What Might a "Truly New" STAR TREK Be Like?

[FalTorPan]

In every one of its various forms, Star Trek is arguably an action-adventure series set in a somewhat coherent and idealized future as postulated in the 1960s. By being faithful to the original series, even the new Trek movie falls under this description.

What if Star Trek were to be reinvented today? Take the basic concept -- an action-adventure series set in a somewhat coherent and idealized future as postulated in the 2010s. What might the "star" spacecraft look like? How might the characters behave? What would their demographics be? What would the technology be like -- both on and off the ship? What might some of the thinly veiled social commentary consist of?

For example would our heroes continue to lug around bulky flip-open, audio-only personal communication devices, given today's hands-free cell phones? Would our heroes even explore a strange, new world on foot, given today's fledgelilng haptic-feedback and virtual reality technologies?

Esteemed moderators, please don't move this to the "Future of Trek" forum, because this is a purely hypothetical topic. Thanks!

 

[BillJ]

I think the broad strokes would remain the same. Kirk, Spock and McCoy aboard the Enterprise boldly going. I think that technology that would limit danger (like VR suits) would be left aside.

I imagine that they would be striving towards a new world (figuratively) after leaving a bitter, destructive one behind. Ideally the horrors of the Romulan Wars would be fresher in our heroes minds. Could see Kirk as an actual veteran of the just completed conflict. Spock, by resembling a Romulan, would be the outsider (both among humans and Vulcans) always looked upon as a possible traitor due to his species close genetic association to the Romulans. McCoy would have obvious issues towards Spock as his wife and child were killed during a Romulan attack. There would be no Federation, just a loose association of worlds that work together when it benefits them. The Enterprise would probably be relatively unchanged. Scott would be an older, grizzled war veteran. Has served as both an engineer and a leader when called upon.

It would probably be arc driven and much (obviously) darker than prior incarnations.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Star Trek XI and beyond.

 

[FalTorPan]

An example of what I'm talking about is the knowledge of today's technology and the projection of that technology forward some 200 or so years. For example instead of our heroes beaming down with virtually no knowledge of the world that they're about to investigate, why not launch orbital drones and/or aerial drones which can feed all sorts of information back to the ship? When the crew finally sets foot on the planet -- assuming there is any need to do so at all -- they'll already have a pretty good understanding of what the place is like.

 

[RAMA]

An example of what I'm talking about is the knowledge of today's technology and the projection of that technology forward some 200 or so years. For example instead of our heroes beaming down with virtually no knowledge of the world that they're about to investigate, why not launch orbital drones and/or aerial drones which can feed all sorts of information back to the ship? When the crew finally sets foot on the planet -- assuming there is any need to do so at all -- they'll already have a pretty good understanding of what the place is like.

Automation, robots, and nanotech are all highly unrepresented in ST. I'd agree that drones could do a lot of the work before the crew beams down.

RAMA

 

[T'Girl]

idealized future as postulated in the 1960s

much (obviously) darker

Seem like we can have one or the other.

I would much rather have a hero leading the show, instead of a compromised dark unethical individual. No, maybe not the "treadly" way to go, but let's face it, you can only change the basic Star Trek concept just so far before it ceases to be Star Trek and turns into another space ship show, with a group of stranger who possess familiar names.

<OO>

 

[C.E. Evans]

...but let's face it, you can only change the basic Star Trek concept just so far before it ceases to be Star Trek and turns into another space ship show, with a group of stranger who possess familiar names.

This.

There are certain aspects of Trek--you may even call them Trek cliches at this point--that separate Trek from other sci-fi properties. Changing them so that Trek becomes more like those others is simply that (Star Trek done like Starship Troopers, Star Trek done like Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek done like Avatar, etc.).

Another option is to ditch everything that came before and truly start over with a totally blank slate--as if Gene Roddenberry had never created Star Trek at all--and come with all new concepts, characters, and settings. Only the title "Star Trek" will remain, but everything else is fair game.

 

[BillJ]

...but let's face it, you can only change the basic Star Trek concept just so far before it ceases to be Star Trek and turns into another space ship show, with a group of stranger who possess familiar names.

This.

There are certain aspects of Trek--you may even call them Trek cliches at this point--that separate Trek from other sci-fi properties. Changing them so that Trek becomes more like those others is simply that (Star Trek done like Starship Troopers, Star Trek done like Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek done like Avatar, etc.).

I said nothing about Star Trek being done like any other concept. The great thing about the concept is its' flexibility as a storytelling vehicle. But if you don't rethink the universe its' set in and the characters' interaction with that universe... there's no reason to try to retell the story.

Part of my thoughts as I develop ideas for a 'clean' reboot is trying to look at the world from the point of view of those who created Star Trek in the 1960's.

Think about the world as it looked in 1964:

* Less than twenty years after the end of a devastating global conflict.
* There continued to be many small regional conflicts.
* Less than twenty years after the creation of the United Nations... which even then was largely ineffectual.
* Constant threat of nuclear annihilation.

And solutions to many of those elements continue to elude us to this day.

I think those elements make for a fascinating backdrop for a 'transitional' sci-fi drama. Star Trek: The Original Series is far darker than many today give it credit for, shedding light on issues such as rape, weapons of mass destruction and the dire effects of computers taking over our lives.

Another option is to ditch everything that came before and truly start over with a totally blank slate--as if Gene Roddenberry had never created Star Trek at all--and come with all new concepts, characters, and settings. Only the title "Star Trek" will remain, but everything else is fair game.

Then you're using Star Trek as nothing but a brand name.

 

[Cicero]

^ It might be possible to approach that, without losing the essence of Star Trek. If the series' core philosophical positions were retained along with the name, a drastically different universe might be developed without being a complete departure from Star Trek.

Even so, any new Star Trek would almost certainly need to include a few things, at least in broad strokes, if only to fulfill public perceptions of Star Trek: a starship named Enterprise, transporters, aggressive Klingons, warp drive, phasers, and pointy-eared Vulcans.

 

[C.E. Evans]

...but let's face it, you can only change the basic Star Trek concept just so far before it ceases to be Star Trek and turns into another space ship show, with a group of stranger who possess familiar names.

This.

There are certain aspects of Trek--you may even call them Trek cliches at this point--that separate Trek from other sci-fi properties. Changing them so that Trek becomes more like those others is simply that (Star Trek done like Starship Troopers, Star Trek done like Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek done like Avatar, etc.).

I said nothing about Star Trek being done like any other concept.

I wasn't talking to you. I was agreeing with the poster before me.

Another option is to ditch everything that came before and truly start over with a totally blank slate--as if Gene Roddenberry had never created Star Trek at all--and come with all new concepts, characters, and settings. Only the title "Star Trek" will remain, but everything else is fair game.

Then you're using Star Trek as nothing but a brand name.

Exactly. And in a corporate sense--to the current owners of the property, CBS--Trek may very well become that.

 

[RandyS]

Truly New? How about a show about a starship, or Starbase run entirely by Tribbles?

THAT would be truly new.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

What if Star Trek were to be reinvented today?

If modern Hollywood attempted to produce Star Trek today, it would look a lot like Ron Moore's BSG - a lot of navel-gazing self-loathing bullshit. Thank grud modern Hollywood didn't produce Star Trek.

Don't get me wrong, I liked many aspects of Ron Moore's BSG. I just don't think it'll stand the test of time to any degree.

but let's face it, you can only change the basic Star Trek concept just so far before it ceases to be Star Trek and turns into another space ship show, with a group of stranger who possess familiar names.

The question was, what would Star Trek look like if it originated today - I don't think it would be what we recognize as Star Trek at all.

Then you're using Star Trek as nothing but a brand name.

Not even that. Brands do have meaning - otherwise, they would communicate nothing and would have no value. A brand is more than just a stamp that says "buy this." Star Trek has a certain meaning even to the soulless corporate bastards and if they're at all competent at their jobs, they will respect that meaning and the vast amounts of money it is capable of bringing in, if managed properly.

But the thing that Star Trek means isn't something that Hollywood would be capable of producing today. Instead, they'd create another brand and another meaning, something more like Moore's BSG, and one that would have far less ongoing commercial value. Hollywood is wildly out of touch with what people want, other than the most basic notions such as "sex," "humor" or "roller-coaster ride," which is why their successful products are so broad-stroke.

Oh, what is wrong with me, I'm forgetting the OBVIOUS! Star Trek made today would be Star Wars - with the liberal bullshit smothered under layers of commercialism. Characters invented solely to market plastic crap to kids. Plotlines that make no sense because kids don't care about plotlines. Explosions, crazy-ass aliens, and above all NO SEX because we don't want a parental boycott. And to be on the safe side, let's have the cartoon villains leading an army of robots, so our heroes don't upset the kiddies by slaughtering anyone made of flesh and blood.

 

[RandyS]

What if Star Trek were to be reinvented today?

If modern Hollywood attempted to produce Star Trek today, it would look a lot like Ron Moore's BSG - a lot of navel-gazing self-loathing bullshit. Thank grud modern Hollywood didn't produce Star Trek.

Don't get me wrong, I liked many aspects of Ron Moore's BSG. I just don't think it'll stand the test of time to any degree.

Neither do I. Even the original, which is light years ahead of Moore's, is dated, but in that case, it's part of it's charm.

 

[FalTorPan]

Who is to say that a newly made Trek show couldn't be based on an idealized future as projected from today?

 

[sbk1234]

My idea, which I'm sure has been shared with others, was to have a Star Trek anthology show. Have unrelated stories, focusing on different aspects of the Star Trek universe, Federation/non-federation, different time periods, civillians instead of Starfleet, whatever. Have story arcs up to 3-4 episodes, then move onto different characters, periods, etc.
True to Star Trek, but a new way to look at it.
Unfortunately, Paramount never asked for my input.

 

[BillJ]

Who is to say that a newly made Trek show couldn't be based on an idealized future as projected from today?

No one has said that it can't be. But let's be honest... Trek has been down that road. And, as I asked before: If your not changing the dynamics of the universe that the characters inhabit, what's the point?

I've actually started to put more thought into what a modern version of The Original Series would look like and these are the basics that I've come up with...

*Kirk, Spock and McCoy (and the relationship they share) remains relatively unchanged. It is at the heart of what Star Trek is.
*The Enterprise also remains relatively unchanged (as does the tech as depicted from the 1960's). The tech represents the tools that move the story from point A to point B... the tech is not the story (I think Modern Trek lost its way on this point).
*I don't want these characters to all be the same age. Growth and change is at the heart of what we are. When you go to work, is everybody the same age?
*The characters need better defined back-stories. We need to know (through the story) how they got to this place in their collective lives and where they're going.
*The galactic map changes a bit in my notes. Not very detailed as of yet. Have to leave some wiggle room for the story-tellers.
*The evolution of my Earth and it's place among the stars changes drastically. They achieve utopia and find out its' not all its' cracked up to be, which leads back to wars and then ultimately the reach for the stars.
*Push the timeframe in which Star Trek way back (I've been thinking as late as the 33rd century). Don't nail it down to a specific year.

I think Star Trek can exist in a world where things aren't as cut and dry as things have been to this point. By making the universe a bit more "problematic" I believe the Kirk, Spock and McCoy relationship will shine even brighter.

YMMV.

 

[Magellan]

Well realistic sci fi is pretty much dead. No one wants to watch strong AIs, virtual worlds, and otherwise unrecognizable societies. It's almost impossible to predict society beyond about 2030. Even if we could we wouldn't want to watch it. I think if a truly new Star Trek were conceived today it would be very BSG. The modern American aura is pessimistic, unsure and vulnerable. It would be populated by people making tough decisions in los-lose situations. The tech would be basically modern day + space ships because we don't want to conceive a realistic future society, it's terrifying.

 

[FordSVT]

...but let's face it, you can only change the basic Star Trek concept just so far before it ceases to be Star Trek and turns into another space ship show, with a group of stranger who possess familiar names.

This.

There are certain aspects of Trek--you may even call them Trek cliches at this point--that separate Trek from other sci-fi properties. Changing them so that Trek becomes more like those others is simply that (Star Trek done like Starship Troopers, Star Trek done like Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek done like Avatar, etc.).

Another option is to ditch everything that came before and truly start over with a totally blank slate--as if Gene Roddenberry had never created Star Trek at all--and come with all new concepts, characters, and settings. Only the title "Star Trek" will remain, but everything else is fair game.

Yeah, the last thing I'd want is a Jim Kirk stuck in a bottle, fighting his inner demons and slapping women around or some damned thing just to make the show "gritty". You can make an adventure show with spirit and complexity without resorting to making the main characters socially depraved. I'm not saying that was the wrong way to go for BSG, but it's the wrong way to go for Trek, unless it's a mirror universe episode.

A new Trek would have to extrapolate a modern view of the future. There might be a lot more AI, or nano- and bio-technology more present. Human-machine interfaces, etc.

 

[Gaith]

I've said it before, but I'd love to see a "truly new" version of Star Trek...

... on water.

The movie or show would take place on an M-Class planet about Earth's size, and various continents would host the major races, who diverged from a common ancestor before the lands drifted apart: humans, Klingons, Romulans and Vulcans. (Or maybe Vulcans would be a remote part of the human continent.) There'd also be small tribes of the other races.

Anyhow, I see the tech level as being in a Golden Age of Sail state. There'd be naval battles, strange new islands with weird natural phenomena (okay, magic) to explore, etc. The humanist ethos of Trek would be reflected to some degree in the "Federation" fleet, but that empire could also be partly corrupt, and the protagonists of the main ship could then fight for justice inside and outside the Fleet's domains.

Realistically, the only way I see this working financially would be if, after the new moveis run their course, Paramount did a one-off in this style, and sequels if it were popular, much like POTC.

 

[Anji]

Think about how brave TOS was. When it came out in 1966 the world was in complete sociological turmoil. Then Roddenberry and his team had the guts to produce a show that was optimistic and says there were better days ahead and we were going to make it through.

I challenge anyone in science fiction filmaking today to do that! CBS, are you listening???