For you and five other people. It would not have any chance of being taken seriously by the masses on network television in 2001.
Which series would you want next?
- Thread starter HotRod
- Start date
exactly - even if there are 500 it won't work (2001 is ancient history anyway)
what's next? a some like it hot sequel (or prequel) in black and white?
Especially if the practical location looks like a place where all the toilet water goes for treatment.
I also love those back-lit physical buttons and, funnily enough, that feature touches on the Alien-style cassette futurism look which I adore.Plus, I just found this pic of Kelvin bridge.
I love the look of the back-lit physical buttons.
I just couldn't disagree more. I wouldn't say 1950s QUALITY effects, model work, make up, etc, same as my Trek arguments - but aesthetic designs? I'm sorry but atomic age stuff is very cool looking. Its why I think Tom Swift was ruined in a modern re-imagining; it just doesn't work when you take it out of its natural setting. Its why TNG had to jump forward almost a century to give it space from the 60s,70s and 80s aesthetic so that it seemed newer in-universe. I'm not saying to have crappy quailty sets, uniforms or ships; i'm talking purely from the aspect of the artistry. Newer stuff looks generic and terrible and more often then not like a playstation game. Older designs just have so much MORE STYLE.
I mean, what is retro-futurism but a design philosophy. It's not indicative of poor workmanship, or cheap and ridiculous sets, but rather an artistic direction.
It's unfortunate that we've arrived at this crossroad between futuristic=marketable and retro-futuristic=unmarketable. I really don't think it's that black and white.
Which is why I think it comes down to believability. The audience needs to think it is capable of doing the process.
And that's going to vary from person to person and the retro will feel cheap at times.
Mid-century aesthetic will be back in style again at some point, I'm sure, but it's tough to predict when.
That wasn't the reason TNG was set a century after TOS.
That's a fun one: For me, it's either Garrett or Legacy...
But Legacy would feel a helluvalot fresher and forward-thinking right off the bat, with fewer ties to the past and can end in any number of ways other than Narendra III. Can't say that for the Garrett era (or Harriman for the most part for that matter, and it's probably too late to get Alan Ruck in, with first officer played by Michael Boatman because I'd actually have been there if they tried that in 2002...)
Also, for all these ideas. who's the target audience for a prequel based on a sequel, the infant down the street or the long-time fan, both, and/or other? (Even then, some long-time fans are fatigued of the references things.) Again, the Garrett and Harriman shows have more plates to keep spinning to keep the new show going whereas Legacy has fewer plates to spin and can find its own mark a lot faster while spinning. okay, that's a crap analogy, but PIC ended in a way that allows LEG to largely free of albatross/anchor/etc continuity - no leash - and can, for the second time since TNG ended, more quickly find its own self. (DSC being the first, once they time-diddled to the future, that is. DSC is more a gray area in that regard since it started out as a prequel whereas LEG has no such underpinning... )
In short, LEG gets my vote because it has the freshest path to be its own thing, to make new future continuity than to use existing continuity as a crutch or reference or easter egg or gag for audiences to eventually gag on, etc...
But Legacy would feel a helluvalot fresher and forward-thinking right off the bat, with fewer ties to the past and can end in any number of ways other than Narendra III. Can't say that for the Garrett era (or Harriman for the most part for that matter, and it's probably too late to get Alan Ruck in, with first officer played by Michael Boatman because I'd actually have been there if they tried that in 2002...)
Also, for all these ideas. who's the target audience for a prequel based on a sequel, the infant down the street or the long-time fan, both, and/or other? (Even then, some long-time fans are fatigued of the references things.) Again, the Garrett and Harriman shows have more plates to keep spinning to keep the new show going whereas Legacy has fewer plates to spin and can find its own mark a lot faster while spinning. okay, that's a crap analogy, but PIC ended in a way that allows LEG to largely free of albatross/anchor/etc continuity - no leash - and can, for the second time since TNG ended, more quickly find its own self. (DSC being the first, once they time-diddled to the future, that is. DSC is more a gray area in that regard since it started out as a prequel whereas LEG has no such underpinning... )
In short, LEG gets my vote because it has the freshest path to be its own thing, to make new future continuity than to use existing continuity as a crutch or reference or easter egg or gag for audiences to eventually gag on, etc...
I'm not against the 32nd century, but I also want a post-Picard continuation of some sort
When within a 16 year or so period, we are in a place where we have had overall three different casts playing versions of the same characters within the canon (two of whom within the last 16 years or so), as well as three similar-but-different versions of the same ship, all in a variant of the same-but-slightly-different setting - thats my take anyway. That isn't to take away from SNW or the Kelvin-verse - but it does mean we are in a place where we've seen a lot of the same, but slightly different.
I agree the quality and "newness" of the story takes precedence absolutely - but its easy to feel that a certain aspect of the canon is getting a lot of attention when the same part of the wheel is being re-invented more than once. A new era doesn't save something from feeling rehashed or samey either, granted, but it can be a starting point if done well. It can also free up writers to not be too worried about canon fans and feel braver to do new things.
On the opposite end of that spectrum, part of the reason I don't feel the 32nd century has been fleshed out well is because it is more or less the same but with different whizzier names and some apple-esque design aesthetics. It has allowed for some of the key pieces of the universe to be turned upside down and put back together again though. Its actually really hard to find ways to make something feel new, and the danger with ST is you just start renaming familiar things (e.g. "the super warp drive", or the "super whizz torpedoes" that all effectively do the same thing narratively) - but that is where the over-arching "as long as it is written well" mantra comes in.
Last edited:
That's different from "era", though.
We can have hundreds of different shows taking place in the TOS era that don't involve redoing characters and even settings.
Just like we have hundreds of different shows taking place in our current era with no character overlap.
Yes, as I went on to say - but you cannot help but feel like an "era" is being overdone when you have so many different versions of it in (relatively) quick succession. Its certainly enough to have that initial "oh, that era again..."
DS9 certainly expanded the 24th century from TNG, and so did (to an arguably lesser extent) Voyager (in that it at least had virtue of a new concept, fewer recurring aliens etc - to some extent anyway...). I sort of feel now how I felt when Voyager finished - maybe we've done enough with the 23rd century for now in modern live-action ST and we could do with a bit more of somewhere different.
I hope SFA manages to build out the 32nd century more, and I have hope that we could do more to expand the 25th following Picard season 3. What I'm not personally really feeling right now is a pang for us to expand out the 23rd century some more. SNW has that covered.
Last edited:
The 25th feels too much like a direct continuation of the 24th. (Because it is) I still like the idea of going to an era that we know a little bit about, but could certainly be fleshed out and greatly expanded upon. That means late 22nd century, or early to mid 23rd. They're far enough separated from the rest of the franchise that they have lots of runway to tell new and interesting stories, while still feeling connected to the franchise as a whole.
I think I'm just confused.
Can a few TV shows really completely flesh out a whole era of even a single planet?
Does Hill Street Blues, Friends and Sex and the City give us all we need for the 20th Century (100 years) worth of stories, after that, no more is needed, it's overplayed?
100 years worth of stories and infinite settings doesn't have to be just Spock and Enterprise.
Can a few TV shows really completely flesh out a whole era of even a single planet?
Does Hill Street Blues, Friends and Sex and the City give us all we need for the 20th Century (100 years) worth of stories, after that, no more is needed, it's overplayed?
100 years worth of stories and infinite settings doesn't have to be just Spock and Enterprise.
Self-reference...if used sparingly...can lend a sense of history to the universe. And thus make it more believable.
Not that it’ll ever happen, but I’d be fine with a Calypso-era series.
I mean, so would I. But the 32nd is a reasonable hope, so I'm focusing on that.
Similar threads
