The point is that neither relationship was allowed to progress very far for the same real world reasons, and both had the occasional audience teasing story or alternative reality/future trip. So to me they are similar in broad narrative terms.

Which one is a "better" portrayal is a matter of subjective opinion. Patrick Stewart is a finer actor than RDA, though I would say Amanda Tapping is a better actress than Gates McFadden. I've always thought Gates was particularly wooden in Encounter at Farpoint, but got better after her return in season 3 (though actually almost everything about STTNG got better with season 3). I suspect Amanda cringes whenever her line about having genitals on the inside from Children of the Gods is mentioned.

I'm not trying to belittle either show or start an SG-1 vs STTNG debate here! I like both shows.

To illustrate the risks: Babylon 5 was brave enough to have the two lead characters marry, but Delenn became a much less interesting character as a result.

I suppose I forgot those references. even so i'm quite sure we didn't see them onscreen.

on a random note- I'm sure I heard that gates McFadden pressed hard for romance between picard & Beverley. I think she was disappointed when it failed to happen.

I think this is correct

Well, exploiting cliches was always one of Stargate's stronger points.

HERES some pretty cool stuff which could depict a futuristic earth. none of it neccesarily has to contravene a green earth either. a happen medium can be achieved. certainly beats the constant star fleet academy stock footage.

http://futuretimeline.net/blog/2016/...m#.Vs9Ca2xi_IU

Rubbish. Everyone knows future Earth will look like this.

a trek fan from east London??

now I've seen it all.

According to Variety

Nick Meyer has signed on to the writing team.

well he directed the best trek film (TWOK) so I guess that's good news

Well, which film is "the best" is debatable and a matter of opinion only. If you were to take "popularity" as any sort of indicator of quality I dare say The Voyage Home would "win".

He has also contributed much more to Star Trek than that. Although uncredited, he contributed to The Wrath of Khan screenplay (based on the story by Harve Bennett and Jack B Sowards) and has writer credit for The Voyage Home and screenplay credit for The Undiscovered Country, as well as directing the latter.

His signing up bodes well as far as I'm concerned.

My main concern about the new series is that they intend to set it up with all "new locations" and "new aliens" and keep away from the old species.

It's also been reported that Eugene "Rod" Roddenberry, son of Gene Roddenberry, has also been added as executive producer of the upcoming Star Trek series.

Aww that's nice

Majel Roddenberry used to work on the previous spin-offs.

This will be the first series without her providing a computer voice.

Surely between TNG, Voyager and the bits here and there on DS9 she must have recorded enough computer responses to fit any situation, ok maybe not crew names, but surely they could work round that?

I know its a matter of opinion but I think most trek fans (myself included) view TWOK as the best.

btw: I don't get whats wrong with the bolded part. i'm sure they'll be the regular set of humans, Klingons, Vulcans, romulans, cardassians etc but on the whole I think new races is the way to go.

Ahh yes, it will be. What a shame.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B6udp1LX_Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf47sGd6VUM

Much will depend on the actual execution of it, but anything which loosens too much the continuity to the earlier series and films seems like a risk to me (as a dyed-in-the-wool fan since watching the original series as a child).

The new series will have to set its own course, much as TNG did when it first started, but hopefully this will have nods back to the earlier stuff and the occasional storyline that builds on them directly (like The Wrath of Khan was a sequel to Space Seed) and occasional character appearances from older series (like McCoy's cameo in Encounter at Farpoint and the later appearances of Spock, Sarek and Scotty).

I really hope it will be set in the prime Universe sometime after the TNG/DS9/Voy era.

I've enjoyed the JJ'verse outings as pure, fun entertainment, and appreciated the attempts to respect continuity, but they're too "pop corn" and shallow for me to think they're "proper" Star Trek. They are a diversion into an entertaining parallel universe but nothing more. They're a dead end side road off the main continuity.

I want to see what happens to the Federation next and I'm not sure whether the new series will deliver that.

So far the JJverse style has been written for the big screen, with an added mandate to be modern and edgy, hence the fast paced blockbuster style. Whichever universe the new series is set, JJverse or otherwise, I imagine it will be written as a TV show rather as a movie blockbuster. That should result in a more traditional feel, and allow for some depth. The style will be dictated by the medium rather than by whichever universe the series is set in.

I wouldn't say the two outings so far are particularly edgy. Fast pace, modern, action packed, certainly. But edgy? I don't think so.

Edgy as is in trying to be at the cutting edge of fast paced modern action blockbusters. Shaking things up and dusting off the the old Trek cobwebs.

Could todays audience sit through a series like TNG,DS9 or Voyager? The only thing really to compare that with in modern times is Stargate Universe, which didn't go down well.
People today want action for 42 odd minutes, not a bunch of people sat around a table discussing how they will solve the problem.

I'm a huge Star Trek fan & have been for 20 years. I have 9 episodes of DS9 left & then onto Voyager. I'm just not so sure todays audience would sit through it. Most have a very short attention span.

I think I've said this before, but with regard to the setting, I'd actually prefer to see them reboot the show for a third time, set some strong continuity, some solid groundwork, and have absolutely nothing to do with time travel. We know the multiverse concept applies to Trek, so just create a universe, and let it fly, whilst focusing on some key points; Romulans can't be trusted, Klingons are generally hostile, Tholians are extremely xenomorphic etc

I guess it depends when they intend to set it (era). I wouldn't mind a show that practically starts shortly after the foundation of the Federation; the recovery from the Earth-Romulus war (if there was one in this new universe), their cold war (of sorts) with the Klingons etc

I think they need to keep the classic aliens in, specifically Klingons and Romulans, and they could probably do well to restrict the Federation members too. Would it be too much to ask for just a Human, Vulcan, Andorian & Tellarite crew? Whilst it isn't likely to happen either (just because) I wouldn't mind seeing other factions that are similar to the Federation, but different, in the sense that a coalition of other species have come together as a unified force for some reason. With the exception of the Borg, we've only ever heard of the Federation, and a one off comment about the Nibrite Alliance? Surely there are other unified powers out there?

It's needs to be a show about the people and society of today.

It's what Roddenberry said his show was always about.


Voyager had more of a Swiss Family Robinson vibe coming from it, a "Lost in Space" sequel almost. But it worked all right I suppose.

The Next Generation was the closest to the original series, and went beyond it in creating a family in the main cast.

DS9, again people and societies.


I cannot imagine that this new show is going to be amazingly good, but I suppose it could be ok.

You're understanding of the term "edgy" is obviously different from mine.

If you define edgy as something like: "Having a bold, provocative or unconventional style", then they're not edgy.

I'd agree that they shook things up a little, relative to previous Star Treks, but they're a long way from that (definition of edgy) relative to other action/fantasy movies