What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[Lord Garth]

I have to agree with the definition of 'prequel' for this franchise being before TOS.

The only exception I might make is if a series is set after GENERATIONS and before TNG. ('The Lost Era', basically.) Depending on how close you set it to either side, it would have potential to be a prequel or a sequel.

TV Tropes calls that an Interquel. It's a sequel to one thing but a prequel to something else.

Interquel - TV Tropes

Personally, I consider anything that takes place before "the original" of any franchise to be a prequel. If it's a new entry that takes place after "the original" but before a sequel, I'd call it an "interquel".

If we get a lot more of the 32nd Century and they stop making 24th/25th Century series, I'll change my definition of what I think of as "the present" for Star Trek. I discovered Star Trek in 1991, through the movies. I thought of it as "the present" and TNG as "the future". It definitely looked that way to me with the way they promoted TNG on the VHS Tape for TVH. Anyone of a certain age will know exactly what I'm talking about.

Then the TOS Movies stopped, TNG continued, and both DS9 and VOY took place during TNG's era, so it made sense to switch to thinking of the 24th Century as "the present". On top of that, it helped that TNG's episode count surpassed TOS's episode count a little bit earlier, so there was now more of the 24th Century than the 23rd. We're not there with the 32nd Century.

 

[JesterFace]

I've got a feeling you're just trying to counter my point for the sake of it.

As far as I can remember, no.
I was thinking that a prequel is something that takes place before something but is created after that said something.
For example ENT is a prequel to TOS, that's how I interpret it.
Interquel? This might be the first time I encounter that word, time to visit a translator....

 

[Dukhat]

World War III in the 1990's doesn't fit.

ST:FC had WWIII take place in 2053. And it apparently had nothing whatsoever to do with the Eugenics Wars.

 

[Lord Garth]

As far as I can remember, no.
I was thinking that a prequel is something that takes place before something but is created after that said something.
For example ENT is a prequel to TOS, that's how I interpret it.
Interquel? This might be the first time I encounter that word, time to visit a translator....

I think it's safe to call Discovery an extreme outlier when almost everything else takes place in the 23rd to 25th Century. I think it's also safe to assume the 23rd to 25th Centuries will continue to be when Star Trek normally takes place.

I say this as a fan of Discovery.

 

[at Quark's]

I think it's safe to call Discovery an extreme outlier when almost everything else takes place in the 23rd to 25th Century. I think it's also safe to assume the 23rd to 25th Centuries will continue to be when Star Trek normally takes place.

I say this as a fan of Discovery.

True.

Then again, when TNG started, that was an 'extreme outlier' too. Back then, all Trek exclusively had taken place in the 23rd century. (Disregarding time travel episodes/movies of course). That 23rd-25th century seems to be the convention nowadays need not restrict future series. I see no reason why a new series couldn't settle in, say, the 27th century.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

True.

Then again, when TNG started, that was an 'extreme outlier' too. Back then, all Trek exclusively had taken place in the 23rd century. (Disregarding time travel episodes/movies of course). That 23rd-25th century seems to be the convention nowadays need not restrict future series. I see no reason why a new series couldn't settle in, say, the 27th century.

That's true, but also not entirely the same. When TNG started there was 1 show, 1 short-lived cartoon and a handful of movies.

Now there is all of that plus 7 more live action shows, 2 more cartoons and more than twice as many movies. There's a lot more momentum behind the current 'standard' than there was in the 1980s.

Plus, there is basically no incentive for any current Trek production to go to another new time instead of staying in the established time periods of their current ongoing shows, which means that momentum will only keep growing for as long as the current Trek era lasts.

And ultimately, jumping to totally different time periods with new shows doesn't actually provide that much value anyway. We've already had proven that you don't have to jump centuries into the future to update the visuals and that jumping centuries into the future doesn't really make the shows super-unique and different.

Time jumps only matter if you have a specific kind of story or setting you want to do that has to be in a different time period (like the birth of the Federation or restoring a fallen Federation) or if you're making small time jumps in order to allow simultaneously running shows to exist continuously without having to constantly explain what came before or after what (which is how 23rd-24th century slowly stretched out to 23rd-25th century)

 

[Tallguy]

The question is, when Disco ends next year is any Star Trek going to be interested in Disco's Far Future setting? The reason that the 24th century became normalized was that there was TNG and two other shows (all running seven seasons and all under the same whatever-you-call-Berman's-title) set in that continuity.

 

[Farscape One]

I think outside of the new Academy series, no. That era just doesn't seem to hold much interest.

 

[HotRod]

ST:FC had WWIII take place in 2053. And it apparently had nothing whatsoever to do with the Eugenics Wars.

A retcon. TOS had them as one and the same.

 

[Dukhat]

A retcon. TOS had them as two and the same.

Don’t you mean ‘one and the same?’

The question is, when Disco ends next year is any Star Trek going to be interested in Disco's Far Future setting? The reason that the 24th century became normalized was that there was TNG and two other shows (all running seven seasons and all under the same whatever-you-call-Berman's-title) set in that continuity.

The 32nd century didn’t hold my interest enough to even watch DSC season 4. I doubt I’ll watch S5, or the SFA show, because this era simply doesn’t do anything for me. I’d rather watch The Orville if they decide to ever make a fourth season.

 

[HotRod]

Don’t you mean ‘one and the same?’

Indeed. Brain fart on my part. I've had pneumonia for a month, it's a wonder I can spell my own name right now.

 

[Tallguy]

Indeed. Brain fart on my part. I've had pneumonia for a month, it's a wonder I can spell my own name right now.

H o t R o d.

 

[HotRod]

H o t R o d.

Ha.

 

[Lord Garth]

That's true, but also not entirely the same. When TNG started there was 1 show, 1 short-lived cartoon and a handful of movies.

Now there is all of that plus 7 more live action shows, 2 more cartoons and more than twice as many movies. There's a lot more momentum behind the current 'standard' than there was in the 1980s.

Plus, there is basically no incentive for any current Trek production to go to another new time instead of staying in the established time periods of their current ongoing shows, which means that momentum will only keep growing for as long as the current Trek era lasts.

And ultimately, jumping to totally different time periods with new shows doesn't actually provide that much value anyway. We've already had proven that you don't have to jump centuries into the future to update the visuals and that jumping centuries into the future doesn't really make the shows super-unique and different.

Time jumps only matter if you have a specific kind of story or setting you want to do that has to be in a different time period (like the birth of the Federation or restoring a fallen Federation) or if you're making small time jumps in order to allow simultaneously running shows to exist continuously without having to constantly explain what came before or after what (which is how 23rd-24th century slowly stretched out to 23rd-25th century)

Sums up everything I think perfectly!

The question is, when Disco ends next year is any Star Trek going to be interested in Disco's Far Future setting? The reason that the 24th century became normalized was that there was TNG and two other shows (all running seven seasons and all under the same whatever-you-call-Berman's-title) set in that continuity.

Not including SFA, I think it's possible someone in the future (no pun intended) will go back there, but I think it would only be for one series. Not the entire franchise.

 

[Dukhat]

Indeed. Brain fart on my part. I've had pneumonia for a month, it's a wonder I can spell my own name right now.

You've had pneumonia for a month? Get the hell to a hospital, dude!

 

[BillJ]

If you are changing major events in the universe, then it is by definition an altered universe.

 

[Lord Garth]

Hot Rod will use the power of the Matrix to conquer his pneumonia and become Rodimus Prime.

 

[HotRod]

You've had pneumonia for a month? Get the hell to a hospital, dude!

Been there, done that. Started as acute bronchitis before progressing to "Walking Pneumonia." A term I think they just made up for people who can't afford to take multiple weeks off from work.

Hot Rod will use the power of the Matrix to conquer his pneumonia and become Rodimus Prime.

Till all are one.

 

[Commander Troi]

The question is, when Disco ends next year is any Star Trek going to be interested in Disco's Far Future setting? The reason that the 24th century became normalized was that there was TNG and two other shows (all running seven seasons and all under the same whatever-you-call-Berman's-title) set in that continuity.

I'm guessing SFA will be in the DIS era. I, personally, would love to see more in that Far Future. I'd like to continue seeing the rebuilding of the Federation, the "integration" (or lack of) of the Orions, and see some new stuff.

 

[at Quark's]

So, what would make the 23rd and 24th century more interesting than later centuries?

It may be because, in Rasmussen's words (even though he was a fake future historian), 22nd-24th centuries are early interstellar history (at least, from humanity's perspective). There's still an awesome lot to be discovered. Possibly the centuries that followed were much more regulated, much 'tamer'.