^The show is mean to be a comedy, and that's how anime is styled.
What is Star Trek and its future?
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
I'd pass on that, and it would tank, so no.
Now I get it.
Really? And how do you know that?
Thankfully, it ain't happening, so we'll never know.
^Unfortunately, neither is any new Star Trek happening. This concept might not be a bad one, and might even get more younger people to be Trek consumers and fans (and it would be the new cartoon that everybody wants to see.) Sometimes something humorous is just as good as something serious, and besides, we're talking about an animated show that would air on a cartoon channel, not something that would air on a major network.
In fact, with just a little tweaking, this could be about Starfleet Academy instead of a Japanese high school...
In fact, with just a little tweaking, this could be about Starfleet Academy instead of a Japanese high school...
Like christ obviously some of the scripts would have to be reworked. My point was that that it could be done with minimal rework in contrast to voyager or enterprise.
The tone of dialogue could work, the banter between characters, the way plots are revealed, the aesops which hold up realitively well etc.
Well for one the swearing just doesn't make sense in the context of the show.
Violence I think always has to fit the show.
For star trek I think an obvious method would be as I've said before truly highlighting the real danger of space. Man against man, and man against self are huge pullers with modern shows, however trek I think stands in the best position to show conflict with man against nature.
As far as sex it has to reflect the supposed views of the characters.
Other shows show characters as they are, if we can assume trek represents sex in a more enlightened perspective I think there are two ways to show it.
1) "Do it like they do on the discover channel", sex is in the open but it's not edited to be sexy or teasing. Sex isn't sexy, it's not exciting, it's just part of life, remember rinkly old people have sex too.
2) Show sex as an unhealthy obsession. Show a lead character deal with sexual addiction, ending up in some really dicey sexual situations. Catching diseases, facing criminal charges etc. Something about a guy going half way across the galaxy looking for the next turn on, to me seems like a really compeling plot without having to be overly dark or preachy. You could quite easily hit up on some very hard topics regarding sex tourism, prostituion, conscent laws, disease, etc etc, while having a relatively utopian outlook with regards to freedom of choice, freedom to take risks.
In two respects TOS has stood the test of time:
1. Clean language, relative to today's standards.
2. Sex-implied rather than explicit.
Come to think of it, this also works in JJTrek.
1. Clean language, relative to today's standards.
2. Sex-implied rather than explicit.
Come to think of it, this also works in JJTrek.
Interesting.
How does optimism about humanity's future work in with those kinds of concepts and, for want of a better term, "message shows?"
JJTrek I think was horrid in that respect, an exceptionally rare offense to be honest.
Randomly showing every female character in bra and panties, while having no relevance to character development.
It doesn't get worst than that actually, and I'm the last person you'd call a feminist.
Well I think it goes like this.
TNG made utopia which was the opposite of what humanity went through in the past.
Starvation, disease, war, persecution, etc..
So they made a world where everything was exceptionally safe, however someone limiting in the ranges of behavior that were acceptable.
I think the element that was missing that personal freedom is an extremely important aspect of utopia.
It's not that people have to live in a world of never ending abundance, safety and security, it's that they aren't forced into any form of displeasure.
Every risk a person takes, every danger, every form of abuse, etc are all done by choice.
Starfleet officers by definition are those that have made a choice to take both risk and liberty by the shovel load.
Redshirts commonly die not because starfleet is incompetent, they die because they live strong with the belief that people are able to die for their own choices.
Of course this doesn't work in the real world because people today are generally very poor at making their own decisions and tend to be very shortsighted, however this could obviously change in the future.
In relation to sex, sexual liberation makes sense only if people are aware of the risks, and people are conscenting 100% to whatever comes their way.
This narrative of a person who's attracted to both sexual freedom and the risks involved would be an interesting fan favorite in my opinion. Obviously if it only pertains to one character.
In general though, the idea that star fleet officers would be most similiar to base jumpers, skydivers, mountain climbers, adventure tourist etc is a very compelling narrative for a trek series.
I would argue that it can because there has been a history of scantily clad women throughout Star Trek, most glaringly Seven of Nine. At least Uhura and Carol Marcus contributed to the story, at least in some way.
Enterprise did little to help matters either. Again, in my opinion.
Point is, Abrams did nothing new and in fact, made his scenes rather short.
This is an interesting concept, but not one that I think is entirely born out within the Trek narrative. I mean, there is personal freedom to do what you would like (cook, maintain a vineyard, trade in goods, etc.) but there is also a hint of social planning that underpines some of the Federation colonization and society.
I'm not saying that it is all a part of it, but the Maquis subplot in DS9, Servin's followers in "Way to Eden" and other parts that I can't qute remember do not always speak to the idea of full freedom that you are discussing.
I'm not saying that it would not be interesting to explore. Just that Star Trek has not always presented that ideal either. It is a utopian world, but the question should always be asked "Who's idea of utopia?"
I think Star Trek should be about looking forward and being timeless or at least timely. In this regard I believe the Abrams films have been most successful in their attempts as steward of the franchise today.
Uh, what? What was random about it?
Not every scene in a film is about "character development".
There is absolutely no reason they should be half naked.
Its basically the director saying.
your a good actor but lets pull your pants down.
Again I'm hardly feminist, however it's just dumb.
Well I have little time for the 7 of 9 catsuit either.
But that one was a little more complicated.
JJs straight and simple, had to tell a chick we need you to be half naked, for no apparent reason.
Well it wouldn't be as simple as I want freedom.
I'm gonna start slamming herion in paris.
Just the same the maquis choose to settle on lands that were known to be in disputed territory. The took their risks, and then later backed out.
You would still have to work within a federation frame work.
The point is that framework does in theory allow more freedoms than viewers would think.
This thread does seem to be in a state of flux between two ideas. The title itself: what is Star Trek, and what seems to be the emerging bulk of the topic: what does it need to be to survive on television today?
The very basic core idea, that humanity has united and spread into space, and we follow a group of courageous and diverse explorers in deep space. Works just fine. I think one element that needs to go away is the notion of humanity existing in a Utopia. Predominately because it was almost always antithetical to telling dramatic stories between the crew in TNG, and it wasn't really there in TOS. TOS had bigotry, it had conflict between the characters, and it didn't try to show humans as infallible, merely that they were more focused than ever on being better. "Today I will not kill." For me there's more nobility and interest in "I'm not perfect, but i'm trying." versus "We're damn near perfect."
For one thing, the backdrop of the future, and how it came into being. Jettison the cold war elements. It wasn't world war III. It wasn't the bomb. No Eugenics, no Khan. There was no post atomic horror. Instead, and with great delicacy I would choose, as someone else suggested here "man vs nature." We know for a fact we've got a couple objects out in space with our names on them, and they will hit us eventually. Whether it's ten years from now,a hundred, or ten thousand. We will have to deal with that someday. The same goes for the planet itself. Massive Tsunamis, super volcanoes, massive plate tectonic shifts, massive Earthquakes.
Two centuries from now, we can only imagine what disasters may have shaken the planet. I can see a humanity emerging from one or two of those kinds of disasters, or the immediate specter of them and having a large understanding that we are isolated on our little ball, and we must find a way to expand into space with great urgency. The result of that would be a humanity that is ultimately united, not because "everything is perfect" but because the goal itself caused a lot of unity.
This could also be used to discuss the eco-centric topics of the 21st century. This, however, should be handled with the same tact and sobering discussion that TOS handled Vietnam and the cold war. It should not de-evolve into a right vs left, or a us vs them discussion, and the "what we're really talking about" should stay into the backdrop. The focus should be on the immediate character drama of the situation. I'm looking predominately at the way those issues were discussed in Balance of Terror and A Private Little War. All sides of the discussion are given their chance to speak, and the tensions are high to be sure, but what we are going to do about it has to be carefully considered. "It" being whatever plot you would put out there. Also, "message" shows should be avoided entirely.
One other big aspect of this is the technology. I think the technology of the Trek universe would be the biggest impetus for a near-paradise Earth. Clean energy, smart materials, every home is self sufficient, No longer do we need to carve out forests or create scars in the landscape with quarries and such. We have the ability to transmute raw atoms into anything we want, and all of our waste can be broken down and reused.
That's how you get a society like the one seen in Trek. Not through "socialist utopia" but through a post-scarcity society that wants for nothing. There is no starvation, because we can feed everyone everywhere with ease. There is no greed, because in this world anything you want is pretty much right at your fingertips. Now, as I said I would jettison the idea of a "Utopia" in the strictest sense. Much more personal freedom would exist in this world, there would be far less a sense of "conformity" to my version of Trek. More people with more hobbies, and some odd social clicks in my take. Since it's not a Utopia, we could also explore some of the negatives. Like i'm sure there would be people addicted to certain kinds of technology or emergent behaviors ala the holoaddicts seen in later TNG/Voyager, but because we would be living in a world where technology has basically given us the solutions to most of the major problems, people would have so much free time on their hands they would turn to things like history, mathematics, learning languages, becoming engineers and technicians, to really fill up that time and give them something more to "do."
Now, the above was predominately focused on the social commentary aspect of Star Trek, which in my view is best kept as a very secondary element. Strong at the right moments, but not in the way. The real focus is on solid action-adventure-drama in space with great characters delivering entertaining dialogue and performances. Heavily distilled, I know, but as to the format of a modern Trek show?
I agree with the notion of limiting the run to 12 to 13 episodes due to creative fatigue and budgetary concerns.
Within that kind of run I would create a bit of a hybrid. Each episode would consist primarily of an A plot that is episodic in nature. Self contained, but not in the old "reset to status quo' style, and even potentially crossing over into two or three part stories depending on the demands of the story itself, but then you would also have character driven subplots riding along in the background that would evolve across many episodes.
A rough episode synopsis might read something like:
The Enterprise is sent on a mission to track down a fugitive responsible for ecological sabotage while a grief stricken McCoy grapples with the death of his ex-wife. Unable to concentrate on his duties, and with a dire situation mounting, the Doctor seeks help from the only logical source.
So, from this rough example you'd have Kirk leading the A plot action as the ship hunts for this criminal, and in the background you'd have McCoy really trying to handle his grief. Something he may have learned at the end of the previous episode which is now paying off, and him seeking help from Spock to at least get a handle on himself because there is an immediate crisis and he cannot focus on what he needs to do. This could then lead into further developments in future episodes, and evolve the relationship between Spock and McCoy.
This is all by the seat of my pants, but I think with this kind of story telling format you'd retain the strengths of TOS style stories, but also be able to do a lot of great things over many episodes with the characters.
The very basic core idea, that humanity has united and spread into space, and we follow a group of courageous and diverse explorers in deep space. Works just fine. I think one element that needs to go away is the notion of humanity existing in a Utopia. Predominately because it was almost always antithetical to telling dramatic stories between the crew in TNG, and it wasn't really there in TOS. TOS had bigotry, it had conflict between the characters, and it didn't try to show humans as infallible, merely that they were more focused than ever on being better. "Today I will not kill." For me there's more nobility and interest in "I'm not perfect, but i'm trying." versus "We're damn near perfect."
For one thing, the backdrop of the future, and how it came into being. Jettison the cold war elements. It wasn't world war III. It wasn't the bomb. No Eugenics, no Khan. There was no post atomic horror. Instead, and with great delicacy I would choose, as someone else suggested here "man vs nature." We know for a fact we've got a couple objects out in space with our names on them, and they will hit us eventually. Whether it's ten years from now,a hundred, or ten thousand. We will have to deal with that someday. The same goes for the planet itself. Massive Tsunamis, super volcanoes, massive plate tectonic shifts, massive Earthquakes.
Two centuries from now, we can only imagine what disasters may have shaken the planet. I can see a humanity emerging from one or two of those kinds of disasters, or the immediate specter of them and having a large understanding that we are isolated on our little ball, and we must find a way to expand into space with great urgency. The result of that would be a humanity that is ultimately united, not because "everything is perfect" but because the goal itself caused a lot of unity.
This could also be used to discuss the eco-centric topics of the 21st century. This, however, should be handled with the same tact and sobering discussion that TOS handled Vietnam and the cold war. It should not de-evolve into a right vs left, or a us vs them discussion, and the "what we're really talking about" should stay into the backdrop. The focus should be on the immediate character drama of the situation. I'm looking predominately at the way those issues were discussed in Balance of Terror and A Private Little War. All sides of the discussion are given their chance to speak, and the tensions are high to be sure, but what we are going to do about it has to be carefully considered. "It" being whatever plot you would put out there. Also, "message" shows should be avoided entirely.
One other big aspect of this is the technology. I think the technology of the Trek universe would be the biggest impetus for a near-paradise Earth. Clean energy, smart materials, every home is self sufficient, No longer do we need to carve out forests or create scars in the landscape with quarries and such. We have the ability to transmute raw atoms into anything we want, and all of our waste can be broken down and reused.
That's how you get a society like the one seen in Trek. Not through "socialist utopia" but through a post-scarcity society that wants for nothing. There is no starvation, because we can feed everyone everywhere with ease. There is no greed, because in this world anything you want is pretty much right at your fingertips. Now, as I said I would jettison the idea of a "Utopia" in the strictest sense. Much more personal freedom would exist in this world, there would be far less a sense of "conformity" to my version of Trek. More people with more hobbies, and some odd social clicks in my take. Since it's not a Utopia, we could also explore some of the negatives. Like i'm sure there would be people addicted to certain kinds of technology or emergent behaviors ala the holoaddicts seen in later TNG/Voyager, but because we would be living in a world where technology has basically given us the solutions to most of the major problems, people would have so much free time on their hands they would turn to things like history, mathematics, learning languages, becoming engineers and technicians, to really fill up that time and give them something more to "do."
Now, the above was predominately focused on the social commentary aspect of Star Trek, which in my view is best kept as a very secondary element. Strong at the right moments, but not in the way. The real focus is on solid action-adventure-drama in space with great characters delivering entertaining dialogue and performances. Heavily distilled, I know, but as to the format of a modern Trek show?
I agree with the notion of limiting the run to 12 to 13 episodes due to creative fatigue and budgetary concerns.
Within that kind of run I would create a bit of a hybrid. Each episode would consist primarily of an A plot that is episodic in nature. Self contained, but not in the old "reset to status quo' style, and even potentially crossing over into two or three part stories depending on the demands of the story itself, but then you would also have character driven subplots riding along in the background that would evolve across many episodes.
A rough episode synopsis might read something like:
The Enterprise is sent on a mission to track down a fugitive responsible for ecological sabotage while a grief stricken McCoy grapples with the death of his ex-wife. Unable to concentrate on his duties, and with a dire situation mounting, the Doctor seeks help from the only logical source.
So, from this rough example you'd have Kirk leading the A plot action as the ship hunts for this criminal, and in the background you'd have McCoy really trying to handle his grief. Something he may have learned at the end of the previous episode which is now paying off, and him seeking help from Spock to at least get a handle on himself because there is an immediate crisis and he cannot focus on what he needs to do. This could then lead into further developments in future episodes, and evolve the relationship between Spock and McCoy.
This is all by the seat of my pants, but I think with this kind of story telling format you'd retain the strengths of TOS style stories, but also be able to do a lot of great things over many episodes with the characters.
Nice.
Similar threads
- Locked
