Where should Star Trek go next if going forward?

Honestly, it's been so long since Trek actually had something significant to say, that I'm not really concerned about that kind of thing. All I want is good futuristic sci-fi with a more optimistic attitude and in the end that was exactly what we got from Disco. It did go to some pretty dark places, but in the end we did get the more peaceful optimistic approach that Trek is known for.

 

I still think space is relevant, just to a lesser degree, and there's more enthusiasm for private space ventures.

I concur.

Wakanda is an optimistic work of fiction, and that didn't stop Black Panther from making truck loads of money. I suspect there is a market for optimism, especially in a cynical age.

 

It would have been a lot easier to respect (if not agree with) Discovery if the production had said that while the show would be in the general Star Trek theme, it would be a new take, new interpretation from what came before

Some of these are projecting.

Carol Marcus in TWOK spoke of "problems of population and food supply."
**
Spock in TWTE said "There are many who are uncomfortable with what we have created. It is almost a biological rebellion. A profound revulsion against the planned communities, the programming, the sterilized, artfully balanced atmospheres."

Dissent within the Federation, one person's paradise is another person's restricted stifling prison.

I personally wouldn't advocate a primarily political Star Trek, but the show could occasionally venture into that area.
**
Privacy, does a advanced society have it, or even want it?.
**
Piracy, we've heard of pirates. Also heard of slavery.
**
The opioid crisis (a different substance in the show).
**
Inequality in income-opportunity-access. The assumption (among some fans) is that the Federation is flawless and perfect, let's explore the actuality behind that.
**
Does the Federation in fact have poverty? The women Mudd was transporting didn't make it sound like their original homes were fantastic.
**
Endless wars, hot wars, cold wars, imminent wars, animosity from old wars. Either up front, or suggested in the background, the Federation seemingly is near constantly at war or near war. And sometimes there can be multiple disconnected wars going on. Peace is temporary. What effects does that this on a Starfleet?
**
Scotty remarked in ST Darkness "aren't we explorers?" When a ship is suddenly pull off catching butterfly to dive into combat, let's hear what the ship's company feel about it.
**
Picard spoke of the war with the Cardassians costing millions of lives. If the Federation did have a population of a trillion, proportionally for them to lose a million people would be like the United States losing 320 people.
**
Many people in modern day countries are day to day semi-oblivious to the existence of their military unless something major happens. Are Starfleet officers on the minds of the regular folks, or just something that's "out there" somewhere.

Burnham: "I'm with Starfleet."
Citizen: "Excuse me?"
Burnham: "STARFLEET."
**
Does patriotism and nationalism play a part in the Federation, and are they felt to be good things?
**
Immigration, migration, uncontrolled migration. How badly do the people outside the Federation want in? And is it part of Starfleet job to stop it?
**
Brexit. It almost sounds like some members of the European Union want the UK to be punished for leaving the EU. Is this what would happen with the Federation if a member choice to leave? Let's have a story where some member does leave and explore how that works and what the others who remain feel and do about it.
**
Fans have debated having children on starships that are (in all but name) warships. Have the proposal to include children for the first time on starship be something Starfleet is considering, and have the characters hash it out.

 

This is true. That's why the optimism of Trek needs to balanced with some realistic portrayals of characters and tech or else it falls flat.

That's why I think a reboot could be beneficial, as it could allow technology to be imagined from current developments, and imaging where tech could go from there.

At least, that's my ideal.

 

@fireproof78, I agree, but we must be careful with "realism". Hollywood is founded on the idea of making things appear real when they're not. Making characters too much like reality can make them, ironically, unrelatable and unlikable. Real humans can be inscrutable and you usually have a lot more time to understand where they're coming from. Thus, any good portrayal will always be slightly simplified and a bit more likable than the average person.

Furthermore, realism is not the same thing as grimdark. Grimdark can be just as unrealistic as unearned optimism. A show where no one ever makes a joke or cracks a smile is not realistic, because the characters would go stark raving mad half way through the series.

Also, even when characters are done well, one can't fall into the trap of having people not work well together because...uh...DRAMA! The Misunderstanding is an overused trope, and there's something to be said for actual camaraderie. This is one of the reasons some people didn't like the Discovery pilot: they didn't feel the bonds that would have naturally form amongst the crew after years of working together.

 

See, the problem with the idea of "realism" in Trek is this: To someone from 300 years in the past, we seem to be living in a utopia already. Many fatal diseases have been cured, or at least have treatments. Your chances of being horribly murdered are substantially lower. Even the poor live at a standard of living above what would pass as the upper-middle class at that time. Even among those who are working class, relatively few do back-breaking, physically dangerous labor - and that number continues to drop due to automation.

What hasn't changed of course is human nature. Culture, however, has changed in some ways. We don't look to respond to violence against our families with deadly force any longer - we trust the law to do it for us, for example. But on the whole, people are just as fallible in the 21st century as they were in the 18th. And they will be just as fallible in the 24th century as well.

Thus I think a realistic portrayal of the 24th century would be, by our standards, utopian. Nearly everything we consider "work" today would be done by super-intelligent AI. Crime would be much lower, but perhaps not totally eliminated. People will live longer and healthier lives. Material want may be largely abolished. But people will still (absent significant genetic modification affecting personalities) be pretty much the same as they are today.

 

Who is asking for grimdark? I despite grimdark in most of its forms and can accept unearned optimism more easily than grimdark in a production.

 

I didn't mean you specifically, so much as I was making a general point of conversation. When someone talks about "realism" in television and film, they can mean different things, and I just wanted to explore that.

I'd like to think that people will be different to some extent because of different social climates and education. For example, I would think that racism will be greatly diminished, at least in its current form.

 

However, a study of history will show that some problems recur, except on a greater scale. Technology could potentially accentuated the problem too.

 

An interesting retcon to deal with the lack of many non-humanoid sentients in the Trekverse would be if the Federation is racist towards non-humanoids.

 

Stinking Heptapods!

 

Continuing to hate "the other" is part of the human condition that will likely not be eliminated but continuously needing to be combated in newer frontiers.

 

There's a lot we don't know about the ST 24th century. Next Gen only shows us the ideal aspects of its society. It doesn't show us any problems that exist and humans being humans some issues must exist. For instance, we see technology all over the place but there is no mention of hackers and opportunists who manipulate that tech to their own gains. Crime may be much lower but material want still exists. There are plenty of humans who still chase profit in the 24th century. Since people no longer have to work does that create a large population of slackers who just live off of society and spend all their time in holodecks? Not everyone will be Picard who nobly wants to improve and enrich himself.
I agree that people will still be pretty much like they are today. Certain attitudes may change but even Khan after coming out of 200 years of cryogenic sleep comments that although technology has advanced, humans have not changed very much.

 

There are no opportunists, slackers or malcontents in the 24th century.

Want to join star fleet but there aren’t enough places?

Want to spend your life slothing on the Holodeck?

Feel your opportunities are being curtailed by the homogeneous utopian philosophy?

Just take two of these with food five times a day and you’ll soon fit right in. Tending flower beds at the Academy, picking pockets for tourists in Paris, serving drinks in a bar in Iowa. Everyone can find their happy in the Federation, but if you can’t, we’ll find it for you.

 

I, too, wonder what was behind the façade of the ideal society of 24th century TNG. No need to work, free food on demand from the replicators, sin city in the holodecks, etc. Sounds decadent. And with all that free time, what about societal complacency?

Also, what is the saying about idle hands? It is a recipe for mischief and criminal activity. And since they are still human in the 24th century, wouldn't they still have their share of megalomaniacs, rabble-rousers, would-be tyrants, con artists, and trouble makers? How did TNG solve all these issues?

 

Perhaps there is a frontier that serves as a safety valve?

 

Couldn't resist:


Probably should have...