[Saquist]

Originally Posted by kevin

It's not a question of don't like - but I certainly have little particular interest in the period in relation to Star Trek personally.

(Apart from the fact I'm also bored to tears by generic future war/Apocalypse stories (Terminator Salvation etc) that have little originality and by-the-book depictions nowadays and I don't think anyone in Star Trek could do a significantly different or inventive take on the period anyway.)

WWII has no necessary relation to Star Trek itself either, but it has relevence for the audience. As does the 20th Century and events and struggles within it that the shows used to engage them.

Why else are so many 23/24th Century characters in Trek so absolutely fascinated by the 20th Century?

It's relatable to the audience.

The 1960s and later themes that TOS/TNG covered were veiled allegories/commentaries on contemporary issues on a variety of subjects. But like BSG were a reflection on the present in a sci-fi setting.

WWIII doesn't really have any of that at this point, IMO.

Interesting.

[horatio]

The Eugenics Wars and the Third World War haven't been portrayed directly in Trek, this would be pretty dark and gritty. But the indirect use of them as a background for characters like Khan, Cochrane or General Green (who again has had an impact upon Kodos and Paxton) has lead to quite interesting stories IMO which often followed the pattern from Encounter at Farpoint: this is our ugly past but we have evolved yet sometimes the demons from our past reappear.
I like such stories (another example would be TNG's Drumhead) which point put how thin the layer of civilization is, how quick decades or centuries of progress can be undone.

[Saquist]

I concur on all points.

I find the future war story interesting.
Matrix was an example of future war we had not considered.
Trek offers a unique look at our future with nuclear war that doesn't turn into Mad Max, Terminator, or the Post Man that are engrossed with the struggle and not resolving it.

Trek gives us the perception of rising from the ashes.
I've always been fascinated with the phoenix analogy.

[OneBuckFilms]

I agree with Saquist here.

In a way, the "rising from the ashes" theme could be applied to Kirk (specifically) or the crew of the Enterprise (generally) in Trek XI.

Not even a change in history prevented them from coming together.

YMMV of course.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by Saquist

I concur on all points.

I find the future war story interesting.
Matrix was an example of future war we had not considered.
Trek offers a unique look at our future with nuclear war that doesn't turn into Mad Max, Terminator, or the Post Man that are engrossed with the struggle and not resolving it.

Trek gives us the perception of rising from the ashes.
I've always been fascinated with the phoenix analogy.

Indeed and it's pity that ENT didn't focus more on this period between the first warp flight and the first deep space mission in which humankind changed (don't immediately launch the ship but tell stories on Earth). That might have been more interesting than TNG 3.0. Quite some lost opportunities.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by horatio

The Eugenics Wars and the Third World War haven't been portrayed directly in Trek, this would be pretty dark and gritty. But the indirect use of them as a background for characters like Khan, Cochrane or General Green (who again has had an impact upon Kodos and Paxton) has lead to quite interesting stories IMO which often followed the pattern from Encounter at Farpoint: this is our ugly past but we have evolved yet sometimes the demons from our past reappear. I like such stories (another example would be TNG's Drumhead) which point put how thin the layer of civilization is, how quick decades or centuries of progress can be undone.

That's true, and that's what I've been saying really.

The Wars are merely the backdrop to the future depicted in TOS and then the later series.

All I'm really saying is that at this point in time, for myself, I don't particularly need to see it. Because a war is a war, at the end of the day.

Mileage varies, obviously.

[horatio]

I kinda like contrasts. The Romulan War might be great story which fits into this pattern, first there is an ugly war but, to use Saq' analogy, on the ashes of this war the Phoenix called Federation rises.

Just think about the Dominion War in DS9, it also explored how far some people are willing to go to end it or how it changed people. You need to show hell to make the paradise of the Federation clearly visible.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by horatio

I kinda like contrasts. The Romulan War might be great story which fits into this pattern, first there is an ugly war but, to use Saq' analogy, on the ashes of this war the Phoenix called Federation rises.

Just think about the Dominion War in DS9, it also explored how far some people are willing to go to end it or how it changed people. You need to show hell to make the paradise of the Federation clearly visible.

Yep, but it's a chronological issue as well.

I just am usually of the opinion that a lot of the time imagining the details of these events is usually superior to knowing (it certainly worked that way with the Klingon Ridge explanation) and getting the ins and outs.

The roots of the Romulan War are mostly unknown (much like the Tomed Incident) and I think you really have to be careful about showing this stuff without it lapsing into retreads of Wars we've seen before.

Plus, with the Dominion you could argue we've already been through conflict from start to finish.

Could going back and going through the Romulan Wars really add anything significantly new that would satisfy people?

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by OneBuckFilms

I agree with Saquist here.

In a way, the "rising from the ashes" theme could be applied to Kirk (specifically) or the crew of the Enterprise (generally) in Trek XI.

Not even a change in history prevented them from coming together.

YMMV of course.

I'm going to try not to get used to agreeing withyou but yest.
I think like wise of of Star Trek.

Originally Posted by horatio

Indeed and it's pity that ENT didn't focus more on this period between the first warp flight and the first deep space mission in which humankind changed (don't immediately launch the ship but tell stories on Earth). That might have been more interesting than TNG 3.0. Quite some lost opportunities.

TNG 3.0....interesting.
I suppose so.
I would have gone with not launching the ship immediately and getting into the people as well. There was such potential for the show.

Could you imagine the themes they could have taken advantage of. Hope, Dreams, Future, Unity.....

[horatio]

Originally Posted by kevin

Yep, but it's a chronological issue as well.

I just am usually of the opinion that a lot of the time imagining the details of these events is usually superior to knowing (it certainly worked that way with the Klingon Ridge explanation) and getting the ins and outs.

The roots of the Romulan War are mostly unknown (much like the Tomed Incident) and I think you really have to be careful about showing this stuff without it lapsing into retreads of Wars we've seen before.

Plus, with the Dominion you could argue we've already been through conflict from start to finish.

Could going back and going through the Romulan Wars really add anything significantly new that would satisfy people?

That's indeed the problems with such stories. The script idea for a Romulan War movie sounded pretty gritty for Trek so it's probably something which might have worked only as a TV story arc and there you would have had quite some similarities to the Dominion War.
Well, now we are back in the 23rd century and I bet my money that the next Trek series will also be set there..