RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,546
Posts: 5,421,948
Members: 24,804
Currently online: 409
Newest member: comicstar100

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Tears of the Prophets
By: Michelle on Sep 12

New Wizkids Attack Wing Ships
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12

Coto Drama Sold To Fox
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12

Braga Inks Deal
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12

Remastered Original Series Re-release
By: T'Bonz on Sep 11

UK Trek Ships Calendar Debuts
By: T'Bonz on Sep 10

Quinto In The Slap
By: T'Bonz on Sep 9

Burton On Shatner’s Brown Bag Wine Tasting
By: T'Bonz on Sep 9

New Trek Trading Card Series
By: T'Bonz on Sep 8

New Red Shirt Diaries Episode
By: T'Bonz on Sep 8


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Future of Trek

Future of Trek Discussion of future Trek projects.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 20 2012, 08:11 PM   #61
Temis the Vorta
Fleet Admiral
 
Temis the Vorta's Avatar
 
Location: Tatoinne
Re: Star Trek, what I think it should be.....

How did Firefly do on the Science Channel?
I'm sure the Science Channel paid much less for the rights to air it than they would have had to pay to develop it, so they could get minimal ratings and still do okay. That doesn't really help out with new show development.

It would be great if they could follow the History Channel's lead and start funding scripted show development, but my instinct is that History has a broader reach and more money for new series development. (On Comcast here in SF, History is on the basic-plus tier and Science is one tier up, which limits their reach and their share of cable subscription revenues.)

As for the military angle - Star Trek has established its philosophy of being "kind of military but not really." That's their unique identity, so trying to shoehorn Star Trek into some current real-world military tradition is missing the point. This is a future speculative military of a type that's never existed and probably never will, just as it's doubtful humanity will ever "evolve" beyond religious or even national identities, and I also have my doubts about the death of capitalism, ever.

Star Trek
presents us with these unlikely scenarios and then asks us to suspend disbelief and just go with it, because that's what sci fi does.
Temis the Vorta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 20 2012, 09:32 PM   #62
Sindatur
Vice Admiral
 
Sindatur's Avatar
 
Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: Star Trek, what I think it should be.....

Temis the Vorta wrote: View Post
How did Firefly do on the Science Channel?
I'm sure the Science Channel paid much less for the rights to air it than they would have had to pay to develop it, so they could get minimal ratings and still do okay. That doesn't really help out with new show development.

It would be great if they could follow the History Channel's lead and start funding scripted show development, but my instinct is that History has a broader reach and more money for new series development. (On Comcast here in SF, History is on the basic-plus tier and Science is one tier up, which limits their reach and their share of cable subscription revenues.)

As for the military angle - Star Trek has established its philosophy of being "kind of military but not really." That's their unique identity, so trying to shoehorn Star Trek into some current real-world military tradition is missing the point. This is a future speculative military of a type that's never existed and probably never will, just as it's doubtful humanity will ever "evolve" beyond religious or even national identities, and I also have my doubts about the death of capitalism, ever.

Star Trek presents us with these unlikely scenarios and then asks us to suspend disbelief and just go with it, because that's what sci fi does.
Here in Sacramento, I'm most likely running on the same Comcast as you.

Oh, yea, naturally syndicated reruns (especially for a 13 episode Series) would be much cheaper than funding a new Scripted Space opera, but, if SCI was to only have to come up with partial funding, and maybe Canadian Channel SPACE and whoever else all climbed in bed together to finance it...it might be possible. And of course, there's that Jordanian King
__________________
One Day I hope to be the Man my Cat thinks I am

Where are we going? And why are we in this Handbasket?
Sindatur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 21 2012, 07:48 PM   #63
Gaius
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Star Trek, what I think it should be.....

Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
What does that have to do with whether Starfleet should act like their the military or not? I seem to recall the Military usually doing exploration stuff back when there was exploration stuff to do.
Why would they act like "their" the military if they do not define themselves as such?

And then DS9 injected so much needed realism into that, turning the TNG federation from space hippy love fest to real government.
Since when was ST a 'space hippy love fest'?
__________________
Sit vis vobiscum.
Gaius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21 2012, 09:35 PM   #64
The Castellan
Commodore
 
The Castellan's Avatar
 
Location: The Plains of Cydonia
Send a message via Yahoo to The Castellan
Re: Star Trek, what I think it should be.....

Gaius wrote: View Post
Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
What does that have to do with whether Starfleet should act like their the military or not? I seem to recall the Military usually doing exploration stuff back when there was exploration stuff to do.
Why would they act like "their" the military if they do not define themselves as such?

And then DS9 injected so much needed realism into that, turning the TNG federation from space hippy love fest to real government.
Since when was ST a 'space hippy love fest'?
And since what made DS9 'more realistic'.
And when military starts doing exploration, I know that all real learning, exploring and pretty much freedoms's done if the military does all that, since what's the point if no one else gets to do it, and over the past 20 years, I've grown to trust and respect the military as much as I do in the government, and I quit voting 8 years ago.
__________________
The meaning of the apocalypse is the opposite of what most people think. It does not mean the end of the world; it means the revealing of hidden secrets and the beginning of a heaven on earth. The apocalypse is starting now.
The Castellan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 23 2012, 09:23 PM   #65
Temis the Vorta
Fleet Admiral
 
Temis the Vorta's Avatar
 
Location: Tatoinne
Re: Star Trek, what I think it should be.....

TNG presented a more simplistic moral universe than DS9. The usual thing was for Picard & crew to fly to some planet, get in the middle of some conflict caused by the Obviously Wrong Aliens, give a lecture to the Obviously Wrong Aliens, and fly away, as though they had accomplished something.

DS9 was forced to stay in the midst of the conflict over an extended period of time. There was never an option to just spout some lecture about how the Federation is superior and then leave. This led to more honest exploration of the difficulty of maintaining any kind of moral stance in politics and war. Star Trek has always had a heavy dollop of cultural imperialism (we're right, the aliens are wrong) but DS9 at least made things tougher on the characters and didn't always allow them to be Obviously Right.

And Star Trek has always presented the military as doing space exploration. It's a weird fit, but it's one of the fundamental things that make Star Trek what is it.
Temis the Vorta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 24 2012, 03:28 AM   #66
Sjaddix
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Star Trek, what I think it should be.....

Well in Star Trek. Private Industry got crushed so the Government has to handle it because the corporations don't have the budget. Besides its not like military did not use to do exploration in the past. Usually when they were conquering or fighting wars but they did to surveying and such.
Sjaddix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 24 2012, 03:37 AM   #67
Sjaddix
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Star Trek, what I think it should be.....

  1. Get rid of the hokiness!: Agreed, Serious nothing wrong with a little humor but real drama.
  2. Come down to earth. Bending Space Time is fine still have to show a visual effect and make it quick no one wants a charge time.
  3. Real military terminology. Fine, but they can add some of their own in.
  4. Real scientific terminology. Technobabble is fine every good scifi events some of their own tech and names anyway.
  5. Needs to be dark and gritty. Not all the time.
  6. Aliens need to look like aliens and...... Not a problem as technology improves so does realism.
  7. Timeline progression through seasons. Pretty sure we have this as long as the shows arc based it should be noticable.
  8. Character development. Yes
  9. Ships need to look like science/military vessels inside and out. It depends on the purposes of the ship.
  10. Uniforms, I am 15 years ex-Navy don't get me started..oops too late! Uniforms are fine but I would not mind some more incorporation of tech into the clothing.
  11. Officers and ENLISTED please! Special forces away teams! Contractors Better Training for Away Teams and Equipment fine. They already have officers and enlisted.
  12. Sound does not travel in space! Everyone knows that but people want to hear something. They are not going to sit through silent films.
Sjaddix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26 2012, 07:26 PM   #68
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: Star Trek, what I think it should be.....

Gaius wrote: View Post
Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
What does that have to do with whether Starfleet should act like their the military or not? I seem to recall the Military usually doing exploration stuff back when there was exploration stuff to do.
Why would they act like "their" the military if they do not define themselves as such?
Funny Kirk seemed to think he was a soldier so did Sisko. Picard was the only Federation Starfleet officer I know of who didn't consider himself part of a military.

And then DS9 injected so much needed realism into that, turning the TNG federation from space hippy love fest to real government.
Since when was ST a 'space hippy love fest'?
In TNG with its we're better than everyone/no interpersonal conflict/lets give the Romulans a strategic advantage and hope the Klingons like having to give lifts to Starfleet officers who need to sneak into places because cloaking is teh evils philosophy

aka why I like TOS and DS9 more.

The Castellan wrote: View Post
And since what made DS9 'more realistic'.
And when military starts doing exploration, I know that all real learning, exploring and pretty much freedoms's done if the military does all that, since what's the point if no one else gets to do it,
1) Lewis and Clark were in the army.

2) Charles Darwin was on a British Royal Navy ship

3) Why would the military doing it keep civilians from doing it Starfleet would just have better toys to do it with since civilians would have to buy equipment out of pocket. Plus they at least are better armed in case the locals aren't very friendly or the neighboring Federation unfriendly empire wants the place for themselves.

and over the past 20 years, I've grown to trust and respect the military as much as I do in the government, and I quit voting 8 years ago.
1) I don't care, as we are not in Misc and TNZ where that topic is usually discussed.

2) By your own admission you have from where I stand forfeited any right to bitch about it basically which goes back to 1).

Last edited by Hartzilla2007; March 26 2012 at 07:36 PM.
Hartzilla2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 4 2012, 05:39 PM   #69
anh165
Commander
 
Re: Star Trek, what I think it should be.....

Less millitary and cyncism in Star Trek please. This isn't Star Wars or Babylon 5.

All this grim future in space is just an excuse for mindless space battles and yet more banal phaser exchanges between crappy looking ships.

DS9 was bad enough.
anh165 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 19 2012, 03:46 AM   #70
Commander Riker
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Star Trek, what I think it should be.....

A much dark Trek, more so than DS9 would be very appealing for the next series.

Do people think that a new series should pick up around the same time that VOY ended or a lot before or after?
Commander Riker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 19 2012, 05:10 AM   #71
nightwind1
Commodore
 
nightwind1's Avatar
 
Location: Des Moines, IA
Re: Star Trek, what I think it should be.....

Commander Riker wrote: View Post
A much dark Trek, more so than DS9 would be very appealing for the next series.
No. No, it wouldn't.
__________________
Remember: No Matter Where You Go, There You Are...88

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.
nightwind1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2012, 10:48 AM   #72
The Green Mushroom
Commander
 
Location: United States
Re: Star Trek, what I think it should be.....

Star Trek has always been about the people more than the technology. Even when the people aren't people and even when they are technology. Data was an android that wanted to be human, not a cool toy for the Enterprise to use. Spock was an alien that wanted to not be human, not a super-powered being to create plot hi-jinks. I just don't understand why people want Trek to become some sort of bizarre tech porn thing. And even if it did--how long would it last?

On another note, the more I think about it, the more I have decided that making Star Trek more like the real military is just dumb. Its not the real military even if you insist that it is the military.

Its a (at least para-) military force two-three hundred years in the future--two or three hundred years ago, officers purchased their commissions in the army and only received a promotion when the guy ahead of him died or got his own promotion, naval officers learned their trade at sea starting their careers as young as 8; warrant officers (the technical people who maintained the sails, the guns, the wooden hulls) were seasoned professionals hired to do their jobs because neither the able seamen nor the officers were trained to do, part time militia considered themselves as able as professional soldiers, etc. To think that the military would be the same three hundred years from now is naive at best.

To study Starfleet's model by today's standards, it does make sense if you look at the U.S. Coast Guard--specifically the smaller cutters. On those ships, (most of) the captains are veterans who came up from the ranks--and may not even be an officer. Everyone else does whatever they can and by doing as many jobs as they possibly can. One day the cutter might board a suspected drug smuggler with a boarding party consisting of operations officer, a kid fresh out of boot camp and the ship's cook. The next day they may be inspecting a fishing vessel by sending over the skipper, the chief engineer, and the weapons officer.

If you consider the officer part of "Starfleet Officer" to mean the same as the officer part of "police officer" it, at least to me also makes sense. An ensign would be kid fresh out of boot camp, expected to learn how to be a value instead of a liability. Lieutenants would be petty officers--technical experts and front line leaders. Commanders would be the chiefs who supervise and teach the youngsters. Etc.
The Green Mushroom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2012, 08:09 PM   #73
Temis the Vorta
Fleet Admiral
 
Temis the Vorta's Avatar
 
Location: Tatoinne
Re: Star Trek, what I think it should be.....

They could make it more military by setting it in the 22th C. ENT really missed a chance there. It would make sense if Starfleet evolved from more to less military, and a more-military Starfleet would have been interesting and different to see, and possibly attracted and held onto an audience.
Temis the Vorta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 22 2012, 12:40 PM   #74
xortex
Commodore
 
Location: Staten Island, NY
Re: Star Trek, what I think it should be.....

The Enterprise should be a labratory, not a military ship or submarine, comfortable but not too comfortable like TNG. Kirk's remark that he was primarily a soldier now was a lie to gain trust. Hawaii five O'ish space cop things should be individual episodes forced on them and kept under that umbrella and not be the main focus and thrust of the show as RHW's sci fi 'Untitled' seems to be heading - sort of an amalgamim of Andromeda and Space Precinct western. He's covering all grounds and will therefore probable wind up nowhere. The show is the person. What GR did was nothing short of miraculous to push his singular vision like that through such incredible resistance and like TZ, it started out as a lie to Lucille Ball as being a USO show where stars like her trekked to foreign countries to do shows and TZ would contain no social commentary whatsoever.
xortex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 22 2012, 08:21 PM   #75
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek, what I think it should be.....

Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
Gaius wrote: View Post
Why would they act like "their" the military if they do not define themselves as such?
Picard was the only Federation Starfleet officer I know of who didn't consider himself part of a military.
Perhaps that's why Picard and the Enterprise Dee were absent from the Dominion War, Starfleet did not want to introduce a "unstable element" into a combat situation.

Gaius, do you denign that Starfleet fulfilled the role of the military?


Last edited by T'Girl; April 23 2012 at 03:24 AM.
T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.