If You were Making Star Trek?

[JarodRussell]

Funny. All I see in this thread are technicalities (slipstream drive, ship design, politics, less Klingons more Tholians, more women in the crew).

No words spent on characters, story or action.


TOS had an actual story and good characters. A strong Captain, the Doctor, his best friend acting as conscience, the First Officer, a half human-half alien hybrid acting as the logical rationale, and together they explore new worlds far far far away from Earth.

TNG was also about exploring new worlds, with a much stricter Captain who doesn't like children aboard a starship, but has to deal with a teenage boy whose father has been killed under his command. A First Officer who could have taken his own command long time ago but wanted to be on the Enterprise instead. An android who wants to be human.

DS9: a station guarding the first stable wormhole ever found, in orbit of a planet that has been an occupied warzone not long ago. A commander who lost his wife in battle and thinks about giving up his career. An alien first officer with a strong faith in gods who turn out to be aliens living in that wormhole and care for the planet she comes from.


That's the interesting stuff, guys and girls. Technical formalities are second.

 

[Warped9]

^^ Star Trek: encountering and exploring strange worlds and strange life and how that often causes us to reflect on who and what we are and our place in the universe.

Wait a minute! Isn't that...heavan forbid...isn't that...SCIENCE FICTION?

Cooool.

 

[Saito S]

And of course someone more interested in the Star Trek universe than I wouldn't give this answer to the question "how would you make Star Trek?" But this is still my answer.

And I can respect that. I don't agree with the degree of importance you place on "realism" in terms of visual design (I think in-universe believability is far more important than real-world functionality), but (as you say), that's just my answer, based on my opinions, and it's no more or less valid than anyone else's.

Avatar has simply set the bar for envisioning a space-going future way higher than Star Trek in its current incarnation can probably reach.

I don't see how Avatar moved any bars in terms of portraying a futuristic, space-faring human society. We saw a very narrow picture, focused almost entirely on the military, and the overall presentation - while very good for what it was - didn't strike me as having gone beyond what I've seen dozens of times from various sci-fi franchises (books, movies, video games) over the years. And as for Avatar vs. Trek, I'd say that Trek has fleshed out its world and ideas FAR more than Avatar (which, of course, is largely because the latter has had only one movie, at least so far). I don't think it's far to say that Avatar's vision of the future is "superior" to Trek's, simply because it's more grounded in what the real world is like today. That's a creative decision: it's the direction they chose to take. Trek chose a different direction.

Well, we're not going to get that anyway. Abrams's version is a lot more futuristic looking than the 1990s TV version (or the 1990s TV-derived movie version). So there you go.

But if falls way behind what TMP managed to do. TMP is still the most futuristic looking of all the Trek works even if one doesn't care for its aesthetics.

I disagree with both of you here. I still find that overall, the 24th century aesthetic (with some important exceptions) was the best in terms of both simply looking good, and at looking "futuristic". While I thought that Abrams' movie was also good in that regard, if not AS good, I don't see it in TMP. Granted, I don't (to use your wording, Warped) care for its aesthetics at all, and I wouldn't go so far as to say that isn't coloring my viewpoint, at least a little bit. But really, that brings me to my next point: I don't see how saying whether or not something looks futuristic is any more or less subjective than saying it looked aesthetically pleasing, not in this context. We are talking about ships and equipment designed and used by a cooperative of more than one hundred species several hundred years into the future. What I said above about the conceptual also applies to the visual: Avatar was clearly aiming, quite intentionally, for a "It looks like the stuff we have today, only more futuristic" look. Halo is another sci-fi franchise that was also aiming for the same thing (hence, humans in the twenty-sixth century using gas-powered, solid shell machine guns and driving around in armored jeeps). Both of those stories use real, modern aesthetics, and simply extrapolate forward to what they might look like in the future, without fundamentally changing them. Trek has never really aimed for that kind of realism, that kind of connection to real life, and I personally don't see any reason why it should.

The only objectively defensible position I see is that the look of STXI fits better with aesthetic trends that are currently present today, in real life. But again, I don't think that's very relevant in the context of the 23rd or 24th centuries, in a story/universe that has separated itself in so many ways (quite intentionally, in some cases) from the real world. And given how much the aesthetics of, say, cars, or computers, have changed in the last 20-30 years, who is to say that Abrams' movie won't be at the opposite end from whatever "current aesthetic trends" are in 2030?

Funny. All I see in this thread are technicalities (slipstream drive, ship design, politics, less Klingons more Tholians, more women in the crew).

No words spent on characters, story or action...

That's the interesting stuff, guys and girls. Technical formalities are second.

I can't speak for anyone else, but the stories I mentioned in my post are ones that I am actually working on, regardless of whether or not they will ever get published in book form (let alone turned into a new Trek TV series or movie, which is highly unlikely). The reason I focused on world & technical details is that I don't feel that I could summarize my ideas very well in a "This is what this story is about" kind of way. Not yet, anyway; I'm still developing them.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

But if falls way behind what TMP managed to do. TMP is still the most futuristic looking of all the Trek works even if one doesn't care for its aesthetics.

No, it doesn't. Nothing about the instrumentation aboard the ships or the depiction of alien members of the Federation or the wardrobe, to pick three significant examples at random, really looks functional or real or has held up over time.

And technologically? Hell, in TMP they have to build ships in orbit - in the new 23rd century, we can build the suckers on the ground and fly them into orbit!

 

[Warped9]

But if falls way behind what TMP managed to do. TMP is still the most futuristic looking of all the Trek works even if one doesn't care for its aesthetics.

No, it doesn't. Nothing about the instrumentation aboard the ships or the depiction of alien members of the Federation or the wardrobe, to pick three significant examples at random, really looks functional or real or has held up over time.

And technologically? Hell, in TMP they have to build ships in orbit - in the new 23rd century, we can build the suckers on the ground and fly them into orbit!

Then we must agree to disagree.

 

[Shazam!]

But if falls way behind what TMP managed to do. TMP is still the most futuristic looking of all the Trek works even if one doesn't care for its aesthetics.

No, it doesn't. Nothing about the instrumentation aboard the ships or the depiction of alien members of the Federation or the wardrobe, to pick three significant examples at random, really looks functional or real or has held up over time.

Are we talking about it looking futuristic or realistic?

And technologically? Hell, in TMP they have to build ships in orbit - in the new 23rd century, we can build the suckers on the ground and fly them into orbit!

So... TMP is more futuristic then.

 

[Warped9]

^^ It certainly looks that way.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Well to get back on the actually topic of this thread

I would get the rights to the Irresponsible Captain Tylor specifically the novel series the anime is based on, make the minor changes to make if fit in the Trekverse and do that as a series.

 

[Jetfire]

I'd make it the weirdest show on TV. It'd look like the 60s show in that it'd be heavily stylised and their would be robot women and multi-coloured planets with talking plants and glowing space blobs that like fucking around with your head for a laugh.

Hell yeah!

 

[Admiral_Young]

If I were making Star Trek and there was no interest in revisiting the 24th century and "Star Trek" 2009 still existed then I would pitch to Paramount a Kelvin series except that this USS Kelvin would exist in the prime universe and bridge the gap between "Star Trek: Enterprise" and "Star Trek TOS". Captain Robau would command the ship (hire Faran Tahir) USS Kelvin with Commander George Kirk as his second in command. Captain Robert April of the USS Enterprise would make occasional cameos as the friend of George Kirk who once served aboard the Enterprise as April's former security chief. We'd explore the Star Trek verse directly post Romulan War and the fragile peace that the Federation is trying to build in the galaxy. We would start meeting the races that we come to know in the future Star Trek universe and some that we've already met in "Enterprise". No time travel episodes and if this was set in the Star Trek 09 universe then of course there would be no April and eventually the series would end with the opening of the movie and destruction of the Kelvin. In the prime universe though I would have a five year plan and the series finale would show the launch of the USS Enterprise under the command of Captain Christopher Pike.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Actually, I'd take the money and make a Forbidden Planet limited series instead.

 

[kitamurafan]

I would set up the movies almost as an anthology series. I would set it in the post-Nemesis era. I would create a brand new crew. However, as a series it wouldn't have to follow the same crew for every movie. I'd tell writers just to create a good science fiction story and craft in to the Star Trek universe. This is a big wonderful sandbox to play in and it doesn't have to be about the same people every time. If you want a hard science story, use the SCE. You could do a political thriller involving the Federation president. You could have an Indiana Jones-style adventure story with an archeology crew. Do a starbase movie, a planet movie. I would simply make Star Trek a banner title that all these movies would fit under. It doesn't have to be about the characters we have seen before. I think the possibilites for Star Trek movies are endless, you just need to get writers (and more importantly studio execs) to explore more of this big universe. This would be a way to continue Star Trek stories without having to reboot everything. That's just my two-cents.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The reason it has to be about the same characters and same general places every time: because the single most important factor getting the audience to keep watching any TV show is to watch favorite characters; and sets are expensive to build, so you want to re-use them as much as possible.

Anthologies aren't attempted on TV very often, but when they are - and there have been a few sci fi and horror attempts in recent years - they flop. So the conventional wisdom about needing to keep favorite characters in the show every week does seem to have some validity.

 

[kitamurafan]

^That works good for TV. I agree. But I am talking about movies. People like seeing new things and places on the big screen and I think movies that showcased different parts of the Star Trek universe would be entertaining.

 

[AviTrek]

^That works good for TV. I agree. But I am talking about movies. People like seeing new things and places on the big screen and I think movies that showcased different parts of the Star Trek universe would be entertaining.

Do you really think people will come to generic Star Trek movie of the year? They came back to see Kirk and Spock. By Nemesis there weren't even enough viewers coming to see Picard and Data, so why do you a bunch of unknown characters in each movie will be a draw?

 

[kitamurafan]

^People wouldn't feel they had to know a whole bunch of backstory. It would be new characters they could come to with a blank slate. By the time Nemesis came along there had been 15 years of Picard and crew. That's a long time dealing with the same people. Like I said, this is just my humble opinion.

 

[Itisnotlogical]

I'd spend the money foundering around with different screenwriters for a while, using up most (if not all) of the budget before the movie was even finished filming. Then I'd pay for the entire venture out-of-pocket using yet another director, actors nobody has ever heard of or will hear of again, and being so slavishly faithful to the source material that it becomes a boring carbon copy of it's predecessor. Also, whenever anyone shoots a phaser, they have to say "aaaa-CHA!".

Sorry, I'm mad because I bought Dune off the $5 rack at wal-mart, and now I'm short 5 bucks that could have been spent on a much better movie.

 

[Jeyl]

The reason it has to be about the same characters and same general places every time: because the single most important factor getting the audience to keep watching any TV show is to watch favorite characters

But these aren't my favorite characters. They're a bunch of a**holes pretending to be my favorite characters without any of the qualities that made them likable. If everyone followed your line of thinking, we wouldn't have Vorta.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I'd spend the money foundering around with different screenwriters for a while, using up most (if not all) of the budget before the movie was even finished filming. Then I'd pay for the entire venture out-of-pocket using yet another director, actors nobody has ever heard of or will hear of again, and being so slavishly faithful to the source material that it becomes a boring carbon copy of it's predecessor. Also, whenever anyone shoots a phaser, they have to say "aaaa-CHA!".

Sorry, I'm mad because I bought Dune off the $5 rack at wal-mart, and now I'm short 5 bucks that could have been spent on a much better movie.

You forgot setting a good pace with the story and then blowing through the rest of it at a mile at minute leaving the audience wondering WTF is going on, turning an intelligent and dangerious villain into a psychotic slob, and an ending that 1) craps on the books ending and 2) makes no sense what so ever.

As far as I'm concerned the Lynch film has only two redeeming qualities

1) The Soundtrack

2) Patrick Stewart

 

[RobertScorpio]

If I were making Star Trek and there was no interest in revisiting the 24th century and "Star Trek" 2009 still existed then I would pitch to Paramount a Kelvin series except that this USS Kelvin would exist in the prime universe and bridge the gap between "Star Trek: Enterprise" and "Star Trek TOS". Captain Robau would command the ship (hire Faran Tahir) USS Kelvin with Commander George Kirk as his second in command. Captain Robert April of the USS Enterprise would make occasional cameos as the friend of George Kirk who once served aboard the Enterprise as April's former security chief. We'd explore the Star Trek verse directly post Romulan War and the fragile peace that the Federation is trying to build in the galaxy. We would start meeting the races that we come to know in the future Star Trek universe and some that we've already met in "Enterprise". No time travel episodes and if this was set in the Star Trek 09 universe then of course there would be no April and eventually the series would end with the opening of the movie and destruction of the Kelvin. In the prime universe though I would have a five year plan and the series finale would show the launch of the USS Enterprise under the command of Captain Christopher Pike.

^^ best idea yet, if there had to be another series. All the suggestions in the old universe are pointless. THIS one is the way to go...

Rob