Wow, I had no idea Richard Bach wrote for TV at all, let alone Star Trek.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Wow, I had no idea Richard Bach wrote for TV at all, let alone Star Trek.
Unless it's animated and takes place during/before/just after TNG, right?
Meh. Maybe if he shows up on Lower Decks. Otherwise, I'm good.
Kirk had multiple send-offs and now there's three of the buggers running around.
Although… in the latest FAM episode, Danielle has a line about watching “all three” of the Star Trek series, this in I think 2003. So if the first two are TOS and Phase II, is the third a TNG that proved less popular than in our timeline (since no further series by the time ENT ended in our history)? In which case, why did the franchise grow less popular in a world more actively involved in space activity?
I think it would be the 3rd 5YM, launched in '87 after Admiral Kirk got demoted and received the "A" as a reward at the end of the movie trilogy. (which, in that world, there really would ONLY be a trilogy.)
The real question is, do they later do a series where Captain Kirk commands a space station at the edge of known space, and is there ever a series where Kirk and company get trapped a hundred years from home?
I've got three guesses that all feed into each other:
1. TOS, Phase II, and TNG all had full-runs. Whereas in our timeline: TOS was cut short, Phase II never happened, and only TNG had a full run (which I'll define as breaking 100 episodes and ending on its own terms). Ultimately, we did get three series that broke 100 episodes and ended on their own terms, but they were TNG, DS9, and VOY. So, in FAMK, it's TOS, Phase II, and TNG. They called it a "trilogy" of series, and they were done. They didn't feel like any more series were necessary.
2. With the real space program taking off, audiences would probably be more interested in series that took place in space that were more "realistic" and more closely reflected their actual space program and where it might really end up in their future. The more "real" space travel feels, the more realistic the audience would want it to look. More like Alien & Aliens. More like 2001: A Space Odyssey. And, yes, because this is Ron Moore's series and you knew this was coming, more like his Battlestar Galactica.
3. In FAMK, maybe the producers felt it would be in poor taste to create a new Star Trek series without Gene Roddenberry. Without the demand for more series (see #1), no one wants to become known as the person who dropped the ball. On top of the belief that Star Trek had seen its day and belonged to a different era (see #2). It's also worth noting that if TNG ran five seasons, just like TOS and Phase II, then Gene Roddenberry would've died during TNG's final season. In which case, it would only add to perception of they shouldn't continue on without him. Even if the show still runs seven seasons, the perception can still be there, but they just let TNG finish its run before calling it quits.
Last edited:
Gee, I love Star Trek: Next Gen!
I'll watch all over and over again!
Those seven seasons were fine!
How about twenty-nine!
Because real life was more interesting, and showed more pragmatic aspects of space travel.
I took this as nothing more than a snook cocked deliberately at Voyager by Ronald D Moore. So TOS, TNG, and DS9... and no VOY.
I read this not knowing the context, and thought Sir Pat groped someone or went on a racist tirade or something.
I've got three guesses that all feed into each other:
1. TOS, Phase II, and TNG all had full-runs. Whereas in our timeline: TOS was cut short, Phase II never happened, and only TNG had a full run (which I'll define as breaking 100 episodes and ending on its own terms). Ultimately, we did get three series that broke 100 episodes and ended on their own terms, but they were TNG, DS9, and VOY. So, in FAMK, it's TOS, Phase II, and TNG. They called it a "trilogy" of series, and they were done. They didn't feel like any more series were necessary.
2. With the real space program taking off, audiences would probably be more interested in series that took place in space that were more "realistic" and more closely reflected their actual space program and where it might really end up in their future. The more "real" space travel feels, the more realistic the audience would want it to look. More like Alien & Aliens. More like 2001: A Space Odyssey. And, yes, because this is Ron Moore's series and you knew this was coming, more like his Battlestar Galactica.
3. In FAMK, maybe the producers felt it would be in poor taste to create a new Star Trek series without Gene Roddenberry. Without the demand for more series (see #1), no one wants to become known as the person who dropped the ball. On top of the belief that Star Trek had seen its day and belonged to a different era (see #2). It's also worth noting that if TNG ran five seasons, just like TOS and Phase II, then Gene Roddenberry would've died during TNG's final season. In which case, it would only add to perception of they shouldn't continue on without him. Even if the show still runs seven seasons, the perception can still be there, but they just let TNG finish its run before calling it quits.
And this third series that we are calling TNG, I just don't think it would have been TNG. It would have been a 3rd TOS show, and would fit perfectly after the end of the movie trilogy. I like the idea that the series are all variations of the original, they all run to completion, and its over with the departure of Roddenberry. Its perfect.
wait what. I know of the one in SNW. Who are the others?
Mirror, alternate, and Prime Kirk
Shatner and Pine are pretty clearly done, though.
Picard season 2 is good
Shatner said goodbye twice. Three years apart. And the jury is way out on if the last one was a good idea. You're not counting the Shatner-verse, are you?
Similar threads
- Locked
