• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Your wish list for a new series

Make it fun and engaging. I don't have a wish list beyond I don't want to be bored and I don't want anti-heroes. That trope is pretty well played out in popular media.
 
Soon, make it soon. I am getting tired of watching reruns of the old ones...

J/k but I'd sill like it to be soon.
 
No. True creativity thrives only when unfettered. A ball and chain won't help you win a race.

That's a flawed metaphor. Creativity isn't a race you can win, and restrictions have never stopped great art; rather, it's sprung from them. Hence that Orson Welles quote about how 'the absence of limitations is the enemy of all art'.

World-building (perhaps "universe-building" is a better word) is the point of Star Trek. It wouldn't be half as compelling without it, and above all, it wouldn't be Star Trek. You may accept that or you may not. Either way, every work of fiction exists in its own world, and how well it sells that world to its audience is directly related to how compelling it is. I think the idea that Star Trek canon is a ball and chain shackled to the ankle of a new show is as absurd as criticising George RR Martin for writing too much history of Westeros. The mythology is the point. It's what makes the fiction interesting and convincing. Rebooting and retconning old concepts on the other hand, simply because you find it hard to keep track of which wars took place in whatever quadrant or which important discoveries were made in the past, isn't creative. It's lazy. And a sure sign of both poor storytelling and poor imagination. It's the kind of thinking that gave rise to the concept of deus ex machina. Why bother following anything to its conclusion when you can just magically make the solution appear out of thin air, even if it goes against what you wrote on the page before?
 
That's a flawed metaphor. Creativity isn't a race you can win, and restrictions have never stopped great art; rather, it's sprung from them. Hence that Orson Welles quote about how 'the absence of limitations is the enemy of all art'.

World-building (perhaps "universe-building" is a better word) is the point of Star Trek. It wouldn't be half as compelling without it, and above all, it wouldn't be Star Trek. You may accept that or you may not. Either way, every work of fiction exists in its own world, and how well it sells that world to its audience is directly related to how compelling it is. I think the idea that Star Trek canon is a ball and chain shackled to the ankle of a new show is as absurd as criticising George RR Martin for writing too much history of Westeros. The mythology is the point. It's what makes the fiction interesting and convincing. Rebooting and retconning old concepts on the other hand, simply because you find it hard to keep track of which wars took place in whatever quadrant or which important discoveries were made in the past, isn't creative. It's lazy. And a sure sign of both poor storytelling and poor imagination. It's the kind of thinking that gave rise to the concept of deus ex machina. Why bother following anything to its conclusion when you can just magically make the solution appear out of thin air, even if it goes against what you wrote on the page before?
The "mythology" should NEVER be "the point". It is there to support the story, not to force people to create stories that support it. All "mythology" is malleable, whether found in fictional "universes" or emerging out of real-world societies. If someone wants to play by the "canon" rules--so be it. That's a choice. And it can generate a great story. But it should not be an obligation. Doing something that "violates the mythology" may be displeasing to you, but that's hardly justification for calling it "lazy". One's personal displeasure with a work of art (in the broad sense of creative endeavours) is not a licence to insult the artist's effort in and of itself. What you consider "lazy", for having strayed from "the canon", another (myself, in this case) considers interesting and refreshing.

The "mythology" is there for the broad strokes. It is not "holy writ"--and this applies to any work, not just Trek. One does not have to deliberately go against "the canon" to be interesting. However, one need not avoid the malleability of mythology out of fear of "upsetting the fans".
 
World-building (perhaps "universe-building" is a better word) is the point of Star Trek. It wouldn't be half as compelling without it, and above all, it wouldn't be Star Trek.
I'm afraid not. TOS is Horatio Hornblower on a US Navy ship in space, and didn't really have any of the details sorted out at all. Kirk and the Enterprise represent "United Earth" and Spock started with emotions and was a member of Vulcanian race conquered by humans, the was set in the 28th century, and the Enterprise and its crew belong to an organization called UESPA. By the end of he first season Starfleet and the Federation were established by name, while the second season establishes what the Federation is and that Earth and Vulcan are equals.

Star Trek is replete already with examples where what was established prior is gladly shoved aside for the sake of the story, as it should be. To expect otherwise from Discovery is to hold it to a standard the rest of the franchise was never held to.
 
My believe is Fuller will stick to canon. He made a big point of it during the San Diego comic con panel.
 
If it's a hetero white male, it's not "something", it's just normal, but if it's an LGBTQ character or something else out of the norm, it's just trying to "pass some PC test"? What does that tell us about you?

Step outside in the real world and you'll see it's plenty diverse. It's not a """""thing""""", it's real life.

Think the problem is not a gay character or a ethnic character.

Just not a token character.

There is a diffrence.

Sisko is my favourite captain. Although a minority, he wasnt a token character.
He wasnt "the black guy". Being black was just a minor physical aspect of his character. Even when exploring his new orleans background, he was a well rounded character. He wasnt there to fill a quota.


Sure have a gay character. Just dont make him "the gay guy" and play on it as he or shes only defining character aspect.
 
A
1. Set in the 97th Century. MUST MOVE FORWARD!!!!1!!
2. A Gender-fluid Calamarain Captain played by an Al-Queida actor
3. Ship's primary weapon is a Canon Cannon
4. Intergalactic politics!!!
5. Cameos and crossovers with Kes, Geordi, Nog and Pavel Chekov
6. Roddenberry's VISION!!!!1!1!1!!!!111
7. Conference rooms
8. Ship's first officer MUST be a member if the Di-kironium Vampire Cloud species who practices in the Hindu faith!!!! (Or I won't watch)
9. Pilot episode with significant call-backs to Sub Rosa
10. Admiral Nelix
11. Significant tie-ins to Star Trek Online
12. Acknowledgement that they created a universe-destroying bomb and they used that bomb on the horrible JJverse becuz Gene's Vision and Becuz PHILOSOPHY!!!!1!1!1!!!
13. A direct sequel to "Move Along Home"
14. Ships top speed should be warp 47.999993
15. Non-military Starfleet with no money and lots of utopia.

You forgot a entire holodeck series arc and a 3 year old genius child that solves every problem at the end of the episode.


O and dont forget to recalibrate tachyonphotonicmicropeonsingularit deflector grids arrays .
 
If CBS called you and said that you would be a producer on the new "Star Trek" series, and wanted your ideas about the direction of the show, what two or three things would you want included in the show?

No reset button, have things evolve
More social commentary episodes
Way less techno babble
 
They could get with the program and acknowledge homosexuality in a non abnormal way, like maybe make the main character a homosexual. That would be a switch.
 
Make it fun and engaging. I don't have a wish list beyond I don't want to be bored and I don't want anti-heroes. That trope is pretty well played out in popular media.

Agree X 1,000,000,000,000 on NO ANTI-HEROS. Thank you.
 
They could get with the program and acknowledge homosexuality in a non abnormal way, like maybe make the main character a homosexual. That would be a switch.

YES!! A homosexual Calamarain captain with a physical disability! That's what we want.
 
Other than the first two, the rest are in no particular order.

1. Interesting, compelling characters, played by good actors who are engaged in the material.
2. Original, thought-provoking and/or fun scripts.
3. Aliens. I don't care if they're in latex masks or painted different colours, I want to see far more aliens on the Discovery.
4. LGBT representation, done right and not just some token characters (see point 1).
5. Drop the catsuits. If they're in Starfleet they're in uniform, if they're not then have them in practical clothing.
6. Lose the weekly phaser battles, let the crew think their way out of situations/problems.
7. Over-arching plotlines and stories.

I'm sure there is more, but that's just on the top of my head right now.
 
Basically Mad Men in space.
I want The Walking Dead in space. No, literally. Andrew Lincoln as the captain, Norman Reedus as the XO, Michael Cudlitz as the alien tactical officer, Lauren Cohan as the ship's counselor, Danai Gurira as the engineer, the one who plays Rosita as the doctor, Chandler Riggs as a Cadet, that guy who plays Eugene as a Vulcan officer.
 
No aliens or gays on the crew.

Female crew members should be in subservient roles and be wearing mini skirts, or be partially nude if they are hot.

Everyone is a white male, with the exception of the proud Native American who is the second in command and makes pithy statements about the environment.

Episodic shows only, and no one remembers anything about their past, so no canon violations. Don't want no frickkin canon violations. :mad:
 
Honestly there's one thing I want from Trek.

I want it to be FUN!

I want it to be the TV show that I rush home from to watch. I want to be counting down the days to the next episode. I want to book days off work if my shift clashes with the next episode.

Nothing exists like that on TV for me any more.).
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top