20 seems unrealistic given the longer shooting time per episode and actors’ wanting flexibility to be able to work on more than one project.
12-15 however seems very possible especially with the episodic format. Producing a longer season after the strike especially would seem wise. It would also allow Paramount to take a brief hiatus midseason (the way Discovery did originally) to stretch out the schedule.
SNW has already demonstrated that it is an ensemble show with a full cast that can basically carry or star in their own episodes. Not every main cast member needs to be on set every production day, and even the principal character, Pike, can step back in some episodes.
Honestly, I think SNW is in a pretty decent position for a larger episode order. Heck, having more episodes to create more space between TOS character guest appearances would probably do the series good.
things are a great deal more expensive these days than they were then, even comparing like to like special effects, SNW is right near the very top, and TNG was 100% advertiser supported
TNG is my favorite for now because it finished well, in spite of the notoriously bad episodes that were in each season. SNW hasn’t finished yet and could screw things up, so I can’t say it’s my favorite yet. But when comparing the two seasons of SNW to any two random seasons of TNG, SNW wins. Episode count and quality aren’t necessarily linked, true, but my point is that there’s a higher chance of introducing poor episodes when the season is longer. A longer season could produce 20 great episodes instead of 10, but I have yet to see a show where this happens.
Up until Trek started streaming, the longer seasons were all we had, so comparing NG to all the other shows before streaming, it’s my favorite. Mainly comes down to the characters for me, as I think the storytelling in the network shows after TNG were just as strong as seasons 3-7 of TNG. And even though Disco and Picard had shorter seasons, they suffered under the weight of having to fill a predetermined episode count with a serialized show, so yes, episode count and quality aren’t necessarily linked. But an episodic show with a shorter season means the show runners can be picky with the episodes they want to film, much as a chef can be picky with what dishes they want to present.
TNG was great, and the best episodes are incredible, but most episodes were fairly mediocre. I feel SNW's average is higher, and it's probably in part for having LESS than half the number of episodes per season.
I think they'd be fine with 12, maybe even 14, but beyond that I don't they could keep it as great as it's been.
@exscape@lucidinferno@BradleyUffner One need only look at the best British TV shows and how their seasons are shorter and their schedules are not yearly to see how time to work on scripts and production makes for great fiction, but that can't be exploited.
@kamenLady Ah, but you'll notice I specified "the best British TV shows". 'Sherlock' always was Moffat and Gatiss thinking they were more clever than Conan Doyle.
Rating each episode is part of the problem. We have t step back from that madness and enjoy the exploration of characters, species, and story that made us fall in love with Star Trek.
I'm not sure how it's madness. An episode can be bad in itself and not contribute anything of value to the greater story arc, in which case I don't see why it's wrong to see it as bad.
I see it as something exciting. There are countless incredible science fiction writers out there and a longer season could mean more opportunities for their stories to reach the screen.
Rewatching TNG recently, I’ve relished the longer seasons with loads of interesting stories. And with things being episodic, a weaker episode doesn’t ruin everything (unlike Discovery and Picard).
Alternatively, some of the best episodes of TNG were “bottle” episodes to fill space and keep costs down. If 90s trek had shorter seasons would we have had “Measure of a Man” ,“Duet”, or “Masks” made?
I know the days of a 24 episode season are long gone due to the increase of production time in modern TV, but maybe we could have 13 to 15 episodes ? Enough for a 10 episode dedicated season arc with a few others just to explore some weird anomalies that make no sense at all.
I said pretty much the same in a comment above, but I’m not against filler, or bottle episodes, though I may have come off that way. I’m just against bad filler, stuff that would have never made it into a show if there was no predetermined season lengths. In a perfect world, it would be great if stories could be chosen simply because they were great stories. I’d like to know that something like the Fly episode of Breaking Bad would could still be filmed just because the show runners thought it was a great story, and not because they had a make a certain number of episodes and needed to save some money on one episode so they could spend more on another.
Honestly, I think there should be some really corny/goofy “what were they thinking” clunker episodes. Not lazy writing that disregards established character traits or contradicts itself or anything, but something they try that doesn’t work, but they tried in earnest and it shows.
Something that reminds you of the participatory nature of suspension of disbelief.
Not sure I’d put Masks alongside Measure of Man or Duet. Or indeed have it as an argument for filler episodes.
Given TNG never had much character serialisation, I’d say filler is more like those DS9 and ENT episodes late on that never fit I to anybody’s arc. Like the holosuite ones. Some amazing ones from DS9. Some less so from Enterprise.
But SNW has a good balance between episodic and serialisation. All this comes down to can they keep up the quality on greater volume. That needs more investment at a time when Paramount is cutting back…
Yeah Spiner’s acting in that episode is great, it’s a bit ridiculous and over the point but I believe that that was intentional, and I am not holding it against the episode
I can’t quite imagine how the TNG -> Picard timeline for her works out given this, presuming this is meant to fit into the same timeline. Can someone who knows the comics universe lay it out?
Great to know! There are more novelverse fans here than I think we realize.
I don’t know if the mods (@ValueSubtracted ) would be up for it but I’d love to have some of the authors with a fediverse presence to come over for an AMA sometime.
We’re definitely open to it, but aren’t usually in the habit of hounding people over it, if you know what I mean. As we become more established, we might be able to make some organic connections, and follow up on some from the Reddit days.
As for a Treklit community…it’s probably too soon for one, but the best way to make the case for one is to have a lot of Treklit engagement in c/startrek. We want to see that in general, which is why we’ve been trying the weekly comics post.
We usually wait to get the omnibus editions rather than order one by one. (Our local independent comic book store does better with special ordering those although they carry the occasional individual issue.)
So it’s good to get user reviews to help decide which ones to invest in.
I’ll try to get some book reviews up of the new releases. We got in all the Prodigy books as a show of support, so I was planning to give them a quick read.
Probably not need but it would be helpful when determine where to apply what limited resources (time, staff, ship location) is most needed for a given mission
That’s true but I would think that the career path to captain would be more agnostic. Starfleet would benefit from having captains with tactical backgrounds, scientific. Backgrounds etc.
Barclay’s actor has become a truly odious person in real life –– I don’t think the TNG cast (Stewart in particular) would have agreed to have him on the show.
Yeah, sadly that’s my impression as well. I really like his acting style and remember him especially for this scene. But it’s not easy to separate the artist from his art.
I’m watching the first season of TNG now with someone who’s never seen it before. That’s forced me to look at the series with fresh eyes. One thing that strikes me is that TNG took a lot of risks in the beginning to make a new kind of Star Trek. I see the Crushers as one. Some risks didn’t work out as well as others, but Star Trek overall benefited. IMO, it would be edifying revisit Dr. Crusher and see more character growth like in Picard.
Wesley’s mom, a main character, was initially going to be the ship’s teacher. They shifted her over to the empty doctor position without changing much about her. Then they made a new teacher who was also changed to be a bridge character, as the ship’s pilot.
While Riker and Troi are adapted from Decker and Ilea, Beverly was more extrapolated from yeomen Colt, Smith, and Rand.
Edit: specifically, their bios were mostly about a potential relationship with the captain, how competent they were (making them reasonable mates for him), and having the “walk of a striptease queen.”
Y’know, if I had a nickel for every time Jonathan Frakes was involved in a Star Trek episode that unexpectedly became the series finale, I’d have two nickels, which isn’t a lot but it’s weird that it happened twice.
screenrant.com
Hot