standalone episodes or serialized season for next TV series?

[STEPhon IT]

cult cross has a good point. In TOS, it seemed like half the bridge crew (Sulu, Uhura, Chekov) were glorified extras, even though they were supposed to be regular characters.

They were featured players, and some could be called back at anytime based on their contracts with the studio and their availability for the shows done at the studio during that time. Glorification came from the fans from the convention era which launched Gene Roddenberry to make a huge mistake bringing those actors back for the films.
They lingered on for too long and I kept questioning why would these characters still be in the positions they were, and not get a promotion??? I mean, the historic events they've accomplished should've guarantee a commission and a promotion. Then I'd heard and read the slanderous things the featured players said about Shatner, as if they were cast members, gave me the belief the fans had ignited their egos, and gave them importance which in actuality wasn't there to begin with.
I still believe the Star Trek movies would've flowed better if those characters weren't there and given to a young actor who needed a break. I've wondered what they felt seeing Kirstie Alley, a new comer, getting such a huge role in The Wrath of Khan while they're just there grumbling about Bill? None of them ever thought if it wasn't for Bill, they wouldn't even be in the picture?
Roddenberry was no longer there or was a powerhouse for the studio, all Shatner had to say to Harve Bennett was, "Why do they need to be in the picture???" And the Motion Picture would had been their last appearance on screen. And I wish it was.

 

[STEPhon IT]

Oh yes, of course, it has to be well-written.

But Bryan Fuller is quite possibly the best showrunner in television and an incredibly creative writer. I think we're solid there.

Even the best writers, and producers can create a dud. Lets hope this will not be the case for this new Star Trek.

 

[cultcross]

They were featured players, and some could be called back at anytime based on their contracts with the studio and their availability for the shows done at the studio during that time. Glorification came from the fans from the convention era which launched Gene Roddenberry to make a huge mistake bringing those actors back for the films.
They lingered on for too long and I kept questioning why would these characters still be in the positions they were, and not get a promotion??? I mean, the historic events they've accomplished should've guarantee a commission and a promotion. Then I'd heard and read the slanderous things the featured players said about Shatner, as if they were cast members, gave me the belief the fans had ignited their egos, and gave them importance which in actuality wasn't there to begin with.
I still believe the Star Trek movies would've flowed better if those characters weren't there and given to a young actor who needed a break. I've wondered what they felt seeing Kirstie Alley, a new comer, getting such a huge role in The Wrath of Khan while they're just there grumbling about Bill? None of them ever thought if it wasn't for Bill, they wouldn't even be in the picture?
Roddenberry was no longer there or was a powerhouse for the studio, all Shatner had to say to Harve Bennett was, "Why do they need to be in the picture???" And the Motion Picture would had been their last appearance on screen. And I wish it was.

I think the inflation of the roles of the minor TOS bridge crew during the 70s and the movie era is partly what led to the desire to have large ensemble casts in the later shows. Got to have a dozen regulars because TOS did. Except it didn't, it had three. The rest of the crew that we know were pretty much just there to announce expositional details most of the time. Like Gaeta or Dualla on BSG, they fulfill a role and are a recognisable face in the crew helping continuity but they don't really have a narrative of their own beyond their interaction with the regulars. That's what I'd like to see on Trek17, a focus on a core cast with familiar recurring faces. DS9 got close to this but still had more regulars than it knew what to do with.

 

[Shalashaska]

Even the best writers, and producers can create a dud. Lets hope this will not be the case for this new Star Trek.

True, but then making it an episodic show does nothing to make bad writing better. It's low risk, low reward.

 

[Trekkin]

True, but then making it an episodic show does nothing to make bad writing better. It's low risk, low reward.

Not that I really care which direction the show takes, but how the hell is episodic television 'low risk'? Nearly all genre television is now serialised. It's the status quo, and it's been a fairly recurring thing since the days of superhero serials. Both approaches tend to use multiple writers and directors switching in and out of episodes, so that can't be it.

As for 'low reward', are you actually implying that that 'episodic' shows (ranging from TNG, to X-Files hybrid approach, to outright anthologies like Twilight Zone) are somehow 'worth' less than something like 24 and Heroes? Solely because the latter takes the same approach to storytelling as your average daytime soap?

 

[Tim Walker]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MauveShirt

Transporter Chief Kyle (TOS) was the original Mauve Shirt.

TV Tropes listed Sgt. Hunter Riley (SGU) as another example.

I would say that Gaeta and Dualla had comparable status in NuBSG.

 

[Tim Walker]

Over the years I have done a bit of reading regarding the craft of fiction.

For the best drama, the story should be the most important event in that character's life.

The story should be a game changer. We will likely see character development.

However....

For a television series to be continuing, the regular characters shouldn't change too much. An implication is that the latest story isn't the most important event in their lives.

Thus drama would be diluted. Character development? Not so much.

One way around this is to have the story focus on a guest star. The story is the most important event, a game changing event, in the life of the (guest star's) character's life.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/series/WagonTrain

I noticed that Wagon Train seemed to have only about 3-4 regular characters, one of whom was the leader of the wagon train, the Wagon Master.

The show had a Walking The Earth format, allowing the wagon train to encounter new locations and new guest stars.

BTW, there is more room for character development in longer works. This suggests two-parters, trilogies, mini-series etc.

 

[Shalashaska]

Not that I really care which direction the show takes, but how the hell is episodic television 'low risk'? Nearly all genre television is now serialised. It's the status quo, and it's been a fairly recurring thing since the days of superhero serials. Both approaches tend to use multiple writers and directors switching in and out of episodes, so that can't be it.

As for 'low reward', are you actually implying that that 'episodic' shows (ranging from TNG, to X-Files hybrid approach, to outright anthologies like Twilight Zone) are somehow 'worth' less than something like 24 and Heroes? Solely because the latter takes the same approach to storytelling as your average daytime soap?

I like how you suggested some of the less well-regarded serialized shows as if fecking Heroes is the standard, but yes, with MOST episodic shows, it can be low reward.

Of course, you have your Star Treks, your Twilight Zones and so on, but IMO, it's a much bigger risk doing a serialized show. But when they're good? They're damn good. A lot of episodic shows can be good, but they just don't have the ceiling that serialized shows have. Look at Hannibal for example. Much of the first season was a typical procedural, crime-of-the-week type show. It was nice to look at, the casting was good, and I guess the different stories each episode were kind of fun, if not a little repetitive, but when events started to come together and an overarching story came in during season two, when the serialization picked up, it reached a whole 'nother level in terms of quality. Hell, even Heroes, the show you mentioned, fell off a cliff when it abandoned serialized storytelling after the first season.

I think we've only touched the potential there for serialized TV. Episodic television can be great, I wouldn't be posting here if it wasn't, but many episodic shows just aren't as rewarding as a "novel for television" can be, with exceptions of course. You have to realize that serialized storytelling hasn't really been widely used until this decade, and it's already made a major impact on television. Give it another decade or two, and the TV world and our outlook on older shows will be quite different, I think. If 24, Heroes and daytime soaps are the shows you're watching, then you have a WHOLE lot of catching up to do.

 

[Trekkin]

But all of that is simply why you prefer well-done serialised television, not why it's has any sort of intrinsic value compared to episodic television.

And just because you didn't like or watch serialised television until a post-Lost world, does not mean it's anything new. Even leaving out daytime fare and personal opinions on them, the like of Dallas and Dynasty are some of the most successful shows ever made. BBC and ITV's biggest successes were literally novels adapted for television (The Six Wives of Henry VIII, Brideshead Revisited, Pride and Prejudice, I, Claudius etc). The US had its limited series/miniseries boom in the 80's/90's (The Winds of War/War and Rememberence, a billion Stephen King adaptations etc), at least 50% of anime has always been serialised (Dragonball, Ghost in the Shell, Death Note) and If you want genre examples, Doctor Who, Quatermass, (and hell) Twin Peaks were massive in their eras.

That's what I mean when I say there's nothing all that special or innovative about a series being serialised. Its not some unexplored frontier with endless untapped potential. It's a creative choice, no more important or 'valuable' than any other.

Oh, and I didn't cherry pick 'bad' examples. Regardless of fanbase grousing and how they eventually ended, 24, Lost (and Heroes to a lesser extent) were/are considered to have been big successes.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

I'm also wondering if the series will be in the same format as the rest of the Trek shows, and CBS will eventually release the 1st season series, maybe 4 years later, on MTV or 1 of CBS television channels on cable?

Since it will be on linear TV channels in foreign markets there will be fade to black Act endings but probably not the teases before commercials. Our friends here on TrekBBS in foreign markets will be able to give us feedback how it will look and how many minutes of commercials. We should know from the 2nd episode that debuts on CBSAA how many minutes of actual program it is. Deduct that from 60 minutes and you will see how many minutes of ads and promos are allowed for in foreign markets. I hope we get back up to 48 minutes instead of this 41:30 and 42 minute length action dramas episodic series. Heck an episode of The Expanse was 40:41 length!
You may be forgetting CBSAA streaming will have commercial breaks. It will not have as many commercials as USA linear TV channels but the breaks will be there mainly because this will be sold to foreign markets on linear TV channels. When CBSAA starts their inevitable no advertisements product for a few dollars more

To offer All Access ad free, CBS is exploring the possibility of charging $9.99 a month to recoup the amount of advertising revenue per member it would lose by stripping out ads

When would CBS put the 2017 Star Trek series on a USA linear TV channel owned by CBS? Possibly never or yes after the 2nd season. MTV would not be the channel. Remember they have Blu-ray & DVDs to sell as physical media before the end of 2017 for season 1. CBS Home Video may decide to release TV series such as this on UHD 4k Blu-ray but doubtful since they stopped selling CSI in Blu-ray format since it didn't sell well.

 

[AviTrek]

Since it will be on linear TV channels in foreign markets there will be fade to black Act endings but probably not the teases before commercials. Our friends here on TrekBBS in foreign markets will be able to give us feedback how it will look and how many minutes of commercials. We should know from the 2nd episode that debuts on CBSAA how many minutes of actual program it is. Deduct that from 60 minutes and you will see how many minutes of ads and promos are allowed for in foreign markets. I hope we get back up to 48 minutes instead of this 41:30 and 42 minute length action dramas episodic series. Heck an episode of The Expanse was 40:41 length!
You may be forgetting CBSAA streaming will have commercial breaks. It will not have as many commercials as USA linear TV channels but the breaks will be there mainly because this will be sold to foreign markets on linear TV channels. When CBSAA starts their inevitable no advertisements product for a few dollars more

When would CBS put the 2017 Star Trek series on a USA linear TV channel owned by CBS? Possibly never or yes after the 2nd season. MTV would not be the channel. Remember they have Blu-ray & DVDs to sell as physical media before the end of 2017 for season 1. CBS Home Video may decide to release TV series such as this on UHD 4k Blu-ray but doubtful since they stopped selling CSI in Blu-ray format since it didn't sell well.

The foreign distribution is still unclear. CBS could decide to sell Star Trek to foreign streaming services. It could stream on Netflix everywhere other than the US. Or it could air on a broadcast channel. They may also produce a shortened version for TV broadcast and a "director's cut" that is streamed on services without fixed time slots. Until the episodes premiere we won't know their plans.

 

[cultcross]

Since it will be on linear TV channels in foreign markets there will be fade to black Act endings but probably not the teases before commercials.

Commercial break frequency and length varies around the world, so there's usually an odd setup with American shows broadcast here at the moment where 'fade to black' scenes come back immediately, but some ongoing scenes are cut in two by a commercial break. Brooklyn 99 is particularly good at doing that.

 

[The Overlord]

But all of that is simply why you prefer well-done serialised television, not why it's has any sort of intrinsic value compared to episodic television.

And just because you didn't like or watch serialised television until a post-Lost world, does not mean it's anything new. Even leaving out daytime fare and personal opinions on them, the like of Dallas and Dynasty are some of the most successful shows ever made. BBC and ITV's biggest successes were literally novels adapted for television (The Six Wives of Henry VIII, Brideshead Revisited, Pride and Prejudice, I, Claudius etc). The US had its limited series/miniseries boom in the 80's/90's (The Winds of War/War and Rememberence, a billion Stephen King adaptations etc), at least 50% of anime has always been serialised (Dragonball, Ghost in the Shell, Death Note) and If you want genre examples, Doctor Who, Quatermass, (and hell) Twin Peaks were massive in their eras.

That's what I mean when I say there's nothing all that special or innovative about a series being serialised. Its not some unexplored frontier with endless untapped potential. It's a creative choice, no more important or 'valuable' than any other.

Oh, and I didn't cherry pick 'bad' examples. Regardless of fanbase grousing and how they eventually ended, 24, Lost (and Heroes to a lesser extent) were/are considered to have been big successes.

I think some of the best television shows ever (the Wire and Breaking Bad) succeeded because they used serialized story telling well, I think if they were just episodic they would have mediocre.

Frankly I think TV is way better now then it was in the 80s and 90s because many shows have used serialization well. Star Trek going back to planet of the week style stories would be a step backwards, not forwards, IMO.

Frankly I think Voyager killed any interest I had in an episodic Star Trek show, it hit the reset button too often and seemed to have mostly static characters, it didn't seem like any episode was really meaningful, because it usually had no impact on Voyager's overall progress.

I think the logic behind saying the show should be episodic, is based on nostaglia for TV format that is simply outdated in today's TV landscape. I simply can't go back to planet of the week style stories that just hit the reset button at the end of the episode.