posted
Well, TNG came before continuity was invented.
The fan audience of today is more demanding in this respect. Series VI (*) can't start off with the sort of abandon TNG did, with nary an idea of even the length of time between it and the previous show. In "Farpoint", fans could just barely accept a 137-yr-old McCoy paired with an android who graduated in '78, since there were so many conflicting timelines about TOS and the movies and nobody could completely nail down the dates. Doing something like that today would only invite our undivided wrath...
Timo Saloniemi
(*) Remember the Alamo! I mean M'Ress! I mean... Well, you know what I mean.
posted
What I meant is that there have been certain elements introduced into the Star Trek universe that would need to be explained. The Borg are huge and powerful and seem to be ever expanding. 150 years from now they should be more prevalent, not less. If known space has widened, one would think that encounters with them would be more frequent, not less.
I mean, they're everywhere. If they're suddenly going to just not be an issue anymore, we need to know what happened to them. Same goes for the Dominion too, probably.
This is just my opinion. I'm convinced though, that the whole "This series won't have Star Trek in the title" thing is going to be an excuse for the PTB to throw out the last two hundred years of precedent and "do Trek the way we want to do it."
------------------ "The sons of the Prophet were valiant and bold, And quite unacustomed to fear. But, of all, the most reckless, or so I am told, Was Abdulah Boul Boul Ameer." Aban's Illustration www.alanfore.com
posted
Mabye Q-junior provokes the Borg so much that the Q-Continuum decides to snap their collective fingers and eliminate them ... ?
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001 *** I wouln't say that anyone who has ceased to post every time you rant has "realized that they couldn't win" Omega. It's more like "oh, great he comes Mr. conservative frontal lobotomy boy who only hits one note over and over and over and over..." -Jay, July 15, 2000
posted
At this point, that'd be fine with me. Hell, if the Delta Flyer can hold its own against a cube, the Borg deserve to be put out of they're misery.
They's just better say it on screen :0)
------------------ "The sons of the Prophet were valiant and bold, And quite unacustomed to fear. But, of all, the most reckless, or so I am told, Was Abdulah Boul Boul Ameer." Aban's Illustration www.alanfore.com
posted
'I'm convinced though, that the whole "This series won't have Star Trek in the title" thing is going to be an excuse for the PTB to throw out the last two hundred years of precedent and "do Trek the way we want to do it."'
So, what have they been doing since about season 3 of TNG?
------------------ You know, when Comedy Central asked us to do a Thanksgiving episode, the first thought that went through my mind was, "Boy, I'd like to have sex with Jennifer Aniston." -Trey Parker, co-creator of South Park
posted
Yes, I understand they have been steadily pulling away from Roddenbury Trek since mid TNG. I'm talking about putting it far enough in the future that they don't have to even worry about anything that's happened before and can completely forget it. The technology, structure, and fan base will be there, but I don't think anything else will relate.
------------------ "The sons of the Prophet were valiant and bold, And quite unacustomed to fear. But, of all, the most reckless, or so I am told, Was Abdulah Boul Boul Ameer." Aban's Illustration www.alanfore.com
posted
I still think a future series would be best, since it would allow them to do "previous era" (note the avoidance of the words time travel) episodes.
By the way - we wouldn't have to have TT episodes often - in fact we couldn't. No character could go back more than 2 or 3 times - due to Temporal Psychosis. So we'd either we new blood doing the trips (GREAT! - no guarantee that the mission will be a success or that the character will survive!) - or said trips would be very few and far between.
Even cooler would be "previous era" tie-in episodes WITHOUT time travel.
------------------ Faster than light - no left or right.
quote:Another problem with this new info is the "Fanboyishness" of it...
No kidding. Saying something such as "just wait until you see what the designers came up with [for the new ship]!" would imply that this person actually saw the ship. Well instead of sounding like a bad commercial, why didn't he or she just describe the design? Or say who the new enemy was? That's the whole point of a spoiler, to give you the news ahead of time so that any surprise you might be in store for is utterly ruined.
------------------ Lisa: "Don't you remember the story of Oedipus?" Homer: "Maybe five dollars will refresh my memory." Lisa (angrily): "Oedipus was the story of a man who kills his father and marries his mother!" Homer: "Uggh! Who pays for that wedding?"
posted
"By the way - we wouldn't have to have TT episodes often - in fact we couldn't. No character could go back more than 2 or 3 times - due to Temporal Psychosis. "
Okay, I'm guessing this is Voyager stuff (with Captain Ran-thingy).
Was that a character specific thing? Because I seem to remember the original Trek crew travelling through time on several occasions. And they all turned out pretty well. Apart from Chekov.
Hell, using modern Trek, O'Brien travelled through time at least 5 "times" in Visionary. And he didn't go bananas.
------------------ You know, when Comedy Central asked us to do a Thanksgiving episode, the first thought that went through my mind was, "Boy, I'd like to have sex with Jennifer Aniston." -Trey Parker, co-creator of South Park
posted
Liam: are you smoking CRACK? O'Brien DIED!!!
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001 *** I wouln't say that anyone who has ceased to post every time you rant has "realized that they couldn't win" Omega. It's more like "oh, great he comes Mr. conservative frontal lobotomy boy who only hits one note over and over and over and over..." -Jay, July 15, 2000
posted
Maybe succeptibility to temporal psychosis depends upon the person, how many times they travel, how far, how quick the intervals between trips are, &c....
------------------ "Although, from what I understand, having travelled around the Mid-west quite a bit, apparently Jesus is coming, so I guess the choice now is we should decide whether we should spit or swallow." -Maynard James Keenan
posted
Or possibly the syndrome was only discovered post 26th century - and some people in the 23rd/24th century got lucky (although it does explain away some bad writing...)
------------------ Faster than light - no left or right.
posted
Some? How many people have we seen in Trek that have time travelled, and not gotten temporal psychosis. And how many have we seen who have? Eh?
Regarding O'Brien: Sure, "our" O'Brien died. But hadn't the O'Brien who replaced him also travelled in time? Or was our O'Brien the only one time-jumping?
------------------ You know, when Comedy Central asked us to do a Thanksgiving episode, the first thought that went through my mind was, "Boy, I'd like to have sex with Jennifer Aniston." -Trey Parker, co-creator of South Park
[This message has been edited by PsyLiam (edited April 17, 2001).]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
