Jendresen: Star Trek Needs Epic Adventure

I so much agree. However I think Jendresen's philosphy is interesting, but I'd really like a series set again one century after VOY's end, like they did between TOS and TNG. Let us discover how things evolved at DS9's end. Let us see the Federation try to unite the galaxy with the slipstream drive. Have the Borg vanquished sometime in the past. Bring on the real sci-fi...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Mappin

It's a pretty basic premise, but my opinion (and that's all it is), is that Trek needs to continue moving forward and growing, not revisiting its fictional past. Somewhere between ENT and TOS? I just can't get moved by this.

That's what was so good about TNG and DS9...they grew the franchise into its "logcial" future. (TNG moreso than DS9. VOY had a slew of problems but its premise was strong.)

What's with the fascination of looking to Trek's past to propel the franchise forward?

---

A-ha! Here we differ a bit! :p

I don't mind looking at Trek's past, so long it is based on a significant historical event. The fourth season of Enterprise should have been main premise of the entire series run from the beginning, leading toward the Earth-Romulan War and the formation of the Federation. But what do we get from the beginning? The "Temporal Cold War" arc.

What... The... F!!!!!!!!!!

Of the first three seasons of Enterprise, I can only count a handful of good (though some not so great) episode, and all of them involve pre-Federation Andorians.

Sighs. Maybe I'm too set in my ways. It is much harder to impress me with good Trek stories, although Manny Coto have been keeping me entertain in this -- alas -- last season.

Oh, and I have no kind word for B&B.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D.S.McBride

If Ron Moore is to be believed, Rick Berman and Branon Bragga are - in terms of storytelling values, at the very least - moral cowards. The situation in the "regular" Trek universe has become normalized and there're no more threats to face? Well, okay...faced with the choice of inventing new sources of conflict that follow along with the format already developed, or delving back into a past that's already been written - and where we know how it's going to turn out, pretty much - it looks like we're going to choose the latter. It's easier, safer, and it doesn't present us with the terrifying prospect of setting our boots out on to a path that hasn't been walked before.

---

* raises hand *

I believe Ron D. Moore, 110%. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by REG

That's what we all say about Gladiator scribe John Logan, when he was initially brought onboard for NEMESIS.

---

To use a phrase I haven't dusted off for a while, "Get out of my head!"

Word for word what my first thought was...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Don Mappin
Good stuff and convincingly argued, sir.

---

Thank you for the kind words. For what it's worth, the subject is something I've spent more than a few minutes thinking about - I wanted to know exactly why ENT's format and premise had caused such an instinctual - and overwhelmingly - negative reaction with me. The result, I think, has strengthened my own storytellling skills, and has steered me away from some easy-to-implement fixes for story roadblocks.

As a final note, I draw a very strong line of distinction between a format like ENT's, which is essentially a retelling of historical settings and events where the cast may as well be proxys, and a story like Greg Maguire's Wicked (and if you haven't read it, get that sucker just as fast as you can and dig in), where the core of the story is the building of a character. The former is a mechanical exercise, especially in episodic drama, because the very nature of the form forbids major character arcs and definitive endings. The latter, even if we know how it turns out, can be endlessly rivetting, because we're meeting a person and watching them grow - and that, endings notwithstanding, can be just about the most fascinating (and entertaining) thing in the world.

I think the key phrase here was :

Quote:

---

Everybody just needs to just take a Romulan chill pill and have some faith

---

My first thought was: the guy's telling us "we'll give you something that *you* want and it'll be the Romulan War". Could that be it ?

I agree with most of what DS McBride said (and that's not because he's Canadian!) but I'll play devil's advocate here on two points: 1- I'm not so sure another series set in the TNG era would have been a good idea. Berman said that he was sick of that time period. I can understand where he comes from. I mean we've had 7 years each of TNG, DS9 and VOY. 2- By going in the past, yes we do know what the future looks like and so that reduces the dramatic tension BUT going back at the roots of the mythology (IF well done, as it was in ENT's 4th season) can be interesting. But more importantly, if you can do it in a way to highlight the contrast between that time period and the cushy, all-powerful Federation of the TNG-era, then it can be good. I think in that category ENT has been hit-or-miss. They should have also focused on all the sacrifices that had to be made so that Kirk and co could have a Federation.

That being said, overall if it wouldn't have been for going back in the past with ENT they should have maybe done something that was 50-100 years past the TNG era.

If my vague hypothesis about a Romulan War movie is correct, that could be cool but I REALLY question the wisdom of going back in time again, especially since ST movies have to be geared towards a larger non ST-fan audience.