With a "Lower Decks" crossover, a musical episode and lots of James T. Kirk, Captain Pike and his crew couldn't move for novelty episodes.
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-Trek(TM) 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.
I really don't think the inclusion of Kirk should be considered a "gimmick". There was no stunt-casting, nor were the episodes in which he appeared particularly gimmicky (well, okay, "Subspace Rhapsody" was a gimmick episode, but in a way that wasn't structured around Kirk specifically).
Like it or hate it, it's clear to me that the producers are including Kirk because they think it's worth exploring the character at this point in his career. I wouldn't 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.
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.
What turns me off about SNW is that The Orville is a better return to form to "classic Trek" than actual Star Trek. The episodes revolving around Topa's gender and identity is some of the best scifi commentary on modern society out there right now.
I think it's 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 Kirk's fatherās brotherās nephewās cousinās former roommate?!
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.
I'd 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. It's far too controversial for the network to accept, with all of its progressive and social commentary elements intact.
Not that it's a fault of Star Trek's 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.
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 love SNW but this show is held back by the low number of episodes per season. With 10 episodes it's 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 haven't even managed to give Ortegas something to do in 20 episodes. By season 4 we'll probably have a junior Doctor McCoy, Ensign Sulu and Cadet Chekov on board, and then it'll 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, I'd love more thought-provoking stuff like "Ad Astra Per Aspera" and "Under the Cloak of War". 2 out of 10 episodes was not enough for my taste.
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.
Oh I've got nothing against the portrayal or actor or even the inclusion of Kirk in the show ... 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, isn't going to be healthy for the show in the long run.
In general, my take on season 2 is that I've mentally prepared myself for it to mark the point at which it went bad or stopped being actually good. We'll have to see, and I'm obviously hoping that I'm paranoid ... but I do not trust Kurtzman or paramount or the temptation some executives must be salivating over to just reboot the original series.
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.
@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'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 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.