Sure, if there wasn't such a time gap and ROTJ left them with more to build from.
But they got something way harder to build from.
Poll "Small Universe Syndrome" - Yay Or Nay?
- Thread starter wayoung
- Start date
Sure, if there wasn't such a time gap and ROTJ left them with more to build from.
But they got something way harder to build from.
I think The Expanse is as good an example of small universe syndrome as any, for what it’s worth. But no one complains about it because I think, so many people love most of what the show is doing, and they think it all ”makes sense.”
lBut then you have this opinion;
This is why I think small universe syndrome is a bogus and irrelevant concept.
StarTrek is a more than 50 year old franchise with a massive universe which the franchise runners have taken great pains to make as realistic as possible. As big as that world is, why would we not see the recurrence of powerful aliens, entities, planets, etc, as practice but also mandatory? To me, it’s much more realistic to involve stuff we know that exists in the Trek world.
Some people criticize this as small universe syndrome, yet no one criticizes The Expanse for doing this. To me, it looks like small universe is used when the real complaint is about the story or plot or characters, etc.
Honestly, my loose rule of thumb when writing Trek is not to invent a new alien race or an ancient lost civilization if there's already one that fits the bill -- unless, of course, the plot requires that it be some kind of "First Contact" scenario. Why invent yet another race of telepaths or shape-shifters or god-like aliens if a suitable species has already been established?
Seems more efficient that way. Plus, I figure it makes the books more "Star Trek"-y.
Even as a kid, I remember being excited whenever an Andorian or a Tellarite would pop up on TOS, as opposed to just some random alien.
Seems more efficient that way. Plus, I figure it makes the books more "Star Trek"-y.
Even as a kid, I remember being excited whenever an Andorian or a Tellarite would pop up on TOS, as opposed to just some random alien.
Yep, and it was effective in setting the scene. It worked. Similar thing could have been done for the sequels. It doesn't need to be much, but be an update of where things stand after 30 years. I think the issue is that they didn't think people would either care or notice to there not being much backstory.
It's as if they expected the audience to have a painfully short attention span or be too young to remember the previous six films.
And yet they use the OT characters so much it's as if they didn't let the ST character to shine in their own merit. They REALLY want their cake! Yet it seems they don't really want to work for it.
Last edited:
More like, they expected the audience to want an in-depth chronology of everything that happened in the 30 years and wouldn't stand for a quick summary.
Also, they knew that audiences didn't want new characters and just wanted the OT characters back even when their time had passed.
Of course, the EU was more the guilty party here, making everything post-ROTJ revolve around the OT cast when they should've moved on.
Good point. At the other end of the spectrum from "small-world syndrome," there's "we're going to introduce this astounding new alien species/planet/character/discovery, then never mention them ever again!"
Last edited:
There's balance in everything though. I'm sure they could have found a solution if they'd wanted to.
This I agree with. And even to the point, the PT. I read one of Timothy Zahn's latest about Thrawn, I forget which one it was, but I was highly disappointed as most of the story took place during the PT. And talk about small-universe. It was practically swimming in it.
This I don't understand.
I doubt it. Anything would have come off as a "As you Know" thing.
I think he's trying to say that one other reason they didn't bother explaining everything that happened in the 30 years was because they figured the audience going to TFA wouldn't remember the details of the prior movies as well and as such wouldn't care that much if the Sequels treated them as some ancient story and there was no need to stop everything and give us a big 30 year infodump.
Well, like I said, they learned the wrong lessons. I think you could have a small exposition scene, like with someone like Rey even, who is unfamiliar with the lay of the land.
I don't mind it.
I'm bad with names. It makes things easier.
I'm bad with names. It makes things easier.
Yeah - The First Federation from TOS S1 - "The Cobomite Maneuver" fits that description. And hell overall that first contact went very well; yet in 50 years of televised and filmed Star Trek they were never mentioned again.
(And even more interesting they have the character of Kirk use a version of the Corbomite Maneuver to escape Romulan ships in TOS S2 "The Deadly Years". So it's not like the production staff forgot about aspects of that episode.
)
They couldn't have there be a Big Republic Military Presence or a big Jedi Order, because those things had been proven to not work in the Star Wars trappings. It's less "they put those things in places that didn't make sense" and more "ROTJ left them with stuff that didn't work in SW and had to be disposed of".
I think it could have had made sense with a little more backstory. For my money, I am a person who doesn't mind connecting dots, and what was presented in TFA was enough for my brain to rework it. But, that shouldn't be necessary in a film. A film should be able to stand alone in that respect.
For me, the OT ended in a very "happily ever after" type of a way, which made the sequels very difficult to create something meaningful to hook from. As much as the Thrawn trilogy inspires, it's still very much "The Empire vs. the Heroes" which is what the ST shifted back towards. I think it's harder to imagine the heroes of this epic adventure not being in charge of a galactic government, so it is easier to go to the familiar, rather than exploring the aftermath of the fairytale.
It doesn't even have to be all that big. It could be a simple set of dialogue peppered throughout the trilogy. Like for instance, when Rey is visiting Luke in the second movie, she could have expressed curiosity for the previous era, wondering how he ended up there. Afterall, the first movie made a pretty big deal of him hiding out, yet that isn't weighed out by proper backstory, as if that part of it didn't matter. It's small things like these that could have made it much better.
Yep Yep. I mean, it shouldn't be rocket science. The OT afterall had a relatively simple and easy to understand backstory.
But that's not necessarily a bad thing, is it? I mean using the Thrawn trilogy as your example, while it does go back to what's familiar, it does it in its own fashion, introduces a new villain, and still manages to use the OT characters in what feels a natural evolution of them, all the while also introducing some new characters like Mara Jade and Talon Karrde that occupy entirely different roles within the continued saga. For me, that's what feels like a fair continuation. It pushes things forward.
Last edited:
Exactly.
Even though the series didn't stick the landing, Game of Thrones was an excellent example of "After happily ever after" being a compelling setting. They just started too far down the timeline.
Similar threads
