Describe YOUR new Star Trek series.

[Tim Walker]

What about Earth type planets? These seem abundant in Trek.

I imagine that the Preservers were masters of terraforming. Creating new biospheres with organisms imported from Earth. Eventually, transplanting humans to these planets. Some of these colonies might be remnants of cultures that no longer exist, such as ancient Egyptians, Incas, Huns, Vandals, Aztecs, etc.

Indeed, these peoples might in part substitute for the bumpy-headed-alien-of-the week.

Also, wagon-train-to-the-stars might have resulted in colonies founded by modern humans. If, say, a century had passed since the founding, the colonists might have started to develop new cultures. There might even be a lost colony somewhere.

One thing-modern colonists might violate the Prime Directive and subjugate some of these ancient-culture/transplanted humans. Something like the Spanish conquistodores subjugating the Inca Empire or Mexico.

 

[Warped9]

I would have humans using fast relativistic ships until the 23rd century (and thus developing the familiar impulse drives). With these they manage to begin colonizing a handful of relatively near systems. In the 23rd century they get development of warp drive wherein exploration and colonization ramps up. Humanity begins encountering alien races just before or just after the development of warp drive. There might be some friction as well as trade and alliances (or at least nonagression pacts) until eventually the UFP is established.

I would lean more towards a rare Earth scenario which gives added impetus to exploration programs. I would also suggest that centuries down the road humans have evolved somewhat in terms of material gain not being such a powerful influence in human interests. There could still be exceptions, but in general humanity has taken a broader view of life and existence. This is basically what we saw in TOS and TNG. In extent from that something like a Prime Directive wouldn't seem so unusual. Indeed we have people today who argue against the foreign policies of their own governments. In the past there were dissenters to how the aboriginals were treated when the Europeans landed in the New World.

TOS painted a picture of rapid technological advancement particularly in terms of space programs. This was fueled largely because of the popularity and accomplishments of the U.S. space programs of the time. From the vantage point of the 1960s and the rapid changes in technology and society in general the idea of humans already reaching into deep space within the forthcoming decades seemed inevitable. They had no way of forseeing the changes that would lead to all that optimism evaporating not long after the Moon landings.

In a reboot I would take a longer view. I think it would be safe enough to assume that humanity could get to Mars and the other planets in our solar sytem during the 21st century. You just accept the idea without trying to nail down specific time frames. I wouldn't set any specific historical references until the late 21st century at the earliest. By then Star Trek could well be a long forgotten memory outside of references in entertainment history.


The Preservers is an idea that could be carried over into a reboot as a way of explaining the number of humanoid races encountered within the local area of the galaxy.

 

[Tim Walker]

I am not an expert, but from what I have read it is just within our technology to land an astronaut on Mars. At this point, this would be a prestige project. It would be high risk and resource intensive.

A bit of history-the 1920s, and the Central Asiatic expeditions. (For Central Asia read Mongolia). These were a big expeditions by the standards of the time. Indiana Jones was supposedly based on the expedition leader, Roy Chapman Andrews. These expeditions failed to discover the origins of Man, but did return with a treasure trove of fossils. It was big science combined with big adventure. I believe that the title of the biography was "Dragon Hunter".

Further expeditions were canceled with the onset of the Great Depression. Roy Chapman
Andrews was lucky to have a job as a museum curator.

Eventually, decades later, scientists returned to Mongolia.

My point being that the first interplanetary expeditions are unlikely in the early 21st century. We would first have to get past the Great Recession, into a new period of prosperity.

 

[Warped9]

One idea I had was to have a big scare sometime in the 21st century. Something that scares the crap out of humanity as a whole and sends the message it's better not to have all your eggs in one basket. It could be an environmental or biological scare or maybe one or two very near misses with a mother sized asteroid. Something to motivate the idea of spreading out to the stars. Another idea as added incentive (taking a page from TAS) is that perhaps some form of evidence of alien intelligence is found somewhere within our own solar system.

And today that has more weight because of how many extrasolar planets we are discovering. We are getting a better idea that there are places of interest to go to. And humanity being what it is if a method is devised to make the trip in a reasonable manner then somebody will want to try it.

In TOS' "Metamorphosis" Kirk tells Cochrane that they cross fantastic distances and are finding life everywhere. He doesn't specify intelligent life, but many planets could support all kinds of life, from microbial to complex, even if it isn't intelligent.

 

[Tim Walker]

One thing I keep wondering about....

Would it turn Trek into not-Trek by substituting humans for humanoids?

Or even by substituting engineered offshoots of humanity for humanoids? Red Dwarf used altered Earth life to substitute for aliens.

 

[Warped9]

I could imagine humans engineered/evolved to adapt to different environments that can't be terraformed to exact Earth conditions. Some of them could be among our future Enterprise crew.

 

[Tim Walker]

Brian Clegg thought that space miners seems plausible. This might be divided into two groups: 1. asteroid miners 2. planetary miners. The second group featured in a few episodes, such as TOS "The Devil in the Dark".

One possible setting would be a space-station-grown-into-a-space-city. This would likely be a cross roads. However, I would have the Hero crew flying around in their own Hero ship.

 

[Rahul]

@Warped9:
I so much love your ideas! Although I do not agree with all of them. If I were to create a completely new scifi-show, most of your ideas (regarding human backstory in the 21st century for example) are pure gold.

In the case of Star Trek though, I think continuity is not only baggage, but the one thing that keeps the whole Trek-fandom together. Fans of very different television-series built one community, where we argue and debate which part of Trek is the best/favourite and whatnot. In the same way 'Marvel's: The Avengers' connects stylistic very different movies into a whole new universe, continuity is what elevates Star Trek into the pop cultural juggernaut it is.

Which btw I think is the reason the JJ-verse is so despised: They aren't bad movies. But they destroyed the kit that hold the Trek-universe together.



Because of this I would prefer an arms-lenght reboot, in the same way TNG once was. Set in the future of the Trek universe, with all technology, science, aliens and human backstory reworked to modern sensibilities. No rubber-forehead aliens, more zany plants and animals/monsters on alien planets, rework the Holodeck into something closer to virtual reality, redo replicators so they resemble more advanced 3D-printers, have the doctor 'spray' new skin on flesh wounds. Get rid of a lot of the 'invisible' TNG-technologies and have more practical, real-world resembling technolgies.

But at the same time accept a 'broad strokes'-continuity: There have been Enterprises before. Let Patrick Steward have a cameo in the pilot as an older Picard, to hold a speech for the maiden voyage of the new ship. Have a big picture of the 60s Enterprise in the new Captain's room. Hell, have a picture of Chris Pine in Starfleet headquarters. And if a story requires to talk about the past, mention Earth had 3 World Wars and an eugenic war. But don't specify it. Hell, historians could very well later decide that World War 3 is NOW, with rising political and religious conflicts and wars over ressources all over the world. And if somebody talks about the Eugenic Wars ("you know, the one with genetic mutated super-humans?") have a clueless person ask "the one started in 1996?" as an inside gag!


Basically: Keep all character continuity in: Kirk and Picard were Captains of the Enterprise, Janeway brought Voyager (and Seven of Nine) back to Earth, Sisko was a war hero and Archer an early explorer. But toss every continuity regarding detailed backstories of aliens, wars and technologies out of the window
.

 

[Warped9]

...I think is the reason the JJ-verse is so despised: They aren't bad movies. But they destroyed the kit that hold the Trek-universe together.

I don't think establishing a new continuity is why there is such disagreement over JJtrek. I think it's more of trying to have it both ways in the sense of resetting the continuity we knew and implying that the original no longer exist by being wiped out. There's also the disagreement over how Trek in general and its universe (characters, setting, hardware etc.) is handled.

I can also understand the idea of starting with a clean sheet. If you go back to the Prime continuity there are limitations to what you can do particularly if you want to reach a broader audience beyond the core fandom. In fact you don't have to go back to watch everything done before to get into Prime Trek--you can simply focus on one or two series or films if you want. But there can still be the perception with some new viewers that you have to see everything to understand whats going on.

A new continuity also doesn't erase the old continuity. It simply offers another version. This is something that comics have been doing for decades. It's also been done with characters in film be it Superman, Batman, James Bond, Spider-Man, Sherlock Holmes, etc.

In another way it has already been happening outside of JJtrek: the books. How many novels have been written chronicling adventures of the TOS crew set during the 5-year mission? The idea is that those printed adventures happened along with the actual televised adventures. But if you add all of those together with the televised episodes you come up with more adventures than could possibly have fit within a five year period. But the individual is free to pick-and-choose which published adventures he/she likes and seem consistent with TOS.

But if you return to television and want to revist the TOS crew and maintain the original continuity you have a problem: at one point do you come into the story? You can tell the last two years of the mission (while acknoledging that a contemporary production will have inconsistencies with TOS), but then what? You can tell stories post TMP and pre TWOK. Or you can tell stories of the Pike era post "The Cage." Or you can have a new ship and crew, but will that draw viewers who identify Kirk, Spock et al as being integral to Star TreK?

So if you want to tell TOS stories with familiar characters then you have to hit the rest button. That's true with TNG as well.

Yes, you can push the timeline forward to maybe a hundred years after TNG and establish a new cast of characters and setting (like TNG did), but will it be accepted this time around?

In all honesty I don't know if anyone has the best and most correct answer. I think a lot will depend on someone with a clear vision of what to do and a clear idea of how to approach and execute it.

 

[Rahul]

Well, a reboot always seems like a great idea for the writers. But it isn't. It certainly is the easiest way, but by far not the best.

In fact I personally originally was only a fan of the original series. But because the other series took place in the same universe, I stayed with them even when they were bad. TNG started horribly... like most modern Trek series. But people stayed, and each of the series eventually improved.

A reboot destroys this.

One must only look at the number of reboots in comics: fans left when Spiderman was rebooted once and again. Find somebody that likes DC's new 52. In the movies, The amazing Spiderman made a whole lot of money, but critics and the fans hated it so much it got rebooted again. And basically every time the JJverse is mentioned, people online fall in rage mode.

Which is astounding. Again, they aren't great movies. But Star Trek has a looong history of mediocre to bad movies. People make fun or complain about Nemesis or Final Frontier, but they don't hate these movies.

It's because those movies accepted the continuity. And even when they were bad, they were grudgingly acepted in Star Trek's history.

But JJ's reboot destroyed that history. There are many issues with the movies, but in general they're 'fun' and 'entertaining'. If they were just prequels like Star Wars, people would likewise still complain, but accept them. But instead, a reboot always announces: 'EVERYTHING THAT WAS BEFORE DOESN'T COUNT ANYMORE AND THIS IS NOW OUR TRUE VISION!' -which makes it infinitely more infuriating if this new vision has now big problems of it's own. Especially when they're problems that weren't there before!

This is the reason I think any new Trek series should stay away from Kirk and Spock. They're done. They have their schtick. Their stories are told, and told well. Everything that comes now will only alter their brand, and make it worse in the minds of many. (Seriously: Spock was my favourite Star Trek character, and in the new continuity he's constantly angry/crying/beating-people-to-pulp or having other emotional breakdowns!). We have to accept that we can never ojectively reach the same qualities that made the original so popular, without diluting other important aspects of the original. Let alone in the subjective view of fans, where the characters are now 'ruined'.

Because of this: if Star Trek shall ever return to the screen: Stay the hell away from rebooting the characters!

 

[Warped9]

A reboot destroys this.

No, there you're wrong. It does no such thing because you are free to return to and revisit the previous continuity whenever you wish. And writers of books and fan productions are free to create new stories set in that continuity.

A reboot does not literally destroy the previous continuity. It merely offers an alternative version. The original is still there.

What you're really talking about is preference for one version over another. And I most certainly understand that. I followed Star Trek from TOS to TAS to TMP and through the subsequent films and then (sporadically) through TNG and into DS9. And then I bailed because I wasn't enjoying it anymore. Something had changed too much for my liking. My ultimate dislike for JJtrek isn't because it's a reboot but because of how it was done and the final result. It's really an extension of why I grew disenchanted with contemporary Trek even before we had heard anything of JJtrek.

Even before JJtrek I had compartmentalized Trek to my own liking. For me Star Trek was/is TOS, TAS, TMP and some of TNG. I simply ignore the rest. The rest--if I even think of it--is all some alternate continuity exactly as I see JJtrek. They can do whatever they want because to me it doesn't register. And whatever future Trek project comes along I will judge it the same way: if it's enjoyable and fits into my view of Trek then fine, and if not then it doesn't matter and I'll ignore it. It's that simple.

It doesn't mean discussion can't ensue regarding what I might like or not like about it.

I like the Daniel Craig continuity of James Bond yet that doesn't invalidate or destroy my enjoyment of the Sean Connery continuity of Bond or the continuity as it's established in the original novels. I liked Man Of Steel yet that doesn't destroy or invalidate the continuity I enjoyed in the '90's TAS Superman or the 1950's Adventures Of Superman.

So if they manage a really cool reboot of TOS/TNG and it grabs me it still doesn't invalidate or destroy the original Prime continuity. It's still there to be discovered and enjoyed.

And today we are living in a wonderful time for enjoying these things because so much of the past is readily available to us unlike ever before. Prior to this time one had to wait for films or series to be rerun on television for us to see them again. Now we don't have to wait for that, or go by memory alone, because we can purchase copies of the films we like as well as season sets of the shows we like. We can revisit them anytime we wish.

For me Star Trek is TOS, but that version of TOS isn't coming back. It's done. The closest we can get is to read original novels or watch fan productions set in that era. I will never again have Shatner as Kirk, Nimoy as Spock and the rest unless I revisit the original series or read a book and imagine the characters that way.

The only other way to perpetuate what I love in Star Trek is to put that into a new form that respects the original in terms of execution yet expands in ways that weren't possible before. My favourite TNG episodes don't even have any of the original characters yet they somehow (perhaps by accident) managed to have something of a TOS vibe or sensibility to them. A book or a fan production can do the same thing. There were times during the first season of Earth Final Conflict where I felt there was something of a TOS vibe to those stories.

Just because I don't like VOY, ENT and JJtrek doesn't mean I'm against anything new. It simply means I don't agree with how those were done. It doesn't mean I'm against any new Star Trek at all.

I must also state that unlike some other fans I have no attachment to the contemporary Trek era (just as some have no attachment to the TOS era). While I enjoy certain episodes of TNG anything post TMP simply doesn't really register for me.

So while one can dislike the form a reboot might take it doesn't threaten what you like already in any way.


As far as characters go it's not that different. As I stated above I can accept Daniel Craig's Bond as easily as Sean Connery's. I can accept Henry Cavill's Superman as easily as George Reeves. I can accept Christian Bale's Batman as easily as Michael Keaton's or Kevin Conroy's. If I only had to go by the characters I saw in JJtrek I could get discouraged, but then I see Vic Mignogna's portrayal of Kirk and I see that someone else can bring TOS Kirk back to life even if it isn't exact. So from that sample alone I can see that a rebooted Star Trek with right right actors and the right writing could most certainly work.

 

[C57D]

My personal plan would be to take TOS themes back around 15 years to when (according to the original Spaceflight Chronology) the first Starship (Connie) class ships were being launched.

Back to when the UFP was much smaller, and maybe less coherent. Back to the first W6/8 ships ( the Starship class themselves) and the early days of the Transporter.

Back to more mystery, more exploration, even less central command on the frontiers. When the Ship captain was truly on his own.

The Cage turned into a full series.

And back to lower tech, lasers, missiles for ships. Laser handguns (No stun or disintegrate!), no tricorders (maybe sensor feed from the ship), more field tool kits and hands on exploration.

And, around the time that StarFleet and the Klingons were just starting their Cold War, trying to outdo each other in an interstellar land grab?

I'd love to see it!

 

[Deleted 69012]

Star Trek has always been almost an anthology-show. Lots of different scifi-plots and ideas, only loosely connected by having the same main characters who stumble into one neat high concept-story after another.

.... make me uncomfortable, force me to look at the white hot center of all the societal elephants in the room and then show me that if we choose to, we can rise above these things.

Yes. An anthology format with a challenging ideological core. Go 22nd century Starfleet one week. 25th century Romulan civilians the next. Whatever works. **** continuity; just make good sci-fi stories.

Honestly, I find Hollywoods (and societies, for that matter) fixation with the past and obsession with recapturing past glories rather than making new ones to be unhealthy.

Runner up. If the alternative is more gritty, continuity laden stories about The Star Trek Universe (TM), I'll watch Pacific Rim again.

 

[Tyr]

I think Vanguard would have made a good series. It could take place in either continuity. Many interesting characters, the mystery of the Shedai, a space station and two assigned ships make room for one main story line and some interesting stories that take place parallel to each other.

 

[fireproof78]

My personal plan would be to take TOS themes back around 15 years to when (according to the original Spaceflight Chronology) the first Starship (Connie) class ships were being launched.

Back to when the UFP was much smaller, and maybe less coherent. Back to the first W6/8 ships ( the Starship class themselves) and the early days of the Transporter.

Back to more mystery, more exploration, even less central command on the frontiers. When the Ship captain was truly on his own.

The Cage turned into a full series.

And back to lower tech, lasers, missiles for ships. Laser handguns (No stun or disintegrate!), no tricorders (maybe sensor feed from the ship), more field tool kits and hands on exploration.

And, around the time that StarFleet and the Klingons were just starting their Cold War, trying to outdo each other in an interstellar land grab?

I'd love to see it!

This raises a question for me-would lower tech (in comparison to what Star Trek did) be something that people would find interesting?

The reason I ask is because our tech as advanced even beyond what Star Trek often showed, so would revisiting older tech styles, such as lasers and missiles, be something that would make sense?

 

[Warped9]

"Lower tech" is relative. There are very advanced ideas in TOS that might not come across because of how they are depicted, but they are there nonetheless. There are other ideas that go unspoken yet are there nonetheless for what we see to work as depicted.

A reboot of TOS to look lower tech isn't so much the veneer of how it's presented (2015 production resources vs. 1960's)' but in the tech you show and how it's shown to work.

 

[Ember]

A good exploration series set in the new universe, on a different, new ship. With a near magical feel to it, beautiful near-angelic effects are used to accompany mysterious enigmas that trigger us to think from beyond a what-you-see-is-what-you-get perspective. The result to strife for is getting a lot of "ohh" and "ahh" from the viewers, rather than having them sit on the edge of their chair, creating a beautiful world you want to be part of, filled with things you want to feel, touch, hold, experience. It's light, heartfelt and our immersion is not so much by seeing the characters grow or die as was usually the case, but by growing ourselves through watching the show.

 

[Warped9]

In the TrekBBS Arts forum I'm presently modeling an early to mid 22nd century ship design partially inspired by some of Matt Jefferies' early conceptual sketches. From that I've gotten the idea for something that could do what ENT failed to do, whether it be animated or live-action.

Presently I think of it as Star Trek: Constellation.

Imagine...

- No saucer
- No transporter
- No phase pistols
- No Warp 5 (unless we assume an older Warp formula)
- No catsuits
- No Suliban
- No temporal guys
- No Klingons
- No Ferengi or Borg

...to name a few things.

Star Trek with a touch of The X-Files vibe.

 

[Tim Walker]

I imagine a slipstream test bed being akin to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_XH-17

 

[Tim Walker]

This raises a question for me-would lower tech (in comparison to what Star Trek did) be something that people would find interesting?

The reason I ask is because our tech as advanced even beyond what Star Trek often showed, so would revisiting older tech styles, such as lasers and missiles, be something that would make sense?

Basically, it was Information Technology that changed since TOS. Other fields of endeavor, not so much.