Which series would you want next?

[Ray Hardgrit]

I think maybe the 100 year time jump is being suggested because it worked so well as a clean slate for TNG moving forward from TOS?

Yeah, it does make sense that people would want to repeat the choice TNG made in the hopes of having a similar experience with the next show.

But did TNG's time jump actually benefit the series? Did it have any effect on it at all?

If TNG took place right after The Undiscovered Country on the Galaxy-class USS Enterprise-B, DeForest Kelley wouldn't have needed to wear as much makeup in Encounter at Farpoint. The Klingons would've only recently made peace so K'Ehleyr might be harder to explain. The episode The Neutral Zone would be a little different because the Romulans wouldn't have been in isolation for decades. Also Yesterday's Enterprise would need to have a different ship, like the NX-01 Enterprise maybe. Oh, plus they'd have fewer models on the wall of the observation lounge. Those are all the changes that I can think of at the moment.

Jumping decades after Kirk really made no difference to the setting, style or substance of the series, it just made it (slightly) harder for actors to return and gave us a big Lost Era full of stories never told. Personally I think they should just continue from where they left off and avoid another Lost Era next time.

 

[FredH]

If the franchise were ever to pull back from the multiple-series paradigm, I think I’d want it to go back to something like the TNG/DS9 years, in that there’d be two ongoing series: one about the ongoing please-mostly-exploratory voyages of a starship Enterprise, and the other something giving us an overall sense of the large-scale universe as a setting, much as DS9 did. Both would be at the furthest end of the timeline, so presumably 32nd/33rd century.

And you know, while we’re spitballing, there’s no reason we have to keep the same cast forever and so quit by year seven as they get too expensive. The Enterprise can just keep on going for thirty seasons, swapping out at least two or three cast members a season. Granted that’ll mean a character dynamic different from the old Big Three or the recent TNG nostalgia, but that’s okay.

 

[The Wormhole]

there’s no reason we have to keep the same cast forever and so quit by year seven as they get too expensive. The Enterprise can just keep on going for thirty seasons, swapping out at least two or three cast members a season.

They'll likely want to start a new series at some point due to comic book reboot logic: more people tune in for season 1 than season 8. And there's no way the studio is going to be okay with keeping the same ship unchanged for longer than seven years, that's the whole reason the studio mandated the Enterprise D had to be destroyed in Generations after all.

 

[Nerys Myk]

From interviews, I gather Myers and Goldsman want to eventually shift into the era of TOS with SNW. So it might be around for a while. Paramount or whoever willing.

 

[Daedalus]

But did TNG's time jump actually benefit the series? Did it have any effect on it at all?

Jumping decades after Kirk really made no difference to the setting, style or substance of the series, it just made it (slightly) harder for actors to return and gave us a big Lost Era full of stories never told. Personally I think they should just continue from where they left off and avoid another Lost Era next time.

The one issue I found is that it appears that technology and uniforms didn't seem to go anywhere. As much as I love the MM, I can't see it staying in service for 70 years. And when we finally met the Enterprise-C, the bridge looked less advanced than the Enterprise-A from Undiscovered Country. They wrote themselves into a pickle, essentially. Its all to do with money and time, but it's a lesson worth learning.

The one benefit is that the show became an island, and had to rely on who they had, rather than relying on who they could bring in from old Trek. There isn't a single modern Trek series that hasn't brought in a legacy character. I don't mean just for one story, I'm talking about whole seasons dedicated to them. It's remarkable, let's say.

I'm very happy with how they presented McCoy, Spock and Scotty in TNG, but I'm glad the early 25th century isn't going anywhere. There's no amount of moaning and groaning about legacy characters that will stop them from appearing, so why make it harder? I'm still shocked that Kurtzman brought in Picardo for SFA. Happy, but shocked.

 

[HotRod]

And when we finally met the Enterprise-C, the bridge looked less advanced than the Enterprise-A from Undiscovered Country. They wrote themselves into a pickle, essentially. Its all to do with money and time, but it's a lesson worth learning.

There's several easy explanations for that.

One could be that it was a temporary bridge module. You could say that the Enterprise-C had a temporary module installed while they were waiting to install a shiny new one.

Or

During the battle with the Romulans, the bridge was damaged and they switched to an auxiliary control room/battle bridge.

If.......IF we were to see the Enterprise-C ever again, I would not expect or want the Bridge to look like it did in Yesterday's Enterprise.

 

[Dukhat]

Maybe the next poll should be "What would Star Trek Legacy even be?"

Well, Star Trek Voyager was about a ship stranded on the other side of the galaxy. See how that turned out.

Star Trek Enterprise was about the formation of the Federation. See how that turned out.

Star Trek Discovery was about a war with the Klingons. See how that turned out.

Star Trek Picard was about Picard as an old man. See how that turned out.

Star Trek Strange New Worlds is about the pre-TOS crew (with half of them there already) flying around on an Enterprise doing...things. Turning out ok so far, as it seems P+ finally got their formula right.

Star Trek Legacy is ostensibly about the 'next generation' of crewmembers flying around on an Enterprise doing...things. Hmm. I wonder how that will turn out?

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

There's several easy explanations for that.

Easier explanation: we can't tell how advanced 23/24rd century technology is by looking at it. We can make educated guesses about what era it's from by the style, but in-universe technological improvements have nearly nothing to do with evolving bridge designs. Starfleet could've put the bridge of the Titan A into Kirk's original Enterprise back in 2266, if a designer had thought up that particular layout and LCARS interface design.

The Undiscovered Country bridge itself actually appears to be a step backwards as the Final Frontier bridge has touchscreens for the helm/nav consoles, carpets and wooden railings like the Enterprise D bridge.

 

[Dukhat]

Yeah, it does make sense that people would want to repeat the choice TNG made in the hopes of having a similar experience with the next show.

But did TNG's time jump actually benefit the series? Did it have any effect on it at all?

If TNG took place right after The Undiscovered Country on the Galaxy-class USS Enterprise-B, DeForest Kelley wouldn't have needed to wear as much makeup in Encounter at Farpoint. The Klingons would've only recently made peace so K'Ehleyr might be harder to explain. The episode The Neutral Zone would be a little different because the Romulans wouldn't have been in isolation for decades. Also Yesterday's Enterprise would need to have a different ship, like the NX-01 Enterprise maybe. Oh, plus they'd have fewer models on the wall of the observation lounge. Those are all the changes that I can think of at the moment.

Jumping decades after Kirk really made no difference to the setting, style or substance of the series, it just made it (slightly) harder for actors to return and gave us a big Lost Era full of stories never told. Personally I think they should just continue from where they left off and avoid another Lost Era next time.

Roddenberry chose to move ahead 100 years from TOS in order to distance TNG, both figuratively and literally, from TOS (and the TOS films) which he disavowed. YMMV on his success in that endeavor. But if someone else had been in charge, they might have more wisely set TNG only, say, 20 years after TVH instead of 100 years after TOS. The problem was that Paramount was expecting the TOS cast to continue making films for the foreseeable future, completely glossing over the fact that these people had become too old for this kind of thing (a fact that was painfully obvious with STV), and they didn't want the two crew's paths to cross. That was a huge mistake.

 

[Dukhat]

There's several easy explanations for that.

One could be that it was a temporary bridge module. You could say that the Enterprise-C had a temporary module installed while they were waiting to install a shiny new one.

I could accept that explanation, or at least that it was the original bridge from its commissioning and was going to get a new module in a refit before the ship was destroyed.

During the battle with the Romulans, the bridge was damaged and they switched to an auxiliary control room/battle bridge.

Nope. The bridge was on deck 1.

If.......IF we were to see the Enterprise-C ever again, I would not expect or want the Bridge to look like it did in Yesterday's Enterprise.

I would prefer that they update the look but make it clear that it's based on the TOS movie aesthetic. But not like what they did in SNW. While I like that bridge, it's a bit too updated from the TOS one.

 

[HotRod]

Nope. The bridge was on deck 1.

It's been a minute. Did they specifically mention Deck 1 in Yesterday's Enterprise?

 

[Dukhat]

It's been a minute. Did they specifically mention Deck 1 in Yesterday's Enterprise?

From member @Rekkert :

"The C set was the main bridge. The script identifies it as such; as mentioned above we see the plaque, which we never saw in a battle/auxiliary bridge; and the doors have labels indicating it's deck 01. Behind the scenes photos we have access to at work (which were used for the recreation) confirm these things in greater detail, but they're still very much visible in the episode."


So, did they specifically mention in dialogue that it was deck 1? No. But that's obviously what it was meant to be. The only people who would think otherwise are obsessive-compulsive members of the TrekBBS (of which I consider myself one )

 

[HotRod]

Good enough explanation for me. There's still potentially some wiggle room, but for now it's the Bridge.

 

[Daedalus]

There's several easy explanations for that.

One could be that it was a temporary bridge module. You could say that the Enterprise-C had a temporary module installed while they were waiting to install a shiny new one.

Or

During the battle with the Romulans, the bridge was damaged and they switched to an auxiliary control room/battle bridge.

If.......IF we were to see the Enterprise-C ever again, I would not expect or want the Bridge to look like it did in Yesterday's Enterprise.

Modular bridges are a good way to explain most things in Trek.

Easier explanation: we can't tell how advanced 23/24rd century technology is by looking at it. We can make educated guesses about what era it's from by the style, but in-universe technological improvements have nearly nothing to do with evolving bridge designs. Starfleet could've put the bridge of the Titan A into Kirk's original Enterprise back in 2266, if a designer had thought up that particular layout and LCARS interface design.

The Undiscovered Country bridge itself actually appears to be a step backwards as the Final Frontier bridge has touchscreens for the helm/nav consoles, carpets and wooden railings like the Enterprise D bridge.

I don't think I ever really noticed that. I suppose that what could be seen as a step back, is more likely due to practically. Much like Pike wanting to remove a lot of the advanced tech from his ship, sometimes the shiniest tech breaks easier/quicker.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't think I ever really noticed that. I suppose that what could be seen as a step back, is more likely due to practically. Much like Pike wanting to remove a lot of the advanced tech from his ship, sometimes the shiniest tech breaks easier/quicker.

Or requires more maintience.

Case in point: I recently had to replace my car, with a slightly older one but better milage. In point of fact, this older one is far easier to maintain, the parts are easier to get, the oil easier to change myself, etc.

Sometimes fancy doesn't cut it.

 

[Daedalus]

Or requires more maintience.

Case in point: I recently had to replace my car, with a slightly older one but better milage. In point of fact, this older one is far easier to maintain, the parts are easier to get, the oil easier to change myself, etc.

Sometimes fancy doesn't cut it.

What was Scotty's quote about plumbing in ST:III? It's true the world over, and probably the galaxy too.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

sometimes the shiniest tech breaks easier/quicker.

No doubt, this is why I have no problem with them using bulkier equipment sometimes, but I think a lot of it comes down to the preference of the designer or the user.

Really I can think of only five technological improvements for the bridge during Starfleet's existence:

1. They installed forcefield technology so people don't get flushed into space when the wall's blown open. Not all of them anyway.
2. They got Discovery hologram technology at some point before the Kirk era. Then got bored of it until DS9.
3. They installed a replicator in the Next Gen era.
4. They installed holodeck technology in the Prodigy era so the bridge can transform into anything.
5. Programmable matter in the far future.

You could argue that the touchscreens were a new innovation for TNG, but we had touchscreens and GUIs in real life before Search for Spock came out. We've got touchscreens, flat screens, transparent screens, curved screens, light strips, shiny floors and so on right now, this is all present day technology. I don't know how well we'd do at building that huge viewscreen window that the SNW Enterprise has for real, but I wouldn't mind seeing someone try.

Oh plus the computer all the consoles are connected to got faster obviously, and more systems were run by automation so they needed fewer chairs.

 

[fireproof78]

2. They got Discovery hologram technology at some point before the Kirk era. Then got bored of it until DS9.

It was called the Rec Room. It tried to kill people.

Definitely a proto-holodeck.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

It was called the Rec Room. It tried to kill people.

Definitely a proto-holodeck.

They didn't install Rec Room technology on the bridge though, mostly because TAS never happened. When I say Discovery holograms, I'm talking about the flickery hologram communicator that Pike didn't like. They definitely didn't have one of them on the NX-01.

 

[Nerys Myk]

It was called the Rec Room. It tried to kill people.

Definitely a proto-holodeck.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies