Where should Star Trek go next if going forward?
- Thread starter SKTVillain
- Start date
^ I'd be happy with a full reboot, if they were honest and said it was such, and then made it something new and original. I could appreciate it as a separate entity within its own universe and stories to tell about a new crew.
Especially as a way to imagine possible implications of technology being developed today.
I'd suspect that they'd do away with consoles altogether and just have everyone implanted with a device to control the ship mentally.
They'd never do that because it's a TV show and watching people concentrate really hard isn't very visually interesting. Pressing buttons on complicated control panels is.
In "The Visitor" Dax and Bashir commented on how they'd gotten by on 2D interfaces, so 3D terminals and displays could be an option--though maybe not a Legend of the Rangers weapons station 
That was the worst of the worstIn "The Visitor" Dax and Bashir commented on how they'd gotten by on 2D interfaces, so 3D terminals and displays could be an option--though maybe not a Legend of the Rangers weapons station
Personally, I'd like a series which is set in the Trekverse but - similar to DS9 - breaks away from the trope of following the crew of a Federation starship as it travels the quadrant. There are lots of possibilities here for settings, including:
Seriously though - there are a million and one potential stories within Trek canon. Why do we (nearly) always see it through a single lens?
- Following the adventures of a freighter/trading ship
- Following a non-Federation ship
- Having a series focused on a single planet (which could be anything from Earth to Qo'Nos to some random isolated colony
- Having a truly "protagonist-focused show" where the setting drifts as we follow the character
- Perhaps a Starfleet Academy based show (barfs)
Seriously though - there are a million and one potential stories within Trek canon. Why do we (nearly) always see it through a single lens?
Book, copyright 2018. Videocracy by Kevin Allocca. Quoting:
"...a 2007 presentation by director J.J. Abrams titled 'The Mystery Box', in which he used an unopened box of magician's props he purchased many years ago as a metaphor for a storytelling device. To Abrams, the contents were not nearly as intriguing as the mystery and the enigma of the box that contained them. The talk was prior to his big-screen blockbuster forays, in the midst of the run of Lost, a popular television show he created that I had come to love and hate at the same time. Centering on a group of stranded plane crash victims on a mysterious island, Lost could be incredibly addicting (and infuriating) in its constant string of questions presented to the viewer. What is the island? What is the smoke monster? How is everyone so goddam attractive all the time despite being in a sweaty shower less jungle? And as Lost answered various questions, it would present new ones. 'I realized that mystery is the catalyst for imagination,' Abrams said in his talk, reflecting on the concept of the 'mystery box' thought his work. 'I started to think that maybe there are times when mystery is more important than knowledge.'..."
"...a 2007 presentation by director J.J. Abrams titled 'The Mystery Box', in which he used an unopened box of magician's props he purchased many years ago as a metaphor for a storytelling device. To Abrams, the contents were not nearly as intriguing as the mystery and the enigma of the box that contained them. The talk was prior to his big-screen blockbuster forays, in the midst of the run of Lost, a popular television show he created that I had come to love and hate at the same time. Centering on a group of stranded plane crash victims on a mysterious island, Lost could be incredibly addicting (and infuriating) in its constant string of questions presented to the viewer. What is the island? What is the smoke monster? How is everyone so goddam attractive all the time despite being in a sweaty shower less jungle? And as Lost answered various questions, it would present new ones. 'I realized that mystery is the catalyst for imagination,' Abrams said in his talk, reflecting on the concept of the 'mystery box' thought his work. 'I started to think that maybe there are times when mystery is more important than knowledge.'..."
Because that's what we have been given for so many years.
Why not a series focused on an insurance claims adjuster in the 25th century (need to make it post-Nemesis, for sure)? That would be awesome and different.
Well, duh.
Seriously though. I have seen people in this very thread argue that we should throw canon and all the world-building out the window, and just tell a new series of stories unencumbered by the past. This seems to me to be wrongheaded, because the Trek corpus in a way is a character of its own.
I mean, consider the flaws of Voyager as a series which were caused by the "reset button." Since characters didn't really grow over time, and nothing had any lasting consequences, the amount of stories they could tell was constrained. Instead of building on what came before, they kept having to come up with new wacky ideas for an adventure of the week. Often these were derivative of older episodes. Even when they didn't, they often came across as uninspired. In contrast, DS9 developed its characters to such an extent that there were whole later episodes which were devoted to guest-stars, following up on events which happened in earlier seasons. They didn't run out of stories, because they had created so much to work off of already.
Trek's biggest asset is that the hundreds of hours of production provide a rich backing tapestry - meaning someone doesn't need to reinvent the wheel with entirely new races, technology, and historical events. Instead they can use the setting pretty much as it is, and focus on the same things which non-genre TV focuses on - developing compelling characters to operate within this universe. The story hooks are just sitting there, waiting to be expanded upon.
If it came down to another prequel or a full reboot, I'd rather get a reboot.
At the risk of sounding too much like an ass, then write them. I have discovered different layers of Star Trek that I want to write in to, rather than just waiting for the PTB to write it.
Want to know why? I'm writing for the fun of it. It isn't my job, my career, my livelihood on the line. Production companies have a completely different outlook, that the past of a series is as much a hook as it is an anchor. They are afraid, genuinely, afraid of changing it because that could mean lost revenue.
And here is the other thing-rarely are they proven wrong. DS9 is the exception, not the rule, and it certainly wasn't embraced with open arms. VOY and ENT both fell back on tried and true formulas, from the reset button, to having the "Big 3" rather than a full ensemble.
Abrams Trek comes along, is financially successful, and tore asunder by the fan base. At some point in time, the risk-reward calculations are going bear out that change isn't viable. I'm hoping that DISCO at least proves viability.
Alright, everyone sufficiently depressed yet? Ok, good. Now, in my opinion, I generally agree with you. I want compelling characters within this universe, but I don't want to worry about every single piece of minutia especially regarding the technology. That's why a reboot appeals to me is because current level of technology has advanced to a place that, frankly, isn't reflected in Star Trek style tech. Yes, there are warp drives, transporters, and other, more far fetch tech. But, the computers feel dated, the approach to technology feels very surreal, and the longer term implications of some tech are simply unexplored.
Do I want this rich tapestry to continue? Yes, I do. But I there is zero consensus on where to go or what to do, and while I see a desire to move forward, more often than not, I see more desire to stay the same.
See, I feel like a reboot takes the wrong lesson from Trek. I mean, divorce Trek from its history, and what do you have? A bunch of people who are the crew on a Starfleet vessel do things and have adventures. This is the format for all of the shows besides DS9. It's been done to death, IMHO.
VOY and ENT did largely fall back on the formula, it is true. What's notable however is they tried to do something different, and quickly failed for reasons which aren't entirely clear even from the postmortems.
VOY went to the Delta Quadrant, in part in an effort to distinguish itself from TNG and tell new stories. It ended up telling the same stories - either with new races taking the place of old ones, or in some cases because despite the distance the writers decided to write a Klingon or Romulan episode anyway. They also infamously introduced the Federation/Maquis conflict and them promptly ignored it.
ENT had the promise of doing something new as well, given it was a prequel setting. However, it couldn't resist the temptation of falling back into the formula, which is how we ended up with Ferengi and Borg a century before we were supposed to. Then it basically decided to throw canon out the window in the 3rd season with the Xindi before going total fanwank in the last season (which had its limitations, but at least they were finally trying to do something with the prequel premise).
I am not optimistic about the future of DIS in terms of telling a new type of story within Trek. As the season went on, you could visibly see retooling - for example the show moving away from a "lower decks" type of vibe to one where much of the drama took place on the bridge. I hope to be surprised, but I expect that the second season will stick much more to the traditional Trek format.
Possibly but it is the safer path to a studio who are bound by a bottom line.
You mean as far as the crews goes?
We shall see. I like DISCO just fine but what is shaping up is the complaints that it doesn't "feel" like Star Trek. If writers and such take that to heart, what does that mean?
Similar threads
- Locked
