Discussion in 'Future of Trek' started by bbjegglebells, Aug 15, 2013.
This is where you'd have general audiences rolling their eyes and changing the channel.
With 24th century technologies like Transwarp and Quantum slipstream drives (and a large galaxy that can plot point a wormhole to another galaxy) allowing ships to travel faster than warp 10, galactic travel is possible in the 25th century.
Would I watch? I'd probably give it a shot. Do I think it's a good idea? No.
Any 25c series would ultimately be tethered (intentionally or not) to the 90s stuff unless they did some kind of full reboot. The 24c is a well contaminated to the point it's best not to drink from it again. And if rebooting (again) why not just stay with the 23rd? The 23rd century is part of the pop-culture lexicon. The others not so much.
I'll watch anything called Star Trek at least once.
Weither or not I'd stick with it would depend on how good it was.
There's no reason to believe that. First of all, the same people who were creatively in charge of 24th-Century Trek are not going to be involved, so they'll approach it with a totally different mindset. For all intents and purposes, any references to the 24th-Century will be treated in the same manner TNG did with the 23rd-Century. At most, we may just see a couple of 24th-Century races pop up once in a while.
No reason to assume that with different people in charge of it either, but it would be fun to see how things have changed since the 24th-Century and what brand-new things have arisen in the interim.
At this point I'd watch a Trek series no matter when it was set.
Now with that said, I think it's completely unnecessary to set the show in the 25th century. Just what would be the purpose, other than to continue the prime universe that really isn't all that necessary to do?
I'd much rather see a nuTOS show based on the films. A fresh slate taking place during the period most people equate with Star Trek, only this time there's no 40 years of canon to adhere to, and they could make whatever stories they wanted.
Of course, with the warp drive's PDC (Plot Dependency Coefficient) Module, that superwarp drive would get them to that new galaxy during the main credits and commercials after the teaser.
I'd watch it but general audiences probably wouldn't. Outside of Kirk and Spock I don't think general audiences give much of a crap about Star Trek.
Can't disagree with the viewing figures which is a shame as I thought it got better in the 3rd, 4th series. DS9 & Voyager also took a few seasons to really get going.
Don't care what century it's in, as long as it's a good show.
You have to think outside of your own personal Trek bias and put yourself in the shoes of the millions of viewers who only has a fleeting interest in Star Trek.
They dont care about which century it is in, the ship, the type of uber phaser banks it is armed with or even which galaxy it gets thrown into, what does matter is the key concepts (adventures in space, human race in the future etc) and the star pulling power of the cast that attracts viewers.
I don't like the idea of jumping forward another century. The technobabble would be unbearable!
How do you know that? Rick Berman would be in charge, and by all accounts, he was the originator of the "technobabble", which, honestly, wasn't THAT bad. Hell, I never understood most of it anyhow.
It was frickin awful.
Technobabble or fankwank phaser banks were some sort of substitute to characters using their wit and intelligence to overcome adversity, but I guess the latter requires good writing and good taste.
Not only technobabble is a real turn off, the production values of Berman trek left much to be desired, no panache, nothing of distinction and things were not much better even on the big screen with Nemesis where production budgets were not as restraint. Compared to other TV shows and movies of the time, Trek was trounced.
I actually think it wouldn't be. Sure, there might be a few new terms here and there (for example, maybe slipstream drive instead of warp drive), but I actually think the tech would be treated like it was in TOS or in the Abramsverse movies--stuff either works or it doesn't.
Absolutely I would.
Here's how they came up with their technobabble in TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT.
So many times when watching Voyager, a character would refer to "tri-cyclic-graviton-sensors" or similar and I'd be thinking, why the fuck can't you just say "sensors"??
I like that chart.
I think it was to pad out dialogue.
I remember seeing some early script drafts from either TNG or VOY in which writers would write dialogue that would features parts referred to simply as [TECH] that would be later filled in with technobabble by someone else.
Quite. Once upon a time I'd have said religiously, but Enterprise allowed me to break free. Part of me enjoys the freedom.
No point in creating your own, if it disagreed with established jargon, the fans would only pick it apart. Let someone else do it, the someone else gets the blame
Separate names with a comma.