Beforeprise and Afterprise?
- Thread starter ToMaHaKeR
- Start date
I like the idea of series taking place directly after First Contact
Yes a thousand times yes. How do you make a prequel show and focus on crap no one cares about and skip the War with the Romulans. No wonder Enterprise got cancelled. Though I seriously doubt that the writers, many of which were TNG writers, could provide the grittiness needed to make that work.
I was so sure that we were going to see Kirk's dad on the show as some young ensign at some point or at least Spock's dad. Would have been cool if Spock's dad was T'Pal's cousin or something.
Wasn't the Dominion war kind of their weaker attempt at the Shadow war anyway? Not to revive this ages old debate, but I really do think there were far too many similarities between B5 and DS9 to be coincidental.
Edit: Just to be clear, I do like both shows, I just think DS9 borrowed a bit liberally from B5.
Edit: Just to be clear, I do like both shows, I just think DS9 borrowed a bit liberally from B5.
Paramount was one of the studios to which the B5 concept was pitched, but they declined. Not long afterwards they decided to do a Trek show aboard a space station...
But that dead horse (Shadows/Dominion, Whitestar/Defiant, Centauri/Cardassians, Narn/Bajorans, ...) has been beaten so many times it's now ground to dust anyway.
I always liked the idea of Humanity exploding out into the galaxy immediately following Cochrane discovery of the warp drive. Series Enterprise depicting Humans basically sitting on their collective hands for a century I found ridiculous. Never have bought into the whole "the Vulcan held us back" thing spurted endlessly by Archer, if they won't help, by-pass them and move on out.
Both of those ideas sound boring as shit to me. I'd much rather have a new show that focuses on the new universe created by Star Trek '09. Either in the 23rd century or the 24th, it really wouldn't matter. Either way you'd have a whole new universe to play with instead of slavish devotion to 40+ years of what came before it, and yet at the same time it's still Star Trek.
Uhmm, yeah sure .. if you kind of squint really hard and sort of tilt your head to one side
Funny...I don't have to do any of that, and I can see it just fine. Perhaps you need glasses?
I actually agree with this - I'd love to see a new Trek series that went it's own way and didn't have to deal with the 40 years of baggage.
As long as its understood that its a reboot, then I would be on board either way. Even a new show that redoes the idea of Earth's first deep space exploration ship. I say scrub Enterprise and start over. Remakes and retellings happen all the time.
But the general era of late 21st Century to early 23rd Century is as good as any other for storytelling. If there are well written, acted and directed stories they should work no matter what era you say they are set in.
There is nothing about setting something in another time that inherently disinterests people. Historical period pieces and futuristic settings can interest people and they have for a very long time. Great characters and great stories appeal to people.
But the cost issue is the important one. How do you make a show set in a very different material environment work week to week in a way that would be reasonably cheap without sacrificing so much that it looked cheap? And in this case, have it still be something that you could call "star trek".
I dont know. The superhero and vampire things can work because they are set in our own time, and that immediately cuts the cost dramatically. Theres some budget for the visual and special effects anytime they use their superowers, but thats not all that much.
No matter what era or timeline or continuity you say your Trek stories are set in, how do you make it so that the price is reasonable? If the quality is there, and something really remarkable is written and good enough buzz is generated, I dont see any problem with Trek on Showtime or any number of other outlets. Thats a big challenge, but I think the cost challenge is bigger.
If you are going to put your creative energies into anything it should be solving these problems. Era and timeline isnt an issue. No Trek show is going to succeed or fail for that sort of reason. ANyone who thinks Enterprise failed because of what century it was set in is way off the mark, IMO. But if you can solve the cost issue in a satisfactory way, then youd really have something.
Same here. This is what they needed:
DS9 writers X serious effort to do Birth of the Federation, not Random Starfleet-Related Events of the 22nd C.
Damn! What a missed opportunity. I'm still mad.
I'd rather have this, too, because I know it has the best chance of commercial success, riding on the coattails of the Paramount movies success. And above all, Star Trek on TV needs to survive in the ratings. BOTF or (my actual first choice) post-Dominion War won't cut it in terms of series survival.
Look at the near total absence of any TV series even resembling space opera on TV. The format is dead. For Star Trek to revive it, it'll need all the help it can get.
Similar threads
