Is It Time for a Bold New Star Trek Paradigm?
- Thread starter trekfan_1
- Start date
Mary Wiseman is supposed to be on there (it might be a recurring role).
Yeah, but… for most of Voyager until the later years, they HAD no contact. So no, it wouldn’t be harder than it was for Voyager, it would be exactly as hard.).
And that’s if you’re suggesting that the situation be like VOY, where the ship is where it is because of a one-time event. To my mind, there’s no point in repeating that scenario. If on the other hand, if we’re at an era and have the technology where the ship’s in another galaxy because Starfleet sent them there to explore, then that implies they are in contact with Starfleet, and it’s therefore functionally less isolated.
So I have to say that sure, exploring another galaxy might be cool, but it would only be words. It would change absolutely nothing. You could do something with the setting and particular situation to make it unique, sure — just like you could with another distant unexplored patch of the Milky Way. Which per Wikipedia contains 100 to 400 billion stars each — meaning you can arbitrarily divide it up into 10,000 to 40,000 entirely separate chunks of ten million stars each. Any one of which will have more places to see and get into trouble than you’ll ever need for many lifetimes’ worth of multiple Star Trek series — and in all but one of them (ours, and not even all or most of that), you’d be far away from everything and everybody you’ve ever heard of in any previous Trek.
(EDIT: Seems worth noting: That also means that each of the four big quadrants of the galaxy contains 2,500 to 10,000 such random ten-million-star chunks. So some online maps notwithstanding, it’s not like we’ve seen/they’ve contacted more than a pinprick within the Gamma, Delta, Beta or even Alpha Quadrants.)
So no; going to another galaxy sounds great, and it’s not like I wouldn’t watch it — but functionally, it brings nothing new to the table. There’s nothing you could do there that you couldn’t do, with just as much isolation (if desired), in some distant chunk of the Milky Way.
Last edited:
It's simply fear. Fear of losing money, of a poor return on investment, of audiences changing the channel, as it were.
This is a fear baked in to the world of broadcasting.
One VOY character and at least one from DIS. All the other characters are new, many are new species or hybrids, and it's set in the 32nd century. I think SFA may be the paradigm shift we're looking for. It will still be connected to the history, but be far enough away from it in time to avoid too many crossovers and guest shots. Plus, young people rebuilding Starfleet after a period of dormancy! I'm looking forward to it.
That's the thing, I definitely wouldn't want to repeat Voyager. They effectively ended up there by accident, and I'd imagine this to be very deliberate.
The lack of contact would be something the crew accepts, in my mind. Possibly because they took most of their loved ones with them. They don't expect to call home. This is more about pioneering than exploration, even though exploration would be added by default.
It takes away the notion that it's OK, you can just go home, don't worry. Or backup will arrive. Though I wouldn't put it past the crew to face the possibility of doing something that puts them in contact with Starfleet, but it would be because they have to. Something dangerous occurs, a threat that could endanger the Federation. (I don't have a script, or anything, so it's only a vague idea)
I understand this will make the show less comfortable compared to any other Star Trek because the safety net is gone. Even the Voyager crew wanted to go home, and back to safety. I just like the idea of a show that has people who discover a sea-longing, to push further than anyone else ever has and maybe never return. They'll take the risk of never seeing home, because it's important to try.
It effectively comes from harder sci-fi about Generation Ships, probably not what the OP had in mind, but it's just something that has always appealed to me.
Last edited:
Not disagreeing and makes senses. As I alluded in my original post, Roddenberry probably had allot of studio heads whispering in his ear to tie in TNG more closely to the orginal crew. May feel mundane now, but in 1986 it was considered a big risk to do a Star Trek without Kirk or Spock, let alone doing something with another TOS era crew. I guess we need someone like a Roddenberry today to have the vision and ability to convince the higher ups to that risk.
This suggests it’s not Starfleet, then? A huge pioneer ship? (Because if it were Starfleet, presumably it’s for some exploratory purpose — in which case they’d specifically want them to come back and report; they wouldn’t just intentionally throw a vessel out into the void never to be seen again, as that would serve them no purpose).
It does sound rather like some of the early ideas for TNG’s Enterprise: an actual, functioning traveling city, not intended to return or even restock for decades, and not a Bridge Crew Team Adventure thing. That would certainly be an interesting shift — not because of where it takes place (because this too, you could just go to some very distant unexplored sector for), but because the social setup the characters live in would be different: more Little House on the Prairie Meets Aliens and Surveys Planets (with Starfleet politics and such just not being a thing at all), which I’d be totally up for.
(I mean, they’re not going to do it, but I’d watch it.)
Well I had a vision of Captain Mitchell and the S.S Conestoga, although that was pre-Federation and pre-Starfleet, but the same basic principle. Just bigger, faster and further. And since that was named after the Conestoga Wagon, you could imagine a parallel to Little House, in that respect. It was very much of that era.
But yeah, they ain't making it.
Well, Roddenberry also invited some writers from the TOS era back as he had pulled twelve hours during TOS and found that unsustainable as a job if he was going to work on TNG.
Going forward needs someone with a passion for the story and characters that wants to tell this story.
The situation was different in 1986 than it is today. In 1986, Star Trek was a proven commodity. TOS reruns had been ruling in syndication for well over a decade and TOS movies were more or less solid box office draws, and indeed 86 saw the release of what would be the second highest grossing Trek movie at the box office prior to 2009. Star Trek's return to television seemed inevitable, but bringing back the TOS cast wasn't really practical. I doubt Shatner and Nimoy were willing to commit for at least another five years playing Kirk and Spock on a weekly basis at that point in their careers, Kelley and Doohan's careers were winding down at this point anyway, and the others didn't really have the draw to carry a new series. A whole new cast was the most practical idea, while going forward a century offered the kind of creative opportunities Roddenberry wanted to utilize. And Trek's popularity was such that a new Trek series had a guaranteed audience no matter what, though even then, TNG got away with as much as it did because it was syndication.
None of that is the case anymore. Star Trek has had its share of failures on television at the box office that no one is under any illusions that there is a built in audience willing to watch anything just because it had the Star Trek name stamped on it. And being on a streaming service in the 2020s, the show has certain obligations to meet that a syndicated show in the 1980s didn't. They need to stick a bit more closer what they know works and will bring in an audience. And for the most part this is working, Lower Decks, Prodigy and SNW has offered some of the franchise's most creative work ever, so I'm not really seeing what's wrong with the current "paradigm" that it needs to be changed anyway.
I agree with your overall premise, but here’s where I’d differ slightly.
Yes, Star Trek was a successful brand by 1986 — but it was a very specific kind of success. What was known to work was the TOS formula: Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. That’s the version that had been thriving in syndication and doing well at the box office. So while the franchise had name recognition, there was still a huge question mark around whether lightning could strike twice with a completely new cast and setting. "Noone can redo Star Trek "
In fact, Patrick Stewart was famously told by his agent that TNG would probably be canceled after one season. Other cast members said the same thing. So while reviving the TOS cast long-term may not have been viable, the safer move would have been to create something closer in tone and style to the original — maybe set in the same timeframe, throw a Vulcan on the bridge, perhaps a relative to a character like Sulu or Scotty and recapture the "Kirk-Spock-McCoy" trio dynamic with new characters.
Instead, Roddenberry made the bold choice to push the timeline forward. He chose a bald Captain and to put a Klingon on the bridge. He decided to rethink the tone, and build something that could stand on its own — which is exactly why TNG felt like a gamble.
Ironically, I’d argue it might be easier to take that kind of risk today. The fanbase is massive, the content pipeline is constant, and streaming shows often get multi-season commitments from the start. Back in 1986, there was a lot more pressure for a show to prove itself right away. There wasn’t the same kind of runway that modern productions enjoy. With all the Star Trek brand equity built up, a failure today yes would still be felt , but it would be that one show amongst many that failed. If TNG failed , it may have signaled to TPTB that a non Kirk, Spock, McCoy show is not viable. And who knows when they would of tried next.
So to me, TNG was a bigger creative gamble than people remember — and it's exactly that spirit of confident reinvention that I think Trek could benefit from again.
Last edited:
DIscovery kinda did but Burnham was tied to Spock from day 1. They also brought in Sarek to appear . Also Harry Mudd. The show was a direct prequel to TOS. The biggest complaint was that it was too dark and diidnt feel lke Star Trek . My compliaint was that it was not that good of a show period and i didn't connect with the characters. . If Discovery was made as a stand alone sci fi series , I still wouldn't like it. Bringing back Spock etc was just their way of placating the audience who didn't respond to it.. For me, because Discovery failed personally, I was ok ( and more forgiving ) with them building off legacy Trek for new shows instead ......for a while. But now I'm down for them to try again at a more orginal standalone premise. I think it's time.
Last edited:
Which is hilarious to me because the opening story reminded me of Balance of Terror.
Regardless, because it was a prequel there was the expected list of "When will we see 'So and So'" and the same happened with Picard. What the powers that be learned, sadly, is that people want their ears tickled and comfort food viewing. To do something completely different would go easier if (big if) if finances were not so tight.
Well even if something is darker and not traditional Trek feeling superficially, I would still give it a chance. That happened with DS9, gave it a chance and it become my favorite Trek series tiied with TNG. Discovery didn't do it for me but for only for the reasons I mentioned before .
Yes, you might. I might. Others around here might.
We're not the majority of the audience. We're not the one to persuade.
I do like the idea of a galaxy full of non-humanoid aliens, but it would cost a fortune - thats why the Gorn only show up once or twice a season. And if it's humanoids, it's just more Voyager.
It would be a nice break from continuity porn, though.
It would be a nice break from continuity porn, though.
Similar threads
