Rumor: the show takes place between TOS movies and TNG
- Thread starter AvBaur
- Start date
There's definetely potential there. As would be in a prime universe show that deals with the consequences of the destruction of Romulus.
But to be brutally honest, the political episodes of Star Trek were never my favourites. There are some exceptions I truly love, like "Inter arma silent leges" for example. But most of the time when the series starts to be about politics and diplomatic relationships between klingons, romulans and so on, I usually get bored... I much more prefer the more sci-fi plots, or the exploration aspect of Trek. Which is why I would prefer a new show to leave all this stuff behind, and focus on exploring new stuff. But that's just my personal opinion...
It's definitely possible. But first of all, a historical plot most of the time is infinitely better if it's from real history than from fake history. Because a writer can do a lot of research (and often does, when he is passionate about the subject, which often directly relates to the quality of the project). The world-building is already there. It's been done. And the writer can put his whole attention to the characters.
On the contrary science fiction often tends to be more plot- than character-driven. And it has to go through great lenghts of complicated world-building and infodumps about fictional technology, which often leads to less fleshed out and more archetypical characters. If they are well fleshed out (as was the case onFirefly or Battlestar Galactica), people often claim its "more a soap opera" than a "scifi" show.
Now it's definetily possible to make a good, character driven television show set during klingon-Federation harmonisation. It's just way harder, because the tension of "where will things lead to?" is already out of the equation. Which means all the rest (characters, plot, dialogue) has a way smaller margin of error - which is especially problematic if a show first needs to find it's tone and direction, which a lot of Trek series needed in their first seasons.
If the series is set between the TOS-movies and TNG I will definitely give it a try (although I'm not willing to pay for it, but I'm in Europe anyways). But it wouldn't be my preference, and it would need to work way harder to keep me interested, and the series needs to have found it's direction right from the beginning, contrary to an open-ended series which is allowed to experiment a little bit more to find it's direction and what parts work and what other needs to be reworked, once the characters are established.
New viewers wouldn't have to worry about doing much homework except for watching the 2 films. The show goes from there. The writers would be making stuff up without including too much extra baggage.
But what would be the difference? It's the same universe. With the same technology. The same organisations. The same species. The same planets. The same conflicts. Except Vulcan. The only differences are superficial and cosmetic (and a new series needs to have a new look anyways, since all the old sets and props were destroyed). In fact, a prime universe show would need less set-up. A JJverse show would need endless exposition about what parts of history have changed (have we met the Borg yet? Do holodecks exist? How far has transwarp-beaming evolved?), and what stayed the same (Khan, conflict with Klingons), while a prime-show could start right were we last left off.
The difference would be one where the new series could take place in a world Star Trek Beyond exists, and the other would be in waters which hasn't been produced for more than a decade.
I think this is actually one of the rare cases were seperated continuity for television and film would actually beneficial. Much like DC has both the Arrowverse on tv and the Snyderverse in movies. Allows both to be relatively free.
Once the contracts for Pine and Quinto end, they can make TNG-reboot movies in the same universe, without being bound to developments on a tv-show. And the tv-show would be a continuiation to the old series like Force Awakens or the new X-files were, cross-promote with the older series on the same streaming-service, and without having to take orders from the movie-people like Agents of Shield did.
Once the contracts for Pine and Quinto end, they can make TNG-reboot movies in the same universe, without being bound to developments on a tv-show. And the tv-show would be a continuiation to the old series like Force Awakens or the new X-files were, cross-promote with the older series on the same streaming-service, and without having to take orders from the movie-people like Agents of Shield did.
Oh, we are playing the race card, are we?
But back to the business of dissecting an unsubstantiated rumour from an unreliable source....
If you're worrying about viewer homework, Prime requires less; we don't need to see the two movies.
Paramount and CBS are contractually separating the movie and the series (by six months?) to avoid "confusion." I guess the suits think we get just as confused about it as they do - pffft. What in that supports your thesis? Of "waters," the longer the wait, the greater the thirst.
I think you're picking the wrong points, possibly based on wishful thinking that is overriding critical thought. I've seen far better cases made for the Abramsverse than the above.
Conversely, the Romulans of Prime need to deal both with their own cataclysm and the Federation. Writers making up stuff could do just as well with that.
Not worried about it at all. If it's not my liking, I'll cancel my subscription and if my man has, I'll cancel his subscription. I think we are all for a new series here, for me, it's the pay thing I had an issue with but I'm over it. I'm in. Just like talking smack. I'm positive the series will be interesting.
Why? How many TOS episodes even had Klingons in them? A half-dozen? You can't seem to get beyond the idea that a Trek show can be about something other than the Feds coming into conflict with another galactic power. It's supposed to be about exploring new worlds and new civilizations.
Heck, the Romulans only appeared in two--count them, two--TOS episodes.
Shouldn't it be three? "Balance of Terror", "The Deadly Years" and "The Enterprise Incident".
Uhm... yes. That was my point. The whole time. You seem to either not have read or not understood my posts, since you're basically repeating my own arguments. While presuming I somehow would have meant the opposite of what I said.
I mean, it's certainly possible to make an interesting show about galactic conflict between major powers. But I don't really care about fictional politics in Star Trek. Personally I'm more interested in the scifi- and exploration aspect of Trek, and thus am opposed to setting the new series in the past to "fill in gaps" in Trek history. As I rather meticulously explained in my previous fifteen posts...
Next time: actually read what somebody wrote before trying to disagree with him
Rahul, we started going down this rabbit hole when you said the equivalent of...
"Why should we care about anything if we already know how it ends?"
And when you say how "it ends" you're referring to just the most generic progression of canon, you know, Khitomer Accords and what not. So we includes you, right? You say you don't care about politics, while simultaneously saying you wouldn't care about any show set in a period where you already know how the political situation winds up--as though finding out that plot-point is the only reason to tune in each day.
It seems like you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth. It seems like you just started with a conclusion (a prequel series must be inherently "bad") and you're just clutching for reasons to back that up, even if they contradict.
"Why should we care about anything if we already know how it ends?"
And when you say how "it ends" you're referring to just the most generic progression of canon, you know, Khitomer Accords and what not. So we includes you, right? You say you don't care about politics, while simultaneously saying you wouldn't care about any show set in a period where you already know how the political situation winds up--as though finding out that plot-point is the only reason to tune in each day.
It seems like you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth. It seems like you just started with a conclusion (a prequel series must be inherently "bad") and you're just clutching for reasons to back that up, even if they contradict.
For me it isn't that we 'can't enjoy stories where we know the outcome' - dramas are made out of well known stories all the time and are very successful. The People vs OJ Simpson was very good and hugely successful and that focused on events most of the audience were alive for. United 93 had an even shorter lead in time from the story playing out and is still a compelling film.
What I am saying is that staying an open ended episodic series as a prequel is limiting and, I feel, unnecessarily so. Shows, good shows anyway, evolve and grow as writers get new ideas and take the story to different places. Prequels have a defined end, somewhere they have to get to by a certain point with all their ducks in a row. That is what I mean by limiting. Especially as I can't see what the writers would actually gain, creatively, from imposing such a limitation, over choosing a setting that is truly open ended.
What I am saying is that staying an open ended episodic series as a prequel is limiting and, I feel, unnecessarily so. Shows, good shows anyway, evolve and grow as writers get new ideas and take the story to different places. Prequels have a defined end, somewhere they have to get to by a certain point with all their ducks in a row. That is what I mean by limiting. Especially as I can't see what the writers would actually gain, creatively, from imposing such a limitation, over choosing a setting that is truly open ended.
