What are changes are okay and what changes are to far?

There have been more than a few debates about the new Klingon look. Some like it, some hate it and others are unsure. Forget that one particular change for a moment. I asume we have some kind of expectations as to what a Trek show needs to be good and also still be Trek.

My question is what are changes are your okay with and what changes can't be touched or else a new Trek show will loose credibility to you. Here is my short lists.

Things can't be touched
Starfleet/federation
Most of the familiar aliens must feel familiar no matter what cosmetic changes are done to them.
Federation ships need to have the traditional sauser section and nacells.

Things that can be changed.
Alien cosmetic looks with a few exceptions. Vulcans/Romulans need pointy ears, Klingions need ridges and andorians need to be blue with antenne's. Also if they used the Ferengi they should still have big funny ears and cardissions should have the spoon and ear ridges.
Alien ships and even other earth style versions can look anyway they want them to.
Uniforms and tech though I do think it's important to have a form of ray gun,tricorder and transporter.
Humans. they don't have to be perfect or evolved.
canon though I do believe it's important to usume there is a Enterprise and Kirk and that crew in this universe or will be at some point.

Jason

 

I mainly want to see more perfect and artificially evolved/augmented humans, all in perfect condition/health, living much longer. This would add much realism to Star Trek.

Klingons should have the TMP look. It was very similar to TNG but a little different.

 

I went from Adam West's Batman to Michael Keaton's.

As long as it's good, they can do what they want.

 

I want to see a humankind that matches up with Roddenberry's cutting-edge concepts for TMP.

Kor

 

Exactly so.

 

The captain must have his shirt ripped off every third episode or we're rioting!

 

Considering that one of the captain's are female that might end up being the most worst or best moments ever depending on how you felt about Janet Jackson at the Super Bowl all those years ago.

Jason

 

Like Khan and Bashir? I'm not sure that kind of thing fits with the philosophy of Trek.

 

I want a look, feel and themes that are recognizable as Star Trek.

OK with occasional minor inconsistencies in continuity or canon in the context of a good story. Give the writers some freedom. Don't be more inconsistent than we've seen in most past series. Don't flip the bird to canon as we've seen in some past series.

I prefer not to see stories that belabor explanations about future Trek. For instance ENT's stories about the origin of the Prime Directive, or the whole Klingon ridge thing. Give me good stories about the present.

Give me a set of cliffhangers with stories that are so engaging that I become emotionally drained from being on the edge of my seat during the current ep and having to wait a week for resolution, only to find I have to wait again to resolve another curveball the writers threw at us. To me, that is the sign of a great series and what I really want to see in DSC.

 

Really or are you joking? To me that's the worst kind of writing that has dominated most shows in the last 10 years. It's just a psychological trick used as a substitute for original ideas.

This is my main fear actually about STD, that it will employ these cheap tricks used all over the place these days.

 

What is wrong with wanting that level of engagement with a series? If the production team can come up with a newer strategy that yields the same result then more power to them.

 

Engagement should be generated with the promise of more original ideas, not cliff hangers, in my opinion.

 

I'm with you on the part about original ideas. In my world it's not incompatible with cliffhangers. To me, in a seasonal story arc I'd expect cliffhangers as much as I'd expect suspension of disbelief. Anyway I think we're both hoping for and looking forward to a good series.

 

Why can't some episodes leave cliffhangers while others have engaging standalone plots? DS9 did this quite well.

 

Whether there is an ongoing arc or not, each episode should still stand strong as an excellent viewing experience, and not just a pointless exercise in getting to the next episode. Mad Men did this well. Agents of Shield does not.

Kor

 

Yes. Even if it is a season-long story arc, each episode needs to have a satisfying resolution to some issue that was raised during the episode. Each episode CANNOT be simply a one hour piece of a 13-hour story.

The serialized shows on TV (and streaming services) now and in the recent past have done this well -- such as Fargo, Stranger Things, The Man in the High Castle, Westworld, Better Call Saul, Breaking Bad, and (as you mentioned) Mad Men.

 

It should have been a non-event. There was more nudity in the G-rated 1971 movie adaptation of The Andromeda Strain, for crying out loud.

Interestingly, European audiences absolutely could not fathom why the American public was so up-in-arms about that incident, which was so brief and quick that you couldn't even see it without playing it back in extreme slow motion, while nobody seems to have any problem whatsoever with the game itself being so violent and aggressive!

Kor

 

They already did, made complex mult layered morality plays that made people ask questions and challenged their assumptions. It was groundbreaking then and is exactly what I hope we see here