If you were in charge of a Trek reboot, what ten things would you change?

[Butters]

Ten things to change. What would they be? I’d want a long story emerging from a episodic series.

The format would still involve planet of the week and analogous moral conundrum, but the inhabitants would be more familiar, and the reason they speak English would be down to the history of space flight.

It would be set further in the future. Thirty first century maybe? And warp drive would be a new invention, a hundred years or so, and an earlier wave of human colonisation had occurred in the past 500 years using an alternate FTL technology.

Habitable worlds would be rare, life rarer, and civilisations rarer still. The federation would have about 8 member races, and numerous offshoot worlds, Human or otherwise. The Federation would have a traumatic origin story, and it’s the differences between members that ultimately unites humanity. It’s not homogenous and it’s survival isn’t guaranteed, and most races don’t mix well. They all smell awful, eat weird stuff, and look at us a bit funny.

The series would occur during a period of peaceful expansion, but tensions arise from conflicting growth with Klingons and Romulans.

Romulans are a major villain race, trying to destabilise the Federation by attempting to pry Vulcan and it’s sister worlds from the Federation. The Klingons are biligerent but fear expansionist Romulan ambitions. Kronos couldn’t stand for s weakened federation, nor can it tolerate unfettered growth.

The ancient races form a strong under current to the series. The preservers, The iconians, et al, and their tech and influence would be woven through the cosmos. A race for their technology would be a major arc. The Borg are also out there.

The ship would be s character and have history of its own. The sets and props and CGI exterior would be meticulously planned in advance. Warp drive and artificial gravity aside, the laws of physics apply.

Kirk Spock and McCoy are still the stars. And I’d resist any urge to shake up their sexes, there’s a three way bromance going on; but their races would be down to the casting department. The supporting crew though, anything goes, don’t care if Scotty is a fat Chinese lesbian so long as they are obsessively protective of the Ship’s reputation and always multiply their repair estimates by a factor of four.

I make that eight, so I’ll add in green blood means green lips and green blood vessels in the eye, Klingon blood would be pink again.

 

[Valenti]

Series long overarching story told in episodic arcs. Very good. Sort of like the small hand and the big hand of a clock.

 

[The Wormhole]

Sort of like the small hand and the big hand of a clock.

Shit. That was deep.

 

[Tracy Trek]

This is also my explanation for the different Klingon varieties. Klingons were originally humans. But during the process of engineering them they broke free and killed the alien breeding them. Killed their gods, so to speak. Because the experiement was incomplete a more human looking variety of Klingons as well as the fully Klingon variety existed side by side.

That's a good explanation for the different Klingon varieties and them "killing their gods".

 

[Rahul]

That's a good explanation for the different Klingon varieties and them "killing their gods".

I don't know. Interesting idea fpr a NEW alien species. Although must be watched out their backstory is a bit more different than that from the Kazon.

But as for the 'normal' klingons, I actually very much like the idea of a very old civilication, that at some time simply stopped innovating. That just "uses" the technology their ancestors developed, still being able to maintain and reprduce it. But overall a society were cultish devotion to religion and rituals have largely taken over. Not an Empire that just "fell". But a slooow decline in innovation, education, democracy. Still a force to be reckoned with. But essentially one were the regressive parts of the society itself have taken over. It's realistic, and a reminder one must always be vigilant to protect one's values and freedom. Where without constant innovation, even the greates Empires can slowly lose what made them successfull in the first place. A mirror to the fall of the Roman Empire, the Islamic world, or the modern Soviet Union.

 

[1001001]

I would have the Borg time travel back to James R. Kirk's time, assimilate Starfleet Military and destabilize the quadrant by flooding it with counterfeit currency. Half the ships would be "ribbed" and the other half would have glowing pink nacelles. The Sisko would appear with The Orb of Disagreement, preventing all who gaze upon it from ever coming to consensus on any subject, no matter how trivial.

Finally, Admiral Janeway would travel back in time and tech the living crap out of the Borg, and install Tilly as Supreme Leader of the Federation Army, her faithful dog Porthos at her side.

 

[Qonundrum]

1) I'd make it a total reboot of the franchise. Start with a TOS-equivalent, but clear out the entire timeline so that it can do whatever it wants.

JJ Abrams' alternate timeline bit was pretty genius, even if the end result were using caricatures steeped in nostalgic set-pieces. ("Beyond" did something new as well as being more than catchphrases...)

2) No world war III, no Eugenics wars, no century of horrors. They're unlikely to happen in real life, no need to have them in the timeline. In fact as a general rule I'd tell the writers to avoid giving the viewer information about things that happened on Earth until after the year 2100. No "When Mars was colonised in 2020" lines which are just going to date your show.

Optimism also requires goals and something to work toward. TOS also mentioned moon landings before they took place, taking a big risk should it never have successfully happened. Otherwise it's got nothing but idle fantasy.

Also, define "war". Many forms exist. What weapons are not allowed and what is a weapon?

3) I'd keep TOS where it is, in the 2260s. But I'd make the Federation and space exploration in general younger within the timeline. The Federation would be a looser alliance, far more akin to the EU than the USA, an alliance of sovereign states. Maybe even looser than that, something closer to the UN now. The Federation would pre-date TOS by no more than thirty years, and interstellar travel by no more than 70. I would want people alive who remembered the first Human warp drive, and most adults would remember a time before the Federation existed.

Seconded.

4) No universal translator, as others have said. BUT... there would be an common language. Let's call it "Inter Stellar Basic." ISB is the "Lingua Franca" of space; most species capable of interstellar travel know of it and most ship crew on interstellar ships speak it. You can buy translators that convert it to english for a few spacedollars. The point of this is that on the one hand, you can depict the reality that meeting a genuinely new species brings language difficulties with it. But on the other, it's not so simple as everyone speaking English - though as a convention, ISB may be rendered as English on screen just to avoid all those tedious subtitles or an interpreter endlessly translating lines.

...but how to sell that in the show convincingly...

You also mention money. Why not show a bartering system, assuming people still need others to help them out?

5) No prime directive. At MOST, the prime directive would be a Federation policy that Starfleet may not interfere in the politics of other worlds without specific orders. But leaving people to die rather than help - no. No way. And yes, the Federation would intervene when it felt the case was right. The reason being that we've done the "we can't interfere!" thing to death, let's do something new!

A spin on what Shatner-Kirk era did.

6) Generally a more realistic mixture of technologies. By which I mean, computers way more advanced than Trek typically shows them. Plus lots of genetic engineering, highly advanced medical science, etc. But interstellar travel is relatively new, it's difficult, it's hellishly expensive. I want the Enterprise to feel like it's on it's own out there most of the time, in a dark, scary place where help is not usually available. Think about travel during the age of sail, where journeys took weeks, months or even years. No more nipping home for the weekend!

And no replicators. You can have machines that make things, and they can make things quickly and easily, but they are more like distant descendants of 3D Printers than they are like replicators. They're seriously limited in what the can produce.

I sorta like that. dried animal meal reconstituted into a turkey or whatever.

I love the articles that try to pawn off 3D printers being the result of what TNG imagined decades ago, along with ipads and the rest. 3D printers related to replicators is like comparing a potato to a planet's atmosphere. Neither is remotely similar. 3D printers convert matter into matter via energy. Replicators convert energy into matter. Huge difference.

I otherwise agree, the magic of the 24th century put the magic of the 23rd (Shatner-Kirk) to shame. Especially at Thanksgiving.

7) Nothing about Humans "evolving" beyond basic emotions like greed. Human nature hasn't changed in thousands of years, it won't change in the next few hundred. In relation to this, the Federation is NOT a post-scarcity society. There is money, people are paid for their work, the Enterprise captain has to be aware of his operating budget.

It has changed, it has evolved - if it hadn't we'd all be cavemen grunting with no language. Nobody wants to see a Trek that devolves.

Also, you said above that machines do all the work. So nobody's making any money. Now what?

8) I'd like to see a more realistic depiction of weapons and their firepower. TOS did this better than anything that came afterwards. Being hit by a ships' phaser bank or a photon torpedo should be like being hit by a nuclear blast. A LARGE nuclear blast. If the shields go down and the ship gets hit again, the ship is vapourised. Totally. And weapon ranges are in the hundreds of thousands of miles - two ships next to one another exchanging fire is something we should never see.

At least the 24th century's Enterprise's warp core and nacelles were made out of cotton candy, noting how often they had problems.

The difference is ironic: TOS had a limited budget. TNG got enough money to show more pretty explosions.

Similarly, decide how powerful your hand weapons are and stick with it. Don't treat a hand phaser like a handheld artillery piece in one scene and a .45 in another.

How much of that is an actor issue vs writing issue?

9) Echo what people have said about more diversity. Let's face it, at least 85% of the cast should be from places like India and China. And yes, some of them should be gay, some of them should be transgendered, etc.

60s' TOS was more often a metaphorical representation of America, though Chekov's introduction - even backhanded as it all was at the time - tried to suggest more.

What you say must reflect a unified planet. If we're to keep it real as you indicated a couple of times, most people in all countries, in one form or another, are not seemingly keen on "a unified world government" given the amount of protectionism and other policies their governments put in and have for years and I'm not referring to America. If they can, why can't everyone else? But you already knew that, I hope.

Will people of all orientations be shown? Will there any societal goals? Discussions of real life implications? Or just to whip out all the violins in a backhanded way?

And NONE of this should have a "story of the week" about it! Do NOT give us a story with the moral "it's okay to be gay" - simply show us a society in which nobody thinks anything of it if you're gay.

That's all I can think of for the moment.

^^That is why I don't read ahead. You already started to address the issue and in an ideal way (no clingy identity politics nonsense.)

 

[The Wormhole]

I would have the Borg time travel back to James R. Kirk's time, assimilate Starfleet Military and destabilize the quadrant by flooding it with counterfeit currency. Half the ships would be "ribbed" and the other half would have glowing pink nacelles. The Sisko would appear with The Orb of Disagreement, preventing all who gaze upon it from ever coming to consensus on any subject, no matter how trivial.

Finally, Admiral Janeway would travel back in time and tech the living crap out of the Borg, and install Tilly as Supreme Leader of the Federation Army, her faithful dog Porthos at her side.

Just missing a reference to Pope Robau of the Church of the Holy Badass.

 

[1001001]

Oh, and also...Spocko would be canon.

 

[Shawnster]

I dunno. I don't think having a post-scarcity society is unrelatable. After all, the following is currently true:

1. Very rich people effectively live in a post-scarcity society today. Yes, they do continue to accumulate wealth, but they don't really need to in order to survive - they could live off of interest and investments for the rest of their lives. Which many of course do, but others choose to continue to accumulate wealth because they like the power that the money gives them - either to shape the world in their desired manner or just out of sheer competitiveness. And there's of course plenty of drama in the world of the wealthy
2. Societies without currency, or even private property, were the norm until relatively recently in human history. There's nothing inherent or fundamental to human nature about modern capitalism, it's just the system that works best when the economy is growing and there's a scarcity of resources.
3. Plenty of people today don't have jobs besides the idle rich and the destitute. I'm talking about retirees and children first and foremost. They manage to lead full and complicated lives without spending eight hours a day or more toiling in order to have someone else extract the surplus value of their labor.

Take all of these together, and there are plenty of ways that you can have relatable drama in a setting which is (largely) post-scarcity, post-currency, and post-work. Writers just have to not fall into the lazy trap of using a MacGuffin.

Not sure I agree.

1. Just because rich people have money and can live off the interest, they still live in a scarcity society. What good will their money do them if they can't get food or fuel? In a disaster when the public services are out and people are worried about survival, all that money is worthless. It's not like they can go to a replicator and make food.

2. Societies without currency, or even private property, were the norm until relatively recently in human history? This depends upon one's point of view of recently. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance...-history-of-money-from-barter-to-bitcoin.html The first known use of currency was 600 BC. That's over 2,000 years ago. Before that time people were definitely living in a scarcity based society.

3. And these people are able to not toil 8 hours a day at a job because they either did so for decades previously or someone else is toiling in their behalf. They still live in a scarcity society. If their social security, welfare, retirement, or their parents funds suddenly dry up, they will be suffering. Plus, ask a retiree about stretching their social security check through the month.

 

[eschaton]

1. Just because rich people have money and can live off the interest, they still live in a scarcity society. What good will their money do them if they can't get food or fuel? In a disaster when the public services are out and people are worried about survival, all that money is worthless. It's not like they can go to a replicator and make food.

In a disaster, replicators could break down as well. My point is that currently, a small proportion of the world's population can basically satisfy every want without toil. In the Federation, it's the same for everybody.

2. Societies without currency, or even private property, were the norm until relatively recently in human history? This depends upon one's point of view of recently. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance...-history-of-money-from-barter-to-bitcoin.html The first known use of currency was 600 BC. That's over 2,000 years ago. Before that time people were definitely living in a scarcity based society.

Only a very small percentage of the Earth's population lived in organized states at that point. Even as recently as the middle ages - when currency absolutely existed - many peasants didn't live mostly within the cash economy system. Taxes were often paid in the form of a share of their crop, or in labor owed to their feudal lord.

Regardless, my point is there is nothing inherent or biological about having a system of currency for humanity, because it's only existed for a few thousand years. The concept of private property is a bit older, but still likely only dates to the invention of agriculture, because while hunter-gatherers can be possessive about whether territory is controlled by themselves or another group, the lack of social stratification or settled life means that the idea that something is "yours" versus "mine" is foreign. What is inherent to humanity is competitiveness, which has been harnessed by the capitalist system, but there's no reason why a future civilization (like the Federation) couldn't channel it to other means.

3. And these people are able to not toil 8 hours a day at a job because they either did so for decades previously or someone else is toiling in their behalf. They still live in a scarcity society. If their social security, welfare, retirement, or their parents funds suddenly dry up, they will be suffering. Plus, ask a retiree about stretching their social security check through the month.

And in the future, people could be able to not toil 8 hours a day at a job because some robot or replicator is toling on their behalf.

Note, I agree we certainly do not have a post-scarcity society. The point of the post I was replying to was to make clear that I think you can have plenty of drama in a post-scarcity world because drama is fundamentally interpersonal.

 

[TrickyDickie]

At some point circa the early 90s I had a dream in which I was aboard a different version of the Enterprise. It had a bi-level bridge. On the lower level was a much larger main viewscreen, a transporter platform, and a conference area. The upper level had the control stations and the captain's chair, most of which were at the rear except for a few stations along the upper perimeter on both sides. Both levels had transporter niches....very small alcoves where you could step in and instantaneously be transported to the other level. My sense was that these were incorporated throughout the ship....and that 'transporters' were based on an entirely different concept than breaking a body down and beaming it. Perhaps small wormholes or something else. The bridge was not at the top of the ship, but at a lower level in the saucer. At the top was an observation / recreation deck.

On the outside, the ship had a circular saucer with a wider neck that was more 'supportive' of the saucer. The secondary hull was more proportional in size to the saucer and not as small as we usually see in Trek. The shape was somewhat like the Klingon D-7 hull but still different. There was a slight resemblance to a bird with outstretched wings, but not overly so. There were no warp nacelles, no impulse engines, nothing visible to indicate what the propulsion system might be. The feeling was that nanotechnology played a big role in everything.

There were some type of shields that were virtually impossible to penetrate. Weapons used the 'transporter' system and you could beam something right into the heart of an enemy ship if need be and their shields could not prevent it.

It was quite a dream. The ship was quite different. It was very tough. Constructed of something beyond neutronium. This new Enterprise was the first of her kind and quickly established a reputation. You did not mess with that ship.

 

[fireproof78]

At some point circa the early 90s I had a dream in which I was aboard a different version of the Enterprise. It had a bi-level bridge. On the lower level was a much larger main viewscreen, a transporter platform, and a conference area. The upper level had the control stations and the captain's chair, most of which were at the rear except for a few stations along the upper perimeter on both sides. Both levels had transporter niches....very small alcoves where you could step in and instantaneously be transported to the other level. My sense was that these were incorporated throughout the ship....and that 'transporters' were based on an entirely different concept than breaking a body down and beaming it. Perhaps small wormholes or something else. The bridge was not at the top of the ship, but at a lower level in the saucer. At the top was an observation / recreation deck.

On the outside, the ship had a circular saucer with a wider neck that was more 'supportive' of the saucer. The secondary hull was more proportional in size to the saucer and not as small as we usually see in Trek. The shape was somewhat like the Klingon D-7 hull but still different. There was a slight resemblance to a bird with outstretched wings, but not overly so. There were no warp nacelles, no impulse engines, nothing visible to indicate what the propulsion system might be. The feeling was that nanotechnology played a big role in everything.

There were some type of shields that were virtually impossible to penetrate. Weapons used the 'transporter' system and you could beam something right into the heart of an enemy ship if need be and their shields could not prevent it.

It was quite a dream. The ship was quite different. It was very tough. Constructed of something beyond neutronium. This new Enterprise was the first of her kind and quickly established a reputation. You did not mess with that ship.

Well, I like it.

 

[TrickyDickie]

Well, I like it.

Thanks. I've never had a sort of follow-up dream. It would be nice to get back there and see more.

 

[fireproof78]

Thanks. I've never had a sort of follow-up dream. It would be nice to get back there and see more.

Well, with that description, there's always Minecraft

In all seriousness, one of the things that I generally oppose in starship design is the Bridge being on top of the ship. So, to my mind, the idea of the bridge being protected by a much thicker saucer is a step in the right direction.

Secondly, it is an interesting, if unusual concept, to have mini-transporters for accessing different decks. It offers a wide variety of opportunities for security, such as only "registered" biosigns can pass through, potentially. As you mentioned, it isn't identical to current Trek transporters, so the principle might be different. Again, something to explore.

Not 100% behind the whole beaming weapons on board, but it stands to reason given Trek tech. It would certainly create an interesting arms race, as it would be a work towards a more protective/defensive style combat, i.e. improving shields, cloaking devices to allow getting the drop on an enemy. Very submarine style warfare.

 

[TrickyDickie]

It offers a wide variety of opportunities for security, such as only "registered" biosigns can pass through, potentially.

Yes, system recognition of authorized individuals seemed to be a component as well as possibly filtering out chemical and biological contaminants.

An additional advantage of course would be the ability to move throughout the ship much more quickly in any kind of crisis situations.

 

[fireproof78]

An additional advantage of course would be the ability to move throughout the ship much more quickly in any kind of crisis situations.

My only concern is what happens during a power failure?

 

[Tribble puncher]

I don't have ten things (there were a lot of good suggestions that I read through) I would say, make the crews of these ships, believable, competent professionals, not loose cannons or bumbling idiots. even enemy characters. Keep many of the original ship designs, maybe with slight updating or improved detailing. Have a lot more variety in tech levels of the various alien races in the show (alternate FTL methods, weapons, etc.) I like the Idea of a "loose federation" that someone earlier wrote, The federation fleet should be a mixture of differing alien species ships, the whole "U.S.S. Name, NCC-XXXX" should only be something you see on a ship built by humans. Though I would say Federation member ships (regardless of species of origin) might have a special insignia painted on the hull, sorta like a police badge.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

When it comes to the technological aspect of a rebooted Trek, I don't mind ships having artificial gravity, warp drive, transporters, shields, universal translators, etc. (so long as what they do have has limits and can't just magically solve all their issues), though I would like to see some form of fighter craft added to their arsenal--especially on deep space ships that operate independently for long periods, having the capabilities to carry your own backup would be a huge boost. I'd like ships to feel more lived in, these are places that the crew will live for years, they should have more chances and opportunities to relax and live (rather than just the mess hall or holodecks), which would also mean characters being out of uniform, catching up with friends outwith the senior staff, interacting with a larger number of shipmates, it needs to have a proper feel that they live there and that life in space can be just as humdrum and routine as it is now.

When it comes to the characters, I want more diversity. Half the characters will be female and humans will be in the minority (maximum 1/3 of the main cast), so for example in a main cast of 9, 3 would be human, there would be four women and four men and the ninth would be from a non-binary gender. Also don't include a main character to fill a bridge station, so if you have a weak premise for let's say the Ops Manager who is a rookie ensign fresh from the Academy but is about as interesting as mannequin, then they don't need to be a main character, but if the ship's Cargo Chief is a tortured soul with a stolen identity trying to outrun their past crimes that saw their spouse murdered before their very eyes, then do include them--their job onboard isn't all that interesting so long as the character is (hell you could have the entire main cast be the 'little people' onboard, the rookies and non-coms who do all the hard work and make the senior officers look good, so long as they were all thoroughly compelling characters then looking at a Trek series where the main focus didn't have the power to make the toughest decisions might be a nice change). I also wouldn't object to a cyborg character who was more in line with Major Kusanagi, where all the tech is hidden beneath their artificial skin and they are little more than a brain inside a highly advanced casing--would be a nice look into just what defines humanity, especially in an age when we are becoming more detached from human interaction in favour of "social" media.

Also, peaceful Klingons.

 

[uniderth]

Also, peaceful Klingons.

Burn the witches!

JK