Could we have a series after DS9 a few years later that is set 20 years after the war or something? Or even take Abrams idea of starting a new timeline inside Enterprise and that's why we have the Xindi war.
WI: No back-to-back Star Trek?
- Thread starter trekchu
- Start date
Voyager, where does one even begin?
Where Enterprise failed was that it should have been an epic telling of the lead up to the Romulan War and the foundation of the Federation. The whole Xindi arch-season and the Temporal Cold War were completely pointless. It should be about meeting all the classic friends and enemies for the first time. Almost everything they did with the Andorians was spot on and the Vulcans were decent. If the whole story centered around the coming war and the war itself then it would have been a great success. Season 4 was without a doubt the best, as it was getting back to this premise.
Without a doubt the best Star Trek series was Deep Space Nine with The Next Generation a very close second. Only thing wrong on DS9 was the CGI errors in the last 2 seasons, and CGI was still in a relative infant state so I give it a pass.
Where Enterprise failed was that it should have been an epic telling of the lead up to the Romulan War and the foundation of the Federation. The whole Xindi arch-season and the Temporal Cold War were completely pointless. It should be about meeting all the classic friends and enemies for the first time. Almost everything they did with the Andorians was spot on and the Vulcans were decent. If the whole story centered around the coming war and the war itself then it would have been a great success. Season 4 was without a doubt the best, as it was getting back to this premise.
Without a doubt the best Star Trek series was Deep Space Nine with The Next Generation a very close second. Only thing wrong on DS9 was the CGI errors in the last 2 seasons, and CGI was still in a relative infant state so I give it a pass.
I am afraid I have to disagree here with you. In theory you are right. The way the Andorians were set up was exactly how it should be done in a prequel, but (and this is a big but) earth made first contact with the Andorians within 10 years of the founding of the federation and at first they were relatively hostile towards the Andorians*. I simply can not believe earth would form a federation and basicly form a new country 10 years later in such a situation. In my opinion a big mistake of the Enterprise is that they tried to explote two different eras in star trek history. The first are the early explorations of earth in which they meet the people who would become their friends and allies later on. The second is the years that would lead to the Romulan war and the funding of the federation. At this point they would already know the Vulcans, Andorians and Tellarites. but you could still make first contact with species that would become important later, like Bolians, Betazed, Klingons and of course Romulans.
*hostile as in they were allied to the Vulcans which were enemies of the Andorians.
Actually I liked the Andorian setup. What PO'd me a bit was that the Andorians and the Vulcans never full out* came to blows, where it would have been interesting to watch Earth trying not to get caught in the crossfire.
*Dominion War style
EDIT: I actually prefer TNG over DS9, especially post-Wessley, but that's probably mostly because I was never fully convinced of the Emissary angle that Sisko had going.
*Dominion War style
EDIT: I actually prefer TNG over DS9, especially post-Wessley, but that's probably mostly because I was never fully convinced of the Emissary angle that Sisko had going.
Last edited:
I disliked what they did with the Vulcans. And I wasn't fully aware of it before a little while ago, but what I learned and what I knew was there was yucky. The Vulcans were made into evil pricks, who were a military dictatorship to boot. What the fudge.
Anyway, back to the original topic...
If there was no back-to-back series, but there was gaps between each one, Star Trek would not be better. In fact, I think it'd be worse overall.
You see, the thing is Star Trek: Voyager was created in the first place to be a big major super-important prime time show for UPN. It had a lot riding on it, which meant it was subject to a lot of demands and interference by Paramount -- what they wanted to do was continue the same formula that had been so successful with Star Trek: The Next Generation. So this ultimately made Voyager into a pale imitation of Next Gen even though the central concept of the series didn't really suit that approach.
But here's the key: this would have happened to Star Trek: Voyager regardless of whether or not Star Trek: Deep Space Nine was concurrently airing with it. In fact, any Star Trek series that began airing around that time would have had the same problems that Voyager had -- whether it was Voyager or Excelsior or even a delayed Deep Space Nine or a really early prequel series or something set on a colony world or whatever. Because the problem isn't that there was too much going on at once (with the two series airing concurrently); the problem was that they were sticking to a formula that they'd already been following for seven years on The Next Generation. "They ran out of ideas" is a fair charge, but that was because of Next Gen, not Deep Space Nine. In fact, it was already getting a little stale by Next Gen's seventh season (remember that turd pile known as "Sub Rosa"?)
Getting rid of Deep Space Nine (which, unlike Voyager, was created specifically to be very different from Next Gen) does nothing but deprive the audience of a good show. That's why I said things would be worse overall: because there'd be proportionally less good material and more bad material.
EDIT: P.S.: I will grant you that things may be different as a consequence of there being only one show rather than two, meaning that all the writers on both Star Trek series would be together on Voyager -- there's no denying that Voyager could benefit from the presence of Ira Behr, Rene Echevarria, Robert Hewitt Wolfe and Ronald D Moore (the latter of whom might remain a writing partner with Brannon Braga, perhaps?) and others. But the restrictions they'd have to work with would not change, and I get the impression that eventually they'd end up quitting in frustration to do their own things.
If there was no back-to-back series, but there was gaps between each one, Star Trek would not be better. In fact, I think it'd be worse overall.
You see, the thing is Star Trek: Voyager was created in the first place to be a big major super-important prime time show for UPN. It had a lot riding on it, which meant it was subject to a lot of demands and interference by Paramount -- what they wanted to do was continue the same formula that had been so successful with Star Trek: The Next Generation. So this ultimately made Voyager into a pale imitation of Next Gen even though the central concept of the series didn't really suit that approach.
But here's the key: this would have happened to Star Trek: Voyager regardless of whether or not Star Trek: Deep Space Nine was concurrently airing with it. In fact, any Star Trek series that began airing around that time would have had the same problems that Voyager had -- whether it was Voyager or Excelsior or even a delayed Deep Space Nine or a really early prequel series or something set on a colony world or whatever. Because the problem isn't that there was too much going on at once (with the two series airing concurrently); the problem was that they were sticking to a formula that they'd already been following for seven years on The Next Generation. "They ran out of ideas" is a fair charge, but that was because of Next Gen, not Deep Space Nine. In fact, it was already getting a little stale by Next Gen's seventh season (remember that turd pile known as "Sub Rosa"?)
Getting rid of Deep Space Nine (which, unlike Voyager, was created specifically to be very different from Next Gen) does nothing but deprive the audience of a good show. That's why I said things would be worse overall: because there'd be proportionally less good material and more bad material.
EDIT: P.S.: I will grant you that things may be different as a consequence of there being only one show rather than two, meaning that all the writers on both Star Trek series would be together on Voyager -- there's no denying that Voyager could benefit from the presence of Ira Behr, Rene Echevarria, Robert Hewitt Wolfe and Ronald D Moore (the latter of whom might remain a writing partner with Brannon Braga, perhaps?) and others. But the restrictions they'd have to work with would not change, and I get the impression that eventually they'd end up quitting in frustration to do their own things.
Last edited:
What killed the franchise was not the TV series, it was the movies. ST Insurrection and Nemesis killed the franchise.
I'm in agreement here. As bad as Enterprise was, and I quit watching before season one was over (Scott B has all the acting skills of a turnip) it was those two films that did it for me.
I sat in front of a tv with a bunch of friends for the first episode of TOS live and watched every single episode through the end of TNG, DS9 and most of Voyager. But Enterprise, and those two movies, were too much to ask of an old, old trekkie. The annimated series was better than that!
Somebody lost interest, ran out of ideas or simply no longer cared.
BlondieBC
Banned
Yep, basically the problem.
TOS was innovative for its time. TNG had better actors, better writing, and much better production qualities. DS9 was well handled, and had a lot more of a continuous storyline as a station would have. I like Babylon 5 more, but DS9 was good. Voyager could have been a great show, but the writers refused to deal with the reality of stranded in space, and basically did TNG but with a flawed start. I never watched Enterprise because after a season of voyager, I assume they simply had run out of plots.
I think it was more Insurrection than Nemesis. Nemesis actually felt like a film, where as Insurrection felt like an overly stretched-out episode. There was also Troi and Crusher talk about their boobs, which was weird and there also the fact that they never explained what the Enterprise was doing in the Briar Patch, when the Enterprise is a captial starship and the Federation is at war.
To be fair, insurrection could be set just after the Dominion War (in fact that's how I interpreted it at the time) and frankly with Nemesis the big mistake they made was cutting the real, and IMO far more true to the cause of Star Trek ending.
DAMN YOU PARAMOUNT! DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!
DAMN YOU PARAMOUNT! DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!
The problem with the gap between DS9 and Voyager is that the writer staff of DS9 get away with a lot of things like the two season long Dominion war, the 10 episode final run and a lot more, because all the attention was given to Voyager as the UPN flagship.
With a universe so rich, I wondered for a long time why they wouldn't wander further away from the "starship"-formula than they did with DS9 (which came closest to it).
A series (it needn't run 8 seasons, if it were bound to end after 2 or 3 seasons, that might even have been better) set in Star Fleet Academy might have been a fresh thing.
Or rather better, a series set on a new colony, which is not exactly fighting for survival each day, but has its set of issues and goes further into a "Picket Fences"-area, exploring life in the federation when NOT on a spaceship.
Or, and here we came too close to spoofing, a Star Trek series set on a ship where NOT everybody was an A++student at SF Academy... and which usually does more boring routine work (which actually should be the case in space....because....you know....lots of space). Kind of "The Office in Space".
A series (it needn't run 8 seasons, if it were bound to end after 2 or 3 seasons, that might even have been better) set in Star Fleet Academy might have been a fresh thing.
Or rather better, a series set on a new colony, which is not exactly fighting for survival each day, but has its set of issues and goes further into a "Picket Fences"-area, exploring life in the federation when NOT on a spaceship.
Or, and here we came too close to spoofing, a Star Trek series set on a ship where NOT everybody was an A++student at SF Academy... and which usually does more boring routine work (which actually should be the case in space....because....you know....lots of space). Kind of "The Office in Space".
That thought has occured to me too. A Star Trek series along the lines of Caprica would be interesting, maybe two rival corporations competing for a government contract to build a new class of starship. Articles of the Federation would also be a godd basis for a Trek series. Think The West Wing wrapped in Trek.
Yeah, I've heard that too, but I heard that it would have meant alot of location shooting, which is really expensive.