But I digress: Decades go by. In come new series and movies using nostalgia as a crutch. "Hey, it's Picard! We all like Picard! Let's see what happens!!" So in all honesty, there's no need to guess which would have higher ratings to start out with.

Also note, ratings HAVE fallen for all of those shows since their premieres. (To extrapolate, Canada lost 30% of its viewers (source link in that thread), though Canada is not the US and they don't like Patrick as much as American do. So for all anyone knows, the US gained viewers. Or maybe they went down in the US too. CBS subscriptions went up because PIC premiered, but that's almost as much of a given as "Little Billy goes into a candy store and eats as much as he can while in there."

Also, let's put this "BUT THE RATINGS" thing to bed and let's use this time-tested crutch as well: There was a time when everybody smoked cigarettes and if you didn't you weren't cool. It's not the best parallel because entertainment isn't the same thing as clogging one's lungs with tar over the passing decades, but it's all good. Art is still subjective, and on the part of the one gawking at it.

(On edit: clarification fix of "weren't cool", my bad *blush*)

 

[JesterFace]

Nostalgia.
That might be the reason none of the fresh material can feel as good as the "good old".

Obviously we all have our own good old. For some it's the original Star Trek. For some it's something else. For me it's TNG because that's how I got into Star Trek in the 90s.

 

[Lord Garth]

That depends on which parts don't make sense and what one can roll with. I'd leave it to the original fan to like or dislike after a certain and reasonable point, and all the youtube channels.

ENT was at the tail end of Trek's burnout period, of course it will have lower ratings than many superseding it or prior to it... But I digress: Decades go by. In come new series and movies using nostalgia as a crutch. "Hey, it's Picard! We all like Picard! Let's see what happens!!" So in all honesty, there's no need to guess which would have higher ratings to start out with.

Also note, ratings HAVE fallen for all of those shows since their premieres. (To extrapolate, Canada lost 30% of its viewers (source link in that thread), though Canada is not the US and they don't like Patrick as much as American do. So for all anyone knows, the US gained viewers. Or maybe they went down in the US too. CBS subscriptions went up because PIC premiered, but that's almost as much of a given as "Little Billy goes into a candy store and eats as much as he can while in there."

Also, let's put this "BUT THE RATINGS" thing to bed and let's use this time-tested crutch as well: There was a time when everybody smoked cigarettes and if you didn't you were cool. It's not the best parallel because entertainment isn't the same thing as clogging one's lungs with tar over the passing decades, but it's all good. Art is still subjective, and on the part of the one gawking at it.

We're not looking at this from the same angle. So I'll show you where I'm looking at it from. But I'm not feeling 100% today (no, it has nothing to do with Covid-19, I've been having sleeping problems, and I have to care of something). So the truncated version of what would've been a longer and more detailed post.

There are only so many one-and-done ideas that the writers can come up with before they start repeating themselves. And if you watch enough episodes, you realize a lot of them are disposable. You can skip 80% of a season of Old Trek (excluding DS9 once it gets going) and not miss any critical information. You can only come up with so many different things that you're introducing for the first time. DSC and PIC had to try a different approach.

Let me put it another way. The human eye can only see so many separate colors: violet, blue, green, yellow, orange, red, that's our range. Those are the primary colors. If you want to see more colors, you have to start combining what you can already see. That's how you get secondary colors.

Old Trek showed us all the primary colors. New Trek is showing us secondary colors.

PIC combined elements from TNG, the movies, and VOY. The tone feels like DSC meets TNG. PIC is combining what's in its pallet to create colors that are richer than the plain colors you get with Old Trek.

The same with DSC. If you combine the Kelvin style with the DS9 style, add some TOS backstory, and combine visuals from the TOS Movies and Kelvin Movies, you get DSC. Now it's shifting to 1,000 years later and you either get to see what became of every race in Old Trek or you get to shake it up and because 1,000 years will change everything about political alliances, the state of the galaxy, how everyone sees each other, and their outlook.

People who prefer Old Trek want a different thing introduced entirely from scratch every week. People who prefer New Trek want to take what was previously established and build it into something more. This is why I and others keep saying out of all the Old Trek series, DS9 is the one that's the most like New Trek.

That's the short version of what I wanted to type.