Too many episodes of Trek?

[LLAP]

I think that if recent past series (most notably Voyager and Enterprise) had less episodes per series the quality of production and writing would have been considerably improved. The same would be true of any future Trek series.

This is for several reasons:

a) The less episodes needed fewer writers are required which might prevent the dilution of both creation vision and a strong narrative structure. And save money.
b) There would be more money per episode to give writers more creative freedom in thier writing but also to increase the general quality of production.
c) Less pressure on the writers to produce filler episodes or crazed last minute additions.
d) Preserve canonical integrety by giving writers more time to double check their work for continuity errors, for example.
e) Give more time to create a story arc but (given the restraints of certain channels e.g. UPN) also enable each episode to stand alone.

Story arcs are pretty essential too - in the past they created content that could be seen without knowedge of previous episodes but this does not create an incentive to see more Trek for the average viewer. A story arc (and I mean a proper story arc complete with character evolution - even for Vulcans) would get people looking for more, buying the DVDs and therefore creating more Trek for us all to enjoy!

What do you guys think?

 

[Therin of Andor]

I think that if recent past series (most notably Voyager and Enterprise) had less episodes per series (around 24) the quality of production and writing would have been considerably improved. The same would be true of any future Trek series.

You need to do some counting. VOY Season One was very short. For several years, four eps would be held over to the next season. TNG Season Two was 22. ENT's last few seasons weren't 26 either.

b) There would be more money per episode to give writers more creative freedom in thier writing but also to increase the general quality of production.

And less advertising revenue, so the total budget would have to be smaller.

c) Less pressure on the writers to produce filler episodes or crazed last minute additions.

Two less episodes would save them from ever running behind schedule?

d) Preserve canonical integrety by giving writers more time to double check their work for continuity errors, for example.

That was partly Richard Arnold's job before Roddenberry died. He was fired, and before then they very rarely changed scripts because he found an error. Continuity errors to do with props, sets, costumes and actors' hair are beyond the control of writers.

e) Give more time to create a story arc but (given the restraints of certain channels e.g. UPN) also enable each episode to stand alone.

By cutting only two episodes per year?

Story arcs are pretty essential too - in the past they created content that could be seen without knowedge of previous episodes but this does not create an incentive to see more Trek for the average viewer. A story arc (and I mean a proper story arc complete with character evolution - even for Vulcans) would get people looking for more, buying the DVDs and therefore creating more Trek for us all to enjoy!

ENT had a story arc that lasted the whole of Season Three. Its Season Four had several three-parter and two-parter shows. Didn't save the show or increase audiences.

 

[LLAP]

Sorry, I think you misunderstand. I meant cut the episode count down from 24! Around 12 perhaps. Maybe 15.

The story arcs in Trek were not the same as those in shows like Lost. Or 24. The only reason that crapfest the Da Vinci Code sold millions was because each short chapter ended wanting you to immidiatly read the rest!

 

[LLAP]

Also by season 3 of Enterprise people had lost interest (understandably). They never got any kind of sustained momentum to the story. You just ended up thinking 'Who Cares?'. You need to care. That is one reason Enterprise failed so badly.

Hopefully with less episodes, more people would watch each one so advertising revenue would increase accordingly. Look how succesful the Sopranos was from HBO. Even Rome. Both had large budgets. I know it's different being HBO but they established larger and wider audiences - even the Clintons watched it!

Trek lacked the strong characterisation which the Sopranos was so good at. People need to be involved in the people. Story arcs are the only way to achieve this.

 

[Jefferies]

I think that if recent past series (most notably Voyager and Enterprise) had less episodes per series (around 24) the quality of production and writing would have been considerably improved. The same would be true of any future Trek series.

This is for several reasons:

a) The less episodes needed fewer writers are required which might prevent the dilution of both creation vision and a strong narrative structure. And save money.
b) There would be more money per episode to give writers more creative freedom in thier writing but also to increase the general quality of production.
c) Less pressure on the writers to produce filler episodes or crazed last minute additions.
d) Preserve canonical integrety by giving writers more time to double check their work for continuity errors, for example.
e) Give more time to create a story arc but (given the restraints of certain channels e.g. UPN) also enable each episode to stand alone.

Story arcs are pretty essential too - in the past they created content that could be seen without knowedge of previous episodes but this does not create an incentive to see more Trek for the average viewer. A story arc (and I mean a proper story arc complete with character evolution - even for Vulcans) would get people looking for more, buying the DVDs and therefore creating more Trek for us all to enjoy!

What do you guys think?

From a logical stand point your argument makes a lot of sense. However, shorter seasons do not seem to translate into better quality of episodes. If you look at the shorter seasons of TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY, none of them show improved quality over the longer seasons, if anything their quality is significantly worse. In addition, the shortening of Enterprise's seasons made little difference to the quality of the show and was unable to get people to like it more. Another example of this is BSG. Its seasons have gotten shorter and shorter, down from 20 to only 10 episodes per year and the quality has declined dramatically over the years IMHO.

In conclusion, quality does not seem to depend on limiting the amount of writers and concentrating their focus and the amount of resources on fewer episodes. It seems to be more important that you have a good team of highly creative and enthusiastic writers who are led by competent producers with a cohesive vision.

For Star Trek this seemed to work best, as is evidenced by DS9 Seasons 4-7, TOS Seasons 1-2. TNG Seasons 3-5, VOY season 4 and in BSG with Seasons 1-2. During these periods the shows had found themselves had a fairly clear direction and were creatively fertile. During other periods quality suffered mainly from the lack of direction and/or creative staleness.

 

[Jefferies]

Sorry, I think you misunderstand. I meant cut the episode count down from 24! Around 12 perhaps. Maybe 15.

The story arcs in Trek were not the same as those in shows like Lost. Or 24. The only reason that crapfest the Da Vinci Code sold millions was because each short chapter ended wanting you to immidiatly read the rest!

Yeah but just because these shows have arcs and an excessive amount of cliff-hangers doesn't mean they tell better quality stories. In my opinion both Lost and 24 can't hold a candle to most of Star Trek. I say this mainly for the reason of rewatchability. Over the years I have watched most Trek episodes at least 3 times and probably will do again many times in the future. In contrast, I will never watch Lost and 24 again. Outside of the excitement created from being left in the dark by the highly derivative story machinations these series have little that is intrinsically interesting.

 

[Navaros]

VOY and ENT's problems weren't too many episodes; rather, they were horrible writers & producers. Reducing the number of episodes wouldn't have changed anything about the quality of those shows. They wouldn't have serialized those shows, gave them character development, or otherwise made them good if they had made less episodes of them.

The only thing that would have changed their quality for the better would have been to keep Berman and Braga's grubby hands off them from day 1.

I agree with you that shows needed those things like story and character development, as do other Trek shows, but that's just the tip of the iceberg towards making a good show.

 

[LLAP]

I thought of another idea for stand alone fillers. Instead of drafting in guest star actors, they could draft in guest star writers? They would be given a framework to work in (star trek) and a large amount of time and with set payment. It could be arranged between seasons. There are so many brilliant screenwriters and playwrights who don't get enough exposure I'm sure they would appreciate it. Plus most of them have no cash so they would appricate the dough.

 

[gottacook]

Short runs each season can have great results, whatever one thinks of the way the Battlestar Galactica series has gone. The most consistently well-written, well-produced show I've come across in recent years (shown after 2 a.m. Sunday night where I live) is the 1997-2004 Canadian series Da Vinci's Inquest. Thirteen episodes per year, 91 in total.

Another possible model is the one successfully followed by Wiseguy (1987-90), the show that introduced and made the best use of the story arc idea. Arcs were generally 6 to 8 episodes long, with occasional stand-alones in between; events in one arc sometimes had consequences later on. The series began with two exemplary arcs - the one involving Sonny Steelgrave (Ray Sharkey) and the one about Mel Proffitt (Kevin Spacey) and his sister Susan (Joan Severance). There was no way that an antagonist like Sonny or Mel could be sustained for a whole season, nor would 2 or 3 episodes have been enough. Stories of 6- to 8-episode length might benefit a Trek context.

Oh, and I agree: Voyager and Enterprise were creatively irredeemable, beyond help.

 

[Johnny]

What about a feature length episode, with 6 or 8 to a series? You still do the story arcs but within the 1.5 hours, leaves enough room for character development, and makes them stand alone at the same time.

I've never thought 45 minutes was enough.

 

[TheGodBen]

Irregardless of the quality of the show, I think that cutting down the number of episodes per season from 26 to 20 would be better for the writers themselves. I recently read a quote where a former Trek writer (it might have been Ron Moore, I can't remember) said that once the staff got to episode 21 they were burned out and getting the stories together for the final six episode were always the hardest.

If the writing staff and production crew are happier then we probably get a better show overall.

It would be great to think that this measure would only get rid of filler episodes, but there is a possibility that this measure would get rid of episodes like The Inner Light and Children of Time, both of which came near the end of the season. For this method to work then the show needs to be plotted out from the beginning of the season with a beginning, middle and end, it can't done done like Star Trek has always been done which is to just make it up as you go along.

 

[Smiley]

Season 1 of TOS had 29 episodes, and it is considered by many to be one of the best seasons in all of Star Trek. In the modern era, the latter seasons of TNG and DS9 are also highly regarded, and they had 26 episodes apiece. There is certainly merit to the approach that some European shows take of producing short arcs that end when the specific story the creators want to tell is over. However, that does not work for every show, and UPN probably would not have gone for such an approach on what started out as their flagship show.