Should current Trek drop the serialized format?

But also in LOST's case, they were actually making it up as they went a long at the start. Some time around season 3, there was a huge announcement that the show would end in 2010 after six seasons. It was then the showrunners had to somehow figure out how to bring all of this together over the next three seasons. This was when the series began to really collapse under its own weight, I thought.

My recollection of LOST is that it was more coherent in the early episodes, advancing the character arcs nicely along their journeys of redemption, but then when the show became a hit, ABC asked them to slow their roll and stretch out the storyline longer, so the characters' growth suddenly stalled or regressed and it was just treading water for a while. That was when I started to lose interest. I think I gave up during season 2, or early 3.
 
I feel less strongly about serialization now that there are other Star Trek series on the air that don't lean into it as strongly as Discovery and Picard do.

Nevertheless, the Star Trek series that do lean into it with this season-long story arcs only make me loathe it more. I'm truly exhausted by season-long arcs and the current crop of serialized Treks have yet to show me they can do it well. I find that a lot of their stories start of pretty compelling, then lag in the middle, and fall apart in the end. For me, this was the case with Discovery in seasons 2, 3, and 4, and Picard in season 2.

Strange New Worlds may be utilizing an entirely unoriginal format, but, it's used to refreshing effect. Sometimes, I just want a story to have a beginning, middle, and end and that be that.



But also in LOST's case, they were actually making it up as they went a long at the start. Some time around season 3, there was a huge announcement that the show would end in 2010 after six seasons. It was then the showrunners had to somehow figure out how to bring all of this together over the next three seasons. This was when the series began to really collapse under its own weight, I thought.



I hear this a lot, but, was this the case with any other TV series in production at the time? And I don't mean any other Star Trek series. Did any network shows see a steep decline in quality because of COVID? Serious question.

Good post. I agree with much of it.

However, I thought the finale for both Disco S4 and Pic S2 were pretty darn good. The best in each series.
 
I think they should drop the "mystery box" format, not necessarily the serialized format.

Discovery seaons 2, 3, 4 and Picards seasons 1, 2, 3 relied on "mystery box" storytelling. That's the type of storytelling I'm personally tired of and I don't think it works well for Trek.
 
I hear this a lot, but, was this the case with any other TV series in production at the time? And I don't mean any other Star Trek series. Did any network shows see a steep decline in quality because of COVID? Serious question.

I watched a lot of shows filmed during the pandemic that were a whole lot better than Picard season 2. The time travel plot also seems to have been pitched by Matalas before the pandemic (he came on board in late 2019 and said that and Q were the first things he pitched). The difference here might be where the cast demanded certain precautions be taken, especially Patrick Stewart who is elderly and has a heart condition, and is an executive producer so in a position to make such demands.

I think COVID did impact season 2, but I don't think the writers were good enough at changing the story to fit the changes. Some of the plot issues I had likely had nothing to do with COVID.
 
Last edited:
I think they should drop the "mystery box" format, not necessarily the serialized format.

Discovery seaons 2, 3, 4 and Picards seasons 1, 2, 3 relied on "mystery box" storytelling. That's the type of storytelling I'm personally tired of and I don't think it works well for Trek.
This may look silly, but, while I've heard the term "mystery box" a lot (and I know the Kung Fu Panda spoiler), can someone more knowledgeable than me basically define what 'mystery box' storytelling actually is? I mean, have any shows actually done it better? And what are the other forms of serialised storytelling?
 
This may look silly, but, while I've heard the term "mystery box" a lot (and I know the Kung Fu Panda spoiler), can someone more knowledgeable than me basically define what 'mystery box' storytelling actually is? I mean, have any shows actually done it better? And what are the other forms of serialised storytelling?
The more go to example is "Lost" and what the nature of the Island was.

Personally, I think the best example of a mystery box is Season 6 of Red Vs. Blue. Yes, it is an internet short form series, but it does such a good job with exposing what is the Alpha.
 
The more go to example is "Lost" and what the nature of the Island was.

Personally, I think the best example of a mystery box is Season 6 of Red Vs. Blue. Yes, it is an internet short form series, but it does such a good job with exposing what is the Alpha.

Agreed about LOST.

My first time watching it was last year. I bought my wife the box sets many years ago because she loved that show. She got me to watch it with her. (Overall, I am very happy that I did. The character work is excellent.)

Basically, LOST kept finding questions about the island without getting any answers. And this kept going for the first 3 seasons... at that point, a bare fraction of the questions were answered, but it was in favor of focusing on phenomenal character work. Then, they decided to start answering the questions, but veeeeery slowly, until it was really only the final season, the 6th, that was answering them.

(Ironically, I think that strategy actually helped keep LOST on the air. What I mean is, the focus was very, very, VERY heavy on characters. At the end of the day, characters are the reason we watch a show. If they led in with answering riddles and focused less on the characters, I am not sure it would have lasted as long as it did because eventually, the show sort of collapsed on its own weight of the mythology. By that time, though, everyone was SO invested in the characters that you had to see the journey to the end. I don't think a strategy like that has ever been used quite that way before, or since. Don't know if it would work today. Based on what my wife said, at the time it aired, it was a HUGE phenomenon with endless speculations. But if the characters weren't central, the answers would never come because it wouldn't have lasted long enough to get to the answers.)
 
This may look silly, but, while I've heard the term "mystery box" a lot (and I know the Kung Fu Panda spoiler), can someone more knowledgeable than me basically define what 'mystery box' storytelling actually is? I mean, have any shows actually done it better? And what are the other forms of serialised storytelling?

A narrative that unfolds as a series of reveals and twists to unearth central mysteries. Sometimes there are multiple mystery boxes where answering one mystery leads to more questions? So for this season of Picard it's all the questions (many we still don't have answers to 6 episodes into the season). Who are the villains? What is their plan? Who are they taking orders from? Why do they want Jack? Why is he having visions? What do the villains want from Daystrom? Why do they want that? The season is 60 percent finished and I can only answer who the villains are (not even who they are taking orders from) and what they want from Daystrom (but not why).

This is different than a straighforward serialized narrative (like DS9's latter seasons, even other drama shows I've been watching recently like The Bear, the Yellowstone universe shows, The Last of Us, etc...) where there is continuity and it's mainly about what is going to happen next in the story, rather than the story answering questions it has set up and leaving the audience in the dark as to what is really going on until the end.

The problem is that the entire season hinges on answers that may not be satisfying or even thought out until the end. The Picard season 1 writers didn't know how their season of mysteries would end even when they started filming. Don't think the answers to Discovery's season long mysteries made sense? Then that ruins the season for you.
 
What's the difference between the terms "mystery box" and plain simple "mystery"?

Well, the term "mystery" is already taken for the genre about investigators solving puzzling crimes or murders. "Mystery box" is a term that J.J. Abrams coined in 2007 TED Talk to refer to his philosophy of storytelling. Here's how ScreenRant explains it:

https://screenrant.com/star-wars-rise-skywalker-abrams-mystery-box-bad/
In his speech, Abrams argued that all stories are essentially a series of questions and mysteries leading the audience from beginning to end. Somewhat ironically, he uses the original Star Wars film as an example - "who is the woman fiddling with R2-D2?" "Who is Obi-Wan Kenobi?" But Abrams also brings onstage a real, physical magic box from his childhood that was never opened. The director uses this nostalgic toy to argue that the creation of mystery and the sense of potential is sometimes the most exciting and engaging part of a story. Young Abrams didn't open his $15 magic box because the thought of what might be inside was more interesting than actually ripping the thing open and finding out.

Abrams has applied this concept to his movies and TV shows over the years, but with mixed results. An incredibly effective example of the mystery box at work can be found in Cloverfield, which Abrams produced. The mystery box here is the origin of the titular monster and how it came to arrive on Earth. Throughout the film, that mystery intrigues and fascinates, but the box is never opened. In his TED talk, Abrams stated that the true purpose of the mystery box is to elicit character development and emotion. Where Cloverfield succeeds is by capturing its audience with the mystery of the monster, but never needing to open the box in order to develop the characters. Where Clover came from has no bearing on the plight of the protagonists or the impact of the monster arriving in New York City.

Basically, the two concepts are opposites. The mystery genre is about finding the answer to the mystery. Abrams's mystery-box approach is about not solving the mystery, but instead using it as a catalyst to advance character -- essentially a more elaborate, ongoing version of Hitchcock's "MacGuffin." While mystery is rooted in the idea that all things are knowable given the application of sufficient intelligence and diligence, Abrams-style mystery-box storytelling is rooted in the idea that some things are forever unknowable, or at least that knowing them would spoil the magic of the experience.

So if anything, using the term "mystery box" for a series or season arc that eventually does explain the mystery is a misnomer, or at least a loosening of Abrams's definition. But the way it tends to be used is for a story arc that has a single overarching, complicated puzzle or enigma that the characters gradually uncover, with new discoveries often deepening the mystery or expanding it to a new layer.
 
Ah, then there's my confusion.
Most people are complaining about it when the term doesn't even seem to apply. Like when some call any ending to a movie they don't like a "deus ex machina" or any female protagonist they don't like a "Mary Sue".

It's seemed to have become a negative on "I don't like not having the answers by end of episode one".

Must be from the generation well after X-Files, Twin Peaks or, heck, Dallas (just off the top of my head).
 
Back
Top