Trek set in an intergalactic level

[Amaris]

Okay how is the 23rd century with half human half elven emotionless beings going to effect you or heck 22ns century elven logical beings with blue people with antennae and stuff. Why shouldn't Star Trek be able to explore the farther future? 26th C. To 31 C? Or even beyond like 1,000,000 AD or something crazy like that. There isn't much difference in relatibility.

In terms of distance you might get that feeling better in a novel. Come to think of it Voyager didn't have even semi regular contact with the federation until season 4. In DS9 travel over 70,000 light years is easy peazy because wormhole.

In my thread about whether or not the franchise has exhausted itself I meant it in thematic terms yet setting believe it or not is important. Sure you could have a modern fx budget and deal with adventures of the six legged alien lieutenant in the alpa quadrant in the year 2295 or something but really your just filling in gaps(not that there is a problem with that).

It affects me because the 24th century is a reasonable gap between now and the future. Too much farther, and the technology might as well be magic. The people become unrelatable after a while. I mean, what do I really have in common with someone from the 30th century?

 

[UnknownSample]

I very specifically want to see people with whom I have trouble relating. Science fiction isn't about easy familiarity, it's about imagination stretching. It's about presenting alternate points of view which are jarring at first. Trek has to take on the challenge of giving the audience what it doesn't want again, as it did at the beginning. We wouldn't be here talking about it today 50 tears later, if they'd done the safe thing.

 

[Amaris]

I very specifically want to see people with whom I have trouble relating. Science fiction isn't about easy familiarity, it's about imagination stretching. It's about presenting alternate points of view which are jarring at first. Trek has to take on the challenge of giving the audience what it doesn't want again, as it did at the beginning. We wouldn't be here talking about it today 50 tears later, if they'd done the safe thing.

Um, no. The reason TOS worked was because it often took modern issues, and repackaged them as allegory in a futuristic setting. TNG did the same, moreso even, as did DS9, VOY, and ENT. If I can't relate to the characters, then I don't have any interest in them. Plus, Star Trek has often done the safe thing. It's why they're only now getting a character who is gay, when dozens of other shows, including sci-fi shows, have already tackled that particular issue.

So we have a show set in the 30th century, in an intergalactic setting, using technology that is synonymous with magic at that point, with unrelatable characters who discuss problems we cannot understand or relate to at all, because those characters and situations are outside of our depths.

Sounds like fun watching! I'm sure it will be a big hit!

 

[Spot261]

Voth Commando: You don't seem to be getting the point people are making, that what you are suggesting has nothing to do with scale. The galaxy is mind bogglinly huge in a way the show doesn't reflect. Beyond anything the human brain can truly grasp. In order to make a workable show they treat that scale as though it can be viewed on a human level. Making an intergalactic show would present the same difficulties, you would still have to make intergalactic space relatable or the show would be unwatchable. Hence you would end up with the same show with slightly different terminology.

Neither we, nor the federation, have any idea what most of the AQ consists of, most of it is inaccessible by practical means, not unless you introduce another tired deus ex machina approach to travel (oh, heres a disused iconian gateway, transwarp hub, slipstream device), so all the ideas you are suggesting would work just as well as an intragalactic show.

 

[Amaris]

Voth Commando: You don't seem to be getting the point people are making, that what you are suggesting has nothing to do with scale. The galaxy is mind bogglinly huge in a way the show doesn't reflect. Beyond anything the human brain can truly grasp. In order to make a workable show they treat that scale as though it can be viewed on a human level. Making an intergalactic show would present the same difficulties, you would still have to make intergalactic space relatable or the show would be unwatchable. Hence you would end up with the same show with slightly different terminology.

Neither we, nor the federation, have any idea what most of the AQ consists of, most of it is inaccessible by practical means, not unless you introduce another tired deus ex machina approach to travel (oh, heres a disused iconian gateway, transwarp hub, slipstream device), so all the ideas you are suggesting would work just as well as an intragalactic show.

This! Mankind is just now taking its first steps into the solar system. Star Trek is appealing because the technology is often believable (or at least plausible), the characters relatable and understandable, and it all occurs within our backyard, relatively speaking. Advance the show 3 to 6 centuries further into the future, and what have we gained? Now we have different words for the technobabble gadgets we use. The rubber headed aliens of the week speak a different language than we understand but don't worry, the universal translator will figure it out. Some of the crew have a space sickness that kills a few of them, but the doctor found a miracle cure at the last minute so we're all safe in this totally new, different galaxy that behaves like the galaxy we came from, because if it didn't we couldn't relate to the message put in the episode. The ships will look much more futuristic but they'll still encounter alien civilizations with similar technology levels so it's just a wash in that regard, and now instead of saying "we're 90 light years away from our destination, so let's have a meeting in the conference room," it will be "we're 900,000 light years away from our destination, so let's have a meeting in the conference room."

There is nothing at all to gain from pushing so far into the future, or expanding the scale to the point where the human brain just says "nope."

Or to put it another way: "Congratulations! We've traveled across 5 galaxies to reach this star system. Look how beautiful it is. So let's beam down and stand next to that rock formation that looks strikingly similar to Vasquez rocks back on earth."

<cue theme music>

 

[1001001]

I have to agree.

Unless there's something fundamentally different about the next galaxy, it would be the same show, with bigger distances (Stargate?).

They attempted something like this with the Expanse, where the normal rules of physics did not apply. But of course that ended up being alien tech, not something natural to the region.

 

[The Wormhole]

Unless there's something fundamentally different about the next galaxy, it would be the same show, with bigger distances (Stargate?).

Stargate, where Vancouver's pine forest has been copied onto multiple planets in five different galaxies.

 

[Shawnster]

It affects me because the 24th century is a reasonable gap between now and the future. Too much farther, and the technology might as well be magic. The people become unrelatable after a while. I mean, what do I really have in common with someone from the 30th century?

Firefly is set later than the 24th Century but the tech is less than the tech level in Star Trek.

It's a combination of factors why Star Trek in the 30th Century isn't going to work. The series is going to demand that the technology be 600 years more advanced than what we've seen to date. Sure, 30th Century ships showed up in an episode or two but we didn't see them on a regular basis. An entire series set in the 30th Century should look so advanced that we might not be able to comprehend it. If the technology doesn't look 600 years more advanced than what we see currently, then fans will complain that it didn't advance. Further, if the technology is so close to the 24th Century Trek, then why bother setting it in the 30th Century?

That's what it boils down to. What stories can you tell that require the setting to be in another galaxy or in the 30th or 40th Century? What stories do you want to see that can't be told in the 24th Century Milky Way galaxy? You want unknown aliens that are an intelligent shade of blue? Fine - what prevents them from living in the 24th Century Milky Way?

 

[Shawnster]

Actually, a 30th Century Star Trek is going to look like Star Wars in terms of technology and maybe even amount of aliens. It's going to look like Star Wars where the Federation has the slick clean aesthetic of the Imperials or the Corellian Corvettes. Jumps to the other side of the galaxy will be just as quick as making it from wherever the Enterprise-D was to Minos Korva in 1 hour. Same stories, same feel, just a "bigger" sounding playground.

It's like Palpatine getting into a shuttle when Anakin gets his limbs cut off and making it from Coruscant to Mustofar before Anakin died. Did it really feel like Palpatine's shuttle traveled a long, long way?

 

[Silvercrest]

Voth Commando: You don't seem to be getting the point people are making, that what you are suggesting has nothing to do with scale. The galaxy is mind bogglinly huge in a way the show doesn't reflect. Beyond anything the human brain can truly grasp. In order to make a workable show they treat that scale as though it can be viewed on a human level. Making an intergalactic show would present the same difficulties, you would still have to make intergalactic space relatable or the show would be unwatchable. Hence you would end up with the same show with slightly different terminology.

-but how many intergalactic level space operas do you know of?

"Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda" is one. And it has the problems Spot is talking about.

 

[uniderth]

To be fair, setting the show in the 29th, or something, century could give us a Dr. Who-like time travel series.

It's like Palpatine getting into a shuttle when Anakin gets his limbs cut off and making it from Coruscant to Mustofar before Anakin died. Did it really feel like Palpatine's shuttle traveled a long, long way?

We don't talk about the prequels here.

 

[Voth commando1]

To be fair, setting the show in the 29th, or something, century could give us a Dr. Who-like time travel series.



We don't talk about the prequels here.

I loved ROTS it's time people got over their childish fits that they weren't like the OT.

 

[uniderth]

I loved ROTS it's time people got over their childish fits that they weren't like the OT.

It's not about childish fanboyism. It's about consistent creative storytelling. The prequels completely undermined the backstory of the original trilogy.

The only thing good to came out of the prequels was Jango Fett.

Ok, I'm not going to reply to any more comments about Star Wars prequels. That's because I know where this conversation goes, and this little thread deserves better than that.

 

[Shawnster]

To be fair, setting the show in the 29th, or something, century could give us a Dr. Who-like time travel series.


We don't talk about the prequels here.

But we're not discussing a time travel series. That defeats the purpose of setting the series in the far-flung future. If you're constantly visiting other times, then you're not set in the far-flung future. For a time travel galaxy spanning show Dr. Who spends a disproportionate amount of time in present day Earth. And I love Dr. Who.

No prequel references, OK... You'd get the same galaxy spanning rapidness that we see in the OT. Tattooine being a planet that is farthest from the bright point in the center of the universe yet it's a quick trip to Alderran or even Yavin. Hop, skip and jump from Hoth to Bespin but, granted, we don't know how far away the two are. Just as quick a hop from Hoth to Dagobah and from Dagobah to Bespin. From Sullust to Endor is quick enough that the entire fleet could coordinate the entire Death Star attack down to the moment the shield was supposed to be down.

Much like the trip from Earth to Vulcan in Star Trek 2009.

 

[Mudd]

Setting a Trek show in another galaxy would, in practice, involve nothing more startling than doing some search-and-replace for a few familiar-to-trekkies terms in every script. It would make no difference whatever to the resources, imagination and drama that would be brought to the series or movie.

 

[Voth commando1]

Why are all of you so cynical? Is the burnout that bad?

 

[Silvercrest]

Why are all of you so cynical? Is the burnout that bad?

Nope. The concept isn't that good.

 

[BillJ]

Why are all of you so cynical? Is the burnout that bad?

Nothing to do with burnout. Putting Trek in another galaxy doesn't fundamentally change the drama or storytelling.

 

[Ithekro]

While I think such a series would basically be more or the same or any concept could be done in the Milky Way, there is something about another galaxy I find appealing for a setting.

While you could use a wormhole or even I suppose the gaps between spiral arms to give the crew distance from the Federation, those are not insurmountable problems, just time consuming. A starship in the Milky Way could still get home eventually as shown in Voyager and have any number of places to visit on the way there.

However if you set the crew in another galaxy with only a specific route back to the Milky Way, there is no other way to get home effectively. One cannot really go the long way to Earth without it being a sleeper ship or a generational ship, as the distances are too great and there is more of less nothing between the galaxies to keep the series jumping from planet or the week to planet of the week. So the story can't be about them trying to get home.

The series would have to be about settling a region of space with their only being a long support line back to the Federation, be it a warp gate, a wormhole, and hyperspace conduit, or some such thing where there is effectively only one way to get between the galaxies within anything less than centuries, and even that route takes many years to cross. Thus even if the ship can make it back to wherever, it will still take years to go home, so they are effectively on their own for seasons at a time.

They might have to defend their supply line from native species, if there is only a fixed point of entry into the galaxy, or if they can use the tech anywhere along the Great Barrier, they would have a specific base of operations and a homing beacon for other Federation ships coming and going on their say seven year voyage between galaxies.

Most of the rest of the series would be stock Star Trek like it has been since the 1960s, just with there sometimes being a reminder that they can't go home quickly, and might have to put up a defense (military or diplomatic) for their base of operations, or their pocket section of the Federation in the other galaxy. Depending on if we are watching the first pioneers, or one of the early waves of colonization/exploration after the "beachhead" is setup and any exploration region of some hundred light years is established for them to poke around.

 

[Amaris]

Firefly is set later than the 24th Century but the tech is less than the tech level in Star Trek.

It's a combination of factors why Star Trek in the 30th Century isn't going to work. The series is going to demand that the technology be 600 years more advanced than what we've seen to date. Sure, 30th Century ships showed up in an episode or two but we didn't see them on a regular basis. An entire series set in the 30th Century should look so advanced that we might not be able to comprehend it. If the technology doesn't look 600 years more advanced than what we see currently, then fans will complain that it didn't advance. Further, if the technology is so close to the 24th Century Trek, then why bother setting it in the 30th Century?

That's what it boils down to. What stories can you tell that require the setting to be in another galaxy or in the 30th or 40th Century? What stories do you want to see that can't be told in the 24th Century Milky Way galaxy? You want unknown aliens that are an intelligent shade of blue? Fine - what prevents them from living in the 24th Century Milky Way?

Excellent point. I love Firefly because regardless of the century it's in, we can connect with our lovable band of brigands. With a 30th century Trek that has to show advancement from the 24th century era, it just seems like it would be unrelatable.