Okay guys. *This* really IS a good idea for a new series.

TOS and TNG periodically had dark and chilling elements and there's nothing wrong with it. I could certainly see a new Star Trek delving into some X-Files like territory depending how it's handled.

 

That's what they did in TNG. If you change the characters, they aren't the same. So you have to rename them. Had they kept Kirk's name for the bald French captain who always stays on the bridge, or had they called the android Spock, and the black blind engineer Scotty, it would have been silly.

 

It's just that there is a tendency in fictional entertainment, regardless of the genre or format, to get to a certain point with a character, institution, or whole 'universe,' maybe, and then to deconstruct it. On one hand, this can be - and many times is - a very interesting exercise. STAR TREK's Mirror Universe, for example. On the other hand, it comes across as laziness and bereft of creativity, for one thing. Like having an alien "spirit" possess an established character on a television series, as if trying to get even more mileage out of its main cast. Despite the assurances of many Creative People - and young parents, in particular - "imagination" does have limits and this sort of thing is a case in point. Can't think of anything new? Start deconstructing, screwing around with and cheapening what you've already established.

 

Simply because your idea of the Federation and Starfleet is that of a thing that can't be anything but pure, it seems.

If that's the case, then why are you a fan (if you are one) of DS9, where this subplot was generated?

 

Where are you getting your understanding of my ideas of the Federation and Starfleet? I'm hardly the type to link every corrupt admiral, etc. to S31, for instance. In fact, it bugged me when the novels linked the events of INS to S31.

And even if I was opposed to the S31 storyline in general, which I'm not, I'd hardly be the first fan of a franchise who neverthless disliked certain aspects of the franchise. You might as well say, "If you dislike Wesley Crusher, why are you a fan of TNG?"

 

Between this

and this

which do you think has more audience appeal?

Understand, I'm not trying to s*** on your ideas, but I think sticking to the source material and to a broad scope allows more storytelling possibilities. You could do the kind of story you want to do one week, then switch gears and do something like a classic SF tale. Why limit the storytelling possibilities, potentially limiting the audience?

 

I think people really undervalue the flexibility of the format Roddenberry set up with TOS and TNG. You can tell essentially any type of story without it seeming forced into the show. Medical drama one week, court drama another week and spy drama another then mix in light-hearted fare here and there.

 

So very true. What other series can boast such a feat?

 

The anthologies of Twilight Zone and Outer Limits. The westerns that preceded Trek were quite flexible. Which is why Gene used that as part of his pitch.

I really do enjoy re-reading that original 1964 pitch by Gene. The palpable enthusiasm and wide scope for ideas is very apparent. There's still quite a lot of material that could be extrapolated from it.