Does a new show need to feature the Enterprise?

[poundpuppy29]

Saw this on the ST board curious what you people think

Does a new show need to feature the Enterprise?



I am not sure I think it is a good question

 

[Tan Ru]

Nope. Not at all............

I'm waiting for a ST show with the USS Codfish.

With a name like that, you'd know it was gonna be an awesome show!!

 

[Temis the Vorta]

No. DS9 got by just fine without it. Star Trek doesn't need certain vessels, space stations or characters in order to work. It can take place anywhere - in this galaxy, in other galaxies. Ironically enough, the one place it shouldn't hang around in, is the Federation.

Here are the essential elements that a Star Trek series cannot do without. Other than this list, it's open season on any topic:

1. Must be set in the future relative to us. (Required anyway, given the other points.)

2. Must focus on Starfleet.

3. Must include (not focus on) the Federation,* as an ideal if not as an existing entity.

4. The political philosophy of Starfleet and the Federation must be secular liberal humanism, with the Federation serving as a utopian exemplar of that philosophy.

5. Action must stake place on the fringes of the Federation, rather than within the Federation - defending from external threats, policing far-flung outposts, exploring into unknown territory. This is what I mean by "not focusing on the Federation." The Federation is an off-screen ideal; the action takes place everywhere else.

That leaves open all kinds of premises, but shuts others off. Fall of the Federation is possible, if the Federation is an ideal that the characters are striving to return to. A Federation civil war is also possible, if one side (the good guys) are trying to defend the true ideals of the Federation against internal attack.

But it shuts off a Klingon- or Romulan-centric series, unless there's a substantial presence of Starfleet characters. Maybe even one Starfleet officer on a Klingon vessel would be enough to give this a pass. It also shuts off a series that takes place solely in the Mirror Universe. But again, if there's interplay between the MU and regular universe, it's possible.

A Section 31 series would be tricky, but possible, as long as it takes place largely outside the Federation, and includes a character whose point of view challenges the ruthless S31 philosophy as inimical to Federation ideals. (On second thought, an S31 series might do okay chiefly in the Federation. My main objection to placing the action in the Federation is that it needs to be a utopia, but utopias don't generate the conflict that drama needs. But S31 carries the conflict with them.)

*Not including the Federation is (part of) what doomed ENT. Without the Federation to serve as justification for Starfleet's activities, those activities had no moral weight. It was just a bunch of hew-mons running around the galaxy and pissing off aliens, more space tourism than actual exploration (they never stay anyplace long enough to properly explore it from a scientific standpoint).

ENT would have done okay if the point of the series had been setting up the founding of the Federation, which would have happened during the series run.

 

[Caesar753]

Of course a new show doesn't need the Enterprise. DS9 and Voyager proved that. Simply having an Enterprise doesn't guarantee a good show.

 

[Shazam!]

Yes. In fact, I'd go one step further and say it needs Kirk and co.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Saw this on the ST board curious what you people think

Does a new show need to feature the Enterprise?

Nope.

 

[C.E. Evans]

If it's set in a pre-established era of Star Trek, no. If it's set in an all-new, never-before-seen era (such as the 25th-Century), yes.

 

[Shanndee]

I'd have to add my voice to the "no" vote. Using the Enterprise yet again would be like going backwards. Too much of a "been there, done that" feeling to it. I'd like a new series to be fresh, to give me something I don't feel like I've seen before.

My husband and I used to talk about how we'd like to see a show that took the perspective of an alien society that was not part of the Federation...we'd like to hear their stories and their world views in response to various encounters with Starfleet.

I think it was Temis the Vorta who mentioned in a different thread that the rebuilding of Cardassia would be an interesting concept, and I have to say that is a series I would watch!

 

[Shazam!]

I'd have to add my voice to the "no" vote. Using the Enterprise yet again would be like going backwards. Too much of a "been there, done that" feeling to it.

If they made a series for those who used to watch Star Trek. Which they won't.

 

[Skywalker]

I think it would need an Enterprise, yes, but I don't think it would need Kirk, Spock, and the gang. A new group of strong and interesting characters would serve just fine.

 

[Tora Ziyal]

If it's set in a pre-established era of Star Trek, no. If it's set in an all-new, never-before-seen era (such as the 25th-Century), yes.

Good point. In a new era, an Enterprise would provide continuity and a connection with the past.

 

[ngc7293]

I don't think a show needs it for the reasons stated above, but an Enterprise of the future could pull up along side the U.S.S. Mostar to deliver her new captain, for example, Just as Picard assigned Sisko to DS-9.

 

[Kelthaz]

Nah. I can't imagine the Enterprise ever leaving the big screen to give us weekly adventures. I'd expect the next Trek series to focus on some random Starfleet ship to allow the Enterprise to continue the successful film franchise and to avoid recasting the TOS crew yet again.

 

[T'Girl]

1. Must be set in the future relative to us.

Don't see any way around this. Can we go further Temis the Vorta and say No time travel?

2. Must focus on Starfleet.

Yes and no, it must be a Starfleet-like organization.

3. Must include (not focus on) the Federation,* as an ideal if not as an existing entity.

Not necessarily. While admittedly Enterprise screwed up the time period, a show set prior to the advent of the Federation could be made to work. Just need new creative angle.

4. The political philosophy of Starfleet and the Federation must be secular liberal humanism, with the Federation serving as a utopian exemplar of that philosophy.

Keep the Humanism, junk the "secular liberalism." Sure a few of our characters will embrace that philosophy, but most of the new characters must be a diverse group in terms of their beliefs. economics, religion, politics, culture, diet, nationalism, capitalism, socialism. The principal characters are very different from each other. And the members planets of any Federation council shown will be the same, diverse.

There's a lot of different ways of doing things, for the purposes of story-telling the show will embrace this.

5. This is what I mean by "not focusing on the Federation." The Federation is an off-screen ideal; the action takes place everywhere else.

Some of the best episodes have taken place on the "interior" of the Federation, DS9 rarely engaged in exploration and many (not I) consider it the top trek. Just because an episode features the Federation doesn't meant it has to revolve around the federation council, we can explore the peoples of the Federation, they're probably an interesting bunch'.

Without the Federation to serve as justification for Starfleet's activities, those activities had no moral weight.

TOS's moral weight came from Kirk, not the Federation. TNG's moral weight came from Picard, not the Federation. Contrast Picard (and TNG) with Sisko, who "worked" for the same Federation, but possessed far less in the way of morals - and so did DS9 in general.

ENT would have done okay if the point of the series had been setting up the founding of the Federation, which would have happened during the series run.

The episode of Enterprise that depicted the actual formation of the Federation is considered the worst single episode of all of Star Trek (TATV). The building of the "interstellar coalition," debatable, is part of what killed the show.

 

[YARN]

1. Must be set in the future relative to us. (Required anyway, given the other points.)

Trek is an alternate timeline. Eugenics wars? Didn't happen, right?

 

[pimp]

Personally I think the Star Trek Franchise needs to move on and if there was going to be a new series it should be set in some future timeline that way you do not have that continuity rubbish that has plagued the franchise (maybe set it like several hundreds years after Voyager) So I think it would also be a great idea to not have Enterprise as the ship of the show, why not pick another ship which has no link to the other series like the..... USS (insert random name here)

anyways that's my thought on the franchise

 

[MacLeod]

I guess one possible way to go, would be to set it another Galaxy, some time around the 33rd Century. With the Enterprise being the First (or one of the first) Federation vessel to reach that Galaxy, it's set far enough into the future that the likes of Kirk, Picard, Sisko etc.. are nothing more than pages in a history book, much the same way people like Cook, Columbus, Drake to us are pages in a history book.

By setting it in another Galaxy, you minimise using exiting aliens such as the Romulans, Klingon's etc.. You could also have the nature of Vulcans change and have them more emotional due to the a reunification with their Romulan cousins in the 25th Century after Romulus was destroyed in the late 24th Century.

 

[pimp]

I guess one possible way to go, would be to set it another Galaxy, some time around the 33rd Century. With the Enterprise being the First (or one of the first) Federation vessel to reach that Galaxy, it's set far enough into the future that the likes of Kirk, Picard, Sisko etc.. are nothing more than pages in a history book, much the same way people like Cook, Columbus, Drake to us are pages in a history book.

By setting it in another Galaxy, you minimise using exiting aliens such as the Romulans, Klingon's etc.. You could also have the nature of Vulcans change and have them more emotional due to the a reunification with their Romulan cousins in the 25th Century after Romulus was destroyed in the late 24th Century.

I would agree that setting it in a different galaxy might be good idea however it needs to have very different characteristics from our milky way otherwise it is going to be pointless if it looks the same etc etc

Also 33rd century might be a bit too far and the writers would have to come up with really extravagant technology and they probably kill the show with their wild ideas

but how about the 25th century???

and please please forget the Enterprise

 

[C.E. Evans]

and please please forget the Enterprise

Not going to happen. A few fans may feel differently, but for most audiences, Star Trek and the Enterprise are synonymous and will always be, IMO.

 

[The Wormhole]

Would a new show need to feature the Enterprise? No. But for marketing reasons, it should.