Star Trek 100000 AD
- Thread starter urbandk
- Start date
I think that as soon as you reach a point in the future that is so far away that
1) there is no way of predicting how human life will be then with even the smallest degree of accuracy and
2) viewers cannot identify with the people in that future
then there's no reason to set a tv series beyond that point. The 25th century is already far off, but 10000 CE, 100000 CE, or 1000000 CE, what's the difference? They're all practically unimaginably far away.
1) there is no way of predicting how human life will be then with even the smallest degree of accuracy and
2) viewers cannot identify with the people in that future
then there's no reason to set a tv series beyond that point. The 25th century is already far off, but 10000 CE, 100000 CE, or 1000000 CE, what's the difference? They're all practically unimaginably far away.
All Hail Lord Xenu!
Yeah, maybe Trek's distant future is Battlefield Earth.
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
How about a series set around the time that the Universe is blinking out of existence due to entropy. How would a Federation so far in the future cope with that.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
Bingo...
I actually think ENTERPRISE was, on paper, a great idea. A TREK show more close to our time which would have made it more acceptable to non-fans to give it try....
Where Enterprise went wrong? Was trying to fit it into the TREK continuity. They should have done something like my own PHASE ONE and just said "We are totally rebooting TREK. We thank all you old-timers, but another spinoff isn't what we want to do. We are going to restart and totally make a brand new continuity"..
Would it have put off most of the current TREK fans? Sure..but Enterprise did that anyway. So Why not totally blow it up and start over.
Rob
Agreed. Anything recognizable as the Federation existing in 100,000 A.D. would not be believable to viewers. At that point you simply start a new show with Roddenbery-esque ideals, like the original concept for Andromeda.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
I have been thinking about this a little more...the only way a 100,000 AD version would work, IMO, is if people from our time, and I mean OUR time, found themselves in 100,000AD and somehow became part of some storyline..
But humanity 100,000ad would be far too 'nerdy' to pull off and would, IMO, scare off regular fans..unless they had something to gage their ability to follow the story i.e, humans from our time..
Rob
yeah, just, aside from HG Wells and Asimov's Foundation, what else really tries to tackle that future? Trek tosses around the distant past (like that of Bajor), but it doesn't really have a vision that extends beyond our immediate future. of course, trek future and reality deviated the moment someone wasn't doing eugenics experiments in the seventies, but i agree with Rob... travelling into the distant future is as easy as approaching the speed of light for a while. wouldn't that happen sooner or later with someone? yeah, it's geeky and far out, but it might make for good sci fi.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
yeah, I agree. And yet I know it all comes down to writing. But even good writing doesn't mean you get good ratings (FIREFLY/nuBSG)...So, TV-show must also find ways to attract viewers.
We may have reached a point where there are so many options on TV that no scifi will really draw big numbers. But I think a star trek show very far, hundreds of thousands of years in the future, would be very hard to pull of BUDGET wise and 'ability to relate' wise as well...
Rob
I disagree - since we're all merely tossing around opinions here anyway. The problem with ENT was never the concept, and that includes continuity with existing Trek. The problem, if there was one (I think there was, but then I freely admit that I'm not a fan), was with execution, and I don't think ignoring canon would have helped much. I mean, there are plenty of bad shows that have nothing to do with Star Trek, right? Plenty.
If you want to do something completely different from Trek...why call it Trek? Why not call it something else? If you want to call it Trek, then I think it should fit at least somewhat into the Trek universe. You can't have it both ways. If Trek has value, then it has value; if it doesn't, it doesn't. You can't associate yourself with the past and while at the same time completely disassociating yourself from the past.
But back on topic: I am not going to disassociate myself
from those who have said anything too far into the future just won't work - not for a weekly TV show (though it might perhaps for a book or movie - I've read some effective short stories on this general idea, too). It's...literally unimaginable.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
I disagree - since we're all merely tossing around opinions here anyway. The problem with ENT was never the concept, and that includes continuity with existing Trek. The problem, if there was one (I think there was, but then I freely admit that I'm not a fan), was with execution, and I don't think ignoring canon would have helped much. I mean, there are plenty of bad shows that have nothing to do with Star Trek, right? Plenty.
If you want to do something completely different from Trek...why call it Trek? Why not call it something else? If you want to call it Trek, then I think it should fit at least somewhat into the Trek universe. You can't have it both ways. If Trek has value, then it has value; if it doesn't, it doesn't. You can't associate yourself with the past and while at the same time completely disassociating yourself from the past.
But back on topic: I am not going to disassociate myself
Many franchises, more sacred than TREK, have survived reboots. And IMO the continuity of old TREK was a sham. It fractured long ago and fueled most debates when it did...
Starting over with an absolutely new take on Trek, but upholding whatever notion of TREK is, could have, and will eventually, be done. In fact, Abrams is kind of doing it now...because it appears his movies will create a new continuity and Make tons of $$$..which, sorry to say, the only true way to carry Gene's so called vision into the future...
Rob
^ Perhaps we just have a different definition of "continuity." Because it seems to me as though the new movie will have a fair amount of that, though I am of course just guessing. I don't mind some changes - I don't even mind some things that really can't be explained away. But that's not the same as a reboot - not in my lexicon, though perhaps it is in yours.
I think this new film will probably be more careful with whatever TBTB decide is canon than old Star Trek was with its own storyline.
i think one fascinating aspect of distant future sci-fi is the inclusion of some kind of nuclear armageddon between now and then. i guess it makes it easier to conceive of the future if everything is destroyed before then.
even in Asimov's stuff,
i think one fascinating aspect of distant future sci-fi is the inclusion of some kind of nuclear armageddon between now and then. i guess it makes it easier to conceive of the future if everything is destroyed before then.
even in Asimov's stuff,
earth is irradiated at some indefinite future time
Back in TOS days, I would be shocked if anybody had more than a mild interest in continuity. Why would they? As others besides me have mentioned, all they were trying to do is make a good TV show. They didn't know they'd be analyzed to death for 40-some years and spawn a franchise.
And that's the real-life reason why I'm fine with at least some changes. Sure, make the Romulans look different, make the Klingons look a lot different, fiddle with the ages of the young Kirk, Spock, et. al. - I'm fine with all that.
The sort-of in-universe reason that I'm OK with all that is what my friend Praetor refers to as "squinting." You can ignore/overlook/justify a lot of stuff if you squint tightly enough. I recommend it to anybody who values the canon and still wants to enjoy new Trek.
And that's the real-life reason why I'm fine with at least some changes. Sure, make the Romulans look different, make the Klingons look a lot different, fiddle with the ages of the young Kirk, Spock, et. al. - I'm fine with all that.
The sort-of in-universe reason that I'm OK with all that is what my friend Praetor refers to as "squinting." You can ignore/overlook/justify a lot of stuff if you squint tightly enough. I recommend it to anybody who values the canon and still wants to enjoy new Trek.
Last edited:
Back in TOS days, I would be shocked if anybody had more than a mild interest in continuity. Why would they? As others besides me have mentioned, all they were trying to do is make a good TV show. They didn't know they'd be analyzed to death for 40-some years and spawn a franchise.
And that's the real-life reason why I'm fine with at least some changes. Sure, make the Romulans look different, make the Klingons look a lot different, fiddle with the ages of the young Kirk, Spock, et. al. - I'm fine with all that.
The sort-of in-universe reason that I'm OK with all that is what my friend Praetor refers to as "squinting." You can ignore/overlook/justify a lot of stuff if you squint tightly enough. I recommend it to anybody who values the canon and still wants to enjoy new Trek.
i gotta try that some time!
You mean like the nuclear holocaust at the end of World War III in 2053 in the Star Trek timeline?
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/21st_century
I actually liked how Trek didn't have World War III literally end civilization, which is a mythical result of even a major nuclear exchange. The damage, of course, was severe, but civilization didn't end, because civilization is an incredibly robust thing.
Re: the OP, a super-far-future episode would be fun, but I share the reservations of those who suspect it would be difficult to make a weekly show out of it.
Re: the OP, a super-far-future episode would be fun, but I share the reservations of those who suspect it would be difficult to make a weekly show out of it.
hellsgate
Commodore
I could see a plausible "Star Trek: Temporal Cold War" fic in this, but, unless you can convince someone to create a speculative animated web-series/podcast about how exactly you'd carry this off successfully...no.
Mannheim Station. An experiment goes awry with the prototype 'Temporal Deflector' & related Top Secret 'temporal displacement' technology, for the soon-to-be-completed U.S.S. Premonition.
Forensic Evidence soon surfaces, leading the CoE investigators & Starfleet Security to believe that it wasn't malicious interference from a current "rogue state", but a curtailing influence from another temporal plane at some point in one of Starfleet's many possible futures.
Mannheim Station. An experiment goes awry with the prototype 'Temporal Deflector' & related Top Secret 'temporal displacement' technology, for the soon-to-be-completed U.S.S. Premonition.
Forensic Evidence soon surfaces, leading the CoE investigators & Starfleet Security to believe that it wasn't malicious interference from a current "rogue state", but a curtailing influence from another temporal plane at some point in one of Starfleet's many possible futures.
