Wish List for Star Trek: 2017

[Longinus]

I think that Gene Roddenberry was basically right. It was his vision which made the Star Trek popular. TNG and TOS are the most loved and well known of Star Trek series and those are the two which he was directly involved with. The new series should respect his vision.

Star Trek should be unapologetically progressive. It should be humanist, feminist, secularist, pacifistic, pro-LGBT, pro-science and anti-discrimination.

I would also highly prefer the Prime Universe over JJ-verse. While I can see merit in complete reboot someone suggested, as it would allow jettisoning some of the outdated stuff, JJ-verse is not that. In my baby/bathwater-ratio analysis the Prime Universe comes out on top. The decades of world building that have gone into it are ultimately a strength. Furthermore, it would allow CBS and Paramount develop their respective continua without needing to constantly worry about stepping on each others toes.

 

[Longinus]

It would be interesting if the new show revealed that different alien species also had a great flood, in some form.

Had I not been closely following the Republican primaries this would've been the silliest thing I've heard for a long time.

Talking about some vague deistic version of god is one thing (as unscientific as it may be), but pandering to mythos of specific religions and implying an existence of an actively interventionist deity is quite other. Such nonsense has no place in any sci-fi show that wants to be taken even remotely seriously.

 

[Longinus]

Definitely don't see the need to shoehorn in heterosexuals just because it's currently trendy to have some.

On the other hand you're onto something here. Maybe trow in a token straight guy for a comic relief though?

 

[T'Girl]

I think that Gene Roddenberry was basically right. It was his vision which made the Star Trek popular

Star Trek was always a collaborate effort of many people. One of the best examples of this was Dorothy Fontana's idea that the Federation would be an assemblage of alien species, this idea didn't come from Roddenberry.

Star Trek should be unapologetically progressive. It should be humanist, feminist, secularist, pacifistic, pro-LGBT, pro-science and anti-discrimination

While there would be nothing wrong with any of these things appearing in Star Trek, and having a few of the character obviously embrace them, Star Trek should be a complex mixture of ideas and concepts, the fictional Federation being a diverse and cosmopolitan society of hundreds of billions of people.

Even within the relatively small number of our heroes, there should be no evidence of intellectual conformity, or the desire to have such. Having our heroes hold differing positions and opinions on basic concepts will facilitate lively discussion and debate on issues being addressed in a given episode.

Star Trek should not be employed to push an agenda.

humanist

A philosophy that emphasizes human interests and values might be the mind set of some of the characters, but would be rejected by others.

Also, characters in the past have successfully used hunches and "gut feelings" to find correct solutions, reason and scientific methods should be a part of the mix, but never the "only way." This is a show about people after all.

feminist

By observation, the mid 23rd century was patriarchal, the next century seemed more egalitarian.

secularist

A show that specifically rejects religion as a normal aspect of society, no. This would have the Federation as a restrictive society. Religion has always had a welcome place in Star Trek in the past. Why change this in the future?

pacifistic

StarFleet is the military, when called to do so, they're the one who break things and hurt people. A Starfleet that withdraws from confrontations would be denying one of the clear reasons Starfleet exists in the first place.

pro-science

Star Trek is a fantasy show with a sprinkling of science on the side. But as long as the science doesn't get in the way of the story, then sure, get the science right.

anti-discrimination

No discrimination , everything (in turn) is on the table, and gets a voice.
+

 

[Longinus]

Star Trek should not be employed to push an agenda.

And here I disagree with you. And so would Roddenberry. I'd go so far and say 'pushing an agenda' is what made Star Trek famous.

 

[hux]

The only agenda that was pushed in TOS was racial diversity. Women were still essentially fuck-toys, gays didn't exist, violence was generally the best solution to most problems and Kirk told fake Apollo that there was no need for Gods because... ONE was enough (hardly secular).

TNG was the show that started pushing utopian gibberish about humanity bettering itself and evolving into magical stoic pixies.

DS9 undermined both shows by accepting and exploring that humanity was more complex and troubled (and was by far the most interesting show as a consequence).

The only agenda Trek has is to be entertaining space-based story telling.

 

[Longinus]

The only agenda that was pushed in TOS was racial diversity. Women were still essentially fuck-toys, gays didn't exist, violence was generally the best solution to most problems and Kirk told fake Apollo that there was no need for Gods because... ONE was enough (hardly secular).

It was progressive for its era. And having female officers was certainly feminist by 60's standards. But of course the new show needs to be progressive by today's standards, not by 60's standards.

TNG was the show that started pushing utopian gibberish about humanity bettering itself and evolving into magical stoic pixies.

And I liked that and would like the new show to take that direction as well! In my opinion TNG was the best Trek show (and luckily the ratings prove that I'm not alone in this one.) This was a wishlist thread remember? This is my wish.

 

[Shalashaska]

While I can see merit in complete reboot someone suggested, as it would allow jettisoning some of the outdated stuff, JJ-verse is not that..

What makes you think that?

It's already been established that the Abramsverse has taken a completely different path from the Primeverse since Nero arrived and destroyed Vulcan.

They can do whatever the hell they want, especially if they set it a couple hundred years after Into Darkness.

 

[Trekkin]

It was progressive for its era.

Not really. It didn't so much 'push the envelope' as just ride the wave, so to speak.

Hell. The studio, whose bottom line is nearly always 'make as many viewers as happy as possible,' were the ones sending the 'be more diverse' memos. Not exactly the usual reaction to a show that's substantially challenging the status quo.

Unless the 'progression' was to revolutionise how little material television could get away with using on a costume. And no, I'm not talking about the miniskirts.

Wishlist: Have some really inhuman aliens.

 

[Cake]

What makes you think that?

It's already been established that the Abramsverse has taken a completely different path from the Primeverse since Nero arrived and destroyed Vulcan.

They can do whatever the hell they want, especially if they set it a couple hundred years after Into Darkness.

The new movies weren't really a clean reboot though. Nero changed some things in the Federation, but outside of it, not so much. Nearly all the other races are still there in the same place with the same history. For example the Borg, Dominion, etc. shouldn't have been affected at all by Nero. Technically it also shouldn't be possible for the Pine Enterprise to make contact with a new prominent race, a race with a big empire, because we would have heard from such a race in TNG, DS9 and/or VOY. Of course I don't think they let things like that stop them in the coming movies.

Nevertheless I think a clean reboot would have been better. A reboot which is not limiting at all, because of its premise. So I hope they will go this way at least with the new series. Personally I especially hope they get creative with non Federation species. We have seen so much of Klingons and Romulans for example. Why shouldn't the Federation have new neighbours? And no Borg or the Dominion. Some alien races were done to death in the old series. I rather have new races.

Just setting the new series way in the future of Into Darkness, is for me an inferior solution. Not only because the new movies weren't a clean reboot, but also because I hope they won't go too far into the future. Everything should be far more advanced then and therefore the Federation and each of its starships should be really powerful. I mean technically they already hardly need starships anymore in the new movies universe, because they can simply beam from planet to planet. Even further in the future, I can hardly imagine things they shouldn't be able to do. But this isn't so good for storytelling. You have to come up all the time with over powered bad alien races or other kinds of problems to challenge the characters. It is kind of the Superman problem. He is so indestructible, that not much is a threat to him and in contrast to him, a very advanced Federation wouldn't even have a weakness like kryptonite.

 

[Jerikka Dawn]

For example the Borg, Dominion, etc. shouldn't have been affected at all by Nero.

Set a few couple hundred years later, though, we could see something entirely different in the Abramsverse vs. what we'd see in Prime. I can't think of anything off the top of my head vis-a-vis The Borg, but on the other hand, The Klingons were critical to the alpha quadrant alliance's defeat of the Dominion and from what we've seen so far in the Abramsverse, Praxis destroyed early, Marcus's shenanigans, etc, both the Khitomer accords and relations with the Klingons well into at least the Enterprise-C/D era almost have to have changed in a big way. I know in TOS era, the Klingons are supposed to be in a cold war with the Federation, but I can't help but think about Praxis and how much a role that played in Federation/Klingon relations.

Sure, the Dominion are still are there right now, unaffected by Nero, but when that wormhole is discovered later on, all bets are off, all the way into a show set a couple hundred years later in the Abramsverse.

 

[eyeresist]

While there would be nothing wrong with any of these things appearing in Star Trek, and having a few of the character obviously embrace them, Star Trek should be a complex mixture of ideas and concepts, the fictional Federation being a diverse and cosmopolitan society of hundreds of billions of people.

Even within the relatively small number of our heroes, there should be no evidence of intellectual conformity, or the desire to have such. Having our heroes hold differing positions and opinions on basic concepts will facilitate lively discussion and debate on issues being addressed in a given episode.

Star Trek should not be employed to push an agenda.

So you want Star Trek to "teach the controversy", and not cave in to "elites" by advocating human rights and a scientific attitude? When the Tea Party gets an equal voice on Star Trek, that's when I stop watching.

 

[Chronos]

I'd like to see more aliens on the main cast.

Aliens are great, but what use are they if we only see them once and never again? One of my favorite moments from TNG was when Mendon was transferred to the Enterprise. It was interesting seeing a Benzite again and seeing how he interacted with the humans aboard the ship. I'd like to see more of that.

 

[Deks]

TNG was the show that started pushing utopian gibberish about humanity bettering itself and evolving into magical stoic pixies.

There's nothing 'utopian' about a Federation society that doesn't use money and works to better itself (that right there is your cultural bias/indoctrination showing).
If you think there is, you really need to re-educate yourself on what motivates Humans in real life (Dan Pink made a nice little presentation explaining this, and in the process read up on Neuroscience and Epigenetics) along with automation and doing more with less with science and technology, and how automation is making money useless in reality, and that things such as volunteer-ism do exist (and that Humans do it all the time - even you do things for yourself that doesn't involve money), which can easily enough be extrapolated on a large scale if the environment in which people live is arranged in a manner that allows people to dedicate themselves to higher things without the need of 'working for a living' (a preposterous argument that belongs in the past and is not suited for current day, let alone Trek) - but it DOES take a change in society which would have to be exposed to relevant general education, critical thinking and problem solving. THAT is what TNG aimed at..., and what was suggested that happened after Humanity made First Contact with the Vulcans.

Also speaking of 'utopia'... people thinking that Capitalism is the best we can do and there's no better way of doing things is a 'utopianist projection' that they often make... also assuming that things will go on as they are indefinitely without any kind of change (when change is happening as we speak - and is being driven by technology, science and aim towards sustainability - in actuality, it is Capitalism that is unsustainable in the long run regardless of how you put it - and it would also be unsustainable in space because you would end up with Humanity behaving like parasites, and just using up the resources until there's nothing left, as opposed to doing more with less and aiming towards sustainability).

DS9 undermined both shows by accepting and exploring that humanity was more complex and troubled (and was by far the most interesting show as a consequence).

No, DS9 merely degenerated characters into modern day behaviours for the sake of drama - which was one of the things I couldn't stand about it.
It was idiotic, and utterly unrealistic because it turned Trek into something it wasn't.

The only agenda Trek has is to be entertaining space-based story telling.

If you actually think that, you seem to have a lacking understanding of Trek and it's 'agendas' (which actually focus on showing a better future for Humanity - one that is more than possible in reality btw - and surpassing current child-like behaviour that many exhibit).

 

[Trekkin]

Great, the 'lacking an understanding of Trek' and politics cards have been played. This is going to end well.

Wishlist item no. 2: The writers get a copy of the actual written agenda for story-writing that was mocked up by the TOS producers and writers, and then super-glue it to the new writers room wall.

 

[hux]

There's nothing 'utopian' about a Federation society that doesn't use money and works to better itself (that right there is your cultural bias/indoctrination showing).
If you think there is, you really need to re-educate yourself on what motivates Humans in real life (Dan Pink made a nice little presentation explaining this, and in the process read up on Neuroscience and Epigenetics) along with automation and doing more with less with science and technology, and how automation is making money useless in reality, and that things such as volunteer-ism do exist (and that Humans do it all the time - even you do things for yourself that doesn't involve money), which can easily enough be extrapolated on a large scale if the environment in which people live is arranged in a manner that allows people to dedicate themselves to higher things without the need of 'working for a living' (a preposterous argument that belongs in the past and is not suited for current day, let alone Trek) - but it DOES take a change in society which would have to be exposed to relevant general education, critical thinking and problem solving. THAT is what TNG aimed at..., and what was suggested that happened after Humanity made First Contact with the Vulcans.

Also speaking of 'utopia'... people thinking that Capitalism is the best we can do and there's no better way of doing things is a 'utopianist projection' that they often make... also assuming that things will go on as they are indefinitely without any kind of change (when change is happening as we speak - and is being driven by technology, science and aim towards sustainability - in actuality, it is Capitalism that is unsustainable in the long run regardless of how you put it - and it would also be unsustainable in space because you would end up with Humanity behaving like parasites, and just using up the resources until there's nothing left, as opposed to doing more with less and aiming towards sustainability).



No, DS9 merely degenerated characters into modern day behaviours for the sake of drama - which was one of the things I couldn't stand about it.
It was idiotic, and utterly unrealistic because it turned Trek into something it wasn't.



If you actually think that, you seem to have a lacking understanding of Trek and it's 'agendas' (which actually focus on showing a better future for Humanity - one that is more than possible in reality btw - and surpassing current child-like behaviour that many exhibit).

One of the dumbest posts I've ever seen and too much to respond to so I'll just pick my favourite bit.

that right there is your cultural bias/indoctrination showing

Sorry, let me just zip that up.

You're confusing the world that exists in your head with reality. You should look into that. The Trek that you're in love with only exists there.

 

[tomalak301]

Ugh. SGU was way too depressive.
I think a lighter tone would be good. It needs a good balance.

I would love a Farscape type show. It can be gritty but there was always fun to not make it depressing.

 

[T'Girl]

Great, the 'lacking an understanding of Trek' and politics cards have been played. This is going to end well.

Speaking of politics, I'm a bit torn as to how much Federation internal politics I want to see in a new show. While I definitely don't want to see "Star Trek: West Wing," learning more about the workings could be interesting (to a degree).

which actually focus on showing a better future for Humanity

In all honesty, that was never the "focus." Star Trek was at it's best when it showed what is essentially modern day people living in the future, with advanced technology. Star Trek got weird when it attempted (and failed) to depict some kind of "advance society," one example from TNG was children should not cry when a parent dies.

and surpassing current child-like behaviour that many exhibit

Picard's disturbing "we're so much better than people from the past" is something that the new characters should not repeat.

There's nothing 'utopian' about a Federation society that doesn't use money

Except when it does, as part of my wish list would be the obvious use of money (credits are fine).

people thinking that Capitalism is the best we can do and there's no better way of doing things

As the saying goes, capitalism is the worst system, but still better than all the other systems. As part of my wish list would be the obvious presence (in the Federation) of a market economy.

...and what was suggested that happened after Humanity made First Contact with the Vulcans.

Two centuries after that meeting, Humans (during TOS) were using money, and three centuries after that meet (From VOY) Humans were using money.

When the Tea Party gets an equal voice on Star Trek, that's when I stop watching.

When the Tea Party gets an equal voice on Star Trek is when I start paying to watch. What I was advocating was showing various main characters with different positions on any given subject, like in PenPals where we find out that the senior officers have widely differing opinions on the prime directive.
+

 

[Longinus]

Capitalism doesn't work in a post-scarcity society that the Federation by 24th century basically is.

 

[T'Girl]

post-scarcity society

Post-scarcity is likely overstating what they possess, it's materially comfortable and technologically advance, but not post-scarcity.

+