StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I'm pretty new to Star Trek, knowing it mostly through crossover fanfiction with only the occasional episode under my belt, so I can hardly be called a fan as such. That said, I've recently taken an inexplicable interest in the universe, catalyzed not by the upcoming JJ Abrams film, but rather by a critical mass of the aforementioned fanfiction (a nod to RedImperator's Voyager rewrite in particular). By all accounts, the state of affairs for official, proper, canon Star Trek is about as bad if not worse than Star Wars, so I have no interest in adopting an even vaguely inclusionist attitude and binging on every bit of bullshit hack writers have kludged into the franchise.

At the same time, I'd like to stay true to that very same franchise without hijacking and bastardizing it like some fanfic writers and now, apparently, a proper writer have done. For these purposes, it would be useful to distill Star Trek down to its most essential components. That way, one can dramatically alter the face of the universe while leaving what makes it Star Trek intact. Rather than making an original sci-fi universe that merely wears the flayed skin of Star Trek, as countless proposed "reboots" actually are. The problem is, I don't think I know enough about Star Trek to do it properly.

Basically, all I've been able to determine is that ST is, at its core, about exploration. NOT war. So I'm pretty hostile toward ideas like having the Alpha Quadrant powder keg explode or the Federation tearing itself apart in a civil war, etc. At the same time, I don't think a little realism would hurt. Realism meaning internal consistency and verisimilitude, not making yet another goddamn gritty, GRIMDARK, crapsack world.

Thoughts?

Star Trek, originally, in the first few letters typed on a piece of paper to sell the pitch, was about spaceships sailing out into the unknown.

Then DS9 happened, and Star Trek became two things: the story of humans overcoming their differences and exploring the universe, a branch which arguably died once Sisko bravely stayed put on his space station, and a fictional universe with phasers and Vulcans and warp drives, capable of supporting a wide variety of stories ranging from gritty war tales to fluffy romance.

Both are equally "Star Trek"... just different definitions of it: Star Trek the storytelling concept, and Star Trek the franchise. Which one do you want to work with?

Darth Raptor wrote:I'm pretty new to Star Trek, knowing it mostly through crossover fanfiction with only the occasional episode under my belt, so I can hardly be called a fan as such. That said, I've recently taken an inexplicable interest in the universe, catalyzed not by the upcoming JJ Abrams film, but rather by a critical mass of the aforementioned fanfiction (a nod to RedImperator's Voyager rewrite in particular). By all accounts, the state of affairs for official, proper, canon Star Trek is about as bad if not worse than Star Wars, so I have no interest in adopting an even vaguely inclusionist attitude and binging on every bit of bullshit hack writers have kludged into the franchise.

I don't know, you'd have a hard time overtaking Karen Travis.

At the same time, I'd like to stay true to that very same franchise without hijacking and bastardizing it like some fanfic writers and now, apparently, a proper writer have done. For these purposes, it would be useful to distill Star Trek down to its most essential components. That way, one can dramatically alter the face of the universe while leaving what makes it Star Trek intact. Rather than making an original sci-fi universe that merely wears the flayed skin of Star Trek, as countless proposed "reboots" actually are. The problem is, I don't think I know enough about Star Trek to do it properly.

Star Trek is about exploration first and foremost, though the conflict between logic and emotions, the nature of "humanity", and humanity striving to improve itself have been big themes from the beginning. Another, perhaps less fortunate trait from the early days of TOS was to use alien species to represent an aspect of humanity, which got taken to annoying extreems in the all-warrior races like the Klingons, for example.

Basically, all I've been able to determine is that ST is, at its core, about exploration. NOT war. So I'm pretty hostile toward ideas like having the Alpha Quadrant powder keg explode or the Federation tearing itself apart in a civil war, etc. At the same time, I don't think a little realism would hurt. Realism meaning internal consistency and verisimilitude, not making yet another goddamn gritty, GRIMDARK, crapsack world.

Are you talking about a new series keeping the basics of Star Trek, or simply editing existing cannon to remove inconsistancies?

Bounty wrote:Both are equally "Star Trek"... just different definitions of it: Star Trek the storytelling concept, and Star Trek the franchise. Which one do you want to work with?

See, I'm not exactly sure. I'm leaning more toward the former, while at the same time I realize that such a setting, assuming sufficient development, will have more than enough room for virtually any kind of story one can conceive. When I write Star Wars, I feel constrained to inject some kind of military conflict because, well, it's Star Wars. Even though, on the whole, it's actually one of the more stable and peaceful universes out there. When I think Star Trek, I think exploration and giant, blaring analogues to the Age of Sail. Even though there's almost certainly some very Bad Things going on back home and elsewhere. I wouldn't want to lampshade those things, but I don't think they should be the primary focus.

The Romulan Republic wrote:I don't know, you'd have a hard time overtaking Karen Travis.

Far be it from me to defend the present state of Star Wars.

Star Trek is about exploration first and foremost, though the conflict between logic and emotions, the nature of "humanity", and humanity striving to improve itself have been big themes from the beginning. Another, perhaps less fortunate trait from the early days of TOS was to use alien species to represent an aspect of humanity, which got taken to annoying extreems in the all-warrior races like the Klingons, for example.

I fully realize that this, being Star Trek, will make it pretty hard to avoid some of the worst sci-fi cliches like rubber forehead aliens and the hated Planet of Hats. Where possible, I'd like to subvert them however or at least inject a little nuance and believability. The Klingons are a great example. If one wished, it should be possible to leave the Soviet/Viking analogies mostly intact without making a whole species centered around a hilariously unbelievable one-note culture. The cultures they're supposed to represent were not monoliths. Hell, the modern Terrans are not a monolith despite their present conformist culture, so neither should any of the other races be (the obvious exception being the Borg). I think I would edit the ever-loving hell out of the Klingons and the Ferengi. Most of the other races just need some really minor tweaks.

Are you talking about a new series keeping the basics of Star Trek, or simply editing existing cannon to remove inconsistancies?

Either, really. Go nuts. There's no reason to feel constrained by my rambling. Present any ideas you might have.

Sounds like fun. I think you would have to toss most of voyager and enterprise though.[quote="The Romulan RepublicAre you talking about a new series keeping the basics of Star Trek, or simply editing existing cannon to remove inconsistancies?[/quote]

I think he means a little of both, basically rebooting the series but not necessarily tossing out everything that came before it.

I fully realize that this, being Star Trek, will make it pretty hard to avoid some of the worst sci-fi cliches like rubber forehead aliens and the hated Planet of Hats.

Rubber forehead aliens are a staple of Trek, but not by design. There are references to bizarre lifeforms speckled throughout TNG and DS9 which were simply to expensive to do in live action. Including new species that are really out there, while limiting the number of existing forehead aliens in your story, is going to work perfectly fine - that's what TAS did.

Just to address one aspect of this;

Darth Raptor wrote:Basically, all I've been able to determine is that ST is, at its core, about exploration. NOT war.

The original series had a healthy dose of cold war tension in it, which worked very well. TNG followed on from this; Picard and co often stopped incidents from escalating into full blown wars. Frankly though I found it hard to take any of the villains in TNG save the Borg very seriously; the Federation just seemed too powerful and secure. DS9 departed from the formula by having an actual war, which worked moderately well only because (a) the writing team was fresh and unusually competent (by Trek standards) and (b) it was novel for the franchise. By comparison Enterprise's attempts at interstellar conflict were abysmal.

A reboot should go with the original premise, 'roughly matched great powers in a strained peace, regularly threatened by incidents our heroes have to defuse'. The space battles in the original Trek series and movies are mostly about suspense and tactics; the tense hunt for the cloaked Romulan, Reliant and Enterprise duelling in the nebula, racing to find a way to track Chang's ship before it pounds the Enterprise to scrap, etc. They are not about huge fleet actions and massed broadsides. In short Trek originally had strong militaristic elements, as well as the exploration stuff, but it never looked like Star Wars or Battlestar Galactica. One of the reasons I suspect the new Trek film will suck is that it seems to be going with the 'cram in as many explosions as possible' philosophy instead of tactically and dramatically interesting conflict.

Starglider wrote:A reboot should go with the original premise, 'roughly matched great powers in a strained peace, regularly threatened by incidents our heroes have to defuse'. The space battles in the original Trek series and movies are mostly about suspense and tactics; the tense hunt for the cloaked Romulan, Reliant and Enterprise duelling in the nebula, racing to find a way to track Chang's ship before it pounds the Enterprise to scrap, etc. They are not about huge fleet actions and massed broadsides. In short Trek originally had strong militaristic elements, as well as the exploration stuff, but it never looked like Star Wars or Battlestar Galactica.

See, that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. In no way am I suggesting to dispense with small-scale battles or with having the Alpha Quadrant hang at about four minutes 'till midnight. Nor necessarily with having the Borg or the Dominion be the "oh shi-" threats looming out there somewhere. Just, like you said, not SW or BSG. Through the efforts of the heroes, midnight never comes, and the threat of the Gamma and Delta Quadrant powers are almost distant enough to be dismissed (almost).

Either, really. Go nuts. There's no reason to feel constrained by my rambling. Present any ideas you might have.

Well in that case...

If editing the existing continuity, I'd likely keep TOS excluding any hypothetical episodes which grossly violate continuity. I'd also keep certain TNG Episodes that were key to establishing the characters, and most of the Borg Episodes. I would keep all the movies, except for probably Insurrection and Nemisis, and maybe Star Trek 5. Voyager would get a reboot, and Enterprise would be dumped. DS9 I'm not too familiar with, so I'm not sure.

However, their are some flaws that run so deep that I'm not sure any edited continuity would truly satisfy me. Thus we enter reboot territory, in which case the similarities would likely be so vauge that I'd just go with an original new series.

Go right back to the basics and screw the old continuity. Particulary —everything past the original series gets razeed, and I'd jettison a lot of the continuity details of TOS as well. You start all over again from square one: with the basic details of the ST universe, the ship, and our main cast of heroes. Tell a good, basic story in which Kirk has to make a decision and proceed from there.

The one thing Star Trek truly needs is to lose a lot of its excess baggage.

Make sure any reboot has a writer's bible, a tech bibe, and bans techno bable as well.

A script doesn't get on air until it's tech has been edited and approved. ANd that's before even touching on the story itself.

I disagree with Bounty's assessment. The idea that Star Trek was about exploration, the fact that they went to a new place each week was a storyline artifact meant to keep plots from getting too bogged down in one setting, so long as there was always a magic reset button to remove any of last week's "She can't take too much more of it!" battle damage. Given how many Star Trek stories were ways of absorbing short stories from other sources, providing a short morality play, or mimicing a movie or theme from another source (the infamous submarine battle with the Romulans, for example), I'd say it's fairer to say that Star Trek used exploration through infinite space as a vehicle to string stories together. Afterall, the Enterprise was always the same, so it was basically no different than DS9 outside of the fact that DS9 had continuing storylines. Wringing hands about a simple aesthetic difference (one metal interior is supposed to be part of a mobile structure, the other is not) distracts from the storytelling that made people interested. Sure, they liked the idea of a spaceship. But the idea of it being a spaceship was just a handy way to do a "thing of the week" like the Stargate or the Tardis.

You could easily do an honest, earnest Star Trek show that didn't involve any exploration whatsoever. It's just that the unique character of Star Trek was the combination of Cold War fighting episodes and "what is the nature of man" style episodes, like "A Taste of Armageddon," "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield," "The Ultimate Computer," and "The Changeling." These are some of the episodes that really define what Trek was all about, but you really didn't need them to be a spaceship or have exploration for these sorts of things to work out overall, other than plot details. I would stress to Raptor that the essential element of Star Trek was not the literal Trek, but the figurative one, which I think everyone recognizes. You just needn't have a literal trek to make the figurative one work, and staying put doesn't mean you've given up. It's not like "Moral/Monster Of The Week" is a high bar to hop.

I'd say it's fairer to say that Star Trek used exploration through infinite space as a vehicle to string stories together.

Isn't that the case for any series? I can hardly think of a TV show - and even less of a science fiction show - that couldn't be boiled down to "X gimmick strings stories together". I can see what you are saying here and I agree; I don't know if you are aware of this but you are quoting almost verbatim out of the original TOS pitch. However, I think you've dug a bit too deep; what you've arrived at is the core of Star Trek as a piece of fiction, but perhaps not the core of Star Trek as Star Trek.

I tried watching an ST episode recently (TNG it was) and frankly I couldn't stomach all the goddamn goody-two shoes crap. Oh we're so enlightened and morally perfect that it doesn't even smell when we fart. It just pisses me off.

TOS and the ST movies 1-6 didn't do that (well V did annoy me), because they didn't preach in you face from high above. I understand Roddenberry got really preachy and shill with TNG in the early eps, which I think is what I saw too. I did however just watch best of both worlds again and it was two genuinely good episodes.

I tried watching an ST episode recently (TNG it was) and frankly I couldn't stomach all the goddamn goody-two shoes crap.

Which episode?

Bounty wrote:

I tried watching an ST episode recently (TNG it was) and frankly I couldn't stomach all the goddamn goody-two shoes crap.

Which episode?

Honestly I can't remember, it was an early season episode I gathered, I picked one at random from a torrent site because I was feeling nostalgic. But it's not like it's rare for ST to be preachy about how good and morally superior they are (not to mention bland and boring).

Bounty wrote:

I fully realize that this, being Star Trek, will make it pretty hard to avoid some of the worst sci-fi cliches like rubber forehead aliens and the hated Planet of Hats.

Rubber forehead aliens are a staple of Trek, but not by design. There are references to bizarre lifeforms speckled throughout TNG and DS9 which were simply to expensive to do in live action.

That is mostly a bogus explanation for the lack of non-humanoid or at least more ambitious than a few wrinkles in the forehead aliens. Babylon 5 had more non-humanoid and ambitious (complete facial mask) humanoid aliens than TNG and DS9 combined, and if you check the budgets of those shows, you will see if money had anything to do with it. Well, of course DS9 wasted money on using physical model based SFX lot more extensively than necessary during the early seasons. TNG on the other hand had a much bigger budget in the later seasons than DS9, so no excuse there either past the first two or three seasons.

Babylon 5 had more non-humanoid and ambitious (complete facial mask) humanoid aliens than TNG and DS9 combined

Beyond sounding like a bullshit claim, you slag off DS9 for having humanoid aliens by pointing to another show stuffed full of humanoid aliens?

His Divine Shadow wrote:

Bounty wrote:

I tried watching an ST episode recently (TNG it was) and frankly I couldn't stomach all the goddamn goody-two shoes crap.

Which episode?

Honestly I can't remember, it was an early season episode I gathered, I picked one at random from a torrent site because I was feeling nostalgic. But it's not like it's rare for ST to be preachy about how good and morally superior they are (not to mention bland and boring).

ST:TNG was bad about this before Gene died. Late in his life, Gene eschewed conflict of any sort, which was a real problem writing for TV because conflict is the genesis of all drama.

I think the real tragedy of Star Trek (behind the scenes) was how complacent Rick Berman got over the 1990s - Season 3 through 6 of TNG showed that he understood drama at that point pretty well, and was willing to take a few risks. The Best of Both Worlds duology probably is the best two hours of Star Trek ever shown - and it would not have been if the Borg and Locutus had not been such a dramatic threat to the status quo, or if Picard's assimilation had not had lasting effects throughout and beyond the series.

Really IMO there are basically three "status quo" states for 24th Century Star Trek - the tension-free pre-Q Who? period, notably boring; the period between Q Who? and Best of Both Worlds where the viewer is invited to complacency, believing that the Borg were merely another threat of the week, and post Best of Both Worlds, where the Borg are this simmering threat behind everything the characters do, and by extension, the Federation.

If we could chop Voyager out of the continuity, the Borg would probably be the best sci-fi villains ever. Unfortunately, the Borg suffered severe villain decay over Voyager's run.

The Romulan Republic wrote:I don't know, you'd have a hard time overtaking Karen Travis.

Even Traviss is rather mild compared to certain Trek writers, actually, or such is my humble opinion; her writing may be agenda-driven and, yes, preaching, but she cannot match Roddenberry in that, and her writing is, on the whole, somewhat less retarded than many Trek plot devices (key points such as crappy characterisations, sci-fi tropes and inability to grasp scale notwithstanding). And of course, she thankfully has a smaller impact on overall continuity - even screwing up the Essential Guide to the Military is not going to make her Continuity Czar, and eventually LFL will probably stop hiring her.

As for the general topic, I will echo the feelings of Degan and others by pointing to the original series and the films based thereof - before Roddenberry went completely off the bend, and before certain other figures that shall not be named entered the story. Build on that, retain that feeling. By all means, include Borg and whatnots - they are part of what Star Trek is, too - but de-retard them and put them in the context of the original setting. In effect, keep TOS and its movies and include later stuff only after checking it for retardedness, polishing it up as necessary. Avoid brainbugs, cardboard cultures, excessive technobabble* and the rest of the negative connotations the franchise has acquired since.

*i.e., not a ban on technobabble, but on unnecessary technobabbling and lazy plot-device "the quantum-whatever will fix it"-style writing.

I like the idea of keeping the Ferengi as a mercantile power, but it should be played differently. Perhaps a recurring background thing would be talented Starfleet officers joining the Ferengi because of better pay. They'd go on losing capable officers, Kids that would normally become Starfleet officers or scientists or doctors would instead want to get rich working for the Ferengi. There would be an overall feeling that Ferengi commercialism is eroding the traditional values of the Federation. I'm sure a lot of countries view American culture that way, and I think this will be in keeping with the "Aliens to explore aspects of ourselves" bit without reducing the Ferengi to a one note species.

STAR TREK: 2.0

The background is that humanity has developed a Federation with several other species (Vulcans, Andorran, maybe one or two others), there is another group of alien governments under the lead of the Klingons (representing a pseudo Soviet, or in the update pseudo-Chinese presence with an up and coming superpower about to overtake the current one in status).

Space is a dangerous place to travel through with warp drives, because things- magnetic fields, radiation, crazy stuff like that, affects the warp drives negatively.

The Enterprise is an exploration ship, mapping new routes and planets (alright, not so much rebooting so far.)

**
In the show, the aesthetics are very clean and 50's "future-ish". The crew generally get along without the nBSG problems.

As a rule, technology on-board the ship will not fail just to be the basis of a story. No "ohs, the transporter glued us together" and no holodeck at all.

There will be only a few established humanoid aliens (Vulcans, Klingons, etc) everything else will be inhuman or monstrous looking.

Human civilians will have "wildcat" (to borrow a Scazli term) colonies beyond the explored federation space. The Federation is not obliged to protect them, and due to treaties, may actively have to work against or remove them.

No radiation pills or instana cures.

Stories will be written for a season by a variety of independent sci-fi writers and then tweaked by onstaff ST writers to keep consistent. Every story must bring something new to the table- either a social, political, or scientific issue.

Pulp Hero wrote:STAR TREK: 2.0

The background is that humanity has developed a Federation with several other species (Vulcans, Andorran, maybe one or two others), there is another group of alien governments under the lead of the Klingons (representing a pseudo Soviet, or in the update pseudo-Chinese presence with an up and coming superpower about to overtake the current one in status).

Space is a dangerous place to travel through with warp drives, because things- magnetic fields, radiation, crazy stuff like that, affects the warp drives negatively.

The Enterprise is an exploration ship, mapping new routes and planets (alright, not so much rebooting so far.)

**
In the show, the aesthetics are very clean and 50's "future-ish". The crew generally get along without the nBSG problems.

As a rule, technology on-board the ship will not fail just to be the basis of a story. No "ohs, the transporter glued us together" and no holodeck at all.

There will be only a few established humanoid aliens (Vulcans, Klingons, etc) everything else will be inhuman or monstrous looking.

Human civilians will have "wildcat" (to borrow a Scazli term) colonies beyond the explored federation space. The Federation is not obliged to protect them, and due to treaties, may actively have to work against or remove them.

No radiation pills or instana cures.

About the only difference between such a reboot and mine would be this: the timeframe for Star Trek is set several thousand years in the future instead of a mere three centuries; it took longer for humanity to hit space and eventually figure out FTL engineering, and as a result all the "humanoid" aliens encountered by the crew of the Enterprise are the descendants of human colony groups who left Sol in relativistic slowboats long ago; their different appearances in varying degrees from "true" humanity the result of adaptation to the new environments they found themselves in either by natural or artificial means. To them, Earth is at best a distant legend, or most likely forgotten (the BBC series Blake's 7 used something similar to this device to explain away the number of human and "humanoid" worlds in the galaxy encountered by the crew of the Liberator). Plenty of time for these various strains of humanity to have found their new worlds, had their wars, and developed their civilisations into the forms we eventually find them in when the series takes place.

As I understand it, the rubber forehead aliens of Star Trek are already human subspecies due to widespread genetic meddling by the "original humanoids" of the galaxy. This is similar to Macross and several other universes where humanity is taking its first steps but isn't actually as new a thing as it thinks. Unless you're dealing with a positively ancient setting like Star Wars, this is the only really viable explanation. Advancing convergent evolution as the culprit makes you stupid. Especially when they can crossbreed.

Patrick Degan wrote:
About the only difference between such a reboot and mine would be this: the timeframe for Star Trek is set several thousand years in the future instead of a mere three centuries; it took longer for humanity to hit space and eventually figure out FTL engineering, and as a result all the "humanoid" aliens encountered by the crew of the Enterprise are the descendants of human colony groups who left Sol in relativistic slowboats long ago; their different appearances in varying degrees from "true" humanity the result of adaptation to the new environments they found themselves in either by natural or artificial means. To them, Earth is at best a distant legend, or most likely forgotten (the BBC series Blake's 7 used something similar to this device to explain away the number of human and "humanoid" worlds in the galaxy encountered by the crew of the Liberator). Plenty of time for these various strains of humanity to have found their new worlds, had their wars, and developed their civilisations into the forms we eventually find them in when the series takes place.

I would be a little different, but the idea of mutated/evolved/messed with humans would definitely be part of my ST as well, both from a story standpoint and from a production cost standpoint (there WAS a practical reason why so many ST aliens were humanoid after all)