To the extent that all language rules are ultimately arbitrary. But if we are talking about the literal meaning of words....
Rumor: the show takes place between TOS movies and TNG
- Thread starter AvBaur
- Start date
That's right.And then vinyl made a come-back!
Grammar.
But not 78 rpm records and studios with one microphon.
Besides that, I think that the main reason for the vinyl come-back is that the quality of CD-records aren't as good as expected.
On the contrary to that, he 24th centyry was a good scenario for Star Trek. After all, it spawned three successful series while the retro series went down like a lead balloon.
But they followed it up with a prequel show, and that did even worse than Voyager. I really think there was no way back at that point, and Star Trek had run its course for the time being, regardless of when it was set in the fictional universe. The writers were out of ideas, not knowing how to take things forward in the established TNG universe, so they tried something different. Didn't really matter, because they were still ultimately out of ideas.
The same applies with this new series - if it's well pitched, written and cast, viewers will be receptive, regardless of when or where it is set.
Guys, you had me this close to writing a lengthy explanation for my ever-expanding vinyl collection.
Why do people think setting the series 'after Nemesis' will mean that the overall Prime 'story' will move forward in any way? B&B could have left ENT exactly the same as it was (with the sole exception of using post-DS9 Stardates) and that series would have been DS9's sequel. It would have been a sequel with terrible continuity and a lot of off-screen retcons, but still an official sequel. Hell, Abrams movies are actually direct sequels to Nemesis (or TNG's Reunification, specifically).
The setting doesn't dictate the story.
Why do people think setting the series 'after Nemesis' will mean that the overall Prime 'story' will move forward in any way? B&B could have left ENT exactly the same as it was (with the sole exception of using post-DS9 Stardates) and that series would have been DS9's sequel. It would have been a sequel with terrible continuity and a lot of off-screen retcons, but still an official sequel. Hell, Abrams movies are actually direct sequels to Nemesis (or TNG's Reunification, specifically).
The setting doesn't dictate the story.
Or perhaps you were basing your statement on ethnocentric grounds?
Exactly so.
It kind of does, though. Not the story itself (and especially not the quality of the story). But it does dictate the possible outcomes of events.
A prequel/inbetween-quel is pretty much bound how the story ends. Nobody in ENT S3 was seriously worried that Earth would be destroyed, not just because the writers wouldn't dare, but because we have already seen Earth fine later! It didn't even stand up for debate if Earth would be seriously damaged, or another well known Federation member be destroyed!
Of course it's still possible to tell good and exciting stories in a given timeframe. But it is infinitely more harder for the writers (and thus more likely a large portion of stories wouldn't succeed). Continuity errors (which I personally don't care about) not even mentioned.
The only way to be really free in storytelling is either a reboot (which comes with the risk of direct comparison to the -often way more popular and beloved- original), or with a loose "contiunation", aka a sequel.
We already had the reboot. And a prequel. With mixed results. Let's move on! Let's go forward again.
Last edited:
Not really.
I mean, let's use your 'ENT was bound by TOS' example. If B&B had liked, they very well could have had the Xindi win the war and blow-up Earth into chunks of rock. They could have decided to decanonize TOS, or used story devices to 'explain' why TOS was no longer being considered.
Or they could have done it, never given an explanation either way, and left it for fans to wank themselves an explanation ('Humans had recolonised another planet and called it Earth.')
Setting tends to hinge on the story the writer wants to tell, not the other way around. George Lucas (presumably) didn't sit and say 'I want to do a movie set in A-Time- Not-Quiet-As-Long-Ago'. I'm going to take a guess and say the thought process went something like: 'I want to make movies about how Darth Vader became Darth Vader' There are exceptions, but that's usually stuff like 'historicals'.
What year was it the last time we saw the 24th century? I want to say 2378 but I might be out a few years. Allowing for the real life passage of time it's been 14 years so that would make it 2392. There isn't a whole lot of the 24th century left. Of course it could be set in the late 2370's/early 2380's but that would limit the use of certain guest stars if people are looking for that. I think they should move ahead a century or two. Put some distance between what we've seen already. It worked out great for TNG.
Obviously this rumor is totally unsubstantiated. But, this is my preferred scenario (Prime post-Nemesis). Fingers crossed.
Although, as I always say, it's the quality of the stories that is much more important than the Universe/time frame.
Mr Awe
Could be true or not. Who knows.
But that's exactly the point! Anakin Skywalker was always to become Darth Vader! There was literally no tension there. Not at all. The only question left was how he became Darth Vader. Not if.
The setting shouldn't influence the story. But in an ongoing universe, it does. At least the perception of it. That's why a prequel/inbetween-quel is a bad idea. The only way to change that would be, as you described, change the original outcome. But then it stops being a prequel/inbetween-quel and becomes an alternate universe or a reboot. Including all the problems those entail. IF the setting is somewhere before or between an already given storyline, the setting will influence the story!
The only way to (at least try to) convince your audience that anything can happen (and thus gain interest in the outcome of the story, and not just in the minutiae of it), is to move the storyline forward. In this case a sequel.
Last edited:
See, for example, Game of Thrones, who, knowing that some of their suspense was dissipated by being an adaptation of a book series, occasionally swings away from the book continuity and does something off the wall unexpected so the tension in the show is maintained - the book outcome is not guaranteed.
I agree with you, prequels and in-between-quels in an established continuity like Trek (or indeed Star Wars, look at the number of contradictions in Obi Wans dialogue in ANH if you've watched the prequels) just cause problems while sapping the dramatic tension that 'anything can happen' because, well, it can't. The only way to get creative freedom is to write in the 'present day' or future of whatever universe you're in. And that, in Trek, is the final minutes of Nemesis. Or possibly the destruction of Romulus.
Cracked has a nice article today about things a tv-series should avoid:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-tropes-that-seem-to-always-ruin-movie-tv-plots/
A story about "how did we became friends with the klingons" would fall right under point 3 of this article.
(BTW I would love a new post-Nemesis series to flat-out ignore the destruction of Romulus in Trek09
It was of such non-importance to the storyline no casual viewer remembers it anyways, was so scientifically awfull that you would need a giant ret-con of the event anyway, but was still of such in-universe importance that a possible new series would need long pauses for enourmous exposition dumps of how the political landscape of the universe has now changed, what the Romulan people went through, how the Vulcans reacted, if it lead to war etc. etc. etc. None of which I really care for, and I guess not many people want to watch a tv-show that focuses largely on Romulans anyways)
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-tropes-that-seem-to-always-ruin-movie-tv-plots/
A story about "how did we became friends with the klingons" would fall right under point 3 of this article.
(BTW I would love a new post-Nemesis series to flat-out ignore the destruction of Romulus in Trek09
It was of such non-importance to the storyline no casual viewer remembers it anyways, was so scientifically awfull that you would need a giant ret-con of the event anyway, but was still of such in-universe importance that a possible new series would need long pauses for enourmous exposition dumps of how the political landscape of the universe has now changed, what the Romulan people went through, how the Vulcans reacted, if it lead to war etc. etc. etc. None of which I really care for, and I guess not many people want to watch a tv-show that focuses largely on Romulans anyways)
Define: "the story".
A story is primarily about characters, not politics. The setting is merely the backdrop. People are overstating how much the setting restricts the writing.
You could, for instance, transpose the plot of City on the Edge of Forever into pretty much any Trek spinoff and it would have worked just as well. The story wasn't dependent on what came before or after the time-period. As long as the show has a ship out exploring new worlds, you've got a broad enough canvas. Whether the Feds are at war with the Klingons or Dominion or whatever is not going to make or break it.
But, done right, they could have created a story that was still impactful on the the universe in ways we couldn't think of and made us care about Anakin Skywalker.
It's about the journey, not the destination.
(BTW I would love a new post-Nemesis series to flatl-out ignore the destruction of Romulus in Trek09
It was of such non-importance to the storyline no casual viewer remembers it anyways, was so scientifically awfull that you would need a giant ret-con of the event anyway, but was still of such in-universe importance that a possible new series would need long pauses for enourmous exposition dumps of how the political landscape of the universe has now changed, what the Romulan people went through, how the Vulcans reacted, if it lead to war etc. etc. etc. None of which I really care for, and I guess not many people want to watch a tv-show that focuses largely on Romulans anyways)
Um... it was of huge importance to the story of Star Trek (2009). No less scientifically awful than the Genesis device or the explosion of Praxis that hit a Federation starship light years away. And the writers of a new series could handle the loss of Romulus in multiple ways.
