The setting: Why TNG and not TOS?

[PPatters]

I think it comes down to Mike McMahan being a TNG fan (and the one that proposed the series); TNG being of a certain time (so 80s/90s, like others said) that it lends itself well to animation; and the comfort and familiarity people have with that era. I’m excited about it!

 

[thribs]

No. Lower Decks is 2380, Picard 2394.

Picard is 2399

 

[The Wormhole]

In addition to the obvious and already stated reason that Mike McMahan is a TNG fan, I suspect the selection of the time period immediately after Nemesis was chosen because then they can draw from literally any of the pre-CBSAA series and first ten movies. Basically, the franchise's first forty years are their sandbox. Though I'm sure they will also draw from the CBSAA shows and the Kelvin timeline movies as well. And, though post-Nemesis, it's still close enough that not much has likely changed since Nemesis.

 

[eschaton]

There are a few factors:

1. Thanks to Picard, TNG is back in vogue. After 15 years of things being more TOS-leaning, the pendulum has swung the other way again.

2. Most of the people watching grew up with TNG, not TOS.

3. I genuinely think Alex Kurtzman wanted to stick to Post-Nemesis after all the grief they got about Discovery being a prequel (and the response to prequels in general). Because so many people wanted a Pike Series, I think Strange New Worlds is the only exception.

In addition:

4. Setting it post-Nemesis means they can have cameos from basically every surviving TNG/DS9/VOY actor if they so desire.

 

[Phoenix219]

TOS already has a animated show. If I was in charge I would set one in the lost era. Use it to connect TOS and TNG better.

We just need an animated show with Shatner before he's gone, too. I don't care what era it is. Don't know if Takei, Nichols or Koenig would be interested, but give Shatner some scenery to chew with a meaningful story and I'm sure he would do it. He just won't do something that is pointless, and he won't do it for free.

 

[fireproof78]

I genuinely feel like Shatner has given enough to Trek. It's OK for him not to be in it.

 

[Phoenix219]

The vitality and health of the man makes me sad that he was jettisoned 26 years ago, so much wasted time and potential.

 

[fireproof78]

The vitality and health of the man makes me sad that he was jettisoned 26 years ago, so much wasted time and potential.

Based upon what? He was active in several films, wrote books and attended conventions.

At some point in time it is OK for him to retire. What potential was lost that demanded a need for him to return?

 

[Jayson1]

We just need an animated show with Shatner before he's gone, too. I don't care what era it is. Don't know if Takei, Nichols or Koenig would be interested, but give Shatner some scenery to chew with a meaningful story and I'm sure he would do it. He just won't do something that is pointless, and he won't do it for free.

Of course if they get him their cartoon artist better be good a drawing horses because that is the only way he will sign on.


Jason

 

[Vger23]

It really depends on the prequel. ENT and the SW Prequel Trilogy left me with a bad first impression. Caprica began to make me change my mind. Then Better Call Saul blew me away as the best prequel ever made.

I don't count Discovery because I think its core premise is the least dependent on it being a prequel and I think it will ultimately spend more seasons in The Future when all is said and done.

Yup. I know exactly what you're talking about. I can laugh at the time too, even though I have one foot in the '80s (childhood) and another in the '90s (adolescence). And that brings me to the other part of what I said. TNG is back in vogue and the fact is that nostalgia today is based on the '80s with the '90s starting to break in. It's not really based on the '60s and '70s anymore.

These days, I'm actually nostalgic for 2019 too... but that's a whole other story. Thanks Covid.

That's right.

I think The Orville might've helped them to think, "Why not give it a try?" But I think they can have a comedy and have both shows be totally different. Parks and Recreation () and Two and a Half Men () are both comedies, but they're not at all alike.

I think The Orville is successful and accepted as a comedy because it's a loving homage to Trek, but it's not actually a part of the franchise or canon.

If it were, I think people would feel and react very differently to it on the whole. It's a subconscious/below the surface thing...but I virtually guarantee it's true. I think of you took those exact same scripts and characters and put them in a show titled "Star Trek Orville" it would have caught more hell from fans than Star Trek: Enterprise's theme song and the fact that the JJ Enterprise was built on the ground in Iowa combined.

 

[BillJ]

What potential was lost that demanded a need for him to return?

Why did we need Nimoy or Stewart to return? I think animation would be a nice medium for Shatner to play Kirk one more time, or Emperor Tiberius, or a Kirk descendant.

 

[fireproof78]

Why did we need Nimoy or Stewart to retu

We didn't. But the post I was replying to asserted that potential was lost due to Shatner not returning. I was curious as to what was lost.

 

[BillJ]

I was curious as to what was lost.

Probably a few more entertaining performances by Shatner in the Trek universe.

 

[fireproof78]

Probably a few more entertaining performances by Shatner in the Trek universe.

I disagree and will leave it at that. I don't see need or lost potential I guess.

 

[BillJ]

I disagree and will leave it at that. I don't see need or lost potential I guess.

I enjoyed his work on Trek. Though, it was probably best to not ruin his legacy the way they did with Picard.

 

[fireproof78]

I enjoyed his work on Trek. Though, it was probably best to not ruin his legacy the way they did with Picard.

Too late from my view. Though, perhaps if you think Picard was ruined Kirk should have a chance too.

 

[eschaton]

The vitality and health of the man makes me sad that he was jettisoned 26 years ago, so much wasted time and potential.

Dude, what? Seriously?

There's two things to disentangle here: Shatner as an actor, and Kirk as a character.

Speaking of Shatner, it's not like he's been inactive since we last saw him in Trek. He had several prominent post-Kirk roles, most notably on Boston Legal during the 2000s. He's still hale and healthy at 89 and seems to be enjoying life.

On the other hand everything possible had been done with Kirk, at least as Shatner. Honestly, they should have ended his story with TUC, because the end of that movie was the perfect sendoff for the whole TOS cast. But Shatner couldn't stay away from the camera, so he came back again in Generations - and was killed, meaning the final act in his drama is done.

Sure, with animation you could go back and have Shatner fill in another piece in Kirk's backstory. The question needs to be asked though - why? What would bringing back Shatner as Kirk allow you to do, other than maybe a jokey cameo where you could say "OMG, it's Shat!"

 

[Phoenix219]

The big missed opportunity was not going for a bigger scope with the post TUC movies - shuffling the TOS crew off to make giant sized TNG episodes completely missed the mark, IMO, when they could have had a cinematic universe of sorts, being able to mix and match any character combos for the movies they wanted, considering Spock, McCoy and Scotty were already in the 24th century. They could have expanded the scope of their movies. Having everyone on an equal playing field would have made for great character moments, interactions and even disputes. Not having Kirk out of the Nexus and taking the Bridge of the D for even one scene was a missed opportunity, IMO. Separating combos of characters into side missions and subplots together could have given everyone a chance to shine in some unique ways.

 

[Vger23]

The big missed opportunity was not going for a bigger scope with the post TUC movies - shuffling the TOS crew off to make giant sized TNG episodes completely missed the mark, IMO, when they could have had a cinematic universe of sorts, being able to mix and match any character combos for the movies they wanted, considering Spock, McCoy and Scotty were already in the 24th century. They could have expanded the scope of their movies. Having everyone on an equal playing field would have made for great character moments, interactions and even disputes. Not having Kirk out of the Nexus and taking the Bridge of the D for even one scene was a missed opportunity, IMO. Separating combos of characters into side missions and subplots together could have given everyone a chance to shine in some unique ways.

The TNG movies were never going to truly work, regardless of scope or what they were going to do with Shatner for several painfully clear reasons:

1. Studio over-involvenet, particularly in their tunnel-vision mission to somehow recapture the success of TWOK and/or TVH

2. The fact that they kept their TV writers, directors and producers involved, thereby getting...well...giant budget TV episodes and not movies (surprise, surprise)

3. The idea that, frankly, the franchise already blew its wad on epic episodes years before that were already better than the movies they were producing:
-GEN was inferior to "Yesterday's Enterprise," which could have subbed for that story as a TOS crossover.
-FC was never going to be a more epic and satisfying story than "Best of Both Worlds"
-NEM was a much less well-crafted "send off" than "All Good Things...'
-And INS flat out sucked and had no reason to even exist.

 

[fireproof78]

The TOS cast gave all and then some. No need for more.