from StillPaisleyCat@startrek.website to startrek@startrek.website on 03 Sep 2023 14:46
https://startrek.website/post/1382623
An interesting, deliberately thought provoking š¤ question for a lazy long weekend Sunday morningā¦
Setting aside whether specific fans like specific āgimmicksā (crossovers, musicals, bringing back Kirk or Khan) or tropes (transporter malfunctions), Space.com is posing the hypothesis that the proportion was too high in Strange New Worlds second season.
Thereās no arguing that the season was successful in drawing in large audiences week after week. Taking a look back though, was there too much trippy-Trekā¢ dessert and not enough of a meaty main course? YMMV surely.
For my part, I can both agree that trippy Trek is something Iāve been wanting more of, and that I would have welcomed 2 or 3 more episodes were more grounded or gave the opportunity to see more of Una as a leader and dug into Ortegas backstory.
The 90s shows seemed to be bit embarrassed by trippyness, although Voyager found its pretext allowed even stern Janeway to pronounce āWeird is our business.ā One can argue that the high proportion in SNW is a feature, not a bug.
Iād still prefer a 12-15 episode season though.
threaded - newest
I completely agree with your line āOne can argue that the high proportion in SNW is a feature, not a bug.ā I thought it was great.
Star Trek has always had different vibes for different shows. It also took a while for each show to find itās own vibe. Iām really enjoying the split that SNW has come up with. They lean on all the light/trippy episodes so they can pull some incredibly dark shit out of nowhere in the next. Some of the episodes of SNW S2 are amongst the darkest things ever portrayed in Trek at all. The swinging from the Lower Decks episode to the MāBenga/Chapel episode was intense and because of it you never know what kind of ride Strange New Worlds is about to take you on. Am I going to laugh? Sing? Cry? All of the above? Or something completely new?
I would also prefer 12 episodes but weāve also gotten some ābig budgetā scenes and visuals due to there only being 10. Then againā¦ bottle episodesā¦
MāBenga has a dark dark chapter.
I love SNW; the point with more episodes would be to give more leg room for the writers and actors. No more cliffhangers thoughā¦at least not quite like that āCUT!ā
The stunning things that SNW has managed to do with established charactersā¦ Uhura was already a wonderful character but theyāve managed to give her so much more depth than she already had. Same thing with Spock. Presumably Scotty as well in the next season. But MāBengaā¦ Holy fuck. Dark dark chapter is accurate. The writing is superb and Babs Olusanmokun is spinechilling with his performance. The bredth of that mans acting ability is incredible. Everyone on the show can act incredibly well but holy fuck Babs.
Also thatās a good point on the leg room. I can get very narrow minded and I never considered that. Huh. Definitely something for me to think about. Thanks!
Babs Olusanmokun is amazing. I would watch that guy read a cookbook. If he did an audiobook of War and Peace, Iām willing to bet I could get through it and enjoy it.
Oh for real. Motherfucker has a voice so rich, thick and buttery you could spread it on toast.
Ad Astra and Among the Lotus Eaters were also pretty serious episodes.
Yea I think the season just needed more episodes to breath.
Iāve argued elsewhere that the whole Kirk thing and embracing being a TOS prequel rather than its own show is a bad thing. Whether true or not, it adds even more to what the show is trying to do, on top of musicals and cross overs, so yes it needs more episodes and hopefully they get them.
Paul Wesley Is hands down the best Kirk. I will die on this hill.
Heās a dead ringer for a younger original Pike though. I wonder if he auditioned for that role but they brought him back for Kirk instead.
Heās doing a great job as Kirk! But he looks more like Pike than Pike does.
Oh Iāve got nothing against the portrayal or actor or even the inclusion of Kirk in the show ā¦ I just think the amount of TOS stuff (including Scotty) got distracting in S2, and that treating the show as a TOS prequel, which seems to be the case given what the showrunners have said, isnāt going to be healthy for the show in the long run.
In general, my take on season 2 is that Iāve mentally prepared myself for it to mark the point at which it went bad or stopped being actually good. Weāll have to see, and Iām obviously hoping that Iām paranoid ā¦ but I do not trust Kurtzman or paramount or the temptation some executives must be salivating over to just reboot the original series.
I really hope that SNW keeps any more references to the TOS crew to either one-shot episodes or really short cameos, because I genuinely dig it when SNW does it own thing.
Itās cool to explore Spock, Uhura, and Chapel at this point in their careers, and Iām starting to warm up to including Kirk as a semi-regular on the show, but stuff like putting Scotty in an episode where it wouldāve been fine if he was replace by a different character is where I can see it going in an unhealthy direction for the show. We, the viewers, donāt need a ton of these call forwards to the TOS crew because we can reasonably say āoh, theyāre all in training/serving on different ships right nowā and be ok with it - we donāt need to see Chekov, Sulu, Bones, or anybody else from TOS here if itās gonna be at the expense of the show itself.
Yep, exactly. Especially given how much the hype for SNW started with how much everyone loved Pike. Heās an alternative take on the whole Kirk thing, a modern reframing of the Star Trek positive masculinity. I also think continuing from The Cage with Number One etc was part of the excitement. Not a reboot or alternative timeline, but a lost story that could be told for todays audience.
Iām not sure how much hype was driven by TOS prequel potential. Iād bet not much at all (recall the negative reaction many had to the enterprise even showing up at the end of DISCO S1).
So, when TOS characters start turning up (Uhura counts here IMO), you have to be suspicious that itās the studio hedging their bets over the money pot that a TOS reboot could be for them and forcing the show runners into it.
Iām with you. I find him more fascinating than Shatner in a āwhat are you going to do with himā kind of way. Novelty I suppose.
I also want to use the new cast of old characters and have new Kirk-era Star Trek (post SNW Enterprise boldly going etc etc). But thatās just me being unfashionable.
I really enjoyed it. Season 3 of discovery really put me off the show, and SNW felt a bit like a return to form. Season 2 managed to be lighthearted and fun while also tackling more serious subjects.
It was a good season, and the gimmicks added rather than removed, I feel.
Iād love it if they did more episodes per season and had some less bombastic adventures, but I really enjoyed what they put out with season 2 and Iād be more than happy to go on that exact same ride for many more seasons. I think SNW has managed to let its characters breathe and live real lives a lot better than other modern Trek, despite the season lengths.
In my opinion it is the best Trek in a very long time and blows the recent movies out of the water. SNW deserves the right to add in some fun to keep things interesting.
I've like em all very much, except the musical episode, it was too much for me, and distracting from wanting to follow the story, I didn't make it through the whole ep
I really donāt think the inclusion of Kirk should be considered a āgimmickā. There was no stunt-casting, nor were the episodes in which he appeared particularly gimmicky (well, okay, āSubspace Rhapsodyā was a gimmick episode, but in a way that wasnāt structured around Kirk specifically).
Like it or hate it, itās clear to me that the producers are including Kirk because they think itās worth exploring the character at this point in his career. I wouldnāt call that a gimmick.
I found that the opinion-piece from Space.com didnāt distinguish classic tropes and use of legacy characters from āgimmicks.ā
While my personal preference prior to the showās premiere had been to hold on the introduction of so many TOS legacy characters, to allow the others and original ones to breathe, as long as having Kirk there is bringing new insights to his character (and othersā), itās all to the good. At this point, Iām eager to see more of young Scotty.
What turns me off about SNW is that The Orville is a better return to form to āclassic Trekā than actual Star Trek. The episodes revolving around Topaās gender and identity is some of the best scifi commentary on modern society out there right now.
I think itās good that CBS never gave MacFarlane his own ST show, lest he be beholden to all the history of the franchise (the same thing that is, in part, weighing down SNW). Who knew that khan was Kirkās fatherās brotherās nephewās cousinās former roommate?!
Wait, what does that make Khan and Kirk?
ā¦ Absolutely no relation
@HWK_290
Be careful about praising The Orville the way you are to people who remember TNG very fondly. It apes TNG very closely but also has more than its fair share of Mcfarlaneās Family Guy humor which isnāt for everyone and definitely doesnāt jibe with Trek.
The episode where we first meet the Krill has Lt. Malloy laughing maniacally and constantly at the fact that the Krillās god is named Avis. This just isnāt that funny and breaks immersion.
McFarlane himself admits this episode was very juvenile and the show gets quite a bit better once he decides to stop going after Family Guy style jokes. Many people wonāt watch enough episodes to see the show is worth a chance.
Iād argue that the Star Trek history weighs it down more than that. Even without the historical references, much of the shows seem to be held back by the trying to live up to it, or having to stick to the same formula. Enterprise and Voyager famously suffered from considerable network meddling to try and recapture TNG, for example.
It could work, but it also means that much of any social commentary that does show up is a bit hampered, since the network wants a safe, conservative star Trek show (and the fans might be partly to blame, because they also want more of the same too, so much of the time).
A modern TOS that pushed boundaries as the original could never be made under the same brand. Itās far too controversial for the network to accept, with all of its progressive and social commentary elements intact.
Not that itās a fault of Star Trekās specifically, just an issue with how big it has become. If the Orville became a similarly established brand, instead of Star Trek, it would almost certainly have had the same issues.
I loved the Lower Deck crossover but I get that might have jumped the shark for some.
@StillPaisleyCat I would agree, they did over gimmick things, but as I commented somewhere else, the original Star Trek was a low budget show, and here they have a much, much larger budget, so what can you do? What should you do? And what will the fans accept? I think this season is very much about finding that out, and makes me wonder what's coming season 3.
I love SNW but this show is held back by the low number of episodes per season. With 10 episodes itās just not possible to develop all your characters and still try out weird storytelling ideas. Although some of that is self-inflicted. Nobody forced them to bring on Kirk and Scotty, when they havenāt even managed to give Ortegas something to do in 20 episodes. By season 4 weāll probably have a junior Doctor McCoy, Ensign Sulu and Cadet Chekov on board, and then itāll get really crowded.
But back to the topic: I loved the humorous episodes this season but 3/10 is really the maximum amount of funny episodes. On the other hand, Iād love more thought-provoking stuff like āAd Astra Per Asperaā and āUnder the Cloak of Warā. 2 out of 10 episodes was not enough for my taste.
I miss the 24 episode seasons
.
.
Iām up to the third season of TOS right now and it dawned on me the other day that Iāve already seen more TOS than I probably will ever see of SNW. I know theyāre putting more time/effort into SNW episodes, but itād be great to see some longer seasons.
I did want more strange new worlds than we got this season, so I somewhat agree with the headline
Yeah I agree they went too far. Season 2 was disappointing; they seemed to want to spend their time indulging themselves with musical shows and cross overs. It feels like they alternated each episode - one moment you get a serious episode and the next a silly one.
However the season also gave us Ad Astra per Aspera which was one of the best star trek episodes I've seen in a long time. Among the Lotus Eaters wasn't bad; they just didn't need to shoehorn Khan in - it undermined what was actually otherwise a nice character driven story for La'an. The "should I kill hitler/my grandad" bit at the end was something that could have been impactful but was just didn't feel right.
Among the Lotus eaters and Lost in Translation were decent serious stories. Under the Cloak of War was an another attempt at a serious episode; it just didn't come off in the end.
And for me, Those Old Scientists was actually one of my favourite episodes. It was not Ad Astra Per Aspera good, and it was undeniably silly, but there was just something very warm and wholesome about the episode, and it actually reflected much better on Lower Decks than SNW; Boimler and Mariner felt a bit more fleshed out by the episode and it made me more appreciative of the show and what it's doing.
I think all in all, it was a decent season. It didn't maintain the high level of quality of the first season, and there were some really poor episodes (the opener Broken Circle and Cherades were terrible, and the muscial episode was just too far EVEN in a season with a crossover with a cartoon) but the highs were high and most of the other episodes were decent even allowing for some silliness. Season 1 was masterful TV in my opinion. Season 2 was decent.
Did they overdo the gimmicks? Yes. I still enjoyed the show despite the flaws but I sincerely hope they reign it in in season 3.
Betteridgeās law of headlines in action here. Season 2 was the best season of Star Trek since Voyager season 6.
No. All the episodes were good. There should be more of them though
The real problem is the episode count. Season 2 was great just like season 1.