What is Star Trek and its future?

[Herkimer Jitty]

It would certainly reduce studio meddling. I suppose it depends on if the increase in "artistic purity" is worth the extra effort it takes to cultivate an intellectual property. I think Babylon 5 banked on that, but I was still in kindergarten at the time, so no comment.

On the other hand, the Battlestar Galactica reboot used the name to create something almost entirely new, bearing little resemblance to its predecessor. I suppose one could say it doesn't matter either way and that both approaches are equally valid, depending on the production climate these shows are being pitched in?

 

[wulfio]

Star Trek TOS was almost never about exploration. Neither was TNG. The whole "seeking out new life" intro is nonsense. That may have been the goal of the crew, but it certainly was never the goal of the show. I can count on, maybe, two hands the number of episodes in both series that were genuine science fictional attempts at exploring something truly alien and different. The rest of the episodes are either action-adventures, or explorations of character choices and ethical dilemmas, or metaphors for contemporary social issues. The fact that they were on a ship was mainly due to requiring a simple format, an efficient and pre-canned narrative structure for each episode, so that random plots can be inserted without too much trouble or foresight. A new Trek show absolutely does NOT have to be on a ship, since, as I said, the first 2 series weren't really about exploration anyway. To be Star Trek, a show needs to do what those shows ACTUALLY did, which is to tell stories that reveal character, or character conflict, or difficult ethical dilemmas, or that comment intelligently on current social or cultural or global issues. The style or setting or structure of the show is largely immaterial.

And since 2015 has very different ethical dilemmas and social issues than 1966 or 1990 did, a new Trek show would, of course, be extremely different, possibly unrecognizable, compared to those earlier shows. As it should be. Also, narrative styles and forms and approaches have changed, as they should have, as all things must. Any show today that tries to replicate what it believes worked in the past is doomed to fail (for evidence of this, refer to Star Trek: Voyager and every Star Trek movie that tried to be the next Wrath of Khan.)

I think you missed the point. "going boldly where no man has gone before" was not the mission statement for the narrative of each episode. It was representative of a philosophy for a better future. It means we are more concerned with growth and progress than wealth and power and our petty prejudices.

A new Star Trek would not, or at least should not deviate from that. Because that is what Trek is. The only difference is, there would be a few more episodes dealing with topics on sexual orientation, censorship, etc. However, equality is as relevant today as it was in the 60's.

The only reason it wouldn't resemble trek as we know it is if an executive gets their hands on it that doesn't understand the IP and wants to make it "gritty".

I will try to unpack your claim: I believe you are saying that the fundamental core of Star Trek, which it must not deviate from, is that it must represent an imagined future that is "better" than our own, a future which believes in "progress" rather than "petty prejudices." Am I getting that right? Okay: what is "better"? A socialist future? A laissez-faire capitalist future? A future run by a massive, benevolent galactic government? Or a future with NO government, because any government is by definition a kind of oppression? In this future, are people allowed to be anything they want to be, any race, sex, species, and can therefore get surgeries and genetic mutations to allow those people to become what they truly want to be? Or do all the people more or less think and act the same, to bring true harmony and peace to the galaxy?

See, the original Roddenberry ideal is incredibly naive and, actually, impossible to represent, because we can never even agree, as a culture, on what exactly "progress" means, or what "better" means. So what would this Star Trek future look like? Who decides what "better" is?

It's better to Roddenberry; the creator of Star Trek. It represents an egalitarian society that places importance on existentialism and the ubermesnch. It's not naive to the people that like that vision of the future. It's naive to you, but not to others. And typically, for those of us that enjoy the series, that vision resonated with us.

I hope the irony of "unpacking my claim" by holding it against your own opinion and standards is not lost on you. Look up subjectivity. It's an awesome word. And it happens to be a two way street. I'm entitled to my ideologies as much as you are yours.

At the end of the day, that sense of optimism is at Treks core. Back to your original point before you brought in these logical fallacies, naive to you or not, that's what it was intended to be. And boldly going forward represents that optimism, not the idea that "we find new civilizations every week". That interpretation of the source material is so myopic it makes me cringe.

 

[Nerys Myk]

It's a floor wax and a dessert topping.

 

[Warped9]

It would certainly reduce studio meddling. I suppose it depends on if the increase in "artistic purity" is worth the extra effort it takes to cultivate an intellectual property. I think Babylon 5 banked on that, but I was still in kindergarten at the time, so no comment.

On the other hand, the Battlestar Galactica reboot used the name to create something almost entirely new, bearing little resemblance to its predecessor. I suppose one could say it doesn't matter either way and that both approaches are equally valid, depending on the production climate these shows are being pitched in?

B5 had the advantage of not having a lot of existing property to either build on, be tied to or having to stand apart from. NuBSG had only one little remembered TV series without much degree of recognition and expectations attatched to it. That allowed a good measure of creative freedom. But then neither were really trying to do what Star Trek did--they were doing their own thing.

Star Trek benefitted from successful and popular TV properties: TOS and TNG. TOS lit the spark and resonated sufficiently even while struggling in the ratings game initially yet flourishing in syndication. The films sufficiently fed the ongoing interest. TNG came along at just the right time to keep that interest going. But TNG's success also encouraged others to try their hand at SF on television and new (and respectable) genre shows began emerging right around the time DS9 came along. Someone mention upthread that we began to see fragmentation. Trek was no longer the only decent game in town anymore. The X-Files, Babylon 5, Stargate SG1 and others might well have contributed to pulling some viewers from Trek. Trek was no longer going to see the viewership numbers once seen with TOS and TNG. At the same time--particularly during the last decade or so--viewersship became fragmented even more by the specialty channels and online streaming services.

Succinctly SF on TV is never again going to see the numbers it might once have. Networks and studios will respond with programs cheaper to produce so they can still profit with the new television and online viewing models. From this vantage point it doesn't look good for any creative and relatively expensive space adventure property be it Star Trek or anything similar.

For new Star Trek or non Trek space adventure it might be necessary to come up with a new way to do it.

So space adventure in the visual medium remains faced with the challenge it has always faced--perhaps even more so: being able to reach an acceptable sized viewership and doing so affordably.

 

[T'Girl]

Okay: what is "better"? A socialist future? A laissez-faire capitalist future? A future run by a massive, benevolent galactic government? Or a future with NO government, because any government is by definition a kind of oppression?

In the original series, the optimistic future was optimistic simply owing to the fact that Humanity survived to have a future at all. We didn't destroy ourselves. It wasn't about paradise or utopia, we somehow just didn't destroy ourselves.

Perhaps it would be better if Star Trek didn't get too specific on the details of "better." Keep it vague, and sprinkle in contradictory facts, one character says one thing, next episode another says the opposite. They have no money, but inspite of that they actually do have money. The Federation is a massive entity that occupies a quarter of the galaxy, and at the same time it's "only" six thousand lightyears long and merely consists of 150 planets. The UFP has some of the characteristic of a state, but James Kirk calls it an alliance. Starfleet is a military ... sort of.

This way, when Ben Sisko uses the term paradise, each viewer can imagine their own vision of what they consider paradise and project this into the show. No one gets shut out.

The Federation. The ultimate expression of communism, where powerful cyber-punk corporations own entire star systems.

 

[Trekkin]

This way, when Ben Sisko uses the term paradise, each viewer can imagine their own vision of what they consider paradise and project this into the show. No one gets shut out.

Unless you're an Augment of some variation. Then no one will want you around.

Stupid Khan, ruining it for everyone.

 

[Tim Walker]

Regarding cheaper production....

So called reality shows.

Other possibilities? Game shows. Cooking shows. Sports. Things that need no paid actors. No paid script writers.

Shows that don't need a lot of money for costumes or sets or props.

 

[Warped9]

Does anyone know what Game Of Thrones costs per episode?

It could be the closest anology available for an elaborate genre property presently on televsision. There is a lot of costuming and makeup, set design and f/x going on in that series. That and quite a large and shifting cast. It might be the most ambitious thing going on right now although there is word some SF novels have recently been optioned for television.

 

[Campe]

$6 million per episode.

 

[Trekkin]

GOT films in two different countries at once (or maybe more these days) to get the different locations for the various seperate storylines. That would drive the costs right up.

 

[Warped9]

GOT films in two different countries at once (or maybe more these days) to get the different locations for the various seperate storylines. That would drive the costs right up.

It could still serve as a sort of baseline.

Presently I'm re-reading The Making Of Star Trek (by Gene Whitfield) and I've just finished Chapter 6 (called A Blueprint For Starflight) which deals with many of the considerations that went into Star Trek's pilot script for "The Cage." The situation would be little different today given that practically everything on such a series would have to be designed from scratch. One significant advantage today, though, is in the area of f/x given there are resources today that simply didn't exist way back in the '60s or even '80s (to the smae extent).

One could assume that the main cast for a new Trek should be significantly smaller than GoT. They also likely wouldn't be shooting on two continents. Right there alone I think there would be an enormous savings in cost.

 

[Autistoid]

An advantage with a new Star Trek property is the recognition factor: right off you're going to draw an audience even if merely out of curiosity. The key would then be being able to hold onto them, or at least a sizable chunk of them, and growing it from there.

But I do wonder if it could be easier to develop and launch a non Trek property that could build on some similar ideas yet not be burdened by expectations and preconceptions simply that are associated with something being Trek.

Ignoring the blatant chache of the name which is needed to do a high end sci fi series.

The idea of not callling it trek is utter BS.

You either have the peanut gallary screaming it's not trek enough, or it's a blatant rip off of star trek. You can't win either way.

That's of course ignoring the fact that Star trek is inspirational material. As a result anyone posting on this site would like to borrow an incredible amount of stuff from the orginal shows.

#1 As an anchor to give a focus for a series that is gonna be somewhat complex.

#2 Trek is just so wide it seems absurd to even be concerned about being trek enough

#3 Building up a whole new mythos is expensive. Why build a new one when you can simply one that already exists.

#4 Finally the important detail were trek fans, were in love with what the trek universe might be. It seems absurd that we have to justify our desire to create the best image of something that were so passionate about.

 

[Warped9]

We are not talking about a thinly veiled rip-off of Trek, but something that might use some similar ideas while doing its own thing.

There have been times when watching Stargate SG-1 or Stargate Atlantis where it felt an episode resonated in a Trek like way. A lot of early Stargate had them doing reconnaissance of unknown worlds wherein the big difference between Stargate and Star Trek was a gateway vs a starship to get to other worlds and being near future vs. far future in terms of setting. Eventually they introduced FTL starships, but by then Stargate had clearly established its own identity.

Babylon 5 had a lot of basic similarities with Star Trek, but it had a different tone and visual presentation that made it distinct.

 

[Ubik]

We are not talking about a thinly veiled rip-off of Trek, but something that might use some similar ideas while doing its own thing.

There have been times when watching Stargate SG-1 or Stargate Atlantis where it felt an episode resonated in a Trek like way. A lot of early Stargate had them doing reconnaissance of unknown worlds wherein the big difference between Stargate and Star Trek was a gateway vs a starship to get to other worlds and being near future vs. far future in terms of setting. Eventually they introduced FTL starships, but by then Stargate had clearly established its own identity.

Babylon 5 had a lot of basic similarities with Star Trek, but it had a different tone and visual presentation that made it distinct.

The name "Star Trek" will always be used for brand recognition, I think, and I don't feel there's anything wrong with that. There have already been so many different takes, in style, in approach, in type of story, in philosophical worldview, in story structure, all under the banner of Star Trek, that I think it essentially can encompass just about anything. TOS and TNG might as well take place in different universes. DS9 might as well take place ten universes over. The movies are a different thing again. To my mind, it is merely Voyager, Enterprise, and the last 3 or 4 movies that have shown too dedicated a notion of what Star Trek "ought" to be, and therefore feel more like "product," predictable crowd-pleasing formula, than the original, daring, risky storytelling required of anything that intends to be great art (and I would argue that the first 3 tv shows, and many of the movies, all contained many moments of great storytelling art.)

So, look - make a new tv show, call it Star Trek: Something or other, get that brand recognition, get that built-in audience, and then, like the DS9 writers had the chutzpah to do, surprise the hell out of them. Give them something totally unexpected, shock them, refuse to fulfill expectations, risk alienating them, and then make them love it, make them feel like they're getting something they didn't even know they wanted, they didn't even know they were missing. That's what great storytelling can do, especially science fiction, and it's what I believe the Star Trek property, when they're finished playing 60's nostalgia and fan fiction games with this rebooted Trek universe, can once again get back to doing. What will it be? If I could predict that, it wouldn't surprise me, and therefore wouldn't be great art.

 

[Ubik]

I think you missed the point. "going boldly where no man has gone before" was not the mission statement for the narrative of each episode. It was representative of a philosophy for a better future. It means we are more concerned with growth and progress than wealth and power and our petty prejudices.

A new Star Trek would not, or at least should not deviate from that. Because that is what Trek is. The only difference is, there would be a few more episodes dealing with topics on sexual orientation, censorship, etc. However, equality is as relevant today as it was in the 60's.

The only reason it wouldn't resemble trek as we know it is if an executive gets their hands on it that doesn't understand the IP and wants to make it "gritty".

I will try to unpack your claim: I believe you are saying that the fundamental core of Star Trek, which it must not deviate from, is that it must represent an imagined future that is "better" than our own, a future which believes in "progress" rather than "petty prejudices." Am I getting that right? Okay: what is "better"? A socialist future? A laissez-faire capitalist future? A future run by a massive, benevolent galactic government? Or a future with NO government, because any government is by definition a kind of oppression? In this future, are people allowed to be anything they want to be, any race, sex, species, and can therefore get surgeries and genetic mutations to allow those people to become what they truly want to be? Or do all the people more or less think and act the same, to bring true harmony and peace to the galaxy?

See, the original Roddenberry ideal is incredibly naive and, actually, impossible to represent, because we can never even agree, as a culture, on what exactly "progress" means, or what "better" means. So what would this Star Trek future look like? Who decides what "better" is?

It's better to Roddenberry; the creator of Star Trek. It represents an egalitarian society that places importance on existentialism and the ubermesnch. It's not naive to the people that like that vision of the future. It's naive to you, but not to others. And typically, for those of us that enjoy the series, that vision resonated with us.

I hope the irony of "unpacking my claim" by holding it against your own opinion and standards is not lost on you. Look up subjectivity. It's an awesome word. And it happens to be a two way street. I'm entitled to my ideologies as much as you are yours.

At the end of the day, that sense of optimism is at Treks core. Back to your original point before you brought in these logical fallacies, naive to you or not, that's what it was intended to be. And boldly going forward represents that optimism, not the idea that "we find new civilizations every week". That interpretation of the source material is so myopic it makes me cringe.

Oh - just so you know, there is nothing pejorative about the expression "unpack your claim" - it merely means to attempt to capture it as fairly, accurately, and completely as possible, to do justice to it. It in no way implies criticism, or even disagreement. I also did not criticize any ideology of yours, not being aware you had offered any, nor did I put your ideology against mine, because I didn't present any of mine either, nor did I present any particular "standards" to hold against yours. I'm glad you pointed out the notion of "subjectivity," because that was precisely my point: that Roddenberry's notions of progress and what is "better" is highly subjective, and I was just expressing my belief that anyone who believes that an objectively optimistic universe can be presented in television is naive, simply because no two people could necessarily agree on what that optimism would consist of. For example, for many, Roddenberry's secular attitude, the lack of religious faith in the future, is a very PESSIMISTIC view of the future of humanity. The existence of a Federation that absorbs other cultures, just like the Borg does, might also be perceived as pessimistic by some. Many might even view Roddenberry's future world as a dystopia rather than a hopeful future. My point was simply that a genuinely "progressive" future cannot be written without becoming hopelessly subjective, and alienating many people who do not agree with one writer's view of progress. So, when you claim that Star Trek, to remain Star Trek, needs to at least possess this "optimistic" view of humanity, what you really meant, I believe, was that it needs to maintain specifically Roddenberry's notions of progress and improvement, not necessarily a more updated 21st century view of progress, for example, or a capitalist's view of progress, or a person of faith's view of progress, or the view of progress of the new batch of writers of this imagined tv show, whoever they may be. That, I believe, may be too limiting and stringent an expectation to place on a new tv show, if the intent is to create great storytelling possibilities.

Again, I point out that I have made no claims for my own view of what "optimism" or "progress" means, because it's not relevant to the discussion.

 

[T'Girl]

Paragraphs.

 

[Tim Walker]

Rewatching The X-Files I find myself thinking some of its atmosphere would be neat in a new Trek series. Particularly the "monster of the week" type elements where unusual and extreme phenomena and scenarios are investigated. That could fit in nicely with exploring the unknown and help regain that sense of being far, far out on the frontier.
.

Indeed.

Also, think back half a century. There were space orientated espisodes of the Twilight Zone (such as "Death Ship") and The Outer Limits (such as "The Invisible Enemy").

 

[Warped9]

Several years ago I had a general idea for a Trek reboot, but I decided to modify it to suit my own non Trek idea.

It involved humans with longer life spans, few alien races known and much more a rare Earth concept. I had an idea of the Enterprise being a very fast relativistic ship with a smaller crew. Or the crew could remain large because the crew would be away from home for a very long time.

It could have tied in with the early concept for TNG where the E-D wasn't meant to return for 10-20 years. A vague background idea was that Earth and some of the human worlds faced a dilemma or threat and the Enterprise was one of a number of ships sent out to find new worlds for humanity to colonize.

 

[MantaBase]

Why did TOS click and go on to enjoy an expanding popularity? Why does it still draw younger viewers? Why did TNG click? Conversely why did DS9, VOY and ENT not really click and drew diminishing numbers of viewers?


So what does Star Trek have to have to remain recognizable? And what things are distinctly not Star Trek?


Thoughts anyone?

Part of it was timing. Another part was that it was political and social in very pointed ways. And another was that it explored humanity in ways we were dreaming of. It's very concept was a-nationalistic during a time when we were so very attached to nationalism. It attacked, in a diplomatic way, racism - and nationalism. It gave warnings and reminders that our supremacy was not set in stone, but volatile and open to change. It was also a bit gritty for the time. It presented in an acceptable way a "new world order".

The characters were simple and defined - almost binned into boxes. Taken as individuals, they don't make full personalities - but taken as a whole they do. The series was story driven and had fewer limitations compared to other series of the time. For example, they were not restricted to never getting off the island or always dealing with "giants" in every episode. In the 60's and 70's...and even 80's, sci-fi/fantasy had a single objective in a series that could not be fulfilled lest the series would end. Lost in space? Even the original BSG....you knew they wouldn't find Earth!

I think you could start a good series that emulates ST. And I think something like Firefly was.....but was killed for politics. Staying in the ST universe, I think Vanguard is a good choice (with some modifications). Otherwise, outside the ST universe are some of Chris Woodings books.

 

[MantaBase]

Why did TOS click and go on to enjoy an expanding popularity? Why does it still draw younger viewers? Why did TNG click? Conversely why did DS9, VOY and ENT not really click and drew diminishing numbers of viewers?


So what does Star Trek have to have to remain recognizable? And what things are distinctly not Star Trek?


Thoughts anyone?

Part of it was .....

Ya know I have been thinking more about this. What make a good story or show? Star Trek or not. I was trying to come up with a list. I fell short.

• The "mission" or issue the series/story is built around must be open ended - or at least allow for a great deal of latitude. Voyager somehow pulled it off despite being a Gilligan in Space. But generally I would avoid such well defined motives.
• Characters should be "binned". This sounds like a weakness as it can make for very flat characters - but it is needed. If everyone can do everyone else's job then there is no point in having multiple characters. Predictable characters are good - and they can be made into excellent story engines when they break out of that predictability. If you think about the ST characters (in all series), they are highly specialized in skills - but also generally pigeon holed in specific human personality traits. People like this in a story or show.
• There has to be exploration of the human condition. Ya know when folks cry or laugh or smile at a movie? That' usually because the human condition just got explored (or exploited).
• There has to be gender and race representation (in positions of authority) that exceeds our current situation. And race specialization is not really accepted in shows aiming fro broad audiences.
• And I guess it helps to explore social morays and morals.

Then I just had a blank. If you skip the explanations....that's a short list. Anyone else?

It's an interesting question. I do a bit of Sci-fi writing and I have my tricks I have learned and read about to make stories interesting. But this is the first time I have approached it from "what makes it successful". Lol....likely explains why my writing is interesting....but not successful.