Star Trek meets the X-Files.
Under 400 hours. About half of treks output.
my biggest criticism about star trek in general was always that its not enough sci fi. but its obviously because the lack of badget. what i mean by it is that alien races in the shows all act like humans, and (because of budget limitation) all humanoid with makeup. there isnt enough "wierd" like what would you expect from sci fi to be. that also true about different planets in the old shows who most of them look exactly like earth. the problem is that in a new coat of paint come together bad writing. because the writing of the old shows was clearly better
There is more to SF than Weird Aliens and Planets.
Exactly. There's also robots.
Non-humanoid species = Hella expensive to produce.
Absolutely.
Discovery was everything fans wanted: new, fresh, rewriting visual language for the 21st century and well, look at the higher than normal complaints.
Academy is the first show starting completely in a new era from the beginning and with the rebuilding of the Federation as its mission. It looks to be the freshest new take of Trek since TNG.
we often hear the terms "reimagining" or "For modern audiences".
Quite frankly I think this is unnecessary. So does that mean you are trying to be more relevant to younger demographics? well guess what, younger demographics appreciate good characters and story telling as much as any other demographic...frankly i think it undersells them to think that they have to change the timbre simply to accommodate their idiosyncrasies.
a good story is a good story no matter when it was made or told, "To Kill a Mockingbird" for example...I'm sure there are others...
Keep that focus and the rest should take care of itself, whatever direction they decide to go in.
Quite frankly I think this is unnecessary. So does that mean you are trying to be more relevant to younger demographics? well guess what, younger demographics appreciate good characters and story telling as much as any other demographic...frankly i think it undersells them to think that they have to change the timbre simply to accommodate their idiosyncrasies.
a good story is a good story no matter when it was made or told, "To Kill a Mockingbird" for example...I'm sure there are others...
Keep that focus and the rest should take care of itself, whatever direction they decide to go in.
If only the data supported that...
It seems that our Milky Way has absorbed smaller galaxies. Conceivably, the remnants of an absorbed galaxy might persist as a distinctive star cluster.
Or one could look at such a cluster another way. A foreign galaxy embedded within our Milky Way. Another galaxy, one that could be reached with a conventional warp drive in a not unreasonable time.
Last edited:
I know I've said similar things before elsewhere, but there's really only one reason to do an entire reboot of Trek: Because you want to riff off of existing stories in ways that conflict with the central lore of Trek in such a fundamental way that they break continuity.
Like let's say you wanted to have a more sensible way to excuse why pretty much all of the major races in Star Trek can have children, despite being products of evolution on very different worlds (and having evolved from very different ancestors). The answer provided in TNG was dumb as rocks, but no one on that show seemed to understand how DNA and evolution actually worked. So instead, you decide the Iconians basically took human slaves off of Earth 200,000 years ago or so, and settled them pretty much everywhere with some minor genetic modifications. All the races which look like humans with shit glued to them are thus literal humans. This is the basis for some interesting storytelling, and it makes the setting a bit more rigorous, but it's a story that absolutely couldn't be told right now.
In contrast, a "back to basics" style story with a new crew/ship which avoids referencing any existing canon can totally be put within continuity, provided the adventures are kept small-scale enough to make sense wherever it's put in the timeline. The question in this case though is more why make it a Star Trek rather than a show like The Orville with the serial numbers filed off? What do you get out of making it an actual Trek show if you aren't playing with the elements left on the table?
Like let's say you wanted to have a more sensible way to excuse why pretty much all of the major races in Star Trek can have children, despite being products of evolution on very different worlds (and having evolved from very different ancestors). The answer provided in TNG was dumb as rocks, but no one on that show seemed to understand how DNA and evolution actually worked. So instead, you decide the Iconians basically took human slaves off of Earth 200,000 years ago or so, and settled them pretty much everywhere with some minor genetic modifications. All the races which look like humans with shit glued to them are thus literal humans. This is the basis for some interesting storytelling, and it makes the setting a bit more rigorous, but it's a story that absolutely couldn't be told right now.
In contrast, a "back to basics" style story with a new crew/ship which avoids referencing any existing canon can totally be put within continuity, provided the adventures are kept small-scale enough to make sense wherever it's put in the timeline. The question in this case though is more why make it a Star Trek rather than a show like The Orville with the serial numbers filed off? What do you get out of making it an actual Trek show if you aren't playing with the elements left on the table?
It could still fit in the existing continuity if you reveal that the aliens deceived everyone.
The reason I want a reboot is a distinct timeline that doesn't hedge it's bets in being ours, concrete timeline of events that occurred and concrete technological rules for the writers.
No, TOS didn't have that, and TNG ignores TOS and so on. Let's stop pretending it did.
No, TOS didn't have that, and TNG ignores TOS and so on. Let's stop pretending it did.
Exactly and people still sort of killed it by bringing political and social combative terms into the discussion. I have no problem if the show failed due to bad acting and bad writing in themselves, lord know every Trek show has had its bottom shelf episodes but critique on a shows own merit was the minor part, the rest was irrational culture war.
Then i see fans demanding they want something fresh and new, calling for Legacy shows with fan favorite characters like Seven of Nine and i wonder what's fresh about yet another starship show?
Academy started off a bit rocky in my opinion but continually improved so much through the season that i absolutely loved it by the end of its first season and a true fresh approach was killed because people called it Star Trek 90210 or woke garbage without giving it a fair shot.
In response to eschaton, there are scripts that included Transplanted Humans.
TOS episode, The Paradise Syndrome. The planet was seeded with humans, by the Preservers.
Also, North Star (ENT). The 37s (VOY).
Similar works which include Displaced Humans:
1. The novel Sea Horse in the Sky, by Edmund Cooper.
2. Short story "Zoomen," in Element 79 by Fred Hoyle.
TOS episode, The Paradise Syndrome. The planet was seeded with humans, by the Preservers.
Also, North Star (ENT). The 37s (VOY).
Similar works which include Displaced Humans:
1. The novel Sea Horse in the Sky, by Edmund Cooper.
2. Short story "Zoomen," in Element 79 by Fred Hoyle.
Last edited:
Similar threads
