The Problems with Prequels...
- Thread starter stueyross
- Start date
There part of the new canon so no...A lot of us like the Kelvin timeline films more than not for sure and also how can the JJ films break canon in an alternative universe/timeline? Keeping the new show in the Kelvin timeline helps them get around future issues of cannon because its not the prime universe. By choosing the prime timeline they have to observe all future events or Trek fans will call them out on it and choose to stop watching if they annoy them enough.
I honestly don't see this time period as putting any constraints on what stories can be told. We basically know almost nothing about the TOS era, when you get right down to it. TOS focused on one ship and didn't really add very much about the rest of Starfleet or the Federation, and much of what information there was contradicted itself. TNG-era is far in the future and again said little about this particular time period. If anything, there is more freedom than a post-Nemesis setting because you're not weighed down by the other three shows' events taking place recently enough to have an impact, nor by all the technology that had built up. Slipstream and transwarp drive, for example, are huge changes that would have to be included. A TOS setting takes us back to the basics, which are still pretty damn impressive compared to anything around today.
Yes, there are going to be aesthetic changes. That would be equally true of a TNG era show, though. No one is going to stick to outdated CGI and set building no matter when the show is set. No one is going to make Klingons look like Puetro Ricans dressed in gold lame. Roddenberry himself merrily ditched things when there were better, more impressive (more expensive) alternatives. Just write it off as the constantly changing face of fashion.
Yes, there are going to be aesthetic changes. That would be equally true of a TNG era show, though. No one is going to stick to outdated CGI and set building no matter when the show is set. No one is going to make Klingons look like Puetro Ricans dressed in gold lame. Roddenberry himself merrily ditched things when there were better, more impressive (more expensive) alternatives. Just write it off as the constantly changing face of fashion.
But at least with setting the series in post NEmesis era like the 25th century the updated cgi and set design would track with the fact that a hundred years after TNG of course things are going to be flashier and modern. By going backwards in time before TOS it's gonna be hard to have a pre TOS series in 2017 look like a precursor to TOS made in 1966
Again I just think going forward past Nemesis would have been the better choice since it's wide open creatively. Instead of contrasting things it would have expanded them
It would also allowed more plausible familiar characters/actors to appear rather than shoehorning or bending over backwards to let things fit even if I hate stunt casting and dredging up old characters. That's one reason I hate prequels since writers just looking to bring in old faces like Amanda Grayson. TNG avoided that to their benefit. We had a MCCoy cameo in the pilot but nothing else until late on the third season.
Again I just think going forward past Nemesis would have been the better choice since it's wide open creatively. Instead of contrasting things it would have expanded them
It would also allowed more plausible familiar characters/actors to appear rather than shoehorning or bending over backwards to let things fit even if I hate stunt casting and dredging up old characters. That's one reason I hate prequels since writers just looking to bring in old faces like Amanda Grayson. TNG avoided that to their benefit. We had a MCCoy cameo in the pilot but nothing else until late on the third season.
I think my main problem with a Discovery being a prequel is the fact that Star Trek is supposed to be about the progression of our species but all it gives us is a rehash of what has already been achieved. That doesn't mean there isn't the possibility for awesome stories though. I don't know why pointing out the inability to do one is automatically being considered to rule out the other.
I like that caveat. Seeing as once they got rolling they couldn't stop. McCoy, Spock, Scotty, and Sarek. That's four more returning characters than DISC has had so far.
And Kirk got name-checked multiple times (three times, I think).I like that caveat. Seeing as once they got rolling they couldn't stop. McCoy, Spock, Scotty, and Sarek. That's four more returning characters than DISC has had so far.
That's not what they aim to do, and why should it be the aim?
For those that don't mind it being a prequel, would you mind if it were set a few decades post NEM? I doubt it. I see so many posts claiming that the setting does not matter yet I am willing to bet that more die hard fans are upset that it is a prequel than there are fans that would be upset if it were set in after 90s Trek ended.
I am sure I will enjoy it but it feels like a kick in the balls after getting so hyped up for more Trek TV. My personal preference is that prequels are worse than sequels and more often than not this turns out to be true. All of the things this show will have could have been done in any era. They likely chose the TOS era due to some misguided marketing directive well before even bringing Fuller on. Fuller eluded to potential stunt re-casting yet another young TOS character in later seasons. Does this not sound like a marketing angle?
They chose marketing to new audiences over maximizing the satisfaction of the existing fan base. Pretty crappy move in my mind.
So more news is likely to come some time in October. 10/31 is my guess.
I am sure I will enjoy it but it feels like a kick in the balls after getting so hyped up for more Trek TV. My personal preference is that prequels are worse than sequels and more often than not this turns out to be true. All of the things this show will have could have been done in any era. They likely chose the TOS era due to some misguided marketing directive well before even bringing Fuller on. Fuller eluded to potential stunt re-casting yet another young TOS character in later seasons. Does this not sound like a marketing angle?
They chose marketing to new audiences over maximizing the satisfaction of the existing fan base. Pretty crappy move in my mind.
So more news is likely to come some time in October. 10/31 is my guess.
For me, I would've preferred a continuation or a reboot over a prequel, and I'm still not entirely happy with the prequel concept, but I think most of the arguments against it are being massively overstated.
There's no reason whatsoever why a prequel can't be fantastic, in principle. I just would've preferred to avoid it as I feel like it's a riskier move for not that much reward.
It requires the writing staff to walk a bit of a tight rope between not pushing continuity to the breaking point but also not avoiding playing with continuity altogether (as Enterprise seemed to do early on) - because what's the point of a prequel that doesn't play around with the eestablished setting/events?
That obviously can be done, and done well, if the writers and decision makers are good enough, and my hope and (suspicion) at this point is that this writing team probably is good enough.
I just can't help thinking, every now and then: I've been wrong about creative teams before, and while less than stellar writing would also negatively impact any other setting, a non-prequel would at least never have to worry about having the entire reason for its existence negated because some higher-up was afraid the fans would go ballistic about continuity and mandated the writers stay away from anything potentially controversial.
But, at least with modern tv schedules, we know the whole season will already be shot before anyone can really get cold feet over fan reactions. And the apparent inclusion of a Klingon captain as a major character (while being kind of unfortunate in that Klingons have already been done to death), does seem like confirmation that they are going engage with the time period, so all that remains to be seen is if they do it well.
....
That's not the kind of thing I 'anticipate'....
There's no reason whatsoever why a prequel can't be fantastic, in principle. I just would've preferred to avoid it as I feel like it's a riskier move for not that much reward.
It requires the writing staff to walk a bit of a tight rope between not pushing continuity to the breaking point but also not avoiding playing with continuity altogether (as Enterprise seemed to do early on) - because what's the point of a prequel that doesn't play around with the eestablished setting/events?
That obviously can be done, and done well, if the writers and decision makers are good enough, and my hope and (suspicion) at this point is that this writing team probably is good enough.
I just can't help thinking, every now and then: I've been wrong about creative teams before, and while less than stellar writing would also negatively impact any other setting, a non-prequel would at least never have to worry about having the entire reason for its existence negated because some higher-up was afraid the fans would go ballistic about continuity and mandated the writers stay away from anything potentially controversial.
But, at least with modern tv schedules, we know the whole season will already be shot before anyone can really get cold feet over fan reactions. And the apparent inclusion of a Klingon captain as a major character (while being kind of unfortunate in that Klingons have already been done to death), does seem like confirmation that they are going engage with the time period, so all that remains to be seen is if they do it well.
....
That's not the kind of thing I 'anticipate'....
We had a movie which was set after Nemesis. Some people (a certain pointy-eared board overlord included) were very upset about it.
Turns out, if you decide to 'undo' a finale, you also undo the 'happy ending' that a series leaves off on. Meaning there's narrative room for certain planets to be completely obliterated, and for former main characters to accidentally get themselves (and the audience) stuck in a parallel universe.
That's not even touching the response you'd get if a post-NEM series even had a wiff of The Fall and Before Dishonour. Some of the VOY fans alone would tear Fuller apart with their teeth.
So really, post-Nem was still a risk in terms of the nerdrage.
Last edited:
You prequel haters should feel lucky you don't live in ancient Greece or Elizabethan England. The characters who were going to die were common knowledge. Sure there were some comedies here and there but most plays were tragedies with spoilers galore. If you really need suspense for every story, then Romeo and Juliet sucks.
Maybe because Denobulans are the hobbits of space: most of them don't get out much. So prequels should never show new species or things we never heard of? Why is Star Trek the only fandom where this is a crime? As much as people bitched about the Star Wars prequels, the Jedi Council having new species was a non-issue.
For a little perspective, there a lots of geographically challenged people who have never heard of some ethnicities and countries we have on EARTH.
Maybe because Denobulans are the hobbits of space: most of them don't get out much. So prequels should never show new species or things we never heard of? Why is Star Trek the only fandom where this is a crime? As much as people bitched about the Star Wars prequels, the Jedi Council having new species was a non-issue.
For a little perspective, there a lots of geographically challenged people who have never heard of some ethnicities and countries we have on EARTH.
Last edited:
A good number of what we consider 'classical' plays or poems were either based on real events, or were retellings of already famous stories. So their target audiences were extra spoiled.
The audience broadly knowing how things turned out was really part of the appeal. Shakespeare was lambasted when he decided to change and tragedy-up the King Lear story.
Not that the original version was sunshine and roses.
Last edited:
My biggest issue with settingin the 25th Century would be that it removes a large part of suspense from the show, since VOY showed us, the Federation is just fiiine in the 29th century. One of the things that worried us all when the Jem-Hadar attacked in Deep Space 9 was whether the federation would survive this or not. When Huge Godlike Aliens™ threaten the universe, we know they won't win because hey Jimmy Braxton and the guys are only four centuries down the line and the Universe was just fiiiiiine then.
/sarcasm
Let's just set the show at the end of the universe. I don't think Trek has ever gone that far into the future.
In fact, there can be a restaurant at the end of the universe visited by time travelers from various eras who like to watch the spectacle of the universe ending.
Kor
In fact, there can be a restaurant at the end of the universe visited by time travelers from various eras who like to watch the spectacle of the universe ending.
Kor
I addressed this in another thread but it bears repeating.
The whole premise against prequels (at least the one stated here) is that stories will impact the history of the fictional universe in some really startling, big way.
But there's a premise behind this premise--that only stories that reshape history are worth telling. But look at Star Trek for a minute or two. Many if not most of the very best episodes did nothing of the kind, instead focusing on the drama of the ship and its characters. "The Conscience of the King" for example in TOS. One of my favorites, and had zero impact on the Federation at large. Ditto "Duet" in DS9. "The Trouble With Tribbles" is another, as is "Amok Time."
We don't need galaxy-wide tensions to tell a good story. Star Trek certainly does not.
The whole premise against prequels (at least the one stated here) is that stories will impact the history of the fictional universe in some really startling, big way.
But there's a premise behind this premise--that only stories that reshape history are worth telling. But look at Star Trek for a minute or two. Many if not most of the very best episodes did nothing of the kind, instead focusing on the drama of the ship and its characters. "The Conscience of the King" for example in TOS. One of my favorites, and had zero impact on the Federation at large. Ditto "Duet" in DS9. "The Trouble With Tribbles" is another, as is "Amok Time."
We don't need galaxy-wide tensions to tell a good story. Star Trek certainly does not.
Star Trek Beyond can start from anyplace, and go anywhere, the only "condition" is that it ends up at the end of the series basically where TOS begins. It's set in a largely unknown time period, only a few details (and no broad strokes) are a matter of canon.
That not what Star Trek is "about."
Can the Klingon Empire join the Federation? Can the Discovery get into a fight with the Borg? Can the Vulcans secede and join the Romulans? Can the Federation develop some faster method of travel that allows for exploration of outside of the galaxy?
Similar threads
