For a given season I would suggest a few shorter arcs, or short serials, with the occasional two-parter or stand alone. Different stories might best fit different lengths.
Last edited:
TOR.com argues episodic Star Trek would be better than story arcs!
- Thread starter INACTIVEUSS Einstein
- Start date
Most "episodic" shows are a combination of the two models these days anyway. Most shows will have a case of the week and also build character and continuing plotlines in the background, usually punctuated by building up to mid-season and season finales. Person of Interest, The Flash, Arrow, Doctor Who, BSG, Enterprise, lots of those procedurals like CSI and Law and Order, Lost and Kurtzman's own Fringe have all done this kind of thing. The days of the TOS/TNG/VOY loose continuity are long gone. I don't buy that serialisation is the only good or mature option for storytelling and I think it's harder to tell one good standalone story. I'll really happy if they go with this model.
There's often discussion of how important it was to the original Star Trek series that a number of the authors were established science fiction writers. It's just as important that of those sf writers most - Ellison, Sturgeon, Bloch, Bixby - were best known for their short fiction. The ability to craft outstanding short stories was a good basis for writing memorable half-hour and hour-long television scripts.
I think the idea is that with it being on a streaming service, people have the availability of familiarization. Many probably won't even watch from week to week, but just binge watch at the end. It's no longer the kind of TV that you just turn on and watch casually. People don't just pop in to the middle anymore when the beginning is available or when you have to actually select your shows and episodes to play. It's not like broadcast where you're flipping channels and settle on something. That's not the type of viewership they're looking for anymore, so they don't need to cater to it.
There are different ways to do continuing arcs.
As an example, with "Marvel's Agents of Shield," I feel like I just need to pay attention to the first five minutes and the last five minutes of an episode, and I can go do laundry and dishes the rest of the time, and I didn't miss anything important.... and then everything from the whole season ties together in the last episode (and I feel like I wasted my time watching the whole season
), but then leaves another big cliffhanger.
I hope that ST17 isn't that way, but instead has episodes that can stand on their own as strong, engaging stories, even though time is obviously continuing in a linear fashion from episode to episode.
Kor
As an example, with "Marvel's Agents of Shield," I feel like I just need to pay attention to the first five minutes and the last five minutes of an episode, and I can go do laundry and dishes the rest of the time, and I didn't miss anything important.... and then everything from the whole season ties together in the last episode (and I feel like I wasted my time watching the whole season
), but then leaves another big cliffhanger.I hope that ST17 isn't that way, but instead has episodes that can stand on their own as strong, engaging stories, even though time is obviously continuing in a linear fashion from episode to episode.
Kor
I don't see why the show can't be episodic but have ongoing story arcs in the background that culminate at the end of the season. That's probably the magic formula to have both accessibility and the water-cooler factor.
This article has a condescending tone to it, though the arguments are valid.
That remark about "People who say we are in a golden age of television are not book readers" is pretty obnoxious. They are two completely different media, what does appreciating one have to do with also appreciating the other? I want to have a look at his bookshelf, cause from his tone, the books he's reading aren't the kind of literature that actually has an argument to be placed higher than serial television.
This article has a condescending tone to it, though the arguments are valid.
That remark about "People who say we are in a golden age of television are not book readers" is pretty obnoxious. They are two completely different media, what does appreciating one have to do with also appreciating the other? I want to have a look at his bookshelf, cause from his tone, the books he's reading aren't the kind of literature that actually has an argument to be placed higher than serial television.
Last edited:
They should use the DS9 model. Serialized but not so much that it can't be episodic too. The only truly serialized DS9 was the 6 episode arc at the beginning of Season 6 and the final 9 episodes of the series. I could easily pick out random episodes from all 7 seasons of DS9 that are episodic. Season 7 was highly episodic until the final arc.
Exactly.
Exactly.
As was mentioned earlier...the students are able to study at various locales so they needn't be stuck in California. Apparently they have campuses scattered all over. (as per Voyager The Cloud). The cadets could travel from place to place, go on training missions etc.
That's not an argument FOR that type of show...its just to point out that such a show need not be locked into one place.
To me, a Starfleet Academy show would be good as a side series to another Trek that's going on, but it wouldn't work as a 10 year waiting TV Trek revival. And it's a great premise for a video game.
I think the main reason serial shows became popular is that epic ongoing stories feel less trite and disposable than episodic television. People got a little bored of the episodic format because nothing feels that important if you know at the end of the episode nothing will matter and everything will just be nicely returned to the status quo. And most of the time they didn't put careful individual care into every episode, writers got extremely lazy with the episodic format, relying on formulae and repetition instead of trying to make every story seem unique and special like they did in old shows like The Twilight Zone, Seinfeld or Colombo.
I've noticed in watching syndicated shows like The Office or Parks & Recreation they aren't as entertaining if you don't watch them in order and have the ongoing context in the back of your mind.
I think the main reason serial shows became popular is that epic ongoing stories feel less trite and disposable than episodic television. People got a little bored of the episodic format because nothing feels that important if you know at the end of the episode nothing will matter and everything will just be nicely returned to the status quo. And most of the time they didn't put careful individual care into every episode, writers got extremely lazy with the episodic format, relying on formulae and repetition instead of trying to make every story seem unique and special like they did in old shows like The Twilight Zone, Seinfeld or Colombo.
I've noticed in watching syndicated shows like The Office or Parks & Recreation they aren't as entertaining if you don't watch them in order and have the ongoing context in the back of your mind.
It could be a Teen Titans-style cartoon.
Except there are tons of serialized shows that have stand out episodes, because they cap off a huge build up of plot points in an episode (the Red Wedding wouldn't have worked as an event in a stand alone episode). DS9 was serialized and it had some great episodes.
How would an episodic Star Trek series be different from TOS or TNG. Really the Star Trek version of space exploration has become dull and formulaic at this point. Its just a star ship discovers an alien planet, solves a problem on that planet and we never hear about that planet again. Wouldn't the exploration aspect be more meaningful if we see more of these planets and civilizations the Federation discovers, rather these discoveries never getting mentioned after one episode.
I think Voyager killed my interest in an episodic show, it had almost no continuity and hit the reset button every episode. It took the TNG formula and ran into the ground. Voyager episodic format produce a few rare gems, a fair amount of truly bad episodes, but mostly it consisted of bland and mediocre episodes that went no where and did not feel up to par with City on the Edge of Forever or Darmok, Voyager never had anything akin to those episodes, so I am wondering how a new episodic show won't just produce a bunch of mediocre episodes and nothing else of note. Star Trek needs something more modern, not another TNG clone, like Voyager was. Seriously, nothing happened in Voyager, most of the characters are static and never develop and their voyage home was so mishandled, it quickly became irrelevant. Voyager just felt like it was recycling old TNG scripts, this new show was to define Star Trek more for the modern era, rather then trying to recreate a 60s or 80s style show for today's audience.
Last edited:
nuWho (seasons 1 through 5 anyway) should be the model in terms of format I believe - you can get the best of both with this kind of approach. Individual episodes linked together by certain threads/themes but each of the individual stories building towards some sort of climax - but the individual episodes each have opportunities to be real stand-outs in terms of story-telling.
Buffy worked on a similiar model - I've always felt that Star Trek could work in that way too (actually it kind of already did - Deep Space Nine)
What I feel wouldn't work is a strictly episodic format ala most of 90's Star Trek where nothing links together and the series could be watched in any order without any sense of order. While the CSI/Crime Show format shows that this still has a place in this decade, I think the netflix/streaming boxset audience expects a little more in terms of serialisation simply due to how well it suits that format over weekly television.
Buffy worked on a similiar model - I've always felt that Star Trek could work in that way too (actually it kind of already did - Deep Space Nine)
What I feel wouldn't work is a strictly episodic format ala most of 90's Star Trek where nothing links together and the series could be watched in any order without any sense of order. While the CSI/Crime Show format shows that this still has a place in this decade, I think the netflix/streaming boxset audience expects a little more in terms of serialisation simply due to how well it suits that format over weekly television.
Last edited:
A lot of recent shows prove that it's possible to have individual episodes be self contained while still having threads going in the B stories that culminate at the end of the season.
Agree with this. Episodic type of TV show often rushed many things. It happen in Sleepy Hollow, Dark Matter, and some other episodic type of TV show; just because they don't have enough time to finish the monster of the week without skip many things. Basically, monster of the week is boring.
I like a serialization like walking dead.
I think it is better if they just make a 10 episodes of full serialization than 21 episodes of episodic show.
Last edited:
That's an awful example because The Walking Dead is really badly written and not even the best example of serialization, since season 4 they have long stretches of episodes where the characters split up and each subgroup has their own separate adventure until they meet up again. Those episodes can be watched in a random order because they all take place roughly at the same time, it also leads to things like Daryl receiving a call for help before it was made a few episodes later because the events aren't always shown chronologically.
That format can work if it's done well but I don't think it would suit Star Trek.
Similar threads
