I wrote a bit of a short academic essay comparing TNG and Farscape recently. It might not be the most accessible and it’s certainly on the formal side. It also can come off a bit strong in a short time, but that’s a restraint of the format. Anyway, I’ve pasted the unedited copy below and if I have time I may follow up with another blog post.
The landscape of science fiction television has long been defined by a weekly episodic formula, complete with reset button. It promised stability and certainty. Star Trek, the genre’s epitome, established a gold standard for a utopian future where problems could be resolved in a single hour. While some problems must be resolved within the episode, this commitment to episodic narrative limited the possibility for long-term character evolution or consequence. The rigidity of this model was challenged by a series like Farscape, which has flawed characters who are portrayed with emotional truth over moral clarity. The episodic structure of Star Trek: The Next Generation enforced a limiting narrative status quo, the state of affairs to which the characters always return, while the commitment to serialization in Farscape proved superior by facilitating permanent character consequence and thematic depth.
TNG’s characters are almost entirely limited by the ideal identity they represent; in contrast, Farscape‘s commitment to serialization allows its characters to be messy, flawed, and constantly evolving.
The approaches to character development and internal conflict reveal the structural division between the two franchises. Both shows rely on a core ensemble cast, but Star Trek: The Next Generation (TNG) was constrained by its utopian mandate. The core world is oddly perfect, and Ott and Aoki (2001) argue that the series’ utopian rhetoric, while attempting to showcase an evolved humanity, ultimately “constrains human agency” and works to “reproduce the current cultural hegemony,” the set of dominant, unchallenged societal norms, by requiring its crew to embody a perfected ideal. This mandate means that officers must suppress their flaws or trauma, ensuring they return to an unscarred status quo by the next episode. For example, any temptation or conflict must be resolved instantly, preventing the character from undergoing permanent change. TNG’s characters are almost entirely limited by the ideal identity they represent; in contrast, Farscape’s commitment to serialization allows its characters to be messy, flawed, and constantly evolving. Its crew is not a unified ideal but a collection of individuals whose psychological damage—like John Crichton’s mental fracturing—persists and drives the plot for seasons. In fact, some of the crew can be annoying and unpleasant people at times, yet this is human. This structural freedom permits Farscape to explore complex, long-running relationship arcs that are reshaped by trauma, guilt, and evolving identities, creating characters who feel realistic and deeply engaging.
Conventional episodic form is bound by its commitment to ‘plot closure within every episode,’ making the ultimate threat of disaster irrelevant because the show must be able to reset.
The significant difference stemming from the choice of format is the ability to enforce stakes and consequence. Conventional episodic form is bound by its commitment to “plot closure within every episode” (Mittell, 2006), making the ultimate threat of disaster irrelevant because the show must be able to reset. TNG relies on plot devices—like time travel or holodeck simulations—to ensure the main cast and ship return to the status quo, thereby minimizing the cost of conflict. In contrast, Farscape’s serialized format enforces irreversible events through the “logic of accumulation” (Mittell, 2006). Its characters are not protected by a reset button; the death of a character is final, trauma is permanent, and failures lead to political and military shifts. For instance, the state of fear and paranoia the crew experiences is not a resolved plot but a defining feature of the series, providing tension. The series’ refusal to allow its heroes to escape the ramifications of their choices confirms that the serialized structure is superior for building high-stakes drama.
The freedom to embrace unconventional narrative is mirrored by the freedom to embrace unconventional aesthetic. Both franchises utilize makeup and prosthetics to realize alien life. However, while Star Trek adhered to a clean, “respectable” genre aesthetic, Farscape embraced unconventional puppetry and practical effects—two of the main characters are puppets, and the actors treat them as real people. Ott and Aoki (2001) note that TNG’s aesthetic was linked to a utopian vision that “re-center[s] White masculinity,” achieving diversity through superficial alien makeup that conforms to human stereotypes. Farscape committed to the high-quality, strange visuals provided by the Jim Henson Creature Shop. Farscape is diverse in a clever and organic way. The series effectively throws a collection of wildly different sentient beings onto a ship—which is also sentient—and tells them not to die. This choice was met with skepticism, as one critic observed the reaction of executives who viewed the inclusion of Muppets as “embarrassing” (Hoskin, 2004, p. 110). This willingness to be visually “strange” gave the show-runners a license to break the “po-faced rules of SF-TV” (Hoskin, 2004, p. 110). The presence of characters like Pilot and Rygel enhanced their emotional resonance, demonstrating that Farscape’s freedom allowed it to achieve a unique visual identity that perfectly complemented its messy, rule-breaking narrative.
The evolution from episodic to serialized television represents a advancement in long-form storytelling. The requirements of episodic TV, demonstrated by the inefficiency of Star Trek: The Next Generation, mandate a narrative “clean slate” that neuters character evolution and trivializes consequence. To put it simply, it can be hard to take Star Trek seriously. Farscape’s commitment to serialization enabled the development of flawed, evolving protagonists, the maintenance of irreversible narrative stakes, and a rich aesthetic. By prioritizing the logic of accumulation and sustained character arcs over weekly plot closure, Farscape demonstrates that the serialized format is superior for achieving the thematic and character depth essential for truly compelling long-form science fiction.
References
Hoskin, D. (2004). Muppets in space. Metro Magazine, (140), 110.
Mittell, J. (2006). Narrative complexity in contemporary American television. Velvet Light Trap, (58), 29+.
Ott, B. L., & Aoki, E. (2001). Popular imagination and identity politics: Reading the future in Star Trek: The Next Generation. Western Journal of Communication, 65(4), 392–415.
Leave a Reply