Voyager ended three years before BSG started airing, so there was no divided audience going on. Many of Voyager's problems were due to the fact that it was a network show whereas TNG and DS9 were syndicated, giving the creative staff a great deal of freedom. Voyager was subjected a number of restrictions by UPN which would have existed regardless of who the show runners were with the most significant issue being a ban on serialized storytelling. UPN wanted Voyager to follow the exact template that TNG followed with standalone episodes and no conflict among the main characters.
WI: Star Trek: Deep Space Nine - The Movie
- Thread starter Plus-Sized Scribe
- Start date
Voyager ended three years before BSG started airing, so there was no divided audience going on. Many of Voyager's problems were due to the fact that it was a network show whereas TNG and DS9 were syndicated, giving the creative staff a great deal of freedom. Voyager was subjected a number of restrictions by UPN which would have existed regardless of who the show runners were with the most significant issue being a ban on serialized storytelling. UPN wanted Voyager to follow the exact template that TNG followed with standalone episodes and no conflict among the main characters.
Deleted member 82792
I love DS9. Quark was my favourite. And I would pay good money to see a DS9 movie.
Fair enough. However, the tales of network interference are overstated. Berman and Braga use this, along with a number of other excuses, for the down turn in quality and the serious problems with the show. UPN directives were rather loose, and rare, and were not draconian as they portray. The problems in the shows were really with them. And any number of dissatisfied people in the cats or creative teams will indicate or bluntly say as much. As Ron Moore himself has said, it was a matter of Berman and Braga keeping the franchise going purely for reasons of keeping themselves at the top. It was a matter of ego. And they could not take criticism. Ira Steven Behr gave his feedback to them on ENTERPRISE in a meeting they arranged in order to improve the show. He gave his critique and criticism. And their take away from it was to be aghast at his feedback, and Braga stated it years later as "he just shit all over the show", which it does not seem from Ira Steven Behr like he did that. I interpret him to be a man who can be blunt, but certainly not someone who just gave unconstructive criticism. It was a matter of bruised ego. The initial team of creatives left one by one, and they failed to bring on the best talent. And they did not foster the talent they had under them. The problems were truly a matter of just "Star Trek" without taking those stories and tailoring them to the characters and setting, as DS9 and TNG did. It was not a matter of fatigue, either. That was another excuse. As Ron Moore also says, rightly, they offered up this settings and promised to explore them, and the abandoned those concepts, and fans understood they had been lied to. ENTERPRISE had huge ratings for it's first episode, and then those ratings plummeted. And it was not viewer fatigue. It was because they made a promise to explore the setting and the characters, and then just abandoned it for "Star Trek" that was not tailored to the setting or characters, they did not explore or develop the setting or characters, and by the time Manny Coto finally did, it was season 4 and too late. There are other problems, such as the Temporal Cold War being totally off key and robbing the show of a chance to shine in it's own right. In addition, they did not plan out either that or the Xindi arc, making for massive problems. However, that's for another discussion or a further one I do not care to get into in this gigantic paragraph. In short, Star Trek died because everything that made it good went away, and Berman and Braga failed in their task and often actively worked against it.
By and large, I agree with His Majesty. Berman and Braga were just... toxic. That's the only word for them... Well, aside from hackneyed and uncreative. Honestly, I feel they should have been forced off at the beginning of Voyager, or even during its creative development.
Honestly, I could go on at length about Voyager's failings, I really could, but we'll save that for my... "replacement series", should it get off the ground, tentatively titled Star Trek: Righteous. Anyhoo, if there's any more to say about a DS9 movie, have at it. I don't intend to spin a timeline out of this, but I do love the discussion.
Kate Mulgrew has been quite clear that she pushed for a gay character on Voyager, but that Berman vetoed this: "“Rick Berman, who is a very sagacious man, has been very firm about certain things,” Mulgrew said. “I’ve approached him many, many times over the years about getting a gay character on the show — one whom we could really love, not just a guest star. You know, we had blacks, Asians, we even had a handicapped character, and so I thought, this is now beginning to look a bit absurd. And he said, ‘In due time.’" At the time of the interview, she expected that Enterprise would get a gay character.
Voyager's problems were not related to the premise or the characters. The Voyager relaunch novels published over the last few years by Simon & Schuster, written by Kirsten Beyer, have consistently been enjoyable and received fan acclaim. I was surprised. But then, why should I have been, when I know full well that having a series written in a consistent manner by author(s) who develop characters in a consistent way and make sure that storylines develop organically and believably over time makes it enjoyable. (Beyer's on the writing crew for Discovery, too. Yay!)
Going back to the original POD, as much as I would have loved a Deep Space Nine movie, I'm skeptical that it would have been able to capture an audience the same size as the TNG films. I also wonder what the movie would be about, with all the major arcs wrapped up. Sisko's return is a possibility, as is some sort of intrigue regarding Cardassia or the Dominion, but these do not strike me as compelling. What is left undone?
Rick Berman was also the force that killed "Blood and Fire", which would have featured homosexual characters and an analogy disease to AIDS, because he was reportedly a massive homophobe. And from that, apparently he still was by ENTERPRISE.
Well, we all knew Rick Berman was an idiot, anyway. The only thing he did right was getting Kate Mulgrew. (Honestly, I thought Harry should have been gay. He certainly struck me as having a crush on Tom. I also think I read somewhere that Garrett Wang thought it would be a good idea...)
You're right. It's not the premise or the characters I have issue with. The core characters are, essentially, fine. It's the fact that most were either characterized badly (Neelix and Torres), inconsistently (Janeway), or... they weren't (Chakotay and Harry). The only one who never fails to delight is the Doctor. And how much of that is down to Picardo? As for the premise... they squandered it.
One story I recall Ronald D. Moore relating was him joining the writers' room on Voyager after DS9 finished. He looked at the disorganized mess and asked them how to write Janeway. They all looked at each other, shrugged, and more or less replied, "We dunno. Do what you want." This was SEASON FIVE.
Now, see, that's the issue. The only thing I could see working is Insurrection being retooled as a DS9 movie.
Roddenberry's lawyer, Leonard Maizlish, also had a direct hand in that whole debacle.
Blood and Fire was to have been an episode in TNG's first season, with the intent being to correct contemporary fears that donating blood would give people AIDS. There were some incidental characters who were implicitly gay - Riker was to ask them "how long have you been together?" and get the response "since the academy", which would fly over kids' heads, but the adults would get it. Maizlish and Berman detested this idea for that specific reason. They'd cruelly joke about "Ensign Tutti-Frutti" and mock writer David Gerrold (who himself is gay). IIRC, Maizlish even threatened to kill him.
Again, I cannot praise Beyer's relaunch novels enough.
I am very glad Deep Space Nine was allowed to do its own thing.
Honestly, a DS9 movie would run the risk of trying to redoing things that would be better done in an episode. I'm also not sure if I would trust the Trek movie crews to do a good DS9 movie.
Funny, I have the opposite reaction. Typically if I try to watch a TNG episode today, I find it gratingly corny. You know all those people who say the Trek 'verse is soft, too pacifist, they should gun up those ships and make a mega-gazillion of them and go on a rampage and just KICK ASS? Generally they seem like psychotic loons to me. But when I watch TNG today, I see just a little teeny tiny bit of their point. Or not really, they're wrong...but the story so often feels so saccharine, the characters so cut-and-dried and made of cardboard, that one can see an angry tantrum as a natural reaction.
Mind you---I was a Trek fan in the era before TNG, even before The Motionless Picture and Khan, when we had noting to work with but TOS, TAS (which unlike TOS could not be seen in syndication, only read in Alan Dean Foster's novelizations, if you missed them when they aired just twice) and a lot of fanon. I looked forward with great anticipation to TNG when it finally came out. I watched the first few eps with great hope and patience. And then I gave up in disgust. (Too soon; some good episodes came along in that season eventually. Still I'm glad I sat out the whole Second season in casual indifference, and only got drawn back in in the third season.)
I disliked very different things than were typically said at the time of 1st season rollout. People said the new Enterprise was too soft, unwarlike. I thought this was a sensible and good development. People said Troi was useless. I thought her role and character had enormous potential. They hated Wesley. Well, so did I to be fair--but mainly because the poor kid was oversold with anvilicious prophecies. To be sure only these could explain why Picard let him on the bridge. Hating Wesley people wanted to get rid of his mother too. I thought she was hot, and a good doctor. I loved the concept of Tasha Yar's role too.
My remedy for fixing TNG was to kill off all the human male characters, except Picard who ought to be put in charge of a Starbase. (Hah! Little did I know what DS9 would become, and who would run it...) Sorry about La Forge but his character just didn't seem to jell, and Wesley and Riker just plain pissed me off. Whereas the next step would be to get rid of most of the writers and get people who could tell decent stories, and work with the great potential the cast had.
Well then. Years past and it shook down. Sadly Yar was gone, and knowing Dr Crusher was too helped me ignore Season 2 completely. Dr Pulaski was just foul, especially her mindlessly fixed ideas about Data. But they brought Dr Crusher back and started to get it together, and I greatly enjoyed STN as it aired after that.
But now---it just seems that the characters are too limited by being in too perfected a world. There aren't any really deep, meaningful conflicts; it's all technobabble and some interesting but shallow philosophizing. I got to like characters I had hated, but they still didn't really come to life, generally. Characters like Reginald Barclay or Lxwna Troi are far more interesting and memorable than the fixed cast!
DS 9 was an entirely different experience. At the time it aired I could not say which one I liked better on the whole, in the years the 2 series overlapped, because one was maturing into its full potential and the other offered refreshing new possibilities.
But nowadays if I see a typical DS9 ep, especially from the later seasons, a good third of them at least remain gripping and I watch them eagerly from beginning to end. Quark and Garik's characters particularly, and Dukat's on the darker side, remain vibrant. But they all have a lot of life--I am finding nowadays that Dax does not charm me as much as she used to; maybe I just shy away knowing she gets replaced before the end. (The replacement character strikes me as a successful portrayal of a shy and retiring personality with some damage).
It is a lot of things but comments in this thread help point out some of them. Another is that I just like watching Cardassians do their damaged thing.
This all explains so very much.
The spring before TNG was released some friends took me to a Trek Convention featuring David Gerrold speaking on what he was allowed to reveal of the new series, around February. He specifically mentioned having an "AIDS episode" in the works.
Now I'm sad to say when people booed that, I shook my head too. My reasons were not that I didn't think AIDS should be dealt with but my nerd reaction that of course HIV is cured before TNG, indeed before TOS, so how to bring it up? It would be silly! Gerrold chided the crowd, "What's wrong with you people?"
Some might have been overly nerdy like me, boggling on a mere technical point. Many must have had the same things wrong with them apparently a lot of Trek show runners had, which is bloody horrifying.
Months later, I heard how Gerrold had been removed as chief writer and fired. It seems obvious in retrospect that the bloody terrible early episodes that made me give up on the show in the first couple months had been slapped together to fill holes left in the lineup by Gerrold's removal, including the missing "AIDS" episode. (Friends speculated that "The Naked Now" must have been all that was left of it--instead, it was the least unwatchable of the filler eps, I suppose. Why or how they decided to put the filler eps on immediately after the pilot, instead of saving them for later when the fan base would be more established, I don't know. "Arsenal of Freedom" surely would have been a better early ep to sustain interest, for instance. They waited too long to show it though, I think that was the first one I skipped.
Over the later years, it seemed to me that both TNG and DS9 and even Enterprise had some pretty good episodes that tackled the themes of gayness in our society allegorically and indirectly rather than head-on. So at the time I assumed that the show-runners were on the good guys' side but timid, and wanted audiences to think about things sensibly but had to sneak it all under the radar. I'm thinking of the episode where Riker interacts with a dissident from the planet that has purged itself of gender, for instance. That ep was uncomfortable for everyone it seemed, treading on everyone's toes and therefore it must be doing something right. Or DS9 where Dax is tempted into a relationship with another woman--but the taboo she's breaking is some sort of Trill symbiont custom, nothing to do with the fact that the forbidden fruit (or attempting seducer, I forget which way it swung) happened also to be another woman. Because a fan like me assumed that of course that is no issue in Federation or Trill society.
One of the few things Enterprise ever got right was the Vulcan arc, revealing that Vulcan itself needs some reforming in this era, and T'Pol's encounters with dissident Vulcans who experimented with free emotions and mind melds, struck me as allegorical as well, and much more so when it turns out an involuntary meld gives her a disease that brands her as a deviant and social reject among Vulcans. And her decision to refuse to take the out of "well, I was violated against my will!" in solidarity with those who could not say that.
So all this, I figured, indicated that Trek was gay-friendly but US TV was not.
But of course, while being discreetly open about things might have been a bold and risky step in 1988 had Gerrold's line up been retained, by the time the shows were airing these things, mainstream TV had already stepped out of the closet and remained years ahead. Since to this day we have no openly gay main characters, all we have are these allegories.
Which apparently the writers were not so much sneaking past network censors as past Berman.
What am I to make of Maizlish's role, as Roddenberry's own lawyer. If Roddenberry didn't fire him, should I conclude he too was part of the wall of silence, and this its keystone?
This and this! If a movie were released during the run of DS9, something good might have in essence been an episode arc on the side, but then why not incorporate it into to the main storyline? (Doing so by having key future plot developments hinge on things learned in the movie but not aired as TV eps would have been a dirty trick on both audiences). But one feature of DS9 is that the series has very solid closure. Even though doors are left open for stories of interest, the final shot of Kira and Jake pulling away from them shows you--there might be spinoffs, story lines with this or that character from DS9, but the ensemble, she is broken, once and for all. There is no sensible premise to draw all, or even most, of these people back together. You can do a movie about the return of Sisko, or Nog's adventures in Starfleet, but there can be no more DS9 after "What You Leave Behind." I'm tearing up just writing about it but that's because it worked and it is true.
And after the reveals here, which go beyond just "B&B were assholes" to get down to some specifics, how could we trust the movie crews indeed?
The fact is, not one TNG movie has ever been to my satisfaction. I forgave it in Generations, since like The Motion Picture you have to give them a throwaway, but the closest thing to TNG-Khan was First Contact--which does a lot of things I hate actually. I should try watching it again some time to see how well it works dramatically, but in terms of the new canon created I thought it was kind of dumb. And it was all downhill from there; Insurrection is so bad I can't even remember the plot at all, something about holo-ships but what that had to do with "insurrection" completely eludes me now. Less said about Nemesis the better.
I also hate the reboots on due consideration, so I'm not left with much to love in Trek filmmaking except the Khan-Spock arc trilogy.
The problem for the TNG films is that their stories are terrible. They are glorified TV episodes and not especially cinematic with compelling stories. The best TOS movies were cinematic with stories that took multiple hours to tell - not two part TV episodes.
For a DS9 movie to work, you need a story big enough that it is worth a movie. It also needs to be self contained as you need to attract people who may have never seen a single DS9 episode, much less follow the entire Dominion War. And to be honest, it's hard to figure out a way to bring back both Sisko and Odo. Sisko would be easier than Odo, so Odo may just have to be left abandoned as a character (but Rene Auberjoinos could come back as a completely different minor character or even as a cameo). The Cardassian characters were a big stand out on the series with several great performances, so some sort of Cardassian plot can be done. It'd also allow for the station to be part of the story, as DS9 as a title doesn't work unless the story takes place on the station. The movie needs to tell a post-Dominion War story, but there are all sorts of things that can done with DS9 to make it seem like Cold War Berlin spy intrigue. Except it is the Federation plus Klingons on one end with the Breen on the other, with an occupied Cardassia and the Romulans plotting against their old Allies. It could be a "Casablanca in space" mix with "The Third Man". It would be a VERY different kind of Star Trek movie, but it could work.
For a DS9 movie to work, you need a story big enough that it is worth a movie. It also needs to be self contained as you need to attract people who may have never seen a single DS9 episode, much less follow the entire Dominion War. And to be honest, it's hard to figure out a way to bring back both Sisko and Odo. Sisko would be easier than Odo, so Odo may just have to be left abandoned as a character (but Rene Auberjoinos could come back as a completely different minor character or even as a cameo). The Cardassian characters were a big stand out on the series with several great performances, so some sort of Cardassian plot can be done. It'd also allow for the station to be part of the story, as DS9 as a title doesn't work unless the story takes place on the station. The movie needs to tell a post-Dominion War story, but there are all sorts of things that can done with DS9 to make it seem like Cold War Berlin spy intrigue. Except it is the Federation plus Klingons on one end with the Breen on the other, with an occupied Cardassia and the Romulans plotting against their old Allies. It could be a "Casablanca in space" mix with "The Third Man". It would be a VERY different kind of Star Trek movie, but it could work.
I had something else in mind.
Since Nemesis was supposed to predate a TNG/DS9/VOY crossover, I'd say that the big finale would be Romulan-centric. I'd say that Worf would have a hand in bringing the DS9 crew. For the life of me, I have no idea how the plot would develop.
If someone more creative can develop this, go nuts.
Since Nemesis was supposed to predate a TNG/DS9/VOY crossover, I'd say that the big finale would be Romulan-centric. I'd say that Worf would have a hand in bringing the DS9 crew. For the life of me, I have no idea how the plot would develop.
If someone more creative can develop this, go nuts.
Ah, but it would be terribly contrived to bring together all that cast. Sisko being returned is an Event--furthermore, he isn't really a normal human being at all apparently, and thus he becomes an object of Federation scientific study, not to mention a political football on Bajor. Part of a decent plot could show his struggle to shout and bludgeon his way out of this babbling mob of more or less well meaning folks with conflicting agendas none of which involve listening to him of course. Meanwhile, his son, effectively abandoned by him, is out wandering the Galaxy as a journalist/writer. O'Brien is off on some distant Starfleet assignment, and Nog and Bashir the same somewhere else. Dax has probably quit Starfleet completely and with gratitude. Worf is off trying to keep the Klingon Empire on some half sane track, Garek is trying to piece Cardasssia back together if someone hasn't assassinated or exiled him yet (wouldn't bet on the former, latter might get him into the game at DS9. It shouldn't be that difficult for Odo to come back actually; I'm amazed the show ended with Kira accepting it was goodbye forever, because if the Founders have any shred of compassion in them at all his experiences, shared in the Link, should have traction really fast and the Link ought to come around to the idea that they have to deal more fairly with Solids, but the Federation will try to give them a fair shake too. He should be able to withdraw from the Link not long after rejoining it having spread his intended message. If he doesn't come back it is because he does not want to.
The only people particularly likely to meet up with a returned Ben Sisko would be Kira (assuming the Prophets don't decide to "return" Sisko to the Delta Quadrant in 5764 BCE that is, but rather somewhere near where they took him from in time and space). Garek is the next most proximate but we rather hope he is too busy to get involved, unless of course Sisko's new mission involves Cardassia--as it might. Odo might come back for cause-and-effect reasons. But other than fan sentiment, and the fact that given time Jake probably will seek out his father, as might Cassidy (he just walks away from her, remember, because his Prophet real people demand he does, just as Odo must prioritize the Changelings over Kira). Even if we suppose Quark is still hanging around his same old bar and Nog comes by because Sisko pulls strings in Starfleet to gratify Jake, that gets us just half or so the old ensemble and it is already getting corny and contrived.
A good writer might make it work by using instead of apologizing for the bonds of friendship. Sisko has a mission to Cardassia, he needs Kira in tow to represent and assure Bajor; his son tracks him down as does his lover, Nog and O'Brien are needed for skills and compatibility and also because Julian is needed since this mission involves Garek...
OK maybe a good writer can even work in Morn and all his loquaciousness into the plot! Smoothly. The tie is love, or something like that.
One thing to keep in mind with a DS9 movie is the reality of international television distribution in the late 1990s. A lot of countries were seasons behind in broadcasting DS9. That's one reason why that the TNG movies shied away from overt discussion of the Dominion War. They didn't want to confuse viewers in markets where the war hadn't started yet.
Realistically, to get a DS9 movie I think you need to kill Patrick Stewart and probably Brent Spiner too. As long as the TNG cast is viable, there's no reason to dip into DS9, who could bring in a "new" movie cast (likely fronted by Worf due to him being a familiar face). By the time the TNG cast became too old OTL, the Trek franchise was in terminal decline.
Realistically, to get a DS9 movie I think you need to kill Patrick Stewart and probably Brent Spiner too. As long as the TNG cast is viable, there's no reason to dip into DS9, who could bring in a "new" movie cast (likely fronted by Worf due to him being a familiar face). By the time the TNG cast became too old OTL, the Trek franchise was in terminal decline.
TNG had a lot of problems with execution.
I like Ezri, FWIW.
My understanding is that Berman was responsible for the soft-pedalling. Frakes apparently wanted a male actor to play the part of the J'Naii Riker encountered, for instance, but that wasn't possible.
DS9 could do more, and I think so did, on account of its greater independence. I think Kira's reaction to news that Dax might be tempted by a relationship with a particular woman is telling: For Kira, and I suspect the others, the gender of Dax's partner was irrelevant.
The DS9 relaunch novels have been successful, but they have explored very different territories in the context of a much larger expanded universe.
Some improvement ideas for 'Insurrection':
Have the planet be populated across it's entire surface. This does not need to be a heavy population. It could be only in the tens of thousands. Say a random number of 8,000 scattered in villages across the planet. This would alleviate the narrative problem of there only be 800 people in one village, so why don't they just colonize the other side?
Of that population, have a thread where people have been disappearing. And it turns out that it's the bad guy aliens and Admiral Evil kidnapping them for experimentation to see what makes them tick so they can use it to cure and heal others. And the experiments are horrific and result in death. This makes the villains unlikable and adds some original sin. That alleviates the problem of the villains really having a valid point. It also introduces the moral complexity of how much the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, which the movie tried to press. It also forces Picard to act. He had previously supported the removal of the Space Indians in TNG, and now all of a sudden he's changed his character. This is so heinous Picard has to go against orders because they are wrong to everything starfleet believes. In addition, taking off from the first point, have it be that the other villages have already been transported up and interned, so the crew is trying to save the people of that one village and the surrounding villages in a mass exodus to safer ground.
Drop the "who cares" vanilla villains. Replace it with the Romulans, as Michael Piller intended before the grand mind of Rick Berman shot him down. This would again be an outgrowth of the Dominion War, where the Federation is helping new allies but at what cost? The Dominion War is just. This is not. It is familiar to the audience, even if they do not know the Dominion War. And it offers the chance to bring in a villain from the show, and a good villain is needed. Tomalak works here. It's the grand major confrontation between Tomalak and Picard.
Keep the upbeat demeanor other than that. Add milk. Instant better film. Insurrection suffers from being so unmemorable it hurts. I didn't even know it existed until around the time of Nemesis. And I fixed the thing in three ideas, so yay Norton.
Have the planet be populated across it's entire surface. This does not need to be a heavy population. It could be only in the tens of thousands. Say a random number of 8,000 scattered in villages across the planet. This would alleviate the narrative problem of there only be 800 people in one village, so why don't they just colonize the other side?
Of that population, have a thread where people have been disappearing. And it turns out that it's the bad guy aliens and Admiral Evil kidnapping them for experimentation to see what makes them tick so they can use it to cure and heal others. And the experiments are horrific and result in death. This makes the villains unlikable and adds some original sin. That alleviates the problem of the villains really having a valid point. It also introduces the moral complexity of how much the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, which the movie tried to press. It also forces Picard to act. He had previously supported the removal of the Space Indians in TNG, and now all of a sudden he's changed his character. This is so heinous Picard has to go against orders because they are wrong to everything starfleet believes. In addition, taking off from the first point, have it be that the other villages have already been transported up and interned, so the crew is trying to save the people of that one village and the surrounding villages in a mass exodus to safer ground.
Drop the "who cares" vanilla villains. Replace it with the Romulans, as Michael Piller intended before the grand mind of Rick Berman shot him down. This would again be an outgrowth of the Dominion War, where the Federation is helping new allies but at what cost? The Dominion War is just. This is not. It is familiar to the audience, even if they do not know the Dominion War. And it offers the chance to bring in a villain from the show, and a good villain is needed. Tomalak works here. It's the grand major confrontation between Tomalak and Picard.
Keep the upbeat demeanor other than that. Add milk. Instant better film. Insurrection suffers from being so unmemorable it hurts. I didn't even know it existed until around the time of Nemesis. And I fixed the thing in three ideas, so yay Norton.
Last edited:
Aha. So this not only works against a DS9 movie, it works against a TNG movie that involves the DS9 characters (except Worf) unless you do it set before the War.
I actually like the idea of a Third Man thing, you could do that as a pre-War story where the Enterprise shows up at Bajor and there's some big investigation with noir tinges, with conflict between the two crews (and poor Worf in the middle). Fans at the time would complain that they know nothing can happen to the DS9 cast because it's 'just' a flashback but in the long run, that wouldn't be a problem.
Here's the thing about DS9 and any other "well, the audience doesn't know": It's not on the audience to know. It's on the creator to know, and present it in such a way that it's accessible to the audience's understanding. Star Wars, for example, did not explain it's world. It dropped you in the middle of it, and gave you enough to understand, and made it an accessible and relateable narrative.