I like the idea of shorter seasons. Makes series more compact. 24 are just too many to keep it interesting IMHO. Trek is a prime example for that effect. You got your big, mostly good event type episodes and a whole lot of filler material with the occasional high point. No wonder you're losing viewers in the process. How many shows of the 'got nice visitors on the Enterprise, something is wrong with them' variety episodes do people want to see? This one sentence covers about a third of TNG... As for the financial aspect, some of the most expensive series ever were short. ROME comes to mind, as does BAND OF BROTHERS.
I think it would be a mistake for Star Trek to copy Game of Thrones. I myself have preferred a smaller regular cast for a new Trek series with a larger group of "recurring" characters.
Fortunately no one cares what Dayton thinks and the fact that he doesn't want Star Trek to go like Game of Thrones is all the more reason to spite him by doing it. And none of this prequel nonsense. Kirk, Spock and McCoy. And season one can deal with the Klingons.
Maybe they could do an mirror universe series where every week the Federation would invade and conquer another planet. That's right up your alley.
I would've thought you might remember that I preferred there be space battles in only about one quarter to one third of the episodes. Six to eight episodes a season. Optimally. Why go from there to "he wants a space battle (or the Federation invading someone) weekly"?
If Trek returns to TV, would it airing the way "Columbo", "Banacek", "McMillan & Wife", "McCloud" Entc Ent al aired back in the 70s be the way to go? ~Eight 90 minute to 2 hour telefilms a year/season.
It fits in with your M.O. where you jizz your pants at the thought of the US invading another country every other week. I just thought you'd want to be consistent.
Where do you get that? IIRC, aside from Syria (which I had little or no initial interest on my own) I have advocated military action against approximately THREE, that is one:two:three nations over the last twelve years. Why do you blow it up into something it is not? And are you incapable as most here seem to be, of not connecting military action to something about sexual gratification? Some of us sane people do not think in those terms.
Prove it! Anyway, to explain why most of us don't see much difference between your one third claim and Black Dove's every episode suggestion, both would be so out of character for Trek as to render it Non Trek.
On this Dayton is spot on. With the exception of DS9, not one iteration of Trek has been able to accurately flesh out seven main characters. TOS worked because it was about Kirk, Spock and McCoy first and foremost. Nothing about the new films suggests Orci and co won't give us 23rd century wastes of celluloid like Travis and Harry Kim.
Really? Of the most popular and highly regarded Star Trek episodes, ones with space battles tend to be very over represented. To follow this up. On the average, during ST:TNGs run about 3 out of every 26 episodes in a season featured a space battle. Call it 12%. Upgrade that to at least 15% just for the sake of argument. Yet, in general a pretty common "Top Ten" list for best TNG episodes includes "The Best of Both Worlds I, The Best of Both Worlds II, Yesterday's Enterprise, All Good Things," at the very least. Four out of 10 is 40% so by any reasonable standard, TNG episodes featuring space battles are much more highly represented among the "favorite episodes" than non space battle episodes. So Gul's contention that having a higher percentage of space battle episodes would by "out of character for Trek" is demonstrably untrue.
QFT. But if Trek is going to crawl its way back to the small screen, it's gotta be radically different than what we've seen before. Following in the footsteps of TOS, TNG or DS9 just isn't going to cut it. You can't appease a small group of hardcore continuity nutjobs and expect a significant return in ratings or money. That's why, despite the moanings of a select group of losers, JJ Abrams was able to successfully revitalize Trek. He took the core elements that made the original Trek work and tossed (most of) the continuity.
It was never the "continuity nutjobs" that wrecked Star Trek. It was Berman, Braga, Piller, and Taylor.
If Trek comes back, I want to see some real grandeur, some real epicness. I don't need seven uniformed manikins sitting around talking about which particle ray will get the alien of the week off their back. Characters and their personal dilemmas should never take a back seat to gadgetry. Space battles ARE an important part of Star Trek. Not to say they should be emphasized over all else, or that they shouldn't come about from engaging dramatic situations. But the essence of drama IS conflict. Space has to be dangerous for us to feel the sense of adventure; although there are many perils in space for our space travelers, the obvious one for dramatic purposes is...other space travelers.
Yes you, we know it and you know it. And it has been more than three countries that you've wanted to invade.
If it's set in the JJ verse, it's only constrained by the events in the two movies which didn't speak to the larger universe pretty much AT ALL. it's true we can assume the Romulans, Cardassians, Andorians and so forth are indeed out there...but the JJverse hasn't told us anything about the geo-political state of things, let alone all the other unexplored plots.
Once again prove it. If "we know it" then finding actual evidence should be difficult. In regards to me (and others) you will find that much is just hype and stereotype.
I agree, but they could do what some series like Fringe have done and do two distinct "half seasons" which each have their own overarching narrative.
Nope burden on proof is one you. Many of us know this, you deny it. Therefore the burden of proof falls on you since more of us remember you saying such things. Majority knowledge forces minority denial to acquiesce.
I know I'm just a graduate of American public schools, but even I know the difference between "a few" and "many". Do you?
But you can also thank them for Trek's longevity on the small screen. If anything, they simply overstayed their welcome and/or surrounded themselves with "yes men". This seems to be a common theme among successful entertainment writers/producers.
I actually attribute Star Trek's longevity on the small screen to other factors. Including for most of the 1990s and early 2000s a completely nonviable film series that offered no real alternative to televised Star Trek.
I do, do you realize that no matter what you say about "prove it" to others you feel no need to do so for others. You have even said so yourself. Isn't about time you started a new act?
