The Overlord wrote:
I think you can darker situations and still have a likable cast of main characters. There some things from past Star Trek shows that should be left in the past:
1. The no mourning rule: Death has to mean something in fiction, as it does in real life. Having people not mourn, makes them robot not people. Death has to be something with a real impact, not something that is dismissed right away.
2. No inter personal conflict: People are always going to have different ideas to deal with a problem, having everyone agree all the time makes it seem like Star Fleet promotes group think.
3. No more pat solutions to moral dilemmas. A moral dilemma has to be a tough choice, making the best choice in a situation. Dressing up a black and white situation as a moral dilemma is not going to work anymore.
I don't disagree with your statement that these 3 things are bad. I just don't see how they apply to past star trek shows?
1. There has never been a "no mourning rule". Death and mourning is often tackled in Star Trek, and often well. I honestly don't know where you got this from.
2. It may be trendy and cool on the internet to talk about how there was no inter personal conflict in Star Trek (especially TNG), but it's not true. There has ALWAYS been conflict between the characters in EVERY Star Trek series. Listening to too many Ron Moore Battlestar Galactica podcasts has somehow magically cemented this as a fact in the minds of people who actually watched the shows and should know better.
3. There are plenty of examples of Star Trek writers taking the easy way out or setting up an obviously one-sided dilemma, but there are also just as many examples of great moral dilemma's played out and payed off throughout the Star Trek canon. Some stories work, some don't. This isn't some chronic problem with Star Trek, it's just the reality of doing a billion episodes heheheh.