The possible evolution of 'Enterprise' and future Star Trek tv shows

[Ensign Sears]

Hello All

First of all, I would like to start out this message by saying up front: I DO NOT MEAN FOR THIS TO BE TURNED INTO "ENTERPRISE" BASHING. I think this board has seen enough of that, and people have made their feeling very clear about the show. Instead I wish to share an idea about the 'possible' future of star trek and the sci-fi world in general.
The tv world is very similar to the real world in regards that both evolve over time. When Star Trek began back in the 1960s, tv was somewhat new still and studios were finding their ‘footing’(or so my Pop Culture English professor has said) so the stand-alone episodes worked well. The Original Series put together some excellent stand-alone shows. And so did the Next Generation series. I think it was with Deep Space Nine’s final season (please correct me if I am wrong) that Star Trek seriously executed a tightly woven story arc–which I thought was the best season of DS9 in regards to story telling. Voyager attempted a story arcs right before the series ended, but I don’t think it was executed very well. It seemed a little too rushed for my tastes.
I have recently bought the 4 available seasons of Babylon 5. I admit the acting/actors are not the best I have ever seen, but the story telling was awesome. And that kept me watching the show over its 5 year run. I bought the DVDs for that reason–the story telling. I have only watched a few episodes of Buffy: the vampire slayer and its spin off Angel, but from what I have heard from other people, those two shows have had story arcs for each of their seasons.
Now ‘Enterprise’ is our current Trek show on tv. When the show first started I was excited by the idea of exploring how the Federation was born. And I was intrigued by the Temporal Cold War idea (and the possibility of a tightly woven story arch), but it became apparent as the show developed that the TCW took a sort of back seat, with only a few episodes dealing with it every once in awhile. Then Season 2 came and I will be honest–I think Season 2 was the worst season in Trek history. To me it had not focus what so ever. Now Season 3 is almost over, and (again my personal opinion) I feel this season has been the best yet since Enterprise has hired. The old clique of destroying the Earth is over used, but overall the story arch has kept me interested.
Now after my long introduction my question is: has the tv viewer grown tired of the stand-alone episodes? Have we ‘evolved’ to the point that series long story arcs is the future of tv shows (i.e. shows like Fox’s 24, heck even the ‘reality’ shows like the Bachelor is a season long story arc). My personal opinion is yes. I think for Enterprise and future Star Trek shows to survive they should start having a central season long story arcs that is complex and intrigues the view both intellectually and entertainingly.
Again these are just my personal thought. I hope I have not upset anyone by them. That was not my intent in writing it. Thank you for taking the time to read this and posting your comments!

[REG]

Well, personally, the only thing good about ENT (yes, I'm going to say something nice) is their standalone episodes, when they deviated from the story arcs (there are two of them, the main one -- TCW -- and the currently season-long Delphic Expanse/Xindi).

To be brutally honest, I truly don't care about the story arcs that they have. It would have been better if the premise is built around the birth of the Federation. That's why I got excited when I see Andorians, one of the founding members of the Federation, which is less used in many contemporary Trek shows that takes place in the 24th century.

But I like episodes that tackles social and political issues, like the cloning of Trip.

[Phantom]

In a word...no. Stargate SG-1, hands down the best sci-fi show on TV right now, is a basic stand alone series. That said they do connect eps from a past season to the current, but still it is an episodic show.

Also, most of the top tv shows (not reality trash), CSI, ER, West Wing, Third Watch etc. are all episode based shows, most of the time with no connection to past seasons.

I will say one thing about B&B (and this will be the only positive thing I can say) is if Ent had somehow become it's own entity, sans anything trek, it would have been an excellent show.

[REG]

Heh. I thought so too, but since they added "Star Trek" to the title, there is no escaping it now. Until they finally push the TCW reset button, the events shown on ENT take place on the prime Trek universe/timeline, not one of those alternate universes/timelines or parallel realities.

[Tas II]

To quote a TNG title, we need "The Best Of Both Worlds".

B5 had episodes that were fairly standalone early on, but they tended to introduce ideas to the viewer. Examples off the top of my head are the one with the alien doomsday weapon (introduced the archaeological teams).....the episode with the runaway telepath (told us the Narns had to teeps of their own etc). Of course, these episodes also had bearings on future eps, but were watchable as a standalone ep. DS9 did much the same early on. Most explained the current situation on Bajor, the political realities of post-occupation Bajor, and the tensions with the cardies. And of course, the hint of something big in the Gamma Quadrant. To be fair though, the story arc took off with B5 doing it's thing. All in all those were halcyon days for quality sci-fi on tv. Coincidentally, the best TNG shows were happening at the start of DS9/End of TNG IMHO.

What ENT really needs is to do a similar kinda thing. Whilst diveging from canon history of TOS/TNG/DS9/Films, there are a few eps that are fairly decent. In some ways it is like TOS with some incredibly pants eps, but one or two that are good. What is a little annoying is that the quality has not changed much in 40-odd years. It peaked (IMHO) with DS9, and has slipped back again with ENT. I wonder just why the shows writers/producers could not stick to canon. I know they have to appeal to a broader audience than just the hard-core trekkers, but hell, a little continuity woulda been nice!

(Apologies for ENT bash-ette!)

Just my take on things

Cheers
Tas

[Ezri's Toy]

I think the question should be "Are Americans ready for season- and series-long story arcs ?" The answer, I think, is that Americans are warming up to the idea but are very resistant to it.

However, the British have had story-arc shows for a number of years quite successfully (Dr. Who's "The Key To Time" or I, Claudius anybody ? ).

In the attempt to please everyone, I think Farscape has had the most success with its integrated approach to both stand-alone episodes and story-arcs. Character development (and character sub-plots) continues across the series even if the episode story is self-contained.

I think this is what Star Trek: Enterprise is attempting to do but isn't succeeding nearly as well. (Writer's bull-pen is probably too large or not as tightly managed as Farscape's.)

[REG]

Well, Ron D. Moore once stated in an interview about his brief employment on VOY that the environment for the writing staff is oppressive and Braga's leadership is iron fist. He tried to convey his grievance to Berman but Berman took Braga's side, thus ending his stint with the franchise.

I don't know if his leadership style have changed or not, but it still does not result in good story development, despite a few.

An arc can be a cool thing but only if that arc is appealing to the majority of the audience, and though I speak for myself, I have to say the TCW is not appealing to me.

[toadmage]

B 5 did the long story format very well . I can not say about most other shows .

[strict31]

I would like to reiterate what has been already said here: story-arcs do not mean you cannot have stand-alone eps to break it up a bit.

Also, about SG-1...I really think it's at its strongest when the stories they tell do link up. While this is hard to avoid in modern entertainment, much of the stand-alone stuff in SG-1 has just been done too many times, and they don't offer a "cool new take" on the old idea. SG-1 really hit its stride when it was still on Showtime, as far as the stand-alone episodes are concerned.

Even in mainstream TV, while individual episodes are the general rule, there are still plot threads which are considered to be ongoing. I think it's just a natural evolution to story-arc formatting.

But here's the main problem with story-arcs. When you tell a story, it has a beginning, a middle and an end. It must end. Next generation ran a final episode, but did not end. DS-9, from the introduction of the Dominion and the Defiant told a cohesive (if long) story, and that story is over. Luckily, it coincided with the ending of the series itself!! Same with B-5. These shows had their run, and they came to a close. In TV, shows aren't built with the concept of telling a cohesive story, they are built to contract; to run for a certain amount of years (with the idea that it will be picked up for an even longer amount of time).

Maybe it's just a matter of design philosophy.

But here's the kicker: B5 proved to the sci-fi market that the audience was perfectly fine with watching a story begin, advance and end. Don't take any cues from what Hollywood produces; it is based on what the guy with the most money decides is appropriate for the audience or what he believes the "market will bear." B5 stood almost completely on the strength of its fanbase, and the fans had no problem with a finite show. In fact, it survived ridiculous time slots and sporadic local airing because of the fans and our desire to see the story told.

I would not trust Hollywood to be representative of what an American audience will or will not watch. Our choice in the matter of television basically boils down to either watching what's on, or not. The only definitive thing that can be said, on this basis (trusting in the producers of shows), is that Americans will pretty much watch whatever is on the TV. By extension, we'll watch crap if crap is all that's on.

Of course, then, the real issue is...making a show that isn't crap. it's not hard to do. It doesn't require story-arcs. Conversely and admittedly, Story-arcs do not automatically make good TV: good TV makes good TV. There are plenty examples of bad story arcs. Buffy had some rough seasons. And Doctor Who got bloody damned tired with the same old rock quarry and corridors that the actors ran around endlessly.

To put it simply, we can deal with story-arc television. But that's not the problem with Pop Culture or modern TV. the problem is that the majority of what is shoved in front of us is poop. I can give you a list of reason as to why I think the first seasons of Ent were bad. Primarily, it had to do with piss-poor writing, not because of the largely episodic format (occassional TCW eps notwithstanding, since those were mostly bad too). I'll be honest with you, while I've thought that Trek could benefit from an over-arching, cohesive storyline, some of the eps I've enjoyed the most in Ent's third season were stand-alones. Good writing is just good writing, and there's no substitute.


Strictly Speaking

[Scottomir]

This is proving to be a really interesting thread because it is raising a really important consideration about arc story design. Arc stories, as Strict31 has eloquently explained, have a beginning, middle, and end that follow an internally consistent pace. TV, however, runs on its own artificial pacing: the 24-26 episode season. And unless you're a ratings powerhouse like Friends (which sci-fi never is), you can't necessarily count on being around for subsequent seasons to complete the arc.

This sometimes can have disastrous results, and Babylon 5 is the best example. JMS conceived the series, apparently, has a 5 season arc. The problem was that by Season 4 it was doubtful he'd get another season. So he crammed most of his remaining story arc into the rest of Season 4, ending the season with what could pass as a series finale. But then came TNT, which for a period seemed extremely willing to invest a lot in the franchise. Suddenly, B5 was a hot item, like a centerpiece of TNT programming. It was every fan's dream! The problem? JMS didn't have much of a story left. TNT produced one good B5 movie that was a prequel and a handful of "new story" movies that ranged from merely subpar to unspeakably bad. Season 5 was two-thirds total filler, and even the final third that got back to wrapping up the "main story" was weak and uninspired compared to Season 4. This conflict between "TV pacing" and "story pacing" ruined what was otherwise a good series--so much so that I can't even stomach the thought of mentally returning to B5 (remember that horrible Rangers movie, anyone?).

For my money, I think Buffy the Vampire Slayer did the best job of balancing the story pacing tension, possibly even better than SG-1. SG-1 really is almost entirely episodic, with occasionally season openners, cliffhangers, and two-parters that build a bigger overall story. However, I don't feel the SG-1 "story" is building toward any preconceived notion. I think it is evolving organically as the writers pump out the various episodes. Buffy, on the other hand, had a very skillful blend of stand-alone episodes as continuous storyline episodes, all building toward what felt like a culminating overall story. Joss Wheedon survived the "TV pacing" problem by making each season a stand-alone arc--if the series got cancelled, at least the viewers saw some culmination before it ended. But when the series got renewed, he picked up with a new season-long arc that built upon the previous work. This is an admirable solution to the pacing tension which I bet, had he been given more time, he would have replicated with Firefly. It gives his series a more directed feel than SG-1 has, avoids the story-truncation of B5, and results in a more authentic arc than The X Files, which really had only a partial and (by the end) illusory arc.

ST:E floats somewhere in between all of these poles, wandering aimlessly through the story-design void. If it does have a directed arc, that would be the TCW...and I think most of us are united around the self-evident truth that the TCW is an idea that should have been stillborn in its cradle.

[Zortic]

Originally posted by REG
[B]Well, Ron D. Moore once stated in an interview about his brief employment on VOY that the environment for the writing staff is oppressive and Braga's leadership is iron fist. He tried to convey his grievance to Berman but Berman took Braga's side, thus ending his stint with the franchise.

That's probably why the DS9 writing fit so well. That dark, oppressive atmosphere fit perfectly into the dominion war story arc. But it doesn't work as well for a "bright and glorious era of exploration" that Enterprise is suppose to be. It's no wonder the writers want to destroy the earth.

But I think the big problem with Star Trek writing is that they have caved into the television writing formula. It's being written in a think tank full of producer friends and family rather than really talented writers. What made the original series so great was the use of some of the great established science fiction writers of the time Harlan Ellison, David Gerrold, Theodore Sturgeon. Can you imagine if Enterprise stories were being written by David Weber, Greg Bear, or Orson Scott Card.

At least that's how I see it.

[REG]

I think it is difficult to write for Star Trek the way you would write for long-running soap opera. Most of the time, it's been done before.

Actually DS9 started off as pristine clean with the strained relations between Cardassia and just liberated Bajor, but later decided to bring the war to make things interesting. So much that they find a way to involve the Klingons (and thus bring back an alum) and eventually the Romulans into the mix. And they did it well, for Ron D. Moore, Ira Steven Behr, and others.

Remember, Ron D. Moore and Brannon Braga started as freshmen writers during the TNG run. I believe Braga is credited for having thought up the Borg. Ron D. Moore is credited for having bring new role of the post-TOS Klingon.

[Ezri's Toy]

Originally posted by Scottomir
If it does have a directed arc, that would be the TCW...and I think most of us are united around the self-evident truth that the TCW is an idea that should have been stillborn in its cradle.

I think saying "most of us" is presumptuous. It comes from what I believe is a biased assumption that a majority of fans dislike Star Trek: Enterprise; That is not true. At worst, fandom is split right down the middle. At best, the majority is in favor of ST:E although that majority isn't as large as it was in the movie-era/TNG heyday.

As for the TCW, I think its a great idea and it gives the writers the freedom to write what they want and have an 'out' regarding Star Trek continuity. Since we've only seen the barest threads of the TCW plot, it is way too early to determine the quality of the story. To say it shouldn't have been done at all isn't judging the writing on its own merit and is rather a bias against an SF sub-genre: the time-travel story.

In short, the TCW storyline has to progress a bit more before an informed judgement can be made. And to bring this discussion full-circle (and back on topic), it is this TCW storyline that's the most logical, most accessible, and most obvious choice for development as a story arc.

While I do agree that the "Birth of The Federation/Romulan War" would probably be more interesting, Star Trek's weekly episodic format prohibits it. As we all know, Star Trek's structure is "crew-as-microcosm." Stories on an inter-galactic scale, such as "BOTF/RW," would require a "Martian Chronicles" mini-series format and a character structure in which groups of characters are only tenuously related by blood, circumstance, or location. While this might be a refreshing change of pace, and may even be good for the writing, changing the format in this way would fundamentally change the show. Simply, it wouldn't be Star Trek anymore; It'd be another animal entirely wearing Star Trek garb.

[D.S.McBride]

Originally posted by Zortic
That's probably why the DS9 writing fit so well. That dark, oppressive atmosphere fit perfectly into the dominion war story arc. But it doesn't work as well for a "bright and glorious era of exploration" that Enterprise is suppose to be. It's no wonder the writers want to destroy the earth.

Actually, if REG and I are thinking of the same interview, the reason Ron Moore gave for the nature of the DS9 writing is that Rick Berman simply didn't give a tin crap about the show. DS9 was, in Ron Moore's (likely accurate) opinion, the redhaired bastard child of the Trek family; Berman simply didn't give a damn about that aspect of the franchise and that left Mr. Moore, along with the rest of the writing staff, to do whatever the hell they wanted...in this case, tell good fricking stories.

As an example, Ron Moore stated that when Berman was informed about the Dominion War, he - Berman - said, "It's only going to last about four or five episodes, right? Right?" "Sure..." Moore and Co. answered. "We lied," he acknowledged immediately after. They wanted a big Federation war story and they got a big Federation war story - once Berman was told what he wanted to hear, he toodled off and by the time the truth came out, the DS9 writing staff shrugged and said, "Sue us."

[REG]

If that is the case, then the MB posters here are split down the middle with regards to ENTERPRISE. I mean I like to hear from those people, regardless if they're as old as me (or older) and the fresh bloods.

To me, the TCW arc is the most convenient choice rather than the most obvious choice, but still unappealing. Yes, they have an out, I just wish they hurry up and turn off at the next immediate exit.