If You Could Do a Star Trek Series what Would it be About?

BAYLOR

There Are Always new Things to Learn.
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
14,174
Disagree. A franchise isn't just a name.

There's no way they can do "Star Trek" in the 30th century. Call it something else.
That makes no sense . How can you limit the timeline of a show? :unsure:
 

Cathbad

Level 30 Geek Master
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
8,861
Location
Everywhere.
That makes no sense . How can you limit the timeline of a show? :unsure:
Okay... you win. It's Star Trek with tech no one has seen before, with situations unheard or contemplated, and they don't use ships anymore, since long-range teleportation has been perfected. The Federation became moot, so it's gone, of course. Romulans and Klingons will all have committed mass suicide, from a lack of wars causing massive depression (or have integrated, and thus no longer enemies).

No ships, no Klingons, no Romulans, no Borg, no ships, no Federation.

Yeah - sounds like Star Trek! :D
 

Eni6ma

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 30, 2016
Messages
146
Too much of a jump. It wouldn't be very Star-Trekky at all.
Why? That makes no sense for you to say that! Universe in which Star Trek exist will not stop existing beyond that point the universe would continue and I would like to know what happens when Star Fleet has to evolve to survive. The jump between Picard & Kirk is huge, its not a seat of your pants operation like it was in Kirk's time when Picard was doing his thing, Star Trek evolved! If it had not it would not have been relative in this day and age!
 

Cathbad

Level 30 Geek Master
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
8,861
Location
Everywhere.
I apologize if my opinion has struck a nerve with you, @BAYLOR and @Eni6ma .

>We have already seen long-range teleportation (an episode of DS9 indicated that it simply took up too much resources, so there was a waiting list). There's no reason to believe this wouldn't be perfected in 5 more centuries. Given this, there would definitely be a far less need for space ships.

>Neither the Klingon nor the Romulan race can sustain their continued aggression: Frankly, they should have been integrated by the time of TNG.

>The Federation is doomed to extinction. Something far less militaristic would take its place.

>The Borg have already been defeated.

The 30th Century would, indeed, provide a plethora of interesting and imaginative stories! But ENT, DISCOVERY, TOS, TNG and DS9 have all centered around violence - especially militarily. There's no way this would be believable come the 30th century in the Star Trek universe!

So yeah - have a series in the same universe! But it's no longer a star trek - name it something different. I'll watch it! :D
 

Glaysher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
74
So yeah - have a series in the same universe! But it's no longer a star trek - name it something different. I'll watch it! :D
Considering all the times you criticised @BAYLOR for his opinion on Discovery, I don't understand this opinion about a Star Trek series set in the future.
I watch Discovery and I think it has promise as a TV show but it is not Star Trek as it's supposed to be. It is dystopian rather than utopian.

We've already seen Star Fleet officers from the far future in Voyager and Enterprise so there is already a foundation to build on.
 

Dave

Custom title not found
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2001
Messages
18,234
Location
Way on Down South, London Town
It is dystopian rather than utopian.
Only because it is set during a war. DS9 was too during the long Dominion war arc. Single episodes of TNG and Voyager and DS9 were dystopian too, when they dealt with the Borg, or the Maquis, or the Cardassian/Bajoran conflict, or Delta Quadrant issues. We know that the Klingon war in Discovery will be over within 10 years, so we can have hope for the future.

I think @Cathbad is correct about anything set in the very far-future. If we ascend to become energy beings or have our consciousnesses written into computers then it won't be comparable to Roddenberry's dream and hope of a world where everyone lives in peace and harmony, where money is no longer an economic driver, and with a little of John Lennon's "no religion too," because we will have gone far beyond answering those questions. To be Star Trek, for me, it has to be a world still struggling with living up to Roddenberry's ideals.

The 30th Century would, indeed, provide a plethora of interesting and imaginative stories! But ENT, DISCOVERY, TOS, TNG and DS9 have all centered around violence - especially militarily. There's no way this would be believable come the 30th century in the Star Trek universe!
We've already seen Star Fleet officers from the far future in Voyager and Enterprise so there is already a foundation to build on.
I think we can certainly stretch it to the 27th Century and see the Timeships of Captain Braxton, but not very much beyond that era.
 

Cathbad

Level 30 Geek Master
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
8,861
Location
Everywhere.
We've already seen Star Fleet officers from the far future in Voyager and Enterprise so there is already a foundation to build on
?? I must have missed them.

Considering all the times you criticised @BAYLOR for his opinion on Discovery, I don't understand this opinion about a Star Trek series set in the future.
Read the post again. I am not against a series from the Star Trek universe, set 500 years in the future - I'm against it being called Star Trek. It could, however, make it clear it's the same universe: "Federation 3011" - or something.

I watch Discovery and I think it has promise as a TV show but it is not Star Trek as it's supposed to be. It is dystopian rather than utopian.
Dystopian? Really? Your idea of Dystopian life seems rather... comfortable.

But anyway: Star Trek fans have clamored for years to see the Klingon-Federation war. Now that it's here, it's "not Star Trek as it's supposed to be"??
 

Dave

Custom title not found
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2001
Messages
18,234
Location
Way on Down South, London Town
As per my previous post. I think you are all correct, but you seem to be arguing across each other over different things. For me, Star Trek must be related to the future that Gene Roddenberry imagined. His son is credited in Discovery so his estate is okay with it.
 

Glaysher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
74
Read the post again. I am not against a series from the Star Trek universe, set 500 years in the future - I'm against it being called Star Trek. It could, however, make it clear it's the same universe: "Federation 3011" - or something.
Seems an odd distinction to me.

Dystopian? Really? Your idea of Dystopian life seems rather... comfortable.
Comfortable?

Torture?
Causing a sentient being pain just to travel quickly?
War?

These things are not dystopian to you? Risa it isn't.

I agree with @Dave that the setting invites a more dystopian view. There were elements of dystopia in DS9 because of the Dominion war but the core morality was left largely intact except for episodes like For the Uniform with Sisko's pursuit of Eddington. It is of course possible that a more utopian view will emerge as Discovery continues.

But anyway: Star Trek fans have clamored for years to see the Klingon-Federation war. Now that it's here, it's "not Star Trek as it's supposed to be"??
I never clamoured for it so I don't think the fact that others did mean that I can't feel that way.

However all this is tangent to the point I was making. You were heavily critical of @BAYLOR prejudging Discovery as not proper Star Trek yet quickly dismissed his idea the same way.
 

Cathbad

Level 30 Geek Master
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
8,861
Location
Everywhere.
You were heavily critical of @BAYLOR prejudging Discovery as not proper Star Trek yet quickly dismissed his idea the same way.
You keep saying that... despite my saying I would definitely watch such a show.

Hmm...

I would also not equate war with dystopia - but that's just my opinion. :)
 

Dave

Custom title not found
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2001
Messages
18,234
Location
Way on Down South, London Town
I would also not equate war with dystopia - but that's just my opinion. :)
I'd say that the impression given in The Original Series was that wars were a thing of the past; something that the United Federation of Planets had risen beyond and above. There was even hope that the very old enemies of Earth and Vulcan; the Romulans, could be brought into the same fold with time. There was still conflict, because you don't have a show with some conflict, but there was the expectation that these little spats were only the last gasps of an old thinking.

That was a utopia. I don't say war = dystopia, but I do say that the introduction of the Cardassian Wars pre-TNG, the Borg and the Dominion mean that the utopian ideal was thrown into the long grass with that. I can certainly see why people don't think war has a place in Star Trek, but I'm saying it is 30 years too late to say that now.

They also gave us some of the best episodes and films.
 

Onyx

Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
1,000
The dissolution of the Federation and Star Fleet. The ship crew would become a country onto themselves with changing alliances with other independent former Federation ships, while still clinging to their former ethos.
 

thaddeus6th

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2007
Messages
6,386
Location
UK, Yorkshire
Dave, be fair. Since joining the Federation, Earth has been infiltrated by changelings, targeted by the Borg, and seen the dimensions of space disregarded by JJ Abrams. It's enough to try anyone's patience.
 

Similar threads


Top