How "realistic" should STAR TREK be?

[dswynne1]

We all make fun of the notion that the "aliens" that our protagonists come across are just "humans with bumpy foreheads", and that there are "budget restraints", but should the franchise be based on real-world science, in terms of alien contact and technology (with human drama thrown in for good measure)? Movies like "The Arrival" and "Interstellar", plus 300 years of scientific and technological development, would still make a great backdrop for a proper sci-fi series. What drama that is included could be pretty basic, using such tropes as "Man v. Man", "Man v. Himself", "Man v. Nature", "Man v. Technology", etc.

The only "downside" would be the change in musical scoring. I really doubt we'd appreciate a, using "Interstellar" an as example, fight between Cooper and Dr. Mann using the "Kirk v. Gorn" fight music. Seeing two grown men rolling around with that type of music playing in the background...

 

[Butters]

It should strive to be plausible.

Star Trek portrays a universe in which absolutely anything is possible. We don’t need to see characters using the toilet to be grounded in realism, but it should follow its own rules and acknowledge the past solutions to problems.

They should be consistent with distance and speed, instead of just speed of plot, the world building is important, write within the cartography. It’s all made up, but I like the logic to work well enough that I can work out what’s going on from the clues, not just some new particle of the week to fix everything.

In battlestar galactica, we watched the constellations and got excited when we recognised Orion, assuming that this was important to the plot. Naturally, we were pissed off when it wasn’t.

Star Trek, by its nature, can’t be 100% realistic, but it should try where it can. Star Ships doing three point turns in space, not realistic.

 

[Greg Cox]

On other hand, I would't want STAR to get so "realistic" that we can't get colorfully fantastic stuff like, say, Apollo or Jack the Ripper showing up, or Q or the Squire of Gothos or whatever.

 

[The Wormhole]

As realistic as the story requires it to be. 100% realism would be boring and Trek couldn't operate like that anyway. That would mean no FTL travel and aliens couldn't just be humans with forehead bumps.

Realism is fine when done right, but nothing should limit itself to whether it's realistic or not.

Movies like "The Arrival" and "Interstellar", plus 300 years of scientific and technological development, would still make a great backdrop for a proper sci-fi series.

I maintain the reason movies like that struck a chord with the audience is the character drama in them, not their scientific realism.

 

[at Quark's]

Simple answer: as (un)realistic as it needs to be to tell some interesting stories, and preferably stories that can't be told as easily in other shows at that. (Though of course, a lot of the episodes will always be well 'translatable' to other days and ages (e.g. our own) if you strip away the window dressing such as aliens and high tech.)

"Canon", or internal consistency is not a goal, just a tool- let's never confuse those two. If it helps a certain group of viewers to be more engaged with the stories or the universe in general, to make everything more "believable" on some level, fine. If throwing some of it out of the window to tell a certain story, also fine. The difficulty of course often is determining the tipping point between those ...

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

It should be fantastic, uplifting and hopeful for all that is ahead of us, with the 'science' being in the background to help our heroes travel faster than light, take up arms in defence of others, go between ship and surface in the blink of an eye, etc., but with the focus being on the people overcoming differences to work for their betterment and improvement of all.

 

[Kor]

We all make fun of the notion that the "aliens" that our protagonists come across are just "humans with bumpy foreheads", and that there are "budget restraints", but should the franchise be based on real-world science, in terms of alien contact and technology (with human drama thrown in for good measure)? Movies like "The Arrival" and "Interstellar", plus 300 years of scientific and technological development, would still make a great backdrop for a proper sci-fi series. What drama that is included could be pretty basic, using such tropes as "Man v. Man", "Man v. Himself", "Man v. Nature", "Man v. Technology", etc.

The only "downside" would be the change in musical scoring. I really doubt we'd appreciate a, using "Interstellar" an as example, fight between Cooper and Dr. Mann using the "Kirk v. Gorn" fight music. Seeing two grown men rolling around with that type of music playing in the background...

Realistically, three hundred years of scientific and technological development will eliminate crewed spacecraft altogether. Space exploration will be done via "mind uploading" to advanced computers on automated probes. I'd rather not spend an hour a week watching a probe fly through deep space.

Kor

 

[Riker'sMailbox]

Meh, as long as it doesn't become Harry Potter in space and at least tries to give a scientific explanation, I am good. Like, since warp nacelles and tachyon beams and main deflectors don't exist in real life, so they could continue to use those terms in any which way they want and I will shrug and say 'cool'.

 

[Kilana2]

Meh, as long as it doesn't become Harry Potter in space and at least tries to give a scientific explanation, I am good. Like, since warp nacelles and tachyon beams and main deflectors don't exist in real life, so they could continue to use those terms in any which way they want and I will shrug and say 'cool'.

Yeah, but they shouldn't exaggerate with the technobabble in favor of gripping and well-conceived stories.

 

[F. King Daniel]

It's in it's own genre of bumpy-headed human aliens, sound in space and all that.

It needs to be consistent with its own established universe, but that's all.

 

[BillJ]

How "realistic" should Star Trek be?

I honestly don't know how to answer that. There are times I enjoy when they strive to be realistic, other times it is painful. There are times I enjoy the fantastical, other times it is painful.

First and foremost, I think it should strive to be entertaining.

 

[uniderth]

How "realistic" should Star Trek be?

I honestly don't know how to answer that. There are times I enjoy when they strive to be realistic, other times it is painful. There are times I enjoy the fantastical, other times it is painful.

First and foremost, I think it should strive to be entertaining.

Which are the painful times?

 

[BillJ]

Which are the painful times?

When they try to do things like court martials and other military-centric things, for one.

 

[uniderth]

When they try to do things like court martials and other military-centric things, for one.

Well, I for one want to see a series about a ship's journey to Andromeda...in real time.

 

[Delta Vega]

Perhaps if a few of the Chief Officers bit the dust from time to time instead of formulaic red shirt wipe outs, or lower deck guest of the week copping it.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Having social realism is more important than having physical realism. I like my fantasy worlds with physics that allow quick interstellar travel and romanceable aliens. But having people act like real people act is important.

 

[HugeLobes]

I think every DVD should have a special commentary track of Neil deGrasse Tyson pointing out inaccuraries.

 

[RandyS]

I think every DVD should have a special commentary track of Neil deGrasse Tyson pointing out inaccuraries.

Wouldn't that make the commentary longer than the episodes themselves?

 

[uniderth]

Having social realism is more important than having physical realism. I like my fantasy worlds with physics that allow quick interstellar travel and romanceable aliens. But having people act like real people act is important.

Yeah, but Star Trek shouldn't be a fantasy world, it should be a blueprint for the future; something that we can actually build.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Yeah, but Star Trek shouldn't be a fantasy world, it should be a blueprint for the future; something that we can actually build.

Culturally I agree, but in adhering to real science they should tell a good story with adventure and drama elements no matter how much science they have to make up.