Discussion in 'Future of Trek' started by jefferiestubes8, Oct 31, 2009.
A few that come to mind are:
The problem with Federation civil war ideas is that the Federation is such a black hole - what is it really? We haven't been introduced to it enough that we would understand what the issues are if there was a civil war. It's just this nice, bland, undefined place where everyone is happy, la la la.
Star Trek has always taken place around the margins of the Federation, rarely venturing into its internal workings. A lot of groundwork would have to be laid before anyone would understand or care about the Federation splitting apart.
That is sort of what a series is for, isn't it?
I mean, if evreything is already laid out for you before hand then there isn't a whole lot of sense in doing it.
One of the reasons why I dislike remakes and prequals, but, I digress.
If you think the audience would sit still for having the first season be Meet The Federation, then sure, go for it. I personally doubt there's much about the Federation that's very compelling. It's Starfleet that's compelling, and they exist to defend and expand the Federation, but the Federation itself just exists as some big black box to provide a justification for Starfleet's existence so we can see their adventures.
I think you're making a distinction where I'm not sure one exists. It's like trying to distinguish between the U.S. Government and the U.S. Military. The latter doesn't exist without the former.
If the Federation were to start to break apart, Starfleet would break apart with it. Just as the military of the U.S. would inevitably break apart if we experienced another war between the states.
It has always been suggested that not all of the species contained under the banner of the Federation are happy about it. Certainly shouldn't be too difficult to push enough buttons to start a collapse.
James Nesbitt or Freema Agyeman
My point is this: does the audience care enough about the Federation to care if it falls apart? I doubt it. The audience doesn't know the Federation enough to care.
More like M*A*S*H and AfterMASH, isn't it?
The setting - military, Starfleet - is a major part of the appeal.
Star Trek has never been about the Federation government, and has actually featured far more about Klingon politics then it ever delved into Earth's workings (I can count the appearances of the Federation president on one hand).
Trek could be about Fed politics, I just doubt it would be an interesting topic for a series. But until you've given us some idea of the inner workings of the Federation, nobody will understand what's at stake for the collapse of the Federation.
If there was a way to make Fed politics interesting (anyone want to take a stab at that), then after a couple seasons, you could start to push the Federation into collapse and it might have some emotional resonance. The trick is not to lose the audience beforehand thru sheer boredom.
Gene Roddenberry already came up with the idea of a Federation civil war and its aftermath. That series was called Andromeda...
Well, sort of in very general terms.
You could take Andromeda and re-shape it as a Star Trek sequel, but it would take a bit of tweaking to do so. But, I do not believe Roddenberry ever intended the concepts/ideas that became Andromeda to be any part of Trek.
He didn't. But its close enough that the premise of a Trek series about a Federation civil war would never be given a chance on TV...
For the next Trek captain I vote for Gina Torres, from Firefly and Angel, she has a command feel and can be sunny or dark as needed.
Pull some ideas from both Andromeda and the Star Wars sequels. In Andromeda, one of the stated reasons the Nechians revolted was the government and the fleet stood aside (ala prime directive) as a planet was invaded, subjugated and the population eaten. We've seen Star Fleet captains and crews irritation with the Prime directive before, a new federation council policy to harden the prime directive, leading to a series of incidents, certain member worlds and parts of Star Fleet revolt. That's the Andromeda part.
The Star Wars sequels without the sith lords, the (former) federation divides into multiple factions, some return to "the old" federation ideals, other try to reassembly the federation using politics and force. Still other built new political states. Star Fleet also fragments. This is what we see over the first season.
The question is where does our hero ship stand?
And does everyone on the ship stand together?
I thought Andromeda was more the Fall of the Federation concept. Which is more workable than a Fed civil war since the Fed isn't around anymore and just having it be this vague hand-waving ideal - which is all it's ever been - is fine.
Re-do Andromeda as Trek with Ben Browder in the lead role. Just not having Sorbo stinking up the screen would be an improvement right there.
^ Having the mouldering corpse of a dead donkey would be an improvement on Sorbo.
Though he's little heard of, I really liked William Hurt in the Dune miniseries. He has that kind of forceful personality that I think a captain needs.
Sam Worthington would be great.
How about Callum Blue?
Nah, he'd never agree. He's been linked with Firefly for far too long. Anyone who spent that much time on a show that is diametrically opposed to Trek in all regards, is not going to WANT to do Trek in the first place. Besides, the Browncoats would never forgive him for jumping ship to the 'enemy'.
(Ron Glass doesn't count, since he was on Voyager first, before he ever played Book)
Separate names with a comma.