Are you forgetting to read the posts you're quoting again?
The Problems with Prequels...
- Thread starter stueyross
- Start date
I don't forget to read posts, I skim over some parts when they are too verbose for my taste but that's not the same thing.
It kind of is, in effect, if in skimming them you miss out important information.
Pretty sure he is already here.
Well, your delusions are your own.
It kind of is, in effect, if in skimming them you miss out important information.
Truth be told I felt kind of bored by the conversation and I posted on other forums as well.
The part you skimmed was the part that actually answered the question you asked. Can you see why that might be a problem?
My thinking exactly.
Not the best excuse. You went on for pages and totally ignored what was being said. Hell you quoted multiple posts and ignored what they said, yet responded. Few were verbose.
Yeah, I think most us can recognize common Latin phrases.
Well, fact is that TOS is still a long time after Archer and my point is still valid. The Andorians couldn't have discovered both the transporters and the site to site transporters in so short a time. So your examples had very little relevance to my point.
It's as if I had said it takes much longer than three years to make that step, IE 200 years and your answer had been: wrong, it takes 100 years. Well, I am sorry but 100 years is still a very long time.
So we're back to playing "Serious Fanboy"?
What next on the Wheel of Responses?
Your point, aside from being spurious (based on a false premise that it should take Andorians as long to decide to use their transporters in this fashion after acquiring the technology as it did the more timid humans, which there furthermore is no indication it took them 100 years to do) has very little if anything to do with the topic of DSC and the supposed limitations prequels inherently place on storytelling.
Last edited:
No the fact is that you didn't really contradict my initial point. Kirk as you know is a long time in the future of Archer, so saying that Kirk had the site to site is not contradicting my point that it takes a long time but you're happy to pretend that it does.
I find that dishonest. And then your friend bill comes and tells me that I am an idiot for even debating those things.
And It would have stopped there and then if not for you people giving me false objections to my initial point.
To play Devil's Advocate for a moment, there are potential hazards to doing a prequel series when that series/franchise is known for it's anal-retentive detail oriented continuity obsessed fans. Certainly, you're going to step on those toes, even haphazardly.
An example from another Science Fiction show, Babylon 5. At one point during the second season, John Sheridan recounts the events that occurred during the Earth-Minbari war, wherein he tricked a Minbari ship into a booby trap and destroyed it. Int he dialogue of the episode, he implies that he destroyed that ship, and several of it's escorts. Well... When we see this event depicted in the B5 movie "In the Begining" We only see the main ship. No escorts are even mentioned. It's a continuity gaff, but it doesn't really bother because it' ultimately irrelevant minutiae where the immediate and lasting drama of the situation is concerned.
Of course, if you ask most any established and successful writers of TV or FILM, they will tell you one of their jobs is to turn limitations or disadvantages into something they can use. An adapted advantage. Some clever, something fun, something... Unexpected?
An example from another Science Fiction show, Babylon 5. At one point during the second season, John Sheridan recounts the events that occurred during the Earth-Minbari war, wherein he tricked a Minbari ship into a booby trap and destroyed it. Int he dialogue of the episode, he implies that he destroyed that ship, and several of it's escorts. Well... When we see this event depicted in the B5 movie "In the Begining" We only see the main ship. No escorts are even mentioned. It's a continuity gaff, but it doesn't really bother because it' ultimately irrelevant minutiae where the immediate and lasting drama of the situation is concerned.
Of course, if you ask most any established and successful writers of TV or FILM, they will tell you one of their jobs is to turn limitations or disadvantages into something they can use. An adapted advantage. Some clever, something fun, something... Unexpected?
I think when you do a prequel you're facing pretty much the same kind of challenges as when you do a sequel.
Particularly since they said this show is going to take place in the Prime continuity, that seems like it is just asking for trouble from those fans.
We can make up all sort of reasons for beaming the injured to the transporter room, e.g. it's a security procedure to make sure they don't beam a hostile alien into sickbay, or the sickbay has special radiation shielding that prevents beaming in, or the transporter operator is expected to act as a triage officer, deciding who goes to sickbay and who gets a bandaid and a lie-down. But the most important reason is "drama". Same reason Scotty took his injured nephew to the bridge rather than sickbay in TWOK.
Would you really argue that every alien that was seen in TOS but not in TNG must have gone extinct?
It is sad that this kind of argument is still around in fandom.
They also reinvented TOS with TMP and then TWOK. The world didn't end.
Because outside of the previous shows and stuff specifically mentioned in them, absolutely nothing of interest happened in those periods? I find this unbelievable. THE GALAXY IS A HUGE PLACE. That sentence should be on the wall of the writers' room.
What's important is that the stories don't simply fill gaps but can stand independently. Unlike the Star Wars prequels, we should not expect stories of 'how the camel got its hump'; the Trek universe should be bigger than that.
Similar threads
