The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Off Topic Discussions > Star Trek Re-Envisioned
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-28-2012, 08:14 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default Star Trek Re-Envisioned

I asked myself earlier this week what Trek would look like completely re-envisioned from it's escapist and idealist beginings under Gene Roddenberry.

For some reason I didn't want to redo the 23rd century. It was what it was. To me the most interesting things happened in the 24th century. But the stories behind them were under the escapist rules.

I thought about a Galaxy with more alien aliens.
Humans Klingons and Vulcans all related but very different species and the only ones of their kind in the Galaxy. And aliens in general are rare as are Earth-Planets and territory is the predominate issue of the time as populations grow.

In this time-line ,if you will, the ship's make a bit more sense. The Galaxy uses a considerable amount of fuel.
-The Warp Effect is more like two moving blackholes.
-Transporters aren't matter energy converters but merely wormholes.
-Star Fleet is conducted like an extremely honorable military
-Romulus is the Seat of the Federation and NOT Earth.
-Vulcan is the Seat of the Romulan Star Empire
(because it is highly unlikely an entire race of emotional warlike savages successful convert their behavior to that of absolute peace. So the followers of Surak become the followers of logic on Romulus)
-Only a few major cities of America and Europe survive Nuclear Holocaust
-Israel destroyed in a 66 Megaton Blast in 2028
-Full Nuclear Exchange occurs between China and the USA in 2046.
-No Beijing, No Washington DC and New York (as we knew them)

More Recently:
-The Borg (an insect cybernetic race assimilates Jean Luc Picard and destroys 14 Federation Worlds before being stopped by the Fleet led by Captain Riker.
-Where the Borg Fail, the Dominion succeed. Vulcan and Earth are conquered by Dominion Forces and Much of the Federation is now either Dominion or Klingon Territory.
-Romulan and Kingons are all allies
-The Second Borg Invasion on Earth bring stops the Dominions expansion.

A Dramatically altered timeline, Yes, minus the Good Guy always wins items.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-28-2012, 11:45 PM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,480
Default

Intriguing.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-29-2012, 02:07 AM
samwiseb samwiseb is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,208
Default

I kind of lost you on 'Timeline'. This seems to me as an entirely rebooted universe. Not that I mind.

Parts of it I like. Like switching the main aliens around, having fewer (but more varied) secondary aliens, and changing the future history of Earth.

I don't believe you could take the transporters or warp speed out of ST (if anything, I suspect other sci-fi franchises use wormholes and take the 'zoom' out of hyperspace travel because they don't want to be compared to ST). But in a rebooted universe, you could place more 'realistic' restrictions on these things.

You could take the magic out of the transporter by requiring two units for it to work. Any destination that does not have its own transporter unit would be frankly off the grid and unreachable by this method of travel. This would defeat the original purpose of introducing the transporter into ST (I don't think it matters, since you can film a show like BSG in Canada for probably 1/10th the budget of ST anyway), but it might also help reduce the need for superficial "aliens clunk landing party over the head and steal their communicators"-type plot devices.

You could also remove the accelerator pedal from the warp drive, and just have one uniform speed as your FTL. But still leave Red, White and Blue vapor trails across space just because it's Star Trek (none of the other hardware shows seem to want to do that anyway, so why not keep it).

And I'm all for changing the history of Earth, but not necessarily making it more apocalyptic. ST is already known for representing the kind of future that everyone 'supposedly' wants to see; discussions regarding whether the show is socialist aside (I don't like when ST explicitly advertises itself as a utopia however. I hope I'm right in perceiving that ST has finally left that self-congratulatory nonsense behind). No need for it to become "don't watch our show if you live in Beijing because you won't like it." Even Babylon 5 didn't do that. One thing you can do though is push back the eugenics wars by a hundred years, so that the franchise need not remain divided over whether or not they even happened at all. Or even better yet, replace them with some other event entirely.

Although this is all hypothetical, I've always thought that a strait reboot should be radically different from the ST universe familiar. So in that respect, I like this kind of tangent thinking. I approve.
__________________


Last edited by samwiseb : 05-29-2012 at 02:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-29-2012, 03:26 AM
Commodore's Avatar
Commodore Commodore is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Starbase 24
Posts: 2,511
Default

Nah, I like Star Trek the way it is.
__________________
Free your mind, and the rest will follow.
--En Vogue
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-29-2012, 07:02 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samwiseb View Post
I kind of lost you on 'Timeline'. This seems to me as an entirely rebooted universe. Not that I mind.

Parts of it I like. Like switching the main aliens around, having fewer (but more varied) secondary aliens, and changing the future history of Earth.

I don't believe you could take the transporters or warp speed out of ST (if anything, I suspect other sci-fi franchises use wormholes and take the 'zoom' out of hyperspace travel because they don't want to be compared to ST). But in a rebooted universe, you could place more 'realistic' restrictions on these things.

You could take the magic out of the transporter by requiring two units for it to work. Any destination that does not have its own transporter unit would be frankly off the grid and unreachable by this method of travel. This would defeat the original purpose of introducing the transporter into ST (I don't think it matters, since you can film a show like BSG in Canada for probably 1/10th the budget of ST anyway), but it might also help reduce the need for superficial "aliens clunk landing party over the head and steal their communicators"-type plot devices.

You could also remove the accelerator pedal from the warp drive, and just have one uniform speed as your FTL. But still leave Red, White and Blue vapor trails across space just because it's Star Trek (none of the other hardware shows seem to want to do that anyway, so why not keep it).

And I'm all for changing the history of Earth, but not necessarily making it more apocalyptic. ST is already known for representing the kind of future that everyone 'supposedly' wants to see; discussions regarding whether the show is socialist aside (I don't like when ST explicitly advertises itself as a utopia however. I hope I'm right in perceiving that ST has finally left that self-congratulatory nonsense behind). No need for it to become "don't watch our show if you live in Beijing because you won't like it." Even Babylon 5 didn't do that. One thing you can do though is push back the eugenics wars by a hundred years, so that the franchise need not remain divided over whether or not they even happened at all. Or even better yet, replace them with some other event entirely.

Although this is all hypothetical, I've always thought that a strait reboot should be radically different from the ST universe familiar. So in that respect, I like this kind of tangent thinking. I approve.
And that's kinda the point.
Some of the information I've seen about past Trek tells me that Berman Trek was extremely flawed in certain areas of the story lines and modernization. I think a rewrite IS in order to bring Trek back in line with our current day.

-I think we need a Trek that acknowledges the events of 911. I think it might be a pivotal point in history
-We also need a DS9 that can finally equate the first Black Trek Captain to the first Black President which I think Avery Brooks would have been proud to be apart of.
-We also need to acknowledge how NASA has been dissembled. and INSPIRE how to put it back together for the future Space Initiatives. (How many movies recently have been going back to the moon landing recently. I can at least count three. Star Trek's Trailer, Transformers and MIB3.)
But they're living up the good ole days of space. Trek's about the future and that is what inspired our astronauts to be where they are today.

While this may seem a it apocalyptic, I feel it's not. I think this where Trek abandoned us and a realistic outcome. I absolutely hate the destruction of Romulus done....>NOT IN THE LAST FILM< but in a comic book and mentioned on screen like a footnote. I've come to the conclusion that these producers don't like Romulans. They refused to give them a serious story line 3x in the movies and then blew up their planet in move of monumental stupidity because they couldn't tell if Spock was telling the truth that a "supernova" was traveling their way .....and the Remans apparently did it...It's complete malarkey. After reading this I knew thatt Abrams was an idiot or at least the stooge writers he carries around.

-We also need to redefine the military in Trek to reflect not just to reflect a better American Military but Earth Military..competent-and honorable by siting reforms and such . Like the repeal of DADT.

- Another significant marker. Aswell as properly funding wounded solider efforts through the government and not just through charity.

-AND showing how education became the primary motivation in America and third world lands like Africa...showing a shift in the fundamental paradigm of politics.

Trek has never addressed these issues properly, or sometimes not at all. There is nothing wrong with Utopia. How do you get Utopia from Chaos? Trek has never told us and while it's nice to drop into a story where it's already set up and ready to go it doesn't help us as an audience and be inspired to do the same...WHICH is the entire purpose of Star Trek.
-But in this timeline when the episode Paradise Lost come around it will be flet by the entire quandrant. Klingons, Romulans and humans would grive over the loss of Earth

-In one episodeI would Sisko to address the choice Sisko would have to make to allow the Dominion to succeed or the Borg and then later see the results if he made a different choice.

-Did I mention that I would put all the Trek's into one reboot series.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-29-2012, 10:24 AM
Captain Tom Coughlin's Avatar
Captain Tom Coughlin Captain Tom Coughlin is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USS Meadowlands
Posts: 10,990
Default

It's funny you point out the military aspects of Starfleet. I've never really considered Starfleet to be a realistic or viable organization. I've always felt like if that fictional universe of theirs was real, you would need a dedicated, full time military. Sending Captain Picard to the neutral zone with a ship full of scientists and families is insanity if you really pull the hood up and look at it.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-29-2012, 11:01 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

If I were still a kid I'd find it thrilling to see a warbird in the Neutral Zone.

Seriously, the question of specialization is a valid one and I think that Trek has a relatively decent mixture between highly-specialized ships (Defiant, Oberth, Nova), average-size cruisers that are capable of doing different things (Reliant, Nebula, Intrepid) and capitals ships that are highly modifiable and offer a lot of space (Constitution, Excelsior, Galaxy, Sovereign). About the children, only the Galaxy class seems to have them on board and when the Sovereign was built which was around the time of the Dominion War Starfleet naturally changed its policies.

Let's not forget that between the Romulan and the Dominion War the Federation was not engaged in a major war, only cold wars that include border skirmishes and minor conflicts like e.g. with the Cardassians. Space is large and if you go out there on a scientific mission like the NX-01 you might run into problems. If you go out there with military vessels you waste a lot of resources. Sure, due to the frequent trips to Earth DS9 often involuntarily implied that space is not that large but I'd rather have this 'space is large, empty, dangerous and unexplored' atmosphere from TOS and early TNG which necessitates multi-task vessels.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-29-2012, 11:22 AM
Captain Tom Coughlin's Avatar
Captain Tom Coughlin Captain Tom Coughlin is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USS Meadowlands
Posts: 10,990
Default

Switching from a peace time footing to a wartime footing is difficult even for dedicated military organizations. That is why you often see many command shakeups during a war. A good peace time commander may not be a great wartime commander. That's just one minor example. For an organization like Starfleet as it has been portrayed, that shift would be many times harder, if not impossible. You say that the Federation had never been in a major war save for those two examples, but that's only because that is the way it was written. Part of that fictional reasoning is sort of like the Cold War, the Federation is portrayed as being strong enough to ward off potential threat from Klingons or what have you. I don't think that would be the case if Starfleet was real and was as seen. I think they would be too slow to move to a war footing, I think the logistics of that would be a nightmare. I think there would be many Captains not suited for war. I think it is really not believable at all. There are certain realities about what a military is that just don't fit with what Trek shows us.


I'm not just talking about the ships, that's a part of it but not the whole thing. I'm talking about the way organizations are structured.
__________________


Last edited by Captain Tom Coughlin : 05-29-2012 at 11:27 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-29-2012, 12:09 PM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,078
Default

I think the Cardassian War poses a problem because it was thrown in so late in the game from nowhere, but then once it was included I'm not convinced it was an entirely minor skirmish.............it seems to have been a string of events covering decades and requiring a stalemate and virtually enforced peace treaty which alone suggests something altogether more scarring............but then you add in the other wars referenced along the way (the T'Zenkethi, numerous flare ups with the Klingons and Romulans) and I get the impression that the Federation was usually engaged with someone somewhere most of the time.

That could have led to a background of mixed and highly flexible officers in the command ranks because most Captain's we met had had experience of combat and battles ranging from skirmishes and attacks to fleet engagements.

The Galaxy Class though has always been a bit of an anomaly ship when it comes to this sort of thing though because of it's nature.

But I don't think it's all meant to be compared really to a contemporary service as such, it is fictional and latitude comes into that about how they want to run it all.

---------------------

Oh, re the revisions at the top.................I'm not really sure what meat any of that is meant to add to the theoretically rebooted series.

Jiggery pokery and playing with the chess board of the background is one thing which I'm never entirely against but I'm unclear of what the real thematic payoff is, unless it's just to descend into some sort of agenda based propaganda stance depiction which Trek has (as noted) been relatively self-satisfied about at times already (though the TNG era is the most obvious offender there) in it's existence.

And I might be tempted to just 'forget' about the Borg period and keep things in the Alpha Quadrant only.

(I don't really buy future conflict between China and America - it wouldn't be good for business and they really want to do business with each other).

Technologically, I like Sam's idea about 'can't transport off grid' transporters but would probably leave Warp as it is. I'm all for slightly less in the 'magic tech' department if it can be done and grounding things a teensy bit.

Good guys don't win all the time...............that can work.

I dunno, it's hypothetical sure but it might need some more finessing and less grieving for Earth.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-29-2012, 12:57 PM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin View Post
Switching from a peace time footing to a wartime footing is difficult even for dedicated military organizations. That is why you often see many command shakeups during a war. A good peace time commander may not be a great wartime commander. That's just one minor example. For an organization like Starfleet as it has been portrayed, that shift would be many times harder, if not impossible. You say that the Federation had never been in a major war save for those two examples, but that's only because that is the way it was written. Part of that fictional reasoning is sort of like the Cold War, the Federation is portrayed as being strong enough to ward off potential threat from Klingons or what have you. I don't think that would be the case if Starfleet was real and was as seen. I think they would be too slow to move to a war footing, I think the logistics of that would be a nightmare. I think there would be many Captains not suited for war. I think it is really not believable at all. There are certain realities about what a military is that just don't fit with what Trek shows us.


I'm not just talking about the ships, that's a part of it but not the whole thing. I'm talking about the way organizations are structured.
You think that captains specialized in warfare would be better suited for war than Starfleet captains? Perhaps they might be tactically stronger but somehow I doubt that anybody can be prepared for war. Gee, I even doubt that a pure military Starfleet officer would come up with something like the Picard maneuver. You cannot train creativity directly.
Part of my argument hinges on my distaste of overspecialization. Back in the old days we had creative polymaths like da Vinci, now we have myopic experts. That's why I prefer Picard and the Hamletesque ("the courtier's, soldier's, scholar's, eye, tongue, sword") Kirk.
You gotta be capable of doing everything, scientifically explore the galaxy and make contact with new species or deal with familiar species which implies being capable of switching instantaneously between diplomat and solider.


Are you suggesting that the military and science/diplomacy parts of Starfleet are separated?
What do you do when you meet Chancellor Gorkon, send a military vessel to show your strength or an unarmed diplomatic vessel to show your peaceful intentions?
What do you do when you meet a new species or explore, all on your own, an unexplored part of the galaxy without military capabilities?

This sounds very dangerous to me. If Starfleet vessels were kept as they are, i.e. fully armed, yet in addition to that there would be a fleet of warships four problems would emerge.
First, you'd waste a lot of resources with an idle military fleet that can do nothing besides standing or warping around. Second, without any disrespect to military folks, they might be more effective in actual combat but they might also be nastier. ENT showed this with the MACOs. Third, the Federation does not want to signal to other species that it is an imperial power. And last but not least, the UFP maintains as much military power as necessary and not one iota more not just for the sake of signalling others that its intentions are peaceful but also to match its own standards. If you have an idle military that has nothing to do in peaceful times you will sooner or later use it for something nasty.
I do not need to point out via real-world examples or TUC what happens when the military gains a lot of power. With an integrated and universal Starfleet this is less likely to happen.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:59 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.