Star Trek: general discussion-Picard, Discovery, Lower Decks (and Orville)

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

So, uh…..anyone else watched Section 31?

Just kinda feels like for once in my life, I’ve been a positive influence by shoving that dross into my brain via my eyeholes, and warning all others against repeating.

**Quixote**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So, uh…..anyone else watched Section 31?

Just kinda feels like for once in my life, I’ve been a positive influence by shoving that dross into my brain via my eyeholes, and warning all others against repeating.

Nope. Took Your Advice and ignored it.

**AduroT**

I just haven’t gotten around to it and kind of forgotten about it.

**insaniak**

Nope. Not Entirely Evil Georgiou was my second least favourite part of Discovery (after the loopy Klingon redesign) so had little interest even before the bad reviews.

**Hulksmash**

insaniak wrote:
Nope. Not Entirely Evil Georgiou was my second least favourite part of Discovery (after the loopy Klingon redesign) so had little interest even before the bad reviews.

This. I didn't really care for her in Discovery at all.

**Lathe Biosas**

I still kinda want to see Section 31... How bad could it possibly be?

But I won't pay to watch it.

**KamikazeCanuck**

Yes, if I have to get Paramount+ for some other reason I will watch it then.

**Ghaz**

‘Star Trek: Strange New Worlds’ Renewed For Fifth & Final Season At Paramount+ - DEADLINE

Ahead of its Season 3 premiere, the end is already in sight for Star Trek: Strange New Worlds. Paramount+ announced today it has renewed the series for a fifth and final six-episode season. Production will begin on Season 5 later this year.

**AduroT**

That’s three seasons to wrap stuff up, so I’m ok with this.

**Quixote**

Ghaz wrote:
‘Star Trek: Strange New Worlds’ Renewed For Fifth & Final Season At Paramount+ - DEADLINE

Ahead of its Season 3 premiere, the end is already in sight for Star Trek: Strange New Worlds. Paramount+ announced today it has renewed the series for a fifth and final six-episode season. Production will begin on Season 5 later this year.

Besides the Academy, is there anything else on the horizon for Trek?

**Ahtman**

With season 3 of SNW coming up and the announcement it is going until season 5 of course the headline I see for it is "SNW has been Canceled", as if it were done now.

**LordofHats**

Ahtman wrote:
With season 3 of SNW coming up and the announcement it is going until season 5 of course the headline I see for it is "SNW has been Canceled", as if it were done now.

I also saw that.

Newsweek needs it's own version of the Daily Mail song. I swear it's the most manatees in a ball pit publishing outfit I still see in my feed.

**Lathe Biosas**

LordofHats wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
With season 3 of SNW coming up and the announcement it is going until season 5 of course the headline I see for it is "SNW has been Canceled", as if it were done now.

I also saw that.

Newsweek needs it's own version of the Daily Mail song. I swear it's the most manatees in a ball pit publishing outfit I still see in my feed.

Manatees in a ball pit?

**LordofHats**

Lathe Biosas wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
With season 3 of SNW coming up and the announcement it is going until season 5 of course the headline I see for it is "SNW has been Canceled", as if it were done now.

I also saw that.

Newsweek needs it's own version of the Daily Mail song. I swear it's the most manatees in a ball pit publishing outfit I still see in my feed.

Manatees in a ball pit?

It's a reference to a South Park episode that joked Family Guy jokes were made by manatees in a ball pit. I'm saying their article titles are nonsensical and random (and often contradictory to the actual text of the article).

**ccs**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So, uh…..anyone else watched Section 31?

Just kinda feels like for once in my life, I’ve been a positive influence by shoving that dross into my brain via my eyeholes, and warning all others against repeating.

Nope.
And not likely to either.

1) I don't have P+

2) I didn't like the main character when on Discovery, the shows whole premise doesn't interest me, and NO ONE - IRL or online - who's seen it has had anything positive to say about it.
None of this encourages me to get P+, pick up the eventual DVD/BR, or even to pirate it.
So....

As for SNW ending at season 5?
While I like the show? That's still 3 seasons off. And not really unexpected. Afterall, Kirk does have to eventually take over as Captain.

**Lathe Biosas**

It took me a while. It was not easy. Not even my AI associates could help me...

BUT!

I found positive reviews of Star Trek: Section 31 (on IMDB).

8/10
Fast Paced and Exciting Entertainment
Similar in pace and feel as the Aliens movie, this is in my opinion, second only to Wrath Of Khan in the entire Star Trek canon in terms of quality. Ah, but there's that troublesome word, "canon". This movie is very definitely NOT in any way representative of all the Star Trek movies and series. With the possible exception of the two part In A Mirror Darkly episode Of Star Trek Enterprise, that is. Or the first Star Trek Kelvin timeline movie. This is not a bad thing, actually. I am one of those who did not much care for the Star Trek The Next Generation series because they were always so very obsessed with the Prime Directive that most of the time I wanted to just slap Jean Luc Picard senseless until he decided to grow a pair. It would have been impossible for the crew to accomplish much of anything because they were always being so caring, considerate and full of empathy. So when they invariably finally came up with a solution for the 52 minute problem at hand, it usually came off as pat, contrived and forced.

Section 31 does not have that problem. It is an action adventure sci-fi roller coaster ride, pure and simple. The characters are not particularly likeable. They're not supposed to be. They are a group of spies and assassins. In fact the only reason I did not give it 10 out of 10 was that they tried to redeem Phillippa Georgiou's story arc towards the end. Somewhat. Kinda like pulling a punch. You're still hitting them in the face, but you're not deliberately trying to kill them. Like that. It lessened the character's impact and threw into question decisions she'd made before and would later make. The opening scene of Section 31 had pretty much trodden that ground already. But this is a very small complaint in what I thought was an excellent movie overall.

This got a LOT of unwarranted poor reviews right out of the box. Don't believe them. Most of the reviews led me to two conclusions. 1) They based their review off the trailer or a synopsis of the film or just watched ten minutes and then left the screening room. Or, 2) The film did not affirm their love everyone and tolerate everything else ethos that Star Trek has been making out with for decades now. All hail the Prime Directive. Or not. Hey. Let's try that, instead.

As the Empress of The Terran Empire Philippa Georgious would say, let's get messy. Draw your own conclusions.

speleorat2003Jan 23, 2025

I bet MDG also compared ST:S31 to Aliens and ST:WoK... just not as favorably.

But! I found not one, but two! 2 positive reviews! After you read this, you will say to yourself, "Surely, if two random people on the internet say a movie is good (10/10), I should totally go watch it!"

[10/10]

Fun space adventure

They should titled it "A Section 31 Adventure". It was a fun space adventure. It was an event in the life of the former emperor Georgiou; it had a mix of spy and action filled with a good fun adventure in the 23rd century. It didn't really mess with canon with those that worry about stuff like that and it centered on work outside the Federation so one got crazy with bending Starfleet protocol. It did well for a series that kept getting chopped down to ultimately and essentially a TV movie for streaming. It was a fun adventure in the style of an episode with a bigger budget, though some of the dialogue was predictable, the cast appeared to have good chemistry.

LouieAxJan 25, 2025

That was definitely worth the hour it took me to find this.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

There’s always a Paul Ross movie review.

His more famous brother, Jonathan Ross is a pretty decent movie reviewer. The sort to review a film based on its genre, and comment accordingly, giving good and bad points in typically equal measure.

I can’t normally stand him as a TV Presenter, but I do rate him as a fair and balanced movie reviewer.

Paul Ross however? Let’s just say when he’s the only reviewer they can find to say a film is good, you can safely assume said film is a freshly laid Dog Egg with a runny centre, and you’ve forgotten your poop bags too boot.

So there’ll always be some goon willing to give utter crap a positive review*. So I’m not entirely shocked.

*sometimes it’s me! Well. Quite a lot of the time. But just because I like to find redeeming points doesn’t mean I’m blind to the bad.

**LordofHats**

Honestly I find the comparison to Aliens of all movies to be so utterly random and confusing I'm willing to bet some AI wrote that review. That comparison doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

**Kid_Kyoto**

Apparently SNW costs like Eleveny Billion Dollary Doos an episode or something similar.

I really think they need to just impose a 2-bottle episode a season rule on them and extend the seasons that way.

(Bottle episode=an episode made entirely with existing sets and costumes, few to no guest stars, few to no special effects, usually a cost-saving exercise)

That sort of constraint can make for some really good drama, and I think the cast is up for it. Come on, SNW, I know your cast can do it, can the writers?

**LordofHats**

Honestly they'd save a lot of money by using as many practical effects and sets as possible, minimizing the expensive CGI and post-production development, and they'd probably make everything look less fake while they were at it.

I have to imagine DS9 saved a lot of money long run with bulk of the show basically the entire show taking place on the same stage that just had all the rooms and spaces they needed.

**Overread**

True, at the same time perhaps DS9 had a more stable production that allowed investment in all those sets.

Then again considering how old ST is you'd think they'd just have a huge studio full of masses of sets and props and such to dip into. . .

**LordofHats**

They used to. TNG, DS9, and Voyager I know were able to reuse a lot of pieces and stuff, which probably saved lot of money over the course of 20 years of production.

**Overread**

Yeah I think they only really lost the Original Series stuff and that's not surprising considering how many years there were between Original Series and even just the films let alone the restart of TNG

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

LordofHats wrote:
They used to. TNG, DS9, and Voyager I know were able to reuse a lot of pieces and stuff, which probably saved lot of money over the course of 20 years of production.

Also the movies.

Enterprise D Battle Bridge set was the same as the Enterprise Bridge from TMP, Khan, Search for Spock and The Voyage Home, just redressed and modified etc. Also the Miranda class, Ambassador class, Courtroom and Cybernetics Lab.

Amazing what you can get away with using just different camera angles and lighting.

**Ahtman**

The reason the newly introduced Bird of Prey wasn't a Romulan ship and crew in ST III, as the script was originally written, was because Paramount had them reuse the Klingon sets and costumes from TMP.

**Kid_Kyoto**

LordofHats wrote:
They used to. TNG, DS9, and Voyager I know were able to reuse a lot of pieces and stuff, which probably saved lot of money over the course of 20 years of production.

A lot was sold off in the 2000s, they had a massive auction called "That's a wrap".

Rewatching SNW season 2 on India's Jio Hotstar service (which for some reason does not have season 1) and just saw the Una courtroom episode. Not sure why they thought having 2 women with 'genetic enhancements' was a good idea, but I digress.

Well written, great legal drama, stirred the heartstrings, I have no idea how this thing cost $35 billion dollars (or whatever).

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Reusing sets, props and prosthetics does make sense though.

It’s less cost cutting and more maximising your budget. Which admittedly might seem like a splitting of hairs, but there is a difference.

Cost Cutting = We’re actively reducing your budget

Maximising Budget/Reducing Costs = How can we get the most out of this budget?

If you have an existing, already paid for set? Why pay for another one if you can reuse what exists? If you’ve already a bunch of Klingon uniforms in Wardrobe, with Disruptors, Bat’leth and that? Use them. Sure you’ll need to make alterations to better fit an actor, but that’s a much lower cost than making a whole new one.

It can also allow for grander scenes. If you’ve no Klingon Uniforms in Wardrobe, you can certainly have them made. But your budget will dictate how many, and therefore how many Klingons you can have onscreen at anyone time. But, if you’ve five? You could always pay for another five, giving you more on screen and that.

I do wonder if that’s something studios need to relearn. Your first season is always going to be the most expensive, as you need all the design work to be done and props to be made.

But, after that? Provided an item didn’t get trashed? Reuse it. Sure you’ll need to repair and replace here and there, but you can still make use of what already exists.

If you get a bunch of seasons, then by the end of it? You can take stock of what’s already in the Costume Bucket, and go for much grander scenes. Even if some are by now a bit tatty? They can always be deployed in the background where nobody is looking too hard.

**Kid_Kyoto**

How much an item is used definitely defrays costs and this is where shorter seasons really hurt.

If the Enterprise sets cost $25 million (all numbers are made up) and season 1 has 25 episodes, well now they cost a million an episode. And if you have 8 seasons/200 episodes then they're down to $125 thousand an episode (+costs of upkeep and upgrades of course).

Even labor, if you can offer someone an 8 year contract with such and such raises each season and this cut of the reruns, toys, video games etc then costs are predictable and can be accounted for.

These 10 episode seasons where you have to renegotiate contacts just made each episode more expensive.

That being said... I wonder if the age of binging isn't discouraging 25-episodes seasons (the standard in the broadcast age). Starting a show that had 30 episodes ever is less of a commitment than starting one with 300...

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Episode count traditionally is apparently based on Syndication Standards. I guess for those looking for shows to air, they want a firm, minimum airtime for their pennies. 26 episodes = 26 hours, and of that approximately 6.5 hours of ads, and ad revenue.

I do appreciate shorter seasons, as it can means less Guffy Filler, cheapo episodes farted out to pad overall runtime. And Disney+, whatever you feel about a given show, has explored that with Episodes Of Varying Length, again helping to reduce Guffy Filler.

Yet….whilst it makes for a lean production and a decently paced story (well, that’s the dream at least)? By not having Filler Episodes, you miss out on accidental hits. Those intended to be throwaway tales which unexpectedly resonate with the audience, and if taken heed of, can revitalise a show having found new winds.

That mattered a lot to Old Trek, as it fleshed out the universe. X-Files produced some gnarly Monster of the Week which stood head and shoulders above the uninteresting, overly drawn out alien invasion drivel. Supernatural had silly nonsense which nonetheless helped drive character development.

There is a happy medium to be had of course. This isn’t a black or white, entirely binary situation. And both I dare say are different writing disciplines, like the difference between someone who writes weekly comics and someone who writes short stories or novels, just as screenwriting for a 90 or 120 minute movie is a different task entirely to writing a multiple episode serial

For literature the inbetweens do exist. Some comic books are really solid, self contained short stories/novels. Not as long as a text novel, no. But every bit as engrossing. For movies, tv and streaming? We’re seeing some stuff work (Andor, Skellington Crew, Netflix Daredevil stuff) which trod the wire between movie and serial story telling. But not everyone is there yet. And I don’t think any of the three should be discarded.

**Overread**

I think you also have to consider that some of these series are being made by entirely different development teams with different access to technologies and budgets.

In the past with ST you had one setup - but now you've got things being developed in different places and concurrently to each other.

All of which makes it much more complicated to share resources plus you can get the whole "resource guarding" risk where teams don't want to share things in case they get lost/damaged/can't get them back etc.

Of course there are bonuses too - concurrent development means you can keep pressure up and release more whilst something is hot; it can create new approaches and ideas rather than stagnate with the same props and setup which might start to feel "old" or such.

As for the current environment, my impression is that the whole streaming revolution is "FASTER". With TV it seemed like if you could at least breach a first season you'd likely get hired for a bunch more and could sustain yourself. Plus things moved that bit slower.
Steaming feels like a lot of things became faster; both the uptake of new things, but also the potential to get shut down and it seems like shows get commissioned with far fewer seasons or even just season to season.

That said stuff like Star Trek today should be almost cast in iron in terms of being a franchise that can last. Even if a show or season fails another can be raised to replace it fairly swiftly. Which would all suggest that if you could at least keep some of the same production staff; you could in theory just keep rolling assets over.

Of course the fact that they keep jumping styles, timezones; settings and so on likely means that its practically really hard when everything changes all the time. TNG-DS9 and Voyager had a LOT of very similar props, makeup and designs that could flit one to the next (if anything DS9 was the outlier having to develop all those Cardassian sets)