I’m talking about the reverse. I think the percentage of good episodes is higher than the current shows.
Old Star Trek fans: don't you sometimes get happy just because there are new series?
- Thread starter Skipper
- Start date
I’m talking about the reverse. I think the percentage of good episodes is higher than the current shows.
Except the 1960s original was sold to audiences as serious-toned, adult sci-fi.
Trek always was absurd, on some level. Most fiction invariably is. But it's more than just that and had to be. Even if the stories were "The Twilight Zone... In Space" and even some plot elements rehashed in season one, but they took themselves seriously and that's the difference. Absurdism can be plot content, presentation, acting, a combination of all three, but when the show took the absurd as seriously as if it was no less out-of-the-ordinary than any average soap opera, big screen epic, or real-life daily event for that matter, it seemed to be a lot more satisfying than a show that won't play it straight but expects the audience to swallow it. Everyone's line between what works for them and what doesn't is obviously going to be different. Imagine Trelane, after his mommy and daddy call him in in what's clearly one of the most least-effective scenes of the season, now turning the the camera and telling the audience he'll be right back after din-din and a nap. Trek wouldn't treat its audience like that, unless the audience was a gaggle of 5 year-olds. Gotta wonder the mindset of the writer who wrote "The Squire of Gothos" and why he opted to write Trelane's closure like that, reduced to what amounts to a nuclear family kid like a Dennis the Menace trope. Especially given how taut his "Balance of Terror", which is about as adult as 60s televised sci-fi could possibly get in tone.But even prior to Trelane's "come inside now" scene. character interaction still sold the whole affair as serious business. Not post-postmodern self-aware stuff that's far easier to sell.
There is a difference between "serious business", which is a fan construct and a serious show, which is what the folks who made the show intended. But just how serious the show was shifted from episode to episode, depending on the plot. It had intentional "comedy bit' music stings, like with Kirk and the Tribble-lanch. It was never afraid of comedy.
+1
The franchise is big enough for multiple styles and tones. If one isn't appealing, there's another that either already exists, or will eventually exist, that will appeal. It seems silly to expect them all to feel or be the same, it'd get boring pretty quickly.
Ditto.
Same here. LDS definitely felt like it had a direction, and I like that style of comedy (feels like a blend of Futurama and Rick&Morty, as well as parodying - in a loving way - the 90s Trek era), and exploring "second contact". At times one would think it shouldn't work, yet it does. There's enough they do that feels new or inspired that really hits the spot, whether it be a sequel to an old episode, a new way-out adventure, or bringing back old characters/villains and managing to make them feel more significant than they had originally, while keeping them in character. The Pakleds alone was no small feat.
Ditto. The 'world' seems stronger in the old incarnations, which also had inconsistencies - often not as major from what I recall. But the tone sets them apart.
DS9's "Duet" for example, is probably top-tier of top-tier Trek of any incarnation, with the complexity of the villain and situation. That's a bar I'd like to see more Trek episodes surpass. Heck, controversial or not, "For the Uniform" took big dramatic risks that no other Trek dared to touch*, setting up a big reason to get the audience to think. It's a story that comes close to "reality" because Trek always finished up stories after 43 minutes and rarely without using unspeakably nasty stuff. Plus, Sisko doing (what Eddington's lot did) as defence, to stop the Maquis from doing a ton more harm and damage, rather than offence is huge. All that doesn't mean Sisko (or Eddington) did was justified, but it presents the viewer tons of meaty stuff to really think about and without, oddly, the soapbox to tell the viewer what's right or wrong. Especially as tv shows and arcs generally take the easy route. DS9 didn't and it's all the more intriguing. It's a story playing with ideas, without saccharine endings, and nothing more*. But it's 100% pure "show vs tell" and making the audience think through as many of the story's nuances (especially the Eddington arc as a whole).
* (same footnote for both sentences) The closest Trek got prior to that would be a few TOS stories, which couldn't say or do much due to 1960s censorship, so those had to be left vague or just dropped at the end with a shallow and/or idealistic and/or saccharine comment, for various critic websites to not wrongly complain "they were soft with the ending". The 90s just had the freedom to do what the 60s simply couldn't with breadth and depth of ideas. Even then, each spinoff didn't always retell the same story as TOS.
As long as they're good. I've seen shows where they have three serialized arcs going on, a dozen episodes that season, and they find to waste one episode fiddling with a filler episode than to make progress on taking the time to continuing the craft the three arcs satisfyingly and not rushing them. "The Orville" being an easy example of this, with three strong arcs with one for the Krill, another for the Kaylon, and the last for the Moclans. With fear of cancelation atop everything else, they sadly had to rush some things, but the likelihood of anything feeling rushed would be less likely if they had 24 episodes to fill out. Feeling or being rushed doesn't help matters either. If one of the arcs was running short, taper it off and conclude it and then use up the remaining time for the others and introduce fillers only if needed. Instead, ideas were rushed and admittedly, the filler episodes - which could be hit or miss - still needed to be told. In general, how does the writing team really know what's a bad episode or not? Or when in production? Plot synopses on paper can come across good, yet when seeing a finished episode and it stinks... or the other way around; a story on paper as synopsis sounds "meh" but then I saw the episode and *boom* it's one the best ever.
True.
But the comedy didn't always work - for every "Tribble" there's a "Piece of the Action", for which relied on different comedic tropes. "Tribbles" was more akin to situational comedy. "Piece" was satirical/parody, risible, and perhaps even 4th wall in its approach. Depending on fan, they'll like either, both, or neither. TOS should get credit for not being afraid of comedy, which is also much harder than drama because it's so subjective.
Not to mention "Tomorrow is Yesterday", which cleverly throws in some gags (fish out of water) and doing it very cleverly in amongst the more serious elements. IMHO, that one works the best but YMMV.
Or, if not tangentially, the inverse of "Piece of the Action", known as "Spock's Brain", which was written as a dare because someone thought the show was taking itself too seriously so they scribbled out that joke of an episode. And yet, dumb or anything else, it's somehow yet far easier to sit through "Brain and brain, what is brain!" than "Fizzbin with the heaters on yet another planet that's just like Earth", for which the Earth-type recurrence was an increasingly bad running gag of its own right.
I love "A Piece of the Action". It's comedy landed for me. It's a classic Trek episode. Never met anyone who disliked it. It's like the second "Earth-type"* planet episode, IIRC. And the first to invoke a specific time period. But that concept was baked into Star Trek at the pitch. I'm surprised they didn't do it more often. God knows props and wardrobe had the goods.
Never heard the "Spock's Brain" was written on a dare or called the inverse of "APOTA". I don't even know what that means. I think it started off pretty serious you can read the first draft outline here
* I don't count "Return of the Archons" and barely count "Miri".
Last edited:
LDS I've straight up enjoyed from the start. I didn't want that show, but now I'm glad I have that show, which just goes to display the dichotomy between what fans want and what they get. In general, and I know there's those such as Dukhat who don't like it (which is fair), the show is pretty well loved and has a devoted following. The show has a clear vision and tone and, as good sitcoms do, it usually manages to thread multiple plots through a single 20 minute episode. I think the only issue the show has it it's limited reach. I don't feel like I could watch it with my wife. There are too many jokes which are for 'us'.
PIC I was excited for. I enjoyed most of Season 1... yeah, most of. Even the ending which many don't like. Season 2... I feel like I need to watch Season 2 again, but I remember a lot of mess. I know there were COVID problems, which probably explains why they had actors doubling up and playing multiple roles but... yeesh. It was messy on so many levels. I enjoyed Season 3 right up until it turned out the Founders and joined forced with the Borg and... oh, fuck that. There is a certain pleasure in Season 3 but the overall story I didn't enjoy at all.
Upthread I've seen folks express that they wish PIC had never been made and... eh, I wouldn't go that far. I regret that it is what it is, because with a coherent creative vision over three seasons, it could have been really special. As it is, it's just a mess of a show.
PIC I was excited for. I enjoyed most of Season 1... yeah, most of. Even the ending which many don't like. Season 2... I feel like I need to watch Season 2 again, but I remember a lot of mess. I know there were COVID problems, which probably explains why they had actors doubling up and playing multiple roles but... yeesh. It was messy on so many levels. I enjoyed Season 3 right up until it turned out the Founders and joined forced with the Borg and... oh, fuck that. There is a certain pleasure in Season 3 but the overall story I didn't enjoy at all.
Upthread I've seen folks express that they wish PIC had never been made and... eh, I wouldn't go that far. I regret that it is what it is, because with a coherent creative vision over three seasons, it could have been really special. As it is, it's just a mess of a show.
"Old Star Trek fans: don't you sometimes get happy just because there are new series?"
a) I'm not THAT old. (Although I just found out that I'm about the same age that LBJ was when he became president! So... Maybe?)
b) Hell yes.
Ultimately I'm not that happy with Disco. But I watched every episode of the first season first run. I might have done that for season 2 as well. The end of season 2 chased me off and I only came back after SNW. Someday I'll finish it.
SNW is my second favorite Star Trek.
I adore LDS but I only started to watch it after SNW came out and literally got me watching new Trek again. Not usually my kind of humor but they do it well and they love Star Trek SO MUCH.
But really, all of these shows could have crashed and burned horribly and I would STILL be happy when there is a new show.
a) I'm not THAT old. (Although I just found out that I'm about the same age that LBJ was when he became president! So... Maybe?)
b) Hell yes.
Ultimately I'm not that happy with Disco. But I watched every episode of the first season first run. I might have done that for season 2 as well. The end of season 2 chased me off and I only came back after SNW. Someday I'll finish it.
SNW is my second favorite Star Trek.
I adore LDS but I only started to watch it after SNW came out and literally got me watching new Trek again. Not usually my kind of humor but they do it well and they love Star Trek SO MUCH.
But really, all of these shows could have crashed and burned horribly and I would STILL be happy when there is a new show.
People warned of me B5/season 1, but when I saw the show and watching it chronologically because it set the groundwork, I often found it extremely good. It look longer for me to get used to season 2/Sheridan than it took others to get used to season 1/Sinclair. But season 3, and what is it with shows and "the season 3 syndrome" anyway, and *boom* B5 really paid off and then some.
JMS pioneered multi-season arcs, which is risky when fans may leave the show or not like it or the show gets preempted by sports games or whatever... or budgeting; B5 was axed during season 4 so they rushed a ton of endings, only for the show to be revived at the last second - hence season 5 becoming a glorified epilogue. JMS did the best with the external factors and limitations. Sadly, Bester never got proper closure and he's a villain you love to love to hate!
They've been better, sure. Picard especially.
It's hard to REALLY get excited when Paramount seems to want keep doubling down on the bad parts. Even SNW, while generally good, has been in a decline of quality.
There's still good to be had, and i'm hoping things are turning in the right direction. It's hard to stay excited when you're waiting for the next good thing and they pump out something like the Section 31 trailer, which looks absolutely, atrociously terrible. It may be the first piece of Star Trek media available to me that i'm not going to bother to consume.
Rather, I view it as life is too short to not be negative about bad things, because otherwise they will just keep making bad things. I only have finite time to enjoy the things I enjoy, making terrible things is a waste of that time that I can never get back that COULD have been spent enjoying the things I like.
Life's too short not to care deeply about the things you care about.
I don't let terrible thinks impact my future excitement. Star Trek is hit and miss for me. Always has been, always will be. That I didn't like something doesn't curtail future excitement.
I will not live in the "could have been" world of my own worries. I do that enough with real life. Entertainment will not suffer the same for me.
I love how being angry implies you care more than people who accept that some things are just not for them.
I'm not very excited about the Section 31 movie either.
But the Starfleet Academy series could be good...or at least interesting.
Been a Trekkie since 1992 when I discovered TOS and TNG. I was happy when Abrams/Kurzman trek became a thing after the long wait, but my Trek FIRE did not reignite until SNW and LD. Trek lit kept the flame burning, but SNW made me passionate again. Really cannot get into DSC and PIC.
I'm fairly positive i'm not going to bother with Section 31.
I'm not excited about Starfleet Academy, but I will watch it. I'm hoping it's good. I don't mind the 32nd century setting, and SFA should be able to actually break free from DSC's biggest limiting factor in being All Burnham, All The Time. Without the Burnham factor, this could actually be good.
SFA did throw a monkey wrench at me with Picardo. I was more interested in The Doctor for PIC, with the whole synth ban and all that, but i'll take me some Doctor where I can get it. I'm mildly excited about that.
They sold me on the Academy series when they got Holly Hunter and Paul Giamatti. Those are big gets for this franchise, even though I've never really wanted an Academy series and kind of see Prodigy as the "perfect" academy series anyway. It could be interesting and hopefully the trailer is good.
Similar threads
- Locked
