How Star Trek would be different if it were created from scratch today

[Lord Garth]

One of my old posts from April 22nd, 2010. This was my response to a thread about what Star Trek would've been like if it had been created today. Now that Star Trek is back, it's interesting to dig this up. While Star Trek has returned to television, it would be unrecognizable as Star Trek if it wasn't based on what was created before. The matter today is how does it build upon or add to what was previously done. Or also how does it expand upon or further develop what was pre-existing.

The rest of this post is what I said nine years ago...

.
.
.

The short of it is Star Trek, created entirely from scratch today, would be completely unrecognizable. Too much of the show and what came after it was a result of the timing.

The semi-long of it:

Without a war with a draft, Gene Roddenberry has no reason to join the military. Subsequently, not being ex-military means he's unlikely to have wanted to become a cop. Gene Roddenberry still became interested in the emerging television market so a Gene who lived later would still be interested in television. There are two types of people who want to tell stories in film, those who have lived through stories they want to share and those who just grew up watching stories. Given all of Gene's problems and inhibitions, he'd be far more likely to be the latter in today's environment.

Also, content in television is freer now than it was in the 1950s and '60s, so he wouldn't have had to worry about masking the types of stories he wanted to tell as much as he did back then. There would be far fewer "message shows" if any at all.

Not to mention the space program was big in the '60s, as opposed to now, and Star Trek redefined space series on television. Without Star Trek, all you really have is Lost in Space and a lot of crappy sci-fi shows from the '70s and '80s that never lasted. And without TOS you don't get TNG which, to this day, I believe is responsible for making the flood of space-based series in the last two decades possible. Including the new version of BSG.

So you have a TV landscape where space sci-fi is lower regarded and even more niche than it is now. More than likely Star Trek made today would be a crappy show, with no message, that would air on Sy-Fy.

Gene Roddenberry's original idea for Star Trek was "The Cage", so we'll use those characters as a starting point.

Pike is cut from the same mold as Kirk except more serious. He could stay. In the 1960s, Spock inherited Number One's intelligence and cold demeanor. In 2010, Number One would stay Number One, so Spock would just be the alien who smiles and screams "The Women!!!"

Without the actors: the interaction between McCoy, who would still be Boyce, and Spock would never develop... not that it would even be the same Spock anyway.

The Klingons and Romulans, who were analogues from the Soviets and Chinese, would be obsolete.

With story arcs, the Enterprise might discover a "strange new world" every half-season with the crew spending several episodes in a row around a certain region.

And, of course, there wouldn't even be a guarantee that the Enterprise would even be part of Starfleet, a.k.a. the navy in space. It might be a different type of ship on different types of missions because who's to say a military ship would be the first thing to spring to mind for someone who wasn't in the service? For all we know, it could be a crew of space-truckers like on Alien, or just a group of scientists in space.

There are several factors for why I believe a Star Trek created from scratch today would be completely different.

 

[Lord Garth]

In regards to direction Star Trek ultimately ended up going, for when it would come back, here's an exchange between Temis the Vorta and I from January 1st, 2012.
.
.
.

1) Temis the Vorta posted:
I do think Star Trek needs to retain the idealism of TOS because that is its unique quality. And cable isn't unfriendly to shows that explore meaningful concepts such as "it's easy to be a saint in paradise." The Walking Dead in particular grapples with the issue of whether people can maintain their humanity in extremely brutal circumstances, and I think that's part of the show's appeal. But the challenges that cable would throw at Our Heroes would make anything Sisko or Kirk faced look like softballs.

2) Then I replied:
This is something I would look foward to watching. A Star Trek on AMC would be great, and it would benefit from having a 13-episode season. Varied characters, more challenging material, and being able to take risks, either storywise or artistically, that a family show or expensive blockbusters couldn't.

3) Which Temis followed later on in the thread while replying in general:
Abrams' movies are the way they are because that's what the summer popcorn movie audience demands. There's no TV audience demanding more Star Trek along the lines of TOS or TNG, at least not one large enough to maintain a decent budget.

There may not be one anywhere, but if there is, the most likely place for it is either SyFy, where Star Trek would be at risk of becoming a degraded shadow of itself, or AMC/FX/Showtime/HBO, where it could be fantastic, but also a huge departure from any TV series before it, because the audience for those channels is not going to want the episodic approach of TOS or the easy moralizing of TNG. Star Trek on any of those outlets would be more like Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead, or True Blood.

However, whenever I mention this idea, I get a few positive responses like Lord Garth's - which tells me that there may be some fire behind that smoke. I'd love to see Star Trek given the premium cable treatment, and I'd welcome a big change if that's what's required to get it back on TV, as long as the change is an improvement in quality - making the storytelling more complex and adult than it's ever been.

Some people will loathe this change, just as some people loathe Abrams' movies, but that can't be helped. Both movies and TV have their own logic and their own demands - not everything we can imagine can survive as a movie or as a TV series. At least in the case of TV, everything isn't being squashed into the same popcorn-action mold.

.
.
.

Back to the present. 2019. If you combine what was said in these two posts, basically, what you have is a pre-existing franchise adapted into the format of serialized shorter seasons and being able to get away with doing things in a medium like a streaming service that wouldn't have been done on regular broadcast non-pay cable TV.

I just thought in lieu of what's going on now, this was worth un-earthing.

 

[Refuge]

That is the beauty of being part of the existence we each have and share, it is unique and random and organic. Star Trek came together because of all the components that made it. You can't recreate it but just be a little reflective and appreciative that it has resonated with us. There was an energy of colour and liberation that is unique to TV from the Sixties. Present times simply are not that. How we relate to each other, view the world, and enjoy media has changed. There is not much that is fresh and sadly not much wonder either.

Thank Goodness for nostalgia

 

[Kor]

I would want it to be more like Mad Men in space than The Walking Dead or Game of Thrones in space.

Kor

 

[C.E. Evans]

I don't think it would even be made at all today if started from scratch.

 

[Delta Vega]

It would look extremely similar to Discovery

 

[BillJ]

It would look extremely similar to Discovery

Probably not. As the road map wouldn't exist. It might end up looking more like Star Wars or The Expanse.

 

[1001001]

HARDCORE NUDITY!!

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

It would look extremely similar to Discovery

That'd be my guess. It's pretty much started from square one.

 

[BK613]

It would look like The Orville
(ducks and runs away)

 

[Lord Garth]

Most of what we see in Discovery, no matter how much I like it, wouldn't have been possible without the earlier series. So... if Star Trek were created today, it wouldn't be anything like DSC. Sure, it provides enough info so that you can get by even if you haven't seen previous Star Trek, but it's very much a sixth series and embraces that idea.

It would look like The Orville
(ducks and runs away)

Even that's based on TOS and TNG.

 

[Tenacity]

Without a war with a draft, Gene Roddenberry has no reason to join the military

My understand is Roddenberry volenteered after America entered the war and wasn't drafted. If Roddenberry join the military in the early nineties, the basic timeline of his life would play from there, following the military, time as a airline pilot, then time as a cop.

Creating the man who developed Star Trek.

It would look extremely similar to Discovery

If Roddenberry (born a half century later) proposed a series similar to the one that was originally made, it would not look anything like Discovery. Drawing on his own life experiences, probably more real world military than Discovery, in tone (not plot lines) maybe like NCIS.

A somewhat more serious version of The Orville, maybe with elements of The Expanse.

or The Expanse.

Yes, but lighter.

 

[Lord Garth]

My understand is Roddenberry volenteered after America entered the war and wasn't drafted. If Roddenberry join the military in the early nineties, the basic timeline of his life would play from there, following the military, time as a airline pilot, then time as a cop.

Thanks, I didn't know that. I'd always just assumed he was drafted. I think my grandfather was drafted in WWII, so that's where I got the assumption from.

 

[Delta Vega]

I mean that it would look like Discovery in the terms of how its filmed, the screen effects, the CGI, the luminosity.
I've said it before on here, but Discovery looks a thousand years more advanced than the time of Kirk, yet we're supposed to accept that its around ten years pre Kirk at the helm of Enterprise.
That's how Star Trek would look if filmed from scratch today.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

It'd visually look a lot like Discovery. There'd be a lot more constant action and explosions. Assuming it's written by somebody who wants to fit cerebral themes into it and not by some cynical big network exec, I think they'd do it through in an arc based way where the main characters are idealistic but they have to deal with self interested bureaucracies and politicians. Like, they want to save some poor refugees but their government has financial interests with the oppressive government they are escaping from.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I've said it before on here, but Discovery looks a thousand years more advanced than the time of Kirk, yet we're supposed to accept that its around ten years pre Kirk at the helm of Enterprise.

If we can accept that the people creating the sets have access to better technology than they did fifty years ago, and also that the TV screen is not a window into another dimension, but a packaged product that looks as advanced as it can in the era it was produced, easy.

 

[valkyrie013]

So, premise is, if Gene was born say 50 years latter, and was starting around now, what would Star Trek look like,
So, Gene, born 1971 instead of 21. Following is a rework of his Wikipeda entry:
His father was still a LA Pd officer, and Lets say, he joined the military, he was a flyer, so he would have graduated collage in 93, and be in the Air Force, after the 1st Gulf war, so flying in Somalia, maybe Bosnia. Flying big bombers, and later cargo, He got out around 99, and started to fly comercial, 9/11 happens and he quits .
He joins the LAPD, and goes to the media unit, focusing on writting.
He ends up being a Liason between the LAPD and crime dramas, say Law and Order, or Csi.
He starts writing scripts for them, and quits to work full time as a writter
He hits it off, working on all types of shows, awards. He starts working on trying to get pilots picked up, none are.

Now, being in the 2010's, some of the shows comcepts like a multi ethnic crew would be quite okay, but like back then, Sci Fi might not be "In" at the moment and he gets shot down.
Now, lets say Star Wars happened. ( its supprsiing how much tv was and stuff came after and was influenced by Star Trek)
StarGate Sg1 happens, few others, but Sci fi is seen as Campy or fantasy, Hard Sci Fi is just a niche thing in books.

Here comes Star Trek, He wants a ship and a diverse crew, thinking may a cruise ship, but not much action in there, so he desides to make it a "Sci Fi" pitch, but being a more serious writer of cop and military shows, he wants to pitch a "Harder" scifi series, to be taken seriously, not campy or fantasy. and seeing all the Dystopian stuff on tv and movies, especially after 9/11, he remembers growing up in the late 70's and 80's, he sets out to be Optomistic about the future, where everybody gets along. more ceribrial, more thought based, some action and explosions, but a thinking persons show.
This doesn't go to well early on because most studios see sci fi as a money hole, not enough fans for a large show budget, especially these days of cheap reality tv and cop dramas. But Gene pushes for a pilot, and him having some cloute of being a good and prolific writer, it is granted by Cbs.

Now, Star Trek, set in the 23rd centery, the Enterprise going from planet to planet. Have more future tech, like the main computer is a sentient AI, with a budget, have mulitupule aliens on the crew, instead of a holo deck, they can "Link In" to a mind space, ala Matrix, with some of the crew with implants that live in the Cyber computer space.

Basically it would be loaded with what WE think what the future tech might be Now, instead of the pie in the sky 60's space optomism.

Cbs doesn't think it would work on regular tv, shops it around to cable, and streaming, Netflix decides to take a chance and gives it a 13 episode commentment.

 

[Delta Vega]

If we can accept that the people creating the sets have access to better technology than they did fifty years ago, and also that the TV screen is not a window into another dimension, but a packaged product that looks as advanced as it can in the era it was produced, easy.

That's correct, but equally, we have the required know how to make a new Trek look great with effects, but still (almost) look like the time its supposed to pre date, like a retconned period piece if you like.

 

[BK613]

Even that's based on TOS and TNG.

It was a joke (with included LOL emoji)

 

[Roundabout]

Visually, it would look like a cheaper version of DSC. I doubt studio executives would give a completely new scifi show the same scale budget that DSC is currently getting.

Story wise, I don't know if GR would produce the same type of stories, or similar story telling style, that we have gotten from DSC.

So, premise is, if Gene was born say 50 years latter, and was starting around now, what would Star Trek look like,
So, Gene, born 1971 instead of 21. Following is a rework of his Wikipeda entry:
His father was still a LA Pd officer, and Lets say, he joined the military, he was a flyer, so he would have graduated collage in 93, and be in the Air Force, after the 1st Gulf war, so flying in Somalia, maybe Bosnia. Flying big bombers, and later cargo, He got out around 99, and started to fly comercial, 9/11 happens and he quits .
He joins the LAPD, and goes to the media unit, focusing on writting.
He ends up being a Liason between the LAPD and crime dramas, say Law and Order, or Csi.
He starts writing scripts for them, and quits to work full time as a writter
He hits it off, working on all types of shows, awards. He starts working on trying to get pilots picked up, none are.

Now, being in the 2010's, some of the shows comcepts like a multi ethnic crew would be quite okay, but like back then, Sci Fi might not be "In" at the moment and he gets shot down.
Now, lets say Star Wars happened. ( its supprsiing how much tv was and stuff came after and was influenced by Star Trek)
StarGate Sg1 happens, few others, but Sci fi is seen as Campy or fantasy, Hard Sci Fi is just a niche thing in books.

Here comes Star Trek, He wants a ship and a diverse crew, thinking may a cruise ship, but not much action in there, so he desides to make it a "Sci Fi" pitch, but being a more serious writer of cop and military shows, he wants to pitch a "Harder" scifi series, to be taken seriously, not campy or fantasy. and seeing all the Dystopian stuff on tv and movies, especially after 9/11, he remembers growing up in the late 70's and 80's, he sets out to be Optomistic about the future, where everybody gets along. more ceribrial, more thought based, some action and explosions, but a thinking persons show.
This doesn't go to well early on because most studios see sci fi as a money hole, not enough fans for a large show budget, especially these days of cheap reality tv and cop dramas. But Gene pushes for a pilot, and him having some cloute of being a good and prolific writer, it is granted by Cbs.

Now, Star Trek, set in the 23rd centery, the Enterprise going from planet to planet. Have more future tech, like the main computer is a sentient AI, with a budget, have mulitupule aliens on the crew, instead of a holo deck, they can "Link In" to a mind space, ala Matrix, with some of the crew with implants that live in the Cyber computer space.

Basically it would be loaded with what WE think what the future tech might be Now, instead of the pie in the sky 60's space optomism.

Cbs doesn't think it would work on regular tv, shops it around to cable, and streaming, Netflix decides to take a chance and gives it a 13 episode commentment.

I also doubt that, if Star Trek was started today, it would ever become the pop culture phenomenal franchise that it is. Today, there is a ton of entertainment options that a new show would have to compete with. There would be no built-in fan base for this hypothetical ST to rely on. ST would probably be a show with a very small niche audience, especially if it is only on cable or streaming.

Also, if GR were producing the show today, he would probably be in big trouble with the MeToo movement. That alone could derail the show, unless someone else could successfully take over the production.

I guess you can only catch lightning in a bottle once with a franchise like Star Trek. It took the right confluence of events and the right timing to get Star Trek to where it is today.