I’d like to see at least one more attempt.
However, to make it work, I think the writers would have to go in a more “dark” direction and get off the old self righteous paradigm.
I’d like to see a Star Trek where the Federation is broken and is no longer the superpower of the galaxy.
So, do you think the world is ready for a new ST franchise?
And what changes need to happen to make this hypothetical series NOT be a total failure?
Going Dark would be horrible for Star Trek. What always set Star Trek apart from other Sci Fi was its fundamental under current of optimism in the basic goodness and potential of humanity. You lose that and the show isn’t Star trek. I enjoy those dark kind of stories and would love a show like that, just don’t make it Star Trek.
That’s was Gene’s vision tho’. From what I’ve read he had a stick up his butt when it came to this “optimistic future” stuff. This dogma, so to speak ,led to a lot of artistic restriction with the writters. Which apparently never set well with them.
I second this. I remember there was a topic similar to this a while back, and most people came up with ideas that were Star Trek in name only. I don’t see the point in doing a new Star Trek that’s basically just BSG or Firefly set in the Star Trek universe. Now I don’t think it has to be completely light and happy, but the optimism has to be there. And Star Trek should always focus on the captain and officers of an important Federation vessel.
Well, there was always DS9, which was the darkest of the series, but one of the best. Still, the Federation was always the “good guys.”
The problem with abandoning Gene’s legacy is that you would end up with stories like the original “City on the Edge of Forever,” where there was drug dealing- drug dealing(!) on the Enterprise. I just can’t see Star Trek fans appreciating that.
ETA: I should clarify that Harlan Ellison’s original script had the drug dealing. Gene modified it for the show.
Is there a copy of that floating around anywhere? I know that Ellison’s original script had McCoy self-administering the Cordrazine, ostensibly for recreational purposes, but I never heard anything about him buying it on the black market. Janice Rand always struck me as being a little on the shifty side, though—was she McCoy’s dealer?
Yet for some people, including me, “set in the Star Trek Universe” is enough to make it Star Trek. Otherwise, really, there’s no real argument as to why DS9 is Star Trek. It had none of the feel of the series that had gone before (or after, actually), although that was slightly rectified by the addition of the Defiant. Still, it was largely about war, politics and what not rather than “going boldly” anywhere. It also including (IIRC) plenty of hints to the non-perfect nature of the Federation.
And it was far and away the best Star Trek.
From Wikipedia:
I’ve never seen the original script, but this version is pretty widely accepted.
They did this; it was called “Battlestar Galactica.”
If you wanted an expansive sci-fi universe that was darker and crappier, why not just invent a new one rather then recycling a backstory that really needs a vacation?
Somehow I kind of like the idea of an Evil Wil Wheaton, who is now commander of the Fleet’s flagship, going rogue and terrorizing technologically inferior races into complete subservience. I think it has potential.
DS9 was still, at heart, optimistic. Ben and Jake Sisko represent a better future than what we have now. Yes there was more moral grayness and the amount of non Federation characters allowed them to really take a good look at the Federation itself but still, under everything, the show is fundamentally positive.
This show exists. It was called Andromeda. It sucked.
I’d just like a show written for adults. No kid characters, no cutesy comic relief characters - if there are going to be sexual liaisons, go ahead but don’t feel compelled to slather on the emotional layers. Have nonhuman characters with nonhuman (or at least nonWestern) perspectives. Allow for interpersonal conflict and disagreement. Have at least two characters who genuinely dislike each other and will never voluntarily spend off-duty time together, but who can still effectively work together. Have at least some military aspects without all the ridiculous hokum that Starfleet is not a military organization.
This is what adults do, I figure. This is what I, as an adult, want to watch.
I like both of these ideas - blend them together somehow and I think we have a winner!
I’d give another series a chance. Enterprise failed miserably in my book. Think I watched maybe two episodes. If it was up to me, I might go with something set between TOS and TNG, possibly Sulu’s adventures as captain of Excelsior…
Well, a dark mirror-universe-like setting can be fun for a few episodes, but a whole series based on it would have problems, namely the necessary dickishness of the characters would wear thin after a while, and though I greatly enjoyed having a rogue for a lead character in something like Blackadder, I’m not sure a dark-comedy Star Trek would play very well.
An element that belatedly occurs to me - don’t ever talk of “destiny” as though certain characters are forming friendships that are eternal and fated. This was one of the many major flaws of the most recent movie. I’m just fine with characters (especially in a military setting) who work closely together for a few years, then pursue their own careers in different directions and gradually lose touch. This also ties in with my earlier pro-military comment - the guy you’re assigned to work with may indeed be a great guy, but you’re not going to spend a decade or more with him. You’ve got goals, he’s got goals, and they won’t be the same goals.
I understand the limitations of TV casting, and the desire for consistency and signing actors to lengthy contracts so they don’t later make outrageous demands if the show’s a hit and their character is popular, but there’s got to be a happy medium.
Many senior crew including Kirk have been involved in the smuggling of illegal intoxicants over the course of the series and films(Romulan ale etc).
Drinking alchohol has never been taboo (well, except during that time in the 30s) while doing ‘recreational’ drugs - especially starting mid 60s - has been.
Having a ‘drug dealer’ would imply illegal activity, as opposed to a ‘bad reaction’ from legalized drugs -
now that would be a spin I wouldn’t mind - that in the 24th century we have finally legalized the things and how we deal with resulting issues -
I agree with almost all the comments except for this one. I think that the idea that Starfleet is not primarily a military force is one of the underpinnings of Star Trek and is entwined with the idea of an optimistic future. It’s one of the basic elements of Roddenberry’s creation.
And it’s also a bit of mad genius. We currently live in a highly militaristic society and it’s very hard for us to imagine a future in which an exploratory/scientific/governmental/administrative/diplomatic force wouldn’t be very militaristic.
As a result, I think it has often been very difficult for Star Trek screenwriters and directors to deal with this aspect of the Star Trek universe, because it’s very hard for contemporary Americans to fit their brains into a situation in which the militaristic aspects of Starfleet would be considered secondary or minimized.
But I think it’s an important fire to hold to the feet of the creative types, to continually push them to try to imagine a world in which militarism (and, say, profit-making) is considered of much less importance than in our contemporary society.
That’s not to say that it should be a utopia. In fact, I think that one of the major flaws of many of the Star Trek Stories, especially Next Generation, was the assumption that these are the good guys and all the decisions they end up making are the right ones.
One of the reasons that Deep Space Nine worked better dramatically was teh understanding that the protagonists were not perfect and that their decisions would not always turn out to be the right decisions – or, indeed, that every situation even had a “right” outcome that the protagonists would eventually settle upon.
Not only that, but the Mirror Universe stories are almost of a different genre of storytelling. They’re very camp.
This is similar to problems that occur in almost any “office” drama/comedy. The characters we see on the screen become the most important people in each other’s lives. I agree that in general fictional serial television should strive for more realistic depictions of professional relationships.
However, I don’t agree that this necessarily means that there should be a regular rotation of personnel. Serial storytelling should feature the same principal protagonists over a long period of time.
And, as I said before, I don’t think Starfleet should become more militaristic. And even if it did, I don’t think it should try to ape our assumptions of what military life is like based on our contemporary experiences.
Star Trek should strive to show us a society that has progressed in some way (and I consider militarism something that we as a society need to start de-emphasizing), but still keep the characters in a human setting. Just becasue society is improving doesn’t mean that individual humans become angelic.
I agree with these comments about DS9. It was the best series of the canon because, although the Federation officers were fundamentally good and noble, there was plenty of conflict and drama within the cast and the huge stable of recurring characters. I just watched the DS9 season 1 episode where Vedek Wynn (Louise Fletcher) is introduced and it was so excellent - you had these complex relationships between Sisko and Kira who were on different sides of a religious dispute but had to work together; there was discussion of the place of religious education in a secular school environment, there was political intrigue, things blowing up, and at the end of the episode… the bad guy (Wynn) gets away unscathed! And continues to be an important presence throughout the series.
I think a new Star Trek show could be done well, as long as Rick Berman is kept away from it. What we don’t need is another sexpot like 7 of 9 or T’Pol.