| ▲ | m_fayer a day ago |
| I haven't liked much tv sci-fi other than TNG and DS9. In recent times, The Expanse was a huge standout for me. It's also full of characters trying to effectively handle extremely difficult situations, and striving to be good people within their context. It's very different from TNG in most ways, but it does share the emphasis on retaining humanity, dignity, and ethics within ambiguity and hardship. Very interesting to think about them side-by-side. |
|
| ▲ | beloch a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| TNG put writing first. They went after interesting stories and didn't try to force them into a formula for ratings. Sometimes there was fisticuffs and phaser fire, but many of the best TNG episodes didn't involve violence at all. It was an optimist's take on the future. The cast of TNG was great, but Patrick Stewart's acting chops let them do episodes that another show couldn't have pulled off. He changed what was possible. The quality of writing for DS9 was also quite good but, after trying the TNG formula for a season or two, they broke with the writing-first mentality and adopted an action sci-fi formula. The showrunners feared they'd lose ratings if an episode didn't have at least some action. It worked for DS9, but later Trek series have had a tough time shaking free of the action sci-fi formula. The problem with formulas is that, while they produce individual episodes or shows that are exemplars of their form, the sameness eventually causes viewers to drift away. Strange New Worlds has shown it's willing to do some pretty wild things (e.g. turning its cast into muppets, adding gore and horror elements, etc.), but they have not messed with the formula in a meaningful way. If you're looking for something outside the Trek formula, one recommendation I'd share is "The Foundation". |
| |
| ▲ | somenameforme 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think the problem with modern Star Trek series is that they simply have terrible writing. DS9 produced some of the best TV ever with action/sci-fi blends, and it also did more dialogue driven scenarios phenomenally well. I think the thing that really drew people in to DS9/TNG is that the writers really seemed to understand people of all perspectives, and so were able to create highly compelling characters and stories. For instance the various plot points in DS9 between Sisko and Eddington (like "For the Uniform") often have you starting to cheer for the 'bad guys', while really confusing the question of who the good guy and who the bad guy even is. DS9 even excels as 'humanizing' the Cardassians who are, on the surface at least, just an evil trope. And recent times in real life should emphasize, to the point of absurdity, that this is what people and situations are genuinely like. But the modern Star Treks feel like they were written by people living in a bubble with minimal life experience. They rely on political tropes and diametrically opposed good/evil stuff that's utterly banal, and intellectually insulting. They actually do have some of the same writers as previous shows though, so I assume there must be production/directorial pressures that caused the shift in 'style.' | | |
| ▲ | beloch 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Some TV shows are now being designed to be watched as background while the viewers are pecking away on their phones. Plots are simplified and repeated. Viewers are often shown and then told important points multiple times, just to make sure they don't miss them. Discovery did this some of the time. There were episodes where they would show, then tell, then tell again all within a few minutes. Not every episode was done this way. I suspect they were experimenting and it did not go well. Anybody who was actually giving the show their full attention was bound to be irritated. Discovery was a low point in modern Trek for multiple reasons. They initially decided to forgo an ensemble cast and bet it all on a protagonist driven narrative. This severely limited the diversity of viewpoints in the first couple seasons. The writing was bad for entirely avoidable reasons. People who watch trek pay attention to the universe's rules. You can't beam through shields, you need to have a reason for why the away team can't be trivially beamed out of dangerous situations, etc.. The people writing Discovery did not bother to do this on a repeating and continual basis. Again, it was insulting to anyone who wasn't pecking away on their phone. I wouldn't say the writers for Discovery merely lacked life experience. They clearly hadn't bothered to watch previous Trek shows. Strange New Worlds is better written, but a little too reliant on high concept for their most recent season. Every episode seems to have a gimmick. Still the cast is good and I look forward to them wrapping up Pike's story and, presumably, setting up a reboot of TOS. Lower Decks is the best Trek show in recent memory. Thoroughly entertaining from start to finish. I can't recommend that one enough, just in case anyone skipped it because it was animated. Intelligent. Inventive. Hilarious. The people who made Lower Decks really put a lot of love into it. Edit: I forgot to mention Picard, which is unforgivable. Some of the seasons were a little uneven, but some were fantastic and it was truly a treat to see Patrick Stewart as Picard one last time. | | |
| ▲ | Anthony-G 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Plots are simplified and repeated. Viewers are often shown and then told important points multiple times, just to make sure they don't miss them. This kind of TV writing really frustrates me. I’m currently rewatching The Wire (just finished Season 3) and the producers, writers and directors take the complete opposite approach. Each season has a large number of characters with many subtly inter-relating plots. To get the most out of the show, you need to be paying attention and to have a good memory for recalling details from previous episodes and previous seasons. The first two times I watched the show (more than 15 years ago), I watched in on DVD (lower resolution, 4:3 aspect ratio). This time I’m watching it in 16:9 HD on Bluray and I’ve picked up so many plot points and characterisations that I hadn’t picked up (or don’t remember) before, e.g., one very brief shot in Season 1 explains how Bubs gets his nickname. It’s such a breath of fresh air for the writers to pay so much attention to detail and for the viewer to be treated like a reasonably intelligent adult. I agree with your take on Picard. However, I didn’t enjoy Discovery so haven’t bothered with any of the other recent Star Trek series. Thanks for the summaries of the other two shows. I’ll add Lower Decks to my to-watch list. | |
| ▲ | solyin 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | To your point, the Lower Decks writers were clearly TNG fans. | | |
| ▲ | shagie 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The (voice) actors were too... and they were well versed in the lore. Tawny Newsome (Beckett Mariner) became a writer for Star Trek: Starfleet Academy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Starfleet_Academy#S... ) Wil Wheaton in Ready Room has some episodes about Lower Decks. The Crossover episode https://youtu.be/3SiYyIAz5xU and the final recap https://youtu.be/NK94dXm2Wis I'd also generally suggest Dropping Names with Brent and Jonny ( https://www.youtube.com/@Dropping-Names ) where Brent Spinner and Johnathan Frakes chat with people about movies and TV. While it's not about Trek, it's a frequent tangential topic. I believe it's helpful in the context of "how much the fandom extends to other people in the entertainment industry." | |
| ▲ | beloch 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | As one would hope, given that it shared the same time setting and some characters. It's truly a shame they never managed to get Patrick Stewart in for a guest appearance. |
|
| |
| ▲ | camgunz 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I always felt like the problem w/ DIS was that the story itself was just incredibly overdramatic. TNG has... I think really only one of these moments in Conspiracy where The Federation is taken over by alien parasites, and OK let's just blame the 80s for that. But, just Lorca's arc in DIS would be a series-long drama in the TNG years, but it's literally like 3 episodes. Tyler actually being Voq is _completely insane_, and is also like 4 episodes. Also Culber dies! But also comes back! Can you imagine Geordi killing Crusher (who is retrieved from idk, The Nexus after a few episodes a little shaken but also totally OK), Data being a secret Romulan who underwent bonkers like, bone shaving to look human (and is also completely "fixed" in a single episode) and Picard also having euthanized his entire former crew but generally being completely fine? For a while I thought the acting was melodramatic, but I actually think it pairs really well with the truly crazymaking amount of wild shit that happens moment to moment in DIS. Burnham should be a PTSD shell, Tilly should've resigned her commission long ago, etc. etc. | | |
| ▲ | ben_w 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | For me, DIS wasn't so much a case of "the problem with" as "amongst the many problems with". Things as you say, but also: didn't know show's own technology history (Klingons with cloaks before they should've had them), adding in spore drive then needing to retcon it. The show din't seem to know what it wanted to be and kept pulling in different directions, one of the early plans was an "anthology series, with each season being a standalone, serialized story set in a different era", which would have suited this much, much better: one or two episodes about the Klingon war, one showing Pike's command before Enterprise, young Spock's first mission, even some about a spore drive and the problems it has, some AI-takeover stuff, some post-TNG stuff, one episode about galaxy-threatening event, one about some post-apocalyptic thing like The Burn isn't even bad. But all that smooshed together with the same crew? Nah. The reason Michael Burnham had a male-coded name was teased but never actually revealed (could have been interesting e.g. "adopted by Vulcans who didn't notice it was male-coded because that's a silly human thing"). Her character shifted way too hard and way too fast, from "Vulcan persona due to upbringing" to "traumatised normal human", a nature-vs-nurture tale could have been an interesting thing to explore. And Michael Burnham was correct to want a show of force against the Klingons! Sure, wildly violated how command hierarchy works, but she was correct, and Starfleet Command should have known that because she got advice from Sarek. Not that she should have been Sarek's never-before-mentioned adopted daughter, we need to see new characters rather than just repeating the old ones; I mean, Vulcan is an entire plant, not a small Pacific island. (Amusing trivia from some fan-site I visited decades ago: VOY had the opposite problem, in that the list of extras appearing as background crew was larger than the crew complement). And in the battle before they went off to the far future, that unexploded torpedo inside Enterprise, which the admiral heroically sacrificed herself to disarm… (1) it's antimatter, how does that "not explode"?, (2) it's ~ 50 megatons and inside the ship and in TOS an overloaded phaser pistol was supposed to be able to blow out multiple decks, (3) what, are their transporters not working? Can't you either beam it out, or the admiral out after she disarms it? (4) Why send in an admiral, did they run out of ensigns and non-officers? And Control (the AI) was proto-Borg, right as we had three seasons of Picard with season 1: Romulans, Borg, and Androids; Season 2: Q, Borg, and time travel; Season 3: Borg, Changelings, and Crusher saying "no one has seen or heard from the Borg in a decade". |
|
| |
| ▲ | janandonly 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Which episode has muppets? |
|
|
| ▲ | tkdb a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| My first forays into DS9 were sort of haphazard and I didn't appreciate the political thoughts and tensions that are much more nuanced and consistent throughout the series compared to the relatively simple TNG operating paradigm of "we explore, navigate the inevitable sticky situations that arise." Recently, and in no small part thanks to everything being available for streaming, I started with the DS9 pilot and made my way through all seven seasons. It took me several years of steady chipping away (spikes in watching on long flights, and weeks or months of no watching), but I thoroughly enjoyed it. There are multiple sharks jumped. Alien sharks jumped. The same hammy and even adolescent takes on relationships. But through it all shines the enduring, consistent introspective existentialism. I think watching DS9 in this way provides a richer experience while TNG can mostly be enjoyed by dropping in here or there, and you eventually pick up on the long arcs of the Borg, Q, etc... |
| |
| ▲ | TheOtherHobbes a day ago | parent [-] | | DS9 took more risks and the characters are more complex and layered. A few of the episodes are up there with the best TV ever made. TNG is very, very good, but it wears its heart on its sleeve. Picard never struggles with existential moral ambiguity. Even when he (rarely) fails, he's always The Good Man. The utopian slant is appealing and we can't help cheering for him, but DS9 revealed there was some sleight of hand behind the narrative. Of the series since, I think only Battlestar Galactica approached similar complexity. Maybe Westworld, which got quite abstract and interesting towards the end. The Expanse is more by the numbers. It's basically class war in space, with the military, the aristocracy, and the peasants slugging it out, while a dragon rolls in and threatens to eat everything. The writing is very challenge -> response -> partial solution over and over, and for me it just doesn't have the depth or the emotional reach. (Or the acting chops.) | | |
| ▲ | tkdb a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Which DS9 episodes are GOAT contenders? | | |
| ▲ | arunix 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The Visitor (S4, E2) was nominated for a Hugo award. The main character in this story is an older version of Jake Sisko, played by Tony Todd. | |
| ▲ | somenameforme 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | For myself there'd be many but it's difficult to name them in isolation. For instance 'In the Pale Moonlight' is obviously going to be near to #1, but I think if you don't have the buildup and character arc to that point that it might not hit with the same sort of impact as somebody who'd watched the show to that point. It's kind of like Game of Thrones and 'The Red Wedding'. That episode is zomg, but if you watched it in isolation with no knowledge of the character arcs to date, it'd probably be interesting, but wouldn't have anywhere near the same sort of punch. | |
| ▲ | sho_hn a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Duet is monumental. I've watched all the recent greats, from Sopranos to The Wire, and Duet remains the best realized hour of television I've ever seen. | |
| ▲ | Poacher5 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "Far Beyond The Stars" is also incredibly tight and affecting writing and Avery Brooks delivers an absolutely stone cold believable performance while also keeping up the very Avery Brooks scenery chewing. Might be lost one someone who didn't know the characters outside of the Benny Russell scenarios but holy smokes. |
| |
| ▲ | esseph a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > TNG is very, very good, but it wears its heart on its sleeve. Picard never struggles with existential moral ambiguity. Even when he (rarely) fails, he's always The Good Man. I find this amusing, because of what his best friend said about him wearing his heart on his sleeve : https://www.instagram.com/p/DfGRUe0B63I/ |
|
|
|
| ▲ | legitster a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I liked season 1 of the Expanse - the settings and production were fantastic, but I found the characters just became overwritten and annoying as the show went on. I am worried that Game of Thrones ruined a generation of sci-fi and fantasy - everyone tries to copy the dark, morally compromised, postmodern, realpolitik tone. Even besides the fact that we are manifesting a world where progress is impossible, it has turned genres that is traditionally very positive and escapist into bleak emotional slogs. |
| |
| ▲ | joshuahedlund a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > I liked season 1 of the Expanse - the settings and production were fantastic, but I found the characters just became overwritten and annoying as the show went on. I recommend reading the original book series. In my opinion the writing only gets better as it goes on, and it’s obvious the writers had a plan in mind from the beginning rather than just writing more books for the sake of continuing a series where the ideas were all used up in the first book or two | |
| ▲ | moregrist a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > everyone tries to copy the dark, morally compromised, postmodern, realpolitik tone. GoT was a late-comer to this. For me, William Gibson’s _Neuromancer_ (1984) was my first exposure to dark and morally-compromised Sci-Fi. I am sure it predates this in novels. _Neuromancer_ inspired a couple of movies in the 90s: The Net and Johnny Mneumonic come to mind. In US TV shows, I think Babylon 5 started the lean into the dark tone, and the reimagined Battlestar Galactica of the 2000s is a better example than GoT. | | |
| ▲ | Sharlin 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Like 24 and several other shows, Battlestar Galactica is very 9/11 coded. Everything took a turn towards Darker And Edgier in the aftermath. | | |
| ▲ | ecshafer 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | Stargate SG-1 in their episode Wormhole X-treme, which released Sep 8 2021, so just before 9/11, made fun of the TV industry trend of pushing everything towards darker, edgier, "extreme" styles. |
| |
| ▲ | IAmBroom 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Babylon 5, with the white-knight Rangers, the captain who single-handedly saved humanity in the war with the Minbari AND THEN went on to build friendships with them, and the completely monotonic, both-sides-of-the-coin moralities of the Shadows and the Vorlons? Yes, the Narn and the Centauri were not so pure, but it reads as a pretty mythic Good V Evil world to me. |
| |
| ▲ | Andrew_nenakhov a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Expanse is a very strange tv show. Their main cast is utterly bland and have absolutely no chemistry with each other, the only interesting character is maybe Amos, but almost all secondary characters are top notch, with lots of great actors and tons of charisma. It is typical for some belter captain who appears in 2 episodes to effortlessly outshine the whole Rocinante crew. | | |
| ▲ | Sharlin 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yeah. It boggles the mind how unlikable the Rocinante crew is. Why were they written like that? | | |
| ▲ | watwut 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | What are you talking about? I liked them as people. Amos was comedic relief, a psycho, the rest of them are ... people with human personalities. | | |
| ▲ | Sharlin 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Like the GP said, they were bland, sort of jerks (and not really even Jerks With A Heart Of Gold), and had no chemistry together. As far as I can recall, they just had petty drama all the time that felt like it was written just because there’s supposed to be drama. | | |
| ▲ | watwut 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | To me, they seemed closer to normal people with normal relationships that yes, have some conflict too. Especially in a small group living together all the time where majority is not submissive, so will assert themselves here or there. But like, Amos is a psycho. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | phyrex a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm currently watching Battlestar Galactica for the first time. Give it a try, it scratches the same itch for me |
| |
| ▲ | unsnap_biceps a day ago | parent [-] | | I watched the battle star reboot for the first time recently and the whole cylon reveal drama really ruined it for me. It felt like they were picked for shock value rather than story consistency. The first season was great, but it fell off for me and was a struggle to care by season 4. And I gave up on caprica after an episode or two. | | |
| ▲ | IAmBroom 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I had the opposite reaction to the series end (I know, I'm an outlier there), but I couldn't tolerate Caprica either. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | LtWorf a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I really cannot understand how anyone can like the expanse. It must really be because the really good scifi is a bit old and nobody knows what scifi should be like. Cannot explain it otherwise. |
| |
| ▲ | uxcolumbo a day ago | parent [-] | | What is it you don’t like about it? And which sci-fi shows would you recommend instead? | | |
| ▲ | LtWorf a day ago | parent [-] | | This one was really nice for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirk_Gently_(TV_series) (not to be confused with the USA version which is terrible) | | |
| ▲ | samplatt 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | Oh wow. Had no idea there was an earlier production of Dirk Gently. I've only seen the BBC-America one, which is magnificent. As a lover of Douglas Adams (and a non-American), I adored the concept of Dirk Gently but felt the entries were some of the weakest material he'd ever released. There were so many great ideas but the characters were a confusing mess. The US adaption by contrast is possibly the most perfect blend or midpoint between of American and British humour I've ever seen, and one of the tightest time-travel stories that you can wish for without taking itself too seriously. Looking forward to watching this previous series, I like Howard Overman and Matt Jone's other work. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | okasaki a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | ericmay a day ago | parent [-] | | > a meaningless, ugly, depressing trash show only possible to produce in an empire in terminal decline. It's an OK sci-fi show but the US isn't in decline. In fact, the opposite is occurring, minus those espousing Marxist ideology dragging us down a bit. | | |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | npc99 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | ericmay a day ago | parent [-] | | That’s not true. Plenty of great places all over the country. Being liberal isn’t the same thing as being a Marxist. Love it or leave it isn’t a valid argument. | | |
| ▲ | npc99 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | There is no reasoning with someone who looks at Trump's America and thinks it's fine except "the Marxists" |
|
|
|
|