My other point is that nihilism has not been a dominant part of science fiction in general, at least for TV shows and movies. As for doing something original, what would that be?
Since I look at science fiction as more than just TV and movies, and since I don't want nihilism to be dominant in anything, I really don't care where it is dominant. Reboot it, based upon technology and world politics contemporary for today, and build it up from there.
Original for Star Trek, or original as in no one has ever done anything like it in any form of media? The second would be difficult.
Rebooting is what they've been doing with the latest film features. Using contemporary technology doesn't make sense. Alluding to contemporary politics was done with the original series.
Which is exactly why it should be done. Why doesn't contemporary technology and looking forward based upon it not make sense? Why not take that as a base, look forward, and speculate on what the consequences of that technology might be? Why not? As much as I enjoy the latest films, I mean a hard reboot. No ENT, no TOS, not history to build off of. Take that optimism that Roddenberry used as base, take some speculations on the technology and go forward.
The use of contemporary technology would involve replacing star ships with space shuttles and limited space travel (perhaps only within the solar system). There would also be no holo-decks, etc., and most human beings would still rely heavily on money, with most earning only around $3 daily. And if there is anything they should stop doing, it's reboots. Better to just start another franchise.
I think he means extraplate based on current tech, instead of "Trek" tech. Basically a brand new sci fi show with nothing in common with Trek, except for contemporary parallels, optimistic future, and guesses based on current tech.
You're right. It might be something like this: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cul...k-tng-would-be-different-if-they-made-it-now/ But those look like cosmetic changes to me.
That's not what I mean, at all. I'm saying, incorporate things like 3d printing, nanotechnology, armor based technologies and weapons. Maybe some cultural touchstone or references as well, rather than the occasional Shakespeare or Mozart references. Partially correct, and to @ralfy's point, I get that reboots are annoying. But, look at the difficulty that Orville has had of forging its own identity. It is constantly called "better Star Trek" and not allowed to just be its own thing. So, if you do the above, formulating based upon contemporary tech, you'll either be compared to Star Trek, or considered a ripoff. So, why not take some of the fundamental conceits of Star Trek (transporters, universal translator, shuttles and phasers) and interlace the optimism of humanity surviving in to the future (no $3 an hour garbage-seriously? ) and overcoming some old obstacles, while facing down new ones. Incorporate some newer technological discoveries, and smaller technology and extrapolate some possibilities. Explore those ideas, and maybe show the frontier worlds building up with them. That's my thoughts. No doubt they'll be misconstrued
About 3D printing, aren't replicators better? As for nano- and armor-based tech plus weapons, aren't those dominant aspects of Mass Effect?
With Star Treks level of technology that we know of there are certainly things that they should have that would be impossible to put on the screen even with an unlimited budget.
3d printing organs? Haven't seen a replicator do that. Secondly, nano-tech was based around Deus Ex, especially with bladed weapons, and computer security technology. Also, a lot of technological developments include technology becoming smaller and more versatile. Star Trek does that occasionally, but doesn't really embrace the full impact.
Using characters from previous Trek stories does NOT equal using 90s filming and storytelling techniques. DeForest Kelly and James Doohan appearing in TNG didn't make TNG a "warmed up 60s show". It still remained a 90s show with cameos by the old guard. In the same way, a 2017 television series that includes characters from 90s shows does not mean the production has to look like a 90's show. I repeat: I have seen NO ONE arguing for a warmed up 90s television show here. Continuation of old stories? Yeah. Seeing old characcters again? Yeah. Returning to 90's production and storytelling format? No.
Genotronic Replicator. Beverly grows Worf a new spine in one. Trek invented the term nanites. The thing here is to remember that Trek for the most part, was narratively against heavy transhumanism. Trek does things things differently, it is not part of New Wave SF or Cyberpunk, so things like Deus Ex aren’t really in the same strata. Mass Effect owes most of its tech influences to Final Fantasy, Which was again, a very different SF paradigm (post apocalyptic, as opposed to Treks post-post-apocalyptic, post scarcity utopia.) and has its roots in the fifties Golden Age SF, the New WAve and various punks being little more than an influence, and something Trek itself influenced. (I am sure steampunks love The moriarty episodes, and Captain Proton is somewhere on the Deiselpunk spectrum I imagine.)
How long did that take get to introduced? Also, how long for Geordi's eyes to be replaced? Nog's leg? There are advances in technology now, that can be extrapolated for far greater impact, and inform Star Trek's history even more. As much as I can appreciate (even if I'm annoyed by it-hyperbole aside) ME's influences, I would like to see Trek look at technology again and explore the consequences, with real world history to impact it. That's really all. Again, because I dared speak against ME it will be viewed as a negative.
I think they have other technologies used in the med bay for that. Your second point supports what I said about Mass Effect, unless it turns out that you dislike only references to that and don't mind influences from other video games.
I've yet to see a similar style tech referred, save for Worf's spine which was considered a highly controversial technology. I'm trying to scale back my hyperbole against Mass Effect, even though I still don't care for it. I might be the wrong demographic or something, I don't know. I don't mind video games, but would rather Star Trek use that optimistic premise to build upon contemporary technology, not just borrow from other properties.
Meh. I am not exactly in the pro-mass-Effect having an influence on Trek camp. I actually thought you were arguing it should.
No, this actually started because I was lamenting the increase of Mass Effect influence on science fiction concepts, if a bit hyperbolic in my presentation. I was primarily arguing the use of technological concepts that have been developed in recent years be influencing or extrapolated in Star Trek and possible consequences or results of that tech.