Reviving Star Trek? What would it take? [Archive]

Americai

15-06-2005, 05:49

1. Make the whole federation society less socialistic, "perfect", and all around a bunch of wussies who have no concept of anything hardcore. Putting in some more common, natural behavior, and characters along with REALLY great characters now and then would greatly give more people more connection. The whole thing feels to unnatural. From the suits, costumes, equipment, ships, and enemies to the "no matter what, all our main actors, main ships and vehicles, and morals will leave the next episode unscathed."

Its funny how they tried war, but they are the only series to not get it somewhat direct.

I'd get the Babylon 5 people to write the stories and enviornments also. Also, despite Jar Jar, a to young Anakin in E1 fans HAVE to face the fact that Star Wars is just BETTER. It appeals to Americans more than Star Trek ever does. Fans who try to complain that Star Trek is better without having a real competitor series to back up their claims also turn people off. Aliens was FAR better than Star Trek. Hell even a cartoon by the name of ExoSquad was FAR better than Star Trek.

2. Invest in REAL alien unique designs. I can't see why Star Wars tries, and Star Trek doesn't bother to use anything other than a few cheap prosthetics or at least some friggin special effects.

3. Make each episode easy to get into. This is a hard balance to achieve, but it can be done. Focusing on a major coflict or theme occasionally, and giving other aspects of its world on other episodes. There are a lot of ways to approach it. But focusing on a particular team of humans who have to deal with conflicts or situations is great. You can bond with them, see major characters get bumped off and feel for them and know that there will be troop replenishments.

4. FIX THE SCIENCE OF STAR TREK. IT FEELS FAR MORE BOGUS THAN IT SHOULD.

As someone who loves Sci-Fi, Star Trek was great in a lot of respects. However they just don't seem to get out of this Andromeda feel as of late.

Colodia

15-06-2005, 05:52

Buy myself a seat in Congress.

Lacadaemon

15-06-2005, 05:52

I think the trouble is that it become a bit of a parody of itself with having been so exposed over the past twenty years. At the very least the formula (federation bridge crew in a space ship doing stuff), is a tad played out. True DS9 tried to alter that, but is was basically the same thing.

Probably all the star trek that can be done, has been done.

In any case, it's not nearly as good as the new Battlestar Galactica.

Sdaeriji

15-06-2005, 06:08

Pay Berman and Braga to leave the show forever.

Cannot think of a name

15-06-2005, 06:14

Pay Berman and Braga to leave the show forever.
No, I need Berman. He's an alumni (I believe, I get them shuffled) of my school and I need an in.

Neo River

15-06-2005, 06:25

I would bring back Patrick Stewart (Captain Picard). That would be cool man! :D Captain Pichard is the best Star Trek captain ever! Also, Star Trek rules over Star Wars. All Star Wars has is flashy effects, and shitty storylines. At least with Star Trek, it makes you THINK, it makes you use your brain. See, this is why only the smart people get Star Trek.

Sdaeriji

15-06-2005, 06:26

No, I need Berman. He's an alumni (I believe, I get them shuffled) of my school and I need an in.

Well if I'm the one with the $20 million making the decisions, you can have a job on the writing team for the new Star Trek series. But those two are the ones who allowed the franchise to get stale regurgitating old storylines over and over until they'd milked every penny out of the brand name. If the mission is to bring fresh new life to a dying franchise, then the first thing to do is get rid of those responsible for allowing the franchise to get this bad to begin wtih.

New Nowhereland

15-06-2005, 06:32

Also, Star Trek rules over Star Wars.

And Firefly slays them both.

Neo River

15-06-2005, 06:34

And Firefly slays them both.

Yea right, it only ran for one year. Even the Original Star Trek ran for 3 years.

Texpunditistan

15-06-2005, 06:36

I'd do a far future series in which the Federation has been broken apart by defeat in a war with some new alien race (maybe the Xenophobe aliens from Voyager? I think it was Voyager) and the focus is on a rag-tag group of commanders fighting back against the alien invaders. Basically take the Federation down a peg or two and make them really *fight* for what they believe in...and fight for their survival.

Cannot think of a name

15-06-2005, 06:37

Well if I'm the one with the $20 million making the decisions, you can have a job on the writing team for the new Star Trek series. But those two are the ones who allowed the franchise to get stale regurgitating old storylines over and over until they'd milked every penny out of the brand name. If the mission is to bring fresh new life to a dying franchise, then the first thing to do is get rid of those responsible for allowing the franchise to get this bad to begin wtih.
Fair enough, as long as I get work. Seems like the best cat for the series went off to do Carnivale and Battlestar Gallactica.

The Philosophes

15-06-2005, 06:47

Star Trek does need a breather, given but that aside, I'd do either:

a) early 2400s, possibly Borg-Dominion double threat (not allied, just at the same time) to split the forces of the Federation and screw with their stability

b) Mirror Universe. After Through a Mirror, Darkly, it was like Bermaga waited for the show to be cancelled and *then* start writing good TV. I think a hefty special effects budget and some neat storyline could keep a mirrorverse series going strong for quite a number of years

c) Enterprise-C. Maybe with Tasha Yar, maybe not.

Either way, Star Trek needs to come back to that combination of camp (w/ TOS) and super-angst (w/ TNG and DS9) it had during the 80s and 90s. Probably could be worded better, but you all get the drift, right?

Venus Mound

15-06-2005, 06:50

I'ld take the money and put everyone that had anything even remotely to do w/ the franchise over the last decade or so and put them on hiatus for about 10 to 25 years.

Mostly it needs a breather and some fresh ideas.You're probably right. However, for the sake of the exercise...

I guess I would pick from the best aspects of the most successful series and put them together in one show :

DS9 had complex, interesting storylines. Until the Dominion showed up, at least.

TNG had complex, interesting characters played by excellent actors. Even though most of the time all they had to do is tap their chest and say "Yes, Captain," you knew when you had an episode where they would need to act they could pull it off.

But, most importantly, TOS had a brash, inventive spirit. It was the sixties, man! The ideas were as crazy as you could fathom, and, more importantly, they were put at the service of a pseudo-communist, utopian ideal. Now the trend for everything is to make it "dark," even when that's totally inappropriate for the franchise. Compensate for a lack of innovation by pretending to be more "edgy" or more "mature."

That was the refreshing aspect of the original series : now we laugh at their storylines where half the episodes ended up in a totally foreign planet ruled by the nazis, or the (ahem) very subtle commentary on racism with the two aliens painted black and white, and white and black, respectively, but it still perfectly reflected the optimism that was prevalent in the zeitgeist.

Today we're not so much optimistic, what with a poor economy and war and stuff, but I say : all the more reason! We need something that's able to revive that spirit of optimism, to return to the Star Trek we liked which reflected the idea of a humanity that had overgrown its immaturity, that had learned to exorcise its demons and live in peace and stability. That's the Star Trek we like! I would love a franchise that would be a hardcore space opera, like Chronicles of Riddick tried to be, but that just ain't Trek.

As I said before, Star Trek is obviously metaphorical commentary. It was never meant to be hard science fiction, so I've never minded the technobabble that tried to pass for science, the rigid fights or the endless, similar-looking, desperately humanoid alien designs. All of this is okay as long as the story is good.

The ship and the series which is based on good characters, which are heroes like everyone on a Star Trek ship but are also complex and maybe haven't completely overcome their darker side as Federation society would try to have everyone believe. There would be commentary, but fewer set answers and, for the love of God, less of the same syrupy liberal politically-correct sermon going through the same episode.

That's it. No radical concept with going back to the 21st century or flinging the ship to the other side of the galaxy. Most of the 200 million would be spent on a team of excellent fucking writers.

Americai

15-06-2005, 06:52

Also, Star Trek rules over Star Wars. All Star Wars has is flashy effects, and shitty storylines. At least with Star Trek, it makes you THINK, it makes you use your brain. See, this is why only the smart people get Star Trek.

Actually what makes SW better is its a continual storyline, better themes in regards to government, mythos, technology, aliens and varieties of characters ('droids species), SOLID villains and heroes, themes more inate for Americans (republican principles and government), as well as the action, music, effects, and all stuff you criticize.

The problem with ST however is that outside of a few grabbing characters like Kirk, Spock, Bones, Pecard, Riker, Leforge, Data, Seven of Nine, and etc... the rest of it becomes rather drab. NON-intelligent in stories. The problem with its "makes you think" is that it DOESN'T. The character are far to perfect to be wrong in their decisions. They do NOT make mistakes that they have to deal with throughout their character arcs. It is the epitome of "i'm a good guy, so whatever I do and say is ok". There is no thinking. That is only the delusion, you and your pathetic ilk which made the series suck on another level, created for yourself. Also their decisions have no real impact outside of that ONE DAMNED episode. Its like Stargate where every new episode is a new start. Stargate at least tries to have some REAL continuity even though that tends to suck considering all the crap they have done that is ridiculous similar to Star Trek.

Star Trek's science is also less believable. Sure Star Wars has to deal with intergalactic travel in days and the like, but Star Trek does that AND makes it feel dumb. From phasers, to concocked science that is construded to make sense for that episode or series. "oh lets go back in time.. what the.. that Klingon looks like a human. What the heck, Warf? Warf: ...there was an incident." Idiots. Thinking? Yeah, if your a damned idiot, I GUESS it could make you think.

Star Wars at least gives us an insight on the nature of political manipulation and nature of war and a Democratic Republic as well as then general feelings of good and evil actions.

Sdaeriji

15-06-2005, 06:58

I love defensive Star Wars fans.

New Nowhereland

15-06-2005, 07:02

Yea right, it only ran for one year. Even the Original Star Trek ran for 3 years.

I'll take this as a suggestion that the time that something's been running is a measure of its quality. Doctor Who wins, now.

Or, we could look at the real qualities of it. Firefly has a well-developed society, episodes with more plot than entire series of Star Trek, believable technology, and more depth of character than anywhere in Trek. Star Trek has flashing lights, preachy moralism and shiny stuff that saves the day. It's inoffensive and doesn't scare off network executives with creativity and inspiration.

Neo River

15-06-2005, 07:06

Actually what makes SW better is its a continual storyline, better themes in regards to government, mythos, technology, aliens and varieties of characters ('droids species), SOLID villains and heroes, themes more inate for Americans (republican principles and government), as well as the action, music, effects, and all stuff you criticize.

The problem with ST however is that outside of a few grabbing characters like Kirk, Spock, Bones, Pecard, Riker, Leforge, Data, Seven of Nine, and etc... the rest of it becomes rather drab. NON-intelligent in stories. The problem with its "makes you think" is that it DOESN'T. The character are far to perfect to be wrong in their decisions. They do NOT make mistakes that they have to deal with throughout their character arcs. It is the epitome of "i'm a good guy, so whatever I do and say is ok". There is no thinking. That is only the delusion, you and your pathetic ilk which made the series suck on another level, created for yourself. Also their decisions have no real impact outside of that ONE DAMNED episode. Its like Stargate where every new episode is a new start. Stargate at least tries to have some REAL continuity even though that tends to suck considering all the crap they have done that is ridiculous similar to Star Trek.

Star Trek's science is also less believable. Sure Star Wars has to deal with intergalactic travel in days and the like, but Star Trek does that AND makes it feel dumb. From phasers, to concocked science that is construded to make sense for that episode or series. "oh lets go back in time.. what the.. that Klingon looks like a human. What the heck, Warf? Warf: ...there was an incident." Idiots. Thinking? Yeah, if your a damned idiot, I GUESS it could make you think.

Star Wars at least gives us an insight on the nature of political manipulation and nature of war and a Democratic Republic as well as then general feelings of good and evil actions.

Oh Comon, All Star Wars does is keep you "entertained" for two hours and it gives you masterbation material (Princess Leelia, Hans Solo). Yes I know that we had 7 of 9, and William Riker. Now its not true that the characters are perfect. I can count lots of time that Captain Kirk has been wrong, or that Captain Picard has been wrong. Also, starting fresh every new espisode is there way that you start out with a clean slate with every new day. Star Wars has more believable technology than Star Trek? Don't make me laugh. In Star Trek:TNG, they had procedures, and they had to adjust alot of things to make the engines work. They didn't just use their "Jedi powers" and it'd be done. Also, how can a giant Death Star be kept private while its orbiting a PLANET? I mean jeez, something of that size must've been visible to the people on that planet.

Americai

15-06-2005, 07:08

I love defensive Star Wars fans.

Thats great. At least we are not disliked in the same manner as Trekkie fans trying to attack a generally loved sci-fi drama. Take this to heart. You ****s are notorious for being annoying and lame.

And, I DO love Star Trek. Well at least ToS, TNG, and Enterprise. I even get estatic that some of the TNG stars voice act for another of my favorite series "The Gargoyles" regularly.

But even I get tired of "Star Trek is better than Star Wars". Hello. IT ISN'T. Its rehashed and rather unrealistic even as sci-fi goes. You have Star Wars, Babylon 5, ExoSquad... and then you have Andromeda and a lot of the boring crap Star Trek DOES tend to put out. Just because you have a few jems doesn't mean you disregard the majority of crap that comes with it.

Sdaeriji

15-06-2005, 07:10

Thats great. At least we are not disliked in the same manner as Trekkie fans trying to attack a generally loved sci-fi drama. Take this to heart. You ****s are notorious for being annoying and lame.

And, I DO love Star Trek. Well at least ToS, TNG, and Enterprise. I even get estatic that some of the TNG stars voice act for another of my favorite series "The Gargoyles" regularly.

But even I get tired of "Star Trek is better than Star Wars". Hello. IT ISN'T. Its rehashed and rather unrealistic even as sci-fi goes. You have Star Wars, Babylon 5, ExoSquad... and then you have Andromeda and a lot of the boring crap Star Trek DOES tend to put out. Just because you have a few jems doesn't mean you disregard the majority of crap that comes with it.

Good for you. You hate Star Trek. Have a medal. Now post something on topic or stop posting in this thread.

Americai

15-06-2005, 07:23

I did post something on topic. Missed it? I thought you did. Your probably the type that misses a lot of things.

Oh Comon, All Star Wars does is keep you "entertained" for two hours and it gives you masterbation material (Princess Leelia, Hans Solo). Yes I know that we had 7 of 9, and William Riker. Now its not true that the characters are perfect. I can count lots of time that Captain Kirk has been wrong, or that Captain Picard has been wrong. Also, starting fresh every new espisode is there way that you start out with a clean slate with every new day. Star Wars has more believable technology than Star Trek? Don't make me laugh. In Star Trek:TNG, they had procedures, and they had to adjust alot of things to make the engines work. They didn't just use their "Jedi powers" and it'd be done. Also, how can a giant Death Star be kept private while its orbiting a PLANET? I mean jeez, something of that size must've been visible to the people on that planet.

1. It isn't that it keeps you "entertained" for two hours. It SHOULD keep you entertained. Weren't you people criticizing Episode 2 because it was developing a love story?

2. You criticize masturbation material, then go and point out or remember that ST also has a HUGE history of it as well? Here's some advice. Look at both series when you criticize.

3. No they are never wrong. They do not make life changing decisions that they have to DEAL with. They are also the typical moral character that do not need to worry about vague issues of morality.

4. Procedures? WTF? Do you even understand what the hell I am talking about? Jedi powers is just an aspect for creating an ideal champion and belief set for the races. It isn't technology nor does it replace "procedures". My GOD what the hell are you on right now?

5. Your asking me that in a sci-fi story that envolves an entire galaxy? Gee, I don't know. Do you even know what our government has in its most top secret facilities within our national boarders? Doubtful. But it doesn't make sense because its OUR government, and our boarders.

Hey, by the way, why haven't they found Osama?

Its late. I'm crashing. Just to let you know from a fellow sci-fi fan who does like Star Trek. You SW hating trekkies are VERY irritating to the rest of the community. That is why you are the most ridiculed sci-fi geeks even from ST fans.

Delator

15-06-2005, 07:26

Star Trek has an infinetly higher quality of acting.

I never got into Voyager, or Enterprise...but DS9 and TNG never failed to draw me in through the quality of the performance by nearly every single actor on the screen, from the Captains (I say Sisko is better! :D ) to the little recurring roles.

Now I like the "original" SW films as much as I do Star Trek, but can you imagine how outstanding the new SW films would have been had the acting and dialogue been even half the quality of that in Star Trek?

SW fans would have all committed ritual suicide after seeing Ep. III, that's how good the new films would have been...but nope, we get stiff dialogue and piss-poor acting performances ('cept McGregor, he wasn't terrible).

"There are...FOUR lights!!!" :p

Phylum Chordata

15-06-2005, 07:46

Neo River

15-06-2005, 07:56

I did post something on topic. Missed it? I thought you did. Your probably the type that misses a lot of things.

1. It isn't that it keeps you "entertained" for two hours. It SHOULD keep you entertained. Weren't you people criticizing Episode 2 because it was developing a love story?

Sorry if it takes more than a few flashy effects and piss poor writing to keep me entertained. I actually like to have content and dept in what I am viewing. Star Trek provided this.

2. You criticize masturbation material, then go and point out or remember that ST also has a HUGE history of it as well? Here's some advice. Look at both series when you criticize.

Yea but you never saw 7 of 9 or Consuler Troi in a iron clad binki. You also never saw Captain Pichard without his shirt on. Captain Kirk yes, but he had the body for it.

3. No they are never wrong. They do not make life changing decisions that they have to DEAL with. They are also the typical moral character that do not need to worry about vague issues of morality.

Oh comon, what about when Captain Pichard became a borg, or when they find out that a planet is in danger of erupting and they had to save it. You don't call those life changing decisions? Also, yes they are wrong, I'll give you an example. There was an espisode of TNG, when Captain Pichard had to confront an alien taking on the form of a little girl, and he admitted that he was wrong about how he handled the situation. As for the moral character, what do you call Joda, or Hans Solo. I mean those characters seem pretty 1-D to me here.

4. Procedures? WTF? Do you even understand what the hell I am talking about? Jedi powers is just an aspect for creating an ideal champion and belief set for the races. It isn't technology nor does it replace "procedures". My GOD what the hell are you on right now?

You should really pay attention to an TNG espisode, they didn't just press a button and it was done. They actually had to figure out the problem using math or the computer, and they had to adjust the shield, or power source to confront the problem that they were having. If you really want to talk about the technology that was use in Star Wars, they are not believeable because you cannot make a Light Saber pop up using "The Force".

5. Your asking me that in a sci-fi story that envolves an entire galaxy? Gee, I don't know. Do you even know what our government has in its most top secret facilities within our national boarders? Doubtful. But it doesn't make sense because its OUR government, and our boarders.

I was asking you how a giant Death Star, roughly the size of the moon, was able to be kept in secret when its orbiting a PLANET?! Jeez, they might as well paint a sign that said "Don't look here!". No I don't know whats in Area 51, but at least I can't really see Area 51, they have border patrols and stuff, and they never showed up on any aerial photos. The Death Star is orbiting a freakin planet, and it doesn't even have the cloaking device!

Hey, by the way, why haven't they found Osama?

What the hell does Osama have to do with a discussion about Star Wars and Star Trek?

Vastiva

15-06-2005, 07:59

1. Good no name yet actors, along with some older, established but "haven't been seen in awhile" actors in support roles.

2. Unleash the good writers - fanfic has been around forever. You can read who can write and who can't.

3. Star Trek Bible. Consistancy is a necessity in a long term existance.

4. Involvement. Use the fans. Not "be lead by them", but utilize them

5. Explosions, action. I don't want constant drama - sometimes, you just have to blow the shit out of someone or something. Special Effects have gotten cheap - use them. Alot. I want people cheering when the Enterprise-Q fights it out with the Sluggoths. Forget the formal, stagnant battles - give me something I can get into as a video game.

Quorm

15-06-2005, 08:17

I'd have something break before it reached 125% of its maximum tolerance. The number of times things on that show exceeded their maximum tolerance and kept working was absurd. Do all the engineers follow the Scotty doctine which consists of telling your Captain that maximum tolerances are half of what they actually are because he's was probably too busy dreaming of boffing green women at the academy to learn basic math?

And why do the control panels on the bridge keep blowing up when the ship gets damaged? I think the Enterprise is doing that on purpose to punish the crew, "You put me in a position where I get hurt, I hurt you!"

And is there nothing their technology can't do if they just "reconfigure" it enough? Just once it would be nice to hear the engineer say, "No, you can't do that. You cannae change the laws of physics all the time."
Actually, it's entirely standard practice in engineering to set tolerances well below the point at which something breaks. The whole point of maximum tolerance is so that if you don't exceed the tolerance then no matter what the situtation may be, your device will continue to work. Maximum tolerance is always a crude overestimate of what your device can take and in most situations if your device breaks down below something like 125% tolerance, you've probably stated the tolerance too high. In this respect Star Trek is entirely realistic.

The control panels blowing up is pretty damn silly though.

Either way, Star Trek needs to come back to that combination of camp (w/ TOS) and super-angst (w/ TNG and DS9) it had during the 80s and 90s. Probably could be worded better, but you all get the drift, right?

TNG had super-angst?!?! In my opinion TNG is on of the least angsty television series ever. Even the most potentially angsty moment was always downplayed in TNG. That's not to say there wasn't drama, but dramatic situations weren't treated melodramatically.

A lot of people here seem to think that angst or 'grit' is what the Star Trek universe needs, but I disagree enitirely. TNG (which has been, as far as I know, the most successful of the Star Treks) was great in no small part because unlike so much TV on now it had a generally optimistic view of mankind - it explored the possiblity of humanity at it's best.

Star Trek TNG had as its basis a humanistic and optimistic philosophy that a lot of people now seem to dismiss as stupid without having given it much thought.

The Alma Mater

15-06-2005, 08:48

Great plotlines, good acting and well thought out background stories do not make a succesfull series. Things like Babylon 5 and Firefly never got a huge following. StarGate did, despite it being inferior in every aspect.

So I suggest the following:

- Bring back the practice of letting the captain seduce everything which seems female.
- Add soaplike elements: situations that people can imagine happening to them in daily life (though not with aliens).
- Bring back recurring phrases ("He's dead Jim !")
- Bring back the political incorrectness.

Chrisstan

15-06-2005, 09:01

As a Sci Fi fan of both Star Wars and Star Trek, Firefly kicks both of them from my point of view. The reason it only ran for one year is because Fox cancelled it. They didn't really give it a chance, particularly with deciding to dump the 2 hour Pilot and go with the second episode that had more action, which screws up the whole introducing everybody and what the hell is going on.

Sorry, Off Topic, but I thought I'd defend the show.

Battlestar Galactica is good, but I don't like the camera jerking around all the time.

Lord-General Drache

15-06-2005, 09:25

First off, can we PLEASE avoid the Trek vs Wars arguement, yet again?

Second, I think it needs to be just left alone for a year or two. In that time, look for some bloody brilliant writers. Better yet, take the ones from Babylon 5. Also, let's avoid the cliche sci fi crap like time travel that was used a number of times in the Trek universe, but most specifically, Enterprise. I hated that series.

Crimmond

15-06-2005, 09:28

What would I do?

First: Burn every master of Enterprise.

Second: Burn all 80's TNG. Yar or no, it was just too... 80's.

Third: Get a network to broadcast the black sheep of Star Trek: The Animated Series. Weird coloring and campy look aside, it at least finished out the last two years TOS missed.

Fourth: Make a Trek enemy that DOESN'T suck. Klingon: Asskicking bastards in TOS, despite silly gold vests. Honor happy warriors ever since. Romulans: Cranky Vulcans. Ferengi: Two words; Energy Whip. Borg: Cyborgs only interested in technology(Q said so himself), turned into assimilation happy morons. Jem'hadar: Drug addicts with guns. But then... one wants to stop fighting. Basicly, all the bad asses get screwed up. Hell, the biggest problem trek crews have is making sure the damn engine doesn't blow itself to hell at the drop of a friggin hat.

Fifth: Take a nap.

Sixth: Bring back the First Federation. Tranya baby... tranya.

Greedy Pig

15-06-2005, 10:13

I agree with Americai, we need a series with solid story and continuity.

The problem about Star Trek, is that there's always good and bad storylines, and they try and push the concept of their universe. Which is good to some extent, it's good to understand whats it like living in the 24th century.

But it's getting kinda boring especially stupid episodes like seeing them negotiate with aliens who think eating in public is obscene.

But we should get a series, something like anime, where it'll run for 52 episodes, one long continual story line, badguys we'll remember reappearing and more battles.

Ariddia

15-06-2005, 10:32

Today we're not so much optimistic, what with a poor economy and war and stuff, but I say : all the more reason! We need something that's able to revive that spirit of optimism, to return to the Star Trek we liked which reflected the idea of a humanity that had overgrown its immaturity, that had learned to exorcise its demons and live in peace and stability. That's the Star Trek we like! [...]

As I said before, Star Trek is obviously metaphorical commentary. It was never meant to be hard science fiction, so I've never minded the technobabble that tried to pass for science, the rigid fights or the endless, similar-looking, desperately humanoid alien designs. All of this is okay as long as the story is good.

Agreed. You can't rejuvenate Trek by making it abandon what makes it Trek, and by making it reject Roddenberry's vision. If some people want only mindless entertainment, and can't grasp what Star Trek is all about, well, that's their loss, but then they shouldn't watch it, and even less criticise or try to change it.

Trek is about a utopia, and should stay that way. It's about interesting, thought-provoking situations rather than mindless action and shoot'em-ups. It's never simplistic or manichean. It goes deeper than the usual "good versus evil" rubbish. That's what makes it so much greater than anything else on offer.

Jordaxia

15-06-2005, 10:48

How would I rescue star Trek? I'm going to be re-iterating some of what other people say here, because it's true.

Sack the current writers. They got it into this mess, they're a liability. Find fanfic authors who can write. I've read a few great fanfic stories before, admittedly, however, not ST, mainly because I don't look for it.

Screw explaining all the technology, UNLESS it can be explained believably. That is to say, no misusing words like alloy, no getting basic physics terms wrong like giving a power rating in joules, nothing like that. Only explain it if it adds something to the show. Otherwise it's filler. useless filler at that.

When combat occurs, which should be a special event, done well it will occur with plausible military doctrine. There will be no aiming at some useless part of the vessel to disable it, etc. It will be to blow the crap out of it in a cool way. people who shoot at your ship will not listen to reason when you've blasted the hell out of their engines.

Bring back the borg, and scrap the reduction of any kind of depth they've been given. The borg are cool bad guys... but they've been reduced to little more than zombies with vampiric tendancies. They should be deadly, mysterious, and advanced. Not stumbling shambling carcasses wrapped in a scaffold. Same with all the other races that have been reduced to charicatures of their original nature.

Breath some life into the politick of the federation. It's too nicey nice. The Culture in Iain M Banks novels is the way to do a utopian society. If the feds have it all, then there should be an element of decadence about them. As it stands, they're trim, ever ready, but have everything they could ask for. All good guys need a downside, even if it's not necessarily a "dark" side. (no SW pun intended.)

Less random spacial anomalies, and more interesting people. Aliens, humans, sentient cats, I don't care if they only last an episode. The crew should deal with interesting people with real concerns on a daily basis, and they should always deal in shades of gray. "Good" and "bad" don't exist so handily. When the enterprise mediates, it's almost always between a good guy and a bad guy. There should be a difficulty about it.

Show more of the federation. Spending all the time on board the enterprise/DS9/voyager is all well and good, but if we don't know what the federation is, in more detail, then you're not watching from a position of information. Good in a mystery tv series, not so good when everyone has this common knowledge you're restricted of.

Have the crew not necessarily get on with each other. I know that sometimes they make an attempt at tension, but usually it only lasts an episode with one of the characters dying, or them resolving their differences. There are hundreds of people on the ship, and not all of them will like each other.

That's all I can think of right now.

Neo-Homotopia

15-06-2005, 11:10

Add some controversal people.
Some gay/lesbian chrs.
That WILL get people to watch o.o
Add an enemy whom is not ...so..hmm
Someone you hate to love to hate
Someone evil
But not boreing like some of the past enemys..
Say...
Also, spend more time on the drama of the dairly lives, and less time on the blowing up of the reactor
less teporal-phasic-blahblahs
Make bigger battles
Focus more on planetaryish~ stuff
Let the crew have a reason to stay on the same planet for a couple of segments
Really throw some spice into it
^.~

Tograna

15-06-2005, 11:15

the first thing that needs doing is to declare all of the enterprise series non canon, they were crap television and completely contradicted the pre TOS era history as previously laid down, besides everyone knows this "NX" class ship is nothing but a rehashed Akira class, in that era all the ships were roughy cylidrical with warp pylons extending from the side, eg Little Nell the first warp ship to use matter/anti matter reactions to power the warp drive wheras before everything was fusion powered, the most sophicated ships of that era were the daedalus class, they were basically a sphere with a boom back to a separate enginering section with warp pylons, think like dicovery from 2001 but a lot shorter

Tograna

15-06-2005, 11:21

oh and as for trek vs wars well one is all about FIZZ-BUZZ-FIZZ b00m and the other is about SCHWING SCWING CLASH SIZZLE and I love them both

Disraeliland

15-06-2005, 11:24

Hanging Berman and Braga would be a nice start.

Can the damned technobabble, most of it's bad science, and all of it is unnecessary.

No more episodes around the premise "we have <technobabble> problem, solve it with <technobabble> solution".

Stop making mybrid characters who are always struck with the "torn between 2 cultures" cliche.

Trek is about a utopia, and should stay that way. It's about interesting, thought-provoking situations

That's a contradiction in terms. People who live in a utopia cannot get into an interesting, thought-provoking situation, unless it is out of purely academic curiosity.

Star Trek has an infinetly higher quality of acting.

With a few exceptions, neither franchise has any claim to overall great acting.

Trek's had a few good actors (Stewart, McDowell, Warner, Plummer)

In War's we have Lee, Guinness, Jones, McGregor, Colley)

Both have had very crappy actors.

Ariddia

15-06-2005, 11:27

That's a contradiction in terms. People who live in a utopia cannot get into an interesting, thought-provoking situation, unless it is out of purely academic curiosity.

Erm, yes, they can. If they're travelling beyond the borders of their own utopia.

Greedy Pig

15-06-2005, 12:36

Trek is about a utopia, and should stay that way. It's about interesting, thought-provoking situations rather than mindless action and shoot'em-ups.

I think thats precisely the thing that limits Star Trek, and newcomers enjoying Star Trek. Not everybody enjoy watching utopian societies and how they react when push comes to shove. Rather than the usual negotiate things out, people prefer a more realistic scenery, where guns ablaze and people dying.

The thing I like about Star Trek, is that the universe has already been set through the 5 series. It's like STar Wars, you can set a storyline based on the creation of the Alliance, during the early years of Darth Vader till Luke enters the scene. Or a story on the Alliance and their brave warriors behind the scenes, with a hero (Something like Jedi Knights PC-game series).

Star Trek needs a series to be built on the existing universe. We have the current (24 century = STVoy, DS9, NG), the past and creation of the fed (enterprise) , early years of fed (OriginalST). WHy not we have another season series, that is involves most if not all?

----
Answering the first question by the thread, IF I had 200 million, I would create a season, comprising of all characters in the Star Trek Universe minus the First Generation and Enterprise. SO we'll have Voy, NG & DS9. Since they live in the same universe.

It would be a one season series. And I would like to push the boundaries of what Star Trek is all about. We're going to kill off characters, like the entire DS9 crew, and revive them using replicators. Federation forced to use cloaking technologies, and phase weaponries and chemical weapons because the situation has reached beyond dire circumstances.

Firstly the story, it would be after the Borg has been defeated because of Janeways medling with the timeline, and for a short time, the people had peace. Till a new force emerges. This new force starts conquering many quadrants, and it's extremely powerful equal to the Borg. But as to why it hasn't been known, is because the Borg has been battling this force for the last 400 years, thats why the Borg progress to march with full invasion into the Alpha quadrant has been stifled from. Now that the barrier (Borg) has been removed, this new force can march into the known galaxy.

Now as to seeing all the many empires we've known fall, like Cardassian, Dominions and Species 8472, extreme measures must be taken. And the Federation is forced into making pacts with all other empires to put their ships together to challenge this force. Finally, when all fails, at the end they have to revive the Borg's to restore the balance of the Galaxy. (Leaving it open for Season 2). :)

Smoking Pits

15-06-2005, 12:52

Use the money to give JMS the means to make a B5 movie.

Ahem.

On a mildly less serious note:

1. Stopping the 'We have lotsa techwank but we don't use it' attitude. You can timetravel and have replicators? Sure. But then we will be honest and give the whole thing a more Dr. Whoesque flair (Imagine the Dominion war being fought over the course of several centuries, due to excessive timetravelness).

2. Hire competent actors.

3. Remove the idiocy that is the first directive. The opposite is sane.

4. Make Section... Whatever it was the ST equivalent of The Culture's Special Circumstances.

5. Make them show up frequently.

6. Introduce the authors to basic physcis and astronomy.

7. No more engagements based on visual range. The future wll see them fighting over distances of millions of kilometres.

8. Phasers go with c

9. Have visible effects. I can't help but to giggle at photon torpedoes with (Supposedly) antimatter charges that do less damage than a kinetic impact would do.

10. Give them actual artillery and an army, rather than hobby soldiers.

11. NO MORE IDEALISM.

Ariddia

15-06-2005, 13:03

I think thats precisely the thing that limits Star Trek, and newcomers enjoying Star Trek. Not everybody enjoy watching utopian societies and how they react when push comes to shove. Rather than the usual negotiate things out, people prefer a more realistic scenery, where guns ablaze and people dying.

Well then they should watch something else than Star Trek. There are lots of series that pander to that kind of audience. Trek is unique, and people who don't like what it's based on shouldn't try to change it. Nobody's forcing them to watch it.

Ariddia

15-06-2005, 13:04

<Snip>

I refer you to my earlier post. If you can't grasp what Trek is all about, and what makes it Star Trek, then watch something else. You can't revive Star Trek by destroying it.

Disraeliland

15-06-2005, 13:05

Erm, yes, they can. If they're travelling beyond the borders of their own utopia.

Why would they?

The Federation Star Trek shows is no utopia, it is a desolate, puritanical, dehumanising place, and the inhabitants are thrilled to death about it.

The Mindset

15-06-2005, 13:06

2. Invest in REAL alien unique designs. I can't see why Star Wars tries, and Star Trek doesn't bother to use anything other than a few cheap prosthetics or at least some friggin special effects.

Star Wars is a movie - six hundred times the budget, and the alien design is only used once.

Der Angst

15-06-2005, 13:16

I refer you to my earlier post. If you can't grasp what Trek is all about, and what makes it Star Trek, then watch something else. You can't revive Star Trek by destroying it.Given that TOS was about the cold war and 'Cowboy in Space' things, I do believe that you're a tad delusional, really.

Pure Metal

15-06-2005, 13:17

If you were given a 200 million US dollars and free creative rein to reinvigorate the Star Trek Enterprise (umm...bad pun...make that 'franchise'). What would you create?
i'd essentially re-do Voyager, not directly but in terms of how great it was.

Voyager had:

* great characters many of whom were blank slates so they grew and you learned more about them as the series went on - much more like a soap opera than the other Treks

* an endearing plot: trying to find home is always a plot people can relate to on an emotional level. i'd want something similar with the new Trek i'm making. i mean the overall plots of the others are generally quite weak: "lets explore the galaxy for a while, why not?" So the individual episode's plots were good, but there was no, or very little, overarching plot to hold it all together.
of course it couldn't be finding home again, and it couldn't be character-centric ("we've gotta find such and such") cos thats way too small (is episode or movie scale plot)

* time: i think Enterprise showed that part of the magic of Star Trek is the technology, and Trekkies, after absorbing and getting to love the very similar technology on TNG, DS9 and Voyager were disappointed that their favourite gadgets weren't in Enterprise. i certainly was. so i'd have my new series back in the good ol' 24th century

* threats: the basis of any suspense is threat, percieved or real. the TNG episodes where its all lovey-dovey and they go down to the nice little planet and eat cake with the nice little aliens are BORING. the character dynamics, and humour, can make it worth watching, but in terms of plot its dull as hell. some of the great moments in sci-fi are based around suspense & threats: the death star about to blow shit up and Luke having to blow it up before everyone dies, for eg. First Contact: the Borg trying to stop first contact and all that jazz creates threat and, especially with the Borg, constant suspense.

* star trek: call it star trek damnit! Enterprise wimped out! :mad:

* characters: not all americans again, please. its one of the things i didn't realise until it was gone: most of the actors on TNG had pretty non-descript accents - while in Enterprise it was all yanks, bar one. as a Brit i saw this as an americanisation of a international show, whose principles were always seemingly against haegemony... even if it is on this very small scale ;)

* get the morality & philosophy back! that was what truly made Trek great for me... plots themed around morality plays that made you think, not just semi-mindless entertainment like Enterprise.
sets Trek apart from most other sci-fi

* get the idealism back! the hope that Trek brought with it - the greatness of the Federation, etc, was a constant source of hope and encouragement for me. when i was feeling down i could stick on an ep and be lost in this great world, where we all could be one day if we put aside our petty differences and all that. the idealism of star trek matches my own.
changing this, as was done in Enterprise, ruined the whole thing imo.
this is the cornerstone of the thing - without Roddenberry's idealism, it may as well just be any other sci-fi.

there, through creating a back-to-basics great new Trek series, the franchise can be revived at least to its original fanbase. as for going wider, i don't care - Trek has always been ridiculed, and has always been for the fans, not for everybody. its not that i want to keep it that way, but i have no problems with that as long as they keep making good series! :)

edit:

Agreed. You can't rejuvenate Trek by making it abandon what makes it Trek, and by making it reject Roddenberry's vision. If some people want only mindless entertainment, and can't grasp what Star Trek is all about, well, that's their loss, but then they shouldn't watch it, and even less criticise or try to change it.

Trek is about a utopia, and should stay that way. It's about interesting, thought-provoking situations rather than mindless action and shoot'em-ups. It's never simplistic or manichean. It goes deeper than the usual "good versus evil" rubbish. That's what makes it so much greater than anything else on offer.
looks like i'm not the only one who thinks this way! :) :)

Chrisstan

15-06-2005, 13:18

Given that TOS was about the cold war and 'Cowboy in Space' things, I do believe that you're a tad delusional, really.

Roddenberry told the networks it was "Wagon Train to the Stars" in order to get them to take the show, due to the popularity of Westerns at the time. Star Trek TOS was always about putting forward social issues, such as Racism, the Vietnam War and the Arms Race to name but three.

Pure Metal

15-06-2005, 13:24

Screw explaining all the technology, UNLESS it can be explained believably. That is to say, no misusing words like alloy, no getting basic physics terms wrong like giving a power rating in joules, nothing like that. Only explain it if it adds something to the show. Otherwise it's filler. useless filler at that.

i disagree. it may have been nonsense technobabble but it made it all so much more engaging and immersive, especially when you've watched enough to start to learn what they mean (yes, even if it is fake)
i mean other sci-fi's just say 'here's the ship, it works, now forget about it' like you're supposed to just accept that this spaceship flies. i mean the ship, moya, from Farscape... you never get a hint of an explaination of how that actually works.

you could reduce some technobabble, but for gods sake don't get rid of it

Jordaxia

15-06-2005, 13:33

i disagree. it may have been nonsense technobabble but it made it all so much more engaging and immersive, especially when you've watched enough to start to learn what they mean (yes, even if it is fake)
i mean other sci-fi's just say 'here's the ship, it works, now forget about it' like you're supposed to just accept that this spaceship flies. i mean the ship, moya, from Farscape... you never get a hint of an explaination of how that actually works.

you could reduce some technobabble, but for gods sake don't get rid of it

I think you misunderstand. I don't mind technobabble. I just want it to be VAGUELY believable. And that simply means that -please- use the correct terminology at the very least. If we made it hard-sci fi, It wouldn't be trek!

Ordinarily explaining it does add something to the show. Then it immediately detracts from it when their "engineers" can't even use the right words, it soils the illusion. In sci-fi novels, explaining how their technology works is a matter of course, and it adds to it because you have an extra element of depth. But they also take the time out to make sure that even if it does snap about 12 laws of physics, at least it does so correctly.

Disraeliland

15-06-2005, 13:34

No one goes around explaining how everything works all the time, and good sci-fi writers don't have to base a good percentage of the stories on technobabble problems with technobabble solutions

Jordaxia

15-06-2005, 13:39

No one goes around explaining how everything works all the time, and good sci-fi writers don't have to base a good percentage of the stories on technobabble problems with technobabble solutions

Yes they do... they just can get away with it because Trek is famed for it and they aren't. So it's easier to hide.

Honestly, SW is like the exception to the technobabble because it's essentially a fantasy movie with "The Force" instead of magic, death stars instead of evil forts, and space battles instead of massed land battles.

Pure Metal

15-06-2005, 13:45

I think you misunderstand. I don't mind technobabble. I just want it to be VAGUELY believable. And that simply means that -please- use the correct terminology at the very least. If we made it hard-sci fi, It wouldn't be trek!

Ordinarily explaining it does add something to the show. Then it immediately detracts from it when their "engineers" can't even use the right words, it soils the illusion. In sci-fi novels, explaining how their technology works is a matter of course, and it adds to it because you have an extra element of depth. But they also take the time out to make sure that even if it does snap about 12 laws of physics, at least it does so correctly.
ok fair enough - change the technobabble to be correct, but don't get rid of it. i'm cool with that

No one goes around explaining how everything works all the time, and good sci-fi writers don't have to base a good percentage of the stories on technobabble problems with technobabble solutions
explaining how things work is often central to the plot, and for other characters to understand. explaining how things work is essential to the viewer cos it draws them into the trek universe... without that it'd just be like Farscape, which i could never get into cos i just had to accept that all this shit worked, without much of an explaination at all

Disraeliland

15-06-2005, 13:46

"Honestly, SW is like the exception to the technobabble because it's essentially a fantasy movie with "The Force" instead of magic, death stars instead of evil forts, and space battles instead of massed land battles."

You mustn't watch, or read a lot of sci-fi.

"explaining how things work is often central to the plot, and for other characters to understand. explaining how things work is essential to the viewer cos it draws them into the trek universe... without that it'd just be like Farscape, which i could never get into cos i just had to accept that all this shit worked, without much of an explaination at all "

It is essential if you bring out technobabble plots, or sub-plots everywhere.

I never had a problem accepting the lack of technobabble in Blake's 7, or Star Wars for that matter.

Jordaxia

15-06-2005, 13:51

"Honestly, SW is like the exception to the technobabble because it's essentially a fantasy movie with "The Force" instead of magic, death stars instead of evil forts, and space battles instead of massed land battles."

You mustn't watch, or read a lot of sci-fi.

Er no, I do watch and read a lot of SF, and have seen a hellova lot of SF. Admittedly I forgot Farscape, which is another exception... but I have read plenty of books where such talk is a matter of course, for example the Nights Dawn Trilogy, and many other books by Peter F Hamilton, though he tends to have more low-tech SF. it's still starships and FTL, (except the Greg Mandel Mindstar serie) but there's no death stars in sight.

There's also the "confederation handbook" which is a technobabble guide.

Pure Metal

15-06-2005, 13:54

I never had a problem accepting the lack of technobabble in Blake's 7, or Star Wars for that matter.
well there you go. i have.

if its fictional and there's no explaination of how it works, then i'm just not going to accept it at face value.
fantasy is an exception of course - part of the mistique and excitement is the magic

Disraeliland

15-06-2005, 14:02

"if its fictional and there's no explaination of how it works, then i'm just not going to accept it at face value."

The explainations too are fictional, in virtually every respect. How can you accept subspace XYZ as an explaination for something? Or warp plasma interacting with warp coils to create a warp field as an explaination for FTL travel.

One sees it work on screen, therefore it works. You must accept it because you've seen it.

Supreme General Shadow

15-06-2005, 14:07

Star Trek is gay!!!
B]S T A R W A R S 4 L I F E[/B]

Pure Metal

15-06-2005, 14:10

The explainations too are fictional, in virtually every respect. How can you accept subspace XYZ as an explaination for something? Or warp plasma interacting with warp coils to create a warp field as an explaination for FTL travel.

i can accpet it because its how their fictional technology works. i'd rather have nonsense explaination than none whatsoever.

and the explainations in Trek are a little more complex than that...

One sees it work on screen, therefore it works. You must accept it because you've seen it.
i can accept that it does work, yes. moya obviously does fly, but i just cannot accept it as good sci-fi, or like it.

i'm always like this though - unless i know how something works i either don't care about it, don't like it, or ignore it. i have to know how things work

Mythotic Kelkia

15-06-2005, 14:31

what I'd do is:

1. Restart the continuity. Just go back to the very beginning, and redo everything. Sure you can re-use names like "Federation", "Klingon, "Starfleet", and of course "Enterprise", but the canon itself would be ignored. There's just too much rubbish there - which leads me onto my next point:

2.No FTL drive. No transporters. No made up science at all. Pure hard SF. It'd be set several thousand or so years in the future, maybe in this solar system, maybe in another, but never venturing outside of it - this avoids the "planet of the week" style plots. Just real people in situations you can identify with, but still retaining that SF sense of wonder. Don't endlessly explain everything, just let it be implied; Farscape and Firefly are good examples of recent tv SF that takes this route, Firefly even managed to do that while still remaining relatively hard Scifi: there was no sound in space, and it was implied that the ship didn't even have a FTL drive.

3. Make the aliens alien, and if thats not possible then stop pretending they're aliens - just make them some kinda future variant of humanity, like the Nietzscheans in Andromeda.

4. Try and recreate the kind of situations that led to some of the finest moments of the series: the Dominion War springs to mind. Brilliant idea, and a situation that really made you care for the characters involved. None of the boring rubbish we got in Voyager or Enterprise.

5. Most importantly of all: Screw the fans. The fans are idiots. Star Trek is probably the single most important and well known TV SF franchise. You can't risk that reputation with the actual viewing public based on what a bunch of nerds want.

Dominus Gloriae

15-06-2005, 17:50

Here's my opinion, If I had the control of the budget and creative control of Star Trek, being a fan of Star Wars and Star Trek intermittently. Star Wars is higher action, Obi Wan crashes his jedi fighter into Grieveous's command ship hangar, smashes a few battle droids in the process and immediately proceeds to pop the canopy and forward flip, while igniting his lightsaber, and turning a few more battle droids into confetti in the process, in Star Trek, the most people do is walk around pushing buttons or pointing television remote controls at various objects and pow, "he's dead Jim". How about a teleivision series based around Q or the Romulans. The Romluans are the only force not covered ad nauseum, and they still have balls, IMHO, and Q is one of the most popular characters.

think about it Star Trek: Continuum, or Star Trek: ROMULUS.

Kejott

15-06-2005, 18:19

I've always had this fairly good idea that I would be highly interested in seeing. I'd start a series about Starfleet Marines patroling around Federation space and pacifying violent situations. You know riots, civil wars, etc. Their ship could be something like a steamrunner, not too big and not too small.

Starfleet Marines are fucking awesome and it would be cool to see them beam down to planets and engage in some heated futuristic warfare. Imagine Dutch's team in the movie Predator, except instead of Army Rangers you have several Starfleet Marines away teams who live on the ship together. Each Marine would also have a speciality, wether it be purely tactical, science, engineering, etc.

You could also have those anomaly episodes where some weird stuff happens in space and they have to try to get out of it, as well as ground battles and ship to ship battles.

The main characters could go something like this:

Commander James Stiles: The hardcore and calm when under fire human team leader of Away Team Alpha.

Lieutenant Commander T'lok: The unemotional Vulcan science expert of Away Team Alpha.

Lieutenant Joll: The Bolian oddball engineering expert who provides comic relief.

Lieutenant Jr. Grade Janet Benson: The overzealous, brash, and extremely cocky Tactical expert of Away Team Alpha.

*Sigh*, I wish I had the money to do this!

Dominus Gloriae

15-06-2005, 18:34

so, basically Star Trek needs a new Guru like Gene Roddenbery, and it needs its balls back?

Pure Metal

15-06-2005, 19:07

so, basically Star Trek needs a new Guru like Gene Roddenbery, and it needs its balls back?
it needs a guru, yeah, but more than that it needs its focus back to swing round to what all these trekkies started to love it for in the first place

Mekonia

15-06-2005, 19:10

The current place of Star Trek in popular culture is low as it can go; only paraody references and sterotypes of delusiional Trekkies remains.

If you were given a 200 million US dollars and free creative rein to reinvigorate the Star Trek Enterprise (umm...bad pun...make that 'franchise'). What would you create?

Wouldn't care what it looked like as long as it had a kill seven of nine feature! The blonde back stabbing borg!

Dobbsworld

15-06-2005, 19:18

The answer is simple really:

Cocaine. Mountains of it.

Letila

15-06-2005, 19:36

I would make a new series set 100 years after Voyager and call it Star Trek: Degradations or something to that affect dealing with the Federation in the middle of a crisis. The Federation would be approaching a civil war due to human and Vulcan supremacists and the Borg and Species 8472 would loom in the background as possible threats.

The captain would be a closet pædophile who is desperately conflicted between his desires and his ethics. He tries hard to do the right thing, though. His crew would consist of a motley collection of Objectivists, Vulcan and human supremacists, Trotskyites, anarchists, neo-pagans, etc.

Ashmoria

15-06-2005, 20:27

1. Make the whole federation society less socialistic, "perfect", and all around a bunch of wussies who have no concept of anything hardcore. Putting in some more common, natural behavior, and characters along with REALLY great characters now and then would greatly give more people more connection. The whole thing feels to unnatural. From the suits, costumes, equipment, ships, and enemies to the "no matter what, all our main actors, main ships and vehicles, and morals will leave the next episode unscathed."

1. Good no name yet actors, along with some older, established but "haven't been seen in awhile" actors in support roles.

2. Unleash the good writers - fanfic has been around forever. You can read who can write and who can't.

3. Star Trek Bible. Consistancy is a necessity in a long term existance.

4. Involvement. Use the fans. Not "be lead by them", but utilize them

5. Explosions, action. I don't want constant drama - sometimes, you just have to blow the shit out of someone or something. Special Effects have gotten cheap - use them. Alot. I want people cheering when the Enterprise-Q fights it out with the Sluggoths. Forget the formal, stagnant battles - give me something I can get into as a video game.

in addition to these suggestions...

1) make it a requirement that the writers, directors and producers love star trek and know what makes it tick.

2) have people in the future RUN if there is an emergency in another part of the ship that needs attending. this "watlking smartly" bullshit.

id like to see more non human focus. id like recurring plots involving ships manned primarily by other species. the all-vulcan ship, the all-trill ship, the all-whatever-the-fuck-deanna-troy-was-half-of ship, just to see what their challenges are, how THEY would deal with stuff differentlyfrom a predominantly human crew.

i would like a character who finished LAST in his class at star fleet, the guy who only got onto the enterprise through politics. the guy the captain NEVER turns to in a crisis. im sick of everyone on the enterprise being the best of the best.

and i would like more discussion of the dark side of earth society. on tng it was put out that all social conflict had been eliminated. no war, no hunger, no ignorance, no want of any kind, no need for money because no one was interested in besting the other guy. thats just STUPID. i want them to think up some unexpected dark side that fits in with this rosy description of life on earth. like....there is no conflict because everyone on earth is chemically castrated to keep them placid and to control unauthorized sex/childbearing. or....the earth is now controlled by one of 2 fanatical religious sects of a sort that doesnt exist today. or.....something else i cant think up but some smart writer could.

Ashmoria

15-06-2005, 20:34

Caerwine

15-06-2005, 20:47

The firts thing to do is to realize that Star Trek has basically done about as much as one can do within its current continuity. It's past time to do a massive reimagining as happens with comic books from time to time. That would enable the writers to keep the best of Trek and add to it.

Starting with that premise, lets see what we need to keep.
Technology
Warp drive, phasers, transporters, ODN conduits, etc. need to be kept, but the details should be set down in stone and not altered arbitrarily simply to make a story that doesn't fit with the Trek universe. Drop the photon/quantum torpedo BS. FX have improved so that its affordable to show missiles instead of points of light.

Time Travel/Holodeck
Holodecks should be forbidden, and time travel should be limited in the extreme. Both are plot devices for tellining imaginary stories that will have no consequences on the characters, but take the place of stories that could be used to actually advance what happens with the main characters. Both plot devices only serve to create melodrama. If and when characters ae killed off it should have meaning because it can't be undone.

Alien Races
Star Trek has a good number of alien races, but they need to be better differentiated, and the writers must resist the temptation to make them into good guys all the time just because fans like them. However, unless you want CGI actors all the time , the plain truth is that except under special circumstances they are going to have to nbe humans with makeup.

When and where to set it
I think the best starting point would be when Captain Christopher Pike takes command of the USS Enterprise NCC-1701 from her first captain, Robert April. The writers could even tantalize the Trekkies by having Midshipman James T. Kirk undertake a training cruise on the Enterprise during the first season. Lieutenant Spock should come on board as the science officer during the second season, after the first season science officer gets killed at the Battle of Axanar (http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Battle_of_Axanar). (It's not in the canon whether Enterprise was there, but it was in commission at the time, so its a reasonable interpolation.) There are other parts of TOS backstory that could be interwoven from time to time. For instance, one could have Captain Pike and Yeoman Colt take in a performance by the Karidian Company (http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Karidian_Company) on some shore leave.

Dobbsworld

15-06-2005, 22:23

If not mountains of cocaine, then perhaps something like Videodrome. Think of it - everyone tunes in, but get hit with a Videodrome-like signal that makes 'em think they're watching something, but in reality, there's just a blue screen running for an hour. Look at the upside - there'd be no production costs - period!

Of course there's the downside of hallucinations, brain tumours and suicides, but hey.

It's Star Trek we're talking about.

JiangGuo

15-06-2005, 22:31

As the original threadstarter, I think I'll address you all.

I see many of you don't like the idealist/utopia setting of ST; how does a Federation Civil War grab you? Mirror it on the current conservative vs. liberal tension in the US?

Just my 2 cents:

i) Bring in actor/actresses known for works outside of ST - almost every actor/actress has some fans that would watch whatever he/she is in, regardless of what it is. For example, certain male actors can draw the teen/20s female demographic to watch ANYTHING. Vice versa with certain females and teen/20s male demographic.

That ought to keep viewership/ratings decent.

I mean, 200 million, you can probably sign a few actually KNOWN actors.

ii)Sorta related to item 1. GET RID OF THE ENTIRE TNG CAST. Defenstrate Patrick Stewart!

iii)Actual galatic politics beside preachy conversionism. Like on Deep Space Nine, assainating the Romulan senator in his shuttle to draw the Romulan Star Empire into the Dominion War. (DS9: "In the pale moonlight") Thats the sort of less-than-moral realism ST needs.

iv)Continuity *cough* Voyager used over 6000 torpedoes *cough*! No more status quo by the end of the hour, have actual developing story lines!

v)If all else fails, appeal to mankind's basic instincts. Try to sign on Lindsay Lohan or Eliza Cuthbert or Eliza Dushku or something.

vi)Insane thought, if Kirsten Dunst was to be cast on Star Trek series as a regular role, what kind of character would you cast for her? (Yes, she was on TNG as a child actor too.)

Quorm

16-06-2005, 01:41

Dominus Gloriae

16-06-2005, 01:58

Star Trek and Star Wars are popular for being topical as much as anything. Star Wars Revenge of the Sith appears in several parts to make commentary about the current state of affairs in the world. Star Trek TOS had a large amount of Cold War Tensions built in, and it explored human nature in the context of that, and offered an hope that humanity would continue. Star Wars proposes to have fundamentally good and fundamentally bad fighting each other, with infallible Jedi Knights. If you wanted to say it, they take the real world and warp it slightly. i think a series based on the Romulans would be a great idea, because the Romulans, more than any other race reflect the idea of evil's banality, and the truth is fiction, wheras the federation is a goody two shoes organization of absolutes, Voyager had some good episodes, Relativity, and Equinox were good. THe captain of the Equinox decided that Genocide to save his crew was more important than the prime directive. IN relativity the 29th century time ship Relativity abducts 7 of 9 for a TS mission. Q, again one of the most popular characters (John D' Lancie) would allow revisiting TOS, and before, and expound on the Continuum Civil war, ahinted at in the episode VOY: The Q and the grey, there is some speculation, which could be cleared up that Trelane, from TOS: Squire of Gothos was a Q.

BlackKnight_Poet

16-06-2005, 02:13

Oh Comon, All Star Wars does is keep you "entertained" for two hours and it gives you masterbation material (Princess Leelia, Hans Solo). Yes I know that we had 7 of 9, and William Riker. Now its not true that the characters are perfect. I can count lots of time that Captain Kirk has been wrong, or that Captain Picard has been wrong. Also, starting fresh every new espisode is there way that you start out with a clean slate with every new day. Star Wars has more believable technology than Star Trek? Don't make me laugh. In Star Trek:TNG, they had procedures, and they had to adjust alot of things to make the engines work. They didn't just use their "Jedi powers" and it'd be done. Also, how can a giant Death Star be kept private while its orbiting a PLANET? I mean jeez, something of that size must've been visible to the people on that planet.

The first death star was created in the maw installation which was hidden by black holes near Kessel. The second death star was constructed near the forest moon of Endor which the only real intelligent creatures living there were the ewoks.

Ahh gotta love the yahoo star wars chat rooms for useless knowledge.

Iansisle

16-06-2005, 05:28

Well, being an open and proud Trekkie, I can't help but but my two cents in on this.

I hate to make things in list form, but cannot think of a better format for this. Here's my list of priorities for a new Star Trek:

1) Sack the worthless television writers. All of them. Ninety per cent of the best Science Fiction writing is being done by more or less unknown short fiction writers; read the short fiction magazines and give them a contract for one or two episodes. Screen their work to make sure it fits (fairly well - a perfect match is not needed) into the larger Star Trek story arch . This has the dual advantage of being cheap(er) and keeping ideas (relatively) fresh, albeit with the disadvantage of having each individual episode be very hit-or-miss. (While $200 million would be nice, I doubt that Paramont is going to give the Star Trek franchise that much to work with :-/)

Many may recognize this as the plan from TOS; that is why many of the most memorable episodes (be they the very best ("City on the Edge of Forever") or the very worst ("Spock's Brain")) were in the Original Series.

2) Aliens serve two functions: they either provide a foil for the human characters (ie, Spock and McCoy/Kirk) or they serve as commentary on the human condition (ie, Data). When creating a nonhuman character, the author should reflect on why they chose to make that nonhuman character, and if he/she/it really fits into one of the two previous categories.

Star Trek is primarily about the human condition and humans. Other species are the background against which a story about humans must be told.

3) Star Trek needs to be edgy and to deal with current events with the larger picture of greater toleration and peace. In the spirit of Uhura, Chekov, and the racially integrated TOS cast, one of the main human characters should be openly homosexual. Not the over-the-top, zany, stereotyped homosexual of idiotic sitcoms, but rather just a human being like every other save for his/her sexual preference. Other good single-episode topics might be the dangers of cultural imperialism, substance addiction, the aftermath of natural disasters, man's interaction with the natural world, etc.

4) If I wanted gritty realism or "hard" science fiction, I'd watch/read something else. Neither of those for Trek, please.

5) The characters need to be top-heavy. Choose two or three major characters (ie, Kirk, Spock, and McCoy or Picard and Data) and center most plots around them. While the "ensemble" nature of DS9 and Voyager could be effective, more often it simply led to confusion and chaos.

On a similar note, the captain needs to be one of the strongest characters; for a large part of the early seasons of DS9, I was convinced that Commander Sisko was just some guy in an office with whom the other characters only interacted if they needed to borrow a runabout.

Well, there are Ian's Five Points for Saving Trek. If you have a difference of opinion, please let me know - I'd love to better explain my point of view and hear yours. :)

Americai

16-06-2005, 06:37

As the original threadstarter, I think I'll address you all.

I see many of you don't like the idealist/utopia setting of ST; how does a Federation Civil War grab you? Mirror it on the current conservative vs. liberal tension in the US?

One really needs to do wars only if it is important and if there is a reason for war. Or, showing consequences of a war started with no reason. *nudge nudge*

A civil war would be fine if there were REASONS for it.

Here's the problem: Star Trek isn't very natural. It isn't human. It goes beyond the lack action that is part of Star WARS (get it... the Wars being part of the title for you "its all about action" complainers.) The characters themselves are so rigid and unnatural with one another. Their jokes (if there are any) suck and are weak, they don't have real arguments, they don't do anything that really makes people feel connected with them. They are so lacking on the details of interpersonal relationships that its hard for people to believe that they can be so perfect all the time. Think about it, not only do they work with one another, but they LIVE with one another. Having to be around the same people every day leads to regular behaviors.

I mean its one thing to be professionals on the bridge where rank and work are the whole point of the job, but having to live with them when they are not at work springs up other issues where work ethic and professionalism isn't really utilized.

Then there is the technobabble that is inaccurate that was brought up. In most Sci-fi series, there is a reason they don't go into large technobabble dialoge. They characters should ALREADY KNOW the technology. Do you say "omg, I must rewire the micro-processor's blah blah!" and you get the idea. Or do you in a more natural way tell your friend "ah, dammit, I need to replace a chip".

I mean there are suddleties in everything. Even major techies use different vocabulary for their tech stuff vocally (not on the net however) because they KNOW about it and don't have the time to give you a little documentary about what went wrong and how to fix it. They just say "give me a minute, I need to replace/fix this".

Star Wars and many other sci-fi series used technobabble correctly. "Fire photon torpedos". It means fire torpedos with photon only indicating what type of torpedos. It isn't "fire photon torpedos with mark five explosion radius". Seriously. Bad writing. It isn't only present in SW. I have to agree with what someone said of a few minority Trekkies.

5. Most importantly of all: Screw the fans. The fans are idiots. Star Trek is probably the single most important and well known TV SF franchise. You can't risk that reputation with the actual viewing public based on what a bunch of nerds want.

They aren't nerds however. They are geeks and dorks. They only WANT to be nerds. They are also ridiculed by most sci-fi fans for a REASON. I like Star Trek, and their inability to figure out why it needs improvement is atrocious.

Ariddia

16-06-2005, 08:25

Quorm, Iansisle, thank you so much for showing me that there still are people who understand what Star Trek is all about, who realise it must uphold Roddenberry's vision and ideal to remain Trek, and who like it for precisely that reason!

Everyone else, as I've already said, there are lots of sci-fi series that correspond to what you're asking for. Don't try to force it on Star Trek. You can't revive Star Trek by destroying it.

I think Quorm put it best:

What you're suggesting here would require such a thorough revision of the Star Trek universe that the only possible reason for calling it Star Trek would be exploiting the franchise's success.

Pure Metal

16-06-2005, 08:34

In my opinion Star Trek and Star Wars both owe their amazing success in no small part to an ultimately optimistic philosophy.
agreed. thats what it comes down to - the whole idea that the star trek galaxy is based on. get rid of that idealism, and it just won't be star trek - you may as well call it something else entirely

Delator

16-06-2005, 08:57

I think, just for shits and giggles, that I'm going to make a spin off poll...I'll edit in a link in a minute.

EDIT: ... linky (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=426156)

[/hijack]

Cmdr_Cody

16-06-2005, 09:08

I had a long-winded post earlier, but the damn system ate it :mp5: :gundge: :sniper:

Anyways, I'll try not to sound repetative, but there are key areas that need changing:

0. Before anything else happens, get Beavis & Butthead as far away from Trek as possible. They've milked the series enough as it is, they don't need to bury it.

1. Hire good writers/actors. Scrap the current team except for a few like Coto, burn up the directory of every past Trek actor so that we can't fall back on them *cough*ENT Finale*cough* and go out and find new talent.

2. Continuity. Sit down and write out a Trek Canon Bible that all writers must adhear to. Get everything right down to the nitty gritty details, so that mistakes in the history, storyline and technology don't happen. If the Romulans didn't have cloaking tech until the time of TOS, then don't give it to them a hundred years before!

3. Over-arcing plotlines. They don't have to happen over an entire season or series, the last season of ENT demonstrated that. But make the problems the crew has to deal with take more then 44min to solve, and have its after-effects lasting. Keep your utopian perfect humans, but at least allow them to respond to an imperfect universe.

4. Flesh out the races. If you can describe an entire alien species in one sentence or less (Klingons=Space Vikings, Ferengi=Greedy Capitalists, ect.) then they need to be developed more until they're believeable. How exactly is a race going to get into space when the majority of its people are more concerned with dying a good death in battle then making progress?

5. A lot less technobable. Which makes more sense to say in the middle of a battle, or when a critical failure is about to happen: "Sir, the neutronic flux capacitors have been influenced by a burst of positive gammatic radiation from the enemy's weaponry, our Warp Core is experiencing a reduction in standard operating procedures" or "Sir, the enemy's fire has damaged the Warp core"?

6. No more time travel/holosuit malfuctions. We had enough of that BS even before the "Temporal Cold War", and all they do is produce throwaway episodes that contribute nothing to plot development. If it doesn't affect the overall plot or contribute to a character's development, it's a waste of film and the viewers' time.

7. Insert some logic in their battles. Intergalactic ships don't regularly duke it out Age of Sails-style within spitting distance of each other. Where is the long-range fire? The point-defense weaponry? The electronic jamming? And why is it so hard to make your ground forces competent? What advanced society has its warriors charging into a gun battle swinging around flimsily-constructed bladed weapons? The MACOs were a step in the right direction, just expand that out.

8. Give the Feds a backbone. What superpower signs a treaty that effectively gives their rivel free reign with a technology that could be useful to them (Treaty of Algeron or whatever, Rommies keep cloaking tech)? What superpower gives over its own colonies to a lesser power when they could end the war in a few weeks (border conflict with the Cardassians)? They're worse then the UK and France trying to appease Hitler before WWII, at least give our future selves a spine for god's sake.

If I think of more I'll be sure to add in later ;)

Cannot think of a name

16-06-2005, 09:18

-snip-
Space Patroooooooooooooollll!!!

Sorry. OTR fan. I'll go now...

Dominus Gloriae

16-06-2005, 13:11

I just had another Idea:

STAR TREK: Defiance

Michael Dorn: Capt Worf
Robert Picardo: The Doctor "EMH"
Thomas Kretchmann: Lt Cdr Klaus Feltdmann, chief Engineer
Ewan McGreggor: Cdr Elias Marner, Second officer
Chris Tucker: Capt Alphonse Demure Starfleet Marines,exchange officer forced to become Tactical officer while in conflict

Plot: The story of the voyages of the USS Defiant, a small heavily armed Corvette with a cloaking device.

Pilot: Tal Shiar, the Defiant is sent on a covert recovery, reconaissance mission with the Obsidian order/ Tal Shiar battle group into the Gamma quadrant. Defiant observes Dominion weaponry, and attempts to teleport aboard Dominion ship disguised as Jem Hadar to steal whatever they can, and perhaps set up agents in the Dominion, ends up in a cross fire and loses the cloaking device, has to escape or lead to greater conflict, the level of intergallactic war between the Dominion, and a Federation/Klingon/Romulan alliance on the other.

episode 1: Defector?

Captain Worf has decided to kidnap the crew of the Defiant and turn the ship over to the Dominion along with all the federation contingency plans, or has he?

Episode 2: Conspiracy Theory.

Three Starfleet outposts are seemingly attacked by hijacked Federation ships, Defiant is able to stop a fourth, by transporting aboard, expecting to find a Maquis crew, but the ship is empty, and flying by remote control, the crew decide to scuttle the vessel before it's able to stike its target which leads Worf to suspect more is going on than he knows.

Episode 3: Weaving Spiders

Worf receives orders to cease investing the "attacks", but refuses, telling starfleet command, Today, is not a good day to die. Meanwhile, Starfleet command has blamed the attacks on the "founders" and joined the Dominion wars

Episode 4: Double, bubble toil and trouble.

The Maquis transmit a message to the defiant, requesting a meeting on uninhabbited world, They decide to investigate, and receive more cryptic clues, but no hard evidence. THe Crew returns to the Alpha quadrant based on information from the Maquis and uncovers a secret sect of quasi religous nature, which happens to include Starfleet personnel. Worf and crew argue about how to proceed, Worf wants to rid the world of these whackos, but his other officers present differing views, a fuming worf is convinced to do nothing.

Episode 5: Birds of a Feather

While returning to deep space for another mission, the Defiant is ambushed by Romulan Raptor class attack cruisers, the standoff is intense, but after a few exchanges of fire, it becomes clear that the Romulans are not hostile, and in fact attempt to communicate, Worf is stunned to find out the Romulan task force is commanded by Ambassador Spock.

Episode 6: Sanguinus

Worf contacts the Klingon intelligence service, which his grandfather was a member of, Worf and his crew generally enjoy themselves at Klingon bloodsport,all the while collecting more information about the plot

Episode 7: Other Duty

The Federation has got wind of the secret investigation taking place under their noses and decides to divert the ship to other duties, more closely monitored duties. Worf, and crew get piss drunk and go on a rampage at Starbase K12 because of their lame duty and obvious punishment, some officers suspect their careers are now over, a few attempt to join the Maquis
rather than continue to serve in starfleet and get nowhere, their Maquis Contact is Chakotay from ST: Voyager

WHat does anybody think of these, they offer a good bit of hawk/ dove play, and have an interesting aspect of an alien commander, and so can explore the human condition from without, rather than within, and the feelings of the crew toward their klingon commander.

Another Idea: Star Trek:Ensigns

A Star Trek Relity TV show, wher a cast of average joes is given a month and a half intensive course on Treknology, and Trek Lore, final rank based upon quizes, then put aboard the USS Endeavour NCC 77581, a Steamrunner class ship and put through various scenarios. no voting off, but crew members can be slain in battle

Aqualay

16-06-2005, 16:11

What would I do,

Well first off, Braga and Berman would have to go....
Secondly, Enterprise would be stricken as non-canon...
Thirdly, I would let the franchise have a few years of rest on the big and small screens cause it really needs it. Though there would still be various side projects going on like maybe an MMORPG set in the 24th century...
Lastly I agree with what many have said here, I would have a strict Universal Star Trek Canon Bible...

Cmdr_Cody

16-06-2005, 21:13

Sarzonia

16-06-2005, 21:29

I was thinking of doing a Star Trek out in the far, far future where they're not just hopping star systems in the Alpha Quadrant, but they're hopping galaxies.

Actually, the premise I had in mind was this: The USS Enterprise, NCC 1701-H is fitted with a new transwarp-type drive (perhaps quantum slipstream, perhaps not) that allows it to travel at speeds where they can get to galaxies in a matter of hours. Then the first show would be based on their making first contact with a species from another galaxy.

I'd do something along the lines of making that species have technology that's vastly superior to Enterprise, and I'd have that species start out befriending the Enterprise crew. However, by the end of the first season, we would find out that the species was trying to sabotage the Enterprise crew or use them to subjugate Earth. Another species that mistrusted the humans at the beginning of the show comes to the Enterprise's and Earth's rescue.

The other thing that came to mind was Enterprise-B. I also like the idea of a series based on Enterprise-C with Captain Rachel Garrett. Another possibility is a series based on the Enterprise-F... who is the next generation to boldly go where no one has gone before?

NationStates Jolt Archive

Reviving Star Trek? What would it take?