The Advantage of a Prequel

[seigezunt]

A not terribly original thought occurred to me, but I'm not seeing it around much, concerns the often-lobbed criticism against the new series being a prequel as placing it before the events of TOS would limit it in terms of storytelling and (God help us) canon.

But wouldn't placing it after DS9 and VOY be even worse in terms of that? Where story after story would be met with "this contradicts something that happened in this fourth season episode of Voyager"? Wouldn't the accrued continuity of the later, and much more internally consistent, shows prove to be a much heavier burden, as opposed to the freewheeling and already fluid continuity of TOS? I'm not factoring ENT into this, as its arguable at enough of a remove.

I know the counter argument might be, well, place it 100 years after TNG. But given there would necessarily be some design upgrades on top of this, doesn't that run the risk of making it even less recognizable as Star Trek?

 

[Burning Hearts of Qo'nos]

While I would have loved to see a post Nemesis series, if we were given Discovery in that timeframe, I think people would largely be arguing about the exact same stuff here, lol.

 

[cultcross]

If people are happy to accept the three years between TOS and TMP changing almost everything about the universe in which Trek is set, then a forward time jump should solve any and all continuity issues. However, you know that wouldn't happen.

My main concern about a post Nemesis series is that it's just too far into the future. The show is meant to be relatable to us, and the TNG era was already on the cusp of being too different to relate to. More crazy tech, more 'evolved sensibilities', and you end up with a show that's just not accessible to a modern audience. That's why my preference was for a show set contemporaneous with the JJ Movies in that universe. You get to do TOS era, but with a built in escape from continuity issues. You could even do Discovery's story in that universe with only the smallest of tweaks.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I think there's more interest in finding out why the Klingons and the Federation hated each other so much in TOS and the classic movies (or a new take on why they might have hated each other, as it were) than 25th Century Federation vs Generic New Aliens.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

I think there's more interest in finding out why the Klingons and the Federation hated each other so much in TOS and the classic movies (or a new take on why they might have hated each other, as it were) than 25th Century Federation vs Generic New Aliens.

Yes. I've always wondered why some people feel that a 25th century story would inherently be more interesting than seeing how a 23rd century prequel story can mesh with known future events. In fact, I personally find it more interesting to see how Discovery's 2256 (and onwards) events will eventually lead to what has been established in TOS, and even how they mesh with 24th-century trek.

How a prequel story fits with what we know is coming (i.e., "how the things we know came to be") is part of the fun of a prequel.

I'm not saying that DSC will necessarily be all about "how TOS era came to be", but I think that's part of it, and is unavoidable since it takes place in a prequel time period. The majority of DSC's story will be original, which is what the people complaining about a prequel want anyway. But a healthy mix of "origin story" and "original stories" could be entertaining and interesting.

 

[eschaton]

My main concern about a post Nemesis series is that it's just too far into the future. The show is meant to be relatable to us, and the TNG era was already on the cusp of being too different to relate to. More crazy tech, more 'evolved sensibilities', and you end up with a show that's just not accessible to a modern audience.

There's ways around this. Maybe the Federation goes through a "dark age" where it falls apart and technology regresses a bit, with a "new Federation" rising from the ashes. Or there's some sort of crisis involving warp travel which causes a big slowdown in interstellar travel. Or a major expedition is sent outside of the Galaxy, with the show basically leaving the Milky Way behind.

 

[MacLeod]

The mostt likely periods open to set a new show in was

Between ENT and TOS
Between TUC and TNG
Post NEM

Each have their pros and cons

Whilst it's by no means certain beween TUC and TNG the UFP entered a phase of exploration and expansion as the Romulan's retreated from Galactic affairs circa 2311, though it might have been intersting to see why relations detoriated between the UFP and KE between TUC and 2344 when the Battle of Narendra III took place warming those relations again.

 

[Tuskin38]

Not only is it a prequel, it is also a sequel to ENT. Meaning they're sandwiched between continuity.


There are stories they can tell, they're already tell the one about Klingon hostility seen in TOS.

I'd like to see them tackle the Omega Molecule, according to Voyager it was discovered in the 23rd Century. I could see Lorca being interested in it, and other starfleet brass wanting a new weapon.

Assuming Discovery's Shroom Drive doesn't use subspace, it could escape the disaster zone.

 

[zar]

There's ways around this. Maybe the Federation goes through a "dark age" where it falls apart and technology regresses a bit, with a "new Federation" rising from the ashes.

The long night has come. The Federation, the greatest civilization in history, has fallen. Now, one ship, one crew, have vowed to drive back the night and rekindle the light of civilization. On the starship Discovery, hope lives again.

 

[mattyhugh]

There's ways around this. Maybe the Federation goes through a "dark age" where it falls apart and technology regresses a bit, with a "new Federation" rising from the ashes. Or there's some sort of crisis involving warp travel which causes a big slowdown in interstellar travel. Or a major expedition is sent outside of the Galaxy, with the show basically leaving the Milky Way behind.

Wasn’t this the premise (or similar) to that developed and then aborted Animated Series?

 

[Noname Given]

The long night has come. The Federation, the greatest civilization in history, has fallen. Now, one ship, one crew, have vowed to drive back the night and rekindle the light of civilization. On the starship Discovery, hope lives again.

So
Star Trek: Andromeda eh?
pass.

 

[Longinus]

I'd like to see them tackle the Omega Molecule, according to Voyager it was discovered in the 23rd Century.

No! Next you want an episode about warp salamanders.

 

[Tuskin38]

No! Next you want an episode about warp salamanders.

But that wouldn't be possible in this time period

Wasn’t this the premise (or similar) to that developed and then aborted Animated Series?

Yes.

 

[mattyhugh]

Wasn’t this the premise (or similar) to that developed and then aborted Animated Series?

Here is the Memory Alpha link: http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Trek:_Final_Frontier

 

[gblews]

I'm not factoring ENT into this, as its arguable at enough of a remove.

How so?

 

[BillJ]

I think there's more interest in finding out why the Klingons and the Federation hated each other so much in TOS and the classic movies...

Not something I was interested in. I figured it just came down to being the two biggest bullies in the school yard.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

The mostt likely periods open to set a new show in was

Between ENT and TOS
Between TUC and TNG
Post NEM

Or all the above if TPTB had agreed with Fuller’s original anthology series pitch.

 

[cooleddie74]

A prequel can work if love and care are put into constructing a believable narrative that helps explain and lead both directly and indirectly into the "later" chapters of the franchise. A prequel in and of itself is not a bad idea. The story content and a willingness to construct a prequel universe that's believable and ties in with dramatic effectiveness to the existing series or films determines if the prequel is worthy of an audience.

So far, both ENT and DSC have proven their worth.

 

[Longinus]

I think prequels would work best if they would just use the time period as a setting, without trying to introduce new tech, major setting altering events or awkward connections to the older shows. It's just that people who produce prequels inexplicably always want to do all of these three things.

Now someone is gonna say, but it would be boring, why limit writers like that? But it is same with real history, people manage to write shows in real historical setting without introducing teleporting mushroom horses or making the main character Queen Victoria's secret adopted brother.

 

[Michael]

The reason why I don't really mind when exactly in the timeline a show is set is that where others seem to see one interconnected Trek history I merely see loosely linked episodes with the occasional arc here or there.

Star Trek isn't really one whole story told from beginning to end. There is really no reason why say a Voyager episode from season six couldn't be placed in season two of The Next Generation. None of this was pre-planned, it's just a collection of hundreds of stories by hundreds of authors. Trying to make it fit in one narrative doesn't really work for me. Klingons for example aren't different in Deep Space Nine compared to Star Trek III because they underwent some kind of evolution. They are just two different productions decades apart in the making.

Acting like all of this could have happened in one coherent universe and trying to make it fit can be a fun mental exercise, I give you that, but it's nothing new writers should have to adhere to if they want to tell new stories in the universe.

Star Trek is supposed to represent our possible future. And from my perspective all of it is the future. Going forward in the future of the future doesn't make it significantly better for me.