Rebooting Star Trek

[DigificWriter]

Hi all. I've recently been trying to find something to occupy my free time, and have decided to try and create a comprehensive reboot of an existing series or franchise, be it from television or film. After discussing and/or attempting several different ideas, I've hit upon the idea of trying to reboot/re-imagine one of the most iconic franchises in history: Star Trek. However, I wanted to get some opinions from you, my fellow fans, as to what Star Trek, as a franchise, is about at its core, and how it could be adapted to fit a modern audience's sensibilities. I am also looking for input as to whether or not, in re-imagining the franchise, it would be necessary to remain strictly with the characters that Gene Roddenberry created in the 60s for the original Star Trek, or whether or not characters which came after, either created by Roddenberry himself or by others, could be considered, provided they could be adapted to fit the concepts of what Trek is at its core.

Note to the mods: I put this here simply because I wasn't sure WHERE to put it, so move it if you feel the need to.

 

[JiNX-01]

It's kind of hard to really know what you're looking for. I know of a couple of guys who are doing "Star Trek: Enterprise" reimagined collections. You might want to check them out.

This site is run by Captain X
http://www.trekonline.org/foundations/

This site is run by Rigil Kent
http://www.startrekendeavour.com/

 

[DigificWriter]

Specifically, I'm first and foremost trying to find out what all 5 of the existing Trek series have in common at their core, since it's crucial to figuring out how to completely re-imagine the franchise. I can tell you what DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise are about - at their core - in just a few sentences, but, in order to figure out how to re-imagine the franchise as a whole, I need to know what its underlying themes are, and how each of its individual series relate to that common underlying theme.

 

[Count Zero]

Well, the underlying theme is "the human condition", what it means to be human. I think it's the first movie that ends with the motto "The human adventure is just beginning.". I always found this very inspiring.
In the beginning (TOS), Star Trek was about the stories, not about technicalities. It seems that many people have lost sight of that. If you do a reboot, everything is fair game so you don't have to use the same characters as in the actual series.

 

[DigificWriter]

Well, the underlying theme is "the human condition", what it means to be human. I think it's the first movie that ends with the motto "The human adventure is just beginning.". I always found this very inspiring.
In the beginning (TOS), Star Trek was about the stories, not about technicalities. It seems that many people have lost sight of that. If you do a reboot, everything is fair game so you don't have to use the same characters as in the actual series.

Thanks. You mention that TOS was about stories and not the 'technobabble', but, for the life of me, I can't really pick out any significant sustained story arcs from either it or The Next Generation; the closest thing that TNG came to what I'd recognize as an ongoing arc was the stuff involving the Borg and the turmoil in the Klingon Empire, but can't really pick out any sustained arcs from the original series.

 

[number6]

^ That's because there weren't any. TOS episodes were standalone. Storyline arcs weren't an active part of Star Trek until DS9. TNG did a few episodes that carries threads of previous storylines, but there were no real "arcs" per se.
Same with VOY. ENT did a few story arcs, but not until season three.
VOY, DS9 and ENT did have basic stories to tell as a series:
VOY- Getting home.
DS9- Sisko's role as emissary
ENT- The first crew of the Enterprise leading us to the founding of the Federation.

The underlying theme of each series has always been the exploration of our own humanity.

 

[Count Zero]

Yeah, there weren't really any arcs in TOS. It was an episodic show and TNG was, too, although it had more character development from earlier episodes playing a role in later episodes (like Deanna's relation with Riker, Picard dealing with his Borg assimilation, Data striving to become more human). But it wasn't like the majority of today's genre shows.
What I meant was that many TOS episodes dealt with fundamental problems humanity faces. Take "The Enemy Within" - it's about how there is no absolute good or evil, that we also need our dark side to be human. Usually, the Enterprise crew would find themselves in this sort of dilemma, which would be kind of resolved at the end in a more or less satisfactory way. With that episode, one can point out the plot holes, like why didn't they just pick up the crew on the planet with a shuttle or why didn't they use another transporter room. But those details don't matter as the episode is about Kirk's conflict with himself.

 

[DigificWriter]

I'm starting to get some ideas, vis a vis how to use the theme of the 'human condition' to map out an arc for a Star Trek re-imagining, but would like some input from you guys. Pretend that you've been given the task of spearheading a total reboot of Star Trek, bound only by the franchise's underlying theme(s). What arcs do you use to sustain the narrative, and how does said underlying theme factor in?

 

[MattJC]

Hi all. I've recently been trying to find something to occupy my free time, and have decided to try and create a comprehensive reboot of an existing series or franchise, be it from television or film. After discussing and/or attempting several different ideas, I've hit upon the idea of trying to reboot/re-imagine one of the most iconic franchises in history: Star Trek. However, I wanted to get some opinions from you, my fellow fans, as to what Star Trek, as a franchise, is about at its core, and how it could be adapted to fit a modern audience's sensibilities. I am also looking for input as to whether or not, in re-imagining the franchise, it would be necessary to remain strictly with the characters that Gene Roddenberry created in the 60s for the original Star Trek, or whether or not characters which came after, either created by Roddenberry himself or by others, could be considered, provided they could be adapted to fit the concepts of what Trek is at its core.

Note to the mods: I put this here simply because I wasn't sure WHERE to put it, so move it if you feel the need to.

Why waste your time?
Abrams is rebooting it for you.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Why waste your time?
Abrams is rebooting it for you.

And it's a very good thing that he is.

 

[DigificWriter]

Yes, I know that Abrams's movie is essentially a reboot of the Trek franchise, but it's not the kind of reboot I'm talking about here. What I'm talking about is a total re-imagining of the franchise starting from the ground up, retaining only the theme of 'exploring the human condition'.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Star Trek's core becomes clearer when you contrast it with dystopian science fiction, ranging from Nineteen-Eighty-Four to Cold War paranoia movies like Invasion of the Body Snatchers, which depict the future and outer space as frightening, uncontrollable and negative, or The Day the Earth Stood Still, which questioned whether humanity was worthy of survival.

There really wasn't much in sci fi TV or movies that was both positive and intelligent. The positive stuff previous to Star Trek tended to be Flash Gordon/Buck Rogers fluff. Star Trek's innovation was to merge a positive message with an underlying intelligence that gave the positive message some credibility.

Star Trek tells us that the future and outer space can become a warm, fuzzy extension of liberal American ideals of tolerance, democracy and freedom. Even mean aliens like Klingons can be brought to heel by the all-encompassing blanket of the Federation. Of course, once in a while, shooting wars will break out. These are only interludes, puncutating the inexorable advance of Federation ideals.

All the series didn't advance this idea to the same degree, but to the extent they had ideas at all, they did.

TOS - Strongly advanced these ideals. Kirk & co's whole job description was benign imperialism, to defend Federation territory and expand its influence wherever possible.

TNG - Advanced these ideals in a less overtly imperialistic context. But Picard's nannyish lecturing of aliens that didn't hew to Federation ideals got the point across regardless.

DS9 - Implicitly advanced these ideals by depicting them under severe strain of serious warfare and bending but not breaking.

VOY - Janeway continued Picard's nannyish behavior, but in general, VOY shied away from opportunities to advance Trek themes, such as demonstrating how they might be applied in a real conflict between the Starfleeters and the Maquis, not because VOY was opposed to these ideals but simply because it didn't seem much interested in ideas other than the most surface ones.

ENT - Archer managed to be nannyish even tho the Federation didn't exist. I guess he was just ahead of his time. The fourth season delved somewhat into how the Federation, and its ideals, might have come about.

So reboot Star Trek all you want. If you tell stories that advance the core theme, it will be Star Trek still. You don't need to use the same characters or even have them be in Starfleet, but then I have to wonder what you're rebooting?

Pretend that you've been given the task of spearheading a total reboot of Star Trek, bound only by the franchise's underlying theme(s). What arcs do you use to sustain the narrative, and how does said underlying theme factor in?

Sounds like you're not doing a reboot, you're just extending the theme to other situations. The mind boggles at the possibilities. You have many centuries and a whole galaxy to play with! To me a reboot means you're discarding existing canon, but you could come up with stories that don't touch on existing canon other than just the broadest stuff (Starfleet exists, who the various aliens are, etc.)

Just off the top of my head:

-Series revolving around Federation diplomatic core.

-Go back to the Medusans from TOS. They are now Federation members, but they still are fatal to humanoids. How do they integrate into a humanoid-centric organization? Can they join Starfleet by wearing some sort of humanoid exoskeleton and will they be accepted by other species? A test of Fed ideals.

-Continue the Spock/Rommie unification plotline. How would unification between Vulcan and Romulus impact the Federation.

-ENT never really did the Birth of the Federation well. Go back and tell that story.

What I'm talking about is a total re-imagining of the franchise starting from the ground up, retaining only the theme of 'exploring the human condition'.

Exploring the human condition is way too broad to make it Star Trek. All literature explores the human condition. You might end up with a nice space opera story, but it wouldn't necessarily be Star Trek.

 

[Count Zero]

Mmh, I wonder what you mean by that: rebooting the whole franchise. You must start somewhere. So where do you want to start? At the beginning? Or right in the middle with hints to the past (sort of like "Lord of the Rings")?
I would suggest to start with what story you want to tell. If you do, it would be better to post that in the Fan Fiction forum.

 

[DigificWriter]

It looks like some of you guys don't quite understand what I was asking with regards to characters, so here's some clarification: yy question about the characters was designed to find out if fans would object to a total Trek franchise reboot/re-imagining that didn't confine itself strictly to the characters from Gene Roddenberry's original series (which is what's happening with Abrams's reboot movie).

Edited to address the question of what I mean by 'rebooting the entire franchise': I'm talking about tossing the entirety of the existing Trek franchise out the window, distilling it down to its essence, and creating a completely new series under the 'Star Trek' label. IOW, I'm talking about doing to Star Trek what Ron Moore and Co. did to Battlestar Galactica.

 

[Garrovick]

Why do people who don't want it to be Star Trek of the last 40 years.

Seem to want to call it Star Trek?

They should demand a new name to fit their new vision.

Fraudulent if it's look at with eyes wide open.

 

[Count Zero]

Ok, that's what I thought you meant, DigificWriter. Well, even if people object it's your story and your call. However, if it differs from the Trekverse in too significant a way, I'd echo Garrovick's somewhat poetic sentiments that you could also tell your own story and create your own universe (and could still post it in the fan fiction forum, by the way). Well, I'm curious as to your story.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

yy question about the characters was designed to find out if fans would object to a total Trek franchise reboot/re-imagining that didn't confine itself strictly to the characters from Gene Roddenberry's original series (which is what's happening with Abrams's reboot movie).

Star Trek has dropped existing characters and made up new ones several times, for the various spinoff series, but that wasn't a reboot. You can do what you want to without rebooting anything.

Also, Abrams is keeping the characters. He's changing the actors. To what extent he stays within canon is unknown. He might not be ditching canon at all.

Edited to address the question of what I mean by 'rebooting the entire franchise': I'm talking about tossing the entirety of the existing Trek franchise out the window

Okay, then do you mean, no Starfleet? No Federation? Everything goes, but you keep "advancing core Federation ideals" anyway?

Then go back to Earth, which is the source of these ideals. But Earth is a poor, powerless planet in comparison with the rest of the galaxy. There are no kindly Vulcans; instead the aliens are brutal and imperialistic, and many have vastly powerful empires that are utterly mind-boggling to humans.

How does Earth survive in this context? Earth is a huge underdog in this scenario, lacking even the ability to launch a fleet of military ships. Maybe they have a couple. Earth survives only by playing one empire off another and making use of whatever resources it has to bargain with.

In this extreme context, is it even possible to hang onto "Federation ideals" (aka, "Earth ideals")? The story will explore whether this is possible.

So basically, this is ENT, more like I wanted it to be, but even more extreme, deleting Vulcans and Starfleet from the equation and calling into question whether any ideals could survive in the context I've created. Is this more what you had in mind?

Hey wait...this might fit into existing canon anyway...this situation could be BOTF, but in the Mirror Universe.

I'm talking about doing to Star Trek what Ron Moore and Co. did to Battlestar Galactica.

I only dimly recall BSG TOS but I don't recall that it had any ideas to keep. RDM threw out everything but the name and some character names and started over. What you want to do is different - keep the core theme, ditch the rest.

You could be even more extreme, ditching the very idea of science fiction. Since Star Trek's core theme is "American ideals of democracy and freedom" triumphing over the forces of darkness and chaos, they could be the basis for Westerns. In fact, they have been - on both TV and movies.

 

[kv1at3485]

Why do people who don't want it to be Star Trek of the last 40 years.

Seem to want to call it Star Trek?

They should demand a new name to fit their new vision.

Fraudulent if it's look at with eyes wide open.

Agreed. There's no point dragging along any baggage. Best to start totally fresh and just admit behind-the-scenes that ST provided some inspiration.

At one point, as a thought experiment, I pondered where I might take ST given half the chance and came to a similar conclusion. Just the intellectual scope of the new work would have been tarnished by affixing the term "Star Trek" to it.

 

[DigificWriter]

yy question about the characters was designed to find out if fans would object to a total Trek franchise reboot/re-imagining that didn't confine itself strictly to the characters from Gene Roddenberry's original series (which is what's happening with Abrams's reboot movie).

Star Trek has dropped existing characters and made up new ones several times, for the various spinoff series, but that wasn't a reboot. You can do what you want to without rebooting anything.

Also, Abrams is keeping the characters. He's changing the actors. To what extent he stays within canon is unknown. He might not be ditching canon at all.

Edited to address the question of what I mean by 'rebooting the entire franchise': I'm talking about tossing the entirety of the existing Trek franchise out the window

Okay, then do you mean, no Starfleet? No Federation? Everything goes, but you keep "advancing core Federation ideals" anyway?

Then go back to Earth, which is the source of these ideals. But Earth is a poor, powerless planet in comparison with the rest of the galaxy. There are no kindly Vulcans; instead the aliens are brutal and imperialistic, and many have vastly powerful empires that are utterly mind-boggling to humans.

How does Earth survive in this context? Earth is a huge underdog in this scenario, lacking even the ability to launch a fleet of military ships. Maybe they have a couple. Earth survives only by playing one empire off another and making use of whatever resources it has to bargain with.

In this extreme context, is it even possible to hang onto "Federation ideals" (aka, "Earth ideals")? The story will explore whether this is possible.

So basically, this is ENT, more like I wanted it to be, but even more extreme, deleting Vulcans and Starfleet from the equation and calling into question whether any ideals could survive in the context I've created. Is this more what you had in mind?

Hey wait...this might fit into existing canon anyway...this situation could be BOTF, but in the Mirror Universe.

I'm talking about doing to Star Trek what Ron Moore and Co. did to Battlestar Galactica.

I only dimly recall BSG TOS but I don't recall that it had any ideas to keep. RDM threw out everything but the name and some character names and started over. What you want to do is different - keep the core theme, ditch the rest.

You could be even more extreme, ditching the very idea of science fiction. Since Star Trek's core theme is "American ideals of democracy and freedom" triumphing over the forces of darkness and chaos, they could be the basis for Westerns. In fact, they have been - on both TV and movies.

^ I didn't actually have ANYTHING in mind, Temis; your premise sounds interesting, although there are definitely people whom I could see 'crying foul' as not sticking to the underlying theme(s) of what Trek is about as described by Count Zero and others. I'm not one of them, thankfully. Anybody else wanna share how they'd do things if they had the chance to reboot the Star Trek franchise from the ground up?

Re: the new BSG, Moore kept the underlying mythology, premise, and many of the characters from the original BSG, and then built a completely new series utilizing those elements.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Since there's nothing inherently sci fi about Star Trek's basic theme, it could not just be a Western (where the theme would be very familiar - a good reason to avoid that genre) but also Fantasy. Just swap Star Trek's rational universe for one in which the powerful wield magic. You'd end up with a more overtly political version of Lord of the Rings, where Frodo et al are fighting big bad Sauron, but so Aragon can be President and not King.