I wish all new series were simply run on regular local t.v. channels. Too much hassle just to watch a show. I'm a fan of the k.i.s.s theory...
I'm a big Star Trek fan, but unless this series shows up on regular TV or on blu-ray I'm going to give it a pass.
This show is going to be far more adult than any previous Trek iteration. If you're looking for a show aimed at the kiddies, look no further than TOS.
No. TNG is vastly different than TOS. Is TNG Trek in name only? The vocal minority were saying that when TNG was first proposed. As they say in Battlestar Galactica, "All of this has happened before and will happen again." It's a characteristic of fandom. It's an endless cycle of complaints from the vocal minority with each new incarnation of Trek. Wash, rinse, repeat.
We shall see. In fact, I'm not against dropping the rule (which I didn't know existed as such), because, yeah, human nature won't change anytime soon. DS9 was perhaps the 'darkest' of the series so far and most of the best episodes dealt with strategic conflicts and duplicitous scheming and while this wasn't necessarily between starfleet officers, it did show the efficacy of such storylines.
They didn't always get along with each other during the course of the show, either. Even Janeway and Chakotay had numerous falling outs during the mid to latter run of the show, a couple pretty serious. The whole writers' complaint about Trek characters not being allowed to be in conflict with one another was somewhat overblown. Roddenberry I think mostly wanted to avoid petty, stupid, everyday kinds of conflict. It may not be very realistic, and I'm sure it makes the program more challenging to write for. But it also forces the writers to come up with creative ways around that problem, gave Trek its unique tone (especially TNG, which in spite of its flaws was easily the most-successful entry in the franchise) and probably accounts for its incredible longevity. But DS9 already dealt with that problem by setting the show on a station with recurring alien characters to provide loads of conflict. The biggest problem with it is probably that there were too many Starfleet characters, and they ended up being the most boring characters on the show. The aliens in contrast were all more interesting, and I'd argue Garak is probably the most interesting character any of the Treks ever concocted. I would have loved to have seen a series dealing with Ambassador Garak from the newly-reformed post-Dominion occupation Cardassian government navigating his way around postwar Paris as Cardassia's representative to the Federation. Lots of opportunities for drama, intrigue, political jockeying and covert hijinks, all seasoned with Garak's salty sarcasm.
TNG stuck to Roddenberry's rules - possibly even more so than TOS. So no, it's not Trek in name only.
It more or less stuck to the rules until Roddenberry died, thereafter the writing changed (for the better).
I thought the plot about Into Darkness sucked. The Khan reveal was lame, too. I don't mind divergence from cannon as the new series is supposed to be a reboot, not a remake. Just give me good scripts and acting.
No biggie. I was never even aware that rule existed. What I found most interesting about that article is this quote: So, apparently I will be able to watch at least some of Discovery on plain old CBS. Don't get me wrong--most TV series I watch are either on Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, Showtime, or HBO streaming--but the thought of subscribing to yet another streaming service to watch just one show is rather irksome to me.
They were already bending that rule often while Roddenberry was still alive - the strained relationship between Picard and Pulaski, for example (she didn't have much love for Deanna Troi or Data, either). And the writing had improved notably before Roddenberry died. I credit the arrival of Melinda Snodgrass, who I think pretty much saved the show during its (still uneven) second season via her script editing and delivering shows like "The Ensigns Of Command" and especially "The Measure Of A Man", which might be the best episode TNG ever produced and has certainly held up better than, say, "The Best Of Both Worlds" (whose "action" looks ridiculously creaky - even by TV standards - today).
I had the great pleasure of meeting Miss Snodgrass at a convention in Columbus, OH while she was working on the show. A very intelligent and insightful person. A former lawyer if I remember correctly. Her take on Dr. Crusher in season three's "The High Ground" was the best that character ever was written IMHO. I also credit Richard Manning & Hans Beimler for writing consistently good scripts in the first three seasons.
The first episode of The Best of Both Worlds works better than the second and I thought the Riker b-story kind of sucked. I think Snodgras was important but so were Ronald Moore and Brannon Braga.
I think Moore came in later, and was definitely important, but the show was already on an upswing. Never got the love for Braga. I thought most of his episodes were mediocre at best. And by the time he turned up the show was already on a more solid footing. He and Berman ruined Voyager - not that Jeri Taylor had done a great job to begin with. Shoulda given it to Ron Moore to run, but I think that program had major character and casting issues that it could never really recover from. It was sort of the opposite of DS9, which was mostly perfectly cast and had much more interesting characters. The second part feels amazingly cheap, especially considering the ratings TNG was hauling in for Paramount. But while it was shocking at the time for TNG and made a huge splash, I caught it again a few years ago and man, is it stilted and sluggish. I thought the Riker b-story was alright, though.
Moore started in season three, Braga four. Most of the season three staff were gone by then. Some of them would return to Trek with DS9.
It sounds like this article (and whoever fed the writer info from the production company/marketing) has this mild slant that because it is being made today therefore it is more sophisticated attitude. "There’s also the fact the last Trek series (Star Trek: Enterprise) went off the air 12 years ago and the TV drama storytelling has evolved to be more realistic since then — and so has sci-fi." I find a lot of today's television writing to be good but further from realism (whatever that really means). For instance, "Breaking Bad" was wonderful but I would not consider it realistic (which is why is was great). The new "Battlestar Gallactica" had good characters but I wouldn't consider them more realistic. Maybe this is just me (darn it). I also think self contained episodes work well. Long story arcs with slow reveals and heavy character serializations (for me) gets boring, has a tendancy to add lots of padding or goes off on very self-indulgent directions, and makes repeat veiwings a chore (because all the endless build up with the arcs are known already). Sprinkles of this works but modern TV s seems obsessed with this now. I'm hoping this is good but the way they are marketing it is not wotking for me. Fingers crossed.
I agree. I recently went back to watching Moore's Galactica, but stopped in the third season because the story arc became familiar again and I lost interest. I don't think studios are concerned with repeat viewing. The new goal seems to be global exposure. Appeal to as many markets as possible.
This serialization aspect is a major concern of mine. Not because of potential boredom, etc (I love peak-TV quality serialized shows), but because of the re-watchability factor. I routinely cycle through TNG, DS9 & Voyager every few years because there are so many different stories in each season. With serialized shows, you basically have one long story per season which tends to stick in your mind for much longer than 26 different stories would. So I feel less inclined to re-watch the show any time soon. You also have to invest in seeing the whole season instead of being able to cherrypick or skip episodes. So, the season(s) may be good in the moment of release, but later...
