Anachronistic Views May Kill New Trek Series From The Start

[Broccoli]

ST2009 was firmly rooted in the 1960's version of Trek, with only the most minimal of visual updates. And people loved it. Why? Not the universe, not the faux-future technology, not some trite political analogy, but the iconic and lovable characters. Get them right, and Trek can prosper on TV again, even on a shoestring budget.

ST09 was firmly rooted in the general public's misconceptions about Star Trek, which bore very little resemblance to actual Star Trek.

No.

Star Trek is not our future, and never has been our future, any more than Star Trek's past was our past, because it never has been. It's a separate reality like Middle Earth, with its own history.

So quit trying to shoehorn Star Trek's history into ours, and vice versa. Doesn't work, never has, never will.

Yes.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Star Trek is not our future, and never has been our future, any more than Star Trek's past was our past, because it never has been. It's a separate reality like Middle Earth, with its own history.

So quit trying to shoehorn Star Trek's history into ours, and vice versa. Doesn't work, never has, never will.

Nope.

All we have to do is retcon. Something TOS, TMP, TWOK, TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT have done plenty of over the years. Star Trek's continuity only works as continuity as long as us fans shave bits off and glue bits on elsewhere to make it all fit as one assembly in our minds. Otherwise, it's a series of very similar parallel realities.

Why not "our future"? Isn't that what it's "supposed to represent" anyways, a possible future for humanity, and not just a possible future of 1965?

 

[Brainsucker]

Star Trek is not our future, and never has been our future, any more than Star Trek's past was our past, because it never has been. It's a separate reality like Middle Earth, with its own history.

So quit trying to shoehorn Star Trek's history into ours, and vice versa. Doesn't work, never has, never will.

I don't agree with this. When I watched Star Trek in my childhood time and see the brand "24th century", I consider it as science fiction, not a space fantasy like Middle Earth. That mean, that time, I believe that human will able to invent the technology that represent in the story. Maybe I'm alone, or... not in this believe (I was a kid back then). Because I won't be interested in Star Trek in the first place if it was only a mere Fantasy Story like Middle Earth.

 

[Christopher]

The idea of seeing Star Trek as a model for our future isn't supposed to be about the technological details. It's supposed to be about the idea that we can overcome prejudice, war, poverty, and inequality, that we can master technology as a force for improving our lives and our world rather than despoiling them, that we can set astronomically high goals for ourselves as a species and achieve them through human ingenuity and cooperation. It's about the idea that if we learn to apply our energies toward common goals rather than directing them against one another, we can and will achieve so much more.

So it doesn't matter whether we ever invent warp drive or transporters, or whether we embrace genetic engineering or reject it. If we come together as a species and use our collective, AI-enhanced transhuman intelligence to build a vast, peaceful, diverse community of thousands of artificial space habitats out of the asteroids and comets of our own solar system, while sending slower-than-light robot probes out to explore other worlds on our behalf and establish friendly, if slow, dialogues with their inhabitants, then that's still fulfilling the vision of Star Trek, because that vision is about the human side of the equation, not the specifics of the technology.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Star Trek is not our future, and never has been our future, any more than Star Trek's past was our past, because it never has been. It's a separate reality like Middle Earth, with its own history.

So quit trying to shoehorn Star Trek's history into ours, and vice versa. Doesn't work, never has, never will.

I don't agree with this. When I watched Star Trek in my childhood time and see the brand "24th century", I consider it as science fiction, not a space fantasy like Middle Earth. That mean, that time, I believe that human will able to invent the technology that represent in the story. Maybe I'm alone, or... not in this believe (I was a kid back then). Because I won't be interested in Star Trek in the first place if it was only a mere Fantasy Story like Middle Earth.

Go take a look at imdb.com sometime and see when Clark Gable became a big name movie star (I'll give ya a hint: it was well after 1930). Then go check out those orbiting nuclear platforms from 1968.

These are not historical points that were superseded by reality, they were inconsistencies at the time, and serve to distinguish our reality from Star Trek's.

That's not to say that we can't learn something from it and apply those lessons to our own lives. Far from it, that's what good myths are all about, and a big part of why Star Trek has lasted as long as it has and still has some life in it, DESPITE certain ham-fisted attempts to turn it into "just another movie."

As a matter of fact, making it just a space opera romp, especially concerted efforts to dumb it down into just another space opera romp, is a complete and utter betrayal of the format and what Gene Roddenberry set out to do with Star Trek, and despite the ginormous box office which everyone seems to have spontaneous orgasms over, it probably does more damage to the overall viability of the franchise than another ten seasons of Berman/Braga nonsense.

And THAT, boys and girls, is why I have nothing but utter contempt and disdain for JJTrek, and very little tolerance for those who claim that it "captured the spirit of the original series" when, from where I sit, it not only didn't capture that spirit, it hitched up its hind leg and took a good long whiz on the original series.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

ST2009 was firmly rooted in the 1960's version of Trek, with only the most minimal of visual updates. And people loved it. Why? Not the universe, not the faux-future technology, not some trite political analogy, but the iconic and lovable characters. Get them right, and Trek can prosper on TV again, even on a shoestring budget.

ST09 was firmly rooted in the general public's misconceptions about Star Trek, which bore very little resemblance to actual Star Trek.

Apparently those misconceptions are popular and profitable. So why shouldn't they be adopted as the basis for an equally popular and profitable TV series?

 

[jefferiestubes8]

The idea of seeing Star Trek as a model for our future isn't supposed to be about the technological details. It's supposed to be about the idea that we can overcome prejudice, war, poverty, and inequality, that we can master technology as a force for improving our lives and our world rather than despoiling them, that we can set astronomically high goals for ourselves as a species and achieve them through human ingenuity and cooperation. It's about the idea that if we learn to apply our energies toward common goals rather than directing them against one another, we can and will achieve so much more.

wow. so well written!

is that the boilerplate on the United Federation of Planets or something?

Just beautiful writing....

 

[Tiberius]

Nah, don't need a reboot. Just set the next trek series in the 28th century or something. Allow Federation technology enough time to have developed those things and they can be explored easily.

But then the history of the show would still be implausible to the next generation of viewers, who'd be wondering why it took so long to get there. And what happens 52 years from now when first contact with the Vulcans and the invention of warp drive haven't happened in real life? If there's still Star Trek in production by then, wouldn't it pretty much have to reboot the continuity or else be stuck with being an alternate history or an exercise in nostalgia?

Do you often sit there and wonder why it took Picard and co to come up with cell phones and iPads?

And I think that we've already passed that bridge, as the Eugenics wars never really happened.

Besides, I don't think you really believe any of that. If you did believe it, you wouldn't have said:

The idea of seeing Star Trek as a model for our future isn't supposed to be about the technological details. It's supposed to be about the idea that we can overcome prejudice, war, poverty, and inequality, that we can master technology as a force for improving our lives and our world rather than despoiling them, that we can set astronomically high goals for ourselves as a species and achieve them through human ingenuity and cooperation. It's about the idea that if we learn to apply our energies toward common goals rather than directing them against one another, we can and will achieve so much more.

So it doesn't matter whether we ever invent warp drive or transporters, or whether we embrace genetic engineering or reject it. If we come together as a species and use our collective, AI-enhanced transhuman intelligence to build a vast, peaceful, diverse community of thousands of artificial space habitats out of the asteroids and comets of our own solar system, while sending slower-than-light robot probes out to explore other worlds on our behalf and establish friendly, if slow, dialogues with their inhabitants, then that's still fulfilling the vision of Star Trek, because that vision is about the human side of the equation, not the specifics of the technology.

 

[JarodRussell]

I find the statement that anachronistic views may kill the next attempt curious. Star Trek 2009 was a big success, and its characters are modelled after the issues of the 60s. It can't get any more anachronistic than that.

And the technological aspect... the thing about scifi shows like Star Trek is that they can easily turn into fantasy shows once they are outdated, who cares? Time travel, beaming, red matter, the genesis device, it's all fantasy already anyway because it simply is not possible. Warp speed is already borderlining it, but it's at least still somewhat theoretically possible. The rest is total wizardry.

 

[Christopher]

Do you often sit there and wonder why it took Picard and co to come up with cell phones and iPads?

TNG came along only 20-odd years after TOS. But imagine if someone today tried to create a version of, say, Flash Gordon or Tom Swift that was directly in continuity with the original stories from the 1930s or so, rather than updating them for modern audiences. It would be seen, at best, as an exercise in nostalgia and retro storytelling. Which is fine as far as it goes, but that's a poor fit for something like Star Trek, which should be about looking forward and being progressive.

Besides, I don't think you really believe any of that. If you did believe it, you wouldn't have said:

On the contrary, there's no contradiction at all. My point is that Star Trek is not defined by a particular set of technological assumptions, so there's no reason not to update it, to restart the continuity and make it forward-looking by modern (or future) standards instead of just by 1960s/'80s standards. As long as it retains the core values, it's true to Star Trek. And one of those core values is a willingness to look forward and embrace change and novelty.

As I said, Roddenberry himself would've been the first to cast aside outdated assumptions and reinvent ST for a new era. That's what he wanted -- for it to change and evolve and stay progressive and relevant, not to be frozen as a relic of the past because its fans mistook loyalty to its surface details and niceties of continuity for loyalty to its true meaning.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Just see Gundam as the example. When their prime universe, The Universal century has become old,

Not so much since they have a currently running OVA set in it and have plans to do an adaption of a manga retelling of the original show.

And look at Cameron's Avatar -- they can cross interstellar distances and create teleoperated artificial organisms, but can't cure paraplegia?

Actually It was mentioned that they can it was just too expensive for the main character to have done.

 

[Kemaiku]

Yup, if I remember correctly they offer to have the operation carried out when he gets home if he completes the mission, that the military would simply pay for it.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I find the statement that anachronistic views may kill the next attempt curious. Star Trek 2009 was a big success, and its characters are modelled after the issues of the 60s. It can't get any more anachronistic than that.

The link to the 60s has been severed. Nobody thinks anything about a black woman or a Russian serving in Starfleet. Uhura is now part of a forbidden romance template, and Chekov is the Greenhorn. The fish-out-of-water character type that Spock represents is evergreen. Kirk was an interesting departure from the space-opera-hero template of the time, but the new Kirk is a different type entirely, the cocky kid.

And then we have McCoy, still the loveable curmudgeon, and Scotty, unrecognizable as goofy comic relief. The characters are all mapping to popular types in fiction generally, but not anything to do with the 60s in particular.

 

[lennier1]

Just see Gundam as the example. When their prime universe, The Universal century has become old,

Not so much since they have a currently running OVA set in it and have plans to do an adaption of a manga retelling of the original show.

Exactly. They simply have several parallel universes to allow for more artistic freedom, but the original universe hasn't been abandoned. It's just not used that much anymore since there's already so much stuff built on top they'd have to take into account.

 

[MacLeod]

You do realise the discourse within this thread, shows the difficulty in creating a new show.

for example, Genetic Engineering, yes it might be topical to a 21st Century TV. But witin the history of the ST timeline it proved to be a technological advancement that generally turned out with a less desireable outcome. i.e the Eugenics war.

That isn't to say you can't use that as a story element within the show, you just have to use it in a way which is internally consistant within the history of the universe you are setting show. i.e you could set the show in the 28th century and incoperate the fact that the technology is a proven technology, and that those who are ristant to change are in the minority holding onto old beliefs. That way you demonstrate respect to the past, whilst allowing for the topic to be raised. You don't indrouce the concept for the sake of introducing it. It has to serve the story.

But as others have said ST is about exploring humanity, the characters like Spock, Data, Odo, the EMH serve as the outside characters looking in on what it means to be human to a certain extend.

 

[lennier1]

The main topics still haven't changed, like using the worlds of the Federation and the other factions to show how peaceful coexistence and equality should the a leading goal of society.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I find the statement that anachronistic views may kill the next attempt curious. Star Trek 2009 was a big success, and its characters are modelled after the issues of the 60s. It can't get any more anachronistic than that.

The link to the 60s has been severed. Nobody thinks anything about a black woman or a Russian serving in Starfleet. Uhura is now part of a forbidden romance template, and Chekov is the Greenhorn. The fish-out-of-water character type that Spock represents is evergreen. Kirk was an interesting departure from the space-opera-hero template of the time, but the new Kirk is a different type entirely, the cocky kid.

And then we have McCoy, still the loveable curmudgeon, and Scotty, unrecognizable as goofy comic relief. The characters are all mapping to popular types in fiction generally, but not anything to do with the 60s in particular.

Like I said, JJTrek was based on public misconceptions of Star Trek, not the reality of what Star Trek actually was.

 

[Christopher]

for example, Genetic Engineering, yes it might be topical to a 21st Century TV. But witin the history of the ST timeline it proved to be a technological advancement that generally turned out with a less desireable outcome. i.e the Eugenics war.

But that doesn't make sense within the context of Trek's overall approach to technology. Antimatter can be used to create horrible weapons, but the Federation has embraced it to propel ships to the stars. Hell, fire can burn down cities, but that doesn't mean we ban it altogether and try to survive on raw food. No technology is intrinsically good or bad. And it would be criminally irresponsible to ban all genetic engineering, to deprive people of the good it could do, just because it has the potential for abuse.

That isn't to say you can't use that as a story element within the show, you just have to use it in a way which is internally consistant within the history of the universe you are setting show. i.e you could set the show in the 28th century and incoperate the fact that the technology is a proven technology, and that those who are ristant to change are in the minority holding onto old beliefs. That way you demonstrate respect to the past, whilst allowing for the topic to be raised. You don't indrouce the concept for the sake of introducing it. It has to serve the story.

Or, you could start over from scratch with a whole new continuity, find an entirely fresh way of defining and embodying the universe. I don't understand Trek fans who are resistant to that possibility. I mean, I'm a Batman fan, and I'm glad there are many different, separate versions of Batman and his universe. Same for Spider-Man or Sherlock Holmes or Jason and the Argonauts. Great, archetypal characters and concepts are worth exploring in multiple ways, worth reinventing and discovering new facets of. It's great having multiple different versions that can coexist, that can illuminate the concept in more ways than a single overarching continuity could. Exploring variations on a theme is a basic part of creativity. To experience something that's familiar at its core but is expressed in a new and unexpected way is a thrill.

 

[MacLeod]

From memory ST touched upon genetic engineering in 4 of the series

ENT, had Snoog's Augments. they were less than sane.
TOS, had Kahn and his folows a tryannt who ruled a 1/4 of the Earth
TNG, had genetic engineeing it ended up aging people.
DSN had Bashir (an example of how it could work) but it also had examples of where it went wrong.

So more often or not when we have seen genetic engineering in ST it has proven to be a failure for the most part. Though it seemed to get less serve as time past.

As for a new universe, perhaps, but unlike the examples posted above which are either updated to the modern day or looking back. ST is looking forward to the future, and as such if you set it in 2265, You have to create a universe prior to that date.

For example today we look back on hisorical events and they can effect any decision we make. For example in Germany except for certain circumstances I believe it is illegal to display the swastica. It's been what 2.5 generations since the end of WWII yet events from that era still impact life today.So why wouln't the same apply for a show taking place in the future wouldn't they look back on historial events?

 

[xortex]

Reality and TOS could be shoehorned through another show and be nothing like either. 2001 : a Space Odessy could be threaded through TOS and turned into Trek. Davvid Bowman's shirt could be retconned to have a starfleet insignia on it. Else call it something else if the imaginations at hand are not up to the task. I see no baggage and need to 'wipe the slate clean' in another prequel. It's a big universe. Just side step Archer et al.. Play nice in Gene's sandbox perameters or get out of it.
The universe is all of a sudden too limiting and small and stiffling for some.