My hope for the new series

[The Overlord]

My idea, have a rival power compete with the Federation, starships from this other power are trying to get newly discovered civilizations to join them over the Federation and is trying to get claim new planets to take their resources, all so they can be in a good position to attack the Federation at a future date.

You're basically describing the Klingons' role in TOS.

I thought the Klingons were great back then - sneaky, conniving, aggressive yet cowardly, on the UFP's doorstep and doing their best to needle and provoke them. I'd love to see them, or another race, fulfilling a similar role in the new show.

There you go, returning and expanding on this idea from TOS may work as the basis of an ongoing story for a Star Trek show.

I also think you would need a reoccurring enemy commander for this new crew to deal with, build an enemy like DS9 did with Gul Dukat.

 

[Tim Walker]

I recall the idea (TOS) of having a Klingon captain as a sort of semi-regular character.

 

[Dukhat]

It's true you did but that's not the post I'm thinking of. It's this.

Killing Trip was one of the best things ENT did, IMO, not on account of hating Trip (though I wasn't fond of him) but on account of the way it was done -- as the kind of random, unjust death that often ends the stories of famous people in messy old life.

That guy has no clue what he's talking about.

Lt. Col. Henry Blake's (off-screen) death at the end of the third season of M*A*S*H was definitely the kind of stuff that real drama is made of. But plenty of viewers at the time were in an uproar, complaining that it was "cheap".

Kor

My opinion was that Blake's death was good drama, even if it was off screen

The difference between Blake's death and Trip's death can be summed up in a quote from Blake himself: "This is war. And the first rule of war is, [young] men die." (Blake wasn't young, but that's not the point. The point is that there was a war going on, and when there's war, people die. Period.)

Trip's death had nothing to do with war. Or anything else, for that matter. It had everything to do with the ham-fisted stupidity of the person writing the scene. It was a moronic, senseless way to die, done for no real legitimate reason, and had no real moral attached to it, other than, "yeah, some people can just walk down the street and decide out of nowhere to just jump in front of a bus."

 

[The Overlord]

I recall the idea (TOS) of having a Klingon captain as a sort of semi-regular character.

But that didn't really happen, considering we got 3 different Klingon captains in that series. Gul Dukat was probably one of the best alien commander villains in the franchise, because he appeared so often. I think they would need to have this villain appear in a lot of episodes to make him a compelling villain, rather then some one shot baddie who we never see again and is replaced with some other alien commander next week.

 

[The Wormhole]

Why does Star Trek need to be re-imagined?

Because it got canceled?

It wasn't cancelled because there was a flaw in the concept. Hell, any concept that can generate a franchise that last 50s years through six TV incarnations and thirteen movies is obviously very sound indeed. What led to Trek's demise is that it had writers and producers of limited vision who kept telling the exact same stories over and over again. All Trek really needs is a fresh new perspective.

I don't know if it has to be some drastic change, but absolutely one of the flaws of all of the Star Trek shows was that there was never any real danger, and never any real stakes. The only time a main character ever died was if the actor wanted to leave, which is pretty lame. That's not to say it should kill off tons of characters, but that the writers shouldn't be afraid to kill off a character if it serves a narrative purpose or creates good drama.

Star Trek is about the lives and adventures of a starship and its crew as they conduct their service to the Federation. Sometimes this does involve conflict with powerful adversaries, others it's smaller scale mystery or even just interpersonal thing. Star Trek is not constantly balls to the walls life or death drama, therefore it does not need to create "real danger" nor are main characters needed to be sacrificed.

Besides, Stargate tried the "kill main characters to create drama" thing and the fans revolted.

With most Star Trek shows, for the most part you knew that the ship would be intact and the crew OK at the end. If they weren't it wouldn't be much longer before they got a new ship that functioned almost the same or the person was resurrected.

Any new Trek shouldn't be afraid to make changes from its old and outdated format and tropes. It can't be exactly the same as it was. Now is the time for Star Trek to fix a lot of those problems. It's not the time to be playing it safe.

There's a difference between "Not playing it safe" and "fixing that which ain't broke."

After Picard was rescued from the Borg and de-assimilated, they showed his recovery for just one or two more episodes, and then they dropped it entirely. It wasn't until First Contact a half a decade later that they revealed he'd been having psychological aftereffects all along. Wish we could have seen that before.

That's actually a pretty bad example. Back in the early 90s, long term consequences just weren't explored in TV. The fact that they did Family is a sort or epilogue to TBOBW was considered unprecedented and experimental. Granted, other Treks eventually got stuck in an episodic rut, but this was the result of studio interference mostly. In fact, it is a matter of public record that UPN forbid Voyager from having long term story arcs, and only allowed Enterprise to do them because they were becoming in vogue.

Please have very limited combat as well. Action can be interesting sometimes as a change of pace, but Star Trek is supposed to be about a peaceful future. This is a story about a group of explorers and scientists, not warriors. This is why everything went downhill after The Next Generation.

Starfleet is military, this is very clear in TOS. Kirk even referred to himself as a soldier. It would be better if the new show finally stopped this silly denying Starfleet is a military thing, but I don't expect it to. Even the Abrams movies continue that.

I recall the idea (TOS) of having a Klingon captain as a sort of semi-regular character.

But that didn't really happen, considering we got 3 different Klingon captains in that series.

There were plans to bring both Kor and Koloth back, but John Colicos and William Campbell being unavailable prevented that.

 

[Amaraen]

I do not buy that Starfleet is military. Starfleet is a scientific organization with defensive capabilities/training.

 

[Autistoid]

There's a basic premise to what needs to be done, however fans around here are deaf to the most basic elements, because they can't imagine anything different to what is.


1) Get rid of duexmachina, and plot devices like technobabble which are used to create magical solutions. If something goes wrong it goes wrong. The big trick is to have writing staff take bullets for the team, if your idea causes a blah episode it's better than causing more pain for future writers.

2) Have characters that are both utopian in nature, yet are still dynamic. Have characters with careers that change from season to season. In season 1 Lucommander yatta yatta, is up to be a captain, by the end of that season show why no one is giving him a first officer position. Show how on the one hand the federation is tolerant of people with flaws and yet same time smart enough not to give them the keys to a starship. An interesting subplot would be how a given officer is being screened out of position, under a series of meaningless missions, that turn out to show his true character.


3) Have a series bible that states clearly what is allowed and not allowed. Hire people that can actually work within a set framework with rules.

4) Show Utopia as a work in progress. Not as a failed utopia, dystopia or anything of the like. There are no wars, however the federation is heavily involved in mediating conflicts, and offering aid to those outside the federation. (DS9 almost got this perfectly). A good point of reference should sugguest that in western society we are actually on the verge of utopia, I can't see what would be more utopian than that.

5) Social commentary is alive and well. Don't use outdated crap about simplistic narratives about racism. Again DS9 got some of this partially right, things in real life are more uncertain, however there is still evidently a whole lot to say that doesn't get said in american commentary of late.


6) Keep the tech simple, whatever is introduced in the pilot episode is all you will ever see. The need to invent new techs each episode is the worst.

7) Good science is simple. This alone is the simplest idea and the most important aspect to star trek. Technobabble isn't good science, nor is it remotely coherent. The value of having a science based show isn't to confuse the audience with shit that sounds smart and stinks. A good scientific show gives the audience the tools to understand something new and fascinating with a very simple explanation. Take interstellar for example they established that the gravity of a black whole makes time slow down, don't confuse it will any technobabble, and don't invent a solution that complicates the effect. If it's remotely beyond the audience to understand it's likely not relevant to the show.

 

[Campe]

There's a basic premise to what needs to be done, however fans around here are deaf to the most basic elements, because they can't imagine anything different to what is.

Not starting off on the best foot, but okay.

1) Get rid of duexmachina, and plot devices like technobabble which are used to create magical solutions. If something goes wrong it goes wrong. The big trick is to have writing staff take bullets for the team, if your idea causes a blah episode it's better than causing more pain for future writers.

I think the majority of fans would like to see [TECH] go the way of the dodo.

2) Have characters that are both utopian in nature, yet are still dynamic. Have characters with careers that change from season to season. In season 1 Lucommander yatta yatta, is up to be a captain, by the end of that season show why no one is giving him a first officer position. Show how on the one hand the federation is tolerant of people with flaws and yet same time smart enough not to give them the keys to a starship. An interesting subplot would be how a given officer is being screened out of position, under a series of meaningless missions, that turn out to show his true character.

I think this makes a lot of sense. People have flaws. It doesn't mean we don't strive to be better. The perfect humans we saw in TNG/DS9/VOY? Not a fan. Because I don't know that I believe that we'll ever really get all the way there.

3) Have a series bible that states clearly what is allowed and not allowed. Hire people that can actually work within a set framework with rules.

I disagree on this one. I think that if there is a good story to be told, you can work to bend, and yes, even sometimes break those rules.

4) Show Utopia as a work in progress. Not as a failed utopia, dystopia or anything of the like. There are no wars, however the federation is heavily involved in mediating conflicts, and offering aid to those outside the federation. (DS9 almost got this perfectly). A good point of reference should sugguest that in western society we are actually on the verge of utopia, I can't see what would be more utopian than that.

I agree with the not a failed utopia or dystopia. But like I said above, we try to be better and sometimes we fail. I don't think banning war right out of the gate is great. Conflict may arise. And just because we as a society strive to be better, it doesn't mean those around as do too. Do we have to have long prolonged arcs about war and make it all about conflict? Absolutely not. But knowing its a threat? I think that's more of a possibility.

5) Social commentary is alive and well. Don't use outdated crap about simplistic narratives about racism. Again DS9 got some of this partially right, things in real life are more uncertain, however there is still evidently a whole lot to say that doesn't get said in american commentary of late.

I agree with the thought. What I don't want is each and every episode to be a lecture. Have an action adventure episode one week and a message episode the next. Fine by me.

6) Keep the tech simple, whatever is introduced in the pilot episode is all you will ever see. The need to invent new techs each episode is the worst.

7) Good science is simple. This alone is the simplest idea and the most important aspect to star trek. Technobabble isn't good science, nor is it remotely coherent. The value of having a science based show isn't to confuse the audience with shit that sounds smart and stinks. A good scientific show gives the audience the tools to understand something new and fascinating with a very simple explanation. Take interstellar for example they established that the gravity of a black whole makes time slow down, don't confuse it will any technobabble, and don't invent a solution that complicates the effect. If it's remotely beyond the audience to understand it's likely not relevant to the show.

I agree with both of these last points.

 

[KimMH]

But that didn't really happen, considering we got 3 different Klingon captains in that series. Gul Dukat was probably one of the best alien commander villains in the franchise, because he appeared so often. I think they would need to have this villain appear in a lot of episodes to make him a compelling villain, rather then some one shot baddie who we never see again and is replaced with some other alien commander next week.

A recurring villain who is allowed to develop and show nuance and tell another side of the story IS a good idea. I almost found Dukat likeable at the end, I even regretted his death in spite of him.

 

[The Wormhole]

I do not buy that Starfleet is military. Starfleet is a scientific organization with defensive capabilities/training.

When the Federation goes to war, it's Starfleet who fights those wars.

Starfleet is responsible for defending the Federation's borders.

Starfleet ships have the authority and ability to completely sterilize populated planets they deem a security threat of all life.

Starfleet officers answering to criminal charges face a court martial, and Starfleet employs its own penal facilities for convicted personnel.

All these are definitions of a military and were all established on TOS or TNG under Roddenberry's watch. Starfleet is a military.

 

[Autistoid]

I do not buy that Starfleet is military. Starfleet is a scientific organization with defensive capabilities/training.

When the Federation goes to war, it's Starfleet who fights those wars.

Starfleet is responsible for defending the Federation's borders.

Starfleet ships have the authority and ability to completely sterilize populated planets they deem a security threat of all life.

Starfleet officers answering to criminal charges face a court martial, and Starfleet employs its own penal facilities for convicted personnel.

All these are definitions of a military and were all established on TOS or TNG under Roddenberry's watch. Starfleet is a military.

I think a general rule is that they should ever be peace keepers. There is war, but the federation is never the main party.

 

[The Wormhole]

Peacekeepers are still military.

 

[Ryan8bit]

What led to Trek's demise is that it had writers and producers of limited vision who kept telling the exact same stories over and over again. All Trek really needs is a fresh new perspective.

That's kinda what I mean by reimagining. Not changing it from the ground up necessarily, but doing some new things. You can't tell the same stories over and over, and since there are a limited number of stories that can really be told, what sometimes needs to happen is to reinvent the show a little bit. You can't make the show like it was in 1966, 1987, or even 2005. They've gotta change the format up a bit. There are a variety of things about Trek that are sorely outdated.

Star Trek is not constantly balls to the walls life or death drama, therefore it does not need to create "real danger" nor are main characters needed to be sacrificed.

No, it's not always constant danger, but pretty much every episode has some element of danger. The biggest difference is that they're only ever willing to kill redshirts to try and illustrate that danger. They need to have some balls and not be afraid to kill a main character because the story requires it. Not because the actor wants out, or because they're trying to create a shock finale with no purpose. And when they do it, they can't just cheaply resurrect them later. Star Trek is absolutely the weakest in that regard.

I don't care what some Stargate nerds thought or what Star Trek nerds will think. They need to stop playing it so safe with their characters when space is dangerous. And yes, they are playing it safe and always have been. It's not about whether it's broken or not, it's about whether the creative team pushes boundaries, or pushes things that may be controversial. Playing it safe absolutely means that things return to the status quo always, and so much of Star Trek has done that. That definitely is one broken part of old Trek, and they'd do well to fix it. And it isn't the only thing.

 

[Tim Walker]

I do not buy that Starfleet is military. Starfleet is a scientific organization with defensive capabilities/training.

Star Fleet seems to be schizophrenic, because if it is not military it has been nevertheless been given a military mission.

A schizophrenia which seems unavoidable, given that the Federation is supposedly evolved, but must nevertheless survive in a harsh, violent, dangerous universe.

 

[The Wormhole]

They need to have some balls and not be afraid to kill a main character because the story requires it. Not because the actor wants out, or because they're trying to create a shock finale with no purpose. And when they do it, they can't just cheaply resurrect them later. Star Trek is absolutely the weakest in that regard.

It doesn't matter what show it is, main characters don't just get killed at any old time. Even today, you only see main characters written out of a show at specific points: The premiere, midseason story, or finale. Sometimes there is a buffer of five episodes after the premiere and five episodes prior to the finale. There are reasons for this which go beyond "playing it safe" or actor contracts. Simply put, these are the points of a season which see the highest viewership and therefore it is best to have the important stuff happen when everyone is watching.

For example, let's assume for a moment this Star Trek show will have a season of twenty episodes. I know it will probably be less, but let's go with twenty for the sake of discussion. Episodes 10 and 11 will be the mid season arc. You can guarantee episodes 6-9 and 12-15 are not going to involve anything ground breaking happening because the average Joe will want to skip those episodes. Now you can argue those are the perfect episodes to radically alter things to motivate people to watch everything, but more likely it'll just alienate the casual viewers.

So unless this new show only has ten episodes (thereby making the whole season a five episode buffer zone between premiere and finale) don't expect radical changes to how things are done.

Hell, just look no further than The Walking Dead's current storyline. Assuming a certain character really is dead, it happened in episode 3 and if they do confirm it this week, it'll be episode 5. If they still leave it open-ended, don't expect any resolution any earlier than the mid season story.

 

[Mudd]

In TOS, Starfleet was military. As Roddenberry's politics shifted it became less so.

 

[Amaraen]

I would still disagree. Even in the original show, the Enterprise's mission was to "Explore strange new worlds, seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no one/man has gone before". It's mission was not "To patrol the borders, to intercept enemies, to protect our space", etc. Starfleet is the future of NASA, not the military.

I also disagree that the show needs to create an atmosphere of fear that characters will be killed. That feels totally unnecessary. There are plenty of shows like that already, Star Trek should be different. It should feel safe and secure, like a warm blanket. We should know that our heroes are going to come through in the end every night.

 

[eyeresist]

1. Don't make the show grey, grim and dour. A little personal angst, a little office politics is fine, but it's a garnish, not the point of the show.

2. We should be at the level to achieve this now: Every episode, feature a really cool SFX shot of a starship in space, or a strange alien planet. Linger for maybe 10 seconds, to give us a sense of the majesty and beauty of Star Trek's setting.

3. Consistent characterisation & plausible story telling. Don't have characters be erratic in personality or motivation, and don't make one of them carry the idiot ball just to make a story work. Too many shows even now still do this. Star Trek should be better than that.

 

[Tim Walker]

1.
2. We should be at the level to achieve this now: Every episode, feature a really cool SFX shot of a starship in space, or a strange alien planet. Linger for maybe 10 seconds, to give us a sense of the majesty and beauty of Star Trek's setting.
.

As was mentioned in the DVD commentary, this was sometimes featured in NuBSG. Occasionally, the milieu of space did show beauty and grandeur in the show.

 

[martok2112]

To me, having served in the military, seeing how military operations are conducted, StarFleet is undeniably military. Yes, it is supposed to be the exploratory arm of the Federation, but it has heavily armed starships with a command hierarchy of officers and enlisteds running said ships, stations, and starbases. StarFleet is supposed to explore the galaxy and all that nice touchy feely stuff, but it can wage war like Klingons when it must.

Otherwise, if anything, StarFleet is paramilitary.