PDA

View Full Version : If you could write the next Star Trek series...



bigbarada
08-15-2007, 02:41 AM
what would you do? Do you think it's possible to revive the franchise without just retreading familiar territory?

When would it be set? Before or after the previous shows? (although Enterprise was about as "before" as you could get without just making it in modern times). What about the crew? Would you try for a "gimmick-captain" like Deep Space Nine and Voyager or just pick an actor who does well in the role.

It just dawned on me today, while watching reruns of TNG on Spike, that this year marks the 20th anniversary of The Next Generation. Still my favorite incarnation of the series and I wondered if it would be possible to make a new TV show that had the same impact as TOS or TNG.

Myself, I would probably set the series a few decades after TNG in the middle of a massive galactic war with the Romulans. They've been building tension between Romulans and StarFleet since the 1960s, here would be the chance to show the big blow-out war that will almost grind the galaxy to a halt. Plus, some major, shocking event for the pilot episode to get everybody's attention and let them know that this won't be your average Trek series..... something like.... blowing up planet Earth.

The Romulans were always kind of a casual threat to the Federation. They were always referred to as dangerous, but we never really saw them earn their status as one of Starfleet's most formiddable enemies. Plus, I've been a fan of the Romulans ever since reading Diane Duane's book The Romulan Way and have always been interested in seeing them developed beyond the cardboard stereotypes that they ended up becoming in the previous shows.

The captain is always the key character of ST shows, so I would go for a more flawed character rather than yet another model of Federation values. Imagine what you could do with a Klingon Starfleet captain in a storyline like this. Someone who's own hatred and bigotry is almost as big of a threat as the enemy themselves.

Of course, in my version of the Trek universe, the new Enterprise wouldn't make it out of the first episode. If you're going to destroy the Earth, then the Enterprise needs to die defending it, so the main ship of the series would be something completely new. The crew would be inexperienced, outgunned and completely overwhelmed by the Romulan threat. They would spend more time hiding from the Romulans and striking with guerrilla tactics than facing them directly; but that would change as the series and the characters developed.

In fact, the series would probably focus on two ships and crew, one Starfleet, one Romulan. This way the conflict could be developed from both sides. It would be interesting to explore the Romulan reasons for hating the Federation.

I would envision the series as something more along the lines of 24 or Lost, in that it would be a television drama that is only intended to last 2-3 seasons. However, if it does well, then the series should be able to continue for as many seasons as possible.

That's my initial brainstorming idea, what would you do?

Phantom-like Menace
08-15-2007, 06:10 PM
Most of this is a retread of ideas I've put in other threads, but here goes.

I've always wanted to see how Starfleet gets back to the basics after the Dominion War. I figured immediately they would look to reaffirm their mandate to explore beyond all else. Now, years after I first stated that opinion, I found it cool that the writers of Star Trek: Titan expressed a similar view in sending Riker and crew into new areas of the Beta Quadrant in a mission dedicated to the proposition that Starfleet is an exploratory body before a military body. I wanted to see some of the new stories taking place in the Gamma Quadrant and showing how Starfleet works to coexist with the Dominion worlds.

As far as giving the show a different feel, I thought it was interesting to read your idea of splitting the story between two different ships, because I'd like to see stories split between three different Federation ships with maybe two or three regular characters on each ship. There'd be recurring background characters, of course. I imagine the three crews would be loosely asigned to the same area/mission and would come together for those ever important season finales.

stillakid
08-15-2007, 06:43 PM
While something like Trek has its following, I think that to attract a new audience, it would have to severely depart from the saccharine sweet and ultra clean feel that it has had for years. I'm not suggesting a complete rundown universe, like something from ALIEN, but the goofball aliens, wide hallways on a spaceship, and perfectly groomed crew members would have to go.

I've never been a huge fan of the Trek thing anyway. I might be drawn into watching a series that concentrates on Starfleet Academy and a new generation of up-and-comers. I'd like to see the fledgling attempts at going into space. Spaceships with exposed pipes, things that don't work, malfunctioning transporter beams. I'd like to see an Earthly race to space as nations compete to be in control of how the "Starfleet" progresses.

Point being, how many more episodes of the same boring spaceship finding "new" aliens on weird planets can anyone watch? The series even got bored with itself and fell back into the holographic room to come up with "moral" stories that wouldn't involve the familiar planet landings, crew in danger, et al.... yawn.

If Trek ever "meant" anything to the audience who first saw it, it gave inspiration and hope to a humanity dreaming of bigger and fantastic accomplishments. Refurbishing the series with that in mind, bringing the stories closer to our own time (perhaps 20 to 50 years in the future), when our own NASA is transformed into what Starfleet is to become would make the entire story more relevant to everyone watching.

BountyHunterScum
08-15-2007, 10:20 PM
Write the story AFTER nemesis, maybe aboard the USS Sovereign from bridge commander.

El Chuxter
08-15-2007, 11:11 PM
Five words: breakdancing alien robot pirate ninjas!!!

2-1B
08-16-2007, 12:22 AM
Just don't make it Emo.

BountyHunterScum
08-16-2007, 01:25 AM
Just don't make it Emo.

Yeah no fall out star trek boy. No blink trek 182, no sumtrek 41.

2-1B
08-16-2007, 01:54 AM
no sumtrek 41.

Nicely done, sir ! :D

BountyHunterScum
08-16-2007, 02:13 AM
Nicely done, sir ! :D

I try on occasion. :thumbsup:

JediTricks
08-16-2007, 02:59 AM
I could post on this all day and night and still not express all my ideas. :p But it's late and I'm not feeling well, so I'll go with the 2 I like most:

Excelsior - set with Sulu as captain, if possible. It's a great era and needs more drawing out. Back out expanding the frontier again.

Ship vs Ship - set in the post-VOY era, Starfleet starts splintering into 2 or 3 major factions based on serious disagreements on beliefs about the major tenets of the Federation. No clear "right" early on to make starfleet-on-starfleet battles not so easy to peg as to who is right and who is wrong. No major conflicts at first but eventually 1 side will be poisoned by Romulan politicking, then it's all out civil war. Could be anthology as well.

Anthology - speaks for itself, any era, any story.

A single ship, either movie or post-VOY era, where we see missions that take 4 to 10 episodes to tell the stories of and take a long time (like 6 months) instead of just dropping by and leaving in 1 or 2 eps. 3 or 4 story-arcs per season, characters learn and evolve and grow throughout. Kirk and Picard have all these great stories about how they spent months on this planet or that, learning to deal with Naussicans, yet on Trek they never show but tiny glimpses of that... they could here. Plus, it'd save on sets and costumes by not having planet-of-the-week/alien-of-the-week.

BountyHunterScum
08-16-2007, 03:04 AM
I could post on this all day and night and still not express all my ideas. :p But it's late and I'm not feeling well, so I'll go with the 2 I like most:

Excelsior - set with Sulu as captain, if possible. It's a great era and needs more drawing out.

Ship vs Ship - set in the post-VOY era, Starfleet starts splintering into 2 or 3 major factions based on serious disagreements on beliefs about the major tenets of the Federation. No clear "right" early on to make starfleet-on-starfleet battles not so easy to peg as to who is right and who is wrong. No major conflicts at first but eventually 1 side will be poisoned by Romulan politicking, then it's all out civil war. Could be anthology as well.

Anthology - speaks for itself, any era, any story.

A single ship, either movie or post-VOY era, where we see missions that take 4 to 10 episodes to tell the stories of and take a long time (like 6 months) instead of just dropping by and leaving in 1 or 2 eps. 3 or 4 story-arcs per season, characters learn and evolve and grow throughout. Kirk and Picard have all these great stories about how they spent months on this planet or that, learning to deal with Naussicans, yet on Trek they never show but tiny glimpses of that... they could here. Plus, it'd save on sets and costumes by not having planet-of-the-week/alien-of-the-week.

No politically correct crap either.

JediTricks
08-16-2007, 03:06 AM
The great thing about seeing a series decompressed like my last idea is that we can watch mistakes get made, prejudices build, and green women get seduced. :p

BountyHunterScum
08-16-2007, 03:33 AM
The great thing about seeing a series decompressed like my last idea is that we can watch mistakes get made, prejudices build, and green women get seduced. :p

Even though the term is incorrectly used/defined racism is something that will always exist. The sooner hollyweird gets that through it's thick empty skull the better.

Jargo
08-16-2007, 12:49 PM
I'd like to see the universe from a viewpoint other than starfleet. where starfleet are the aggressors and meddlers and the views of the Romulans or klingons or whoever are the right ones. I'd completely ignore the pile of pants that was Enterprise and set it in Kirk's era giving it room to grow and evolve and all the tech would be be clunky still and not be eternally recalibratable and solutions and decisions are based on experience not tech convenience. I'd make it darker and much more tense. completely throw away Rodenberry's ethos. and it would have to have Cardassians coz they're sexy. and that's all.
none of this pastel coloured homogenous spaceship interior and beurocratic spacefaring you get in everything starfleet. i want to see mercenaries and butt kicking alien races. big battles and espionage and things blowing up and people being tortured and murdered. interspecies chaos. with starfleet being handed their trashed ego on a plate.

JediTricks
08-17-2007, 12:52 AM
Even though the term is incorrectly used/defined racism is something that will always exist. The sooner hollyweird gets that through it's thick empty skull the better.
The core of Trek says that racism and other pettiness is well behind humanity once we get to Kirk's time, that's something Roddenberry felt was vital. Sure, shows like DS9 and Enterprise can exploit the realities that it's not going away, but they're the ones without the very hope and optimism that drove Trek to its greatest heights anyway. So with Trek, it does take a deft hand to navigate that river.



I'd like to see the universe from a viewpoint other than starfleet. where starfleet are the aggressors and meddlers and the views of the Romulans or klingons or whoever are the right ones. I'd completely ignore the pile of pants that was Enterprise and set it in Kirk's era giving it room to grow and evolve and all the tech would be be clunky still and not be eternally recalibratable and solutions and decisions are based on experience not tech convenience. I'd make it darker and much more tense. completely throw away Rodenberry's ethos. and it would have to have Cardassians coz they're sexy. and that's all.
none of this pastel coloured homogenous spaceship interior and beurocratic spacefaring you get in everything starfleet. i want to see mercenaries and butt kicking alien races. big battles and espionage and things blowing up and people being tortured and murdered. interspecies chaos. with starfleet being handed their trashed ego on a plate.Why under the Star Trek banner at all then? There's nothing Trek about that idea, it fits with stuff like Star Wars and Farscape, but stands in the face of Trek.

And Cardies are just a poor man's Romulan. :p

BountyHunterScum
08-17-2007, 05:02 AM
The core of Trek says that racism and other pettiness is well behind humanity once we get to Kirk's time, that's something Roddenberry felt was vital. Sure, shows like DS9 and Enterprise can exploit the realities that it's not going away, but they're the ones without the very hope and optimism that drove Trek to its greatest heights anyway. So with Trek, it does take a deft hand to navigate that river.


Why under the Star Trek banner at all then? There's nothing Trek about that idea, it fits with stuff like Star Wars and Farscape, but stands in the face of Trek.

And Cardies are just a poor man's Romulan. :p

The current definition of racism absolutely implies that if someone is proud of their race they have to hate every other race. That only applies to white people though. Ignorant is the wrong word to call someone who thinks a proud white person is kkk or a nazi, ignorant is overused and taken out of context all of the time.

Jargo
08-17-2007, 10:23 AM
Why under the Star Trek banner at all then? There's nothing Trek about that idea, it fits with stuff like Star Wars and Farscape, but stands in the face of Trek.

And Cardies are just a poor man's Romulan. :p

fair point. But there's a lot of trekkers out there who actually prefer the alien races to starfleet. Plus the viewpoint that starfleet are interferring busybodies has been brought up several times within the sphere of the shows. I guess if you were to build a non starfleet show that slowly moved towards the point where Klingons made that treaty with starfleet that ended the warring, that would tie it in. got to be a point to a show. something to move it forward. it just doesn't have to be the prime element. I just think at this point it's less interesting to go back to a starfleet ship wandering around. I'd rather see some of these alien cultures explored in more detail. I'm not saying don't have starfleet in the show, just not as protagonists.

Romulans aren't sexy. Cardassians have got that oily charm. like smiling assasins. They ooze sexiness. Romulans are nasty and charmless. Like accountants. lol

JON9000
08-17-2007, 10:55 AM
The current definition of racism absolutely implies that if someone is proud of their race they have to hate every other race.

Racism is the belief that inherent differences between people (such as those upon which the concept of race is based) determine cultural or individual achievement, and may involve the idea that one's own 'race' is superior. I think "hate" is too strong a word... I would describe somebody who hates based on race as a "bigot," or conjoin "racist" with "a-hole".

Being simply "proud" of one's race strikes me as the lamest of lame. What did you do in order to be a member of your race? Did it involve any work, development, talent, or virtue on your part? No. You were just born that way. That's like being proud of having freckles, or having small ears. Individuals who place their pride upon their race must not have much else to say for themselves.


That only applies to white people though.

If you are complaining about somebody like Imus being singled out for being a jerk while Farrakhan does it all day long with nobody complaining, I have your back. :)

It doesn't excuse Don, however.


Ignorant is the wrong word to call someone who thinks a proud white person is kkk or a nazi, ignorant is overused and taken out of context all of the time.

Huh? What should one call somebody who thinks a proud white person is KKK or a Nazi, "enlightened?"

Regardless, I think it was JT who made the point that Roddenberry believed racism to be primitive and infantile (regardless of how we parse the definition), and mandated it be an outmoded way of thinking in a very optimistic vision of the future.

BTW, you have a talent for pulling every conversation into the realm of political debate. I am not a mod, but it seems this stuff would be better discussed in the pit. :twisted:

Blue2th
08-17-2007, 01:07 PM
I think Mencia should be a guest star. Nobody would get a break. Not the Romulans, not the Vulcans, certainly not the Klingons, not the Blue-skins or Pink-skins. lol

BountyHunterScum
08-17-2007, 01:09 PM
Explore the remaining quadrants.

JediTricks
08-17-2007, 03:32 PM
The current definition of racism absolutely implies that if someone is proud of their race they have to hate every other race. That only applies to white people though. Well, yeah, of course it implies it, and not just to white people, anybody. Racial pride says "my race is great" which directly implies that "my race is superior to other races", otherwise there'd be no reason to be segregate one's self by race in the first place. Star Trek says that in the future, humanity realizes that we're all of equal value - even girls! - and can move on to much more important issues than that. The audience as observers are seeing it through the lens of our own societal issues, and we want to see those issues dealt with through our fictional medium, but it stands in defiance of the show's message. How does Trek deal with it? Through analogies, humanity has moved forward for those they know, but they still have work to do with those same base reactions they have when they see someone new that's different - that's how they get those stories told (TOS Balance of Terror is a solid example).


I moved the posts that were totally Trekless on the topic into the Rancor Pit.


fair point. But there's a lot of trekkers out there who actually prefer the alien races to starfleet. Plus the viewpoint that starfleet are interferring busybodies has been brought up several times within the sphere of the shows. I guess if you were to build a non starfleet show that slowly moved towards the point where Klingons made that treaty with starfleet that ended the warring, that would tie it in. got to be a point to a show. something to move it forward. it just doesn't have to be the prime element. I just think at this point it's less interesting to go back to a starfleet ship wandering around. I'd rather see some of these alien cultures explored in more detail. I'm not saying don't have starfleet in the show, just not as protagonists. That's what the books are for, they're marketed to a tighter niche audience that wants to see more of X, so someone either wants to pander to it or just wants to see it themselves. That's fine for the books, but I don't see it working in a larger context for a Trek show because the larger fanbase is still centered around the Federation, possibly because they identify most closely with those people. But a show just about aliens being different from the Federation isn't saying as much, it's just pandering to a smaller interest and has no core statement beyond "we're not those guys".

The Klingons are kinda boring when you look at the way the shows present them, they're inconsistently foolish, they don't live up to the noble ideals they espouse, and they're not really forward-thinking enough to see them do something important.

The thing about my anthology idea and my several-story-arcs-per-season idea is that you can get to see more of the aliens, the former can tell a tale every once in a while from their perspective while the latter can examine the culture to a deeper degree since our heroes will be spending more time with them.


Romulans aren't sexy. Cardassians have got that oily charm. like smiling assasins. They ooze sexiness. Romulans are nasty and charmless. Like accountants. lolCardies are like used car salesmen, so it's not significantly better.



I think Mencia should be a guest star. Nobody would get a break. Not the Romulans, not the Vulcans, certainly not the Klingons, not the Blue-skins or Pink-skins. lolAnd nobody'd be funny. :p



Explore the remaining quadrants.Well, Voyager has done Delta to death, and Star Trek has always taken place in the Alpha and Beta quadrants, DS9 got to play in the Gamma - that's kinda everybody.

Blue2th
08-17-2007, 04:11 PM
It's the qwerkiness or exploitation of different stereotypical characteristics of races that IS funny.
Star Trek alluded to this many times
For instance: I loved it when Bones would get into arguments with Spock thinking he was unemotionally callous. Calling him "Why you green-blooded-inhuman" Spock would fire back with "Why Doctor you really should learn to control your emotions"
I think a little racial tension is good. Or the perception of each race not understanding the other, and finding ways to write it with a little humor.
Like Captain Archer not liking Vulcans till he got to know T'Pol. Sometimes this would be revealed in funny ways. Like when Archer, T'Pol and Tucker would sit down to dinner and have funny revealing conversations about each other. (I know most of you guys don't like Enterprise)
Which BTW would be an excellent place to start a new series. After Enterprise The Federation is still young, the Prime Directive is not in effect yet, There are alot of obsolete Hunk-a-junks floating out there in the Galaxy. The Andorians and Commander Shran would be a good other race to explore also.

BountyHunterScum
08-17-2007, 04:44 PM
Since Nemesis was the TNG Wrath of Khan, maybe a TNG Search for Spock. Travel back in time man grab Data just before the scimitar explodes. Yeah maaaaaaan.

stillakid
08-17-2007, 05:03 PM
What about way later when the Federation goes the way of the Roman Empire or the United States? You know, when the government is destroyed from within when everyone gets cozy and thinks that they are indestructible? A television series that would explore the idea the G. Lucas tried to do with the Prequels illustrating how easy it is for a Republic and/or Federation to crumble from within. Something like that would be very relevant to our times instead of more boring goofy aliens and red shirted guys getting killed at random.

Blue2th
08-17-2007, 06:42 PM
What about way later when the Federation goes the way of the Roman Empire or the United States? You know, when the government is destroyed from within when everyone gets cozy and thinks that they are indestructible? A television series that would explore the idea the G. Lucas tried to do with the Prequels illustrating how easy it is for a Republic and/or Federation to crumble from within. Something like that would be very relevant to our times instead of more boring goofy aliens and red shirted guys getting killed at random.
I would love to see something like that. They briefly tried it sort of with the TOS "Mirror Mirror" episodes. Later one of my favorite last episodes was the two part "In the Mirror Darkly" Enterprise. Where we got to see them dress in TOS outfits and outgun everybody with the Defiant. This was the direction I was hoping Enterprise would go. There were no good guys and everybody was a scoundrel.

bigbarada
08-18-2007, 02:21 AM
What about way later when the Federation goes the way of the Roman Empire or the United States? You know, when the government is destroyed from within when everyone gets cozy and thinks that they are indestructible? A television series that would explore the idea the G. Lucas tried to do with the Prequels illustrating how easy it is for a Republic and/or Federation to crumble from within. Something like that would be very relevant to our times instead of more boring goofy aliens and red shirted guys getting killed at random.

The first part of your comment is a little too politically slanted for me to comment; but let me just say that if a former first-lady, current US congresswoman, gets elected President, then I will agree with you.:D

But I do like your idea, to see the body created to protect freedom become the very enemy of freedom is something that we have seen happen numerous times in the past and will only happen again and again in the future. Why should the Federation be immune?

JediTricks
08-18-2007, 05:20 AM
Here's the question, because our history is replete with failures of government after large eras of success, does that automatically mean that humanity cannot learn from those mistakes and get it right? Are we always doomed to repeat the same f'ups? And if so, with the Federation being multi-planetary, are our failures so universal that all the other major members have similar failures in their pasts which allow the Federation to collapse in such a manner?

bigbarada
08-18-2007, 05:52 AM
Here's the question, because our history is replete with failures of government after large eras of success, does that automatically mean that humanity cannot learn from those mistakes and get it right? Are we always doomed to repeat the same f'ups? And if so, with the Federation being multi-planetary, are our failures so universal that all the other major members have similar failures in their pasts which allow the Federation to collapse in such a manner?

I believe that the original philosophy behind Star Trek is a flawed one. The notion was that technology and science would eventually lead the world to a utopia and fix all of our problems. Well, the reality over the last few decades has been that technology hasn't saved us and in many ways we have become less civilized than we were in the pre-industrial age.

Technology has opened up new venues of communication, but also new pathways for criminals to prey on unsuspecting victims (everything from identity theft to using a camera phone to peek up women's dresses). It gives us an unprecedented capacity for self-expression, but at the same time gives the government the ability to invade our privacy on a level never before conceived of.

For every technological advance there is a benefit and a consequence. Star Trek shows us all the benefits of progress without any of the consequences. It just seems to be an overly-optimistic and outdated view of the future.

If the premise of the show doesn't get an injection of reality it will become irrelevant. Then it will just turn into some fuzzy, unatainable ideal on the same level as shows like Leave it to Beaver and The Brady Bunch.

Blue2th
08-18-2007, 06:27 AM
We did see what technology turned to it's most extreme can do. The Borg. The first time I saw them they scared the crap out of me. Unrelenting consequences of technology gone too far.

bigbarada
08-18-2007, 07:08 AM
We did see what technology turned to it's most extreme can do. The Borg. The first time I saw them they scared the crap out of me. Unrelenting consequences of technology gone too far.

That's true. I guess I was thinking more about TOS and Gene Rodenberry's original ideal for the series.

Although, I do think we should see more consequences of technology going wrong in the Federation as well. Realistically, everyone sitting around at a computer terminal in a sterile environment, where every disease can be cured with a hypospray, would result in serious health problems. Lack of activity would lead to obesity and low bone density, everyone would become sickly because their immune systems are never given a chance to fight off infection on their own. Not to mention the potential digestive problems of eating replicated food.

Then there is the universal translator which just worked waaaaay too well in TNG, DS9 and Voyager.

And what about the germ warfare aspect of it all? How dangerous would it be to beam an alien aboard that humanity has had absolutely no contact with before? The diseases that would be passed around could create devastating epidemics. They can try to gloss it over by saying that the transporter will filter out such viruses, but how can a machine that has never encountered a specific race before know what is supposed to be in their body and what isn't? And that's not even taking into account the diseases that the Starfleet personal would pass on to the aliens on away missions.

And don't even get me started on the holodeck. That room just defies the law of physics.

stillakid
08-18-2007, 10:40 AM
Here's the question, because our history is replete with failures of government after large eras of success, does that automatically mean that humanity cannot learn from those mistakes and get it right? Are we always doomed to repeat the same f'ups?

Yes, ultimately people do not learn, people do not fundamentally change. We still have racists. We still have people believing in religious mythologies as factual truth. We still have sexists. We still have people believing in Moon landing conspiracies. We still have Biblical literalists. We still have people strapping bombs to their bodies because "God" told them to.

Ignorance, short-sightedness, and basic lack of common sense by so many so consistently across the globe and across different cultures for so long tells us that we are indeed doomed to a human legacy that cannot learn from it's own past. Trek is pure fiction. Perhaps a crew could be assembled in which none of the fifty or so have ignorant views, but that would be a very select few out of millions (or billions). A more random selection from the general population would undoubtedly result in a crew where at least one of them was a sexist, one was a racist (and/or alienist), one was a religious fanatic, and just maybe one would fit Roddenberry's view of utopia.




And if so, with the Federation being multi-planetary, are our failures so universal that all the other major members have similar failures in their pasts which allow the Federation to collapse in such a manner?

Probably. It doesn't take much. Look at the US. Arguably the majority of our citizens are against the current administration but relatively few have voiced their concerns in any tangible manner. There will always be blind supporters who justify it with their own personal agenda, but it is those who feel like protesting...but don't...who ultimately allow a Republic/Federation to fail. It is the comfort of an easy life which makes it difficult for ordinary folks to be inspired to stand up and fight. It isn't until they feel real tangible changes to their perfect lives that they find it necessary to say something. Until then, it is just an argument of intangible principles and that's not worth upsetting an easy life for.

BountyHunterScum
08-18-2007, 10:48 AM
Yes, ultimately people do not learn, people do not fundamentally change. We still have racists. We still have people believing in religious mythologies as factual truth. We still have sexists. We still have people believing in Moon landing conspiracies. We still have Biblical literalists. We still have people strapping bombs to their bodies because "God" told them to.

Ignorance, short-sightedness, and basic lack of common sense by so many so consistently across the globe and across different cultures for so long tells us that we are indeed doomed to a human legacy that cannot learn from it's own past. Trek is pure fiction. Perhaps a crew could be assembled in which none of the fifty or so have ignorant views, but that would be a very select few out of millions (or billions). A more random selection from the general population would undoubtedly result in a crew where at least one of them was a sexist, one was a racist (and/or alienist), one was a religious fanatic, and just maybe one would fit Roddenberry's view of utopia.





Probably. It doesn't take much. Look at the US. Arguably the majority of our citizens are against the current administration but relatively few have voiced their concerns in any tangible manner. There will always be blind supporters who justify it with their own personal agenda, but it is those who feel like protesting...but don't...who ultimately allow a Republic/Federation to fail. It is the comfort of an easy life which makes it difficult for ordinary folks to be inspired to stand up and fight. It isn't until they feel real tangible changes to their perfect lives that they find it necessary to say something. Until then, it is just an argument of intangible principles and that's not worth upsetting an easy life for.

We will travel in space but yes we as a civilization will remain the same. There is a bright side at least we'll live through it all. M.A.D. Mutually Assured Destruction is a stalemate guaranteeing we'll live. The islamic fanatics are smart enough to know if they wage an all out knock down drag out war against us they will lose. I don't know why people are still mad about the way life is, alot of us have accepted it and moved on. I believe in absolute freedom of speech, society should agree to disagree and move on.

JediTricks
08-19-2007, 12:13 AM
I believe that the original philosophy behind Star Trek is a flawed one. The notion was that technology and science would eventually lead the world to a utopia and fix all of our problems. Well, the reality over the last few decades has been that technology hasn't saved us and in many ways we have become less civilized than we were in the pre-industrial age.But that's not the philosophy behind Trek, it's not technology and science that has led to that utopia, it's that humanity, once it got past those problems, could then work in harmony to create that technology and that utopia.


Technology has opened up new venues of communication, but also new pathways for criminals to prey on unsuspecting victims (everything from identity theft to using a camera phone to peek up women's dresses). It gives us an unprecedented capacity for self-expression, but at the same time gives the government the ability to invade our privacy on a level never before conceived of.

For every technological advance there is a benefit and a consequence. Star Trek shows us all the benefits of progress without any of the consequences. It just seems to be an overly-optimistic and outdated view of the future.Technology is just a tool, it's how people use it, that's what defines the future. When they use it for good, we champion the brilliance of the technology and sing its praises; when they use it for wrong, we condemn its benefits as not worth the tradeoff; but the truth is that technology is largely neither good nor evil, it's all in what we make of it. In the world of Star Trek, what we make of technology comes from a purer place so its abuses are fewer - it's still the frontier and man still makes mistakes, but many of those out there on the edge of space are trained to make the right decisions and choices, even when it means undoing what their fellow man has perpetrated against others.


If the premise of the show doesn't get an injection of reality it will become irrelevant. Then it will just turn into some fuzzy, unatainable ideal on the same level as shows like Leave it to Beaver and The Brady Bunch.But that's not the case at all, in fact I'd say that interjecting with a "modern dose of reality" is what will not withstand the test of time - yes, it'll look gritty and make for easier writing, but the ideals of hope transcend time while the fears of despair are always bookended as a bygone era.

You look at TOS and it's not the sterility of TNG, humans are making mistakes and causing harm out there all the time, but the notions which drive someone like Kirk to freely give up his life, crew, and ship to right that wrong, that's what makes it engaging.



Yes, ultimately people do not learn, people do not fundamentally change. We still have racists. We still have people believing in religious mythologies as factual truth. We still have sexists. We still have people believing in Moon landing conspiracies. We still have Biblical literalists. We still have people strapping bombs to their bodies because "God" told them to.I don't subscribe to that for a second. True, there is bigotry in our society, but to say we've not learned and changed, that's ludicrous. It wasn't so long ago that black people were considered subhuman altogether, the very idea that someone would be ostracized from the mainstream for saying something derogatory about black people at the time was entirely unheard of, yet today - although society hasn't all matured and wizened at the pace as each other - people are called to task and shunned for bigoted statements and beliefs. We may have a long way yet to go, but we've absolutely made progress. Sexist though our society may be, we no longer treat women as property, women can now vote and own property and do nearly anything a man is allowed to.

I find it ironic that here we are discussing the virtues of Star Trek and you pull out that "foolish religious believers" schtick. Whatever Trek's people may believe, they also allow for others to believe what they want, there are catholics in space working next to protestants working next to athiests working next to aliens who believe in an entirely different pantheon of religions. That's not to say fanaticism is in any way tolerable when it's to the point of violence, but one of the points of Trek is to say "live and let live", the sanctity of life and the freedom to live it is what the Prime Directive is about at its core.


Ignorance, short-sightedness, and basic lack of common sense by so many so consistently across the globe and across different cultures for so long tells us that we are indeed doomed to a human legacy that cannot learn from it's own past. Trek is pure fiction. Perhaps a crew could be assembled in which none of the fifty or so have ignorant views, but that would be a very select few out of millions (or billions). A more random selection from the general population would undoubtedly result in a crew where at least one of them was a sexist, one was a racist (and/or alienist), one was a religious fanatic, and just maybe one would fit Roddenberry's view of utopia.Ah, but you forget, TOS had bigotry and sexism and racism in it, Kirk knew he had to work with people who still carried that within their hearts, that was a reality of it, but he ensured that on his ship, it was not something that those officers were allowed to bring on the job - look at Balance of Terror, there's a whole subplot about a bridge officer mistrusting Spock because the Romulans look like him, Kirk tells him to leave it in his quarters and do the job.

BountyHunterScum
08-19-2007, 11:10 AM
But that's not the philosophy behind Trek, it's not technology and science that has led to that utopia, it's that humanity, once it got past those problems, could then work in harmony to create that technology and that utopia.

Technology is just a tool, it's how people use it, that's what defines the future. When they use it for good, we champion the brilliance of the technology and sing its praises; when they use it for wrong, we condemn its benefits as not worth the tradeoff; but the truth is that technology is largely neither good nor evil, it's all in what we make of it. In the world of Star Trek, what we make of technology comes from a purer place so its abuses are fewer - it's still the frontier and man still makes mistakes, but many of those out there on the edge of space are trained to make the right decisions and choices, even when it means undoing what their fellow man has perpetrated against others.

But that's not the case at all, in fact I'd say that interjecting with a "modern dose of reality" is what will not withstand the test of time - yes, it'll look gritty and make for easier writing, but the ideals of hope transcend time while the fears of despair are always bookended as a bygone era.

You look at TOS and it's not the sterility of TNG, humans are making mistakes and causing harm out there all the time, but the notions which drive someone like Kirk to freely give up his life, crew, and ship to right that wrong, that's what makes it engaging.


I don't subscribe to that for a second. True, there is bigotry in our society, but to say we've not learned and changed, that's ludicrous. It wasn't so long ago that black people were considered subhuman altogether, the very idea that someone would be ostracized from the mainstream for saying something derogatory about black people at the time was entirely unheard of, yet today - although society hasn't all matured and wizened at the pace as each other - people are called to task and shunned for bigoted statements and beliefs. We may have a long way yet to go, but we've absolutely made progress. Sexist though our society may be, we no longer treat women as property, women can now vote and own property and do nearly anything a man is allowed to.

I find it ironic that here we are discussing the virtues of Star Trek and you pull out that "foolish religious believers" schtick. Whatever Trek's people may believe, they also allow for others to believe what they want, there are catholics in space working next to protestants working next to athiests working next to aliens who believe in an entirely different pantheon of religions. That's not to say fanaticism is in any way tolerable when it's to the point of violence, but one of the points of Trek is to say "live and let live", the sanctity of life and the freedom to live it is what the Prime Directive is about at its core.

Ah, but you forget, TOS had bigotry and sexism and racism in it, Kirk knew he had to work with people who still carried that within their hearts, that was a reality of it, but he ensured that on his ship, it was not something that those officers were allowed to bring on the job - look at Balance of Terror, there's a whole subplot about a bridge officer mistrusting Spock because the Romulans look like him, Kirk tells him to leave it in his quarters and do the job.

JT you know me lol but I would also do what Kirk did in B.O.T. tell the guy to do his job leave his cynical attitude in his quarters. It wasn't really bigotry he was in total surprise so deep down he figured they were screwed.