RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,584
Posts: 5,423,910
Members: 24,809
Currently online: 559
Newest member: Super Scout

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek: Alien Domain Game Announced
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Red Shirt Diaries Episode Three
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Made Out Of Mudd Photonovel
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Takei Has Growth Removed
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

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


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 4 2012, 09:01 PM   #31
Admiral2
Vice Admiral
 
Admiral2's Avatar
 
Location: Peregrine Cliff
Re: Star Trek, what I think it should be.....

(sigh)

As much as some of you may not like the way he presents them, none of SPEKTRE's proposed changes are off base. I find it especially funny that so many of you seem to object to a US Navy influence on the concept. It's already there. It has been since the show was created.

It starts with three little letters: USS. That prefix has appeared before the name on the hull of every Federation Starfleet ship that ever existed, starting with the first one seen on screen: USS Enterprise. And you can argue what it's supposed to mean in-universe (United Space Ship, United Star Ship), but in RL there's only one source it could have been derived from because there's only one organization in the world that includes the prefix before each one of its ships' names: The United States Navy.

It's also in the rank structure. While they may not be exclusive to the US Navy, few other navies have the ranks of Lieutenant Commander and Ensign. Most use variations on "Midshipman" for ensign, while they have terms like "SubCommander" or "Captain Lieutanant" for Lieutenant Commander. What ranks does Starfleet use?

When asked to explain Enterprise's registry number, Matt Jeffries said the "CC" part of it stood for "Heavy Cruiser." Care to guess which is the only Navy in the world to ever have used the code CC to designate cruisers?

The US Navy influence is there. It was intentional, because it is essentially an American show with a mainly American audience and therefore it gives Americans something they can identify with. To object to an increase in US Navy jargon as if it would be a completely new thing is to be ignorant of an influence that's been in your face for forty years.
__________________
"That's another thing Hollywood gets wrong. Real women EAT."

-Tom Clancy
Admiral2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 4 2012, 09:11 PM   #32
SPEKTRE76
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Location: Whidbey Island, WA
Re: Star Trek, what I think it should be.....

Admiral2 wrote: View Post
(sigh)

As much as some of you may not like the way he presents them, none of SPEKTRE's proposed changes are off base. I find it especially funny that so many of you seem to object to a US Navy influence on the concept. It's already there. It has been since the show was created.

It starts with three little letters: USS. That prefix has appeared before the name on the hull of every Federation Starfleet ship that ever existed, starting with the first one seen on screen: USS Enterprise. And you can argue what it's supposed to mean in-universe (United Space Ship, United Star Ship), but in RL there's only one source it could have been derived from because there's only one organization in the world that includes the prefix before each one of its ships' names: The United States Navy.

It's also in the rank structure. While they may not be exclusive to the US Navy, few other navies have the ranks of Lieutenant Commander and Ensign. Most use variations on "Midshipman" for ensign, while they have terms like "SubCommander" or "Captain Lieutanant" for Lieutenant Commander. What ranks does Starfleet use?

When asked to explain Enterprise's registry number, Matt Jeffries said the "CC" part of it stood for "Heavy Cruiser." Care to guess which is the only Navy in the world to ever have used the code CC to designate cruisers?

The US Navy influence is there. It was intentional, because it is essentially an American show with a mainly American audience and therefore it gives Americans something they can identify with. To object to an increase in US Navy jargon as if it would be a completely new thing is to be ignorant of an influence that's been in your face for forty years.
Finally someone gets it and well said sir. I guess no one know that Gene Roddenberry served in the US Navy and thus it's roots entwined in the show.

Most of these guys all immediatelyattacked and dimissed any of my ideas and claim me to be condecending? I would never do that to anyone on here. And Jitty you can express all the opinions you want just try and be constructive (eagerly awaits childish response). I know it's very easy to be 10ft tall and bullet proof online.
SPEKTRE76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 4 2012, 09:44 PM   #33
Herkimer Jitty
Rear Admiral
 
Herkimer Jitty's Avatar
 
Location: Dayglow, New California Republic
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Herkimer Jitty
Re: Star Trek, what I think it should be.....

All of your ideas?

Check my previous replies.

You'll find my focus was on storytelling and universe-building ideas. Anything I didn't object to, I ignored.

If you must know, the points I agreed with to one extent or another were:

#3) For the professionalism aspect. I'm CIVPAC, and never served, and even I can tell that these guys sometimes don't act like professionals. Riker's hissy fit over having to take orders from Jellico for instance. That shit wouldn't even fly in the building from Office Space.

#6) Okay, I tore into this one a little, but due to personal bias. The conspiracy people are everywhere on the internet, and every time I see Annunaki or Grey, I go into Troll Mode. That's probably what did it. Anyways, I agree, to some extent. If you are gonna have dudes in masks, take a hint from the new movie, which had some pretty bizarre designs, and also cast people with unique physiques in those roles (like the helmsperson from the Kelvin). CGI aliens could be effective, but also technically demanding. No reason not to try, though. Cryptology team is a good idea, adds an analysis aspect that modern audiences will grok, with CSI and the like being top-viewed TV.

#8) Obviously, character development is a must. This is something that TOS, TNG, and DS9 bothered with to some extent, but the rest of the shows didn't really touch. For instance, I have no idea how Harry Kim or Malcom Reed got to where they are in life. They just have a couple of details, but not the full enchilada. Bothering to dispense with this kind of information gives characters depth.

#11) This is something that's always seen incongruent. It takes 4 years (!) to get an officer in the fleet, which makes enlisted men all the more important. As I recall, when TNG came on, Roddenberry, or someone at the top decreed that everyone was officers. Maybe that's not a real story, or something someone made up, but I've read it around. In any case, having dedicated away teams also makes sense. Exploring uncharted worlds would require a very specific kind of special ops training, never seen before. They'd need to be scientists, technicians, experts in first contact scenario, but also able to defend themselves in a highly competent fashion.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1965-1965½, 1966-1969, Jan. 21-23 1972, 1979-2005, 2009-?

Last edited by Herkimer Jitty; March 4 2012 at 10:00 PM.
Herkimer Jitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 4 2012, 09:50 PM   #34
Temis the Vorta
Fleet Admiral
 
Temis the Vorta's Avatar
 
Location: Tatoinne
Re: Star Trek, what I think it should be.....

His ideas fall into two camps: good and irrelevant, meaning, not bad, it just doesn't matter one way or the other.

Changing terminology, set design or costuming isn't worth worrying about too much. Those things are aesthetic choices and a number of different choices could work. Continuing with the nonsense technobabble is fine by me. Changing it is also fine. Set design probably needs to veer towards the shiny & new, just for tradition's sake, but you could get away with more grunge in a pre-23rd C show. The pajama look for costumes is well established. If you wanted to rationalize it, you could explain away the fabric as being amazingly high tech, phaser resistant or whatever.

Discussions here tend to obsess over trivialities while avoiding the monster question of: why would CBS Studios take a chance on Star Trek at all? Adding Navy terminology isn't going to address that question in the least.
Temis the Vorta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 4 2012, 10:05 PM   #35
zar
Captain
 
zar's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek, what I think it should be.....

SPEKTRE76, apparently you think "getting it" and "being constructive" mean "agreeing with me". Jitty, Randy, and I all gave reasoning for our opinions, but all we get in response is name-calling. You don't really seem interested in two-way discussion.

Rod's Navy background is already well-known. However the fact that some of its influence is there isn't sufficient rationalization for adding more of it everywhere else, especially if it would clash with what is already established.
zar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 4 2012, 10:11 PM   #36
nightwind1
Commodore
 
nightwind1's Avatar
 
Location: Des Moines, IA
Re: Star Trek, what I think it should be.....

Admiral2 wrote: View Post
(sigh)

As much as some of you may not like the way he presents them, none of SPEKTRE's proposed changes are off base. I find it especially funny that so many of you seem to object to a US Navy influence on the concept. It's already there. It has been since the show was created.

It starts with three little letters: USS. That prefix has appeared before the name on the hull of every Federation Starfleet ship that ever existed, starting with the first one seen on screen: USS Enterprise. And you can argue what it's supposed to mean in-universe (United Space Ship, United Star Ship), but in RL there's only one source it could have been derived from because there's only one organization in the world that includes the prefix before each one of its ships' names: The United States Navy.

It's also in the rank structure. While they may not be exclusive to the US Navy, few other navies have the ranks of Lieutenant Commander and Ensign. Most use variations on "Midshipman" for ensign, while they have terms like "SubCommander" or "Captain Lieutanant" for Lieutenant Commander. What ranks does Starfleet use?
Ensigns =/= Midshipmen. Ensigns are the lowest rank of commissioned officer in a seagoing service. Midshipmen are cadets from a naval academy, not even an officer yet. And nearly ALL navies have Lieutenant Commander and Ensign as ranks.

You've got everything backwards here. Please, try again.
nightwind1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 4 2012, 10:14 PM   #37
nightwind1
Commodore
 
nightwind1's Avatar
 
Location: Des Moines, IA
Re: Star Trek, what I think it should be.....

SPEKTRE76 wrote: View Post

Finally someone gets it and well said sir. I guess no one know that Gene Roddenberry served in the US Navy and thus it's roots entwined in the show.

Most of these guys all immediatelyattacked and dimissed any of my ideas and claim me to be condecending? I would never do that to anyone on here. And Jitty you can express all the opinions you want just try and be constructive (eagerly awaits childish response). I know it's very easy to be 10ft tall and bullet proof online.
Wrong. Roddenberry served in the US Army Air Corps, now the US AIR FORCE. From http://www.roddenberry.com/corporate-gene-biography :
He volunteered for the U.S. Army Air Corps in the fall of 1941 and was ordered into training as a flying cadet when the United States entered World War II. As a Second Lieutenant, Roddenberry was sent to the South Pacific where he entered combat at Guadalcanal, flying B-17 bombers out of the newly captured Japanese airstrip, which became Henderson Field. He flew missions against enemy strongholds at Bougainville and participated in the Munda invasion. He was decorated with the Distinguished flying Cross and the Air Medal.
Thank you for playing, please try again.
nightwind1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5 2012, 12:00 AM   #38
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek, what I think it should be.....

SPEKTRE76 wrote: View Post
Real military terminology [and] Officers and ENLISTED please!
There are in America's military 1.4 million active duty, 1.5 million in the reserves, 460 thousand in the guard, also 20 million military veterans. Plus tens of millions of military family members. These people understand things like rank structure and the organizations in general.

These people are a part of the Star Trek audience.

nightwind1 wrote: View Post
Please, try again.
You first.

It depends on the nation. While a midshipman isn't always a commissioned officer, sometimes they are. In the Royal New Zealand Navy, midshipman is the lowest commissioned officer rank. Google can provide you with other examples.

And nearly ALL navies have Lieutenant Commander ...
And by nearly all, you mean four?

With the exception of America and Canada, the navies of the Americas use corvette captain. In Europe (excepting UK and Ireland) it either corvette captain or captain lieutenant.

T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5 2012, 03:22 AM   #39
Sjaddix
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Star Trek, what I think it should be.....

Temis the Vorta wrote: View Post
His ideas fall into two camps: good and irrelevant, meaning, not bad, it just doesn't matter one way or the other.

Changing terminology, set design or costuming isn't worth worrying about too much. Those things are aesthetic choices and a number of different choices could work. Continuing with the nonsense technobabble is fine by me. Changing it is also fine. Set design probably needs to veer towards the shiny & new, just for tradition's sake, but you could get away with more grunge in a pre-23rd C show. The pajama look for costumes is well established. If you wanted to rationalize it, you could explain away the fabric as being amazingly high tech, phaser resistant or whatever.

Discussions here tend to obsess over trivialities while avoiding the monster question of: why would CBS Studios take a chance on Star Trek at all? Adding Navy terminology isn't going to address that question in the least.
Good Point
Sjaddix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5 2012, 05:59 AM   #40
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.....

SPEKTRE76 wrote: View Post
The Castellan;5926804
1: you mean gloomy and depressing? [B wrote:

No at all[/B]

2: Sagen's a tool. He's also the one who pretty much thinks there's nothing out there, or that we'll never find them, and I heard he actually changed that idea and said differently shortly before he died. And from my own experiences, I've seen various UFO's ~awaits the eye rolling~ that have already violated both NEwton's and ~sarcastic gasp~ Einstein's physics. And if they can do all that, I am sure going faster than light, as well as doing it right away, would be a no brainer for them. See, just because we can't officially go faster than light, I am certain that given that many stars are much, much older than our sun, that there's species out there with a million, if not billion, years ahead of us. And they'd make any of our so-called high technology look like prehistoric junk. No eye rolling here

3: Yea, they are gotta be locked up in sardine cans with no warmth or personality, especially when going out there to explore the great beyond, though I feel you'd be against that and more for mainly military based missions, instead. Bars and halodecs, and a bunch of other stuff, are needed to help keep crews from going crazy, especially if they are going to be out there for years. The French Navy has liquor onboard-God Bless them. So, I understand your argument on bars. I just can't see having families on board a military vessel. Sorry but no matter what century we are in that will never happen. I wasn't against any form of entertainment just the way it is portrayed in the series. You can't physically interact with a hologram. I was thinking more along the lines of 'The Matrix' or 'Inception' and how they do it. Not with a big needle in the head but maybe something the wear. Have you ever seen 'The Cell'? More like that way. If you notice some dreams seem very real at times. Maybe by then they will have figured out a way to manipulate the human brains dream state?

4: In the future, our terminology will probably be laughed at. I'd rather see "beam me up" than today's crap of LOL, WTF, 1337, and so on. Plus a lot of today's scientific terms sound even sillier. ?

5: you mean, dark, distopian and showing man, and everyone else, at their worse times, rather than something hopeful and good? NO, i am referring to the visual asthetic of the show. If you have ever seen Riddick and Pandorum, that's what I mean is the visual asthetic.

6: That I don't mind, and that's going to be an element of my own stories. I give you Kudos for knowing what Annunaki are ~gives you a cookie~ And I am shooting for many aliens who look nothing like we'd expect. Though I am sure there are room for some human looking aliens, like the Nordics.

Cookie was great! Yeah there can be tons of room for humanoid aliens. I mean if you watch Ancient Aliens on HD2 you'll have come across and episode where they reffer to us being made in 'thier' image. I'm also on the Ancient Aliens forums as 'MONOLITH' here's one of my threads: http://www.legendarytimes.com/forum/...php?f=5&t=4892 This one I was 'SPEKTRE76' but the devs messed up the site and I lost my profile.

7: Prequels are always a very risky thing, George Lucas practically alienated a lot of the loyal, long time Star Wars fans by doing so. Point taken but I only wanted each century 21st -24th to last only a frew episodes or a couple of seasons. The 25th century is where I really feel we should be since we've already seen the 24th?

8: Doing that in my own planned stories. I've done a lot of background material on them, and going to put them in somewhere, though getting to the main stories is the most important thing.

9: Ehhhh...I like classic Trek ships. Like with 5, Trek deviated from the norm. I never liked the giant, flying shoe boxes seen in the alien films, plus city sized space ships can be a pain the ass to handle and most giant ships I associate with hostile conqueror types. Like Star Destroyers. Plus there's sure to be enough saucers by their own out there, in my own stories, the saucers are mainly Dalek vessels.

10: Uniforms are just fine....in fact, I am glad they are not camos or fatigues. And seeing as how Starfleet is not the US Military, thank goodness, and is the main scientific/exploratory/diplomatic/defense entity of the Federation, we're not going to have everyone in Starfleet shouting "Sir, yes sir!" and acting like the Marines from Aliens, and I sure as hell don't want to see them start wearing black uniforms and toting large blasters around. As for weapons, I like that they are small, functional and different....the weapons seen often in Star Wars or Aliens are mainly just for looking 'kewl' on screen and, to me at least, look obnoxious. And seeing phasers used also for tools makes them even more useful than big ass cannons we see in other science fictions. LOL, no fatigues my brother. I was thinking more like modernized astronuat fligh suits for 'working uniforms'. And as far as weapons, something like the KRISS V smg that fires a sabot round that can be electronicaly charged in a way to break on impact and stun or become explosive on impact which you wouldn't want to set it to ever aboard a startship, lol.

11: Once again, this is not the US armed forces. And I think it's refreshing to see the head officers actually do stuff then just bark the orders and everyone else shouting "sir, yes sir!" and what not. Like in both "The NAkek Time" and "the Doomsday Machine", we saw Kirk and Scotty doing repairs, and I liked that. I like seeing the head officers going on away missions, and not with marines kitted out for battle.....a bunch of armed marines on a new planet the Federation is having an official first contact is not going to hold up well, especially if the people on the planet are against violence and so on, marines might make them think they are going to be either occupiers or conquers rather than someone wanting to say hi and offering friendship.

I see what you are saying and you hit it on the head. I'm not saying it should be the US military. I only refference it because it's what I can relate to. Officers should be used for diplomacy more than 'ship work'. Granted I have seen officers working before while I was deployed but it wasn't all the time like in ST. Officers should go on away teams but not a team comprised of officers entirely especially when heading into a hostile zone.

12: You might not hear sh!@ in space, but often, especially with action sequences, don't work right on screen.

I still like the way J. J. Abrams did it. In fact the characters act is exactly how I would like it. They seem more realistic and unscripted to me anyway. I loved how they did 'Bones' and 'Scotty'.

Annotated in bold above in the quote.
Another cookie for the ancient aliens bits. Heck, some of TOS had that concept, too, Apollo being one example.

Also, with head officers doing some of the more hands on work can be useful, since guys like Kirk and Picard did that stuff for quite awhile before becoming captains. Picard takng the Enterprise out of the Menthar booby trap put a smile on my face.
__________________
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 5 2012, 06:00 AM   #41
SPEKTRE76
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Location: Whidbey Island, WA
Re: Star Trek, what I think it should be.....

I never said I wanted you to agree with me. You delivery is what sucked. Anyways I am all done here. This thread has spiraled into a huge geek fight over nothing. And I don't care what anyone says, trolling was going in here.
SPEKTRE76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5 2012, 06:05 AM   #42
zar
Captain
 
zar's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek, what I think it should be.....

SPEKTRE76 wrote: View Post
I don't care what anyone says
It shows.
zar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5 2012, 06:31 AM   #43
nightwind1
Commodore
 
nightwind1's Avatar
 
Location: Des Moines, IA
Re: Star Trek, what I think it should be.....

SPEKTRE76 wrote: View Post
I never said I wanted you to agree with me. You delivery is what sucked. Anyways I am all done here. This thread has spiraled into a huge geek fight over nothing. And I don't care what anyone says, trolling was going in here.
Why, yes, yes you were.
nightwind1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 6 2012, 01:48 AM   #44
Admiral2
Vice Admiral
 
Admiral2's Avatar
 
Location: Peregrine Cliff
Re: Star Trek, what I think it should be.....

Temis the Vorta wrote: View Post
Discussions here tend to obsess over trivialities while avoiding the monster question of: why would CBS Studios take a chance on Star Trek at all? Adding Navy terminology isn't going to address that question in the least.
For the same reason NBC took a chance on Heroes and WB took a chance on Smallville. If the network's reluctant to do a genre show, you do your best to disguise the genre part of it. In that case, replacing technobabble that's literally just syllables thrown together with recognizable jargon viewers can at least look up would go a long way to making Trek more palatable to a sci-fi wary audience. Same with proper uniforms. Contemporary astronauts wear uniform jumpsuits or comfortable clothes in their work environments. They only wear pajamas to bed.

You're right. The first customer for any Trek series pitch would be the network with the TV rights. Now, maybe you won't be able to sell SPEKTRE's version, but you sure as hell won't sell them yet another iteration of people in day-glo outfits on day-glo sets saying lines like "We need to mitigate the cabalic intensity of the trialic force in the vinculum!"
__________________
"That's another thing Hollywood gets wrong. Real women EAT."

-Tom Clancy
Admiral2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 6 2012, 04:13 AM   #45
Herkimer Jitty
Rear Admiral
 
Herkimer Jitty's Avatar
 
Location: Dayglow, New California Republic
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Herkimer Jitty
Re: Star Trek, what I think it should be.....

Admiral2 wrote: View Post
"We need to mitigate the cabalic intensity of the trialic force in the vinculum!"
Don't be to proud of this technobabbular terror you've created. The ability to stuff a script full of vaguely scientific filler is insignificant next to the power of proactive characters.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1965-1965½, 1966-1969, Jan. 21-23 1972, 1979-2005, 2009-?
Herkimer Jitty 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 05:22 PM.

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