Where was the Enterprise during the Dominion War?

[Therin of Andor]

yet they could not shake the cast up a bit like in the early TOS movies?

Well they already had to do some back pedaling to get Michael Dorn back into the action each time. Sure, they could have left him out altogether, angering Michael Dorn fans. Apart from splitting them all up in promotions positions (and then coming up with an idea to bring all the ship captains back together again that doesn't reek of small universe syndrome), how else do you do a TNG movie that resembles TNG enough to still be a TNG movie?

If they promoted Picard to Admiral, people would say that the writers were copying Kirk's career path. The series already showed some movement (Bev, Wes, LaForge, Worf, Troi), something TOS never really did. And TNG didn't have ten years off-air like TOS had.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Also there's a throwaway reference to So'na ketracel white production capacity being reduced in the series. So there's a lot of clues to indicate that INS takes place prior to the DS9 finale.

The Pocket Books Timeliners place "Insurrection" between:

(VGR) “Timeless” and (DS9) “Covenant”

and

(VGR) “Infinite Regress” and (DS9) “It’s Only a Paper Moon”.

 

[JarodRussell]

yet they could not shake the cast up a bit like in the early TOS movies?

Well they already had to do some back pedaling to get Michael Dorn back into the action each time. Sure, they could have left him out altogether, angering Michael Dorn fans. Apart from splitting them all up in promotions positions (and then coming up with an idea to bring all the ship captains back together again that doesn't reek of small universe syndrome), how else do you do a TNG movie that resembles TNG enough to still be a TNG movie?

If they promoted Picard to Admiral, people would say that the writers were copying Kirk's career path. The series already showed some movement (Bev, Wes, LaForge, Worf, Troi), something TOS never really did. And TNG didn't have ten years off-air like TOS had.

Come on, there was a TOS movie that didn't even have the Enterprise in it. How did that resemble TOS enough to still be a TOS movie?

It would have been possible. You just don't have to be so close minded like thinking "Promoting Picard to Admiral is the only way to show progress".

 

[C.E. Evans]

And DS9 was still at the beginning of season 7 when Insurrection was released.

Which really doesn't mean too much, unfortunately, since Insurrection doesn't have a stardate. This may have been done deliberately to keep the movie's placement vague within DS9's seventh season to avoid either a continuity conflict or a spoiler. The movies prior to Insurrection didn't have to worry about that, IMO.

But the movie does reference that the Dominion War is continuing, and Worf does (sort of) mention that's he's on assignment from DS9.

It's the "sorf of" bit that leaves room for doubt. The movie was very good at not being too specific about its specific placement in time. I think it's so vague enough that it really could be at any point during DS9's seventh season, including immediately afterward (did Worf actually resign his Starfleet commission or did he simply resign as DS9's strategic opeations officer?).

Ironically, DS9's finale doesn't have any stardates either, so who knows how much time elapsed between the Dominion's surrender and Worf's departure from DS9. In such a case, Insurrection could have taken place during that brief timeframe before Worf became an ambassaor, for all we really know.

Also there's a throwaway reference to So'na ketracel white production capacity being reduced in the series

Well...other than an easter egg for DS9 fans, that throwaway reference really doesn't tell us much as far as placing Insurrection chronologically in the series.

So there's a lot of clues to indicate that INS takes place prior to the DS9 finale.

And some clues that it takes place during or possibly after the finale as well. I really think you could almost insert Insurrection anywhere in the seventh season and it would fit, which might have been the idea.

 

[BrotherBenny]

I always figured he was assigned to the Enterprise to welcome the Evora to the Federation since he is the only Klingon in Starfleet, which is not that big a stretch.

 

[zar]

Worf was on leave from DS9 so it must have happened before he left to become the ambassador to Q'Onos.

And DS9 was still at the beginning of season 7 when Insurrection was released.

Which really doesn't mean too much, unfortunately, since Insurrection doesn't have a stardate. This may have been done deliberately to keep the movie's placement vague within DS9's seventh season to avoid either a continuity conflict or a spoiler.

I assume the story for Insurrection would have been written before it was decided what was going to happen to Worf and everyone else at the end of DS9.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Come on, there was a TOS movie that didn't even have the Enterprise in it. How did that resemble TOS enough to still be a TOS movie?

Because they made sure to show the old Enterprise as early as possible in the movie: in the Klingon ambassador's evidence presented at the Federation Council.

In fact, for Europe (where ST II had limited release and ST III had not even shown in many countries, and wasn't out on home video either), they created a whole new prologue for the movie and, just in case people were put off by the number IV, the publicity called the movie "The Voyage Home" in huge letters and "Star Trek IV" in smaller writing underneath.

It would have been possible. You just don't have to be so close minded like thinking "Promoting Picard to Admiral is the only way to show progress".

I'm close-minded? I could have given you a whole list of possible new roles for Picard (and everyone) if you like.

The TNG movies' main problem was probably that they were hastened into production so quickly after the series ended its TV run. TOS had ten years of teasing anticipation for ST:TMP. TNG movies had to compete with free, new, weekly offerings of the 24th century universe from both DS9 and VOY.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I assume the story for Insurrection would have been written before it was decided what was going to happen to Worf and everyone else at the end of DS9.

IIRC, an early draft had the characters congratulating Worf on his marriage to Dax, but by the time the scene came to be filmed Jadzia had died on DS9. They added a "Sorry to hear about your wife" line but it wasn't used.

 

[Destructor]

I assume the story for Insurrection would have been written before it was decided what was going to happen to Worf and everyone else at the end of DS9.

IIRC, an early draft had the characters congratulating Worf on his marriage to Dax, but by the time the scene came to be filmed Jadzia had died on DS9. They added a "Sorry to hear about your wife" line but it wasn't used.

That's because the producers thought, probably quite rightly, that only a tiny fraction of the audience for the film would also watch DS9.

 

[JarodRussell]

That's because the producers thought, probably quite rightly, that only a tiny fraction of the audience for the film would also watch DS9.

Though, without knowing about DS9, a tiny line like "Sorry to hear about your wife" would simply be considered characterization, and not a reference. So there's a character named Worf who lost his wife. Tragic. A lot better than just a character named Worf who's just there.

People tend to be blinded by the franchise itself. Just because it is a reference to another show doesn't mean people would not get it or would not be interested in it.

 

[captcalhoun]

^ someone in a UK review of First Contact moaned about the exchange between Picard and Worf about zero-G combat training. the guy seemed to think it was a reference to an episode, even though it wasn't.

a line like that is no different to "I seem to remember it was you who fell into that nest of Gundarks, Master, and I had to rescue you" or " 'ello, darlin', didya miss me? I bet you remember this knife. It cut your partner from 'ere...*makes cutting noise* to 'ere."

dialogue which establishes prior events that the audience only needs a passing familiarity with to know the relationships in the characters.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^I know. I ,mean, in Lethal Weapon, did we need to see Riggs' wife die or was it sufficient just to be told about it? Or in Die Hard did we need to see all the arguments in the past between John and Holly McClane or just to hear McClane tell Al about it? Why do some people need everything spelt out for them?

 

[JarodRussell]

^ someone in a UK review of First Contact moaned about the exchange between Picard and Worf about zero-G combat training. the guy seemed to think it was a reference to an episode, even though it wasn't.

That's exactly what I was talking about. Just because it is called Star Trek, people THINK it's a reference, and - which is the actual problem - deem it bad, although it's not bad at all and happens in every other movie all the time. Their knowledge about the franchise stands in their way. And unfortunately, the creators of Star Trek 2009 fell in exactly that trap. A lot of stuff that would have been normal for a movie was left out because they feared "the audience wouldn't get it". Which is stoopid.

 

[Destructor]

So there's a character named Worf who lost his wife. Tragic. A lot better than just a character named Worf who's just there.

That's quite true.

 

[Therin of Andor]

the creators of Star Trek 2009 fell in exactly that trap. A lot of stuff that would have been normal for a movie was left out because they feared "the audience wouldn't get it". Which is stoopid.

If they'd put it all in, and people stayed away from the film because it seemed too unapproachable to newbies, people would be accusing JJ of "stoopidity" for not making the film more readily acceptable to general audiences.

 

[JarodRussell]

the creators of Star Trek 2009 fell in exactly that trap. A lot of stuff that would have been normal for a movie was left out because they feared "the audience wouldn't get it". Which is stoopid.

If they'd put it all in, and people stayed away from the film because it seemed too unapproachable to newbies, people would be accusing JJ of "stoopidity" for not making the film more readily acceptable to general audiences.

Man, you're making the same mistake all over again, haven't you read my last posts? My point was exactly that stuff like this DOESN'T make it unapproachable to newbies.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Man, you're making the same mistake all over again, haven't you read my last posts? My point was exactly that stuff like this DOESN'T make it unapproachable to newbies.

Ask people who don't like ST any more, after 40+ years of franchise fatigue. They say, rightly or wrongly, that the weight of continuity makes the whole phenomenon unapproachable to them. It's all about perceptions.

Non fans I know, who went to the film out of curiosity or because of the trailers/publicity, were pleasantly surprised they weren't expected to know any backstory.

 

[Christopher]

And unfortunately, the creators of Star Trek 2009 fell in exactly that trap. A lot of stuff that would have been normal for a movie was left out because they feared "the audience wouldn't get it". Which is stoopid.

Actually they included a ton of continuity references, from Spock's "Yesteryear"-based childhood to McCoy's divorce to the whole Kobayashi Maru thing to Rura Penthe to the tribble on Scotty's workbench to character names from the novels to cameos by Admiral Komack and Captain Chandra (at Kirk's Academy hearing). Spock Prime's whole backstory, his involvement with the Romulans, was implicitly a continuation of "Unification." They even included continuity refs that didn't quite make sense, like naming a planet Delta Vega.

The things that were left out were victim to a problem that's endemic to motion pictures in general, the demand for relentless pacing. There was a lot of exposition that was in the script (I believe, judging from pre-release interviews and such) but got cut out in the final edit because of the bizarre belief that slow moments aren't allowed in movies. It had nothing to do with whether the audience would "get it," but rather with the fear of movie executives that the audience would be bored if the pace relented for even a moment. (Which strikes me as very strange. It's not like the audience will change the channel or something. They've invested an exorbitant sum to sit in the theater and watch a movie, so I assume they'd be willing to stick around.)

 

[JarodRussell]

Man, you're making the same mistake all over again, haven't you read my last posts? My point was exactly that stuff like this DOESN'T make it unapproachable to newbies.

Ask people who don't like ST any more, after 40+ years of franchise fatigue. They say, rightly or wrongly, that the weight of continuity makes the whole phenomenon unapproachable to them. It's all about perceptions.

There is no such thing as franchise fatigue, in my opinion. And you next point addresses a bit why:

Non fans I know, who went to the film out of curiosity or because of the trailers/publicity, were pleasantly surprised they weren't expected to know any backstory.

Supports my point that is was mainly the trailers and promotional campaign why this movie was so successful, and the previous movies like Insurrection and Nemesis weren't.

The amount of backstory you needed to know for TNG movies was NONE, too.

 

[SicOne]

Christopher, pardon me if this has already been asked (for I'm virtually certain it has been), but...has there been any Paramount talk of making a Trek movie based off the events of "Destiny"?

Casting and exorbitant salary negotiation aside, with the advances in CGI and 3D, it would seem the time is ripe.