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

[Gordie]

I would also argue Dahj and Soji, Data posthumously, and to a lesser extent: Seven, Rios, and Musiker.

But keep moving those goalposts.

Well I guess we have a differing opinion on what character development is., 90's Trek would have entire episodes devoted to the different main cast. Picard is fluff just trying to make a quick buck with no substance.

But anyway, try to stay on topic, no need to try and derail the thread.

Cheers.

 

[Lord Garth]

Well I guess we have a differing opinion on what character development is.

Finally something we agree with.

 

[Lord Garth]

Anyway. Not related specifically to Picard but to serialized series in general, if you have a 10 or 13-episode season, and enough episodes have at least one scene devoted to each character's story then, by the end of the season, you have enough of those arc-building scenes that it adds up to at least an episode's worth of character focus or development on that character.

The focus is still there, it's just spread out differently. You see it in bits and pieces throughout instead of concentrated all at once into a particular episode.

But then again, when DSC concentrated character development into a particular episode like old-schoolers claim they want, they went up in arms. So who knows? There's no way to tell if they'll actually like what they say they want until it's there for us to see. Which I already said up-thread.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Well I guess we have a differing opinion on what character development is., 90's Trek would have entire episodes devoted to the different main cast.

98% of which ended in the 42-minute reset, and said character was back at their post entirely unchanged for the next episode.

Picard is fluff just trying to make a quick buck with no substance.

A show where characters actually learned and changed? The 90something Jean Luc Picard, veteran of 178 episodes and 4 movies had meaningful character growth in 10 episodes of Picard.

 

[ananta]

Well I guess we have a differing opinion on what character development is., 90's Trek would have entire episodes devoted to the different main cast. Picard is fluff just trying to make a quick buck with no substance.

Let me play devil’s advocate for a second. Not bashing 90’s Trek, which I do love, but how much meaningful character development did those episodes which focused on the different cast actually have? How much did Geordi, Riker, Beverly, or Chakotay, Harry Kim or whatsisface Mayweather ever change or grow? It was by and large token “character development” that was by and large reset by the end of the episode—more in line with the 60’s Trek style than today’s television landscape. DS9 was the exception, at least in its later seasons, and even then it often dropped the ball.

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.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

We still have the excellent Orville

 

[Tim Walker]

Though really, while 90s Trek is my favourite Trek (at least TNG and DS9) it was far from perfect and could be pretty dumb on ocassion. Sarkonna has already pointed out many of the problems, but there's also the frequent lack of gravitas and consequences to stories. You just now that most of the time, no matter what happens to the main characters it will be reset next episode.

Wagon Train To The Stars....

Something I have described before, which might help to refresh Trek. A tweaking of the format.

Wagon Train (the old Western) built stories around guest stars. These guest stars might be members of the wagon train, or people met along the way. There were a few regular characters, but because the drama was based on the guest stars there was no need for a reset button. Characters could appear in one story and be irrevocably changed.

 

[Orphalesion]

Wagon Train To The Stars....

Something I have described before, which might help to refresh Trek. A tweaking of the format.

Wagon Train (the old Western) built stories around guest stars. These guest stars might be members of the wagon train, or people met along the way. There were a few regular characters, but because the drama was based on the guest stars there was no need for a reset button. Characters could appear in one story and be irrevocably changed.

But why even have the regulars then, if they are static constants that only move the plot along for the guest stars which we will never see again? Why get invested in the regulars if they are just plot devices? Why care what happens to the guest stars if we're never gonna see them again?

That sounds like a model that's a little bit outdated.

 

[Tim Walker]

Instead of regular characters....recurring characters. There was bit of this in TOS: Lt. Kyle, the transporter chief, made occasional appearances; Riley appeared in a couple episodes. In TNG, the character of Sonya Gomez appeared in a couple episodes.

My idea is that using recurring characters might give a sense of continuity to an anthology series. That, and re-using the same Hero Ship.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Based on the wording of the post, I think that JohnnyQuest was joking too.

It's why I put a winky emoticon at the end.

 

[Nightdiamond]

That was almost all the time. The earliest promos for Enterprise billed it as "Before Kirk. Before Picard. Before Janeway." No mention of Sisko at all. There was also a special on Patrick Stewart that A&E aired in 2003 that ran a poll asking your favourite Star Trek captain that included Kirk, Picard, Janeway and Archer. But not Sisko.

Oh, I remember, they basically tried to airbrush DS9 out of Trek and that was even WHILE IT WAS AIRING. People often criticise Avery Brooks for not being more INTO Trek as the other actors mainly are, but from what I’ve heard he was treated very poorly, so I don’t entirely blame him for maintaining a bit of a distance. I was horrified reading Mark Altman’s “Fifty Year Mission” book, Rick Berman tears Brooks to shreds in a fairly personal and vindictive attack.

They always seemed to do things like that. It was so weird. Like DS9 was the red headed step child of series. When Paramount became a network, they made Voyager its "flagship" show even though DS9 is only 2 years older. Even now, some networks are slow to add DS9 to it's lineup --BBCA is just now catching up. Before this,it was showing TNG and Voyager constantly for years.

It's like everyone praises DS9, but they don't respect it as much. Or maybe it's the other way around?

By the way, Fifty Year Mission has a lot of good, unfiltered behind the scene stories. A lot surprising, if not shocking stuff in it.

Let me play devil’s advocate for a second. Not bashing 90’s Trek, which I do love, but how much meaningful character development did those episodes which focused on the different cast actually have? How much did Geordi, Riker, Beverly, or Chakotay, Harry Kim or whatsisface Mayweather ever change or grow?

But why even have the regulars then, if they are static constants that only move the plot along for the guest stars which we will never see again? Why get invested in the regulars if they are just plot devices? Why care what happens to the guest stars if we're never gonna see them again?

That sounds like a model that's a little bit outdated.

I don't like bashing TNG, (it used to be THE show) but I have to agree. One day while watching both Insurrection and Nemesis, I noticed that characters like Geordi, Dr. Crusher, Worf, even Guinan, were basically the same people they were 15 years before. It was like they were frozen in their roles.

It seems like the basic formula then was to focus on the 'big three', the main characters, Picard, Riker, and Data. They got to change, grow, express their thoughts, etc. But the supporting cast, it's like they're frozen. TOS was even worse, IMO. The focus was always Kirk, Spock and McCoy, both on the show and in all the movies.

Geordi was chief engineer. Crusher was the doctor. Guinan was just there for a few moments. Worf was supposed to be a high ranking ambassador, but as soon as he came aboard, he was back acting as a security officer just like before.That was it. It seemed neither had girlfriends, boyfriends or spouses, were leaving the crew for another assignment elsewhere, or taking a new path.

To be honest, that changed the way I saw them, and TNG afterwards.

It was like their purpose was to fulfill those roles while the "main" characters have the adventures and drama. It does seem outdated now, today some of the best shows are driven by all the characters in the cast.

 

[Lord Garth]

I've got to add something that reinforces my (and several others') point that the Berman Era was running out of gas. The first season of ENT was okay. But I'm half-way through the second season, and it's not looking too good. I'm sorry to say it's living down to its reputation. The idea of "We're in the 22nd Century now!" worked for the first season, but it wore off by the second.

That was basically the last leg of doing Old Trek the Old Way and it ran its course. They went as far with it as they possibly could. It's 2020 now and we don't need that version of Star Trek coming back. It's done.

Between TOS, TNG, VOY, and the first two seasons of ENT, there were 19 seasons of "Traditional" Trek. Seasons that were twice as long as what we're getting with Discovery and Picard. Everyone who still wants this type of Star Trek got their fair share. How much of my version of Star Trek have I had compared to how much you had of yours? It's not like you got the short end of the stick.

 

[at Quark's]

I don't like bashing TNG, (it used to be THE show) but I have to agree. One day while watching both Insurrection and Nemesis, I noticed that characters like Geordi, Dr. Crusher, Worf, even Guinan, were basically the same people they were 15 years before. It was like they were frozen in their roles.

For Guinan, I can buy it. First, she isn't on screen that often, so doesn't get much screen time to develop (and hence seeing a S7 Guinan as profoundly different from S2 Guinan as for Picard or Data would have been alienating to the viewers as they never got the intermediate steps). Second, she's lived for five centuries at the very least at that point already, so those seven years on the ent-D would only be a very short period to her, just a drop of extra experience added to her already immense total of life experiences- so she would be unlikely to change much over that short amount of time.

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

 

[Gordie]

98% of which ended in the 42-minute reset, and said character was back at their post entirely unchanged for the next episode.

That's not what I saw. Everyone of those episodes would add to the story of the character which would at times come into play in future episodes.

Some characters would get more focus than others. Picard, and Data from TNG for example. Others wouldn't get too much coverage like KIm from Voyager.

These types of episodes would introduce new planets, aliens and new characters. Some of which would go on to be fan favorites and become recurring characters. Barclay and Q comes to mind.

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.

 

[F. King Daniel]

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.

In the old shows, nobody died unless the actor left the show. 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.

In Discovery and Picard, character deaths leave lasting marks on the living - like Picard's 20 year wound from Data's sacrifice in Nemesis, or Phillipa's death casting a shadow over Michael for the entire first season. And in the case of Airiam, they made me care about her in one episode.

 

[Qonundrum]

I've got to add something that reinforces my (and several others') point that the Berman Era was running out of gas. The first season of ENT was okay. But I'm half-way through the second season, and it's not looking too good. I'm sorry to say it's living down to its reputation. The idea of "We're in the 22nd Century now!" worked for the first season, but it wore off by the second.

That was basically the last leg of doing Old Trek the Old Way and it ran its course. They went as far with it as they possibly could. It's 2020 now and we don't need that version of Star Trek coming back. It's done.

^^this

Between TOS, TNG, VOY, and the first two seasons of ENT, there were 19 seasons of "Traditional" Trek. Seasons that were twice as long as what we're getting with Discovery and Picard. How much of my version of Star Trek have I had compared to how much you had of yours? It's not like you got the short end of the stick.

So you're angry at which group of people? Not the fans who dislike the changes in the new iteration. They had nothing to do with how the show was made.

 

[Lord Garth]

So you're angry at which group of people? Not the fans who dislike the changes in the new iteration. They had nothing to do with how the show was made.

I'm not angry with any group (except where I say way below).

My point is people who want more of the Old Way have to realize how much of it they actually have, how long it actually lasted, and what it was like toward the end. I think some have forgotten over time and absence makes the heart grow fonder. "We want Rick Berman back!" is nostalgia talking.

That version of Star Trek had its shot and it ran its course. Wanting something back that wasn't working anymore is shooting yourself in the foot without realizing it.

I already know the day will come where I'll be sick of the Alex Kurtzman version of Star Trek. It's just a question of when. And when this version of Star Trek ends, I won't want it back. I'll just hope I like whatever the next regime puts together. If not, then I'll say "Nice watching, I think I'll take my cue and exit stage left. Excuse me while I bow out as gracefully as I can." Some people, let's just say I think they didn't bow out so gracefully and they dragged it out for a while. Too long of a while. And on a similar note...

EDIT: Okay. I'm not a fan of the Midnight's Edge crowd or the Doomcock crowd, or Toxic Fans. But that has more to do with an attitude and an agenda they have. Not specifically what they like (or don't like) but their actions. If they were pulling the same shit with some other franchise I'm a fan of, I'd have the same issue with them. And I sympathize with anyone who has to deal with their nonsense in any fandom I'm not part of that they're trashing. I'm sure it's not all just Star Trek, otherwise what would they do if they ever got what they claim they want and it ended? They have to keep the Hate Machine going and generate those YouTube clicks.

And you have to seriously question the genuineness of any opinion that exists just to support an Internet channel. They can't get off their slant for a minute. It would be like someone on CNN liking Trump or someone on FOX News liking Obama. It would never fly. That's how those YouTube Channels see the Star Trek Franchise. So Midnight's Edge has to hate whatever new Star Trek there is, no matter what. A lot of people turn to them, so, in turn, they'll never change their mind or form a different opinion if they're clinging to every word Midnight's Edge or Doomcock says.

Then there's also the Tribe Mentality. Like when I said I think the internet exaggerates opinions, I also think it encourages tribes. If I defend Discovery or Picard, someone in "another tribe" sure isn't going to consider what I say. Or they'll use it to become more resistant. So now there are opposite sides that are equally resolute who become more resolute in the process. It all feeds each other.

Then I watch the actual shows themselves. I try to forget all that and just go with what I see. Then I say what I see. I used to be a regular in the TOS Forum (back in the Early-2000s). I'm sure they'd all just "love" me if I waltzed in now and said how much I like Discovery and Picard...

And then there's Midnight's Edge, "the fandom menace", and the like. My position for a long time has been "I don't like ENT!" Then I watched some of it just now and said "This isn't so bad. It's not my favorite, but this isn't so bad." ENT is safe from them because it came out before The Magic 2009 Cut-Off, but can you imagine one of those YouTube Channels ever doing something like that with the current version of Star Trek? If there's more than one of them who works on a channel, then whoever says an opinion that's different from the official stance would be fired in an instant. They'd be gone. They'd never be able to do what I just did.

 

[Orphalesion]

I don't like bashing TNG, (it used to be THE show) but I have to agree. One day while watching both Insurrection and Nemesis, I noticed that characters like Geordi, Dr. Crusher, Worf, even Guinan, were basically the same people they were 15 years before. It was like they were frozen in their roles.

I don't like bashing TNG either, I loved watching the reruns as a child, I still like watching it. I'd say TNG was a lot better about making use of its cast than TOS was (that one REALLY was the Kirk, "Spock and McCoy show with some recurring characters")
But it still had the problem that in a lot of the episodes the characters (even Picard and Data) were just there to move the plot along while the actual stakes and drama rested with the guest stars.
And while it was different back then, at present I find it pretty difficult to care about the struggles of a character whom we'll never see again. Sometimes the issue isn't even resolved, we just get a Picard speech about how "there is hope now" and then the credits roll and its forever left dangling.
And in some episodes I even wish we'd follow the guest star characters rather than the main characters, because their story is more interesting.

The episodes are almost like self-contained mini-movies and I understand it worked back then, because that's what a lot of television was from the time TOS aired to the end of the 1990s.
But acclimatized to a more modern way of storytelling I find it pretty difficult to get emotionally invested into those "Elder Scroll Questline" stories.
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.
And I understand that's good fanfic fuel, and that's something positive, but by itself it kinda fails.

 

[Khan Jr]

I'm not a fan of the Midnight's Edge crowd or the Doomcock crowd, or Toxic Fans. But that has more to do with an attitude and an agenda they have.

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.

98% of which ended in the 42-minute reset, and said character was back at their post entirely unchanged for the next episode.
A show where characters actually learned and changed? The 90something Jean Luc Picard, veteran of 178 episodes and 4 movies had meaningful character growth in 10 episodes of Picard.

At the end of Nemesis, Data's dead, Picard's healthy & hopeful for the future, and androids are legal. At the end of the new show,

Spoiler

Data's dead, Picard's healthy & hopeful for the future, and androids are legal.

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

I don't like bashing TNG, (it used to be THE show) but I have to agree. One day while watching both Insurrection and Nemesis, I noticed that characters like Geordi, Dr. Crusher, Worf, even Guinan, were basically the same people they were 15 years before. It was like they were frozen in their roles.

It seems like the basic formula then was to focus on the 'big three', the main characters, Picard, Riker, and Data. They got to change, grow, express their thoughts, etc. But the supporting cast, it's like they're frozen. TOS was even worse, IMO. The focus was always Kirk, Spock and McCoy, both on the show and in all the movies.

Star Trek wasn't an ensemble show, though. Kirk and Spock are the mains, Bones is the support, and various guest stars are featured episode by episode. It worked in this format very well. I don't think it should be judged as being bad at a format it wasn't even trying to pull off.

For the Next Generation movies there's not a "big three," really, Picard and Data get most of the focus. There's more discussion about this in the movie forum, how TNG didn't leverage its ensemble strength when transitioning to theaters (through I still like three of the four films).

 

[fireproof78]

At the end of Nemesis, Data's dead, Picard's healthy & hopeful for the future, and androids are legal. At the end of the new show,

Yes. But, the destination is not important. It's the journey and the character development. For some, Picard is totally worth it and others it isn't enjoyable at all. That is the nature of art, and the nature of Trek specifically.