I've been watching Star Trek since 1969 - and I thought TNG's "Inner Light" was trite garbage. I sometimes think Star Trek fans don't really like to watch actual 'Star Trek' at times when I see episodes like this so lauded.
Spoilers Star Trek: Short Treks 1x02 - "Calypso"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
Or maybe you just have different tastes? Inner light was amazing.
Oh, I don't thinks it's better because it was first. I think it was better because it had more interesting characters, and stories compared to TNG. TNG often devolved into standard 80ies/90ies trope 'drama' (that you might see on any show of that era) - just on a spaceship. I've always hated the A and B plot structure TNG and later Star Trek series adopted (IE trying to tell two stories in one episode). For TNG that became the norm - and that rarely happened in TOS because TOS employed actual science fiction writers who could fill up a full hour with one main story.
The A/B format became the norm because the larger casts were unwieldy. TOS really only needed Kirk/Spock/McCoy to have plot critical roles. Everyone else was just a step above guest cast. But the later shows tried to give everyone a relatively weighty role each week even if they didn't fit into the plot. Hence B plots were invented.
Sorry, I don't see it. Sulu, Uhura, et. al. were part of the cast, and were shown to occasionally have pivotal roles in stories NOT requiring the A/B plot structure; in the same way TNG used everyone outside of Picard and Data. Hell, considering what the writers gave Tasha and Troi most of the time over TNG's first 79 episodes, you could consider them just a step above 'guest cast' as well (And Denise Crosby felt that way as well, or she wouldn't have quit; and Marina Sirtis knew she wasn't cutting it and was on the chopping block as she was told by majel Roddenberry that had Denise Crosby not left, she would have been gone after Season 1.) Hell, TNG seemed to become "The Data show" a lot of the time as writers seemed drawn to writing stories revolving around him.
Ok. But is that better? The one thing I've always found puzzling is the "I want Trek to be an ensemble show" desire. It can be one, of course, but it certainly doesn't have to be one. Among the complaints I could not even remotely sympathize with for Kelvinverse Trek was the alleged "lack of ensemble". So what?
Same with DSC. I don't really care if the "bridge crew" never gets more screen time than it did in Season 1.
I don't mind one episode per season where the minor characters get a bit more to do than usual--but they are MINOR characters. I'd much rather some in-depth exploration of the main characters rather than time wasted on minor ones so everyone feels "important".
Yep.
I don't think it's superior because it was shot first. It's superior because it's vastly more entertaining. I can barely slog through TNG. I've had all 7 seasons on BR since they were released. I can barely get through it. I havent even finished S5..and I've had these for years.
TOS was nearly perfect entertainment. TNG was derivative and extremely static at times. TOS by contrast was original and extremely dynamic.
I mean, everyone has their own tastes, but I'm a fan of big over the top heroes, colorful characters, and challenging action-adventure. I don't necessarily gravitate toward TNG's pseudo intellectual sci-fi approach to the franchise. I don't dislike it, but it's not even a top-3 franchise show from my perspective. It's just too darn dull and unengaging, at least by my tastes.
TOS, DS9 and DSC are more my speed, as are the TOS and Kelvinverse films.
Sulu, Uhura, Chekhov, and Scotty were named cast members it's true. But they didn't really function like the secondary characters on the later shows. First, they were absent more frequently (Scott, for example, was absent from 17 episodes). Secondly, a lot of their dialogue was solely related to their role on the ship. In most cases when they actually did have a weightier role (like going down on an away mission) a "guest star of the week" could have done it just as well. In terms of plots...I mean, Scotty was a plot device in Wolf in the Fold. And Chekhov got to have a space hippy ex girlfriend in Way to Eden. But that's it. We never got an "Uhura episode" or a "Sulu Episode."
It's not fair to bring up Yar because she left so early on. Code of Honor arguably was a Yar-focused episode though, as crappy as it was. Troi got her fair share of episodes across the entirety of TNG, even if she was horribly misused as a "bridge bunny" up until the end of the series.
Someone claimed that the writers couldn't figure out how to stretch a plot over an hour. This is false. The problem is that good plot ideas will seldom involve every single primary/secondary character on an ensemble show. What Trek should have done is just not have the actors appear if there was no story reason to do so, and even out the screen time with having an episode focusing on them more heavily later on. But for whatever reason, they felt like they couldn't do this, which is why if you watch say a DS9 Ferengi episode there will almost always be some random scene thrown in at the opening and/or closing where Kira and Sisko are talking about something only tangentially related in his office. The shows were transparently scripted in order to showcase the actors, rather than the stories.
Edit: Note that Discovery does this too. Consider all of the weird roles Tilly was thrust into over the course of the series - from becoming the "spore expert" who healed Stamets to Captain Killy. To a significant degree, this seems to be make-work for the character so as to keep her relevant once the show drifted away from its initial "lower decks" conceit.
I don't agree that Tilly was a mishmash. She's basically a much-better written and executed version of Wesley Crusher. To me, she's a gifted science specialist with a lot of talents, but the rub is her inexperience and lack of confidence/social awkwardness. I think the "Captain Killy" angle was a perfect plot development. Not only did it provide some much-needed levity in the series, it also actually created legitimate growth for the character with regard to personal confidence.
On the other hand, I don't see any of the DSC bridge crew who fans deride as "underdeveloped" as any different than Mr. Leslie or any number of other Trek bridge extras who had names. Hopefully they'll get the "Miles O'Brien treatment" and slowly develop into more, because I do think there is potential there.
And I’m perfectly fine with that.
That oftentimes Trek was at its best when it presented something a little out of the box? That some of the best Trek outings were somewhat reminiscent of high-concept anthology shows like Black Mirror or the original Twilight Zone – like “Mirror, Mirror”, “The Inner Light”, “Far Beyond the Stars”, “Living Witness” or “Twilight”? That Trek isn't any one thing only? That tastes vary?
Absolutely!
If I had to describe the Star Trek I love, I would almost say "it's a SF show with anthology plots, but regular characters on a starship".
Just that nowadays the anthology-part are seasonal arcs, and for the most part not single episodes anymore.
I think Tilly was a relatively well-developed character considering how little development Discovery gave to the non-Burnham cast. I also think Wiseman's performance added some needed bounce to the overall dreary season. That said, there was a lot of transparent shoehorning in Act 2 trying to find plausible ways to include a lowly cadet into the plot each week. It was busywork for Wiseman, not really required from a story perspective.
As I've said in the past, I think a lot of the concerns regarding characters like Detmer and Airiam are spurred by poor coordination between the different departments. The writers clearly treated the bridge crew as glorified extras. But unlike on earlier Treks, they both made some these characters visually interesting (adding to the mystery) and periodically added "reaction shots" where they zoom in on their faces. The camera is telling us to pay attention, while the scripts are not, and thus people feel like something is missing.
I don't think that's it at all. I simply think it's 51 years of expectations and conditioning that the people sitting around the horn on the bridge must be fleshed-out cookie-cutter Star Trek main characters.
I totally forgot about this until today, so I watched it. What a stupid, incoherent mess. Why was the ship empty? Why was it possessed by an AI which definitely shouldn't exist? Who was the random guy, why does he claim he's from some random planet where people name each other if his escape pod was showing ancient cartoons from Earth? What idiot(s) got paid to write this?
This was less annoying then the last one, but much more incoherent, so I'd say its a bit worse.
Edit: Just checked the wiki. the short takes place in the future, because...reasons. Well, now we know ahead of time that the Discovery will never be destroyed, but will at some point drift off abandoned and gain sentience because...stupid writing, basically.
This was less annoying then the last one, but much more incoherent, so I'd say its a bit worse.
Edit: Just checked the wiki. the short takes place in the future, because...reasons. Well, now we know ahead of time that the Discovery will never be destroyed, but will at some point drift off abandoned and gain sentience because...stupid writing, basically.
Last edited:
^^^
And you consider that a BAD thing? (IE That an Engineer has dialog related to his job?). Also TNG didn't 'deep dive' into all the secondary characters that well either. Take Geordi LaForge. We didn't get an episode about his family until TNG's 7th season (The episode where he was linked with a Probe that an alien was using to read Geordi's mind and project itself as his mother.) Hell, the only reason Deanna Troi got so much backstory was it was a way to get Majel Barrett screen time on the show because she wanted it (she was part of the production staff with GR.) We didn't even get much about Riker until Season 2.
Geordi didn't get a deep dive into his past, but we got a lot of episodes where we got to see what made him tick. His role as Data's best friend was basically set by Season 2's Elementary Dear Data. Booby Trap developed him as a bit of a creepy guy who was rubbish with women - a thread which stayed with him throughout the show. He also got some other early focus episodes like Samaritan Snare and The Enemy. I'd actually say Geordi is a more three-dimensional character than most of the secondary TNG characters, who really don't get much development other than "a nice guy."
Regardless, I dunno why you keep bringing up TNG Season 1 here. We were discussing the A/B plot format, which was for the most part missing from Season 1, and really only became more of a thing from the second season onward.
Um, the discussion YOU iniotiated was WHY you thriought TNG was better than TOS - and you also seemed to think I and a lot of fans just held TOS as 'the best Trek series' because it was the first.
No, I began this because you said the A/B plot structure was because the TNG writer's room couldn't figure out how to write an A plot which stretched across the entire episode. This is false. This was just the preferred style of writing - reportedly Micheal Piller would reject spec scripts without B stories.
TOS and TNG have different strengths to me, but DS9 is far and away my favorite Trek
Maybe you confused me with a different poster?
