Just a side note:

I watched "The Captains" on Netflix last night - for the unaware, basically just Shatner talking to all the actors who played the leads in the various ST franchises (handy that Sisko got promoted otherwise the title would have been cumbersome ).

It was a bit random and Shatner obviously isnt' the best person to keep the conversation on track, but it was fun and I did learn some stuff. Mainly that Avery Brooks is completely away with the fairies these days, i'm not surprised he doesn't act anymore. Good to see that Kate Mulgrew is now doing well again as she cut a bit of a forlorn figure. Patrick Stewart must be getting really bored of telling the same "I had no idea what Star Trek was" story again and again.

Maybe the main character won't start off as 'Number One', but instead begin as a fairly junior officer before working her way up.

The 2016 convention talks are pretty neat, too - if you want a bit of updated time with some of them

Thinking a bit as to why Star Trek keeps being placed in times earlier than the pre-existing series.


The essence of Star Trek, the thing that defines it, the unknown

Going into the future is not enough, it has to be a time that is completely fresh to audiences otherwise they don't get that "unknown" vibe.

But this "unknown" feeling from such a set-up will be very disquieting to modern TV/Film executives who are very much into playing it safe. Hence all the re-boots we are seeing these days, the unknown is the ultimate risk.


It would take a Gene Roddenberry type to get such a genuine Star Trek show off the ground these days.

I kind of see where you're going with that, but I think you're mixing up two different kinds of unknown.

There is the unknown in the narrative, which is very much part of the appeal of Star Trek, especially the original series, early TNG and Voyager. The draw of the unknown featured heavily in early Enterprise too. DS9, not so much.

Never knowing, from one episode to the next what "strange new world" the ship will encounter certainly has its appeal. Serialised stories have their "unknown" too, but for them it's more about discovering "what happens next".

Then there is the "unknown" for the TV/Movie executive. Fear of failure by trying something completely new and unknown is why there are so many sequels, prequels, remakes and spin-offs. And things dressed up in the clothes of past successful movies and series but which really have nothing to do with the original. And formulaic genres like cop shows, hospital dramas, soaps and "reality" shows.

TV/Movie execs (and audiences) try to reduce risk by sticking to what they know worked (or liked) before. It's why companies spend so much money on franchises and brands. TV/movie franchises like Star Trek, Star Wars or James Bond end up working like a brand.

Some creatives like playing in familiar sand boxes, it's easier to be successful that way than by creating something entirely new. Audiences like having more stories set in the familiar universe too.

It takes something extraordinary to "break through" and achieve mass appeal starting from scratch.

What's that phrase - "There's nothing new under the sun". All art is to some extent a sequel to what has come before - old ideas are taken and then repackaged into different formats with changes here and there. Lets not forget that Star Trek was originally pitched as being a 'western in space' and that episodes of all it's franchises had story lines taken from old films and tv shows.

I agree with your general point though that exploring the unknown doesn't necessary mean you go to an uncharted planet every week. It could mean dealing with issues that aren't usually discussed, telling a story in a different way, having non-standard character developments.

Discovery won't last for three seasons. My prediction only.

I'd be amazed if it survived two. With the way it's being released; onto a specific paid network with adverts, and the fact that it's another prequel show using a ****ing ugly ship ... I just don't think it's going to sell.

They should have gone with a TV reboot, not a prequel. I wouldn't mind a TOS era story, but a fresh one by where they (the writers) can tell a new, fresh story, and not have to worry about continuity. No time travel element either, just a straight out reboot with Klingons as the villain throughout the show.

I would have liked them to explore the +25 years future era as seen in the TNG finale "All good things" The passage of time could have allowed for the odd cameo from the TNG cast.

Yes set 15 years after Star Trek: Nemesis would have been good as them the casts of TNG DSN & VOY could pop up .

This is what a lot of people seem to have wanted.

It's what I would have wanted. Or do something different. Set it 50 years after TNG - at the tail end of the biggest war ever to hit the alpha quadrant. Bigger than the dominion threat ever was. Brought the federation, Klingon empire and others to their knees. Forced them to join together against an ancient long forgotten race that had re-awoken and was cleansing the galaxy.

But as they pull toward Earth, with no reason, they vanish. This Star Trek show would be about not only the race to recover from the devastation, forge new alliances with closed off, equally destroyed empires such as the Romulus, Klingons etc. But also about the race to discover where the ancient race went. Why did they return? And why were they intent on total destruction of the quadrant?

So much scope to realign treaties, bring old foes in as new friends and vice versa. Gives everyone a common goal but also, the threat that if they don't get the information first, it could end up in enemies hands who may just finish what the ancients started! Oh, and there is also the threat that the ancients could return at any minute to finish the job themselves!

Anyway, I can but hope for this new TV show, but I feel, given the time period, it is going to be stifled by the future lore, unless they plan on creating a new timeline - but that would not go down too well IMO!

Babylon 5 called, they want their plot back

Played Star Trek Online lately?

I would much rather them revert back to what we know for a change. We've had the exploration and expansion of countless, nameless aliens species, and repetitive plots. I'd much rather we focus on core elements of Trek, the Klingons, the Romulans, the Andorians, the Gorn and Tholian. There's so much to be further explored where all are concerned. A decent film and plot doesn't need some grand ancient enemy force to be a good film. There's no character in that.

I have read somewhere that the 1st series is going to involve some event that happened 10 years before the original series.

This event was something that has been talked about but not seen in the past on Star Trek.

Anyone got any idea what this event that has been spoken about?

deleted

Up thread JDF linked to an article which speculated that this might the Number One and concern the aftermath of events on Rigel VII. In The Cage Pike said he and the Enterprise crew needed to recuperate following those events.

Personally, I think that isn't a bad idea, although the much mooted idea of the 2000's "ST Academy" would have been a new and a (potentially) more exciting approach, but far riskier to produce.

I think one issue with going to far into the future is that you start to lose the connection with the present. Technology advances to such a point that it gets harder to related story lines in the show to what's going on in real life. Presumably Starfleet has slip stream drives post Voyager and can visit anywhere instantly. So the whole nature of space travel changes. Advances in holo-technology means that humans no longer have to do a vast number of tasks - why risk real people in dangerous situations when you can send a hologram? The Federation would be so dominant after the end of the Dominion War that it becomes hard to inject a sense of risk into plots.

TBH i'm surprised that no one has tried to make a YA Trek show. Maybe the studio's just think the brand has too much 'uncool' baggage to risk appealing to a younger audience.

Well if Doctor Who is anything to go by, the uncool label should not be any kind of impediment!

I'm in agreement here, and that's why I'd rather them reboot an earlier era; one in which we're still explorers and don't have all the tools readily accessible to us.

It would be nice if they could rewrite Trek lore a little, such to iron out all the inconsistencies, but that'll never happen. The Transporter for example should require two Transporter Pads in order to work; one at each location. The whole principle of beaming from a pad to a random location kind of makes you wonder why they bother going to the transporter room in the first place.

Then there's the whole warp thing, and transwarp etc. Warp 10 was allegedly achieved in ST:VOY by Tom Paris, but I swear there have been references to ships being capable of Warp 11 & Warp 12 over the years. The Warp Drive should relate to something similar as MPH in cars; Warp 1 would be 10mph, Warp 3 would be 30mph etc, some ships can go faster than others, but no ship (without the use of a hub or something like a transwarp gate) can get anywhere really quick.

Holodecks are another one; people moving around in simulations, except the simulations are actually in rooms, so shouldn't people actually be walking into walls all the time? The only way around this would be something like the Tardis (thus holodecks are virtually infinite inside) but we know that ships of the 24th century just aren't that much advanced.

Holodecks are an extension of transporter tech so I imagine the system can move you around or hold you in place as it needs to.

I think they changed what warp speed was between the original series and TNG. IM sure I have heard them call out some high warp speeds in the TOS that were way above what was thought possible in TNG.

Are they? Source?


There is that, and the fact that the Excelsior had Transwarp capabilities.

Holodecks incorporate transporter, replicator, holographic, force filed and tractor beam technologies, rather than being the extension of any one technology. In simple terms, per the TNG Technical Manual, a feature of the combined tech is creating a treadmill effect permitting participants to remain stationary while the simulated environment scrolls by.

I suspect many apparent technical inconstancies have already been explored and explained, probably by the Okudas in any one of the technical manuals/books out there. Personally I can't get too excited about any of that stuff which is why, for me, a series where they tried to iron out tech would be dreadfully boring.

Found this on You Tube


Star Trek Tribute: Faith of the Heart