What post-Nemesis Trek SHOULD be like

[Blamo]

It is the fault of those TNG, DS9, and VOY writers that they created problem solver magical technology to handle the problem that the characters meet. So when they have to leap forward into 25th century, There is nothing to expand anymore, as the technology will become too magical and powerful.

That's why I prefer a complete reboot (new universe, new characters, new everything).

This is one of my main issues also. That and the universe is rather overcooked now, too much continuity.

I'd prefer a reboot to a modernised TOS era, one that diverges into it's own timeline so it's free to do what it wants.Romulans never give the Klingons their cloaking technology? Fine. Federation gets into a war with TOS Cardassians? Fine.

 

[Master Thespian]

This is one of my main issues also. That and the universe is rather overcooked now, too much continuity.

I'd prefer a reboot to a modernised TOS era, one that diverges into it's own timeline so it's free to do what it wants.Romulans never give the Klingons their cloaking technology? Fine. Federation gets into a war with TOS Cardassians? Fine.

Totally agree. TOS era is the most interesting to me since humanity still feels human with all of our flaws, but I want Star Trek to reflect our future and not the future of the 1960's. I want it to be inspirational and aspirational without being magical.

 

[Rahul]

Totally agree. TOS era is the most interesting to me since humanity still feels human with all of our flaws, but I want Star Trek to reflect our future and not the future of the 1960's. I want it to be inspirational and aspirational without being magical.

Eh. This has solely to do with writing, not with the time period the show is set in. New (better!) writer could write better, more human characters for the 24th century. And if we're having bad luck the characters in Discovery might bee stiff and boring, despite the show being set around the same time as Tos.

 

[Jay Everington]

I've always felt a post-Nemesis series would have plenty of stories to tell and I'm not sure why people seem so against the idea. One of Trek's biggest advantages is that you can tell basically any type of story you want within the setting. Whether it's the 22nd or 23rd century, 24th century, or 25th/beyond, the possibilities are endless.

More advanced technology doesn't change that, nor does the time period.

 

[Cheapjack1]

I've always felt a post-Nemesis series would have plenty of stories to tell and I'm not sure why people seem so against the idea. One of Trek's biggest advantages is that you can tell basically any type of story you want within the setting. Whether it's the 22nd or 23rd century, 24th century, or 25th/beyond, the possibilities are endless.

More advanced technology doesn't change that, nor does the time period.

Cop that! lol

 

[Nightdiamond]

In some ways Star Trek wrote itself into a corner, creative wise. Everything has been done or solved. All the big mysteries like time travel, alternate realities, artificial intelligence etc., have been overdone. Every major enemy they've across have been defeated. Today, if they were to do an episode where the crew travels back in time-- the audience reaction; probably "meh".

I'm in favor of leaving some unsolved mysteries just to keep things interesting.

Plus, humans/Federation are seen as always getting along, in an economic/political utopia.The idea of a splintering Federation, or just seeing humans needing money and doing crazy/questionable things to get it in their day to day lives would be interesting to see, but not likely because it would clash with the original theme of the show.

In Voyager, the Maquis and the Starfleet crew were enemies and had to share the same ship, but after a few episodes the tension was gone and everyone got along. So you have the Federation where everyone gets along and there is unlimited abundance, a lot of mysteries are gone, and every major threat has been defeated so far.

.
We're in an age of TV where special effects are at its best, and TV shows are not as squeamish or limited by their content anymore, thanks to cable and streaming. This is the opportunity for some really good Trek.

 

[Rahul]

In some ways Star Trek wrote itself into a corner, creative wise. Everything has been done or solved. All the big mysteries like time travel, alternate realities, artificial intelligence etc., have been overdone. Every major enemy they've across have been defeated. Today, if they were to do an episode where the crew travels back in time-- the audience reaction; probably "meh".

That's pretty much what you could have argued against TNG. You know, Kirk already did ALL those things. So why bother with doing them again? Worked out all right in the end, didn't it?

That mindset kinda' reminds me of the story that Albert Einstein was repeatedly told not to study physics, because everything has already been done or solved...

It's not like there aren't any more stories to tell about time travel, alternate realities, artificial intelligence etc., right? I mean, that's all been done already, right? So why bother with science fiction at all at this point, we've seen it all already. RIGHT??

 

[Nightdiamond]

That's pretty much what you could have argued against TNG. You know, Kirk already did ALL those things. So why bother with doing them again? Worked out all right in the end, didn't it?

That mindset kinda' reminds me of the story that Albert Einstein was repeatedly told not to study physics, because everything has already been done or solved...

It's not like there aren't any more stories to tell about time travel, alternate realities, artificial intelligence etc., right? I mean, that's all been done already, right? So why bother with science fiction at all at this point, we've seen it all already. RIGHT??

The problem is the way Trek told the stories. It tended to keep plugging in its old formula into the concepts, and in the end, the popularity waned. 2 movies failed and a show was canceled. It could have been for many reasons, but I think this might be a strong reason behind it.

Don't get me wrong, I love exploring new possibilities and the "why not?" attitude. I could be completely wrong on this, but I still think a new series using the old series formulas is doing it at its own peril.

Showing a hologram, android, or smart computer may not excite us the way it once did. Showing a telepath that can read minds may not be seen as interesting anymore. Episodes where the crew goes inside a person's mind and see their memories or such, how many times has it been done. Evil villain with huge ship and technology--it failed a couple of times.

When TNG continue to air time travel episodes after TOS, the concept was still relatively fresh and mysterious. When DS9 continued with it after TNG and TOS, it was still somewhat fresh. When Voyager continued with it after TOS, TNG, and DS9, that's was the beginning of the breaking point, the Trek franchise fatigue. I think it was a real thing.

Insurrection, Nemesis, Voyager and Enterprise had elements of all those things. The ideas themselves aren't boring, it was how Trek had stretched and overdone them that might have brought on the fatigue.

 

[Jay Everington]

You're not wrong, but at the same time I don't think that was why two movies failed and a show was cancelled. That was more over saturation than anything. At one point you had TNG still on the air, DS9 starting off, Generations being developed, and shortly after that Voyager premiering.

Trek as a franchise overextended itself. Granted, there were creative issues like you mentioned, but even if there hadn't been, the mainstream interest was always bound to fade after a certain point due to the sheer amount of material being released. I mean, from 1993 to 2002 there were four movies and three TV series. There's bound to be fatigue after that.

I do think Trek needs to reset itself creatively (not a reboot, I mean exploring new ways to tell stories in the Star Trek universe) if it ever wants a successful TV series again. I'm hoping Discovery can do this, but I have my doubts given the production starts and stops it's had. That tells me CBS might not be fully behind it; or worse, that they're going to want to micro-manage it and not let the producers do the show the way they want. One of the reasons DS9 is so highly regarded today is because the producers were basically allowed to do as they pleased with little interference from the studio/networks. That wasn't the case with VOY and certainly wasn't with ENT. I fear it will again be the case with Discovery.

In many ways it's a shame it's taken this long to get Trek back on TV simply because this is something of a golden era for TV in terms of well produced, high quality shows. I feel Trek is tailor-made for this environment. It just takes an open mind (which, let's be honest, a certain segment of the Trek fan base has ironically always struggled with) and the right vision and platform for the show.

 

[Rahul]

The problem is the way Trek told the stories. It tended to keep plugging in its old formula into the concepts, and in the end, the popularity waned. 2 movies failed and a show was canceled. It could have been for many reasons, but I think this might be a strong reason behind it.

Don't get me wrong, I love exploring new possibilities and the "why not?" attitude. I could be completely wrong on this, but I still think a new series using the old series formulas is doing it at its own peril.

Showing a hologram, android, or smart computer may not excite us the way it once did. Showing a telepath that can read minds may not be seen as interesting anymore. Episodes where the crew goes inside a person's mind and see their memories or such, how many times has it been done. Evil villain with huge ship and technology--it failed a couple of times.

When TNG continue to air time travel episodes after TOS, the concept was still relatively fresh and mysterious. When DS9 continued with it after TNG and TOS, it was still somewhat fresh. When Voyager continued with it after TOS, TNG, and DS9, that's was the beginning of the breaking point, the Trek franchise fatigue. I think it was a real thing.

Insurrection, Nemesis, Voyager and Enterprise had elements of all those things. The ideas themselves aren't boring, it was how Trek had stretched and overdone them that might have brought on the fatigue.

Oh, you are absolutely right that the way TNG-era Trek tod stories had become repetitive and by-the-numbers. But the reasons for that were the writers and producers that stayed the same and kept repeating the same things.

A new, fresh set of writers absolutely can find new and interesting angles to all those things. And there is no reason why they couldn't do this in a post-NEM setting. Granted, it wouldn't feel like a continuiation of TNG. But that's precicesly the goal! Continue the story, and find new and interesting angles to it.

 

[Vger23]

Oh, you are absolutely right that the way TNG-era Trek tod stories had become repetitive and by-the-numbers. But the reasons for that were the writers and producers that stayed the same and kept repeating the same things.

A new, fresh set of writers absolutely can find new and interesting angles to all those things. And there is no reason why they couldn't do this in a post-NEM setting. Granted, it wouldn't feel like a continuiation of TNG. But that's precicesly the goal! Continue the story, and find new and interesting angles to it.

Based on everything you have said in this thread, essentially the setting and timeframe are irrelevant if the writing addresses the issues with high quality stories and characters.

So, why does it matter that it be set post-Nemesis?

I think the argument, all things being equal, is that there's a bland and antiseptic stigma about 24th century Trek that, regardless of writing strategy and talent, I'd rather avoid altogether. Give me the cowboy diplomacy of Kirk's era any day with those same talented and fearless writers, and it's a more appealing show to me.

...and avoid Game of Thrones in Space / Alpha Quadrent Political Turmoil premises...or an onslaught of sadly predictable and yawn-inducing morally ambiguous anti-heroes, and we have a deal.

 

[Nightdiamond]

I'll use myself as an example of a typical trek viewer. Not a fanatic or nitpicky. Just things I noticed. In the middle of watching Voyager, I felt something was wrong. It felt flat like something was missing. Not enough to abandon the show, but it never had the same "must see" affect that TNG and DS9 had.

The time travel stories, didn't seem intriguing, anymore. And I noticed Voyager had a lot of them. Episodes about mind powers, like what happened to Kes--no interest. The ascended humanoid thing just didn't seem exciting. Being able to possess another person's body? nope... Intelligent holograms-artificial intelligence, its uniqueness seemed like something from the past. The Borg-the same reaction.

And then when the last 2 movies came out, like Nemesis--I had the same reaction. It had a scene where Shinzon invades Troi's mind. How many times had that been done.....or the big bad menacing ship battle at the end...been done in every TNG movie. I think it was right to describe it as oversaturation and franchise fatigue. I agree the writers will have to reset certain things in order to make a new series seem fresh and exciting again.

For some reason, whenever I think about a pre TOS or Kelvin based series, I just get that same feeling for some reason. It's totally not fair, I know, but I think it comes from being disappointed so far. I think many fans are skeptical, even cynical at this point.

 

[Rahul]

Based on everything you have said in this thread, essentially the setting and timeframe are irrelevant if the writing addresses the issues with high quality stories and characters.

Yep! That's exactly right!

So, why does it matter that it be set post-Nemesis?

Because everything else would be either:

a) a prequel or
b) a reboot

And I don't like that.
I'm immensely against prequels. I'll go watch Discovery, but simply from a storytelling point the writers will have the same limitations that already plagued Enterprise. Kirk's story has been told. I don't care how "we got there". I want the story to continue. I want new stories, that involve the holodeck, because it's a popcultural icon and scientific aspiration. I want to see the Borg agan (although in a smaller role), maybe a small visit to Cardassia, the Dominion or Bajor.

But most of all: I want to see NEW stuff.

New aliens, that no one has ever seen before (and especially are not ancient history to Picard). Aliens that are so strange, our heroes have never seen anything like that. I want NEW stuff.

Also: I don't want to know how it ends. I don't know what happens to the major characters of Discovery (or knew at the time about Archer and co.'s fate). But we always knew how the major storylines would play out: The Federation would be victorious. There would be peace with the klingons. The Andorians would join the Federation. None of the places (or characters) that appear later could be harmed. I don't want that limitations. I want the story to go on. To be able to go in ALL possible directions.

I don't want to endlessly repeat the same story beats and characters.
I want Trek to move forward!

I think the argument, all things being equal, is that there's a bland and antiseptic stigma about 24th century Trek that, regardless of writing strategy and talent, I'd rather avoid altogether. Give me the cowboy diplomacy of Kirk's era any day with those same talented and fearless writers, and it's a more appealing show to me.

...and avoid Game of Thrones in Space / Alpha Quadrent Political Turmoil premises...or an onslaught of sadly predictable and yawn-inducing morally ambiguous anti-heroes, and we have a deal.

Nothing says that couldn't happen in the 24th century. I have always been more a fan of the style of TOS as well, the adventerous tone, the monsters, the colors. In fact, quite to the contrary, it looks like Discovery will bring TNG-era aesthetics and "blandness" stigmas into the 23rd century, Kirk's era. There's no reason a more TOS-vibe couldn't happen in the 24th century, given capable writers and producers. But Trek would be going forward again, for the first time in 15 years!

 

[Tenacity]

New aliens, that no one has ever seen before (and especially are not ancient history to Picard). Aliens that are so strange, our heroes have never seen anything like that. I want NEW stuff.

Okay, but I don't see why that can't be in the time period of Discovery just as easily as in the 25th century.

About the only thing they can't use is the credible threat of the destruction of the Federation, and I for one will welcome that tired old chestnut's absence.

 

[fireproof78]

Okay, but I don't see why that can't be in the time period of Discovery just as easily as in the 25th century.

About the only thing they can't use is the credible threat of the destruction of the Federation, and I for one will welcome that tired old chestnut's absence.

I also disagree that the outcome is known. We certainly didn't know for certain that Archer and company survived their adventure because-guess what?-we had never heard of them before in other iterations. Plus, having the Time War could have genuinely allowed them to disappear from history while preserving the Federation's existence.

The time period is not a restriction of storytelling. It's an opportunity to work within the parameters of the world while being creative and showing something new. DSC could do that just as well as a post-NEM series could.

 

[Rahul]

Okay, but I don't see why that can't be in the time period of Discovery just as easily as in the 25th century.

About the only thing they can't use is the credible threat of the destruction of the Federation, and I for one will welcome that tired old chestnut's absence.

No.
It's not just the "destruction of the Federation" that's impossible in a prequel setting. It's ANY unforeseen major development that cannot take place! They either have to invent a totally new species we have never seen before and create a continuity nightmare - see the Xindi - or they have story arcs with well-known species, of which the outcomes then are 100% known well in advance - see the Vulcan/Andoria/Romulus/Augments/Klingon arcs on Enterprise. Add to that that even a totally unique thing like the cristalline entity or the Doomsday device could never have any meaningful impact or change to the universe, und you have a stale, shallow shadow of the possibilities that make the Star Trek universe interesting.

There are thousands of reasons to avoid prequels or reboots. But if you are interested in that topic there are already hundreds of threads about those disadvantages.

That's why Star Trek - if it ever intends to be relevant again - needs to one day progress into the future again, beyond overly familiar territory, beyond Nemesis. Wether it's immediately afterwards, real-time later (for example during the alternate future of "All good things..."), or another hundred or two hundred years into the future is irrelevant.

Important is that Star Trek shakes off it's notoriously conservative storytelling of reboots and prequels. That's the main reason to do a post-Nemesis show.

 

[Tenacity]

No.

TOS presented us with a tiny little slice of three years in the 23rd century.

Yes, totally new species can (hopefully) be created and developed, instead of focusing on the same old worn-out Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians, etc.

The Xindi showed that new and interesting species can be created out of whole cloth, the Andorians in ENT took a little known existing species and fleshed them out into major players. We never heard of Phlox's species before, yet a wonderful main character was born out of careful effort on the part of the writers.

Discovery's adventure could lay waste to significant areas of the Federation, the only limit would be not completely reducing it to the point that whatever is left is not incompatible with what TOS had ten years later.

There's a lot about Kirk's time that we don't know about, much less ten years before.

 

[Vger23]

No.

TOS presented us with a tiny little slice of three years in the 23rd century.

Yes, totally new species can (hopefully) be created and developed, instead of focusing on the same old worn-out Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians, etc.

The Xindi showed that new and interesting species can be created out of whole cloth, the Andorians in ENT took a little known existing species and fleshed them out into major players. We never heard of Phlox's species before, yet a wonderful main character was born out of careful effort on the part of the writers.

Discovery's adventure could lay waste to significant areas of the Federation, the only limit would be not completely reducing it to the point that whatever is left is not incompatible with what TOS had ten years later.

There's a lot about Kirk's time that we don't know about, much less ten years before.

Good post.

 

[fireproof78]

No.
It's not just the "destruction of the Federation" that's impossible in a prequel setting. It's ANY unforeseen major development that cannot take place! They either have to invent a totally new species we have never seen before and create a continuity nightmare - see the Xindi - or they have story arcs with well-known species, of which the outcomes then are 100% known well in advance - see the Vulcan/Andoria/Romulus/Augments/Klingon arcs on Enterprise. Add to that that even a totally unique thing like the cristalline entity or the Doomsday device could never have any meaningful impact or change to the universe, und you have a stale, shallow shadow of the possibilities that make the Star Trek universe interesting.

There are thousands of reasons to avoid prequels or reboots. But if you are interested in that topic there are already hundreds of threads about those disadvantages.

That's why Star Trek - if it ever intends to be relevant again - needs to one day progress into the future again, beyond overly familiar territory, beyond Nemesis. Wether it's immediately afterwards, real-time later (for example during the alternate future of "All good things..."), or another hundred or two hundred years into the future is irrelevant.

Important is that Star Trek shakes off it's notoriously conservative storytelling of reboots and prequels. That's the main reason to do a post-Nemesis show.

I don't think doing a prequel means returning to "conservative storytelling." If anything, the post TNG era was notoriously formulaic. I think the post Nemesis era runs of the risk of too magical of tech to be relatable to the audience. DSC, as a prequel, can go to a variety of places that TOS never touched upon.

By the way, if TOS is dead and devoid of storytelling and relevant plots, then why is Star Trek Phase 2 and Star Trek Continues still among the most popular fan series?

 

[Rahul]

TOS presented us with a tiny little slice of three years in the 23rd century.

Yeah, but that "tiny little slice" had a massive amount of backdrop. Like the whole Federation thingy...

The Xindi showed that new and interesting species can be created out of whole cloth

And together with the fan backlash over continuity snarls, the ratings dropped massively and the next season had every episode's budget cut by half and was four episodes shorter, and had the show cancelled a year later.I liked the Xindi arc. But it was severly hurt by the prequel setting of the series.

Discovery's adventure could lay waste to significant areas of the Federation

No it could absolutely not... and you know that...

There's a lot about Kirk's time that we don't know about, much less ten years before.

But again: That's just filling out the gaps. There might be some good stories here and there, and I hope Discovery is has more success finding them than Enterprise did, but again:

There are MASSIVE problems with prequels. Chief among them that many people simply don't like them. That's kind of a problem if you are dependend on many people watching your show...