A 7 year buildup of suspense till Picard finally meets Kirk in the first TNG movie? (Star Trek Generations: The Reckoning)
What If TNG Was Based During the Lost Era?
- Thread starter MikHutch
- Start date
A 7 year buildup of suspense till Picard finally meets Kirk in the first TNG movie? (Star Trek Generations: The Reckoning)
STNG chronologically soon after original Star Trek? Not a good idea.
It might have limited the writers too much to the events in TOS. As more time passes there's more freedom to create something new instead of visiting same things TOS already did.
There's new tech, not the same things people are used to.
Having several members of the original crew early on in STNG would tie the series too much to each other. It would make the new series feel like a straight sequel.
STNG happened few decades (in our time) after TOS so the television world was a different place. I think it was a good idea to keep the series separate, apart from McCoy appearing in the pilot episode and then later others joined, not in the beginning.
It might have limited the writers too much to the events in TOS. As more time passes there's more freedom to create something new instead of visiting same things TOS already did.
There's new tech, not the same things people are used to.
Having several members of the original crew early on in STNG would tie the series too much to each other. It would make the new series feel like a straight sequel.
STNG happened few decades (in our time) after TOS so the television world was a different place. I think it was a good idea to keep the series separate, apart from McCoy appearing in the pilot episode and then later others joined, not in the beginning.
Could have just as easily been set the same time apart as since TOS. So you can have McCoy or others appear, but not have them so aged.
As I mentioned earlier, there's really nothing that would have been inherently different had TNG taken place 20 years after TVH rather than 80.
I'm not sure why that would be such a bad thing.
I do agree that, had the idea of continuing to make TOS movies with the original cast was in any way viable, that they should have been kept separate from the new TV show. But look what happened with that.
This would have been freakin' awesome.
Shatner wouldn't have wanted much to do with a guest appearance. He would be be the lead, or not involved. Regardless, I feel that excluding the character/actor from the franchise for the last 20 years is a huge waste, and even in a hypothetical sense, I would take any opportunity for more TOS. Kirk and Riker bickering over anything from the girl-of-the-week to who-goes-on-landing parties, Kirk teasing Data with his pardoxical logic puzzles; chekov and worf debating the glories of russia vs kronos; uhura finally getting her due as 2nd officer / Chief of operations.... i really have given this a lot of thought, lol. Its for the TOS purist in me. I am not the biggest TNG fan. I know that most won't agree with my reimagining.
You may not personally like Kirk going backwards, but that is exactly what the latter half of the movies, while presenting his progression and advancement as a waste of his potential and a poor choice; this was hammered in, in literally every movie. I would still love to know what events led to him losing his acting-Captaincy post V'Ger and led to the newly-refit Enterprise becoming a training vessel. He didn't go backwards; He found himself again. As far as them all being together again - this is by choice now. TMP and WOK showed them all doing different things. Losing Spock and the events / court proceedings of the trilogy bonded them together, and by that choice, they were either stuck together as criminals, or bonded together as family. Sulu still got his captaincy; the rest were where they wanted to be.
As far as TNG, among other things, the approach to the prime directive, the smug superiority complex, the oft inability to see outside their own moralistic box, their disdain for past humans.
In some ways it might have worked better.
You could still have Worf -- after all, we went from the Ferengi being menacing villains who are strongly implied to eat their enemies to a Ferengi serving in Starfleet over the course of about 10 years.
And it would lessen the weirdness of the way the state of the galaxy seems to have stayed static, or even gone back to an earlier state, over the course of those 80 years.
For example, the Romulans: In Star Trek V, they are taking part in a three-way peace experiment on Nimbus III with the Federation and Klingons, and in Star Trek VI they are shown as having diplomatic relations with the Federation and an ambassador stationed on Earth ... then in TNG it's right back to "they're super-mysterious and nobody's heard from them in decades." (I'm assuming that there was a brief period of perestroika on Romulus near the end of the 23rd century, and then hardline elements took over the government.)
And the Klingons -- the thawing of relations in Star Trek VI seems like it's showing a progression toward the relationship depicted in TNG, but then "Yesterday's Enterprise" shows that relations stayed bad enough that only the Enterprise C's heroic sacrifice prevented 20 years of war. Again, control of the Klingon government could have shifted several times, with Azetbur being deposed by hardliners ... and maybe it's not so much that Narendra III made all the Klingons go "wow, the Federation is super honorable" but more that it shifted just enough to allow K'mpec's faction to gain control. So it's not like any of this is logically impossible ... but in a way TNG and the TOS movies that were its real-world contemporaries were treading the same ground in terms of galactic politics, despite being several decades apart in-universe, and that makes the whole a little less cohesive.
The main way it would work LESS well is that TNG had the opportunity to project some backstory into that 60-year void whenever it needed to -- for example with the Cardassian wars -- and that would have been a lot harder if it were closer to Kirk's time.
You could still have Worf -- after all, we went from the Ferengi being menacing villains who are strongly implied to eat their enemies to a Ferengi serving in Starfleet over the course of about 10 years.
And it would lessen the weirdness of the way the state of the galaxy seems to have stayed static, or even gone back to an earlier state, over the course of those 80 years.
For example, the Romulans: In Star Trek V, they are taking part in a three-way peace experiment on Nimbus III with the Federation and Klingons, and in Star Trek VI they are shown as having diplomatic relations with the Federation and an ambassador stationed on Earth ... then in TNG it's right back to "they're super-mysterious and nobody's heard from them in decades." (I'm assuming that there was a brief period of perestroika on Romulus near the end of the 23rd century, and then hardline elements took over the government.)
And the Klingons -- the thawing of relations in Star Trek VI seems like it's showing a progression toward the relationship depicted in TNG, but then "Yesterday's Enterprise" shows that relations stayed bad enough that only the Enterprise C's heroic sacrifice prevented 20 years of war. Again, control of the Klingon government could have shifted several times, with Azetbur being deposed by hardliners ... and maybe it's not so much that Narendra III made all the Klingons go "wow, the Federation is super honorable" but more that it shifted just enough to allow K'mpec's faction to gain control. So it's not like any of this is logically impossible ... but in a way TNG and the TOS movies that were its real-world contemporaries were treading the same ground in terms of galactic politics, despite being several decades apart in-universe, and that makes the whole a little less cohesive.
The main way it would work LESS well is that TNG had the opportunity to project some backstory into that 60-year void whenever it needed to -- for example with the Cardassian wars -- and that would have been a lot harder if it were closer to Kirk's time.
Then it would be much more like most other TV shows.
I think it's not a good idea to invite a lot of comparison to the predecessor and it would also feel like pandering to the fans and self-promoting (the original and/or the new characters) and make the universe feel way too small to have Picard or Riker have served with and/or be comparing themselves to Kirk, or have Crusher or LaForge be direct protege to McCoy or Scotty.
I don't think anyone would think Picard was as good or better as Kirk if he had even initially been really self-dismissive or doubtful, I'm just the new captain, how can I compare to THE GREAT LEGENDARY CAPTAIN JAMES T. KIRK!!!!!111!!!!11!!?
A much better way to try to be better or as good as the original is to make the new characters and style very different so that they are being compared as little as possible.
Which is what they did in TNG
Seriously though, I do get the small-universe syndrome. It's one thing to have a pass-the-torch moment, but it's another thing to overdo it with the comparisons to TOS. This is just a fun thought experiment based on my feeling that TNG absolutely did not have to take place 100 years after TOS for it to be a viable stand-on-its-own show.
Have Cardassians a vassal state of the Klingon Empire. As the Klingons experience economic hardship they start flexing more.
Setting it, say, 20 years after TOS would be interesting. I would have liked to see more of the TOS races explored. More Andorians for example (why did it take until ENT for Andorians to be featured more?) would have been nice. I would also have liked to see what they did with the Gorn (NOT a fan of what SNW has done with the Gorn) and also the Tholians. Why create Ferengi and Cardassians when you could have had Gorn and Tholians?
Who knows, the day might come at some point when a new series takes place between TOS and TNG.
Tbh the Ferengi and Cardassians (and Bajorans etc.) are more interesting than almost any TOS race, although it's because they were well written (eventually). Iirc Andorians weren't in TNG/DS9 because Berman didn't like the antennae so Bolians were made as a replacement (although IMO we should've had a Bolian main/recurring character at some point considering how often they appear). Really the TNG/DS9 species, aside from the Betazoids, are most of the actually good species in Star Trek
I agree though about seeing more of TOS aliens. That's why I can't get into TOS purism: subsequent series did more to expand on aspects TOS couldn't or wouldn't
There was a time when I would love to have seen this. Now, not so much. Because, like DSC/SNW, any show they make now that takes place in that time period will look far more advanced than how TNG looked and would have all kinds of continuity issues, because CBS doesn't give a shit about continuity.
Well, it's not exactly CBS' fault modern technology looks better than what the 60s envisioned for the 24th century
Because fans would complain otherwise.
I understand respecting canon (aka not whatever DSC did with the Klingons, or Burnham and Spock) but I think being beholden to retro technology in canon isn't exactly necessary if it makes the future look less advanced than now
Plus, tbh, much as I love Star Wars, their battle tactics come off as old fashioned when they have everyone fight in closer quarters than modern wars are fought url, and they fight in space! Even Star Trek falls prey to this
But if that's what your audience is expecting because that's how you've advertised your show, then making it look completely different than what they're expecting or what you've advertised clearly isn't the way to go either. That's why SNW looks more like TOS than DSC did.
And you can make 'retro' look just as good as anything more contemporary. As long as you have a good story and compelling characters, the visuals are just window-dressing.
The visuals aren't just window dressing. They're part of the experience. Otherwise you wouldn't be bothered by them not looking closer to canon. Retro can take one out of being immersed if it doesn't visually support the futuristic world
I'm not quite sure what you mean by advertising. DSC's problem is trying to shove certain parts of its narrative into TOS where it doesn't fit but the appearance of the technology for the most part isn't that problem
I disagree. If one understands that this is how this fictional universe is supposed to look, even if it doesn't conform to modern-day aesthetics, then they will accept it. That's why there's a million TOS fan films out there that mimic the look of TOS exactly, rather than a million TOS fan films that try to make it look completely different.
DSC was advertised as a ten-years-before prequel to TOS. What we got was a show that looked and felt so different from TOS that it might as well have been a show from some other fictional sci-fi universe. Or that it took place in 2400 instead of the 2250's.
Similar threads
- Poll
