Discussion in 'Future of Trek' started by Knight Templar, Sep 23, 2012.
Nah it was some other post I was too lazy to quote or even find now.
longer than 7 = no
precisely 7 = not likely in the current TV trends (making cheap reality shows for mass audiences and general dislike of scifi in networks programming)
less than 7 = probably but not in any foreseeable future, due to the reasons above
unfortunately, I have to say
There were dozens of ideas. Some wanted some kind of post-DS9/Voyager series, possibly on a future Enterprise, and post-Federation concepts like Andromeda were also popular.
Some of the ideas fielded were quite good, and I personally think to this day that a Andromeda-style Star Trek could work (minus the black hole time travel).
A break up of the Federation following the Dominion War, different factions form among the former members, starship captains/crews choice sides and allegiances.
Not sure what your objection to that was. It wasn't time travel, just time dilation, which is a real thing that would happen near a black hole. They did have to greatly exaggerate the extent of the time dilation in Andromeda, rationalizing it as some freak interaction of the ship's artificial gravity field with the black hole's gravity well. But it's still more plausible than most time travel in Trek.
TNG and V shouldn't have lasted 7 seasons. They ran out of steam by Season 4.
"The Inner Light" was season five.
The show was running out of steam in the seventh year, though.
They should have ended TNG in the sixth season. Replace the last two episodes of that year (Timescape, Descent) with All Good Things and that would have made a good final season.
I've always resented Generations for how many mediocre episodes were in the final season. In an attempt to rush into the movies, they ignored the show.
I could care less about VOY. There was never any steam there in the first place.
I think it's unlikely given the aforementioned budget/logistic reasons. Also, I'm not sure a longer Star Trek would be as good, or better necessarily.
I think I'd rather see a shorter (perhaps 4-5) season show with 10-12 episodes per season at one hour ala the "Game of Thrones" format with higher production values and fewer bottle episodes. Though I suppose that would necessitate moving away from regular cable television and towards "premium channels".
No, in fact, lots of regular-cable shows today have short seasons. Shows on Syfy typically either have 13-episode seasons or 20-episode seasons split in half and aired across two years. USA's dramas usually have seasons of 16 or 18 episodes that are broken into halves, generally with each half-season forming its own arc (though with both halves airing within the same 12-month span).
It's more to do with episodes than seasons. Rerun TV shows generally get stripped, that is they are shown Monday-through-Friday at the same time every day, usually in order.
Programming managers (the guys who decide what goes on the broadcast schedule) typically won’t air a series that runs in its entirety much more than about twice or two-and-a-half times in a year. At 2½ airings per year, it lets the audience catch an episode in May that they may have missed in January, for instance. The extra half-airing might seem silly, but again, the business cares more about avoiding audience fatigue caused by timing rather than airing each individual episode equally.
Since there are roughly 260 weekdays in a year, a show with just about 100 episodes has the best chances of being syndicated. Too few or too many more episodes will keep a show from being repeated, without showing multiple episodes a day.
And airing multiple, hour-long episodes of the same show, five times a week is not the best way to reach one’s goal of keeping the audience from getting tired.
^On the other hand, the fact that Star Trek had such a small syndication package of 79 installments, and that the same episodes reran more often, was part of the reason the series became so popular and successful in syndication. So I tend to be a little skeptical toward the conventional wisdom of the 100-episode sweet spot.
I can understand that point of view. Then again, they call it “conventional wisdom” for a good reason. I'm only a media production major in college, so I can speak to the aforementioned conventions and the reasons for them. Sadly, I haven’t had the opportunity to study Star Trek’s particular case, but if you will notice, the show isn’t exactly in continual, permanent reruns. Additionally, The Next Generation, Deep Space 9, and Voyager all share a similar fate; they run from time to time, but not continually, year-after-year.
And not to put too fine a point on it, look at Fringe. The show ran four seasons, to about eighty-or-so episodes, and was renewed for just enough of a final season to make it rerunable. In fact, Science Channel here in the U.S. of A. just picked it up to go into reruns even though its initial run hasn’t yet completed.
Yes, because it's not the same thing as genuine wisdom. It refers to the widely-held beliefs that shape people's decisions -- regardless of whether those beliefs are objectively true. There have been many cases where unconventional ideas turn out to be the truth.
I think the reason TV networks and studios favor the 100-episode sweet spot is because it's traditionally believed to be necessary, but there are numerous exceptions. Lots of shows have done well in syndication with fewer episodes.
Not in the 21st-century media landscape, where reruns of old shows in general are less common due to the competition from DVD sets, and due to cheap reality programming and infomercials dominating so much airtime these days, even more than in the past. But I'm talking about the 1970s, the formative years of Trek fandom. A large part of what made Star Trek such a huge hit in the first place, after getting only mediocre ratings in its first run, was the fact that, back then when syndicated reruns were more of a television staple, ST was, in fact, in continual, permanent reruns for decades. Throughout the '70s and '80s and probably into the '90s, there was never a time when TOS wasn't in reruns somewhere. It was ubiquitous, and that gave it a much greater popularity than it had previously had. And the fact that people saw the same episodes so often, really got to know them and connect with them and memorize their titles and dialogue and worldbuilding details and music and so forth, contributed to the devotion of Trek fans, the commitment to detail and minutiae, and a lot of what came to define Trek and SF/fantasy fandom.
Again, the media climate is completely different these days. Syndicated reruns are such a minor factor in television now, compared to DVD sets and streaming online video and the like, that I find it rather bizarre that the "conventional wisdom" of the 100-episode target for syndication still has any real impact on the decision-making behind TV shows. I could see it being an issue 15 or 20 years ago, but as you say, reruns don't happen as often anymore, so it doesn't seem as relevant. That's another drawback of "conventional wisdom" -- it's not necessarily reflective of new truths.
Separate names with a comma.