This is not inherent to Star Trek, though. If the science gets in the way of telling the story, then the science often gets tossed out, as bad as that sounds. Historical advisors often get similar treatment. Part of the aspect is simply cost saving measures that allow the story to be told in the allotted format. The transporter came about because the cost of landing the ship weekly was prohibitive. Same thing with saucer separation in TNG. All that to say, should Trek writers listen to science advisers and look to some more contemporary data to craft stories? Absolutely. Do I think that Star Trek can be hard scifi and still Star Trek? Again, I think so. Do I think its necessary to take Star Trek in this direction to further the franchise? No, because I think it can needlessly tie the franchise down when it is suppose to have a undercurrent of action/adventure/Western exploration.
It's a lot less excusable when the actual science would have improved the story. As very often happens. ("Space Seed," fine episode though it is, was a great example of this. It would have cost the story nothing if they'd listened to advice like "don't set Khan's backstory in the Nineties, that doesn't make sense," but they didn't. There's no story-driven excuse for that, it was just a mistake.) Similarly, ignoring the historical advisors often turns out for the worst. I like to imagine how much better a movie Gladiator could have been, for instance, with a villain as over-the-top crazy as the historical Commodus was (instead of the relative milquetoast with daddy issues that we got instead).
I don't know? That advice was given (never heard they had given that advice, but there is much I probably don't know about the production), they had used the two-hundred years time frame in "Tomorrow is Yesterday". So they likely wanted to set it far enough in Kirk's past that the war had seemed a long time ago from his perspective. But then I don't have an issue with seeing Star Trek as an alternate reality. They had orbital nuclear weapons in their 1960's and genetically engineered supermen in their 1990's. I doubt we'll be making a manned Saturn flight in the 2020's nor will we have Sanctuary districts.
I'll not disagree in principle, save for the fact that I would have to revisit the BTS to understand the context. But, of my complaints against that particular episode, the 90s thing is not one of them or is very far down the list. I think Khan's ethnicity is far more irritating than that, for starters. I certainly don't think that forsaking science in the name of story is always good, but I know that it happens in film and TV production, for a variety of reasons. I don't begrudge those reasons, either, for the most part, unless its clear that a better, more scientific explanation would have served the plot better. Khan's blood comes to mind, in that regard, and that wouldn't have taken much. As for Gladiator, again, historical advisers are hired on films for films to say that they had them. Star Trek is no more and no less guilty of this fact than any other production. Would the story be better served? Eh, mileage will definitely vary in that regard.
My name is Aspergerian Autistoid and I endorse this message. Ironically it's not the science that's so bad as much as the senseless technobabble used to justify the need for this technology. Transporters can't always work or they limit story, so magical things have to happen with technobabble reasons for plot to actually make sense. It's just bad writing. I really blame enterprise for not correcting this issue when it had the chance. Shields are most annoying because they lead to video game combat. Where people take turns beating people into submission. And just before the final blow can decide to kiss and make up. It's just ultra cheese, far better to build suspense by having the audience never knowing when a death blow might occur.
I'll agree and disagree at the same time. First off some degree of accepting the limitations of production with regards to aliens is acceptable. Secondly, I'm making the assumption that our seeds were swapped within the last 65 million years. As asteroid collisions, with life seeds is a common occurrence on a galactic scale and time frame. Aliens would of evolved from species that are atleast as similar to our own as a bear is to us. Anyways it's not an idea I'm fixated on. Aliens that look like us could go, it'd be interesting to rebuild common trek aliens such as vulcans as 9 foot tall birdlike creatures however I don't think it could be done budget wise or stay within the frame of trek. The ancient aliens concept I think is also a far better way to handle this issue. That being said regardless, aliens shouldn't have such blatantly typical pysc profiles. The idea that any alien would be able to adapt to our culture and values so seamlessly is where the absolutely nonsense starts. But again, harder doesn't mean diamond hard. For the sake of galaxy density and the like we have to assume we have common origins or it makes zero sense for so much alien life to be out there.
I'd be inclined to agree with you, if I thought a harder star trek had to be confined to a boring reality, it does not. There are so many possibilities that were not foreseeable even 20 years ago, that can really create an imaginative universe. Genetic engineering, has endless possibilities and by avoiding a diamond hard setting you can really imagine some quite wondrous designs. An entire new species arising in the period of days due to exponential growth. That's ignoring concepts like transhumanism, ancient aliens, the ability to actually create space in cgi(instead of a plastic model hanging on a black back drop with dotted holes. If star trek is a mix of adventure and exploring(not simples parsecs of space but virtually all facets of life now and in the future, I think there is a lot that can be done.
For TOS yes they were iconic, for the rest of the series it was just technobabble. Being the 6th ST series I think this should be fine to not focus on iconic imagery that isn't so iconic anymore.
I think by making it harder it'd be much more straight forward. Captain we can't beam them up, there's no f*cking such thing as a transporter. Captain we can't beam them up, there's iconic interference of the space time differential of the G defuser, I'll try recalibrating with a diagnostic of the central array for the plasma infusers main inverter and see if I can reroute power to the aft deflector ****explosions,****** Captain I' can't keep this up anymore without the antimatter conversion chamber quantum flux capicitors tetraglyconableadfghdklgjaklj By sticking to conventional physics there's absolutely no need for us to invent magic to nerf magic.
I do believe in principle we are agreeing on the matter, but we do disagree on the specific shade of "hard sci-fi" of you understand. I will start by saying that, while I have a solid background in the natural sciences (though more biology than physics aor chemistry) as a English/History teacher I logically are more at home in the humanities, so forgive (and correct) if I err in my statements. I am not opposed to the idea of focusing a new Star Trek series on exploration primarily or having the science portrayed as sound rather than made-up like it was increasingly the case in VOY and ENT, which lead to rather dull storytelling in many cases because people could just technobabble their way out of every situation. In short, the last two incarnations of Star tRek went too fluffy. Frankly I don't care whether they shoot phazers or more conventional projectile weapons, whether they use transporters or shuttles (though do remember that the transporter can be used for some very profound story ideas) or what exact mechanisms they use to go from star system to star system. I do think that with a more realistic approach certain variables (such as the amount of stored food/water) could be used for drama and thus storytelling. Also on a personal note; can we get rid of the magical holodeck? And time travel? Holodeck/Timetravel episodes which the showrunners just use to derail Star Trek into a love letter to their favourite genre/time period are the worst imho. I'm fine with any grade of hard sci-fi that still lets us visit multiple planets and gives us aliens to interact with. I do believe a Trek Series absolutely and irrevocably confined to one Star System with no input or ouput from outside would be very problematic, particularly if the system is lifeless (or just has bacteria/algae). Visually it would simply be rather boring to see only the ship interiors and one lifeless desert after the next. Now a story like that CAN still work, however care must be taken to bring the Human Element into it. For the majority of people a story must have a human element and I can't think of many examples that don't, even Xenofiction examples like Watership Down or "There Will Be Soft Rains" provide a "human" element in the form of the rabbits and the house. This could lead to opportunities; since we can't have the "guest star of the week" a scenario like that could help to avoid the tendency of most other trek (particularly TOS, TNG, VOY and ENT) to have the main characters just be tools to drive the story along. Instead the characters, these explorers would take centre-stage. Of course then we'd have the situation where the story would again not be so much about exploration but about the people on the exploration mission, their lives, their triumphs, their losses. And again we'd face problems that would be of a human or philosophic rather than scientific nature. That would of course work, but I am not sure if that is the kind of series you are trying to suggest. I'd still prefer to have native alien life, particularly because technology is now at that point to provide more exotic locales and beings even on the small screen. As to the old "It would not e Star Trek" excuse. No, Star Trek is a setting in which any number of stories can be told.
This is the heart of my argument most people don't care, and judging by past series the lack of consistency in trek hurts it most. Times 1000, if this was a trekverse where these things were rule rather then the exception ****cough cough voyager****** I don't think the argument would be so properly timed. I'd argue obsession with planets is an issue for scifi manmade construction habs are just as interesting, but whatever the case I'd be happy either way. Well I don't think anyone has an interest in that unless it's as a prequal zephram conframe type deal. Which may work for a limited number of episodes. Well I think it's important that exploration isn't linear. I.e. going farther and farther into the abyss, it's just as much or even more so about exploring the realities of life.
Holy multiple posts Batman! Just looking at that scale, is BSG (included on the level suggested here) really considered 'harder' scifi than Star Trek? Not 'darker', but more realistic from a science perspective? I can see the arguement in its aesthetics maybe, but the series did have 'God' (and the Angels) 'on screen' and pulling visible strings as far back as '33.' I just don't see it. At worst, Trek just makes the mistake of trying to bullshit an explanation for their bullshit.
I would also argue one of the weaknesses of Star Trek was that it never bothered to properly define many key concepts or keep them consistent. The magical holodeck, for instance, could do everything the current writer wanted it to do, no matter if it made sense or contradicted what had been established before. Troi's empathy/telepathy could vary in range (as far as the orbit of a planet at times) and what exactly she was able to perceive. Jadzia's joined nature was a mess with writers flipping between "She's the symbiont in a new body" "She's a mental fusion of host, symbiont and all the former hosts" and "The Symbiont is just a memory jar" One problem is of course that Star Trek made up its universe as it went along, including the name, function and nature of the Federation itself. And too much of what we know about the ST universe is very vague and contradicting at best.
Exactly show. It is hard to have hard and fast rules in a universe that plays fast and loose with the rules, depending on the writer. TOS had a similar thing with Spock's telepathic/empathic powers as Troi's. This one of the reasons why a hard (as in total, and not an alternate timeline, e.g. nuBSG) reboot would be a more interesting way to go, as it would free the writers to craft what they want, based upon current tech, establishing possible trends, future history, etc. If you want it to be harder, then establishing rules for the writers to abide by should include the technologies and not just the "Roddenberry Box" that limited the first couple of seasons of TNG.
I agree that nuBSG is not hard SF. However, in terms of space combat, they moved a tick or two from where the classic BSG space combat was, which was pretty much where Star Wars was, towards hard SF. They did this in terms of how the Vipers and other craft maneuvered, and in replacing the blasters with rounds of ammunition. It still wasn't hard, though. By the way, just in brief reply to the above, Ancient Aliens works in BSG and nuBSG (it was part of the premise in classic BSG from the get-go), but seeding humanity after life began on Earth is several bridges too far for Star Trek, if not farther.
As I said about 15 times hardness is a sliding scale. What were mostly advocating is more consistent writing, versus ultra realism in detail. However they coincide so well that it makes sense to do both in a reboot.
I think the more important detail was the lack of deux machine, and the fact that fictional techs like FTL worked by a set of consistent rules that never really changed. Ironically the biggest upset by fans was the revealing of the final 4 and how it directly contradicted stuff from earlier episodes. Considering it was a major blemish on the show's record I find it hard not to acknowledge. Don't get this at all, star trek is a show that has a well established galaxy with aliens that are all essentially primates. Not to mention multiple episodes showing aliens interbreeding, sharing many similar features etc.
Yeah, I have to disagree with the Ancient Aliens not being in Star Trek. There was a whole episode of TNG called "The Chase" in which Humans, Romulans, Klingons and Cardassians discover an ancient race that seeded their races.
...which isn't Ancient Aliens at all. By the way, I also wasn't speaking to the idea that aliens landed on Earth after primitive humans had already evolved and influenced culture. That has been done in Star Trek to great effect, at least twice: "Who Mourns for Adonais?" and "How Sharper Than a Serpent's Tooth." To clarify, I meant to be speaking very specifically against the idea that aliens seeded humans onto Earth as a species separate and distinct from all the other species that evolved on Earth (which was the idea actually under discussion). That's utterly ridiculous. It works in BSG but not Star Trek. And that's not at all what is revealed to have occurred in "The Chase." The reason it doesn't work is because it contradicts the idea that humans evolved on Earth. In Star Trek, humans evolved on Earth. Period. Paragraph.