RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 145,297
Posts: 5,720,485
Members: 25,764
Currently online: 409
Newest member: RedShirtGuy797

TrekToday headlines

Where No Garden Gnome Has Gone Before
By: T'Bonz on May 22

Scotland Yard Trekkie Fear
By: T'Bonz on May 22

Koenig Joins Captain Pike Project
By: T'Bonz on May 22

Retro Review: Ex Post Facto
By: Michelle on May 22

Smallwood: Creating The Xindi
By: T'Bonz on May 21

Greenwood Joins O.J. Simpson Series
By: T'Bonz on May 21

The USS Enterprise Building
By: T'Bonz on May 20

Wheaton Guests On Mission Log Podcast
By: T'Bonz on May 20

Pegg: Star Trek 3 Less Trek-Y
By: T'Bonz on May 20

Two Trek Book Covers Unveiled
By: T'Bonz on May 19


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 April 22 2015, 04:07 PM   #1
Autistoid
Lieutenant
 
Danger Trek.

Alright here's why I think a "Danger Trek" is the best set up for a new series.

If TOS was a wagon trail through the desert of space, this new series should be a boat trip through the jungle of space.

If anything killed ST, I think playing it safe would likely top the list of reasons.

1) Having a 26 episode season killing characters was simply not allowed.

2) Social issues that are important to todays audiences were too controversial for network tv.

3) Because of censorship issues, things that interest people of all walks of life, (sex and violence) were absent form the show.

4) Due to the rerun issues plot advancement was not allowed.I.e. Characters getting promoted etc.

5) Technologies were invented that made space way to safe(biofilters, transporters, replicators etc)

6) Due to all of the above writers had to come up with ideas that were beyond exploration to create conflict(wars etc)


So here goes, the next show should be dangerous.

People should die, get hurt, loose there jobs, etc.

The mission should be exploration and the goal of achieving utopian ideals.

People should be seen to be taking grave risks in the name of interesting experiences.

Boredom in a world without money or conflict should be a primary motivator.



EDIT: Must get back to work, will expand this later.
Autistoid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 22 2015, 06:18 PM   #2
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: Danger Trek.

Autistoid wrote: View Post
2) Social issues that are important to todays audiences were too controversial for network tv.

3) Because of censorship issues, things that interest people of all walks of life, (sex and violence) were absent form the show.
The downside of the Federation being a supposed "utopia" is that any intersting social problems have to involve this weeks outsiders.

A far less harmonious civilian population would be a godsent to the show.

The mission should be exploration and the goal of achieving utopian ideals.
The first sure, the second should have the goal of acquiring resources, allies, and territory.

Boredom in a world without money or conflict should be a primary motivator.
Lose the no money thing, it was beyond goofy to start with. When the hero ship captures a enemy ship the captain and crew should get "prize money."

T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2015, 01:54 PM   #3
Autistoid
Lieutenant
 
Re: Danger Trek.

T'Girl wrote: View Post
The downside of the Federation being a supposed "utopia" is that any intersting social problems have to involve this weeks outsiders.

A far less harmonious civilian population would be a godsent to the show.
I think that's actually unfair, one of the beauties of the federation is that personal freedom is hard wired into the Utopian society. If man is supposedly driven by a desire for self betterment, this internal conflict is a great source of drama.

Imagine the type of person that wants to climb mount Everest this is a starfleet officer. Scared driven obsessed.

The idea that a bunch of bored thrill seekers make up the majority of starfleet officers would be a really engaging premise.

T'Girl wrote: View Post
The mission should be exploration and the goal of achieving utopian ideals.
The first sure, the second should have the goal of acquiring resources, allies, and territory.
Well I think in any believable utopia both challenge and reason for getting out of bed are crucial motivations.

Federation citizens should suffer from a degree of boredom, and the sense they are detached from real life.

It's something I think modern folk can intensely relate to.
T'Girl wrote: View Post
Boredom in a world without money or conflict should be a primary motivator.
Lose the no money thing, it was beyond goofy to start with. When the hero ship captures a enemy ship the captain and crew should get "prize money."

It's an integral part of Star Trek.

It's directly communist no matter how many folk are phobic of the idea.

People are driven by status(title,), personal interest(god for bid one has a genuine passion), experience, etc.

It's an interesting and appealing fiction because of this premise.

The problem is people mistake no money to mean that there are unlimited resources.

Resources are still precious, however no one individual is allowed to maintain ownership of such items. Replicators are good for dollar store goods and not much else. Things of actual value, starships, planets, technologies, are strictly guarded and controlled by the federation.

The idea that people are motivated by a paycheck is a very youthful and american attitude about things.

It's borderline offensive ironically.

I know alot of people that cannot find work because of disability and the need for something to do, to contribute, to socialize, to be good at something, to feel they have a say in society, simply maintain the prestige of a family name etc are more than enough motivations for people to wanna work.
Autistoid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2015, 03:11 PM   #4
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: Danger Trek.

Autistoid wrote: View Post
T'Girl wrote: View Post
A far less harmonious civilian population would be a godsent to the show.
I think that's actually unfair, one of the beauties of the federation is that personal freedom is hard wired into the Utopian society.
This presupposes that the Federation (or just Earth) is in fact a "utopia," which is something I think is merely an interpretation on the part of certain fans, and was never specifically mentioned on the show. While the society on the show is materially more comfortable than our own, I (my opinion) don't consider it to be a "utopia."

If man is supposedly driven by a desire for self betterment, this internal conflict is a great source of drama.
When I think of the Federation population, I usually think of it as being approximately several hundred billion to a trillion people (24th century). I personally imagine the Federation's population as being very cosmopolitan and philosophically diverse.

Consider the total number of cultures and societies and philosophies on Earth today. Now, multiple that by a 150 (the Federation species homeworlds). Okay now add in thousands of colony worlds, many with multiple cultures/societies of their own.

The one philosophical society that concerns itself with "we seek to better ourselves, and the rest of Humanity" would be just one of these multitudes of societies. The show had (iirc) two people openly advocate this philosophy. So, many thousands perhaps millions of adherents, but not the entirety of the Federation's trillions of people.

Just how big a group was Picard/Jake's "we?"

Lose the no money thing, it was beyond goofy to start with.
It's an integral part of Star Trek.
Hardly, while there are a relatively few mentions of no money, there are far more direct references to there being money, wealth, private property, businesses, buying and selling.

It's directly communist no matter how many folk are phobic of the idea.
Regardless of how it might be described in a textbook, communism manifests itself in the real world as a brutal dictatorship, with a small powerful ruling group at the top, and a subjugated mass of suffering people at the bottom, where they are kept through intimidation and fear.

one of the beauties of the federation is that personal freedom

It's directly communist
How can you possible reconcile these two statements?

While the exact structure of Earth and the Federation's governing bodies are unclear, there are enough references to grasp that some type of democracy is present, it isn't run as a communist dictatorship. Nor are there any indications that there are a vast array of social programs in place, so it likely isn't a socialist system either.

The inventor of the Solaton Wave FTL drive expected to make money off of it. The dilithium miners in TOS were getting "rich." Joe Sisko's restaurant did good business. Ezri Dax's family had a large mining company. We see consumerism and captialism.

Autistoid, in the 24th century Federation, corporations own entire planets.

Resources are still precious, however no one individual is allowed to maintain ownership of such items.
If the resource is their property, then of course they own it.

... a very youthful and american attitude about things.
And what could be better?

T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4 2015, 05:20 AM   #5
uniderth
Commander
 
uniderth's Avatar
 
Re: Danger Trek.

T'Girl wrote: View Post
... a very youthful and american attitude about things.
And what could be better?

I can think of quite a number of things.
__________________
Star Trek (The Complete Voyages)
uniderth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17 2015, 01:33 PM   #6
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: Danger Trek.

Autistoid wrote: View Post
I know alot of people that cannot find work because of disability and the need for something to do, to contribute, to socialize, to be good at something, to feel they have a say in society, simply maintain the prestige of a family name etc are more than enough motivations for people to wanna work.
Ahh, but if they could have all of that, plus a hundred thousand a year, would the people you're referring to turn the money down?

It's borderline offensive ironically.
There are a few reasons I would want to continue to see money in Star Trek. One is that lack of money (in some form) makes things too easy, having money introduces a degree of complexity into the world we're watching on screen.

Without money there is no trade (or little) within the Federation, no little private freighters by the tens of thousands everywhere, no pirates to be protected from, no competition between Federation Members or outside entities, no businesses as actual businesses, to names a few things the show would lose from not clearly having money as a consideration in the background story.

uniderth wrote: View Post
T'Girl wrote: View Post
... a very youthful and american attitude about things.
And what could be better?
I can think of quite a number of things.
Why don't you tell us about a few of them?

It's not that I saying that being "motivated by a paycheck" would be the sole motivation for everyone (maybe some though), but they would be obviously paid. Money problems might occasionally be voiced.

Autistoid brought up the matter of social issues, instead of having the Federation be so settled and so advanced that all such matters are behind them, better that there would be issues that are still to be dealt with and are matters of ongoing controversy, even among our main characters.

For there to be a youthful attitude, a youthful spirit, could only be good.

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 03:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.