Collider ranked all the Star Trek shows and we have some questions.
There is no definitive list for what Star Trek shows should rate where. Rating is subjective, preference is subjective, talent is (largely) subjective. So to say that any Star Trek show is “better” than the other is already admitting you have no idea what subjective means.
That’s why we tend to stay away from big, sweeping, declarations. We have our personal lists, sure, but we don’t tend to make claims about what show is definitely the best or worst. So when lists like that pop-up, we always have to take a look to see what they say. This latest one is from Collider and it’s…interesting.
The one thing that I look for in the ranking of these shows is consistency. What is it that you’re judging these shows on? That’s important. Is it production values or writing? Do the actors need to be great or can a “pretty” show be enough? How important is the length of the show to a viewer? These are all things to consider, among many others. So let’s see what Collider had to say about what show went where.
- The Next Generation
- Deep Space Nine
- The Original Series
- Lower Decks
- Short Treks
- The Animated Series
The Collider listing of Star Trek shows leaves a lot to be desired.
The writer of the list is entitled to her opinion. This isn’t to discredit the ranking but the reasoning for them. Prodigy is a great show and is the highest-rated among critics and fans alike of all the Nu Trek on Rotten Tomatoes. It delivers in spades, yet Prodigy’s run time is the reason it ranks so low. The argument is that the storytelling isn’t “flushed out” enough due to the time restraints. Yet Lower Decks is fine with the same time restraints?
This leads us to Lower Decks, which gets the fourth spot on the list because it’s the same as everything else.
"The animation is in line with the modern age’s preferred adult animated comedies."
Seems odd that the show gets a pass for its time and is also unoriginal but that makes it the third-best show? Interesting. Another issue with the list’s lack of consistency is that Short Treks is even shorter per episode than Prodigy but it gets a much higher spot.
Enterprise is so low on the list due to its lack of transporters, and according to the author, the lack of technology “…restricts the writing and slows down the pace.” That’s a new one.
And basically, Discovery lands where it does not because of the effects, the writing, or the acting but because it’s progressive in its hiring.
All in all, the list is fine, the reasons are not, however. The article tries to paint this as a “merit” based list but didn’t explain what things would be considered as such. If this was framed as a personal list, with these being the author’s personal reasons, that’s fine. That’s not how it reads and because of that, we just had to say something.
Like what you like, dislike what you don’t, but at least be consistent with what you’re looking for. That’s all that can be asked.