What happened to the Andorians and Tellarites? They're supposedly founding members of the Federation yet barely mentioned in TNG/DS9/VOY.
The Problems with Prequels...
- Thread starter stueyross
- Start date
It's fiction.
So?
No you don't.
It's an entire galaxy. I have personally never met a person from American Samoa. Or even The Congo.
So, the idea that just because Denobulans don't show up in the dozens of mere hours we spend in TNG, means absolutely nothing. I am pretty sure Cardassians are around in Kirk's time. But they might be an impoverished poor people, prior to a military revolution, and may have virtually no cultural footprint - unlike their later ascension to Great Power status.
A similar example might be Germany going from handful of fragmented states - to formost industrial power on the planet. Or Japan turning from an isolationist Shogunate that literally nobody visits, into the first Asian country to equal the major European powers in science and technology, in the space of about 50 years, during the Meiji Restoration!
There's also the fact that in a prequel the technology is limited. Like if you make a movie about WWI there can't be any computers there.
And I like the idea of seeing new things. Devices that we've never seen before. Like why Is Archer able to beam inside the ship while I believe it was said later in TOS time to be impossible?
Like I pointed out on the last page, in the 23rd century there is plenty of science to explore.
Because in Kirk's era, the possibilities are already far in advance of what we can accomplish today.
Because in Kirk's era, the possibilities are already far in advance of what we can accomplish today.
But anything that exists in Kirk's era will have to either not exist at all or be more primitive in a prequel. You end up doing things like the Flintstones.with modern devices only made of stone instead of metal.
Nope - you can have wondrous inventions that simply were never shown in later Trek. Just because TNG does not show some kind of comprehensive medical infrastructure, involving chips containing genetic/epigenetic information, and genetically engineered cells that repair people's injusries, does not mean it wasn't omnipresent throughout TOS and TNG and DS9 and VOY - we do not explain to people walking down the street how IVF works - but it has nevertheless existed for decades.
Regarding prequels, they can be good or bad, depending what you do with them. Personally I'm not that fond of the Star Wars prequels, but I do like ENT. Although I must admit that seasons 1 and 2 of ENT didn't live up that much to the prequel concept. But I never found that it violated canon/continuity in any way that can't be reasonably retconned. And season 4 was a blast!
The Xindi arc in season 3 also showed that you could have major events happening that wasn't really talked about later on. The Romulan War was the major event in that time period. They could do something similar in DSC if they wanted to make a bigger arc/event.
The Xindi arc in season 3 also showed that you could have major events happening that wasn't really talked about later on. The Romulan War was the major event in that time period. They could do something similar in DSC if they wanted to make a bigger arc/event.
I don't mind DSC being a prequel. It was always my preferred period, although I would have had it at the beginning of the 23rd century, halfway between ENT and TOS. Anyway, as I like Star Trek as a whole (well, sans the Alt-Universe Abramstrek), I would be on board with a post-NEM/post-DS9/post-VOY show as well, even if I'm a bit tired of the 24th century.
Because there were no computers at that time. WWI is a real event that took place in real history.
Star Trek is fiction. There is no 23rd century. They can change it however they like in order for it to make more sense in the current world.
No, but in the midst of "unremitting hostility" between their respective governments, a Klingon individual or crew and a Federation one could be forced by circumstance to overcome their differences and accomplish something together.
If we never saw the Borg again, it would be too soon, as far as I'm concerned. Fighting the Borg is not something new and different and exciting that we are missing out on here. It has been done to death.
Again, some of them certainly could. There could be a faction or splinter group that wants to do just that, creating a dilemma for the Federation as to whether to let them go or try to prevent it. Or we could have the reverse of TNG's "The Defector," with a single individual attempting to divulge Federation military secrets for reasons that make it seem to him or her "the logical thing to do." (Kind of like a Vulcan Edward Snowden!)
Yes, and moreover we already know that they did exactly this in roughly the period in question! In "The Cage," Pike speaks of "the time barrier" being recently broken, which would allow the S.S. Columbia's crew to return home faster than they would believe. And in "Where No Man Has Gone Before," the Enterprise is on a mission attempting to probe out of the galaxy for the first time. (Or rather the first time known to Kirk, which immediately turns out to be not in fact the actual first.)
I can never get my head around this notion so many seem to have that if something wasn't mentioned or seen later on this means it wasn't around, or that if it wasn't that this is somehow inherently inconsistent and requiring "explanation." How many species, planets, people, events from TOS were mentioned on later shows? Only a few; many not ever again. Space is VAST. Everything we've seen in all the series and films combined comprises only a tiny slice of it. And even within the specific areas that we have traveled repeatedly, what we've seen in the course of it is in many cases only a tiny slice of what could be going on there. In a way, it often makes more sense for lots of things to be introduced and not heard of again than to have everything be closely connected. (Of course, I do enjoy the dramatic possibilities of having recurring elements and continuing arcs, and I'm sure this show will not be without them.)
I agree with you, yet would also add that even telling stories from points of view that seem to be less central to the "main action"—or in fact are very much central to it in their own small but important way, and have been marginalized by omission because they aren't those of the sort of characters who would be traditionally portrayed as the "heroes" who garner all the fame and glory—can effectively "reshape" the history and universe in the eyes of the audience to a great extent, and that's another part of why they are worth exploring. I think that may be a significant part of what Fuller aims to do in DSC, with the lead character being a 23rd century female Lt. Commander, LGBTQIA and "alien" characters receiving greater representation, etc. Reexamining an era previously depicted through the literal and figurative lens of 1960s society through that of today's has the potential to open all kinds of new windows on it, and to provide a compelling new perspective.
Last edited:
Enterprise got cancelled because no one was watching it. Why would you continue what was rejected by audiences.
Of course they did, then came the inevitable break-up, the hurt feelings, the dividing of friends.
Why not? Archer did.
Hopefully not the Romulans, 'cause they're boring. But there can be a episode/story-line about the Vulcans seriously considering canceling their membership in the Federation.
Maybe a multi-season arc.
They could develop a faster drive, and then find out there's a inherent problem with it. Better still, what Kirk is using in TOS is the faster drive that was developed during Discovery's time period.
One of the worst aspects of season four of ENT was the whole coalition of planets story-line. The final episode showing the actual forming of the Federation is nearly universally reviled by fans.
The Federation is best when vaguely in the background.
Last edited:
Well, I don't think it was the Coalation of Planets aspect of those episodes that bothered people. With TATV it was the whole holodeck scenario idea that they clearly took from fans and shook off the sarcasm from.
I think some of the strongest stuff in season 4 was seeing Vulcans, Andorians, and Tellarites interacting, with Archer trying to mediate. It gave me a Babylon 5 vibe, and frankly it would have been a much better premise for a prequel series had that been what the show was about from the get go. All these different raises, with all their differences, coming together...
...And for a very Star Trek twist we found out it wasn't the Romulan War that forged the Federation. That scared them together, but what kept them together was what they found among each other in difference, a sense of unity and strength, and the ability to finally shed themselves of decades of paranoia and fear.
...But they didn't do that, so that's neither here nor their.
I think some of the strongest stuff in season 4 was seeing Vulcans, Andorians, and Tellarites interacting, with Archer trying to mediate. It gave me a Babylon 5 vibe, and frankly it would have been a much better premise for a prequel series had that been what the show was about from the get go. All these different raises, with all their differences, coming together...
...And for a very Star Trek twist we found out it wasn't the Romulan War that forged the Federation. That scared them together, but what kept them together was what they found among each other in difference, a sense of unity and strength, and the ability to finally shed themselves of decades of paranoia and fear.
...But they didn't do that, so that's neither here nor their.
Who was worried about that? I never believed for a second the federation would lose the war, there was zero suspense in that, the only question was how they would win.
Similar threads
