Star Trek: Your Vision

[LibraryOgre]

This doesn't just vary by show but from episodes within the same show. Seven of Nine at times is tempted back just because she misses being a borg, the borg in STNG swing back and forth on whether they like being individuals or not. In the end having a collective option versus an individual option leads to more room for discussion, so I prefer going that route.

What mostly develops through TNG and VOY was that most borg like being part of A collective, but they don't necessarily like being part of THE Collective. You see several situations with ex-borg who create some sort of collective for themselves, but try to avoid the actual collective, which is very imperialist.

[Blackhawk748]

What mostly develops through TNG and VOY was that most borg like being part of A collective, but they don't necessarily like being part of THE Collective. You see several situations with ex-borg who create some sort of collective for themselves, but try to avoid the actual collective, which is very imperialist.

I would certainly be down for more Hugh and the Lore Collective. They seemed interesting.

As for episodicness... Eh, I rather liked DS9 and it's overarching plots, but I also feel that it did a good job mixing in X of the week stuff. I feel we should go back to that on some level because purely serial storytelling is omnipresent and some shake up would be good.

[JadedDM]

What mostly develops through TNG and VOY was that most borg like being part of A collective, but they don't necessarily like being part of THE Collective. You see several situations with ex-borg who create some sort of collective for themselves, but try to avoid the actual collective, which is very imperialist.

Like the Cooperative.

[dps]

Never get made.

Modern premium TV just will not do purely episodic storytelling outside of comedy. Because the big news (and the primetime emmys) are in serial stories these days.

Which one of the reasons why I said I want it on broadcast TV, not a premium channel or service.

Also, the tone of TOS is a product of the 1960s and the tone of TNG is a product of the 1980s/90s. Unless you invent a time machine and kidnap writers from those time periods you will not get a Star Trek show with those tones because it is no longer the 1960s or the 1990s. And nor should you because Star Trek is a forward looking show that comments on the times in which it is being made.

Star Trek is just as much about the now as it is about the future, and always has been, very deliberately.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by tone. I basically meant two things when I posted that. First, that I want it to show an optimistic, hopeful vision of the future, not some grim and dark crap. That doesn't mean that the Federation has to be perfect, but they should still overall be the good guys. And second, that while there certainly can and should be action in the show, it shouldn't simply be an action show.

[LibraryOgre]

Like the Cooperative.

Some of whom I was thinking of, in fact.

[Bohandas]

First, that I want it to show an optimistic, hopeful vision of the future, not some grim and dark crap.

Yeah. It's supposed to be Star Trek, not Warhammer 40000.

[Rodin]

I would certainly be down for more Hugh and the Lore Collective. They seemed interesting.

As for episodicness... Eh, I rather liked DS9 and it's overarching plots, but I also feel that it did a good job mixing in X of the week stuff. I feel we should go back to that on some level because purely serial storytelling is omnipresent and some shake up would be good.

DS9 is a bit weird. The writers wanted to do serial storytelling but didn't know how. The result is this weird mish-mash as they tried out differing styles. DS9 starts with the standard Star Trek style - purely episodic, with major events happening as season finales. The result is bizarre stuff like the Dominion declaring war and then being forgotten about for most of a season. Then they moved into extending the season finales into beginning and ending arcs for the season, with all the filler episodes jammed in the middle. That's how we go from a big war into Quark cross-dressing with little acknowledgement of how weird the tone shift is. Finally, they abandoned episodic structure altogether and did the final 7 or 8 episodes as one long stream of consciousness that blurs together. It's the progenitor of modern serial storytelling, but without understanding what makes it work.

DS9 was a product of its time, for better and worse. The shifting styles makes the show unique, but also opens gaping plot holes that are more than a little irritating.

[GloatingSwine]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by tone. I basically meant two things when I posted that. First, that I want it to show an optimistic, hopeful vision of the future, not some grim and dark crap. That doesn't mean that the Federation has to be perfect, but they should still overall be the good guys. And second, that while there certainly can and should be action in the show, it shouldn't simply be an action show.

That’s what I mean about it being about the current time though. TOS was optimistic a about the future because the 1960s were generally optimistic. (Especially wrt America’s view of itself within the world which is what informs the Federation)

The 2020s, well, aren’t.

[Peelee]

DS9 is a bit weird. The writers wanted to do serial storytelling but didn't know how.

Or maybe episodic shows were the style at the time and it was difficult to push through a purely serialized overarching storyline (in no small part because that requires every fan to watch every episode and not miss any, which networks likely believed would alienate viewers) so they were only allowed to do so in broader strokes and had to still have episodic storylines throughout.

I honestly have no idea either way, but that seems like a much simpler explanation than "professional writers don't know how to write professionally".

[Rodin]

Or maybe episodic shows were the style at the time and it was difficult to push through a purely serialized overarching storyline (in no small part because that requires every fan to watch every episode and not miss any, which networks likely believed would alienate viewers) so they were only allowed to do so in broader strokes and had to still have episodic storylines throughout.

I honestly have no idea either way, but that seems like a much simpler explanation than "professional writers don't know how to write professionally".

Likely some of column A and some of column B. The networks were restricting some things (when are they not), but the writing culture of the show would have been heavily focused on episodic storytelling. After all, it's what they were all used to. We're not simply talking about professional writers here - we're talking about professional TV scriptwriters. And like you said, episodic shows were the style at the time. How many of the DS9 writing crew had experience writing a plot that hangs together for an entire season, instead of a single episode or a two-parter?

My opinion that they didn't quite know what they were doing is mainly informed by the final season. They abandoned the episodic format for the final 8 episodes or so, and the result is...not good. There's nothing resembling modern structure in there. It's just stuff happening with the episodes starting and ending arbitrarily. Worf and Dax spend an eternity in a prison cell for no purpose. The Breen are introduced and then just as quickly rendered impotent. The build up to the conclusion of Sisko's story happens without him. Etc, etc.

There are a lot of glaring flaws in the story progression in the final season that were not present in the rest of the show. It makes me think that something happened behind the scenes to cause that, and the flaws coincide with the shift away from episodic storytelling.

[dps]

That’s what I mean about it being about the current time though. TOS was optimistic a about the future because the 1960s were generally optimistic. (Especially wrt America’s view of itself within the world which is what informs the Federation)

The 2020s, well, aren’t.

Doesn't sound to me like you were there in the 1960s.

[Ramza00]

Or maybe episodic shows were the style at the time and it was difficult to push through a purely serialized overarching storyline (in no small part because that requires every fan to watch every episode and not miss any, which networks likely believed would alienate viewers) so they were only allowed to do so in broader strokes and had to still have episodic storylines throughout.

I honestly have no idea either way, but that seems like a much simpler explanation than "professional writers don't know how to write professionally".

That is part of the charm of DS9 honestly. Sure I would like more 2, 3 and 6 episode arcs such as we got with the Season 5 finale and the start of Season 6.

But part of the charm of DS9 is it is not perfectly serialized, and that there are both high and low moments in the cold war conflict that became hot war with the Dominion while simultaneously dealing with Bajoran problems (there could be a civil war, and what happened was not a civil war but several conflicts over who would be Space Pope), and low to high war tensions with Cardassia a larger nation / empire with which Bajor shares a boarder, a conflict where there was an occupation and no peace treaty, no cease fire, just one side realizing it was no longer profitable to occupy that area, but there was still debates and tensions over who had which borders until Season 3 when the peace treaty occurs.

Yadda, Yadda, Yadda my point is the characters inside the story do not know what is going to happen next and that is part of the charm of DS9. When you set out to make serialized television you are TELLING the viewer there is going to be an arc and thus the viewer anticipates specific types of stories prior to them being told. Well part of the charm of DS9 is the characters do not know if now, 3 weeks from now, 3 months from now, a year from now, 3 years from now whether there will be war or peace. They have to live their lives like all people do in that nexus of places, their home, which suddenly may become a war zone. There is no escape, only the possibility of living, and the possibility of war.

This can be charming or it can be the worse type of stressful hell depending on ones perspective and DS9 makes it fun!

Doesn't sound to me like you were there in the 1960s.

Nods, sitcoms, but also Star Trek the Original, TNG, DS9, etc are partly a response to the culture of their times. These type of television are critiquing the present and possible future.

Much like how The Twilight Zone is about how certain type of family and work relationships sound like a good idea at first but they can become creepy / spooky / monkey's paw. Or Black Mirror is like more of this phone thing until it becomes a horror.

Sitcoms critique the present in different ways than The Twilight Zone or Black Mirror but the critique is there. Likewise Animated Shows like The Simpsons in the 80s and 90s, and now a days Bojack Horseman and Rick and Morty.

Well Star Trek TOS was hopeful precisely because people were not hopeful yet the raw ingredients of a better world still existed in the present, they merely need to be arranged in a different way. The 60s was kind of a stressful time in their own way. All time is like that just different ways how it is stressful.

[Blackhawk748]

DS9 is a bit weird. The writers wanted to do serial storytelling but didn't know how. The result is this weird mish-mash as they tried out differing styles. DS9 starts with the standard Star Trek style - purely episodic, with major events happening as season finales. The result is bizarre stuff like the Dominion declaring war and then being forgotten about for most of a season. Then they moved into extending the season finales into beginning and ending arcs for the season, with all the filler episodes jammed in the middle. That's how we go from a big war into Quark cross-dressing with little acknowledgement of how weird the tone shift is. Finally, they abandoned episodic structure altogether and did the final 7 or 8 episodes as one long stream of consciousness that blurs together. It's the progenitor of modern serial storytelling, but without understanding what makes it work.

DS9 was a product of its time, for better and worse. The shifting styles makes the show unique, but also opens gaping plot holes that are more than a little irritating.

Honestly the Dominion declaring war and then doing very little didn't actually feel super weird to me. Probably because real Wars can do odd stuff like that too. But you;re right, DS9 was like Babylon 5, the beginning of full blown serial storytelling, its just that Babylon 5 did it better.

Still, I liked the mish mash and Dr Who kinda proves you can work that way

That’s what I mean about it being about the current time though. TOS was optimistic a about the future because the 1960s were generally optimistic. (Especially wrt America’s view of itself within the world which is what informs the Federation)

The 2020s, well, aren’t.

And? Doesn't mean that ST can't go back to being optimistic instead of year another "Nihilistic The World and Humans suck" fest.

Seriously, nihilism isn't edgy or interesting anymore, its just annoying.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by GloatingSwine
…because the 1960s were generally optimistic.

Reading the history of the 60s, they hardly seem that way, although specific examples can’t be discussed here.

It’s fair to say that the 1960s were awash in technological optimism, at least in some quarters, with the belief that science and technology could be harnessed to create a better world. Many of the most inventive concepts for interstellar exploration were first developed in the 60s, from the Bussard ramjet to Project Daedalus and beamed-energy propulsion, as well as high-frontier concepts like O'Neill cylinders.

But down on the ground the 60s were far less rosy, again for reasons we probably can’t get into here. In one of the time-travel episodes from TOS, Kirk meets a young woman who says people of her generation weren’t sure they’d live to be thirty, which is a fair reflection of some of the fears of the time.

As Ramza alluded to, Roddenberry created TOS to help show a future beyond the chaos and uncertainty that people were living in the 60s—a future which showed how some of the best ideals of the time might be embodied. Trek was entertaining, sure, but it was so popular because it offered people hope when they needed it.

Originally Posted by Rodin
My opinion that they didn't quite know what they were doing is mainly informed by the final season.

Sometimes I wish that people who claim experienced professional writers “don’t know what they’re doing” would first post their own camera-ready pilot script and series bible.

There are always factors and constraints to producing a series which have nothing to do with the supposed incompetence of writers and staff. Episodes aren’t always shot in their final airing order, budgets are always an overriding concern, and heavy-handed executive decisions can twist a show inside-out. At the best of times it’s a frenetic mess to get a season filmed, and claiming that any resulting discontinuities are somehow only the writers’ fault isn’t remotely fair to the writers.

[Peelee]

Sometimes I wish that people who claim experienced professional writers “don’t know what they’re doing” would first post their own camera-ready pilot script and series bible.

While I understand the sentiment, the skills to be a good critic and the skills to be a good screenwriter are not necessarily the same.

[Tvtyrant]

Sometimes I wish that people who claim experienced professional writers “don’t know what they’re doing” would first post their own camera-ready pilot script and series bible.

There are always factors and constraints to producing a series which have nothing to do with the supposed incompetence of writers and staff. Episodes aren’t always shot in their final airing order, budgets are always an overriding concern, and heavy-handed executive decisions can twist a show inside-out. At the best of times it’s a frenetic mess to get a season filmed, and claiming that any resulting discontinuities are somehow only the writers’ fault isn’t remotely fair to the writers.

I find it funny this only comes up in media discussions. "Sometimes I wish that people who claim experienced architects "don't know what they're doing" would first post their own blue prints and credentials."

Meanwhile everyone can see the cracks and structural issues with the house. Yeah media's hard, so are all careers. You don't get a pass if the product is bad, the house stands up or not.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Tvtyrant
Yeah media's hard, so are all careers. You don't get a pass if the product is bad, the house stands up or not.

Except sometimes the people who pour the foundations aren't the ones who skimped on the roofing. Different groups of professionals work on the product at different times, and a perceived flaw in one area shouldn't be blamed on people who worked on another part of the structure.

And I don't buy the argument that people who don't write are somehow the best critics. You can't provide informed critique if you don't have an understanding of the craft and the industry.

[Peelee]

And I don't buy the argument that people who don't write are somehow the best critics.

Neither do I, and I would argue against anyone who made such a claim.

[Tvtyrant]

Except sometimes the people who pour the foundations aren't the ones who skimped on the roofing. Different groups of professionals work on the product at different times, and a perceived flaw in one area shouldn't be blamed on people who worked on another part of the structure.

And I don't buy the argument that people who don't write are somehow the best critics. You can't provide informed critique if you don't have an understanding of the craft and the industry.

If they were doing it for love of the craft and showing it at indy films maybe. If it's made to turn a buck as part of mass distribution it has to cater to audiences, they are the ones paying for it. Yeah maybe corporate messed it up, but the writer still wrote a bad product and failed to get it to look like their client's vision in a market where lots of other writers have succeeded.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Tvtyrant
Yeah maybe corporate messed it up, but the writer still wrote a bad product and failed to get it to look like their client's vision in a market where lots of other writers have succeeded.

For comparison, look at what happened to Firefly, with episodes which were intended to be watched in sequence, but which were scrambled in their air dates and repeatedly preempted by baseball games, of all things. Those are decisions the writers can’t do anything about.

Is the final product affected? Yes, drastically so, enough to force an early cancellation. But in no way is that the fault of the writers, and certainly doesn’t support claims that the writers didn’t know what they’re doing. This was not in any way a "bad product" from the writers--it was an excellent product crippled by factors beyond their control.

[Tvtyrant]

For comparison, look at what happened to Firefly, with episodes which were intended to be watched in sequence, but which were scrambled in their air dates and repeatedly preempted by baseball games, of all things. Those are decisions the writers can’t do anything about.

Is the final product affected? Yes, drastically so, enough to force an early cancellation. But in no way is that the fault of the writers, and certainly doesn’t support claims that the writers didn’t know what they’re doing. This was not in any way a "bad product" from the writers--it was an excellent product crippled by factors beyond their control.

And they knew that was a possibility because that is how TV works, and they made them sequential anyway. Exactly like the house example; if an architect makes a perfectly nice flat roof house and stick it in the Oregon Rain Forest and the roof collapses, and they knew it was going in the rain forest it is on the architect for designing the wrong house. Whedon had years of experience in TV doing that exact thing, Firefly failed because he hoped his popularity would let him force the executives to do what he wanted instead of what he was hired to do.

[Bohandas]

Or maybe episodic shows were the style at the time and it was difficult to push through a purely serialized overarching storyline (in no small part because that requires every fan to watch every episode and not miss any, which networks likely believed would alienate viewers

Not believed, knew. This was before streaming services and video on demand

[Peelee]

Not believed, knew. This was before streaming services and video on demand

But after VCRs. That's why I dialed back a bit there.

Firefly failed because he hoped his popularity would let him force the executives to do what he wanted instead of what he was hired to do.

I'd put my money on Firefly failing because Fox aired episodes out of order, in different time slots, on different days, with little advertising.

Clerks TAS suffered a similar problem, except even more extreme.

[Dire_Flumph]

I'd put Firefly's failure on FOX advertising and executive shenanigans before placing the episodes out of order. I watched Firefly when it aired and thought "The Train Job" did an adequate job of setting up the characters (apparently it was retooled after the networks told Bad Robot they weren't going to air the pilot) and I didn't have any trouble following the story afterwards.

But look at this and tell me if that's anything you'd want to watch unless you were like me at the time and gave every sci fi show on TV at least a chance. And that's about as much push as I ever saw FOX give the show.

[Peelee]

I'd put Firefly's failure on FOX advertising and executive shenanigans before placing the episodes out of order. I watched Firefly when it aired and thought "The Train Job" did an adequate job of setting up the characters (apparently it was retooled after the networks told Bad Robot they weren't going to air the pilot) and I didn't have any trouble following the story afterwards.

But look at this and tell me if that's anything you'd want to watch unless you were like me at the time and gave every sci fi show on TV at least a chance. And that's about as much push as I ever saw FOX give the show.

Holy hell that's terrible. I remember around the time it was on, my best friend told me he loved it (that and John Doe, which he had rather choice words about regarding the season 1/series finale cliffhanger, and even more choice words once I found out how the overall storyline was supposed to go a couple years back and let him know), and I, based on what few radio ads I'd heard of it at the time, thought it was about an arsonist or something. It's now one of my favorite shows, naturally.

So yeah. They really didn't put any effort into advertising it.

[Kitten Champion]

Holy hell that's terrible. I remember around the time it was on, my best friend told me he loved it (that and John Doe, which he had rather choice words about regarding the season 1/series finale cliffhanger, and even more choice words once I found out how the overall storyline was supposed to go a couple years back and let him know), and, based on what few radio ads I'd heard of it at the time, thought it was about an arsonist or something. It's now one of my favorite shows, naturally.

So yeah. They really didn't put any effort into advertising it.

Huh, I had forgotten John Doe.

*Looks it up on Wikipedia*

That's just terrible. Like, if you're going to go with a cliffhanger where a key supporting cast member turns out to be a villain then don't immediately wuss-out and make him a Doombot, that's just so cheap.

Also, him having supreme cosmic awareness because of a near-death experience after a boating accident might work if you made the show like John Travolta's Phenomenon, but it'd feel pretty underwhelming payoff in a science fiction series about warring secret cults and big mysteries.

[Peelee]

Huh, I had forgotten John Doe.

*Looks it up on Wikipedia*

That's just terrible. Like, if you're going to go with a cliffhanger where a key supporting cast member turns out to be a villain then don't immediately wuss-out and make him a Doombot, that's just so cheap.

Also, him having supreme cosmic awareness because of a near-death experience after a boating accident might work if you made the show like John Travolta's Phenomenon, but it'd feel pretty underwhelming payoff in a science fiction series about warring secret cults and big mysteries.

I was kind of hoping that my commentary would ward off fans of that show, but alas. I'd add a warning for other people who liked it to not look it up, but if they've read this far, it's a bit too late.

[Kitten Champion]

I was kind of hoping that my commentary would ward off fans of that show, but alas. I'd add a warning for other people who liked it to not look it up, but if they've read this far, it's a bit too late.

It was a one season show on Fox of which I can barely recall a single episode, so I'm not exactly a disillusioned John Doe mega-fan. However, despite that, I actually vividly remembered the season finale's ending shocking twist reveal and was genuinely intrigued where they were going to go with it.

It's like the Agent Ward twist on Agents of SHIELD, which was the highlight of that season. Only AoS actually ran with that and worked to make Ward a series long-time villain, John Doe was just going to go with what was essentially the "he's actually an evil identical twin" route like a cheesy soap opera.

[Peelee]

It was a one season show on Fox of which I can barely recall a single episode, so I'm not exactly a disillusioned John Doe mega-fan. However, despite that, I actually vividly remembered the season finale's ending shocking twist reveal and was genuinely intrigued where they were going to go with it.

It's like the Agent Ward twist on Agents of SHIELD, which was the highlight of that season. Only AoS actually ran with that and worked to make Ward a series long-time villain, John Doe was just going to go with what was essentially the "he's actually an evil identical twin" route like a cheesy soap opera.

I'd like to rewatch it but no streaming service has it and I can't evert rent/buy off Amazon.

Still no interest in Agents of Shield, of course.

[BeerMug Paladin]

In regards to the optimism of the 1960s, it seems to me if anything, that science fiction used to have a general trend of being rather optimistic about the future. In my view, it's almost a natural consequence of just deciding that the future is space travel and colonizing other planets. The new frontier is as inevitable as the date on the calendar advancing forwards. Science will naturally, solve all the other problems too as our civilization develops.

It seems to me that many science fiction writers in the early to mid 20th century focused on the idea that we could leave Earth and with it, leave many of our own problems behind (or render them as issues that can be easily ignored because of other issues having a frontier to colonize brings us). Now that leaving Earth doesn't appear possible and it's apparent we're stuck on this planet (and with ourselves) forever, the trend to portray futures where such things can happen has somewhat diminished in favor of cyberpunk dystopia.

Now the almost default vision of the future is as much exemplified by social rot as much as technological advancement. In the future, we'll be living on a corpse of a planet we cannot truly escape. Beyond Earth, there's nothing for us to find in the universe but a brutal, cold emptiness. Meanwhile, the fumes of progress sputter out as we kill our best selves. Knowing for all time that we and we alone, are collectively choosing annihilation.

Maybe I'm just imagining the trend based on my limited perspective. I certainly don't have a complete picture of all fiction in any decade prior, let alone our current one. It just seems to me that science fiction has lost the idea of a savage frontier (for several good reasons), and with that loss there is nowhere left to go but inwards. We have to go deeper.

Oh, and just in case someone cries foul, me pointing this out is not an endorsement of saying that Star Trek ought to be changed to become a cyberpunk dystopia setting. Though advancing the calendar 100 years from the TNG-era could justify such a change and would make a whole lot more sense than trying any direct sequel or prequel series with a modern tone. It probably would make a lot more sense to do this than almost any notion of returning to classic form.