Re: *SPOILER* Re: Paramount Agrees To Two More Trek Movies

In article <13qkh6c85e2kif3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, "Steven L."
<sdlitvin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
> I'll say this:  Star Trek has proven to be a very tough act to follow.
> 
> None of the subsequent attempts at space shows, like Space: 1999 and 
> Babylon 5, ever achieved quite the lasting popularity that Trek did.  By

> now, FORTY YEARS worth of Trek stories have fleshed out the Star Trek 
> universe tremendously--not only more than any other science-fiction TV 
> show, but perhaps more than any other science fiction ever.
> 
> Any other writers hoping to create a new space show from scratch, have a

> huge job to create a concept with a comparably vast but significantly 
> different scope than Trek.
> 
> In science fiction, how many other believable "universes" have there 
> been, which encompass so many diverse stories, novels, etc.?  Larry 
> Niven's "Known Space," Asimov's "Foundation," Herbert's "Dune," are 
> probably the most famous.  (Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings," if you want 
> to include fantasy too.)   But such sub-genres aren't that common even 
> in written SF.  It takes a huge amount of research to flesh out a 
> believable but exotic SF universe, as opposed to just writing one story 
> or one novel.  That Roddenberry not only did it, but did it within the 
> funding and schedule constraints of an American TV series, is quite 
> remarkable.  And very rare.

There is Star Wars of course.  :-)