Pitfalls the new series should avoid

[Jonny]

What pitfalls from previous Star Trek series should this series avoid? I have a few suggestions:

1. Pointless characters: This new series should not have pointless characters like Harry Kim or Mayweather, every character should have a purpose and a developed personality.

2. Lackluster villains: Star Trek has a habit of trying to do social commentary and delivering their messages through villains who are just jerks, they have no redeeming traits, but are not menacing in the slightest, like the TNG era Ferengi for example. Either have villains with redeeming traits or if this show wants to do social commentary, have the thing being condemned be presented by a horrifying villain, like how Jessica Jones used Kilgrave to condemn rape culture.

3. Techobabble. This is self explanatory, cut down the technobabble.

Those are my suggestions, what pitfalls would you like this show to avoid?

I agree that it would be nice if they avoided pointless characters, though in fairness I don't think Kim or Mayweather were originally intended to be pointless I think it just panned out that way. But yeah, development is definitely a must for main characters I agree.

As for lacklustre villains well I think that's a matter of perspective and all shows end up having some lacklustre villains as I'm sure Jessica Jones will end up having if the show goes on long enough.

Technobabble, well Trek is known for technobabble but it would be nice if they didn't overdo it in the next series.

 

[dmac]

What if, by the 24th century the Starfleet tapestry of perfection began to somewhat unravel?
Has the perfection of technology become Star Trek's greatest pitfall?

 

[Jonny]

What if, by the 24th century the Starfleet tapestry of perfection began to somewhat unravel?
Has the perfection of technology become Star Trek's greatest pitfall?

That sounds like an interesting idea

 

[dmac]

I started exploring the Concept with something called "The Chronicles of Lanclos" I doubt it will be picked up as a fan film series

https://www.facebook.com/WebisodeRe...459030002734/1284066488275313/?type=3&theater

 

[Jonny]

I started exploring the Concept with something called "The Chronicles of Lanclos" I doubt it will be picked up as a fan film series

https://www.facebook.com/WebisodeRe...459030002734/1284066488275313/?type=3&theater

It's still an interesting concept though and would definitely pique my interest if no-one else's

 

[dmac]

There is a short Vignette that has been filmed and will be released by Potemkin pictures. A 2nd episode that been dusted off and cleaned up, what happens after that ???

 

[Tim Walker]

Regarding "pointless characters".....

One possibility is to limit the regular characters to three or four.

One feature of TOS was that of the semi-regular or ocassionaly re-occurring character. There was yeoman Rand. Lt. Riley appeared in a couple episodes. Transporter Chief Kyle appeared in a number of episodes.

The reappearance of these characters added to a sense of continuity.

However, these characters weren't true regulars-it would have been easy to write them out of the script if they didn't work out.

 

[Jonny]

Regarding "pointless characters".....

One possibility is to limit the regular characters to three or four.

One feature of TOS was that of the semi- or ocassionaly re-occurring character. There was yeoman Rand. Lt. Riley appeared in a couple episodes. Transporter Chief Kyle appeared in a number of episodes.

The reappearance of these characters added to a sense of continuity.

However, these characters weren't true regulars-it would have been easy to write them out of the script if they didn't work out.

I see where you're coming from and to an extend I agree with you, the part where I disagree with you slightly however is the 3 or 4 regular characters as that feels a little bit small for Star Trek personally speaking. I'd say 6 or 7 personally.

 

[cultcross]

However many cast members there are, I think it's important to get away from the trope of "this is a Data episode", "this is a Crusher episode". The storylines which go through an episode shouldn't so obviously highlight one person all the time. Sometimes it happens naturally but most of the time on previous Trek it seems very forced, like they'd set out to write "an O'Brien episode".

 

[Jonny]

I see where you're coming from there cultcross as they can seem forced at times. However if it happens naturally I think they can make for some great episodes personally

 

[dmac]

Can I vote for a Star Trek Network with 30 new series and a brand new movie each week?

 

[T'Girl]

Forehead-of-the-week/humanoid-of-the-week was done to death

Finding a different way to do it would be one thing, eliminating "new life forms" would be (imho) an error.

Galactic politics/galactic war deserves a rest.

Putting a end to season/multiseason long wars would be welcome. Somewhat torn concerning no politics (if that was your suggestion), would like to see some internal Federation Member politics, not have everything be the council. Journey to Babel was one of my favorite epiosdes, gave the Federation depth.

As has been pointed out by a number of people, the Transporter is a convenient way to get a character out of danger. Therefore the Transporter must be broken, or blocked, as required by the plot.

For the new series, it might be a good idea to put in place from the start sensible restrictions on some of the equipment, the transporter, replicator, engines, weapons, etc.. Make these things less "omni-capable," so we avoid horrifying situations that are ridiculously easy to have a solution to.

Crewmen: "Don't worry Captain, I'll just tap on my console for five seconds and all will be well."

And while we're at it, let's completely lose this whole "post scarcity society" thingy, the future should be clean and comfortable, but don't take away the need to put an effort into it ... boring.

Move the Federation government to another Federation world, maybe it rotates every several years and Earth's turn is over, move the Starfleet Admiralty to a different world from the council (leave the academy on Earth).

No one personally considers themselves to be evolve, these are regular people exploring the galaxy.

The enemies should have legitimate reasoning and causes, no simplistic "they disagree with the Federation so they're all evil and/or misguided."

I'd like to have a Rommie like holographic character (Andromeda), but that seem to be unpopular around here.

The officers and crew should be from different species and planets, and should not be of one bland mindset. Meaning they have different philosophies, and are capable of disagreeing with each other.

†

 

[JWPlatt]

No stupidly bizarre, behaviorally neurotic alien rituals of the week unless they are truly brain damaged.

 

[T'Girl]

^ Pon Farr?

If they're going to have a Native American character, and have that person be immersed in their traditional culture, pick an actual existing tribal culture instead of making one up.

†

 

[dmac]

Growing up as a product of the 50's and instantly attracted to science fiction, it didn't take long to notice the common thread that ran in nearly every story line. Mankind is greedy, self destructive, flawed and generally a failure on Earth as well as in Space. Mankind was Lost in Space, Mars wanted our women, aliens considered us a meal and our greatest creations attempted to enslave us. Humanity was an awful mess until this crew of humans along, joined with one half Vulcan/human and addressed these issues. Star Trek told us that we could venture into space and kick the butts of all those greater than thou aliens.
So 50 years latter you attempt to recreate what made Star Trek special when it meant something different to each generation, it fails and then you wonder why. I don't, people a few years younger than me grew up on a cartoon version of Trek with a bridge filled with M'ress, Andorians, Deltans ect... No humans were really required but that's their Star Trek. The Next Generation came along and the bridge all of a sudden looked like a corporate board room. The ship and crew was no longer as good as it's captain, the captain became no better than his ship and crew. Then their is Babylon five... er I mean DS9, Voyager, Enterprise and the rebooted movies.
The only way to avoid any pitfalls is to simply stop creating Star Trek and what fun would that be?

 

[MarsWeeps]

people a few years younger than me grew up on a cartoon version of Trek with a bridge filled with M'ress, Andorians, Deltans ect... No humans were really required but that's their Star Trek.

People who grew up with TAS also grew up with TOS. TOS was in syndication in the early 70's and that's when most people (including myself) grew up with the show. There wasn't any separation of generations between TOS and TAS like you had between TOS and TNG.

 

[dmac]

People who grew up with TAS also grew up with TOS. TOS

Very true, I was first exposed to "The Lieutenant" of which Star Trek had a certain familiarity to and used many of the same actors. By time TAS aired I was well beyond Saturday morning cartoons.

 

[eyeresist]

No stand-alone episodes.
No arc plots.

Regarding "pointless characters".....

One possibility is to limit the regular characters to three or four.

Yes. It happens with other shows as well: once you have over a certain number of "main" characters, some of them inevitably become surplus to dramatic requirements. They're visible enough that you notice them, but not developed enough for you to care about them. (And when they try to deliver their three lines of exposition as though it's a big deal, the result is generally embarrassing.)

 

[Tim Walker]

Regarding T-Girl's comments about doing something different.....

It was pointed out on another thread that Stargate very effectively used puppets to depict "Thor".

Trek used-impressively-CGI aliens a handful of times.

 

[dmac]

How about a crew comprised of only holograms and androids?
Actually these type of threads are interesting because I've never seen a consensus among a large group as of yet.