I've never agreed with the "They should have done a Captain Sulu series and 'everyone' knows it" sentiment either. I certainly wouldn't have minded seeing it, however there was nothing defective about the shows we got instead at the pre-conception stage. Which implies that everything or anything which eventually did turn out defective, once each of the latter series went into active production, would have happened just as quickly with a Captain Sulu series or any other concept which fans might have pushed forward. There's no reason to assume that the administration in charge would have handled a Captain Sulu series according to any different set of priorities than the ended up handling the Voyager
series. I also don't know how many people follow Bakula (as opposed to Takei) on Facebook, and I wouldn't care.
Originally Posted by kevin
If you had fewer episodes to fill to start with, it's possible you could reduce the number of duds and mediocre episodes you had along the way. That's an idea with genuine merit.
This has always been my belief as well. I think certainly it holds true with the first season of BSG over its longer and more meandering subsequent seasons. I can't speak for whether it's held true with Doctor Who
or not, as I'm not currently watching that show. But writers should at least have the option
of collaborating to put out more focused content if they weren't working under a 22-plus episode requirement every season. And to address Horatio's apples-and-oranges point, I don't see that it matters if you agree that both series overstayed their welcome by a season-and-a-half (although this might be a harder point to make in the case of TNG where the numbers really do -unfortunately- show that the larger audience was still watching when episodes like 'Dark Page' and 'Attached' were being aired).
Originally Posted by horatio
I thought that the "there can be only one" TOS purists died out somewhen after 1987 but it looks like the one show radicals are still among us.
Let me take the ridiculous notion that all Trek is bound to TOS seriously just for argument's sake. If this were so, if the child were forever tied to its parents, it would be hardly a surprise that Trek reached a threshold which it cannot cross. Thankfully it is not like this, Trek changes and evolves. Not always into the direction one likes (I do for example not like the current direction but I would never claim that TNG, my favourite Trek show, should be the eternal benchmark of the franchise; you cannot and should not repeat the past) but that is still better than stagnation.
It has nothing to do with being a TOS purist. There hasn't been a ST yet whose success didn't require familiarity with at least the existence of the original series, regardless of whether it was something you actually watched or merely thought of as being source to a lot of really hokey pop culture catchphrases. In that respect, the child IS forever tied to its parents. On a completely separate note, I agree that Trek needs to change and evolve, I disagree that it has always done so. If you subtract the number of viewers watching Enterprise in its final season from the number of viewers who watched TNG in its day (and here's where those graphs actually do come in handy), you get the number of people (fans) who do feel that ST already reached that stagnation threshold you speak of at some point between those two events.