It looks like they're following the Mission: Impossible model with the Star Trek movies. They'll keep making them whenever they want, as opposed to all the time, for however long they can pull off doing it. They're introducing so many different versions of Star Trek on TV, they probably figure they'll just stick with what they already have with the movies. Why introduce Yet Another Version when they don't have to? Without Chris Hemsworth, they can give Chris Pine the pay he wants while sticking to the budget they want. And if a Pike Series is too similar to the movies, they can stick with shorts like they did this year that don't take up a lot of Anson Mount's time and leaves the audience wanting more. They're low profile and won't stop any of us from seeing Star Trek 4. Just like with the movies: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Yeah, cause this guys one movie tanked just recently. Whereas Mr. Meyer had directed several successful movies and was quite well known as a person to go to to improve movie scripts by that point. My confidence in Mr. Hawley being able to write and direct the next Trek movie is quite lacking at this point. IMO, He's been hired because he's probably cheap, not because of any inherent talent as a movie director.
Fucking 'ell Been away from the Discovery Forum so long I'm lost I haven't seen any of the new Short Trek's either In my humble opinion though, they will make a Pike series, because they have to They've created the demand, and they've teased the fans, Pike has to happen, and then when they've done Pike, they will introduce a new Kirk series.
Yeah, this is definitely a thing. I feel like, maybe the tide is turning a little on arc series. Character development always has a role, but that doesn't mean every episode in a season should be geared towards some myth arc. Nor does it mean leaving threads and picking them up later isn't a thing. That's how DS9 and TNG handled it. Week-by-week adventures, with continuing characters that develop across them, rather than being stuck in their undeveloped state forever (thinking VOY and ENT) One of the earliest things that stood out about Star Trek is that unlike other science fiction like The Twilight Zone, Star Trek told different stories every week but maintained the same characters, developing them slowly but surely over time. That isn't a throwback. That's a solid format for a television show. Keep things interesting with a planet of the week, but remember that these are continuing characters. Sounds simple. Right? Arc stories in the everything-has-to-be-BIG-and-EPIC way feels astonishingly as tired as VOY's episodic storytelling. I would contend that, here in 2019, it's beginning to feel like the relic of 10, 15, 20 years ago. The end of Game If Thrones divided people precisely because it fell hard into Arc Fatigue, and in the end everything was so 'high stakes' and 'epic' that the sheer weight of all that continuity and story arc development collapsed in on itself in a specatular fashion. There's a place for both types of writing in 2019's TV landscape. Or even a hybrid. The show that cracks this will be a winner for a long time.
Well babylon 5 done the arc system well. You still had stand alone episodes throughout, any arc was introduced then answered timely, not drawn out over the whole season. Then new questions were asked. The arcs were used for character development mostly. With a big arc "theme" for the whole series. A pike series can follow this setup. Plan out the entire series in abstract form. What each season plans to do, what each character arc is. Not just willy nilly seat of the pants cowboy writing.
It’s interesting that the proposal by jms and Bryce Zabel had underlying questions being asked about Kirk’s five-year mission: why send one of the most advanced starships out there? What was actually in it for Starfleet? There would’ve been hard SF from established writers, original stories reimagined, but also this kind of a running arc. I can’t say I agree with their idea that Star Trek really should be about Kirk, Spock, McCoy, or that a reboot is needed to make that happen, but it would’ve been fun to watch as an alternate take on the franchise.
It's also worth noting that in the last season the episode which was most beloved - A Night of the Seven Kingdoms - was basically the characters sitting around doing nothing - just shooting the shit before the big battle and reminiscing about past times. Because really what people wanted wasn't a fitting end to the epic plot of the series, but fitting conclusions to the arcs of the individual characters.
The trouble is, Babylon 5 was two decades ago, Deep Space Nine was two decades ago, Buffy The Vampire Slayer was two decades ago. Story arc plotting was different. The constraints the production team were under were different. In the post-digital age, everything is easier. So the writers really can let their imaginations go wild, but the flipside to that is that the finely tuned character growth that the likes of Babylon 5 had has to be nurtured. Because in the past, that stuff had to compensate for a lot of things that technology wouldn't allow them to do. Now, it's easier to throw money at a big set piece, but the characters simply become ciphers, puppets to move from beat to beat and make the so-called story arc move to it's next point. The finesse that went into making Babylon 5 is gone. I still contend the best solution is either a mix of stand-alone adventures and arc plotting, as was often done on DS9 and B5, or else 'mini-arcs' that all build up to something bigger but still breathe on their own. I don't deny that story arcs are here to stay. I do, however, dispute that they're the *only* tool in a good script-writer's toolbox....
And had no interest in Star Trek. Hawley has successes in TV. Just because one movie flopped doesn't make it a problem. Though, I imagine that Paramount will hold the strings a bit more tightly.
I've always held that that all truly great Trek episodes can be imagined as stage plays. You can just imagine the characters onstage with minimal makeup and props - and no VFX of course - and you'd still be engaged because the acting is still there, the characterization is still there, and the writing is still there. I think Discovery has mostly failed this test to date. There's very little there once you take away the visual elements of storytelling. However, Calypso had it in spades, and I don't think any of the latest Short Treks relied upon visuals to move along the narrative - which gives me a lot of hope both for Picard and an eventual Pike show.
I think Discovery has largely succeeded if one follows your "test" to date as compared to any first 29 episodes of any Star Trek series post TOS (and sure its a low bar, but that's the bar Star Trek has set for intital success/failure). Examples of well acted/written eps include, Choose Your Pain, Lethe, Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad, Despite Yourself and The Wolf Inside, An Obol for Charon, Saint of Imperfection, A Sound of Thunder and If Memory Serves demonstrate strong scripts, strong acting which aren't dependent on VFX for impact, if one disregards the production values. That's 9 eps of the first 29. Even an ardent Star Trek fan would be hard-pressed to find 9 from TNG-ENT's first 29 eps as strong as these written and acted as that accounts for about of 1/3 of the eps so far, and the Berman era shows to a fault feature hardly any standout scripts/acting over their first 40+ eps (Did these series present compelling ideas, sure, were those idea executed in a manner that wasn't clunky and bok-bok, very, very rarely early on ). Even the worst Disco eps, IMO, are equal to or better than most 1st & 2nd season middling Berman era episodes where it comes to writing/acting and far superior where it comes to filler eps. IMO, the superior direction/cinematograpy is just icing on the cake.
This video homage almost cliches it for a number of points: (and I thought some of the movie "First Contact" made me feel woozy... the modern day equipment makes "bling" seem substantial by comparison. Even talk shows use this faff, which only goes to show how little talk shows rely on the actual material being talked about - which is largely superficial and the motion camerawork only unintentionally gives that belief credence.) It's also nice to see the upside-down camera angle return that was more popular in the 1990s (e.g. "Sliders", many others) and may have been used once in the early-70s ("Mission Impossible"?) as well...) The tribble short trek definitely required the visuals, which are as high end as anything could get just to show a devolved humanity (at least compared to pre-TOS and pre-TNG.)
It would be way too Star Treky. The new productions seem intent on deconstructing Star Trek- I suspect that they are in unprepared to unironically depict do-gooders in brightly colored uniforms patrolling the galaxy.
Star Trek was originally depicted as being full to the brim with irony. And then we got TNG, with a Captain who went so far as to not just try to remove the irony from Star Trek but Hamlet as well.
Some of the episodes you listed I agree are strong. I personally think, for example, If Memory Serves is probably the best episode of Discovery to date. That said, it relied heavily on storytelling through visuals, with the use of quick-cut flashbacks when the Talosians are attempting to show things to Michael. There were IIRC several action scenes as well. Discovery really hasn't done a "slow talky" sort of thing yet. If Discovery can pull off what DS9 did in episodes like Duet or In The Pale Moonlight - making incredibly compelling drama which is focused almost entirely on two people in a bottle set just interacting - then we will know it has arrived as a show. I also think DS9 meets the test as you outlined though. In the first 29 episodes there are nine episodes I'd call great: Past Prologue, Captive Pursuit, Progress, Duet, In the Hands of the Prophets, Homecoming, The Circle, and Necessary Evil. If you extend it out to the remainder of the second season there's Whispers, Shadowplay, Blood Oath, The Wire, Crossover, and The Jem'Hadar. Early DS9 was not bad, just not as consistently good as what came later. I do 100% agree though that the acting on Discovery is superb. I think the cast is up to doing a slow, talky character drama if we ever get a chance to see it. I have a feeling Kurtzman wants to silo that off in other shows however.