They were Space Mongols.
Spoilers Star Trek: Strange New Worlds 4x06 - "Off-Hour"
TNG, DS9 and VOY were all being produced at the same time. That they have their own tighter internal continuity is not surprising, especially given that the Nineties were also the era of the first real Treksperiments (is that a word? It is now) in longer-arc and less episodic storytelling.
It's a long distance between that and shows produced decades later having to "clear the bar" of being consistent with decades-older shows they're loosely "prequels" to. Consistency in this sense would be as much a defect as a feature -- you're deluding yourself about how out-of-tune Sixties sexism, and most especially Roddenberry Sixties sexism, is with our own time if you think otherwise -- and even if you prefer Star Trek Continues' approach to SNW's or DISCO's, I flat out don't believe you if you're going to try to tell me that approach would've performed any better in this particular time. I just don't.
I unabashedly love "Trials & Tribble-ations." But it works because it's a whimsical one-off, not a series.
The only serial experentation was done by the DS9 producers and they ignored requests to stop and not do it.
I duly refer you to the entire subsequent debate in this thread. I personally think my "artful vagueness" theory proves out in its content.They were Space Mongols.
(EDIT: I think personally I'm closest to being in agreement with @Mudd about what's up in at least the earliest core concepts of both Klingons and Romulans, with certain caveats. Although, of course, they drift from there.)
Last edited:
The arc-based stortytelling experimentation was some of their best work (I did not say "serial," which is different). To whatever extent they received such "requests," may we all be glad they "ignored" them.
And it's not true that they did the "only" experimentation with story arcs. They just further developed gestures in that direction that had already been happening on TNG, and worked to compete with much more thoroughgoing experiments on other shows.
In my reply arc-based and serial arsenonymous. I look at serial storytelling as a group of episodes designed to tell one story.
It doesn't change the fact that it was only DS9 that did it in the 90s; and again Rick Berman and the higher ups didn't want them to do it and order them to stop, but they ignored the orders realizing it could cost them their jobs; but at that point they weren't too concerned about that.
Nazis.They were Space Mongols.
The uniforms and unfortunate facial hair would agree with that in terms of their visuals. But 1960s communist russia scares were most likely the inspiration for their personalities.They were Space Mongols.
The writers carried and used the recent memories of the Nazis, the costumes and makeup implied a ravaging Asian enemy bent on conquest and resource exploitation and the politics were very us-versus-them Cold War.
THIS.This may indeed be a generational thing, at least in part. I grew up on TOS, long before the latter-day shows came along. Beyond that, I grew up when movie and tv series took a much more laissez-faire approach to continuity and casting -- and "canon" was not the fannish obsession it is today.
At the risk of showing my age, I sometimes wax nostalgic for the days when we never worried about whether the latest Sinbad or Tarzan or Godzilla movie was "canon" or not. Was Son of Frankenstein 100% consistent with the previous two Karloff movies? Not at all, but nobody ever insisted that it took place in a different "timeline." Ditto the early Bond movies. And did we demand an "in-universe" explanation for why Darrin on Bewitched was suddenly played by a different actor? Or why Marilyn Munster was replaced -- twice? Nope.
Heck, Catwoman went from white (Julie Newmar) to black (Eartha Kitt) on the same TV series and nobody blinked an eye, or demanded that the show somehow explain or justify this.
So, yeah, April going from a white cartoon character to a black live-action guy, fifty years later, doesn't faze me.
Every damned word. It's a TV show. It's entertainment hopefully mesmerising enough to make you sit thru commercials of stuff you might want to buy.
I still call Darren Sgt. York. Eartha Kitt is a better Catwoman. And Lazenby was superior to Moore as Bond.
Internal consistency only counts in science.
No, it was. And sad at the same time that Star Trek has become this.
The best it has ever been since DS9? How is that sad?
Glory days being missed?
The best it has ever been since DS9? I'm not sure we're watching the same show at this point. This season of SNW has been awful. SNW, next to Lower Decks, was probably the best of new Trek, this season it's tainted that reputation.
I truly hope Paramount puts a pause on new Star Trek shows for a year or two, hires new people and new writers. Get quality show runners in there, hire someone like Terry Matalas.
Matalas will just be comfort food viewing so no thank you.
Paramount needs to put Trek on permanent hiatus. Not worth the money or the hassle.
I've enjoyed Matalas' stuff, and thought he saved Picard. The third was the best season of the three.
The season full of plot holes and character assassinations?
It was worse than the first two seasons.
Yeah, we will definitely be disagreeing on a lot of Trek.
Strongly disagree on Season 3. Resets too many characters and events, treats the characters as only important when in a particular place, repeats story beats done already and creates additional plot holes and poor characterization.
Personally, Season 3 has some of the worst messaging in Star Trek.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
