The ENT finale episode: "These Are The Voyages"
but IMO a better acronym translation is:
"This Ain't The Valentine" (to the fans.
)
Kelvin Timeline all but confirmed
- Thread starter captainkirk
- Start date
but IMO a better acronym translation is:
"This Ain't The Valentine" (to the fans.
)
Here's the thing-first of all, TOS only had 3 seasons, vs. TNG, VOY and DS9, each with 7 seasons each. Which means that there is more material covered there than the TOS era.
Secondly, as much as I enjoy Star Wars, how many accusations are made that Disney made a carbon copy of ANH with TFA? WHat about the nostalgic value of Rogue One, even if the characters are new? What was one of the most talked about scenes from Rogue One? I'm going to guess not one with any of the new characters, but a more familiar one. Now, i'm hoping they continue to branch out, but Star Wars has hardly escaped criticism for the time periods its picking (Rogue One, Han Solo film, possible Obi-Wan film, Rebels).
I don't think TOS is milked dry or even close. I think its close enough in time to have some connection, and still have adventures and fun.
I like that utopian bullshit, I liked TOS I liked ENT because it was really close to our current time (comparatively) I like everything Trek so far except the three movie reboots.
Not so sure about "quickly". Their first five films are all closely connected to the classic trilogy in some way.
Yeah you would think that with 21 seasons and four films covering 2364 to 2379 would mean that period was a lot more milked than TOS, which even if you count TAS, Kelvinverse and TOS Prime films still has a lot fewer installments. The count is about:
TNG/DS9/VOY/TNG Movies: 530 installments (2360s-2370s)
TOS/TAS/TOS & NuTOS movies: 110 installments (2250s-2290s)
Last edited:
It's a big universe, and it gets bigger moving forward. In the 24th century timeframe, we'd be up to 2394, which would give a new show in that time plenty of space. Far more than there is pre-TOS, regardless of what era has more installments. Anything could happen. I don't see the benefit of going back to the past over moving forward.
Yeah, I like 2390s setting. I'm not in the "lets stay in the 23rd century" crowd. Only that I don't think it's been overly covered or "milked". Having said that, Kelvinverse and Prime 2390s (and later) are the best settings for an uncharted, open ended future, barring any new reboots/reimaginations/timelines.
Fair enough. I didn't necessarily mean to imply you were in the anti post-NEM crowd. And a Kelvinverse show would be great if they could work out the CBS/Paramount thing.
How is that any different to Voyager?
That's the thing. An "uncharted, open ended future" is the only way Star Trek can persist longtime in the future. Going back via prequels works once, twice or thrice (ENT, the Star Wars prequels, maybe DIS). But in the long run the franchise becomes stale. Everything starts revolving more about the minutia instead the grander schemes, it becomes self-referential, focusing on how to fit in with the established stories and known properties instead of focusing on it's own plot.
Had the Kelvin-timeline reboot been financially successful, (not just the movies, 2 of 3 were, but also merchandise, tie-ins etc.) the franchise would probably have stayed here. Now that producers have seen the benefit of connected universes and returned to the grander prime universe, we'll probably stay there. The options for another hard reboot are exhausted anyway.
If DIS is successful, the first spin-off is probably going to be directly connected to it, and therefore also set in the 23rd century. But the next time the producers decide to do a hard reset of the franchise - they'll probably returning to the 24th (early 25th) century. Enough time has passed since TNG/DS9/VOY/NEM that they can again visually reboot the series an introduce new elements, and still call it a "continuation". We might get another TOS-reboot in the movies during the meantime tho' (going the Spider-Man-route). Kirk and Spock are the only characters bringing asses to cinema seats. Those won't have any impact to the rest of the franchise though.
Yeah...and what about elsewhere? I mean the 20th century has totally been done to death in films, books, comics...all media...it's just been milked dry. How many stories can you tell on one tiny planet during one century anyway? It's time for a reboot....maybe the 19th century...I mean sure there's a bunch of stuff set then, but most of it is really old with bad production values, maybe some kind of updated visuals...everyone knows the real core of media fandom is the 19th century, a mainstream audience really wants to see that, and they just don't recognise the 20th century stuff. It's just tired out man.
I am in no way pro a TNG reboot...but I suspect a TNG reboot film would do as much money as the TOS reboot did. (I am anti all reboots.) This idea that TOS is the be all and end all seems...empty boomer/hipster logic. TNG in particular was as much of a cultural thing in its time as TOS, frankly more so, and without it I suspect TOS itself would be less remembered. The cutting up of the franchise into chunks by fans so we can War about which one is more important to everyone else is just a bizarre game. The TV landscape may have changed, but clinging on to some idea of TOS is best is really not gonna help with that. DSC will be compared to TNG as much as TOS and I am willing to bet it will be compared withe ENT in particular, as well as the other shows as it goes on...particularly internationally, where the modern Treks are more popular.
TOS was an action-adventure show. All big vfx movies today are action movies. That fits.
I love TNG. But the TNG-cast doesn't lend itself to an action oriented format. The TNG-movies already tried that. Picard and Data re famous for their speeches, not for their punches. Kirk and Spock could do both.
The TOS films weren't particularly actiony tbh. But I was thinking more in terms of nostalgia and brand recognition. To pretend TNG has none is to pretend no one who watched TV twenty or thirty years ago still exists. This is doubly true in international and European markets, where I would place good money that Janeway, minimum, still gets good recognition. (Most European fan film projects are TNG era, with a core interest in Voyager and TNg movie era in particular...based on flicking through YouTube. for america the golden age was the sixties...for us...it was the nineties.)
Scotty mentioned sending the Tribbles to the Klingon ship, we never saw him do it or its outcome.
The great Tribbleations hunt....songs are still sung....
Edit:
I just realised....maybe he missed the Klingon ship and beamed them onto the cloaked defiant. That's why there are quite so many in Quarks xD
How's this for a count:
22nd century: 4 seasons
23rd century: 3 seasons, 9 films (+ DSC)
24th century: 21 seasons, 4 films
25th century: 0 seasons, 0 films
Simple math really.
By that reasoning how's DSC different to ENT?
22nd century: 4 seasons
23rd century: 3 seasons, 9 films (+ DSC)
24th century: 21 seasons, 4 films
25th century: 0 seasons, 0 films
Simple math really.
By that reasoning how's DSC different to ENT?
Continuity?
Similar threads
