YESSSSSSSSSSSSS

top 98 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 54 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I think what gave earlier Trek so much soul was the non-human characters that allowed you to explore humanity through them. Spock, Data, Odo all lived in and around humans, and explored what that meant.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    I agree. It's what makes sci-fi good, in my opinion. It's a useful tool to look at the failings of humanity, but in a way that subverts people's self-defence mechanisms. For example, racist might agree treating intelligent aliens as animals is bad without thinking about themselves at first. With a tiny amount of reflection, they will realize it also applies to their beliefs. This can work for so many other topics, like DS9 covers the use of terrorism against Fascists using aliens as stand ins for actual groups that have and do exist in our world.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    It gets tired though. And it inevitably puts humans on a pedestal as the thing the robot aspires to be, the thing the Vulcan needs to learn to embrace, the thing 7of9 needs to get back to…

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 52 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    I miss the more 'monster of the week' type storytelling weaved through with season long (or longer) arcs that spanned 20-ish episode seasons. I liked the kind of storytelling where episodes stood on their own but had hints in them that formed a big picture. And every now and then there was an episode that was wholly dedicated to the overarching plot.
    This kind of storytelling leaves a lot of room for characterisation episodes or exploration of an intriguing concept. And don't you dare calling this filler. Filler is meaningless. Exploring concepts and characters is not meaningless.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    I want more filler episodes the same way Magic The Gathering wants bad cards:

    The solution to the aforementioned problem leads to the second reason “bad” cards exist. Different cards have different functions and appeal to different players.

    We make some cards for the multi-player crowd. We make cards for the flavor crowd. We make cards for the silly crowd. We make the big creatures and spells for "Timmy." We make the combo cards for "Johnny." We take each different group of Magic players and throw some cards their way.

    The problem is players tend to define “bad cards” as cards that they personally see no reason to play. But certain cards aren’t meant for them in the first place.

    https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/making-magic/when-cards-go-bad-2002-01-28

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Bad or just plain meh eps stand out a lot further on shorter seasons though. I mean if i had the choice of watching s3 of SNW again or any given voyager season - even the first three- i'd choose the latter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    arnt people having problems with MTG right now, using Marvel and other IP, they dont like how its not original anymore.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    unless its like something like supernatural, every season after 5 was just filler aside from some ok seasons, they stretched out that show for way too long , and it shouldve died like 10years before it was cancelled.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 89 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Eight episodes every two years, I don't think so. That's not going to be something you necessarily pass on to your kids. And I think that's a loss.

    That's pretty profound.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Sounds a bit like a hack revealing himself. If they’re great, eight episodes every 2 years can absolutely have longevity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Sherlock was 13 episodes over 7 years, critically acclaimed. Skyrocketed Eggs Benedict's Career.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    Everyone’s in here arguing and dissecting filler episodes and serialized seasons and I see a lot of good arguments on both sides. But, no one is mentioning a modern Trek series that did a mix of filler episodes and episodic ones, developed characters, and had full season arcs: Lower Decks

    Granted, it’s a cartoon so it’s much easier for a deus ex machina or goofy cop-out ending but for 10ish 30 minutes episodes a season, they did a great job of telling modern stories while feeling like Trek Classic^TM^

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    while feeling like Trek ClassicTM

    Because there was so, so much memberberries.
    I found it mostly somewhar funny, but I don't know if I got half the jokes if I hadn't watched Old Trek so much.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    I would argue that it was a good show even without all of that but the nostalgia made it more fun for sure. LD had great writers who told interesting stories. And, it could go from strange and campy to highbrow and serious from one scene to the next but they were also telling stories with through lines and arcs and still providing the filler.

    To be fair, I haven’t watched Discovery or much Strange New Worlds yet, so I could be off base. But, it seems like Strange New Worlds is trying to thread that needle.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    Discovery is what people dint like(the klingons and thier strange appearance, cloaking tech before encoutering the ROMULANs, plus a ship that had technology that was pretty much centuries ahead of them at the time(they couldnt even tie it in that good when they WENT into the future to escape an AI(which was actually to escape the klingons discontinuity by Kurtzman), Picard was also pretty bad, it suffered the same end of season problems that STD, just dropped or the "big bad" was a bad storyline.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    I wouldn't say got all the jokes, but His Lordship enjoyed the fuck outta LD and he barely remembers any trek outside of some next gen and only knows DS9 through forced repeated exposure.

    Different levels, but we had the same fun. We both absolutely lost it at the resolution in Strange Energies, some things are just universal

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (9 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (8 children)
  • [+] -1 points 1 year ago (7 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Not sure I should be engaging here but are you seriously stalking downvotes?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    I was just curious. Seemed really weird to downvote.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Alright, I’ll bite.

    I’m a bit surprised that anyone would bother to note a downvote, let alone dig deep enough to investigate who downvoted and then specifically call them (me) out in the comments. It feels over the top and borderline malicious.

    As to why I downvoted in this case, two reasons:

    • discussion of someone’s pet name for a family member seems very irrelevant in this case, not particularly “contributing to the conversation”. I get why the question was asked and answered but it seems so far from anything important, especially now that it’s been explained.
    • it bothers me that someone would write as if the reader should be expected to somehow know who their husband is, let alone by reference to their pet name.

    Lastly, I don’t know why someone would ever be so invested in up- or down-votes at all. It’s not like the fediverse has the Reddit concept of “Karma” or whatever one wants to call fake internet points. It’s disappointing to have a negative total on a post sure but it’s completely ephemeral and irrelevant to one’s life.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    1). "His lordship" is actually a pretty common way to refer to your spouse in third person, it's a cultural joke to the extent you can even get mugs of it on amazon. It's not actually a pet name, he doesn't get called that irl, just online so a better phrase would have been sobriquet or moniker i suppose, but my brain was still coming online in the morning

    1. just because you don't understand something is not a valid reason to shit on it

    2. just because a conversation occurs that you don't like is also not a valid reason to shit on it.

    The world is much, much larger than you are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    As an old trekkie I'd be somewhat inclined to agree with you. But then I remember when I tried to get my ex into Star Trek and, while she enjoyed it, Lower Decks is the only one she actually loved and she was really sad when it ended. By the time we broke up she had just started her second run of LD.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    But, no one is mentioning a modern Trek series that did a mix of filler episodes and episodic ones, developed characters, and had full season arcs: Lower Decks

    lower decks is 10 episodes per season, what exactly is "full season" in this context?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    Lots of talk of filler in this thread, and it certainly can be a problem, but there are reasons to watch things other than a serialized plot, and if it's good, it's not filler. Exploring themes and context and setting and characters are perfectly valid, and longer seasons let a show do that. I very much like having at least a few serialized threads running through a show, and characters that never, ever change can be a bit boring, but IMHO the term "filler" gets tossed around much too loosely in a lot of online discourse around genre TV.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    good filler episodes let you advance backstory of all the characters, which is something you may not have space for in the episodes advancing the main plot, so you do actually care about them.

    not like strange new worlds (which i do like), where there is this asian woman pilot on the bridge and after 3 seasons i don't even remember her name. i mean wtf is with that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    they did that with STD too, just marginalized all the pocs/and some of the actors that were very prominent in the 1st season into the background with no real arcs, and tried to push the unlikable ones to the forefront of the show.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

    That’s a dumb comparison but I’m all for longer seasons. TNG had like 20 something episodes per. I’m even okay if they aren’t all JJ Abrahms cinematic quality. Bring back cheap TV!

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Thats the problem with modern trek, that need to be "cinematic". Star Trek doesnt need it, it never did. Some of the best episodes were done on a shoe string budget. Like The Drumhead and Its only a paper moon for example. Its only a paper moon didnt even feature any of the main cast. Thats how good DS9s writing was. Even the side characters got the love from the writers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    24 episodes was standard for Prime Time television unless you were a weird mini series of some sort or absurdly expensive

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    It used to be 26, so you could plan shows covering half a calendar year, then over the years it got cut down more and more. And it was probably not a bad thing because you typically had the same budget but meant you didn't have to do a cheap clip show to pad out the numbers.

    That's also why you see a lot of shows with 13 episodes, that seemingly arbitrary number is "half" a traditional season. Even Netflix, despite not traditionally caring too much about seasonal stuff or drip feeding week to week, has a lot of 13 episode seasons.

    I guess at some point people wanted even numbers (10) as 13 does feel a bit arbitrary even if there's a reason for it.

    Personally for me I'd rather have 10 great quality episodes than 26 episodes where maybe 8 of them are great, 10 are okay and the rest are utter dogshit. The problem is that even (what I consider) great shows like Strange New Worlds, despite only having those 10 episodes per season, still has the odd naff episode.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    First, name one of these shows that fits that description. Seasons have a few stinkers, but a lot ot of them have great B plots.

    Plus it leaves so much more room for the most important part. Characters. And their development.

    The biggest problem with the new shows is there will never be another DS9 level of characters changing over the show's run.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I mean if we're being honest then pretty much all 90's trek fits the description I've given.

    Don't get me wrong, in principle I completely agree that more episodes can mean more character development and that's a good thing, but it's not as simple as "more episodes = better", there has to be intent and desire there to make good things rather than a specific number of things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Awesome!

    Can we now also get rid of the lens flares the dumb pew pew, most of the CGI and action and just get back to well written show episodes where CGI is a lick of paint to make it pretty, not the soup you're eating?

    I want TNG style trek, DS9, I want the Orville for star trek!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I'm not expecting a return to the old 26 episode seasons, but damn, 15 would be a nice middle ground that would give the season's story arc time to develop and breathe (if it even has one, which I don't think is always necessary, tbh).

    10 feels too short.

    Besides, it just makes sense, given their goal is to keep people subscribed year-round. If new episodes are only coming out for 2 months of the year, that makes their service a harder sell.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Agreed, this season of SNW felt like they were missing at least 5 episodes of interactions with the baddy. Like it was here is this season's baddy and then 2 episodes and he's dead. I remember when they would meet up with the baddy every few episodes and reveal more of their backstory before killing them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    As Ronald D Moore said you can do any genre in Star Trek having longer Seasons gives them more opportunity to have those different genres the shorter seasons and super serialized format taken to the extreme have stripped Away that Swing for the fences mentality that Star Trek once had. Does that mean sometimes you're going to have a bad episode every once in awhile yeah, but it also means that you're going to have great ones.

    We all know the perfect balance between episodic and serialized television was Deep Space Nine. Because it had that perfect balance of you could do an episodic swing for the fences story or if you needed to tell a story over you know four or five episodes you could going the extreme one way or the other is always going to be a recipe for disaster.

  • source
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I agree. We only had 2 episodes to see Spock and La'an get together, it felt like whiplash when we just saw him pining over Chapel. Looking back at shows like DS9 a season of romantic build up meant 23-24 45-minute long episodes with random encounters, drama, things left unsaid - which made the finales that much more enjoyable.

    Not to compare too much, but look at Jim and Pam's romance in the Office. Seasons 2 and 3 were long. It was meant to have us wanting the romance, to see every twist and turn. We had an entire episode for booze cruise, where we finally heard Jim admit it while seeing that they were obviously with the wrong people. We had entire episodes where there was reflection on just one moment of their relationship. You just can't get that in a half-"season" 4 episode arc.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I think my favorite example is Brooklyn 99, and the Jake/Amy relationship.

    First season introduces the idea (but really later on in the season that its apparent it could be more), season 2 is will they won't they until a kiss at the end, season 3 they start a relationship, season 4 finishes with them moving in together, season 5 gets a proposal and the wedding, etc.

    They take time developing the relationship as an idea, but they don't do the silly "Oh no, misunderstandings made us break up again!" crap, just a progressing relationship over the course of the series.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    For real though. 8 or 10 episodes is nothing, especially when they're spread out intentionally to just keep people subscribed to a monthly streaming service.

    TV shows of yesterday still matter largely because there is so. much. content. This shit was available for free with a basic ass television and some strips of metal wired into it. And you got 24 episodes a season. And sometimes there was more than one season in a year.

    Artificial scarcity is obvious when things get that different.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    sg1 split thier season 10 in the spring, 10 in the fall, it works. but current streams only doing 6-8episodes, 10 if your lucky. every 1-2years. even people are getting tired of shows like invincible, with such a LONG hiatus,not to mention the degrading animations.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

    Given the purchase of Paramount by the Ellison family, I unfortunately think we are going to witness the eshitification of Trek in the coming decade 😢

    Edit: meaning they will want to remove the "wokeness"

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Enshitification of Trek has already been here for a decade.

    It doesn't all happen at once, but in the last decade there's been six new Trek shows and one and half of them have been decent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    even by comparison, Enterprise 2000-04, was better than recent ones.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I know it's rough around the edges - some odd plotlines, some 90s hornbag writing and fanservice that causes some deserved cringe. But it also has a cast of interesting characters from diverse backgrounds trying to represent their various clans with exemplary work, and figure out how to work together to build a better future for them all. It's hopeful and grounded, and leads well into TOS, which is what it was designed to do.

    Almost like the writers understood and respected what Gene Roddenberry had created Star Trek for.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Yeah, I am very worried about Trek (and Avatar).

    Are Trekkies not in a panic over this? I guess Ellison isn’t super famous, and a lot of criticism is probably censored/deranked, but still.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    It's way too late for panic. The shows were mostly all already bad. Being differently bad doesn't move the needle.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago*

    it happened after jj abrams, kurtzman ruined the franchise with his dislike of the franchise(i dont he actually want to be showrunner). In his own words he doesnt care about the continuity.

    there was like a 5-6 year drought after enterprise ended. oh yea right wingers bought P+, it wont go well when they demand certain"unsavory elements" be removed from trek.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Deep space nine type gray areas are a must. Give me a spock by the pale moonlight episode.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    It's Brannon Braga, if you don't want to click through to the article.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Ugh. Thank you for saving me the brain space.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    He is a producer on The Orville, and that's pretty damn good. Makes me think Rick Berman was always the real problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 9 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Every single star trek franchise since enterprise is a space soap opera.

    That's always been Star Trek. Don't make me go through the TNG back catalogue.

    The interpersonal dramas are what separate the Trekkies from the SW nerds. You don't need a planet killing superweapon to tell a story. It's enough to have two people trapped on a deserted planet who don't speak the same language, but need one another to survive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 5 points 1 year ago* (3 children)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    pays lip service to the science and engineering part of the science fiction.

    Star Trek has never been a properly science heavy franchise. You don't get The Expanse style of gritty space survivalism (pilots dealing with g-force strain, Spacers having to mine their water reserves, politicians negotiating across an 8 minute transmission delay between Earth and Mars). Every common engineering problem is solved with tech so futuristic it might as well be magic, while the serious problems are more ethical or philosophical (can we morally turn off a sentient computer? should we give these primitive people access to our warp drive technology? how do we negotiate with Space Wizards?)

    The object oriented stories of science, engineering, exploration, discovery, philosophy or even technologies as a setting for character stories is largely absent now.

    They never really existed in the Rodenberry universe. He was far more interested in the politics and the social consequences of interstellar travel than the nuts and bolts of getting around space.

    When it came to practical applications, even Heinlein and Asimov (themselves chronic abusers of the SciFi tech hand wave) did a better job in books like The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Foundation.

    they have little meaningful impact on the story or the audience.

    Early Trek was really bad about continuity, generally speaking. It wasn't until late TNG and DS9 that you got real multi-episode arcs.

    Later Trek was - if anything - too worried about continuity. They had to try and explain everything within the context of prior series, rather than just telling some interesting stories of a deep space exploration vessel chartered out of Earth.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago* (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    The current star trek is less space exploration adventure with science and tech and more melodrama with interpersonal conflict than it has been, overall.

    Go back to the original first episode of Star Trek, "The Cage" and tell me that's not a melodrama with interpersonal conflict.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    4 comments in c/television@piefed.social view that post