What if each of the seven seasons had taken place across a ten year period?
I’m approaching this purely from a story standpoint - I’m pretty sure it’d be difficult to pitch something like this to a network, or even to keep it on the air, given that it’d be much closer to an anthology show than what we’ve traditionally seen of Trek.
In any case, though, what I’m picturing is sort of akin to DS9’s Children of Time, or Enterprise’s E2, but on a much longer timeframe.
Each series would have a ten year scope, and then within that time frame, the writers are allowed to position their episodes how they want; the first few episodes might take place within their first couple of months in the Delta Quadrant, but maybe there would be a six month gap between the third and fourth episode. Perhaps you’d have a mini arc as they travel through Vidiian space, where all the episodes are reasonably joined together, before moving swiftly on the next time. Each episode would need to have a stardate title card; “63 years until returning to Earth”, or some such similar.
I'm not saying I'd go with this idea. But its interesting and creative and imaginative. Everything Voyager was not.
Look, they basically took a Federation ship and put it on a big trek to get home. OK. I've heard some Trekkies argue that the problem was that Voyager was heading the wrong way. But I disagree. That wasn't the problem.
There was nothing new in Voyager. It was the old challenges, the same old conundrums...Prime Directives, time paradoxes and yaaaawn The Borg.....They even had a barbarian race of warriors. At what about the Maquis. Have the point was to have two halves of the crew in conflict. That dissipated after the first season. Everything we had seen in TNG and DS9 we were seeing again in Voyager. The show had not one memorable character and barely a moment.
I think I first saw Sarah Silverman in Voyager. Or was she on Seinfeld first.
And there's the problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment