Your Star Trek Universe

Post Reply New Topic

I know, I can throw out ideas all day. But I do like doing something with the Maquis or another group like them. Do you know the timeline of the Maquis? I know it is in the same timeline as TNG, DS9 and Voyager, but how long does this war with the Cardassians last? If the timeline is wrong we could try a similar group further in the future that we could make up. It could even be a new conflict where the Federation has broken down somewhat and Starfleet is more of a militia or mercenary group. Would that be sacrilage? Would people want to see the new shiny Star Trek future in shambles? Fans may not like that, but it could be a new conflict and we could write about a Maquis like group and leave Starfleet and the Federation alone.

Yeah, I like the idea of seeing a different side of Starfleet, a different side of Star Trek too. I think that's what the franchise needs, a different perspective, not just a different ship or time, but a different look. That's why I thought of the Diplomatic Core idea, but I think I like the rebel crew or other than starfleet group better.

All these Sci-fi shows are done from a military perspective. We need more stuff dealing with the civie side of life! Like a Dawson's Creek, that just happens to take place in the year 2300. Yeah, I'm brainstorming.

The Maquis were pretty much wiped out when Cardassia joined The Dominion and began fighting along with the Jem'Hadar.



Well, we did see a shady side of the Federation in DS9, so it's not that new. We could see how things are turning out years later. Maybe there could be some sort of political divide forming within the Federation - kind of like in a lot of modern nations.

How's about this? We have a series set, for the most part, on the Enterprise (or another ship - whichever is preferable). The atmosphere of the Federation is becoming a bit more war-hawk-ish, and the Enterprise crew finds diplomatic missions taking precedence over exploration. Between assignments, during the crew's downtime, they dock at this space station inhabited by the Federation's diplomatic corps, which provides the crew with sort of a link to the political environment of the galaxy in the 25th century. Not only are there problems with relations between other governments, but there is a political divide forming within the Federation, and this is reflected with different members of the cast supporting dramatically different views, and hence we have our misfits.

I know this doesn't exactly equate to a "rebel" crew, but we could say that there is a threat of civil war in the Federation, and over time our cast begins to see that the Federation can't exist unless they learn to work together (so there's our Star Trek optimism )

If that idea's too complicated, we could even have it branch into parallel series: one focused on the starship with an emphasis on exploration and international affairs, the other focusing on the station with an emphasis on politics and the Federation's divide.

EDIT:



Well, DS9 had kind of a strong civilian presence...Willomay, give me a hand here!

Part of the strength of the original series was the willingness to take on the issues of the time (race and the cold war, for example). It's something that TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise got away from. DS9, as good as it was, became a soap opera. I didn't mind too much, but I think the time has come to explore our difficult issues again in the guise of Star Trek.

The parallels are already there: the Dominion War/The war on Terror, fear of muslims/fear of founders, the paranoia over border issues, wariness over China/Romulus, the thought that America/the Federation isn't what it once was and will never be again.

Inevitably there will be alot of change, and not for the better. In the civilian side of things, the worst of our tendencies could be exposed. The people's resentment of Starfleet and it's endless wars with the Cardassians, Borg and Dominion. Starfleet Intelligence/Section 39 spying on its citizens, imprisoning the innocent (suspected "sympathizers" who are Cardassian, Breen or from the Delta Quadrant).

I see the Federation giving up on alot of its "pipe dream" ideals, like the moneyless society. Imagine the Federation back on the latinum standard. Imagine how that would elevate the Ferengi (!) as a major player in Star Trek. These comic relief dwarves could become very serious as a third party arms maker and dealer. Maybe the legend of Sisko creates a mass conversion of Prophet cults in the Federation.

Just some suggestions.

One thing I liked about DS9 was that it seems to reflect modern times. One thing that struck me is that just like the US I was taught to idealize wasn't that perfect, we find out that the Federation has problems of its own.

I was thinking a bit about that, too - basically a lot of counterculture groups are forming in most of the major governments.



I think it's a good idea to see the galaxy in a more dynamic way. Still, I think that, since we're talking about Star Trek, there should be a goal to resolve these problems toward the end of the series.

Think it's about time for a separate thread?

I think a disillusioned and cynical Federation is the perfect setting for the Admiral Riker era.

I know TNG gets alot of love here. It was never my favorite, but that generation would be in power at this time. It would also revisit the old tension between Riker and Worf over Troi and whatever happened to her (or will happen to her). We'd also get to see Worf's rise and fall within the Kilingon High Council.

It would be so awesome to see Riker in the role of a maverick like Kirk, but with serious power to command. I can imagine a belligerent, unilateralist cowboy! Hm? Who does that remind me of? Like His Accidency, he would be his own worst enemy, universally hated, but doing what he does because he thinks everyone else is wrong, and only he can get things done. And he would be wrong. The classic story of the hero turned enemy-within.

Whew! Wow, what a discussion. Sorry everbody, but the truth is, at this moment I am trying to limit my internet activity. So sorry I can't reply every day. Ok, I think we have one great idea now. Not so much the shady side of the federation, but more a federation that is faultering.

To sum up-
We are in the future on a show that takes place on a ship, but also makes frequent stops on stations and perhaps on certain planets. In this future, the Federation is barely holding on to its ideals, in fact some are breaking down completely. Some of the ideals have been corrupted leading to the rise of rebel groups, militias, freedom fighters, etc, some military, some civilian. The crew of our ship is divided as is the Federation which is coming close to civil war. As all this is happening on the show, the storylines are reflecting what is happening in our time in the real world.

So how does that sound? We could parallel the things Slink mentioned, War on Terror, Fear of immigrants and Muslims, Iran/China, America falling apart, etc. I do think there should be work to solve the problems though. You have to be able to be a good predicter too. The show will be written now, produced who knows when so it needs to be a kind of universal reflection of life. As for the Riker era or something like that. There are a few things they messed up in Nemesis. For some reason they wanted it to be the last movie. They did things like marry off Troi and Riker, which is ok since they belonged together, but now you can't do anything with that. ALso they sent Riker to another ship, which is annoying. Riker could have had command earlier, but refused it because he wanted the Enterprise some day. However, if I remember correctly the stars were still interested in doing Star Trek. That does provide the possibility of guest stars. If we did that it would have to be a scenario where the Federation starts falling apart quickly or all these people would be dead by then. Let's continue to chew on that one.

As for starting another thread, let's put together an interesting summary like the little one I wrote above. It's easier to have the basic ideas solid before you present it to so many people. We'd never get any decisions made. Let's do the major decisions and then present it. I think we have a good foundation with the idea, we just need to work out how far in the future. Do we go way out and start something completely new or do we go a short distance in the future and give old characters the opportunity to drop in?

Sounds good. If it's really an issue, you can say that some of the events in Nemesis were...exaggerated .



I was originally thinking 2442 for the start of the series, but I like Slink's idea of including Riker, so...maybe move it ahead twenty or thirty years?

After that, what do you think our title should be?

Ok,
If we want to do the near future, I think that's great. Like I said, I saw an interview where the TNG cast said they would like the idea of doing more Star Trek.

Also, I wanted to ask who here actually wanted to work on the writing part. There's a big difference between brainstorming and the actual writing. Remember, Paramount actually owns all this, even if it's our idea so we would have to get in with them somehow. I just wanted to establish it so we could maybe get into further contact eventually, like PMs and maybe Messenger to work on actual script stuff.

Yeah, Nemesis was a little overboard. I forgot to mention the sort of killing off of Data. He'd be a great character to guest star for something. Oh, if we are going to do the near future we need a good reason the Federation starts to fall apart so fast.

I'm working on a summary to present. In a couple of days I will post it here, see what you guys think (including questions to post about it) and then we can do a "formal" thread. We will need to find out who else wants to actually write. You know, it's the difference between just making suggestions and having a say on what happens. Also we need to decide ahead of time how many writers we want. If we have twenty people, once again, we'll never make any decisions. So let me know what you think of that and everybody let us know if you want to actually write and what you think of the near future idea.

Ok, see you Thursday!

[quote="Willowmay"]Hey, I know there have been a lot of polls and posts about this, but I wanted to know what your Star Trek Universe would be.

1.What show would you be on?
2.What character would be your best friend?
3.Which character could be your long lost twin?
4.Which character would you want to share nights in front of the fire with?
5.What race would you be?
6.Where would you be assigned?
7.Starfleet or another core?
8.What section would you serve in?
9.What part of space would you like to explore?

1) TNG, because there were actual, consistent standards for warp drive specs, wat the transporters could and couldn't do, and there was a bit more focus on what people did for their free time when they weren't being disposable red shirts.

2) Barclay, just because someone has to keep that shrink Troi from messing with his head.

3) None, since I am unique

4) Commander Shelby ("Best of Both Worlds, parts I and II). Am I the only one who thought she was smart, tough, AND hot?

5) Human, but behind the backs of my superiors, I would be participating in genetic engineering, and doping up on the same meds used to manufacture Roga Danar and the other soldiers from "The Hunted".

6) Starfleet Academy, training as a cadet for tactical/security, and a conn position.

7) Starfleet, for the moment, until I could find the opportunity to disappear and work into the underworld of the Alpha Quadrant.

Cadet training, moving towards tactical/security, and hopefully a conn position (preferably aboard a refit Miranda or Constellation class vessel (aka, the Victory, the Reliant, or the Hathaway).

9) If, you mean during my black market exploits once I go AWOL, I would colonize Tarchannen III (perfect natural defense, if you know of the episode "Identity Crisis".

Basically, my plan would be the usual "world domination by creating a race of supermen", but in true nerd style, to annoy Starfleet and keep Q amused, I would try to genetically engineer the Saiyans.

Which is the better deus ex machina solution to an episode? A deflector array or "Kamehameha"?

Hello Trekkies,

Ok, so here goes for my summary-

Space, still the final frontier. A new series is in the works for sometime after the TNG timeline, perhaps in the near enough future to allow former characters to pop in. In this future the Federation is beginning to fall apart and civil war threatens. Ideals are breaking down as well leading to corruption and the rise of rebel factions, some military, some civilian. The Fleet is spread thin and other groups are beginning to gain power. The series will be about a starship and her crew, but will also spend time on space stations and planets with many supporting characters at these locations. The crew of our starship is split by differing ideals, but tries to work together and with other groups to find middle ground and reform the Federation. All the while, these storylines will parallel what is happening in our world today, just as Star Trek originally intended to do, with stories like terrorists within the Federation, cultural and political misunderstandings, irrational fears of different groups, stigmas surrounding diseases, the Federation crumpling from arrogance and military versus diplomatic responses.

The main idea has been brainstormed, but there are many questions still to answer.

Do we want a timeline that allows other Star Trek guest stars?
What size starship and how big should the crew be?
Do we want a captain who is not human?
What about the main characters? What species, sex, background, etc?
Do we want to continue the Enterprise as flagship and Federation hope or do we want a new ship entirely?
What about supporting characters? What planets and peoples do we want to deal with?
Why is the Federation breaking down so quickly?
What would be a good title for the series?
Do we introduce new species and new planets?


Ok, this is what I have for the new thread. I think those of us already working on it should be introduced and ask who wants to actually write and have them PM us. We also need to ask if there's anyone with connections reading the thread. So let me know what you think of the post and let me know what other questions about the show we should ask. Oh and when I start the new thread I'll put my answers to these questions on it like I did when I started this one. Ok, let me know ASAP and I will post the thread!

I like the idea of a near future to the TNG/DS9/Voyager timeline, but I HATE the idea that the Federation/Starfleet is collapsing.

You compare the Dominion War to the War on Terror. Hardly! The Dominion War was made to be a parallel to WWII (The Klingons, who originally sided with the Dominion, switch sides halfway through, and while the Federation teams up with them eventually, they are not wholly trusted). You have Sisko not just as a loony prophet (and, don't forget, your "token black guy" for all the black exploitation episodes), but representing FDR in the talks with the Big Three.

Do you people honestly believe half of this nonsense about the War on Terror, and the conservatives taking away personal freedoms? If you would pay closer attention, you'd realize it was Carter, Clinton, and the other militant liberals who continue to switch sides to appease the mob who are the ones really stripping away your freedoms, while the conservatives play too nice to get the job done.

If you want to make something that has the appeal of TNG, you have to focus on UNIVERSALLY APPLYING dilemmas. For example, take your classic Greek tragedies and poems of Homer (Oedipus, The Odyssey, etc). Even Shakespeare could be referenced. All of those have dilemmas and personal conflicts which can apply in ANY century.

What I could see to work as a Star Trek based series is a faction developing within Starfleet that believes the Federation is collapsing, not because they are not enforcing their ideals, but because they stick to them too rigidly!

For example, how can Starfleet, the executive branch of what has become a wholly diplomatic organization, do it's job when all the politicians do is talk and put ridiculous double-talk orders in the way of the soldiers? It could be a parallel to the conflict between the Athenians and the Spartans: the first being the more "civilized" society, but when the bodies need to drop, it's the Spartans (with assistance with some mavericks in the Athenian navy and their other Greek neighbors) who get things done.

One would have to be careful, though, to avoid this from becoming a metaphor to supporting the working class/blue collar/grassroots movement. The story instead should focus on those who not only have the drive to make something of themselves, but take the initiative to change the course of history through innovation and action. Then, it wouldn't be a simple matter of Federation versus Starfleet, but rather more complex, where members of each branch join together to leave the conflict which they see as talking versus doing.

The Federation, however, could not simply collapse or fall into civil war. Instead, the population which leaves should be small enough that it makes no nevermind to the powers that be (at first). Instead, the story would derrive itself from those outcasts from various culturess (Romulan, Klingon, Vulcan, Human, Cardassian, even Betazoid) all forming together into a small union of colonies on forgotten, or tactically useless planets within the Alpha Quadrant. Their story would be one of their initial formation, struggling to survive on their new colonies, finding trading partners, and building themselves up until they can one day return to the Federation, approach the council, and be taken seriously as a fledgling society.

The story would also differ from that of exploration, to that of constant diplomacy, passive blockades, scavenging for resources, and patrols. The people who would be aboard what civilian ships were taken and converted into makeshift battle cruisers would be fighting against space itself (the elements, the existing political/cultural conditions, a lack of resources, and constant political propaganda labeling them as outlaws).

THAT is how you make Star Trek go from silly people dancing around in tights to the tune of Greek gods, to overused, overtly-obvious parallels, to something more complex and appealing to those with the intellect to crave something more.

Hi, thanks for joining the discussion! It was cool of you to offer constructive ideas and not just jump in at the last f*****g possible moment with inane political BS and whining. We appreciate it!




Or perhaps I spoke too soon. Bitching about "token black guys" on Star Trek, now that's high class. I realize that channelling the yammering jackasses on the radio through your tin-foul must be hard work, and doubtless the leprechauns tell you to burn things, but staining your pants over Democrats in a Star Trek discussion is the paranoid delusion of a jingoist. Convinced that fluoridation is sapping your precious bodily fluids?



Been there, done that. Done it to death. Ever seen Star Trek VI? Enough Shakespeare to choke a laboratory elephant. While one can't deny the universal appeal of togas and Elizabethan drama -- I'm playing Titus Andronicus on my Wii right now -- something more current is more appealing to what you fear most, the masses, by being more readily identifiable, relatable, and relevant.

There are universal lessons in the classics, true. There are universal lessons in today's issues too. It's almost as if they are the same lessons. It's almost as if we're repeating history, isn't it?



Good. You have ideas. Please elaborate on some things, though. I am genuinely curious and I'm surely not the only one.

Starfleet isn't colapsing, in this theoretical storyline (as I understand it, as far as the brainstorming has led), either because it is too rigid or too lax. It is collapsing from entropy. It has gotten tired. There has been alot of war. Do you think it can be resolved... by more war? "Get out of the way of the soldiers." "The bodies need to drop" and "git 'er dun." I'd like to think that's where someone like Riker would come in, not enforcing Starfleet policy but acting as a maverick, with allies at all levels. Secretly, not open mutiny.

But Starfleet has never been about pre-emptive strikes. This may be what you mean by the "double talk of politicians" holding soldiers back, but simple answers -- attack! -- haven't worked too well against complex problems, have they? Not in our time and not in Star Trek.



The Individualist Randroid. Jon Galt and Richard Rahl. Sigh...



Galt's Gulch. I gotcha.

The incident over almost conceding a worthless planet rich in the possible production of White should have Starfleet reevaluate it's definition of worthless.

Good idea, but how could it work? Romulans against reunification, Vulcans for it, Klingons with savage ideals, resentful Cardassians, Betazoids everyone would be wary of, every flavor of human there is... they'd have their own collectives. An alliance of independant entities, but not "one out of many." They'd come together against Starfleet, thy'd have that in common, but wouldn't cohere as a unified nation. Or it would take decades.



So in other words, brave Iraqi Freedom Fighters defending their world from the Great Satan?



But I crave something more than you offer. If dressing up the obvious current events as space opera isn't to your taste, how is your Objectivism in Space any better?

Slink,
Thank you for replying to that. I wasn't even sure what to say. I never mentioned the Dominion War, the War on Terror or a connection and I think the political ranting just confused me. However on the Shakespeare and new colony subjects I can say this. Star Trek had a fan base for a reason. There are subjects and storylines they have come to expect. The reason Enterprise fell apart and Voyager kind of sucked at the end is because the writers pulled away from that. The idea of trying to write a new, better Star Trek for somebody other than the Trekkie is absurd. No one would watch it. Only sci-fi fans care about sci-fi and they expect sci-fi to be a certain way. The so called "intellectuals" that you would write a different kind of show for don't watch TV anyway. Look at the ratings. The average idiot is busy watching the average unintelligent show. Sci-fi fans are TV's intellectuals. So if you want a Star Trek series to actually make it to production and then actually survive it has to appeal to the Star Trek fan. Sad fact of life my friend: If you want something to make it in Hollywood you have to be able to sell it.

Or you release it as an anime series first, so it suddenly becomes trendy to watch the new show, not because anyone gets the intellectual stuff, but because it's "in" to watch something foreign.

As for making these ideas I mentioned work, there would be some Romulans, Klingons, Cardassians, and even Vulcans which would turn towards this new colony concept. Their motivations would be all based on the fact that a wholly political approach is useless, and while Starfleet could mobilize quite a bit of force, their goals are driven by maintaining a haphazard diplomacy in the quadrant, and not promoting growth or success. Rather, the Federation is only concerned in maintaining a stagnant status quo.

Peace can only be retained through strength, through the simple fact that if the Dominion decides to pull something again, the Federation can turn around and say "we have more guns than you do!" Peaceful, intellectual societies can only survive if they maintain a brutality and determination to consistently fight back when threats are made against them.

The Klingon Empire is too busy squabbling over clan wars every other episode (hence, Worf's family being used as a scapegoat, the Duras sisters, etc) to maintain any significant strength, while the Vulcans have simply remained busy-body middlemen who try to stall and delay the eventual outcome. As for the Romulans, the demand for unification, but also a balance with the same "peace through strength" philosophy could be quite a motivator for Romulan defectors to join their Vulcan cousins on a neutral colony, both for their own personal freedoms, but also to practice their unification ideals without having to hide in the shadows.

The only thread holding everyone in this colony together would be the goal of taking their own safety and freedoms into their own hands. The Ferengi could also join, as their right to profit from business would not be hindered by other Ferengi using the Rules of Acquisition against them. Furthermore, an economy open to all forms of exchange without use of the Rules of Acquisition would be the perfect place for Ferengi women to enter business for themselves, all the while competing on a uniformly even playing field.

Freedom without restriction based on class, race, or political beliefs would be difficult, but it is an alluring concept to some. You cannot simply consider all Klingons as gangs of warmongering fools, or all Romulans as paranoid xenophobes, or even all Vulcans as using logic to constantly support peace. In some cases, logic will point towards more primal methods of achieving a goal.

And in regards to Star Trek VI, that was not done quite right to reference Shakespeare. That was Chang spouting lines to the point it made everyone queasy. True Shakespeare would be an homage to Henry V, for example. As a perfect reference, who is to say that these colonists hate the Federation? Perhaps through diverging and conquering, they wish to protect and stir the Federation to grow stronger, as they love what the Federation represents, but believe it can be more.

Finally, Star Trek fans do believe in some core concepts, but this new interpretation would not venture too far from those beliefs. What killed DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise is 1) poorly written fanfiction with no plot continuity being converted into actual episodes, and 2) more focus on giving the main characters superhuman characteristics. I mean, how many times can Janeway actually pull the right answer every time out of her a**. It's like the gods are feeding her all the answers in every single episode. She also flip-flops back and forth between following the Prime Directive or violating it, depending on her own moral compass (which Starfleet captains are NOT supposed to do!).

Picard worked as a captain, and even Kirk worked as a captain because they were NOT indestructible supermen! They hated some of the decisions they had to make, but to uphold the beliefs they swore to defend, the could not simply diverge from them for the sake of a personal ethical code. Nor did they ever avoid making mistakes or reinterpreting mistakes through spinning them into victories. They accepted when they screwed up, and promised not to do it again, instead of "well, but...", like we see Janeway or Sisko rationalizing in practically every other episode of the latter seasons.

Star Trek works because moral dilemmas will ALWAYS exist, regardless of how well written the law is. There will be those societies who will use the gray areas to thrive or exploit others. Star Trek captures man striving to put order and apply a clear moral compass to all dilemmas, and stumbling as they proceed. They dance a fine line making suggestions to improve what they see as injustice, but also trying not to interfere, and in some cases, avoiding being pulled into a system which jeopardizes the personal freedoms of their crewmen.

Star Trek does not work because of a specific interpretation of a particular event or a rote repetition of the same answers to a stagnant problem. The galaxy and it's political situation is dynamic, and situations are far more complex than simply "Dominion is bad, Federation is good", or "War on Terror is bad," and "Green speak is good." There are varying factors which make each person choose a different side, and it is that interplay between them, each character being a thinking, fully realized individual with their own interpretations of value conflicting with their culture, that makes us root for the bad guys as much as we root for the good guys.

I mean, why would I root for the Cylons in Battlestar Galactica if they simply were Toasters as Adama and the other humans believe? The same with the Borg or the Dominion, or even Star Wars fans versus Star Trek fans.

Just to chime on the original post

1.What show would you be on?
TNG

2.What character would be your best friend?
Data

3.Which character could be your long lost twin?
Scotty!

4.Which character would you want to share nights in front of the fire with?
Commander Shelby from Best of Both Worlds

5.What race would you be?
Human, I think.

6.Where would you be assigned?
Something with many many weapons.

7.Starfleet or another core?
Starfleet.

8.What section would you serve in?
They'd probably put me in engineering.

9.What part of space would you like to explore?
The Delta quadrant, must eradicate the Borg.

I still have no idea why I felt a terrible urge to reply.