7 Ideas for Star Trek 2017

[David.Blue]

Using some or all of these might help generate interest/excitement in the new show. Or not. JMHO.

1. Don't mention where this is the original timeline, the Abrams timeline or a new one until the final episode of the first season.
2. Include relatives of known characters in the show--but maybe don't make immediately clear their exact status. For example, we might have an officer named "Kirk" onboard.
3. Throw in a wild card absolutely nobody will expect--such as the Borg treated as trusted allies of the Federation!
4. Do a redesign of the basic Starfleet shape, echoing what we know but taking it in a new direction (a vertical orientation for example, or a very different color scheme).
5. Please make the series 'antagonists' something that resembles Al Qaeda and/or ISIS not even a little bit.
6. A genuinely interesting Captain/First Officer combo. Frankly the re-imagined BSG and Joss Whedon's Firefly did a much better job than almost any Trek since the original.
7. An idea to explore--the Federation consists of such a huge array of cultures, Starfleet itself must function as its own culture at some point in order to work. This means there are likely families that routinely join Starfleet, and certain types of dissidents made welcome there (refugees, half-breeds of races that don't get along, certain dissenters such as emotional Vulcans, etc.)

 

[KlavsPrieditis]

The most I like the idea not to tell the original timeline. Kike in films of David Lynch. He also always the complex and confused plot ;P

 

[YellowSubmarine]

I think it should be a police procedural about a death metal lyricist helping Federation authorities solve crimes after concerts. With a Klingon refugee opera singer as a sidekick.

 

[Mudd]

1 and 7 are the winners there, in one form or another.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I'd rather enjoy an all-Mirror Universe series, with absolutely no crossovers to the regular one.

 

[T'Girl]

Don't mention where this is the original timeline, the Abrams timeline or a new one until the final episode of the first season

My thought is that any new series is going to use whatever parts of pre-existing canon that they feel is needed. The series won't get into being a alternate universe unless/until TPTB decide to change something from Trek's history.

Include relatives of known characters in the show--but maybe don't make immediately clear their exact status. For example, we might have an officer named "Kirk" onboard

Not sure about this, but I would like to occasionally see former actors as completely new characters. If they were to return for major parts or cameos.

Please make the series 'antagonists' something that resembles Al Qaeda and/or ISIS not even a little bit

TNG's The High Ground dealt with terrorism quite realistically. It would be interesting to see how Starfleet would handle asymmetrically warfare within the Federation, from a organization made up of member world species.

The Maquis were "good" terrorist, now show bad.

A genuinely interesting Captain/First Officer combo

TOS, TNG and to a lessor degree DS9 had this. While Trek hasn't alway got this right, it's done a fair job.

An idea to explore--the Federation consists of such a huge array of cultures, Starfleet itself must function as its own culture at some point in order to work.

It would be reasonable that Starfleet would possess it's own internal culture much as you see in the modern militaries. The show has never gone into what the general population thinks of Starfleet, be interesting to have a episode that looks into that.

 

[David.Blue]

Merry Christmas, I'm going to flatly say IMHO only TOS and DS9 had an interesting, dramatic CO/Exec combo, and after about the third season DS9 really didn't do much with it. I mean Picard was interesting, but mostly because of the actor playing him, while Ryker always came across as Kirk Lite. I actually thought Ryker's transporter clone was much more interesting (although the implications of that little accident seem awe-inspiring at least to me) as a character, an officer who might actually put his personal relationship first, and maybe go rogue for a good cause like the Maquis.

But that is just me. My own favorite CO/Exec combos from various films and stories tend to involve a more powerful dynamic.

 

[borgboy]

I think having a woman captain and a woman as first officer would be the most interesting captian/first officer combination. We've had two series with male/male captain first officer combos, so two women in charge seems fair.
Out of the five series we've had four male captains and three male first officers, while only one female captain and two female first officers.
We also should have at least an equal number of female characters to male characters. Even Voyager which was considered female dominated only had three regular female characters at a time and still had five male main characters.
It's past time we had a regular gay character. Certainly a lesbian captain or first officer is a possibility, but a gay male character would be more ground breaking, as sci fi has many more gay/bi female characters already out there.
In the spirit of Trek's vision of a united humanity I think a Muslim regular character would be appropriate along people from other nations and races.

 

[jamestyler]

The Maquis were "good" terrorist, now show bad.

The inherent problem with showing 'bad' terrorists is that you can see it better on another show.

Season 4 of Homeland was the best example of this. Saul directly confronted with a terrorist willing to kill his own family for the cause and there were a few scenes in that mix that were tremendous in that context - including being confronted with why a kid was a willing suicide bomber and a lot more.

That scene alone would work tremendously well for Star Trek if it was done right and I've got my own theories and ideas of how the whole angle would work in a Star Trek setting (the foundations are there to do it all in context with the major worlds) but where's the point in boldly going where someone else has been? And commented on more directly?

One of the big problems Trek will face is that TV is a lot braver now than it was in 1966 and Star Trek became a lot less brave as time went on.

If you were sitting in the big chair at CBS would you say "Ah, terrorists! Thats a fresh idea!" or "Terrorists are bad? Seen it. What else you got?"

 

[T'Girl]

The problem with your point (which I do see) is that it's nearly impossible to have a completely original concept, the best you can hope for is a different take on a existing idea. A new slant, a fresh interpretation.

It is possible to have something which is new to Star Trek however. I've posted before that I reject the idea that the trillion being population of the Federation are all going to be in intellectual and philosophical lock step.

It wasn't my idea that a planet in the Federation would engage in terrorism, but rather individuals from various member worlds spread across the Federation. With a (supposed) trillion people in the population, a philosophy could have tens of millions of followers, and still be a tiny minority with little voice.

The cause of the terrorists could be something otherwise reasonable, but something that the Federation membership reject. Or (maybe better) it passed, but was suppressed but the Federation's courts.

A segment of the population was passionate enough about the matter to employ violence for this cause. And there would be people in the Federation who didn't fully join, but gave varying levels of support. Some in Starfleet might give verbal support, while still performing their duties to fight the terrorists.

Can you get on a trillion TV screens simply by shaking some signs outside the administrations building, and making future youtube videoes?

 

[David.Blue]

Merry Christmas, I like the way you think.

 

[jamestyler]

The problem with your point (which I do see) is that it's nearly impossible to have a completely original concept, the best you can hope for is a different take on a existing idea. A new slant, a fresh interpretation.

I didn't want to quote a huge block.... but you're right and I don't want to sound like a negative nancy when I'm the complete opposite hah!

The idea is pretty solid in theory and there are dozens of breadcrumbs laid out to follow in the established Trek world. I just fear the "Simpsons did it!" will begin to hit.

In my mind Star Trek was held up (rightly or wrongly) and idolised for being brave and inspiring. Over time it got significantly less brave and more routine; leaving the door open for everyone else to do the good stuff.

When it comes to the 'hot topics' it just makes me wonder if there's any room to be brave again - or if it'd be like trying to say something smart while playing poker with Newton, Hawking and Einstein.

 

[Mudd]

The notion of a problematic cultural divide between Starfleet and civilians is a good, dramatic and plausible one - there really should be.

 

[David.Blue]

The notion of a problematic cultural divide between Starfleet and civilians is a good, dramatic and plausible one - there really should be.

Thank you!

Something like this was even mentioned twice in TOS--first in the whole idea that Spock as a half breed found his home there (would love to see other off spring of mixed-species marriages, not including humans, such as Vulcan/Andorian or Cardassian/Bajoran, etc.), and in "Balance of Terror" there's a hint of what might be called service families, the Stiles specifically (was the initial Captain of the Excelsior a relative?)

 

[Kegg]

I'd rather enjoy an all-Mirror Universe series, with absolutely no crossovers to the regular one.

I feel like that would leave us without what makes the Mirror Universe fun - its role as a funhouse mirror version of the Star Trek universe we're well familiar with. Mirror Spock is iconic precisely because we're familiar with a kinder, more clean-shaven iteration of the character.

I'd love to see a new series do a mirror universe episode - even more than one - but none until after the first season, by which point the audience and the actors will be well comfortable with the routine and 'normality' of the cast. (Note that of the three shows that have done mirror universe episodes, none did it in their first season.)

A segment of the population was passionate enough about the matter to employ violence for this cause. And there would be people in the Federation who didn't fully join, but gave varying levels of support. Some in Starfleet might give verbal support, while still performing their duties to fight the terrorists.

So "Let He Who Is Without Sin."

It's not a bad idea, but honestly - and this is just my two cents here - I feel like a new series should push the affairs of the Federation a bit to the back. Star Trek's been more about the frontier than it's ever really been about the Federation, and I feel like a new series should emphasize that before letting Federation politics come into play.

Don't mention where this is the original timeline, the Abrams timeline or a new one until the final episode of the first season

The most important thing to me here is the show should be relatable if you neither care about this issue or even know about it. If an eight year old sits down and watches the pilot as his first ever Star Trek experience, it's one that presents itself as fresh, new, not requiring its audience to be encumbered by knowledge of past forms.

In other words maybe it is in the Abrams universe, or the Prime Universe, or a brand new universe, but this question in itself is not something that should matter - if in Prime, it's not heavily leaning on the Dominion War, if in Abrams, it's not anxiously looking over its shoulder at all the fun people are having in the movies and reminding you those things happened like Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Whatever its mythology is, it's its own.

Anyway those are some unsolicited thoughts from me. I quite like the idea of the Borg as allies, not just because it would feel like a 'shock,' but it's also thematically consistent with the adversaries of old Star Trek productions being revealed as allies, however uneasily, in the present.

 

[dub]

1. Don't mention where this is the original timeline, the Abrams timeline or a new one until the final episode of the first season.

In the season finale, the Captain turns to the camera and says, slowly and dramatically:

"The timeline we're in...IS......."

Start clip below at 3:30:

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8IfIskgd8g[/yt]

(Let's hope Steve Harvey isn't cast as the Captain.)

 

[dub]

The most I like the idea not to tell the original timeline. Like in films of David Lynch.

I'd watch a David Lynch Star Trek series.

 

[RAMA]

ST09 brilliantly destroyed Vulcan and kept it destroyed...it showed that the status quo had changed and that real changes can happen when it's not tied down to canon. The new show should do something similar.

 

[DaddlerTheDalek]

7. An idea to explore--the Federation consists of such a huge array of cultures, Starfleet itself must function as its own culture at some point in order to work. This means there are likely families that routinely join Starfleet, and certain types of dissidents made welcome there (refugees, half-breeds of races that don't get along, certain dissenters such as emotional Vulcans, etc.)

Starfleet beeing it's own culture in the UFP sounds like a interesting idea to me.

 

[Rahul]

ST09 brilliantly destroyed Vulcan and kept it destroyed...it showed that the status quo had changed and that real changes can happen when it's not tied down to canon. The new show should do something similar.

Oh my god, hell NO.

Whenever an uncreative hack tries to leave his "mark" on a property, he wants to "kill one of the old characters"
or "destroy a familiar place", to show "It matters what I do!!!!!!11oneone11eleven" and "we have MORE consequences now" (as if before there were never changes to the status quo, without the one at the helm being a dick about it).

How about creating something NEW? That's apparently too much to ask from someone who is in the "creative business".