4 ms·

I don't know about you but I enjoy that immensely. I'm often not in the mood for high-stakes anything. I watch tv to relax, not to get amped up.

• scarface74 8y ago
  Only a few episodes were compelling. It’s hard to tell a compelling story with long term arcs where the effects of decisions have consequences in 50 minutes. All of the Trek shows after TNG had story arcs that didn’t get resolved at the end. Voyager was kind of a mixed bag admittedly.
  • Doxin 8y ago
    > Only a few episodes were compelling. I'll have to disagree with you. Aside from the first few seasons most episodes were compelling to me. Perhaps it's just different tastes but I don't enjoy long plots with many twists unless they are planned exceedingly well. I prefer 50 minute story arcs over 600 minute story arcs with unnecessary cliffhangers every 50 minutes.
  • SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
    Did you watch it at the time or in retrospect? That was largely the style of TV at the time, so I'm wondering if you experienced it while the expectations were still there, or if you were already in the world of Heroes and Lost when you watched it.
    • scarface74 8y ago
      Good point. I did watch it when it originally aired. Even then I remember preferring the episodes that connected back to a slightly deeper story. TNG characters also seemed to “perfect”. I didn’t watch too much of the the original trek but I did watch the movies.
      • slowmovintarget 8y ago
        The too-perfectness was a Gene Roddenberry thing. It was literally a part of the show's "bible" that characters didn't have any interpersonal conflicts with each other, because this was Gene's utopian future. It made it very difficult to write a good show. In season 3 they threw that out (somewhat) and focussed on character development.