New Star Trek Series-Hypothetical

[Karoht]

I had an idea about a new Star Trek series.

Timeline: Any time after TNG.

Crew: Smattering of awesome people, just like any Star Trek series.

Ship: Not an Enterprise. Actual science vessel. Minimal to zero armament.


The Hook:
The entire crew is holographic. Revealed to the main crew at the end of Season 1.
Them transporting over to other ships or down to the surface? Nope, that's just them uploading to the computer to then be projected elsewhere. The computer programs in the memory of walking onto a transporter pad to continue the illusion of being real people.

Most of the ship parts that we have seen such as engineering or the medical bay are all figments. Or rather, they are non-existant representations in order to continue the illusion that the holograms are real people, when in fact they are not.
Engineering looks more automated. There are holograms who work in engineering who never interface with the rest of the crew. There are holograms who work in the cargo areas who never interface with the rest of the crew. There is an entire security team (all with different appearances and races) who never interface with the rest of the crew. All of whom think they are taking their orders or commands from real people.

It can be subtley built up over the course of the first season. Just bizarre but easily un-noticed phenomena over several episodes.

Season 2 opens with the main crew trying to figure out what to do.
Do they tell the rest of the crew?
Do they talk to starfleet, or pretend like everything is fine?
Given that they are now aware of their actual existance, is their programming fine, or damaged in some way? Are their any failsafes to worry about?

And of course, we increase the tension just a bit.
One or more of the crew knew all along.
One of the crew is a plant from Starfleet Command, but who's constantly sending data back. The crew is intercepting that data.
One of the crew begins accessing the actual project files from Starfleet. The Automated Deep Space Science Research and Reconnasance Division. Thats right, this innocent science ship is the testing ground to an automated deep space spying and detection grid. With the inferance that there may be more ships or stations out there operating the same way. Gather more info about the project and major players from these sort of sources.
In a later season, turns out the 'awakening' was in fact a series of pre-programmed events. All the subtle clues were there to test program integrity, as was eventually granting full awakening to the crew. It was also a test of the morality and values of the systems, to see if the systems would even make a moral choice of awakening the rest of the crew or not.
Finally, we have the designers themselves. Some of crew are modelled on their creators, some modelled on other Starfleet officers and crew members. Some of the programs could in fact be compellations of certain accounts and personal histories, designed to see which morals and values and decision making and strategy would emerge from the pool of past knowledge.

What the series avoids at all costs
-Holodeck episodes. Duh.
-Oh noes a space disease.
-Hologram/AI rights. Sure, there is an undercurrent, but some kind of Hologram rebellion gets a bit... odd.
-Data syndrome. Data was trying to discover what it means to be human, there many similar characters in Trek over the years like Spock, Odo, The Doctor. This show would have to either completely avoid this, make light of it, or completely explore it better than any other series has done, or some balance there of.
-Transporter malfunctions. Who cares if you couldn't re-upload to the ship, there's always a backup copy.
-Red shirts. Fully expendable faceless mooks are not needed. Anyone who is put at risk is a fully thinking, feeling Artificial Intelligence. That needs to be respected, not ignored.
-Techno-jargon wand-waving answers to problems.
-Mundane solutions to problems. Yeah sure we could fly through that nebula, but that brings some important risks when electrical activity could shut down the whole ship and potentially destroy the storage media of the crew, AKA kill them all.
-Poorly understood computer quirks. The Doctor got sick one day, or his imagination got them into trouble, etc. Avoid this. Yes, they're holograms, but they're "people" too.
-Tools. Things like tricorders would have to function better than previous incarnations. One person scanning means that potentially the whole crew can view the data in real time. Tools would also have to be physically beamed down, whereas the Holograms are being projected by the ship. Also, this implies that the crew might be unarmed most of the time, and therefore diplomacy becomes even more important. Set phasers to stun? That might be a thing of the past.
-The computer talking. Why would it after the big reveal? The crew can interface with the systems directly so there would be no need. For that matter, why read screens at all? Well, thats either again the computer adding in memories for the illusion of being real people, or something that maybe the crew makes a conscious choice to continue using. In reality maybe there is no bridge on the ship.


The personal stuff:
So you have a holographic crew right? And one of those crew members appears to be a male humanoid. Maybe he gets it in his head that male humanoids are boring, and changes his appearance. The cool part is, the computer retroactively adjusts the memories of all the (unawakened?) crew so they think it's normal, he's always been like that. Er, she has always been like that. She's always been a Talaxian. Or a Klingon.

The main computer. It has an AI too right, or does it? Loads to explore there. Maybe the crew has to weigh the possibility of granting the main computer an AI, or leaving it in it's current state.

Loads of material, even for personal character development.



Thoughts, criticisms, comments, ideas, slander and abuse (okay maybe not), lets talk.

[Traab]

Hm, its an interesting idea. It also fits in with some of the underlying messages of star trek with questions about individual rights, and moral quandaries that have to be solved. It also makes sense to an extent that starfleet would do this. A delta quadrant time length of mission could be dangerous psychologically for crews, so sending out autonomous holograms to remove the risk of mental break downs in crews can almost make sense. The problem is the danger involved. They get attacked, or the ship gets damaged somehow, and they may go offline forever where a regular crew, or a crew full of Datas would be able to survive and repair. Then they are out all that information, and there is a derelict starship floating around just waiting to get scavenged.

Id suggest sending out a set of mixed holograms and androids to try and cover all bases. Same rules apply about not realizing what they are until later in the series. And having a mix between solids and photons could even create interesting interactions between them when this all comes to light. *EDIT* You did mention post tng right? Then it wouldnt be beyond reasonable to be able to create data level androids or better.

[Karoht]

Hm, its an interesting idea. It also fits in with some of the underlying messages of star trek with questions about individual rights, and moral quandaries that have to be solved. It also makes sense to an extent that starfleet would do this. A delta quadrant time length of mission could be dangerous psychologically for crews, so sending out autonomous holograms to remove the risk of mental break downs in crews can almost make sense. The problem is the danger involved. They get attacked, or the ship gets damaged somehow, and they may go offline forever where a regular crew, or a crew full of Datas would be able to survive and repair. Then they are out all that information, and there is a derelict starship floating around just waiting to get scavenged.

Id suggest sending out a set of mixed holograms and androids to try and cover all bases. Same rules apply about not realizing what they are until later in the series. And having a mix between solids and photons could even create interesting interactions between them when this all comes to light. *EDIT* You did mention post tng right? Then it wouldnt be beyond reasonable to be able to create data level androids or better.

Well, the ship having contact with Starfleet would really serve to amp up the tension from time to time. Maybe they're just on the fringes of Federation space, and only making lengthy jaunts out of Federation space under strict conditions. This actually serves to emphasize the whole experiment motif. If you had an experimetal robot, would you send him down the street for a jug of milk, or a farmers field in the middle of no where to get it straight from the cow? Odds are one would keep them close to the vest.

And feeling like they are being reigned in by Starfleet could also be a bit of a theme.


I think a mix of bio, mechanical, and photonic, would either work out really smoothly, or very clunky.
Photonic are actually running the ship for the most part, automated mechanical systems and androids/robots are doing the adjustment/repair work, the biologicals... see they are the ones that don't entirely fit in.

[Selrahc]

A detailed subject exploration into the nature of AI sentience and society will not benefit from attachment to the Star Trek brand, which brings with it all sorts of stupidity. The storytelling model of a star trek show will not benefit from the restrictions placed on them by the high concept premise.

A similarish show was also done fairly recently in Caprica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caprica_%28TV_series%29), and people didn't really go for it.

[Traab]

But if they have little to no armaments, then other than starfleet related drama, what can we really devote a series to? I mean, a big part of star trek, no matter what the series, is away missions that go bad, meeting with hostile groups, things like that. You can only run the internal drama reel for so long before it gets dull.

Does the science stuff they are supposed to be doing even matter for anything? Or is it busy work they are given to do so starfleet can decide whether they are doing their job capably enough for mass production and real work?

[Karoht]

A detailed subject exploration into the nature of AI sentience and society will not benefit from attachment to the Star Trek brand, which brings with it all sorts of stupidity. The storytelling model of a star trek show will not benefit from the restrictions placed on them by the high concept premise.

A similarish show was also done fairly recently in Caprica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caprica_%28TV_series%29), and people didn't really go for it.

Ah. Excellent point.

Well, maybe that means it would have to be detached from Trek. The Trek description helps people visualize the idea somewhat, but I agree that taking existing model of show and adding in the 'high concept premise' may turn off viewers if approached thusly.

[bloodtide]

I doubt an 'artificial life' show of any type would work. You'd fast run into the problem of what to have the characters do. And the only way yo have drama is the make the artificial life exactly like humans. And then if they are exactly like humans, they are not 'artificial life' anymore.

You will notice that the first thing that is done to any 'non-human' character is that they are made human.

Your show also has the dreaded 'Lost' syndrome......and we really need to stop copying that one show.

The best bet for a Star Trek show would be: Star Trek Anthology. The idea would be an hour long show that just had 'random' star trek stores. You could have a small 'core cast' of all new characters to fill up say a third of the shows. But the best part is you could have any actor from any star trek have 1-3 episodes to tell a story. This would be a great way to fill in the gaps in storyline, give characters more story, and tell the past/futures of each character.

[Weezer]

I would say this would only work if the holographic nature of the crew was revealed right away, or at the least within the first 3-4 episodes. Having that kind of switch after a whole season would do nothing more than anger viewers. Have a few episodes being the crew looking at strange events, climaxing in the big reveal, and then start exploring the consequences of their knowledge for the rest of the show. Also you need to make the crew relatively easily killable or else you lose all chance of dramatic tension.

[zingbat]

The best bet for a Star Trek show would be: Star Trek Anthology. The idea would be an hour long show that just had 'random' star trek stores. You could have a small 'core cast' of all new characters to fill up say a third of the shows. But the best part is you could have any actor from any star trek have 1-3 episodes to tell a story. This would be a great way to fill in the gaps in storyline, give characters more story, and tell the past/futures of each character.

Yeah, I've been thinking about that type of Star Trek show for quite a while. Set on a Klingon ship this week, a Q story next, then gun-runners moving weapons to a resistance force on an occupied planet. And, every once and a while, the Enterprise pops up...

In my head, I called it Star Trek Universe. And then those Star Gate jerks stole my name. :smallwink:

[McStabbington]

Yeah, I've been thinking about that type of Star Trek show for quite a while. Set on a Klingon ship this week, a Q story next, then gun-runners moving weapons to a resistance force on an occupied planet. And, every once and a while, the Enterprise pops up...

In my head, I called it Star Trek Universe. And then those Star Gate jerks stole my name. :smallwink:

That would be insanely difficult to pull off. Not only would you have huge difficulties with the props and CGI from week to week since you can't re-use sets, but you're also cutting against the grain of modern television writing, which is for more continuity and complex arcs rather than Twilight Zone-style episodic stories. Really, I think TNG was the last science fiction show that successfully pulled off the episode-by-episode format. Which makes sense, since the only real advantage to episodic stories, and the reason why they originally worked in that format, is so that they could show episodes out of order in syndication.

[Ravens_cry]

I think Caprica did a terrible job of it, from what I saw of it.
We got robots that are basically advanced Roombas and a guy is suddenly able to upload his daughters mind into a computer and boom, we got advanced, mind grade AI?
I think we missed a few steps here.
Also, Star Trek has explored the nature of sentience and Artificial Intelligence several times.
Data, Moriarty, Vic Fontaine, The Doctor, among others also.
Sometimes it was handled pretty well, The Doctor and Data, other times less well, but it has been done.

[Karoht]

I doubt an 'artificial life' show of any type would work. You'd fast run into the problem of what to have the characters do. And the only way yo have drama is the make the artificial life exactly like humans. And then if they are exactly like humans, they are not 'artificial life' anymore.Thus far in Trek, almost all artificial life was personified, save for a few variants here and there. None the less, this is still an issue, I agree.



Your show also has the dreaded 'Lost' syndrome......and we really need to stop copying that one show.Never watched Lost but I heard lots of terrible things. I will take this as a sign. No, I'm not offended, to be clear.



The best bet for a Star Trek show would be: Star Trek Anthology. The idea would be an hour long show that just had 'random' star trek stores. You could have a small 'core cast' of all new characters to fill up say a third of the shows. But the best part is you could have any actor from any star trek have 1-3 episodes to tell a story. This would be a great way to fill in the gaps in storyline, give characters more story, and tell the past/futures of each character.Gawd, I would watch the heck out of that show, if it could be pulled off well.

[zingbat]

That would be insanely difficult to pull off.

Yes, it would. It's easy to think of show concepts when you don't worry about production costs, scheduling and all that hard stuff. :smallbiggrin: I all know is that I would watch it.

[Karoht]

I doubt an 'artificial life' show of any type would work. You'd fast run into the problem of what to have the characters do. And the only way yo have drama is the make the artificial life exactly like humans. And then if they are exactly like humans, they are not 'artificial life' anymore.Thus far in Trek, almost all artificial life was personified, save for a few variants here and there. None the less, this is still an issue, I agree.



Your show also has the dreaded 'Lost' syndrome......and we really need to stop copying that one show.Never watched Lost but I heard lots of terrible things. I will take this as a sign. No, I'm not offended, to be clear.



The best bet for a Star Trek show would be: Star Trek Anthology. The idea would be an hour long show that just had 'random' star trek stores. You could have a small 'core cast' of all new characters to fill up say a third of the shows. But the best part is you could have any actor from any star trek have 1-3 episodes to tell a story. This would be a great way to fill in the gaps in storyline, give characters more story, and tell the past/futures of each character.Gawd, I would watch the heck out of that show, if it could be pulled off well.

[Ravens_cry]

Yes, it would. It's easy to think of show concepts when you don't worry about production costs, scheduling and all that hard stuff. :smallbiggrin: I all know is that I would watch it.
You got the costs of a genre show mixed with the inability to reuse sets and props on a regular basis.
Producers would hate you so much.

[Lord Seth]

That would be insanely difficult to pull off. Not only would you have huge difficulties with the props and CGI from week to week since you can't re-use sets, but you're also cutting against the grain of modern television writing, which is for more continuity and complex arcs rather than Twilight Zone-style episodic stories.I don't think "episodic" is the right word. "Episodic" is what you'd use to describe a show like Law & Order or House or almost all sitcoms...the main plot of each episode is standalone and is completed by the end of the episode (it's become more common nowadays for there to be a continuing story in addition to that, but the main plot is standalone). The Twilight Zone was an anthology series, meaning that every episode is completely standalone, not just in terms of the main plot, but in terms of premise and characters; no episode has anything to do with another (granted, The Outer Limits did have a few episodes that continued a story from a previous one...but still, those had nothing to do with any of the other episodes). Even if there's virtually no continuity in Law & Order (not counting when they switch out a character because an actor leaves), the show's premise and characters are the same. The Twilight Zone was an entirely new deal each episode.

It is definitely true that anthology series have all but disappeared from television, though...something I can't say I'm sad about. So the chances of such a thing like that working seems a bit dubious to me.
Really, I think TNG was the last science fiction show that successfully pulled off the episode-by-episode format. Which makes sense, since the only real advantage to episodic stories, and the reason why they originally worked in that format, is so that they could show episodes out of order in syndication.Well as noted, TNG was episodic, not an anthology. While there wasn't much continuity between episodes (there was some though, like Q for example), each episode still featured the same characters in the same starship.

As for whether TNG was the last science fiction show to pull off being episodic...depends on how we're defining it. Are we limiting ourselves to only science fiction, and thus fantasy is out the window? Are we counting shows like The X-Files that were mostly episodic with the occasional "myth arc" episode? Are we counting shows that started out fairly episodic but got more serialized later on, like Fringe, or for that matter, DS9?

[Karoht]

I think TNG had enough continuity to keep you watching, but was isolated in plot per episode, making it easy to jump in at any point and enjoy. It very rarely referenced past episodes. Or rather, if it did make a reference, it was either subtle, or it refered to a big event. Where Voyager I vaguely remember some reference to a past episode just about every episode. There is a possibility I'm mis-remembering, it's been a very long time since I watched Voyager.

[McStabbington]

I think TNG had enough continuity to keep you watching, but was isolated in plot per episode, making it easy to jump in at any point and enjoy. It very rarely referenced past episodes. Or rather, if it did make a reference, it was either subtle, or it refered to a big event. Where Voyager I vaguely remember some reference to a past episode just about every episode. There is a possibility I'm mis-remembering, it's been a very long time since I watched Voyager.

Back when TNG was being produced, the goal was to create completely self-contained standalone stories so that local television stations could show episodes in any order they wanted. Ron Moore in some of his post-Star Trek interviews has discussed how he and several other writers (Ira Steven Behr in particular) were continually at war with the production guys on this point: many writers wanted to draw upon prior episodes from time to time to continue certain stories, while the production guys always wanted them to cut those parts of the story arcs out. So mostly they just slipped it in as subtly as they could here and there. For instance, Worf's brother Kurn becomes executive officer aboard the Enterprise in the opening act of Sins of the Father in the same officer exchange program that Riker used to become XO of the Klingon battlecruiser Pagh in a second-season episode.

Unfortunately, when the writing team from TNG split at the end of that show, all the writers who cared about continuity had gone over to DS9. Which left Voyager saddled with a concept that begged for carefully thought-out, season long arcs and a writing team that avoided such arcs like they were infected with the Vidian phage. This didn't mean that Voyager couldn't have worked out. After all, TNG and TOS are both shows that do largely self-contained, standalone episodes, and they are both considered two of the best science fiction series ever. But the Voyager team had already come off of doing 150 episodes of TNG, so the mana pool for their imagination was somewhat depleted at this point. This creative exhaustion, combined with the refusal to adhere to continuity explains most of why Voyager is remembered with such hatred.

[Ravens_cry]

I don't hate Voyager, I think it had some of the best characters in Star Trek, The Doctor especially, but yeah, it really could have been better.

[Soras Teva Gee]

This is a terrible premise.

I'm sorry but it is and I'm not going to sugar coat it. Holodecks and holograms are probably the worst idea in Star Trek, why simulate a reality in your simulated reality. Mind you the initial idea is not that bad, but as soon as you take it from quick harmless gaming/recreation you've created... the holodeck episode.

And your idea is Holodeck Episode: The Series.

Afterall if these are all simulations who beam off on simulated adventures... what exactly is the point of their struggles? And they can't go on real adventures because they can't interact with anyone outside their little simulation bottle without the whole thing falling apart. You can't gallivant around the Alpha Quadrant and not expect to run into other people. What happens when this ships say gets a distress call (something even any Federation vessel is obligated to respond to morally) and suddenly can't provide any actual assistance, does the ship in distress get to die while the hologram crew gets a simulation. Or do you cover it with technobabble?

Heck what the hell is Starfleet's motivation again? If you can perfectly automate a ship then you don't need a crew to run it, and can build a much simpler ship. Why have a crew of simulated humans fly around the galaxy at all. The Federation isn't as idealistically present as it was but this smacks of the sort of perverse games Q and his TOS omnipotent thematic predecessors cook up for fun.

The only way this make any logical sense is for the entire series to take place in a big holodeck/computer in a Starfleet facility somewhere, everything is simulated by Starfleet for sociological study purposes. Which of course only emphasizes the hollowness of being a simulation and nothing the crew accomplishing mattering.

Also with your stipulation against rebellion/rights you've rather robbed the characters of anything to do to give their lives meaning. What are they supposed to do, go around boringly collecting data from unpopulated areas and having sitcom seinfeldian conversations about their personal drama in their own simulated bottle world? Or just wangst endlessly about the poor poor fate of being a hologram?

This all sounds like a one-trick pony with no idea how where its going or came from. The idea is fundamentally limited in what you can do with it, and that's no basis to run a series around.

[dehro]

also..if your federation has the skills to create all encompassing "identities" who seem to be self sufficient and autonomous..they don't need to do that at all. they just need to pour those identities and notions right into the main computer...and away go bunks, personal cabins, etc..in fact, who needs a "limited" physical representation at all, if there are no biological creatures to interact with?

there was an episode of VOY where an entire crew of holograms fought the voyager and was assisted, up to a point, by the doctor, in thier bid for existence and freedom. I don't remember exactly how it ended (if they got it or ended up living on the holodeck... but you could sort of create a spin off using that as a starting point...but once you're through the theme of the right to existence for holograms (something that I believe HAS been covered I believe in the doctor's case)...well..their actual existence as an effective contribution to federation purposes, in the form of an entire crew... is rather limited, from a television-show pov.

[KingofMadCows]

DS9 already set the stage perfectly for a new Trek show. Having grown tired of war, the major factions are more willing to solve problems through negotiations, build new alliances, create new friendships, and repair fractured old relationships. They could blend the darker themes and pragmatism of DS9 with the optimism of the TNG and TOS. It's a great opportunity to create a series that combines the best elements of all the Star Trek shows.

A new Star Trek should be about overcoming old prejudices and fears to create a more peaceful and stable future. It should also retain the serialized nature of DS9 so that it could show us the process through which these things could be accomplished. Prejudice and fear must be chipped away slowly and friendships must be forged through hardship and compromise, and it would take many episodes to show the gradual change in the relationship between the Federation and its former enemies.

They can also return to the exploration of the unknown while incorporating new elements present during the time. The Federation isn't the only organization interested in learning more about the secrets of the universe. The other races are interested too and we rarely see those facets of the other races. It would be great to see joint scientific or exploratory ventures between the Federation and the Klingons or the Romulans or even the Dominion. It would combine the exploration elements that were more prominent in TOS and TNG with the relationship and political elements of DS9. A new Trek should be about rekindling that wonder and excitement of exploration and discovery. It should show us what we could become if we learned from the mistakes of the past and worked together to build a better future.

[The Reverend]

I think a new show should happen in the opposite direction chronologically. A show set during the Klingon-Fed war. It was very very nasty, lots of space Marines, planetary insertions, no transporters, fighter craft, and good old fusion drives. It could be Hard Sci fi without a lot of the technobabble ST is so known for. No holodecks, real food rations, low powered shields, wholly overpowered hand weapons (ala old ST, if you notice Starfleet dials down the power level from-tank weapon powerful to power levels more in line with infantry combat), mass bombings of colonies and other features of a war of survival on an industrial scale and no kids on the freaking battleship.

[Karoht]

This is a terrible premise.I've slowly come to realize this. Don't worry, I'm not offended.



I'm sorry but it is and I'm not going to sugar coat it. Holodecks and holograms are probably the worst idea in Star Trek, why simulate a reality in your simulated reality. Mind you the initial idea is not that bad, but as soon as you take it from quick harmless gaming/recreation you've created... the holodeck episode.
And your idea is Holodeck Episode: The Series.I did state that it would seek to avoid all this, but I believe my idea tried to hide from this by having a larger arc at play and a bunch of drama and character development. Still, the realization has set in.



Afterall if these are all simulations who beam off on simulated adventures... what exactly is the point of their struggles? And they can't go on real adventures because they can't interact with anyone outside their little simulation bottle without the whole thing falling apart. You can't gallivant around the Alpha Quadrant and not expect to run into other people.That was actually the point. One of the issues to explore is, how deeply does their sense of duty extend from the self rather than programming? Are they still doing their assigned missions because they're programmed to, or are they doing it to keep their cover that they haven't discovered who and what they are, or are they doing it because their AI self actually enjoys having a purpose or a direction or maybe actually enjoys the particular 'career' they've been programmed with.
Take the Doctor on Voyager. Did he like operating on people? Did he like waving a stick around to figure out what was wrong with people, or was he doing it entirely because he was programmed to?



What happens when this ships say gets a distress call (something even any Federation vessel is obligated to respond to morally) and suddenly can't provide any actual assistance, does the ship in distress get to die while the hologram crew gets a simulation. Or do you cover it with technobabble?Um, maybe you missed the part where I mentioned that the holograms can project themselves beyond the ship? IE-Down to planets, onto other ships, etc. They can technobabble the reasoning of why they can now VS why they couldn't before. Or, do the mobile emitter thing from Voyager, but instead of "oh no, we lost the emitter, we lost the doctor" the emitter is just that, a mobile projection system.
This was all covered in my original post, just saying.



Heck what the hell is Starfleet's motivation again? If you can perfectly automate a ship then you don't need a crew to run it, and can build a much simpler ship. Why have a crew of simulated humans fly around the galaxy at all.That is actually the point. Smaller, faster ships with more stuff in them, because the crew isn't using a bridge, or decks, or really much of anything. As for why not fully automated, well, it would be as automated as possible, but there are times where you want a 'face' to handle a mission, such as negociation. Or maybe in engineering, the robot arms can't reach something, so you send in the hologram who has little if any risk of injury or death, and can get anywhere a person can get. Also, because it's a hologram, it can go other places, it can be shrunk for example.



Also with your stipulation against rebellion/rights you've rather robbed the characters of anything to do to give their lives meaning. What are they supposed to do, go around boringly collecting data from unpopulated areas and having sitcom seinfeldian conversations about their personal drama in their own simulated bottle world? Or just wangst endlessly about the poor poor fate of being a hologram?I didn't stipulate that they couldn't, just that there are considerations that the crew would have to make.
What could they do?
-Rescue missions
-Diplomatic missions
-Exploration missions
-Security/Combat missions
-Aid missions
Etc.
Remember, they were built with the notion that they could replace a human crew, that means they have to have the same capabilities (and more) that a human crew has, ergo they have to be able to perform the same tasks no?
This is before you begin exploring the larger arcs, any character development, and any of the x factor that Star Trek was famous for.
IE-On Voyager, the crew encountered a group of life forms that regarded the doctor as a life form (photonic) but thought the rest of the crew were illusionary.



This all sounds like a one-trick pony with no idea how where its going or came from. The idea is fundamentally limited in what you can do with it, and that's no basis to run a series around.Despite my refutes, I agree that it would be a poor series, just not as poor of one as you think. Rather, it would probably be a really poor Star Trek series, given how they've (backwardsly) set up holograms to be extremely limited in the first place.
I dunno, my imagination seems perfectly able to run wild in this premise. But as someone pointed out, it has a bit too much 'lost' in it, and I think it would suffer from trying very hard to not be a constant holodeck episode. It's not impossible, but I highly doubt one could pitch it to a producer and get vary far with it.


@Klingon War
I think it would be amazing for them to base the series around this time period and have the war come in and out from time to time. War VS X focus does get a bit tiresome. That said, the Klingon Wars are all based around the time before Kirk and while Kirk is around yes? Yeah, lots of potential for all kinds of story in that era. And maybe even cameos.

[Yora]

Any attempts at a new star trek show should start with the realization that "cruising through space, visting the planet of the week we're never going to see again" does no longer work as a premise. When TNG did it, it was still exiting, but when Voyager did it again, it didn't work so well, and when Enterprise did the same thing again, I stopped watching because after the first 3 minutes of every episode, I knew exatly how the rest of the episode would turn out. Because they had used the very same plot like 5 timed before. It's been done before, and we've seen it. A thousand times.

Any attempt of reviving star trek should have a clear storyline, at least for the span of each season, that has lots of reoccuring characters and places. It improves a show so much! When you have your regular ports where you stop for supplies every four or five episodes, with some of the crew visting their regular bar, and so on.
When Enterprise started, I really liked the first episodes, when the crew were the noobs in space, who entered a strange new world of foreign people, who seemed to be accustomed to the way things are done, but humans are the one alien species that is still trying to find its way around the place. Too bad that this was dropped after four episodes or so. But having a kind of stable society that the characters can explore with the audience makes science fiction interesting, and that doesn't work when every society is only visited for 15 minutes before being completely forgotten.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Um, maybe you missed the part where I mentioned that the holograms can project themselves beyond the ship? IE-Down to planets, onto other ships, etc. They can technobabble the reasoning of why they can now VS why they couldn't before. Or, do the mobile emitter thing from Voyager, but instead of "oh no, we lost the emitter, we lost the doctor" the emitter is just that, a mobile projection system.
This was all covered in my original post, just saying.

I have misinterpreted this line then:

Them transporting over to other ships or down to the surface? Nope, that's just them uploading to the computer to then be projected elsewhere. The computer programs in the memory of walking onto a transporter pad to continue the illusion of being real people.

However I must note that the "mobile emitter" was even purer technobabble then hologram/holodeck was to begin with. Specifically 29th century future-tech that Voyager (apparently) couldn't replicate and never explained beyond its function as a plot device. And even then at the core a hologram was a light and force-fields they are never going to be easy to hide.


That is actually the point. Smaller, faster ships with more stuff in them, because the crew isn't using a bridge, or decks, or really much of anything. As for why not fully automated, well, it would be as automated as possible, but there are times where you want a 'face' to handle a mission, such as negociation. Or maybe in engineering, the robot arms can't reach something, so you send in the hologram who has little if any risk of injury or death, and can get anywhere a person can get. Also, because it's a hologram, it can go other places, it can be shrunk for example.

I don't think you grasp the magnitude. Judging by every Trek vessel there is a vast percentage of their volume devoted to human space. Because humans need space.

Mind you Trek ships are ridiculously lavishly tremendously roomy for having corridors people can walk in both directions down alone. Never mind the multi-room quarters or amenity spaces. On an modern aircraft carrier even the captain and admiral don't have quite the space a Starfleet officer does, and their cabin is also their office.

We'd be talking a slimmed down engineering section of Voyager something comparable in capability, because the rest would be superfluous. For a smaller science vessel we rapidly start talking DS9 runabout size. So we immediately have a problem with a ship that isn't large enough to sustain its supposed crew. Or we have a ship with a ridiculous amount of dead space and tremendously screwy power/maintenance requirements to simulate a ship and the requirements of hiding its nature to a non-existent crew. Right down to navigation because its mass would not match a similar ship built to keep humans alive.

And how do holograms do maintenance on a failed emitter or series of failures? Even technobabbling getting the emitter to the hologram fixing it... I simply can't imagine anything being able to fix equipment (well) without knowing something of its purpose.

[H Birchgrove]

I think a new show should happen in the opposite direction chronologically. A show set during the Klingon-Fed war. It was very very nasty, lots of space Marines, planetary insertions, no transporters, fighter craft, and good old fusion drives. It could be Hard Sci fi without a lot of the technobabble ST is so known for. No holodecks, real food rations, low powered shields, wholly overpowered hand weapons (ala old ST, if you notice Starfleet dials down the power level from-tank weapon powerful to power levels more in line with infantry combat), mass bombings of colonies and other features of a war of survival on an industrial scale and no kids on the freaking battleship.

I like it, but it shouldn't be as dark and emocore as Battlestar Galactica (especially the 3rd and 4th seasons) and Stargate: Universe.

There should also be a modicum of moral behaviour from the protagonists; none of the "the ends justify the means" crapola from Battlestar Galactica.

There should also be brawling and good ol' fisticuffs. I miss that from ST:TOS.

[Karoht]

Any attempts at a new star trek show should start with the realization that "cruising through space, visting the planet of the week we're never going to see again" does no longer work as a premise. When TNG did it, it was still exiting, but when Voyager did it again, it didn't work so well, and when Enterprise did the same thing again, I stopped watching because after the first 3 minutes of every episode, I knew exatly how the rest of the episode would turn out. Because they had used the very same plot like 5 timed before. It's been done before, and we've seen it. A thousand times.

Any attempt of reviving star trek should have a clear storyline, at least for the span of each season, that has lots of reoccuring characters and places. It improves a show so much! When you have your regular ports where you stop for supplies every four or five episodes, with some of the crew visting their regular bar, and so on.
When Enterprise started, I really liked the first episodes, when the crew were the noobs in space, who entered a strange new world of foreign people, who seemed to be accustomed to the way things are done, but humans are the one alien species that is still trying to find its way around the place. Too bad that this was dropped after four episodes or so. But having a kind of stable society that the characters can explore with the audience makes science fiction interesting, and that doesn't work when every society is only visited for 15 minutes before being completely forgotten.

One thing I thought TNG did well, even if many planets it visited were never seen again, was a sense of 'we are in this together.' Especially when visiting Federation/Starfleet outposts.

I think if any series took a group of 'core' planets and focused the story in their section of space (remembering that space is really really big, so the stuff between planet X and planet Y is a pretty big area to explore) and branched out from time to time, would create a real sense that these worlds are important. Almost like family.
These core planets don't have to be in a 'core' location. Earth might not even be involved. This could be any cluster of systems, possibly with some new races, some old, but the big deal here is that they should be 'core' to the story. Star Trek could benefit from a touch more space opera, this would help develop the universe a bit more.
As for branching out from time to time, I don't just mean adding a new planet to the core every season. I mean "Hey, we've been given this really cool directive to go into this section of space and chart out this stuff, make contact with these people, and [insert hijinks] as well." It would make voyages of exploration a big deal, really capture that spirit of adventure.
Vaction trips to places like Riza suddenly feel like a big occasion. Having fun typically should feel like a big deal, especially to the viewer. A trip to Earth or Vulcan or any other big well known planet should really feel like a big deal.

[Carry2]

A similarish show was also done fairly recently in Caprica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caprica_%28TV_series%29), and people didn't really go for it.
I felt the problem with Caprica was you can't explore the subject of the dividing line between man and machine by making your robots identical to people.

[bloodtide]

That would be insanely difficult to pull off. Not only would you have huge difficulties with the props and CGI from week to week since you can't re-use sets, but you're also cutting against the grain of modern television writing, which is for more continuity and complex arcs rather than Twilight Zone-style episodic stories. Really, I think TNG was the last science fiction show that successfully pulled off the episode-by-episode format. Which makes sense, since the only real advantage to episodic stories, and the reason why they originally worked in that format, is so that they could show episodes out of order in syndication.

I'm not even in Hollywood, and I can think of ways to pull this off.

First as you can set your story anywhere, any when in the whole history of Star Trek, it's easy enough to use existing sets. Plenty of 'colony worlds' can look like the old west, for example.

Second, you want more character based stories. Less special effects. For example O'Brian teaching a class and dealing with an issue or Dr. Crusher in a hospital setting would not need a huge space battle.

Third, each story only features one character. So, for example if you were doing a Trip story, he would not really need to leave the engine room much to tell a story. You would never need see the bridge, for example.

The main point of this show is that it would be made for the fans. Something like 55% of people are Star Trek fans, a huge untapped audience. And not only do they want to watch more Star Trek, they want to watch good Star Trek. The trick is to write it for the fans, not try to make it all 'cool' and sell it to Ma and Pa Kettle.(They will just have to live with only 50% of the country/world watching the show)

And you could make it a nice 'new type' of 'arc'. Just think, you have a crew of new(cheap) people on the USS Ambassador, zipping around the Federation fixing things, mostly diplomatically, set after the end of the dominion war. First you can bring back all (yes all) the old stuff to attract the old fans. Just watch any episode and if you ask, what ever happen to.... So first you'd reference the old episode, then you can add in a new show..with the guest star..to tie the two stories together.

[madtinker]

I would say this would only work if the holographic nature of the crew was revealed right away, or at the least within the first 3-4 episodes. Having that kind of switch after a whole season would do nothing more than anger viewers. Have a few episodes being the crew looking at strange events, climaxing in the big reveal, and then start exploring the consequences of their knowledge for the rest of the show. Also you need to make the crew relatively easily killable or else you lose all chance of dramatic tension.

The computer is running a genetic algorithm to perfect AI. It puts the crew in dangerous situations to see if they survive and adapt. If they do, base the next generation off the successful ones, and kill the ones who don't perform. Kind of like "The Most Dangerous Game," the characters are waiting for the next thing the computer will use to try and kill them.

[Weezer]

The computer is running a genetic algorithm to perfect AI. It puts the crew in dangerous situations to see if they survive and adapt. If they do, base the next generation off the successful ones, and kill the ones who don't perform. Kind of like "The Most Dangerous Game," the characters are waiting for the next thing the computer will use to try and kill them.

That does sound like it could be interesting, though I don't know how much that idea would benefit from being Star Trek, doesn't seem like it pulls enough from anything really Treky (exploration, discovery etc). Might do better standing on its own.

[The Reverend]

I really like the idea of mil Sci fi star trek show set in the klingon war. Has a lot of possibilities. It would definitely have a lighter tone than battlestar galactica definitely no ends justify the means as a general rule amongst the feds. But definitely military oriented, actual tactics, combat armor, ground vehicles. I imagine the ship battles to be very tense blow due to the ships weapons being much more powerful than the shields or armor. We see the development of tge famous "federation sensor obsession" trying to find cloaked or hidden klingon vessels. going back to the good old races andorean, tellerite, etc. We will flatly ignore Enterprises heretical timeline.

[Ravens_cry]

How about The Romulan War?
It's later than Enterprise, but it old enough that not every problem can be solved with Treknobabble.
And not just refluffed treknobabble. "Polarized hull plating", my buttocks.

[zingbat]

You got the costs of a genre show mixed with the inability to reuse sets and props on a regular basis.
Producers would hate you so much.

Don't pester me with your trivial practicalities and obsessive bean-counting, Mr. Producer! My show runs on PURE IMAGINATION!

[Ravens_cry]

Don't pester me with your trivial practicalities and obsessive bean-counting, Mr. Producer! My show runs on PURE IMAGINATION!
Mr. Producer says : It only will run IN your imagination if only it runs ON imagination.
Otherwise it takes money.

[bloodtide]

I really like the idea of mil Sci fi star trek show set in the klingon war. Has a lot of possibilities. It would definitely have a lighter tone than battlestar galactica definitely no ends justify the means as a general rule amongst the feds. But definitely military oriented, actual tactics, combat armor, ground vehicles. I imagine the ship battles to be very tense blow due to the ships weapons being much more powerful than the shields or armor. We see the development of tge famous "federation sensor obsession" trying to find cloaked or hidden klingon vessels. going back to the good old races andorean, tellerite, etc. We will flatly ignore Enterprises heretical timeline.


I doubt a Star Trek war show would work. You'd get too much hate that 'war' is not the Great Birds vision of the future. DS9 really, really took a chance and had to split off from the main Trek to even have a war.

And making a combat show is expensive, even more so with ground vehicles. And you can't have a fight in every show.

And no TV show can ever use 'actual tactics', as they allow for no drama.

[Karoht]

A show about war, maybe not so much.
A show where the timeline is set with the backdrop of a war? Much more likely.

IE-Tension and Sporadic Hostilities
We've seen it in TOS (Klingons as Cold War comparison), TNG (Romulans/The Neutral Zone), DS9 (Cardassians, Maquis followed by full blown war)


New Series
Romulan tensions occasionally leading to hostile but isolated actions sounds like it's got some potential. I would really love to see some of the earlier struggles of the Vulcan people mixed in if the timeline allowed it. Klingons could be involved from time to time, but I've always felt that the Klingons were a tacked-on bad guy at best, and TNG made some great strides to correct that.

Also, the Federation doesn't have to fight the Romulans directly to be involved in the action. They can go render medical aid to a planet, conflict occurs as they encounter a Romulan blockade, blah blah blah federation cites some political accord regarding rendering medical aid, blah blah blah moral/political issues regarding use of force to go help those in need, flashy starship battle, damaged ship makes emergency landing on planet, helps people. Next episode, pick up right where that left off.

Play it up with lots of 'enemy of my enemy' stuff. IE-Federation goes to help the Klingons as a show of good faith, whole thing gets a bit messy. Demonstrate that previously non-friendly races are now sitting down at the table with the Federation to talk about looming threat of blah.

[The Reverend]

Romulan War now that i think about it sounds even better. it was conducted without ever seeing the enemy, using primitive nuclear weapons and Warp Accelerated Lasers. About as Hard SciFi as it gets in the Trek Universe.

i always thought two other areas would be interesting. One a politcal westwingish style fed show based around the federation government, any era. Another would be a spy/subterfuge style based on Federation INtelligence, maybe opposing Section 31 and its very dubious moral goals.

[Yora]

I would like civilian antropologists or development workers learning about new cultures. But that would probably be too deep for the writers. Insted make a few more transporter and holodeck malfunction, as well as obligatory shuttle crashes with people who hate each other.

Someone really should make a list of episodes from all shows that share the same setup:
- Transporter Accidents
- Holodeck Malfunctions
- Shuttle crashes
- Lt. Casanova meets an alien woman
- Alien Mutation Virus
- Trapped in a Negative Space Wedgie
- "Civil war is bad!"
- Crewmember on trial for accidental crime

I think there are some more, but I might have already 80% of all episodes ever. :smallbiggrin:

[The Reverend]

Hmm other star trek episode plots.

Misunderstood monster

Save the planet from problem X

Pointing out dumb prejudice Y

Dealing with Gods

Time/Space Warp Thingie

[KingofMadCows]

You do understand that TOS was made in the 60's right? A lot of television stations actually refused to air the episode where Kirk and Uhura kissed.

As for the cliches, Star Trek practically came up with several of them so technically they weren't really cliches when they were first used on Star Trek. DS9 barely used any of them at all except when it made fun of them like in the James Bond parody episode. It was Voyager and Enterprise that overused them.

[Ravens_cry]

Tropes are not bad. Some of the Q episodes, which probably count under "Dealing with Gods." were some of the best episodes, John de Lancie and Sir Patrick Stewart had some excellent acting chemistry going.
And perhaps more (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqUfPhMxmAg)? :smalltongue:

[bloodtide]

Romulan War now that i think about it sounds even better. it was conducted without ever seeing the enemy, using primitive nuclear weapons and Warp Accelerated Lasers. About as Hard SciFi as it gets in the Trek Universe.

i always thought two other areas would be interesting. One a politcal westwingish style fed show based around the federation government, any era. Another would be a spy/subterfuge style based on Federation INtelligence, maybe opposing Section 31 and its very dubious moral goals.

The problem with the Romulan War is that if you follow Star Trek history, the two sides never meet. This would drive the writers INSANE as they just have to have enemy war drama..and make the enemy 100% human 'just like us'. What stories could you come up with if you can't ever see or use the enemy and your limited by 'real time' things like limited warp drive and atomic weapons.

A federation government show? Does not sound all that exciting. And a spy show sounds good, but it would be hard to make it 'star treky'.

Too bad they could not adapt all the William Shattner line of books into a nice TV show arc. The whole famine, crossover, Section 31, Galactic Mystery would make for a great couple seasons.

[Ravens_cry]

Well ,what if they went back and forth, having arcs showing the Romulan side and the Starfleet side?
As for the Federation government show, "Articles of the Federation" (http://www.sff.net/people/krad/articles.htm) was a pretty good book, and the idea might make a good TV show, the book itself being pretty episodic in nature, a series of events.
But it would have to be kept pretty low budget because of its niche appeal.

[Karoht]

I think a Trek that featured more than the 'main ship' crew would be cool. I'm not saying that they have to give equal time to a split of casts and sets, but an entire episode taking place on the bridge of a Romulan craft? I'm game. An entire episode taking place on the bridge of a Klingon craft? Heck yeah. If these things happened more frequently than not, awesome. IE-In 8 episodes, 3 feature on entirely different ships or a space station or on a planet or etc. In fact, making Trek more about the known universe rather than confining so much of it to one ship could be largely beneficial.
And before mentioning budget, in a perfect world this idea would be so good it would get the budget it deserves.

[zingbat]

Someone really should make a list of episodes from all shows that share the same setup:
- Transporter Accidents
- Holodeck Malfunctions
- Shuttle crashes
- Lt. Casanova meets an alien woman
- Alien Mutation Virus
- Trapped in a Negative Space Wedgie
- "Civil war is bad!"
- Crewmember on trial for accidental crime

I think there are some more, but I might have already 80% of all episodes ever. :smallbiggrin:

Don't forget "Prime Directive moral dilemma"

[Yora]

I am going to do that! There are only 700 or so episodes and for at least 500 I can give you a complete summary by just watching the first 30 seconds. :smallbiggrin:

[bloodtide]

My first though of a new Star Trek show after 'Anthology' would be Trek Time Cop. It would be the basic idea of Time cops from the 30th century going back in time to, ahem, put right what once went wrong. This works out nicely as again we can see any era of Star Trek and do just about any story. You can have any Star Trek actor guest star and show lots of history.

Or

Star Trek: Distopia!

The idea is that some unknown time in the far future. The android Datum is woken up on a wrecked Starfleet ship(the 'son' of Data, of course). He finds the Federation long gone and the galaxy in chaos. The first and second season are mostly just trying to survive while getting bit and pieces of what happened to the Federation. Eventually, Datum decides to do it all again..that is to rebuild the Federation. And then we get to see the formation of the Federation paradise.

This show has some good gems too it. As the future is Distopia, you can have all the 'cool, edgy ' stuff you'd like to attract viewers. And you can contrast that with the 'only Starfleet crew' how seem to have the only moral compass in the universe.

[Shadow of the Sun]

The issue with "Star Trek Dystopia" is that, at that point, it would no longer be Star Trek.

Roddenberry didn't have anywhere near as much input as he claimed to have, but one thing he did influence was the element of optimism- that the future will be better than today is.

There have been deviations from this, but I think that it is, in general, the most basic element of Star Trek, the idealism inherent in it. A Star Trek dystopia wouldn't be Star Trek.

TNG and DS9 both had excellent examples of this- the "genocide dilemma" episode, which in TNG would be "I, Borg", wherein they had the possibility of eliminating the Borg but did not do so as it would constitute genocide. A similar plot occurred in DS9 with the added bit that one of the regulars would have died, too.

The main problem with Voyager was the inherent conflict with the hopelessness of their situation and the idealism of the Star Trek universe. Which is why the rebooted Battlestar Galactica was so much better- Moore could ignore the idealism of Star Trek to focus on a story of hopelessness and danger.

[KingofMadCows]

That was what Andromeda was supposed to be like but Kevin Sorbo ruined it by forcing the writers to add more action.

[bloodtide]

The issue with "Star Trek Dystopia" is that, at that point, it would no longer be Star Trek.

Roddenberry didn't have anywhere near as much input as he claimed to have, but one thing he did influence was the element of optimism- that the future will be better than today is.

There have been deviations from this, but I think that it is, in general, the most basic element of Star Trek, the idealism inherent in it. A Star Trek dystopia wouldn't be Star Trek.

I'll agree that 'the future is better' is said to be one of the ideas of Star Trek. But then just look at how it's done. Ok, so humans/Earth in the future live in Pairadice(not that we are ever show this or how it's done). 95% of the shows have the same 'problems' we have today...they are just protected onto aliens. So you get 'future humans perfect' and 'all aliens bad'. It's even worse when you add in the 'all who join the Federation are perfect' and 'all outsiders are wrong and bad'.

A classic 'perfect' Star Trek show, where they just randomly go from planet to planet and force the ideas of American way of life, on everyone in the universe, won't work well in 2012.

But Distopia give the perfect mix. You can have the show be 'dark and edgy' to attract people...balanced by 'the last good Starfleet crew'. In effect, the show would not be all that different from TOS or TNG, as they would go from 'bad place to bad place' and 'do the right thing'. And they would have the 'mystery arc' of what happen to the federation and the epic arc of rebuilding it.

[Karoht]

My first though of a new Star Trek show after 'Anthology' would be Trek Time Cop. It would be the basic idea of Time cops from the 30th century going back in time to, ahem, put right what once went wrong. So, we could hire Scott Bakula again?
Oh, and this time Al really would be a hologram. Ziggy could be an android instead of a pocket calculator.

[Selrahc]

(not that we are ever show this or how it's done)

Is it really hard to imagine? Replicators and holodecks are awesome technological devices. If you are living in a free society without undue threat of bodily harm and have reasonable access to those two forms of technology you are living in something that can basically be called a paradise.



A classic 'perfect' Star Trek show, where they just randomly go from planet to planet and force the ideas of American way of life, on everyone in the universe, won't work well in 2012.

That's never been the formula for Star Trek. Stupid levels of non-interference was much more common.

[bloodtide]

Is it really hard to imagine? Replicators and holodecks are awesome technological devices. If you are living in a free society without undue threat of bodily harm and have reasonable access to those two forms of technology you are living in something that can basically be called a paradise.

My point is that we are never shown this. And even more so we are not told anything about the 'deep, dark secret' of the Federation: it was only possible after killing off something like 75% of the 'deadweight' humans.



That's never been the formula for Star Trek. Stupid levels of non-interference was much more common.

Actually interference is much more common. The whole non-interference is just there for drama.

[Weezer]

My point is that we are never shown this. And even more so we are not told anything about the 'deep, dark secret' of the Federation: it was only possible after killing off something like 75% of the 'deadweight' humans.



Herm? What're you talking about with the 75% of the population dead statistic? Where does that come from? And how is it connected with the Federation?

[Lord Seth]

My point is that we are never shown this.While it is true we don't see much of Earth (because the show is set in space), we do see some of it in a few episodes.


And even more so we are not told anything about the 'deep, dark secret' of the Federation: it was only possible after killing off something like 75% of the 'deadweight' humans.A highly questionable assertion. First, I don't believe "like 75%" of people died. There was a nuclear conflict that killed a lot of people (Memory Alpha says 600 million, which isn't even close to 75%) and caused a number of problems such as government/economic collapse and technology setback, but that doesn't equal 75% of people.

Even more importantly, how was it only possible after that? Yes, those conflicts happened and a bunch of people (but not 75%!) died, but just because B happened after A doesn't mean B required A. It's like saying that Nintendo only became a successful video game company after millions of people died in World War II, and therefore Nintendo's deep dark secret is that its success was only possible after millions of deaths.

[Ravens_cry]

Or, to put it more simply, correlation is not causality.
Maybe the authors felt that it required a truly horrific event to "wake up" humanity at the horror of our actions.
A rather optimistic view, but, hey, Star Trek is all about optimism, that the future can be awesome.
But I don't think it was meant to be about removing the "dead weight", a quite terrifying concept if you ask this one.
Considering the result of the war was to turn humans away from using eugenics and genetic engineering to improve upon the human race, I think the idea that was the authors intention holds little weight in my opinion.

[KingofMadCows]

They have explored the "darker side" of the Federation. Tasha Yar was from a failed Federation colony that basically turned into an apocalyptic wasteland. DS9 had the Maquis, Federation citizens who settled on the fringes of Federation space along the border with Cardassia. They didn't have a lot of the technology available to the core worlds and they were victims of a bad treaty with the Cardassians.

[The Reverend]

The feds basic strategy.
1. Make a peace treaty, they will make one under almost any conditions
2. Wait.
3.Enemy population gradually realizes the the life of the average citizen is a constant cycle of orgies, art shows, self improvement...basically all the good points of college minus STDs and with a total lack of the need for money.
4.Enemy government joins feds

[bloodtide]

While it is true we don't see much of Earth (because the show is set in space), we do see some of it in a few episodes.

A highly questionable assertion. First, I don't believe "like 75%" of people died. There was a nuclear conflict that killed a lot of people (Memory Alpha says 600 million, which isn't even close to 75%) and caused a number of problems such as government/economic collapse and technology setback, but that doesn't equal 75% of people.

Even more importantly, how was it only possible after that? Yes, those conflicts happened and a bunch of people (but not 75%!) died, but just because B happened after A doesn't mean B required A. It's like saying that Nintendo only became a successful video game company after millions of people died in World War II, and therefore Nintendo's deep dark secret is that its success was only possible after millions of deaths.


They have kept the history vague in Star Trek, to cover up this dark secret.

Star treks history is mostly the same as real Earth, until you get to the '90's and the Euginics Wars. Then World War Three that used nuclear weapons and the 'post atomic horror' after that. Earth has a lot of conflict in the 21st century, until they suddenly just wake up and all become good, and meet the Vulcans.

We have at least two major wars, plus there aftermaths and plenty of 'conflict' for years. The part that is skipped over is the death. By the 22nd century there would be far less humans alive then even today. Even just a couple nuclear bombs can take out whole countries of people. Plus the after effects.

And the math is easy. To use real Earth as an example: we can't make very much scientific progress(especially like a space station, moon base and so forth) because of the huge strain of the 'deadweight' people that demand all the money and attention. The 'war vs poverty' has gone on 40+ years and there are more poor today then ever. But this is the 'dark secret'....as in Star Trek, they are all dead. Not that they were overly targeted or picked on, but the poor will always take the worst hits from things like war and conflict.

So easy math:Guy wants to buy lunch for his company. At $5 a person times his 100 employes equals $500! woah..way too much. But after all the death, he only has 10 employes and can easily afford the $50. Just a simple example, but just compare to things like health care and food. Before the wars, the government had the same problem that real earth does..too many people in need. But after the wars, almost all of the needy people would be dead, so that frees up tons of money and resources.

[Karoht]

The 'war vs poverty' has gone on 40+ years and there are more poor today then ever. The 'War VS Poverty' was never fought on this planet, but that's probably a topic for another thread altogether. :smallwink: Or a PM conversation if you're interested.

[Lord Seth]

The feds basic strategy.
1. Make a peace treaty, they will make one under almost any conditions
2. Wait.
3.Enemy population gradually realizes the the life of the average citizen is a constant cycle of orgies, art shows, self improvement...basically all the good points of college minus STDs and with a total lack of the need for money.
4.Enemy government joins fedsWhen did this happen in any of the series? I looked up all the treaties on Memory Alpha, and...

Did it happen with the Klingons when they made treaties? Nope.
Did it happen when the Romulans when they made treaties? Nope.
Did it happen with the Cardassians when they made treaties? Nope.
Did it happen with the Klaestrons when they made a treaty? Nope.
Did it happen with the Dominion when they made a treaty? Nope.
The Andorians don't count because the treaty between Vulcan and Andoria predated the Federation.
Did it happen with the Sheliaks when they made a treaty? Nope.
Did it happen with the Kzins when they made a treaty? Nope.

If that's their strategy, they're doing a pretty bad job of it.
They have kept the history vague in Star Trek, to cover up this dark secret.Except this "dark secret" amounts to almost pure speculation on your part.


Star treks history is mostly the same as real Earth, until you get to the '90's and the Euginics Wars. Then World War Three that used nuclear weapons and the 'post atomic horror' after that. Earth has a lot of conflict in the 21st century, until they suddenly just wake up and all become good, and meet the Vulcans.Uh, when do they "wake up and become good"? I never got that vibe from Star Trek: First Contact. Maybe this happened after they met the Vulcans, but you state it occurred before.


We have at least two major wars, plus there aftermaths and plenty of 'conflict' for years. The part that is skipped over is the death. By the 22nd century there would be far less humans alive then even today. Even just a couple nuclear bombs can take out whole countries of people. Plus the after effects.Even assuming this added up to the imagined 75%, that still doesn't prove your thesis that it was required.


And the math is easy. To use real Earth as an example: we can't make very much scientific progress(especially like a space station, moon base and so forth) because of the huge strain of the 'deadweight' people that demand all the money and attention. The 'war vs poverty' has gone on 40+ years and there are more poor today then ever.That's a massive oversimplification. And in fact, based on some (admittedly brief) research, it looks like poverty rates are declining overall.


So easy math:Guy wants to buy lunch for his company. At $5 a person times his 100 employes equals $500! woah..way too much. But after all the death, he only has 10 employes and can easily afford the $50.You seem to leave out the critical aspect that "after all the death"...
1) They would have fewer customers, resulting in less income. Let's suppose 1,000 people shop there on a regular basis. But after all the death, only 100 people would shop there. That would result in a substantial lower number of income because if each person buys about $100 per month, you go from getting $100,000 per month to $10,000. (My example refers to it being a store, but it's applicable to any business)
2) The lower number of employees would also result in less revenue, because you can't provide as much to customers. A computer repair company can't fix as many computers (and thus can't make as much money) if it has fewer people working there. Suppose each person there can fix 3 computers a day (random number). If 100 people worked there, they could fix 300 per day and, if the price was $50 for each computer, make $15,000. But if only 10 people worked there, they could only fix 30 per day, and only make $1,500.

Sure, buying the employees lunch might be cheaper...but he'd have less money to do it with.


Just a simple example, but just compare to things like health care and food. Before the wars, the government had the same problem that real earth does..too many people in need.Japan has a very high population density and has the tenth largest population. It also has one of the the highest life expectancies in the world and universal healthcare. Not counting Macau and Monaco (Macau is a territory of China and Monaco is one of those utterly tiny countries), Singapore has the highest population density in the world...and it's doing very well for itself. For that matter, so have Macau and Monaco. Meanwhile, many countries that have a much lower population than those (both in terms of density and total population) struggle to provide even the most basic of necessities to people that live there. Things are a heck of a lot more complicated than "fewer people=easier to take care of."


But after the wars, almost all of the needy people would be dead, so that frees up tons of money and resources.This is again ignoring the fact that the lower number of people would cause a reduction in money and resources. As noted above, fewer people means fewer people buying things (less money) and fewer people working to produce those things (less resources).

[Ravens_cry]

Can we drop this?
This is getting way too political and frankly, kinda freaky.
I think we could spend a lot more on space exploration, manned and unmanned, without getting into the horrifying notion of human "dead weight".
But that's a topic for another thread.

[Karoht]

So peace treaties in Star Trek.

Yeah, I noticed around DS9 and late in TNG that they weren't very good at it. Try as they might though. The Bajoran/Cardasian thing was a huge mess, never mind the Maquis. I don't think it's ever really explained why they're bad with treaties or negociation, even though they definately make the effort and commitment. Writers being writers I guess.

But honestly, when the bulk of the Federation needs very little, and most if not all of the star traveling races have access to similar or better (or in a few cases worse) technology, I'm often at a loss to figure out why there are hostile alien races. Beyond simple border defenses, what is their motive behind aggression? There doesn't seem to be a central resource they are fighting for, I never really understood why the Klingons disliked the Feds, why the Romulans disliked the Feds, why the Cardasians disliked the Feds, etc.

Why conquor at all when one can just out-expand off in an entirely different region of space?

[H Birchgrove]

Fridge Logic/Horror/Brilliance/Whatever:

Chakotay, from Voyager, is from the Native American tribe who choosed to live under Cardassian rule in The Next Generation! :smalleek:

Edit: Damn, I was right! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chakotay)

[bloodtide]

So peace treaties in Star Trek.

Yeah, I noticed around DS9 and late in TNG that they weren't very good at it. Try as they might though. The Bajoran/Cardasian thing was a huge mess, never mind the Maquis. I don't think it's ever really explained why they're bad with treaties or negociation, even though they definately make the effort and commitment. Writers being writers I guess.

But honestly, when the bulk of the Federation needs very little, and most if not all of the star traveling races have access to similar or better (or in a few cases worse) technology, I'm often at a loss to figure out why there are hostile alien races. Beyond simple border defenses, what is their motive behind aggression? There doesn't seem to be a central resource they are fighting for, I never really understood why the Klingons disliked the Feds, why the Romulans disliked the Feds, why the Cardasians disliked the Feds, etc.

Why conquor at all when one can just out-expand off in an entirely different region of space?

So to drop all the pesudo-political stuff....

The Reason Star Trek has 'hostility' is that it's not a 'true sci-fi vision' of the future. Star Trek is just 'modern people in space'. They make no attempt to show what life in the future is like at all. Everyone in Star Trek lives almost exactly like the humans of the 20/21 st centuries. And the aliens act just like modern day humans too, just the bad humans, and Star Trek has very few true 'alien' races anyway.

[Ravens_cry]

Star Trek humans are just like modern humans?
That's a rather optimistic view of your fellow human beings.
I'll grant that the aliens are rarely very alien, but there is two reasons for that, Doylist and Watsonian. In the former case, aliens are meant as analogies and parables for human problems and issues. In the latter case, in universe, apparently all the rubber faced aliens and humans share a certain root stuck, as silly as that may be from a scientific view point.

[KingofMadCows]

Very few sci-fi franchises have truly alien aliens because of budgetary problems. Even video games like Mass Effect and the Star Wars games, which don't suffer as much from that limitation, have mostly bumpy head aliens.

[Ravens_cry]

The Animated Series had more alien aliens and locations than would otherwise have been possible and advances in CGI also allowed a few exceptions in Voyager and Enterprise.
From a story telling perspective, rubber foreheads are easier because humans find humans more relatable and easier to read emotionally.

[Karoht]

So to drop all the pesudo-political stuff....

The Reason Star Trek has 'hostility' is that it's not a 'true sci-fi vision' of the future. Star Trek is just 'modern people in space'. They make no attempt to show what life in the future is like at all. Everyone in Star Trek lives almost exactly like the humans of the 20/21 st centuries. And the aliens act just like modern day humans too, just the bad humans, and Star Trek has very few true 'alien' races anyway.I'm afraid I have to agree.
Partly due to trying to remain relateable, partly because the vision of Earth's future is not exactly well explored.

It's like anti-matter. It exists, science tells us that it exists, the LHC is supposed to help us understand it better. It's still sci-fi to say "This engine uses anti-matter" because it's not fully understood.

The same can be said of Federation Earth. It's a world where money doesn't exist. It's an idea that has been mentioned on earth (rather a lot really) but isn't very well explored thus far. So it's still sci-fi to say "We don't use money anymore, it's an outdated concept" because the ramifications of such are only estimated and not fully understood.

It's an aspect of the show I wish they would have explored just a bit more. Well, okay, a lot more, but that's not the entire point. Life in space sure is the focus, but life on earth for the common person who doesn't join Starfleet? Big mystery. Lots of room for exploration there. But because it isn't explored, and due to the common parts of life aboard a starship (work, time off, bar like Ten Forward, galley for meal times in Voyager) much of it really appears just like today, rather than as futuristic as it could appear.
Especially with what, 300+ years between today and TNG?

[bloodtide]

Star Trek humans are just like modern humans?
That's a rather optimistic view of your fellow human beings.
I'll grant that the aliens are rarely very alien, but there is two reasons for that, Doylist and Watsonian. In the former case, aliens are meant as analogies and parables for human problems and issues. In the latter case, in universe, apparently all the rubber faced aliens and humans share a certain root stuck, as silly as that may be from a scientific view point.

The Star Trek humans are 'just like modern humans' socially. Sure they believe in lots of things modern humans don't, but that is more as they are products of a good time, not some deep transformation. As Trek has shown time and time and time again, all it takes is the slightest hardship and the 'good future humans' become 'bad modern ones'.

I'm not really talking so much about 'actors in suits'. It's a TV show and you have to have actors playing the parts. I'm talking more how all aliens 'act human', and even more so 'act like Americans'. You don't see any thing alien. The Founders/Vorta/Jem'haddar were some of the best aliens in the franchise as they were not copies of humans. And while humans could somewhat related to them, they could never do the true bonding(like when Sisko and Dukat both talk about being dads).

[KingofMadCows]

The Star Trek humans are 'just like modern humans' socially. Sure they believe in lots of things modern humans don't, but that is more as they are products of a good time, not some deep transformation. As Trek has shown time and time and time again, all it takes is the slightest hardship and the 'good future humans' become 'bad modern ones'.

I'm not really talking so much about 'actors in suits'. It's a TV show and you have to have actors playing the parts. I'm talking more how all aliens 'act human', and even more so 'act like Americans'. You don't see any thing alien. The Founders/Vorta/Jem'haddar were some of the best aliens in the franchise as they were not copies of humans. And while humans could somewhat related to them, they could never do the true bonding(like when Sisko and Dukat both talk about being dads).

Except Star Trek humans are not like modern humans socially.

There are two interpretations of how humans are in Star Trek. There's the one in TNG, which basically says that future humans have somehow "evolved" beyond out baser instincts and are just naturally better than humans of the past. It's especially apparent in the first two seasons where Picard constantly gives speeches about how awesome humans are.

Then there's the one in TOS and DS9, which says that humans of the future are better because society itself is better. People are able to overcome their baser instincts because technology and science has helped them solve most social problems. People are able to pursue more intellectual and philosophical goals because they have replicators giving them anything they need and advanced power production to ensure they'll never run out of anything. However, humans have not magically evolved into "higher beings," they're still flawed and are heavily influenced by their environment.

[Ravens_cry]

bloodtide:
It's only been a few centuries. Given that Federation humanity largely rejected, and in fact outlawed, genetic engineering beyond fixing congenital problems, I doubt there has been exactly much time for much in the way of change beyond "good society and and a better science and understanding of humanity."

[bloodtide]

Except Star Trek humans are not like modern humans socially.

There are two interpretations of how humans are in Star Trek. There's the one in TNG, which basically says that future humans have somehow "evolved" beyond out baser instincts and are just naturally better than humans of the past. It's especially apparent in the first two seasons where Picard constantly gives speeches about how awesome humans are.

Then there's the one in TOS and DS9, which says that humans of the future are better because society itself is better. People are able to overcome their baser instincts because technology and science has helped them solve most social problems. People are able to pursue more intellectual and philosophical goals because they have replicators giving them anything they need and advanced power production to ensure they'll never run out of anything. However, humans have not magically evolved into "higher beings," they're still flawed and are heavily influenced by their environment.

The second one is the one featured in most of Star Trek...and it's the dramatic one that lets there be 'bad' humans. I just think of the Quark Quote that when something like-''humans are great until you take away all there stuff then they become monsters''.

I guess it's just always bugged me that we never get to see much of 'future society', and when we do it's just like modern day. They never even made a slight attempt to make things different. Even worse, almost all Star Trek characters like old stuff and that always bugged me. One one liked anything even close to 23/24 th century modern, but only liked stuff from centuries ago.

[KingofMadCows]

The second one is the one featured in most of Star Trek...and it's the dramatic one that lets there be 'bad' humans. I just think of the Quark Quote that when something like-''humans are great until you take away all there stuff then they become monsters''.

I guess it's just always bugged me that we never get to see much of 'future society', and when we do it's just like modern day. They never even made a slight attempt to make things different. Even worse, almost all Star Trek characters like old stuff and that always bugged me. One one liked anything even close to 23/24 th century modern, but only liked stuff from centuries ago.

Actually, the second is featured the least in Star Trek. Roddenberry was against it and Rick Berman was against it. It was only shown in TOS and DS9. Everyone is "perfect" (as in, they're written to be right all the time even when it makes no sense) in TNG, Voyager, and Enterprise.

The stuff you see in TNG was what Roddenberry imagined future society was like. Why do you think the Enterprise had families and kids? And how different do you want it to be from modern day? What could be that different?

And what do you mean no one liked 23/24th century stuff? All the tech they use is modern.

[H Birchgrove]

Maybe a part of their social reforms was to abolish Hollywood, if it wasn't nuked during the war(s). :smalltongue:

Also, it kinda makes sense that there aren't many new books written, though not as much as that there aren't new films. People have holodecks. People can "be" whoever they want. So those who still enjoy old media, have to make do with old stories.

[KingofMadCows]

There are novelists and holonovelists in Star Trek. Garak gave Bashir a copy of a Cardassian sci-fi novel about a future where the Cardassians have conquered the Klingons. And it's has been mentioned several times that "Vulcan Love Slave" is a very popular holoprogram the Ferengi wrote.

[Ravens_cry]

Not to mention the work (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Author,_Author_%28episode%29) of medical expert system AI with volumetric display interfaces.

[bloodtide]

Actually, the second is featured the least in Star Trek. Roddenberry was against it and Rick Berman was against it. It was only shown in TOS and DS9. Everyone is "perfect" (as in, they're written to be right all the time even when it makes no sense) in TNG, Voyager, and Enterprise.

The stuff you see in TNG was what Roddenberry imagined future society was like. Why do you think the Enterprise had families and kids? And how different do you want it to be from modern day? What could be that different?



Well, they can't really change too much anyway....they need the characters to be 'modern humans' so that Ma and Pa Kettle will watch the show. But that is what really bugs me, that they cater too much to the non-fans.

To use the real life example of 400 years....how much has society changed. Well, lets just make it 100 years, how much has society changed? Would someone from 1900 watch a modern 2011 show? How much would they be shocked by and refuse to watch. Just think, women as equals, other races as equals, kids talking back to their parents and so forth. Now, take that same idea....that the future would not be 'agreeable' to a modern person. That's what I wish Star Trek could show more.



And what do you mean no one liked 23/24th century stuff? All the tech they use is modern.

Just about every character only likes the past. And not just the 'recent' past....they suspiciously only like the '20th century past'. It's one thing to say Shakespeare might still be liked 400 years from now, but jazz or rock and roll or such.... We almost never see future sports or entertainment of any kind. And not future stuff based off old 20th century stuff like a holo novel about 20th century spies or detectives. We never get to see a 24th century holo novel set IN the 24th century, except Photons Be Free by the Doctor.

[Ravens_cry]

Holodecks pretty much can be any kind of entertainment you want, all in comfort and (barring plot devices) safety.
You're wrong about a lack of future sports and recreational activities.
Sure, you don't see a lot, but how many do you expect do you see on a military/exploratory/travelling embassy/ coast guard vessel?
3D chess, Parrises Squares, Anbo-jitsu are but some of them.
As well, some sports, like baseball have become less popular. Sure, fencing still exists, but it has existed for centuries, it does not surprise me it should continue. Poker has also existed for quite a while, over a century at least, though what exactly they are betting in a post-scarcity culture is a reasonable question.

[KingofMadCows]

Well, they can't really change too much anyway....they need the characters to be 'modern humans' so that Ma and Pa Kettle will watch the show. But that is what really bugs me, that they cater too much to the non-fans.

To use the real life example of 400 years....how much has society changed. Well, lets just make it 100 years, how much has society changed? Would someone from 1900 watch a modern 2011 show? How much would they be shocked by and refuse to watch. Just think, women as equals, other races as equals, kids talking back to their parents and so forth. Now, take that same idea....that the future would not be 'agreeable' to a modern person. That's what I wish Star Trek could show more.

Except that stuff is too boring to fill more than an episode or two, or maybe a minor subplot, which they have done. There was that episode of TNG where various crew members visit their families. DS9 had a lot of small subplots about what average people do. There was also that episode of Voyager where the Doctor made a holographic family. It would be a very boring episode if they just showed some average guy doing mundane everyday stuff even if it was IN THE FUTURE!


Just about every character only likes the past. And not just the 'recent' past....they suspiciously only like the '20th century past'. It's one thing to say Shakespeare might still be liked 400 years from now, but jazz or rock and roll or such.... We almost never see future sports or entertainment of any kind. And not future stuff based off old 20th century stuff like a holo novel about 20th century spies or detectives. We never get to see a 24th century holo novel set IN the 24th century, except Photons Be Free by the Doctor.

Which characters are you talking about? Tom Paris is the only person who likes the 20th century. No one in TOS, TNG, or DS9 likes 20th century stuff. Sure Sisko likes baseball but that's just one thing and they explain in the show that baseball's popularity dropped sharply during the 21st century and only a few dozen people attended the World Series in the 22nd century. Bashir and O'Brien have a few holodeck simulations that take place in the 20th century like the James Bond one but they also have a lot of other historical stuff like the battle of the Alamo, Battle of Britain, and Battle of Clontarf.

[zingbat]

3D chess, Parrises Squares, Anbo-jitsu are but some of them.


We never actually get to see Parrises Squares. That's probably a good thing, since when we get to see the occasional 24th century form of recreation, Star Trek writers give us things like Anbo-jitsu, Strategema or "suckdisk" (that visor game that brainwashed everyone) which look, frankly, stupid. 3D chess is the only exception I can think of.

[Karoht]

"Suckdisk" was all about the interface man, it was just so ahead of it's time!

Yeah, Sci-fi writers have usually been bad at combat scenes (Trek especially has a list of bad combat scene tropes such as ducking and shooting with phasers) and usually leisure activities involved such as Anbo-jitsu tend to be a product of that.

I like how Parrise Squares is referenced in terms of injuries though.

[Weezer]

We never actually get to see Parrises Squares. That's probably a good thing, since when we get to see the occasional 24th century form of recreation, Star Trek writers give us things like Anbo-jitsu, Strategema or "suckdisk" (that visor game that brainwashed everyone) which look, frankly, stupid. 3D chess is the only exception I can think of.

I agree on this point, it is very rare that a show can make up a game in an attempt to look 'futuristic' without creating something that feels contrived and/or silly. The best way to get around this seems to be to either add a sci-fi twist to a modern game (3D chess and zero-G soccer are classic examples of this) or mention them vaguely so all you get is a general sense that the game seems 'cool' (Parrises Squares does this well).

I think this stems from the fact that most authors know nothing about games, especially nothing about their design, and thus fail miserably at trying to make one up.

[Ravens_cry]

Fashion is another one that is difficult
Look at two centuries ago. It pretty much looks nothing like anything anyone would wear now,
And yet, it's like nothing anyone would wear now.
Clothes and hair that make everyone look like clowns look silly and are distracting, yet having everyone wear modern clothes, though less distracting, is also a little silly when you look at the dramatic changes in fashion, even inthe last few decades.
While 70 or 90's fashion follows largely the same basic ideas, they were still very distinctive.
Clothing a few centuries from now?
Who knows? It's even harder. Clothing is a strange mix of practical needs and ornamentation.
Not to mention hair, jewellery, make-up, gah.
It's a world builders nightmare, but one I love to delve into.

[bloodtide]

Except that stuff is too boring to fill more than an episode or two, or maybe a minor subplot, which they have done. There was that episode of TNG where various crew members visit their families. DS9 had a lot of small subplots about what average people do. There was also that episode of Voyager where the Doctor made a holographic family. It would be a very boring episode if they just showed some average guy doing mundane everyday stuff even if it was IN THE FUTURE!

Well, you could write whole episodes about conflicting things. As Star Trek often does. How about multiple wives? Taboo in modern day, but say it's ok in the future. We don't need to see 'average people', we need to see society.

Like the big one Star Trek avoids like the plague:Love with Aliens. In general, humans only fall in love with aliens like look like attractive humans. That is, what Hollywood considers an attractive human in the modern day. Would not the Federation humans be all about accepting anyone? Would not a Federation human be Omnisexual, that is finding all sorts of life attractive? Of course this touches too much on 'bestiality' for any Star Trek show to dare..




Which characters are you talking about? Tom Paris is the only person who likes the 20th century. No one in TOS, TNG, or DS9 likes 20th century stuff. Sure Sisko likes baseball but that's just one thing and they explain in the show that baseball's popularity dropped sharply during the 21st century and only a few dozen people attended the World Series in the 22nd century. Bashir and O'Brien have a few holodeck simulations that take place in the 20th century like the James Bond one but they also have a lot of other historical stuff like the battle of the Alamo, Battle of Britain, and Battle of Clontarf.

Well like:
Pircard- Detective stories
Riker- Jazz, plays the trombone
Data- Sherlock Holmes
Sisko- Baseball and 'African Art'(because you know he is black)
O'Brian- model ships/models
Bashier- 007 and tennis
Janeway- Romance novels
Pairs- Everything 20th century

But mostly, any time you see culture in the show, like where they will have a play (for a c or d plot) it's always some old 20th century or before one.

[KingofMadCows]

Well, you could write whole episodes about conflicting things. As Star Trek often does. How about multiple wives? Taboo in modern day, but say it's ok in the future. We don't need to see 'average people', we need to see society.

Like the big one Star Trek avoids like the plague:Love with Aliens. In general, humans only fall in love with aliens like look like attractive humans. That is, what Hollywood considers an attractive human in the modern day. Would not the Federation humans be all about accepting anyone? Would not a Federation human be Omnisexual, that is finding all sorts of life attractive? Of course this touches too much on 'bestiality' for any Star Trek show to dare..

If something is no longer taboo then it's just everyday stuff not worth mentioning. How often do we talk about staying away from menstruating women?

As for love with aliens, that brings up the budget problem again. There's also the fact that love is not a huge part of Star Trek. Sure Kirk got around but there's maybe 3 or 4 romances in TNG, DS9, and Voyager each, and one romance in Enterprise.

Also, what does all that have to do with the main themes of Star Trek? Just because a show is set in the future doesn't mean it has to explore every aspect of that society.


Well like:
Pircard- Detective stories
Riker- Jazz, plays the trombone
Data- Sherlock Holmes
Sisko- Baseball and 'African Art'(because you know he is black)
O'Brian- model ships/models
Bashier- 007 and tennis
Janeway- Romance novels
Pairs- Everything 20th century

But mostly, any time you see culture in the show, like where they will have a play (for a c or d plot) it's always some old 20th century or before one.

How does a couple of characters liking one 20th century thing equal "everyone only likes 20th century stuff?" I play Total War: Shogun 2 so I must only like 16th century Japan.

Picard likes detective stories but he also like Shakespeare and archeology. Riker's fondness of jazz was mentioned about four times in the show. Sherlock Holmes started in the 19th century. When did they ever show Sisko liking 20th century African Art? He had some ancient African art and his father is a creole chef but that culture goes back to the 18th century. Model ships have been around for 4,000 years. Bashir likes spring ball, which is like a future equivalent of racket ball. Romance novels have been around since the 18th century.

[Karoht]

Like the big one Star Trek avoids like the plague:Love with Aliens.
Would not the Federation humans be all about accepting anyone? Would not a Federation human be Omnisexual, that is finding all sorts of life attractive?
Warf and Jadzia Dax. Major relationship spanning several seasons. Dax is a Trill (not human) Warf is a Klingon (not human).
Quark + His Klingon Wife. Only 2 episodes, but it was actually a rather touching relationship.
For that matter, Quark and his Cardassian ladyfriend from either the first or second season, with whom it is stated he had a pretty committed relationship.
Kira (Bajoran) + Odo (Changling) is an on-off relationship the entire show.
Gul Dukat is stated as having several Bajoran Mistresses, one of which produced a child.

Wow, lots of DS9 references

On Voyager such inter-species relationships are implied but typically not demonstrated on screen. Between comments from the crew, the captain, the doctor, it's stated several times that such things are rather common place.

I agree though, it's not as common place as I would like it to be either. But hey, when you seek to entertain, you pander to the masses to a degree.

[Lord Seth]

Gul Dukat is stated as having several Bajoran Mistresses, one of which produced a child.You know, that always kind of bugged me. By definition, two different species can't reproduce. Now, I'm ordinarily okay with its existence on Star Trek (for example, Spock, who is half human) because there's the assumption that it takes some kind of advanced medical science to make it work, confirmed by DS9 when Jadzia undergoes some technobabble procedure to make it possible for her and Worf to have children. But Dukat was certainly not trying to conceive, so it doesn't really make sense to me.


On Voyager such inter-species relationships are implied but typically not demonstrated on screen.What about Neelix/Kes and B'Elanna/Tom? Those were right on screen, and they weren't one-off things either.

[Ravens_cry]

Apprently many of the humanoids (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Humanoid)of the Alpha Quadrant have a common ancestor, which explains things, to a degree.

[McStabbington]

There was a lack of relationships on TNG largely because that wasn't what the show was about. Picard and Data emerged as very well-rounded characters, but most of the crew were just interchangeable props to be plugged into the appropriate story. Have a story that hinges on a guy being slightly awkward around people but good with tech? Make it a Geordi story. Need someone who is smart but can't be expected to technobabble a solution? We haven't used Crusher in a while, so she'll work. Need someone to suffer from a fractured psyche or space abduction? Paging Will Riker. It didn't help that the writers really didn't seem to know how to approach women, judging by just how often Deanna received inappropriate sexual advances per season.

By contrast, there was a lack of relationships on Voyager largely because they didn't really care about creating consistent characters or creating a B-cast, both of which are necessary when you're dealing with a single ship cut off from resupply or reinforcement. When you add up all of the various anxieties they piled on poor Harry, for instance, you don't know whether to pity the man or be a bit frightened by him. And the romance between Chakotay and Seven came out of nowhere largely because they needed something for Chakotay to do. It was a step up from his usual magical Indian routine, but it still came out of character left field.

So yeah, if you are looking for Trek and well-developed relationships, you kind of have to go to DS9.

[Karoht]

You know, that always kind of bugged me. By definition, two different species can't reproduce. Now, I'm ordinarily okay with its existence on Star Trek (for example, Spock, who is half human) because there's the assumption that it takes some kind of advanced medical science to make it work, confirmed by DS9 when Jadzia undergoes some technobabble procedure to make it possible for her and Worf to have children. But Dukat was certainly not trying to conceive, so it doesn't really make sense to me.Light sex ed message? Use a condom kids, accidents happen. Really weird ones some times.


On the note of the technobabble for Jadzia, I think it had more to do with the fact that her Symbiont kind of hardwires all of her life support through it, so having a baby when the Symbiont doesn't produce an umbilical cord would be challenging. This is totally a place where the technobabble was rather beneficial. It demonstrated them jumping a hurdle and making a choice.
Though had Worf been dating a Ferengi, I doubt the surgery would have been necessary at all.
But if there is technobabble/handwavium surgery available, we can go ahead and extrapolate that it's probably occuring behind the scenes.

Aaaaaaand this all assumes that they make babies the same way we make babies in the first place. Which yes, is a sci-fi headbanger, but only to a point. Bear in mind that even in plant life VS mammals, there are still some similarities in reproduction. Not near enough to justify alien X and alien Y producing stable offspring, but enough to sci-fi our way to handwave it a touch.

I personally believe also that it is part of the illusion of the show. They don't want us to see them as aliens, they want us to see them as people. Then again, I'm conversely a touch surprised that abortion hasn't really come up, but that is probably a good thing as that issue is one big fat hot button that pretty much stirs up a surprisingly large number of people.



What about Neelix/Kes and B'Elanna/Tom? Those were right on screen, and they weren't one-off things either.Wait, you call those relationships? j/k
They were on screen, but not as the focus of whole episodes the way it was on DS9. Yes, Tom and B'Elanna were in a relationship. Was it even noticable? Whereas DS9 made them prominent. Warf and Jadzia was a pretty big deal, even when it wasn't put under a microscope. B'Elanna/Tom was hardly noticeable.

I couldn't even put my finger on when abouts they (B/T) started dating. I was watching, and about a season after the hook up, I said "hey, they're a thing now? Since when?" and had to look it up and find the missing episode or two where it took place. Two people dating for well over a season before it was noticeable? That says something.

[Felhammer]

You know, that always kind of bugged me. By definition, two different species can't reproduce. Now, I'm ordinarily okay with its existence on Star Trek (for example, Spock, who is half human) because there's the assumption that it takes some kind of advanced medical science to make it work, confirmed by DS9 when Jadzia undergoes some technobabble procedure to make it possible for her and Worf to have children. But Dukat was certainly not trying to conceive, so it doesn't really make sense to me.

Humanoid species in the Alpha Quadrant (and presumably in the Galaxy as a whole) were created by an ancient alien species who seeded primordial worlds with their genetically altered microbes that per-ordained the end state of evolution on the planets would come out Humanoid.

For the most part, some species can intermingle more easily than others. Given the close proximity of Bajor to Cardasia, it could very well be that they share a similar biologic origin to explain the means by which they could accidentally conceive children (such as comets blowing genetic material and/or microbes from one planet to the other).


There was a lack of relationships on TNG largely because that wasn't what the show was about. Picard and Data emerged as very well-rounded characters, but most of the crew were just interchangeable props to be plugged into the appropriate story. Have a story that hinges on a guy being slightly awkward around people but good with tech? Make it a Geordi story. Need someone who is smart but can't be expected to technobabble a solution? We haven't used Crusher in a while, so she'll work. Need someone to suffer from a fractured psyche or space abduction? Paging Will Riker. It didn't help that the writers really didn't seem to know how to approach women, judging by just how often Deanna received inappropriate sexual advances per season.

A big reason for that is due to Roddenberry's "genius" idea that there wouldn't be inter-personal drama on TNG because humans had "evolved past such pettiness." When you eliminate interpersonal drama, you eliminate a huge chunk of stories that could be told, especially when it comes to matters of the heart.


By contrast, there was a lack of relationships on Voyager largely because they didn't really care about creating consistent characters or creating a B-cast, both of which are necessary when you're dealing with a single ship cut off from resupply or reinforcement.

The lack of background characters was one of my biggest complaints about Voyager. There's no way to get new humans onto the ship, people are forced to live side-by-side for years on a small, crowded ship and yet by series end the list of B-Characters was, what, the Borg Children, Naomi and Ensign Vorik? Hardly an enticing lot of characters!


And the romance between Chakotay and Seven came out of nowhere largely because they needed something for Chakotay to do.

Don't even get me started on that one! The writers spent 4 years setting up an eventual Doctor/Seven relationship and yet, at the VERY LAST MOMENT, they shove the wooden block commander who struggled to show any emotion other than apathy onto the cat-suit-wearing hottie. Seriously!? Chakotay should have been written off the show, Beltran simply did not understand how to act and how to convey emotion without speaking. Data felt more human than Chakotay! He did not deserve Seven, she could do A LOT better. Off the top of my head, I'd say every male and female on the ship was a better match for Seven than Chakotay.

[Lord Seth]

Humanoid species in the Alpha Quadrant (and presumably in the Galaxy as a whole) were created by an ancient alien species who seeded primordial worlds with their genetically altered microbes that per-ordained the end state of evolution on the planets would come out Humanoid.That explains why they're similar. It doesn't explain why they could reproduce naturally. They're still different species. Various primates are very similar to humans, but they still can't reproduce with us.


Don't even get me started on that one! The writers spent 4 years setting up an eventual Doctor/Seven relationship and yet, at the VERY LAST MOMENT, they shove the wooden block commander who struggled to show any emotion other than apathy onto the cat-suit-wearing hottie. Seriously!?That future didn't happen anyway, so...

[hamishspence]

That explains why they're similar. It doesn't explain why they could reproduce naturally. They're still different species. Various primates are very similar to humans, but they still can't reproduce with us.

Partly because of differing chromosome numbers.

When the numbers aren't different, fertile offspring are more probable- false killer whale and bottlenose dolphins, which are not just different species but different genera, can hybridize to produce wolphins, which are sometimes fertile.

That said, Vulcans with their green blood (I think it's mentioned that their haemoglobins are copper-based rather than iron-based) being able to hybridize with humans, is odd to say the least.

[Ravens_cry]

Yes, it's weird. It's one the wonkier parts of Star Trek, and that's saying something.
I had an idea for human/alien "hybrids", but they weren't so much a genetic combination but rather a designed species with attributes, psychological and physiological, in common with both species instead of the result of any kind of mating or ovulation.
That makes a fair bit more sense in my opinion, though it is a lot more involved.

[hamishspence]

"designed" makes a good workaround.

In 40K, in the Horus Heresy novel Deliverance Lost, Leman Russ (primarch of the Space Wolves) is mentioned as having some "nonhuman DNA, possibly canine" and all the primarchs were built rather than born.

[Felhammer]

Partly because of differing chromosome numbers.

When the numbers aren't different, fertile offspring are more probable- false killer whale and bottlenose dolphins, which are not just different species but different genera, can hybridize to produce wolphins, which are sometimes fertile.

That said, Vulcans with their green blood (I think it's mentioned that their haemoglobins are copper-based rather than iron-based) being able to hybridize with humans, is odd to say the least.

According to Enterprise, Humans and Vulcans are not compatible without extensive genetic modifications. In fact, the only way to create an off spring is via Binary Cloning.

From Memory Alpha: A binary clone is an organism created from the combination of DNA from two individuals. Essentially, a binary clone is the artificially produced offspring of two individuals that has been created without using germ cells.

[KingofMadCows]

That explains why they're similar. It doesn't explain why they could reproduce naturally. They're still different species. Various primates are very similar to humans, but they still can't reproduce with us.

How would you know? Have you tried it?

Maybe you just didn't use enough test subjects.

[Ravens_cry]

Yes, it has been tried (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926701.000-blasts-from-the-past-the-soviet-apeman-scandal.html).