Quantity is truly the missing element of a “feels like old trek” modern trek. Modern studio sensibilities just can’t stomach having a 25 episode season, but you need to spend that much time with a cast to become sufficiently attached and have a fleshed out world. High quality short seasons are good for prestige TV but for ensemble explorations of philosophy in a sci fi setting, 10 episodes doesn’t cut it.
Everything always feels in such a damn rush because writers are either afraid they aren’t going to get to tell all the stories they want or they’re fearful/ pressured that if every episode isn’t the end of the world stakes that people won’t be invested. Too high stakes is such an anti trope at this point in almost all screen media.
True, although LD and SNW have for sure drawn down the serialization if not outright abandoned it. I really like that about the new shows (and why discovery is my least favorite of all treks). I guess I was just commenting on pieces where the formula has not yet been tweaked, cause they did tweak it there to great effect.
When you’re spending a lot on a show, you simply can’t afford to take risks, do seemingly unimportant filler episodes, and the risk of cancellation is always high.
It’s a bit like LEXX, the cult SF show from the 90s. Cheaply made, poor SFX, frankly insane plot, often outright bad, small audience Still managed to go for a full four seasons, wasn’t ever cancelled but ended on its own terms and got to do some weird and wonderful stuff while it was on air. Meanwhile something like The Expanse, which was invariably high quality and had a large audience, was still cancelled before Amazon stepped in.
It’s the same thing with B-movies. A lot of cheap crappy movies can be really interesting, exactly because they’re cheap/crappy movies and no one cares. Gives the writers a lot of freedom.
I disagree with the idea that you can’t get attached to characters or have a fleshed out world in shorter seasons. I’ve become more attached to the SNW and Lower Decks characters in 20 and 30 episodes, respectively, and to the characters in the Expanse (for a non Trek example) than I ever did with Voyager’s or Enterprise’s characters over hundreds of episodes. The key is good writing and acting that fleshes out the characters, not having 26 episodes, half of which are inconsequential or worse, outright garbage. I do agree that 10 episodes is on the short side and think 13 would be ideal.
As for the stakes being higher and higher iterations of the end of the world, again that’s a separate issue with writing, not always tied to a short season length.
That’s fair, I’m not saying it’s bad in any way, but I doubt the experience is enhanced in any way by it being a more tight story (unlike many dramas where succinctness does add to the plot). It would just be that much better if it had a little time and space to breath.
I think if you had 26 episodes of which only 10 were worthwhile it’d be about the same difference. The trick is more episodes without sacrificing quality too much. Obviously a big ask but that’s why it’s hard to make good tv lol
Quantity is truly the missing element of a “feels like old trek” modern trek. Modern studio sensibilities just can’t stomach having a 25 episode season, but you need to spend that much time with a cast to become sufficiently attached and have a fleshed out world. High quality short seasons are good for prestige TV but for ensemble explorations of philosophy in a sci fi setting, 10 episodes doesn’t cut it.
Everything always feels in such a damn rush because writers are either afraid they aren’t going to get to tell all the stories they want or they’re fearful/ pressured that if every episode isn’t the end of the world stakes that people won’t be invested. Too high stakes is such an anti trope at this point in almost all screen media.
also having the short seasons be serialized really kills any chance at philosophical scifi.
True, although LD and SNW have for sure drawn down the serialization if not outright abandoned it. I really like that about the new shows (and why discovery is my least favorite of all treks). I guess I was just commenting on pieces where the formula has not yet been tweaked, cause they did tweak it there to great effect.
This is what I dislike about big budget scifi.
When you’re spending a lot on a show, you simply can’t afford to take risks, do seemingly unimportant filler episodes, and the risk of cancellation is always high.
It’s a bit like LEXX, the cult SF show from the 90s. Cheaply made, poor SFX, frankly insane plot, often outright bad, small audience Still managed to go for a full four seasons, wasn’t ever cancelled but ended on its own terms and got to do some weird and wonderful stuff while it was on air. Meanwhile something like The Expanse, which was invariably high quality and had a large audience, was still cancelled before Amazon stepped in.
It’s the same thing with B-movies. A lot of cheap crappy movies can be really interesting, exactly because they’re cheap/crappy movies and no one cares. Gives the writers a lot of freedom.
I disagree with the idea that you can’t get attached to characters or have a fleshed out world in shorter seasons. I’ve become more attached to the SNW and Lower Decks characters in 20 and 30 episodes, respectively, and to the characters in the Expanse (for a non Trek example) than I ever did with Voyager’s or Enterprise’s characters over hundreds of episodes. The key is good writing and acting that fleshes out the characters, not having 26 episodes, half of which are inconsequential or worse, outright garbage. I do agree that 10 episodes is on the short side and think 13 would be ideal.
As for the stakes being higher and higher iterations of the end of the world, again that’s a separate issue with writing, not always tied to a short season length.
That’s fair, I’m not saying it’s bad in any way, but I doubt the experience is enhanced in any way by it being a more tight story (unlike many dramas where succinctness does add to the plot). It would just be that much better if it had a little time and space to breath.
I think if you had 26 episodes of which only 10 were worthwhile it’d be about the same difference. The trick is more episodes without sacrificing quality too much. Obviously a big ask but that’s why it’s hard to make good tv lol