Agree to disagree then
What If TNG Was Based During the Lost Era?
- Thread starter MikHutch
- Start date
Agree to disagree then
What if.... the lost era never happened? That's why it's lost.
Some weird spacetime gummyworm lizard twisted the universe and time jumped from Star Trek VI to STNG in less than a second.
Things appear to have changed like many years have passed and they have but it never happened.
Weird isn't it?
Some weird spacetime gummyworm lizard twisted the universe and time jumped from Star Trek VI to STNG in less than a second.
Things appear to have changed like many years have passed and they have but it never happened.
Weird isn't it?
Never thought of it like that
Indeed. And Star Trek isn't Star Wars no matter how it tries to be. Star Wars never, ever, tried to tie itself to our humanity's future like Star Trek did. Even if it's got differences, going retro with tech will make people, save for the hardest core of fans, roll their eyes and regard it as dated and anachronistic. To this day I have friends and family who will not watch TOS, or (more on topic) TNG because it looks dated. They can't get past how the look is or how the tech works. It just creates a barrier.
Yes, Trek fans want that dramatic recreation part of it like it's a historical period. But it's not. I would dare any producer to actually do the fan film level detail and see if it sells to a general audience?
Yeah I like recreations but the dated depictions of the future can be a hurdle for beer viewers
Tbf I don't like ridiculous aesthetic changes like what DSC did to Klingon ships in S1. That was too much. But it's because it wasn't necessary when Klingon ships already have a recognizable aesthetic. It's already alien
By comparison, trying to imitate TOS' idea of the 24th century just looks too backwards for what we currently have now
I mean, I can see that though I don't mind them because, well, they're alien. Why shouldn't they have variety?
One of my biggest frustrations with TNG (which could be ameliorated by the Lost Era) is the use of 90 year old designs, be it Excelsior, Miranda, or Klingon Birds of Prey. I would welcome that idea, as well as that it would show technological progression in line with current technological progression which is quite exponential.
I like variety but they should at least be recognizably Klingon, like the Vor'Cha or Negh'Var.
Also I don't really see the issue with keeping ships to last. If anything post-All Good Things Trek tends to throw in a bunch of ship classes wirh short life spans. The Galaxy has less time as the flagship than the Excelsior
Hard disagree. Humans are not uniform; neither should Klingons.
Again, disagree. I find it unbelievable at an extreme, especially since in the TOS films they go "Enterprise is 20 years old so out she goes." But, the Excelsior? She can last forever.
Nowhere did I say uniform, did I?
Again, disagree. I find it unbelievable at an extreme, especially since in the TOS films they go "Enterprise is 20 years old so out she goes." But, the Excelsior? She can last forever.
That a ship would be retired after 20 years in the far future is the ridiculous part to me
True. But, as I said, we have had three types of Klingon ships, or 4. I would expect something a little more.
Maybe. When you have nigh infinite resources and post scarcity why wait?
True. I just think they could be a bit more recognizably Klingon.
Tbf post scarcity doesn't equal not built to last. If parts of a ship can be quickly replicated then they could just be inserted
And tbh, I never quite get how replicators work. Do they just convert atoms like futuristic alchemy? How long does it take
That's fair.
No, but it alters your perception of what is "built to last." If I can replace it quickly then I'm less likely to be concerned about it being replaced.
But replacing them still has some energy cost. Wouldn't building them to need be replaced so quickly still be the best option? Replicators can't just work without any energy input
Possibly but perhaps not in a way that's consider energy inefficient. So it alters the perception of how to deal with things that are aging. Replicators offer a whole different psychological perspective on resources. I'm not saying it makes perfect sense but it is one place where I look at TNG and Trek and go "Yeah, I can see how that would shift," and it bothers me less than 80 year old ship frames still in use. If nothing else because wouldn't your opponents learn their weaknesses?
I guess I don't buy the idea that the replicator could make that drastic of a change so that's why I'm not too bothered by keeping the same designs
The enemy definitely could use that Intel but it depends on how active their Intel is. Klingons had stopped fighting them by TNG, Romulans were nowhere to be seen, Ferengi hadn't shown up yet and Cardassians were somewhat weaker. Maybe that complacency was disrupted by that lengthy peace being upended by the Borg and the Dominion?
Fair enough. I do and expect it to completely alter the economy.
Maybe but that doesn't change the fact that in TNG we have the Tzenkethi wars, Cardassian Wars, and I believe a Tholian conflict that Riker's dad served in. So, if there was complacency then I would expect that to shake loose a lot sooner.
I think the issue is none of them posed a threat to the Federation like the Borg and the Dominion did. Galor class ships are initially shown to be much weaker than Galaxy class ones
Possibly but it still doesn't justify it in my mind based on what we are told in the TOS films.
That's my thing though.
TOS wasn't post scarcity though. And tbh TOS had some questionable ideas, like Romulans lacking warp drive. So I take some of it with a grain of salt. I just don't see the appeal of a dozen flash in the pan starship classes vs a few reliable and familiar ones with a new one every now and then
Similar threads
- Poll
