Choose as many responses as you like, but keep in mind, for every response you choose, you're saying that anything calling itself "Star Trek" must include your response(s). If someone makes a convincing counterargument, you can change your responses.
I opted for all of them except established characters (DS9 was great and didn't continue established characters) and "advanced science". I don't feel that Trek has generally done well when pushing more toward hard science. I wouldn't mind that, I just don't consider it a requirement.
Other: Commitment to use tropes of science fiction to explore aspects of current politics and society. Commitment to present diversity and explore the conditions of minorities. Commitment to humanism is a general sense. Desire to show progress and how it can be achieved. The desire to enterain me.
I just chose the name "Star Trek" option. None of the other choices are absolutely make-or-break for a Trek show in my opinion. A lot of them would be nice to include, but with good reason and storytelling they aren't a necessity. Especially the more specialized a spin-off may be.
Action/adventure framework with optimistic attitude and possible social commentary. Being entertaining. The rest is just details.
Bright promising future, exploration of advanced science. Without those, it can be pretty much anything on TV.
Not even that. Enterprise (for two and a half seasons) went without a Star Trek name and was considered Star Trek. None of the current crop of shows seems to be dropping the Star Trek title, but if Section 31, or some other future spin-off decides to forego it, it will still be Star Trek.
Very good question, for me these are the most important points. You can have episodes without some of them, but not without all of them. -Exploration of current or hypothetical issues. This can happen as an allegory or showing an alien race with similar issues or on other ways, but the important part is that it makes you think. -Coherency/believability. Star Trek is not a fantasy land where anything can happen, it should remain mostly consistent with itself and with the real world. Of course it’s also a 50 year old franchise, so slip ups are understandable and can even be fun to try and explain them. -Being entertaining. There are several different ways to do this, but an episode should be able to hook you. If it’s plodding and boring (or, on the other hand, so filled with action that you no longer care) something is not right. I’ve left the most important point for last... -A bright and promising future, showing a humanity that has improved. This is something I’m really enjoying on lower decks, where the federation people invariably react in much more benign way than one might expect and am missing a lot on discovery and Picard, where everyone seems broken and nasty.
I voted The Name Star Trek and Other. Other for me is whether or not I like it. If I like it, it's Star Trek. If I don't, it's Abrams Filth. I mean, not Star Trek.
Besides sci-fi drama, the only things one needs to make Star Trek, Star Trek is futuristic looking technology, a commitment to an inclusive future, and an acknowledgement that hope ebbs and flows.
Star Trek is many different things to many different people. Being set in the basic “Star Trek” setting is good enough for me, and then it’s all a judgement on whether or not it appeals to me personally. But I don’t get to judge what is and is not Star Trek. I can decide if I like it or not....but I don’t have the power to declare it otherwise.
Any officially licensed program with the name Star Trek is Star Trek. The rest is just butthurt fanboism.
Let's look at these one-by-one. 1. "Further adventures of established characters" --> No. That would've ruled out TNG in 1987 and ruled it out hard. For that matter, it would rule out VOY, ENT, and (to a lesser degree) DSC. Only DS9 and PIC had already established characters in the main cast. 2. "A bright, promising future" --> No. This would rule out DS9, DSC, and PIC. 3. "Exploration of advanced science" --> No. I don't think any of the series -- as a whole -- would make the cut. TOS wasn't just about advanced science. With the rest of the series: there's a fine line between science and technobabble or fantasy. Late-TNG and VOY are the worst culprits when it comes to technobabble. 4. "More and different alien cultures" --> No. Even though it's the way it should be, too many cultures are stand-ins for Humans. Too many where we can't use it as a standard to say, "This is Star Trek." 5. "More and different locations" --> No. That would rule out bottle shows in all of the series. 6. "The name "Star Trek"" --> Yes. Star Trek is broad enough that it can accommodate a lot of things so long as it's primarily a show or movie where space is involved somehow.
Star Trek is a franchise that can accommodate a large variety of concepts and still maintain its core identity, which is a real strength of the concept. Legally speaking, of course, any product with the Star Trek name produced by its license holders would qualify, but there are characteristics which serve to define anything, and that goes beyond legalities. For Star Trek, I would say the most important factor is that it represents Roddenberry's vision of an optimistic future where humanity has grown to be better, not just as individuals, but as a species -- where we have learned to accept our differences and embrace the wonders life has to offer, always striving to improve ourselves and our knowledge of the universe. I know some people feel that Deep Space Nine didn't live up to this vision, but I disagree. Yes, it dealt with darker material than Trek prior had (or more accurately dealt with material in a darker way), and it tested the heroes' principles, asking of them and us if those principles could be held on to in times of crisis, but it was hopeful for the future, and those heroes who got their hands dirty never became dirty themselves. Of course, that's just my two cents worth. For what it's worth.
This. Star Trek is about people, the "science" is just there as a motivator for the story being told.
I think this becomes a problem more often than it should, people getting caught up in the set dressings of a franchise and overlooking what makes it work in the first place. Star Trek's science, aliens, and technology are as much of a facilitator to allow for the story and character exploration as Superman's powers are. They are an integral part of the setting, but they are there to serve the story, not the other way around.
None of the above. Going through each of these options in the poll: - Its not disqualifying to see further adventures of established characters, since it is good to see what becomes of both the heroes and villains of the stories. But it does not accurately define Star Trek. - DS9 broke that rule and built towards an anti-Trek theme with the Dominion War, and is considered one of the best Treks. - If that were true, there would not be any complaints regarding technobabble on VOY. - No. A lot of the best ST episode have to do with exploring humans. - There does get to a point where there is too much ‘alien of the week’. There is a reason Star Trek’s main focus has been Vulcans, Klingons, Romulan, Cardassians & Borg, with Ferengi, Bajorian, & the Dominion mixed in for decades; they are the best mirrors of humanity. - No to needing the Star Trek name. Enterprise initially did not carry the Star Trek name at all. Which actually made sense, since it was supposed to explore Star Trek before TOS. And there are many that feel The Orville is more Star Trek than the Kurtzman-era shows, even though The Orville is not a part of the Star Trek Universe and the Kurtzman-era shows are. In order for a show to be Star Trek, I think a space adventure of some sort is key. I think a sense of optimism and positive outcomes the majority of the time as an end goal is key. Some sort of problem or mystery needs to be overcome as well. And relationship dynamics among the characters is also important. And I think it has to be smart, but not so smart that it goes over your head; a mature kind of smart. There is a general feel about Star Trek that generally isn’t felt in other sci-fi shows.