Hard Star Trek

[Autistoid]

Yeah however it would never be directly stated.

There would be an effort to avoid such details as it would confuse the audience.

Also these races would functionally still be other alien races.

When you think about it how do we know that isn't the case within the trekverse in the first place,(semi rhetoric question) We have multiple races clearly able to interbreed, we spend little time characterizes these people as anything less than human etc. Obviously there is the occasional technobabble or other nonsense referring to a unique species, but in reality the idea that they are human descendants fits.

But if we keep everything vague we might run into the danger of once again having the same lose rules as the current Trek universe, which would lead to inconsistencies.

I also don't see how the simple explanation of "We originate from Earth, but we have been genetically modified" would be confusing.

Well the point is to have a total package, keep all the details that make harder it present, however don't make them so blatantly visible that you are beating the audience over the head with a frying pan.

The problem with saying they originate from earth outright would be that people would have a hard time appreciating them as distinct races. We all descend from primates however it has little reference to most conversations in everyday life.

 

[Autistoid]

But, isn't the point in a harder version to directly state these changes? Not in a technobable or "as you know" scene, but the differences are still noted for whatever plot reasons.

I'd agree with most other details, except for this single one.

Of course you could through out easter eggs all the time.

I.e. klingons and romulans have very similar physiology

If they are a different strain of human, but not commented on at all (i.e. the audience would never know either) then why make the distinction? Kind of echoing what BillJ said

They would still look different and have distinctly different cultures.

I'd also make an effort to make it clear that they can have distinctly different characteristics and beliefs.

Finally, if you want aliens that are different, not humanoid looking in the sense that they are played by rubber foreheaded actors, then any humans or different strains of humans, are going to stand out.

Not quite sure what you mean here.

I'm not in now way sugguesting, having the entire cast looking just like regular humans. They would have much of the same look as before, only obvious adaptations like klingon strength would make humans incredibly weak.

Given that Star Trek and science fiction is a niche product anyway, the details are far more necessary than is realized. This isn't the 60s were people are watching it in black and white on a smaller monitor. Scifi gets picked apart, and details are not only expected, but not having them is the confusing part.

Of course.

 

[fireproof78]

But, isn't the point in a harder version to directly state these changes? Not in a technobable or "as you know" scene, but the differences are still noted for whatever plot reasons.

I'd agree with most other details, except for this single one.

Of course you could through out easter eggs all the time.

I.e. klingons and romulans have very similar physiology

But, why? Why is the physiology kept a secret or taken for granted?

If they are a different strain of human, but not commented on at all (i.e. the audience would never know either) then why make the distinction? Kind of echoing what BillJ said

They would still look different and have distinctly different cultures.

I'd also make an effort to make it clear that they can have distinctly different characteristics and beliefs.

That still doesn't explain how they are aliens but not aliens. I'm still not clear as to why they will have distinct cultures and beliefs (somethings humans already have among different places on Earth, so this is not new).

Finally, if you want aliens that are different, not humanoid looking in the sense that they are played by rubber foreheaded actors, then any humans or different strains of humans, are going to stand out.

Not quite sure what you mean here.

I'm not in now way sugguesting, having the entire cast looking just like regular humans. They would have much of the same look as before, only obvious adaptations like klingon strength would make humans incredibly weak.

I don't think that you are. I just am trying to clarify if there are going to be human looking aliens, and if so, what differences there will be?

Given that Star Trek and science fiction is a niche product anyway, the details are far more necessary than is realized. This isn't the 60s were people are watching it in black and white on a smaller monitor. Scifi gets picked apart, and details are not only expected, but not having them is the confusing part.

Of course.

Then, my recommendation is not to withhold information from the audience unless it is a major plot detail, such as genetic offshot humans from colonies.

My point is, if there is an important detail that is not given to the audience, they will make up one on their own. So, be careful what details you give and what you don't give.

 

[Orphalesion]

But if we keep everything vague we might run into the danger of once again having the same lose rules as the current Trek universe, which would lead to inconsistencies.

Gotta be honest, I like the lose rules. It allows writers to be creative. I've read/seen three different variations of the first warp flight/meeting with Vulcans/Zephram Cochrane and wouldn't want to lose any of them nor do I want to see Vulcans turned into an offshoot of humans.

Star Trek has its own flavor and if you take too much away, you lose that flavor. I want it to be big, fun and thumbing its nose to scientific rules if it serves the story. I also love the "God" stories and I think beings like Trelane, Apollo and Q are great.

As big a Trek fan as I am, if any of the stuff I'm reading here was put into practice, I would walk away.

To each their own. I think we all are aware here that what we dream up here would upset a lot of ST fans, particularly the ones who don't like change or have a rather narrow view of what ST can/should be.
But that's all it is; it's a pipe dream. Outside of fanfiction very little in this thread is likely to be implemented in a future ST production.
Also what we are saying that part of what made the later ST shows (Voy and Ent) so lackluster was the "flabby anything goes" rules of the universe. By no means the only reason, but one.

I'm here because speculation and world building is fun

The problem with saying they originate from earth outright would be that people would have a hard time appreciating them as distinct races. We all descend from primates however it has little reference to most conversations in everyday life.

I see where you are coming from, but disagree. On Andromeda the Nietzscheans were human-offshoots and occasionally referred as such, yet for all purposes they were an alien nation and treated as such by others.

 

[BillJ]

Also what we are saying that part of what made the later ST shows (Voy and Ent) so lackluster was the "flabby anything goes" rules of the universe. By no means the only reason, but one.

I think a huge reason that the modern shows continue to recede from public consciousness is because they mostly lacked a fun factor. Most everything was so dry. It didn't make them bad, but it made them something that people weren't eager to revisit.

 

[Tim Walker]

Also what we are saying that part of what made the later ST shows (Voy and Ent) so lackluster was the "flabby anything goes" rules of the universe. By no means the only reason, but one.

I think a huge reason that the modern shows continue to recede from public consciousness is because they mostly lacked a fun factor. Most everything was so dry. It didn't make them bad, but it made them something that people weren't eager to revisit.

Yeah, fun. If you had that, and an optimistic view of the future, such a show would stand out from grimdark.

 

[Autistoid]

Also what we are saying that part of what made the later ST shows (Voy and Ent) so lackluster was the "flabby anything goes" rules of the universe. By no means the only reason, but one.

I think a huge reason that the modern shows continue to recede from public consciousness is because they mostly lacked a fun factor. Most everything was so dry. It didn't make them bad, but it made them something that people weren't eager to revisit.

Lol considering the trends that have since and during those two shows being produced I don't to take this with a grain of salt.

Voyager went out of its way to have little fun episodes, why do you think tom paris was a part of the main cast.

Holo decks, flotter, etc etc.


It was boring because there was absolutely nothing at stake.

Any problem that occurred was reset the next episode. It's hard to create high adrenaline action when there is absolutely no sense of danger.

By keeping a consistent set of rules governing the rules danger can be found all around.

Increasing the stakes by increased danger, I'd argue is the primary reason to do hard sci fi. It gives writers, actors and audiences a better frame work from which to sense danger.

This argument you need pixie dust rules for a plot to have adventure and action is such the killer.

Not being able to use magical force fields, puts your crew in real danger.

Having micro meteorites rip through the bridge, is far more dramatic than exploded computer consuls. It's something that people can understand and visually is far more dynamic. Whole in the ships plating aren't magically fixed and people must patch it. People are given hypospray shots but must actually be cared for my a medic.

When a reactor is about to melt, someone must make self sacrifice to stop it.

When a ship crash lands into a planet, they must evaluate there decisions as a group for their own survival. There are no magical transporters. Just real action, excitement and adventure.

 

[Autistoid]

Also what we are saying that part of what made the later ST shows (Voy and Ent) so lackluster was the "flabby anything goes" rules of the universe. By no means the only reason, but one.

I think a huge reason that the modern shows continue to recede from public consciousness is because they mostly lacked a fun factor. Most everything was so dry. It didn't make them bad, but it made them something that people weren't eager to revisit.

Yeah, fun. If you had that, and an optimistic view of the future, such a show would stand out from grimdark.

Grim dark is such a wierd word to use.


TOS had tonnes of darkness.

Red shirts dying etc.

There's a balance.

However I agree a utopian vision of the future is important.


I think the best technique to avoid a BSG type struggle, is to make it clear that everyone has choice in the utopian future.

Starfleet officers are thrill seekers. Who are always climbing for that next big jump.

I'd take a lead from the movie "The Right Stuff" and show that starfleet redshirts are essentially test pilots.

It stays true to trek lore and also brings in a very exciting reasoning why they are always in danger.

Using real physics and the like I'd make an effort to tie star trek into imagery along the lines of something like this. More american cowboy-astronaut based, yet still hard into the future.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCblQ_fnPpc

 

[BillJ]

Having micro meteorites rip through the bridge, is far more dramatic than exploded computer consuls.

Not meteorites, but we watched the bridge get dismantled in Nemesis.

It's something that people can understand and visually is far more dynamic.

It doesn't have to be hard sci-fi for people to understand the danger.

Whole in the ships plating aren't magically fixed and people must patch it.

Star Trek: Enterprise, "Damage"

People are given hypospray shots but must actually be cared for my a medic.

We see people cared for by medics in all the various shows.

When a reactor is about to melt, someone must make self sacrifice to stop it.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

When a ship crash lands into a planet, they must evaluate there decisions as a group for their own survival.

Star Trek: Voyager, "Basics I/II"

There are no magical transporters. Just real action, excitement and adventure.

The transporters haven't stopped any of the things you're talking about from happening, neither did the existence of Vulcans, warp speed or phasers.

Like anything else, hard sci-fi/soft sci-fi/fantasy, it is the creativity of the writing and the strength of the characters that will have far more to do with a show's fate.

You can't make Star Trek for only the OCD crowd and expect it to survive.

 

[fireproof78]

Also what we are saying that part of what made the later ST shows (Voy and Ent) so lackluster was the "flabby anything goes" rules of the universe. By no means the only reason, but one.

I think a huge reason that the modern shows continue to recede from public consciousness is because they mostly lacked a fun factor. Most everything was so dry. It didn't make them bad, but it made them something that people weren't eager to revisit.

Yeah, fun. If you had that, and an optimistic view of the future, such a show would stand out from grimdark.

I agree with this as well.

I get so tired of the grim and dark shows, and even when they are well done, there is a lack of fun to it. The Netflix Daredevil series springs to mind for me. Well executed and fascinating characters, but very dark to want to revisit on a continual basis.

This is part of the reason I am reluctant to make Trek too hard and would keep it between quasi-hard and quasi-soft. There are certain things that keep Trek fun and light hearted that may get lost in this process. Optimism being one, because the harder SF gets, the more things can go wrong with the technology.

I'll not apologize for the fact that I prefer SF where the spaceships work, with their artificial gravity, and people can walk around with a fair amount of ease. It solves so many problems, in my opinion, that regardless of the scientific accuracy, I think it is necessary.

Also, I love establishing rules because once the writers know what they are dealing with in their world, they can break those rules if the needs of the story fit it.

I think, for Star Trek, there needs to be certain fanciful elements to give it that sense of fun.

 

[Autistoid]

Having micro meteorites rip through the bridge, is far more dramatic than exploded computer consuls.

Not meteorites, but we watched the bridge get dismantled in Nemesis.

It's something that people can understand and visually is far more dynamic.

It doesn't have to be hard sci-fi for people to understand the danger.



Star Trek: Enterprise, "Damage"



We see people cared for by medics in all the various shows.



Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

When a ship crash lands into a planet, they must evaluate there decisions as a group for their own survival.

Star Trek: Voyager, "Basics I/II"

There are no magical transporters. Just real action, excitement and adventure.

The transporters haven't stopped any of the things you're talking about from happening, neither did the existence of Vulcans, warp speed or phasers.



Like anything else, hard sci-fi/soft sci-fi/fantasy, it is the creativity of the writing and the strength of the characters that will have far more to do with a show's fate.

You can't make Star Trek for only the OCD crowd and expect it to survive.

Of course it all comes down to writing, and at its core going harder is far more about better writing than better science.

That's of course ignoring the very obvious demographic trends where ocd info addicts is very much what is.


By having a set reference point to stories you don't have to keep coming up with verbal drivel to retcon technology b for the sake of the plot.

Star trek relies on make believe technobabble to get the plot going. You have to first goto the g-defuser compensate with intertial damping, run a diagnostic and detect tackyon particles, than state what should of been the plan from the start.

Load up a shuttle select a crew were going in. The fact builders get there ammo, and the regular viewer and just get fixated on something intense.

By making use of modern tech, and more strate forward tech, it's far easier to show don't tell.

 

[fireproof78]

Honestly, that sounds more like TOS than what Star Trek would eventually become in later iterations. The idea of technobable really became prominent with TNG and carried forward in VOY and others.

One thing that I did was read Shatner's "Star Trek Memories" and go over what GR did as he started off with Star Trek proposal. He had never done an SF project before, and actually consulted with some scientists and professionals in the field to determine some basic concepts for the technology. That is how we got Phasers versus Lasers.

As I said earlier, the whole idea should be to establish the rules of this world, the technology, the environment, etc, so that the writers has the limits to work within.

Modern tech makes it easier for some capabilities, but also can be unnecessarily limiting in other ways. Again, fantasy can add a sense of fun that otherwise would not be present.

 

[Tim Walker]

What does "ocd" stand for?

 

[BillJ]

What does "ocd" stand for?

Obsessive compulsion disorder.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/ocd/basics/definition/CON-20027827

 

[BillJ]

Star trek relies on make believe technobabble to get the plot going. You have to first goto the g-defuser compensate with intertial damping, run a diagnostic and detect tackyon particles, than state what should of been the plan from the start.

Honestly, that sounds more like TOS than what Star Trek would eventually become in later iterations. The idea of technobable really became prominent with TNG and carried forward in VOY and others.

Thing is, in the original series bible, Roddenberry stated you weren't suppose to go into how the technology works. If I remember correctly, his analogy was: "Joe Friday doesn't stop to explain how a revolver works".



The later series broke that idea more and more the longer they were on the air.

 

[Tim Walker]

One thing I recall from the Andromeda series-the bucky cable/harpoon method was kinda fun.

In what other instances can a replacement tech be more fun?

 

[Tim Walker]

Yeah, fun. If you had that, and an optimistic view of the future, such a show would stand out from grimdark.

Something I forgot to add, something someone else mentioned-a sense of wonder.

 

[Orphalesion]

Star trek relies on make believe technobabble to get the plot going. You have to first goto the g-defuser compensate with intertial damping, run a diagnostic and detect tackyon particles, than state what should of been the plan from the start.

Honestly, that sounds more like TOS than what Star Trek would eventually become in later iterations. The idea of technobable really became prominent with TNG and carried forward in VOY and others.

Thing is, in the original series bible, Roddenberry stated you weren't suppose to go into how the technology works. If I remember correctly, his analogy was: "Joe Friday doesn't stop to explain how a revolver works".



The later series broke that idea more and more the longer they were on the air.

If you look a few pages back that is exactly what I was also advocating;that nobody cares about whether there's traces of frozen Methan in the soil of some alien planet, but can be made to care about the people who look for it.

Also "fun"....well there's "fun" and "fun" and sometimes eve "fun" Are you advocating we should make Star Trek just for the people who like to see people getting shot and girls in miniskirts? With a "quip and everybody laughs ending" no matter how many people died during the storyline?

Every incarnation of Star Trek has its humour. TNG in particular had very funny/entertaining moments, though of course it was a different kind of humour than TOS. Not everybody considers two guys throwing slurs at each other or people endlessly spurting catch phrases "fun"

As I said, I do not consider the loose rules and now risks the only problems Voy and ENT had. You are very right, the characters of those incarnations were basically bloodless.
Let alone that with those two shows they were just making Star Trek in order to make Star Trek, not because they were inspired or wanted to.

And I was never, never ever advocating Grimdark, I hate Grimdark. However there is a whole scale between "Grimdark everything is hopeless" and "Rayguns and miniskirts! Cowboyplanet Episode!"
But I think that's the problem here, the twos ides in this thread both think the other more "extreme" in their wishes than they really are.

When people hear me advocating "harder rules" for the ST universe, they think I want a purely scientific show, when nothing could be further from the truth.
When I hear people say "Star Trek needs to be fun" my mind darts to stuff like the everybody laughs ending or the Gangster planet episodes, when they might not advocating something quite that silly.

On Limiting The Technology: A story needs to have limitations to have suspense and those limitations need rules and those rules need to be consistent. They don't need to be detailed to the point that the writers need to have an engineering degree, but they need to be internally consistent. Otherwise there is no suspense. Like in Voy where people just spouted techno babble and that counted as "action" and "fun"

In the X-Men everybody knows that Rogue can't touch people, it frequently leads to complications which cause drama. Telepaths in B5 were strictly limited in their abilities from individual to individual. Spock could only read minds if he secured a persona and then performed a difficult and taxing technique.

Troi's telepathy/empathy was never clearly defined and fluctuated from episode to episode -> que the writers whining about her powers making stories impossible and her being to hard to write.
Limiting things is important and it is important that the audience knows the limits.

 

[fireproof78]

Star trek relies on make believe technobabble to get the plot going. You have to first goto the g-defuser compensate with intertial damping, run a diagnostic and detect tackyon particles, than state what should of been the plan from the start.

Honestly, that sounds more like TOS than what Star Trek would eventually become in later iterations. The idea of technobable really became prominent with TNG and carried forward in VOY and others.

Thing is, in the original series bible, Roddenberry stated you weren't suppose to go into how the technology works. If I remember correctly, his analogy was: "Joe Friday doesn't stop to explain how a revolver works".



The later series broke that idea more and more the longer they were on the air.

If you look a few pages back that is exactly what I was also advocating;that nobody cares about whether there's traces of frozen Methan in the soil of some alien planet, but can be made to care about the people who look for it.

Also "fun"....well there's "fun" and "fun" and sometimes eve "fun" Are you advocating we should make Star Trek just for the people who like to see people getting shot and girls in miniskirts? With a "quip and everybody laughs ending" no matter how many people died during the storyline?

Every incarnation of Star Trek has its humour. TNG in particular had very funny/entertaining moments, though of course it was a different kind of humour than TOS. Not everybody considers two guys throwing slurs at each other or people endlessly spurting catch phrases "fun"

If I follow your point like I think I do (and correct me if I'm wrong) that there are various points here that don't warrant going to extremes.

I don't consider TOS "fun" because of how it ends with the sitcom-esque laughing at the end. That's a fault that exists within a lot of TV shows across the years, and Star Trek is by no means the worst offender.

I consider it fun because there was a certain level of, for want of a better word, goofiness, either in the acting (Shater's famous style) or the banter between the 3 main characters.

TNG's cast, when they finally warmed up (around Season 3, in my opinion) there was a lot of chemistry, and genuine joking and humor that came through. My personal favorite is the "Captain Picard Day" bit at the beginning of one episode.

The point is, the is so much variation within Star Trek that to point at one type of "fun" is to miss the point. I personally think that the sense of optimism about the future, about technology, about the ability to overcome problems, is the heart of Trek and that needs to remain at the core.

I agree that a newer incarnation of Trek needs rules and be consistent with their application. The famous "beaming through shields" moment that happened from time to time in various series is a great example.

Rules are great and I think, in this day and age, more comprehensive world building is really necessary to establish the worlds and consistency. The days of being able to "make it up as we go" are kind of passed just due to the nature of audiences.

For me, Star Trek falls between "quasi-hard" and "quasi-soft" SF. It doesn't need to have 100% scientific accuracy, or even 75% accuracy. I think that the level of technology available today allows show producers to provide a certain level of realism in the show but not to the point that artificial gravity has to be generated every episode, or that transporters are not a thing that is available.

I think there needs to be a balance struck, but I'm honestly uncertain where that balance is.

 

[Autistoid]

Star trek relies on make believe technobabble to get the plot going. You have to first goto the g-defuser compensate with intertial damping, run a diagnostic and detect tackyon particles, than state what should of been the plan from the start.

Honestly, that sounds more like TOS than what Star Trek would eventually become in later iterations. The idea of technobable really became prominent with TNG and carried forward in VOY and others.

Thing is, in the original series bible, Roddenberry stated you weren't suppose to go into how the technology works. If I remember correctly, his analogy was: "Joe Friday doesn't stop to explain how a revolver .

If you look a few pages back that is exactly what I was also advocating;that nobody cares about whether there's traces of frozen Methan in the soil of some alien planet, but can be made to care about the people who look for it.

Also "fun"....well there's "fun" and "fun" and sometimes eve "fun" Are you advocating we should make Star Trek just for the people who like to see people getting shot and girls in miniskirts? With a "quip and everybody laughs ending" no matter how many people died during the storyline?

Every incarnation of Star Trek has its humour. TNG in particular had very funny/entertaining moments, though of course it was a different kind of humour than TOS. Not everybody considers two guys throwing slurs at each other or people endlessly spurting catch phrases "fun"

As I said, I do not consider the loose rules and now risks the only problems Voy and ENT had. You are very right, the characters of those incarnations were basically bloodless.
Let alone that with those two shows they were just making Star Trek in order to make Star Trek, not because they were inspired or wanted to.

And I was never, never ever advocating Grimdark, I hate Grimdark. However there is a whole scale between "Grimdark everything is hopeless" and "Rayguns and miniskirts! Cowboyplanet Episode!"
But I think that's the problem here, the twos ides in this thread both think the other more "extreme" in their wishes than they really are.

When people hear me advocating "harder rules" for the ST universe, they think I want a purely scientific show, when nothing could be further from the truth.
When I hear people say "Star Trek needs to be fun" my mind darts to stuff like the everybody laughs ending or the Gangster planet episodes, when they might not advocating something quite that silly.

On Limiting The Technology: A story needs to have limitations to have suspense and those limitations need rules and those rules need to be consistent. They don't need to be detailed to the point that the writers need to have an engineering degree, but they need to be internally consistent. Otherwise there is no suspense. Like in Voy where people just spouted techno babble and that counted as "action" and "fun"

In the X-Men everybody knows that Rogue can't touch people, it frequently leads to complications which cause drama. Telepaths in B5 were strictly limited in their abilities from individual to individual. Spock could only read minds if he secured a persona and then performed a difficult and taxing technique.

Troi's telepathy/empathy was never clearly defined and fluctuated from episode to episode -> que the writers whining about her powers making stories impossible and her being to hard to write.
Limiting things is important and it is important that the audience knows the limits.

Agree with most of what you said.

However there is a huge difference in technobabble and technical language.

Looking at breaking bad as an example, use technical terms your target audience is willingly interested in.

Saying there is CO2 nitrogen or Oxygen in a planets atmosphere is not going over your expected audiences head.

In fact it's almost the reverse, by using made up technobabble your showing the writers to be dumber than the average college student.

Of course I think the general rule is technical talk should fit what your average person may be familiar with.

I.e. we all know on some level what a fuel pump is.

By sticking to basic ideas that most 21st century audience understand there still can be some talk that is somewhat techlike.


That being said were talking about on the rare ocassion when it's directly relavent.

Examples.

Captain there is three inches of steel here, our cutters are gonna overheat before we get through it.

Captain there is way to much CO2 in this atmosphere.

Captain the fluid pump is stalling, there's no way we are gonna get that door open.

IF tng talk was thought up by theorectical physicists at MIT, we should use technical terms a plumber, carpenter or machinist from your local community college is familiar with.