I'd most probably turn Enterprise into "battle-capable diplomatic courier",operaing in Neutral Zones,commonly dealing with conspiracies,pirates,and so on...
Also, I'd like not to make humans "ideal".That seems strange to me.
What you think?
[edit]Fixed Title[/edit]
[ November 21, 2001: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
If *I* had control of TOS and TNG?
First, I'd go with the "The Cage" version of Trek (which was named 'too cranial'...), because I still think "The Cage" is one of the best episodes ever, even if the tech was a bit weird.
And I would've never made the Nazi and the Communist episodes. They were ugly. And Wesley Crusher would've gone out the door immediately.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Seeing how huge Star Trek has become...I think I would've created it with more of a story arc feel than a week-to-week kind of thing. We've got so many points of view now, so many different time periods...it'd be nice if they all worked together somehow. It'd be rewarding.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
I proably would only have gone about twenty years beyond the movies for The Next Generation, instead of 78. That way, it would be more credible for TOS guest stars to appear without the use of age-enhancing makeup which always looked fake, IMHO.
For the Enterprise lineage, I would only have had one other ship between the Enterprise-A and the newest one (so I guess my TNG ship would have been the Enterprise-C). When you consider that the Excelsior class Enterprise-B's sister ships are still around while the Enterprise herself has been destroyed three times over, that's not such a good track record. Also, my Enterprise probably wouldn't have those Bussard collectors (too TOS'ish for me).
ANd I would NEVER have hired William Ware Theiss to design the Starfleet uniforms.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
I would have found someone to created a reliabled system for stardates, dating the age of starship classes, and just named classes solidely. I would have added in Marines, and kept the semi-militaristic tone of the later TMP-era. Starfleet's goal is to explore, yes, but I wouldn't have let the fact that it's also there to protect the Federation slip away so easily.
I would have never let ST5 be made.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
[ November 21, 2001: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:I would have added in Marines, and kept the semi-militaristic tone of the later TMP-era...
Doubtful, If you were Gene Roddenberry.
Posted by Raw Cadet (Member # 725) on :
To those who would make humans less than ideal, add marines, etc.: what you wish to create is not Star Trek. In your changes, you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It would be (sci-fi)style without subtance. The subtance of Star Trek is that ideal humans peacefully explore the galaxy. If you do not like it, go back to playing your armchair-general, "how Hitler could have won World War II," military scenarios.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Umm...humans are *NOT* ideal beings. They never will be. That's what Star Trek portrays as the defining and inspiring quality about us. We are imperfect and always will be, and can therefore continually strive to be better than we are. Knowing that, your satement makes no sense.
-MMoM
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
What's your point Monkey? You both agree! Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Erm... Cadet said Trek portrays humans as perfect. Monkey said Trek portrays humans as imperfect. How are they in agreement?
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
From what I read, they both agree that turning Star Trek into something like Star Wars or Starship Troopers is not making it "Star Trek". Am I right, or did you guys switch sides while I wasn't looking? Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
Doubtful, If you were Gene Roddenberry.
This would be Roddenberry...ON CRACK.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I wouldn't mind seeing maybe a mini-series "set" during TOS, which would take place on a smaller type of cruiser or what-not, and focus on the Neutral Zone ...
...but as far as TOS goes, no, I think I'd leave it pretty much alone.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
If I was allowed to be anally nit-picky, I'd remove the year of the Eugenics War in Space Seed, all mentions of UESPA, and change "Lithium" to "Dilithium" in early episodes.
And I'd destroy "And the Children Shall Lead" for being very, very silly.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
You forgot ...
Spock's BRAAAAAAAIN!
Posted by Raw Cadet (Member # 725) on :
To clarify: when I said ideal, I meant striving for perfection, not perfect; a "perfect" human being is impossible. An ideal human being is absent of the petty conflicts that plague many of us. Thus, I think The Mighty Monkey Of Mim and I are in agreement.
Also, "Starship Troopers," as someone suggested, seems to be a good example of Star Trek without the "stuff" that makes a show Star Trek. Lots of military overtones, Nazi-esque uniforms, and petty conflicts: everything fanboys wish Star Trek was.
Posted by Nevod (Member # 738) on :
Actually,I meant that ST must be more social-realistic,like TMP era(more militarised,and characters really looks like what they supposed to be.).
Posted by Raw Cadet (Member # 725) on :
What does "social-realistic" mean? Star Trek is not supposed to be realistic; it is a presentation of a humanity at peace with themselves, and who strive to live peacefully with others.
Also, since Starfleet is not a military, I see no reason to make them "militaristic." The primary mission of Star Fleet is to explore strange new worlds . . . . Yes, defence is one of their responsibilities. But it is not the primary one, so I do not see why the organization should be oriented around a secondary, "last resort" responsibility.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Hindsight being 20-20, I might perhaps establish and enforce a more rigid timeline for the writer's bible. Star Trek is ingenious in its portrayal of a Utopian Human society based on scientific innovation and exploration and peace. I might explore the precariousness of this situation a bit more fully. This was handled very well on several occasions in TNG (notably Conspiracy, Chain of Command, and Pegasus), but not so much in TOS.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
I would keep ideal-Earth, but by no means ideal humans.
I would write down a definite chronology (of when it takes place and - generally, not specifically - the history of how it got there, so that writers still have a little creative freedom.) and stick to it. However, the 21st century would be off limits when it comes to major history. Only because major developments like the Eugenics wars are constantly disproven and a source of controversy. Also, nuclear war is so depressing, and fits poorly into a 'utopian' evolution of our society. all-out WW-III will not lead to Star Trek, but instead to a second Stone Age.
I would write down the NCCs of 12 starships sequentially and post it in the background of some guys office. However, i would not limit the class to 12, so that writers could make their own if it was appropriate. But you better believe there'd be no 1017 or 956 in there except as old ass ships of a different class.
I would do away with the random-nonsequential stardate and make a system that follows the aforementioned chronology. Or at least is impossible to figure out, but sequential.
I wouldnt leave the graphics department in charge of writing the histories & encyclopedi�.. and i would make sure that everything was canon. The producers and licensing could never be as lazy as they are now to allow Trek publications to go out and be considered non-canon. Conflicts would still arise, but the publications of licensed material must be considered part of the franchise, carrying the brand name, and therefore be reviewed and collaborated on by the people who write the show.
Most of all, i would keep most everything the same so that Star Trek could live an evolve like it has, just without the growing pains ive mentioned. After all, STar Trek, the way it exists right now, is still a source of pleasure for all of us and i wouldnt want to stifle what has gone into it from all the writers and artists who contribute.. just guide them around their mistakes.
Oh, Neelix would be right the fuck out the door too. Goddamn asshole, he was.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raw Cadet: Also, since Starfleet is not a military, I see no reason to make them "militaristic." The primary mission of Star Fleet is to explore strange new worlds . . . . Yes, defence is one of their responsibilities. But it is not the primary one, so I do not see why the organization should be oriented around a secondary, "last resort" responsibility.
I don't understand how people could view Starfleet as anything other than a blend of NASA and the Navy. Damnit, Starfleet basically *is* a military organization, no matter how you cut it. They can trumpet how their primary mission is that of exploration all they want, but when it comes right down to it, that's just propaganda. There's no way they're going to let blind idealism stand in the way of the preservation of the Federation. You can't really explore if some race is threating to wipe you out or enslave you or assimilate you or eat you. Starfleet will not actively invade or assault, but they'll be damned if they let the Federation be destroyed by a military force while they were busy studying nebulas and comets.
Posted by Raw Cadet (Member # 725) on :
I am afraid, David Templar, you may be missing the entire point of Star Trek. "Military." "Propaganda." These are not words that describe an organization of an "ideal" human race. Two Star Trek series have opened with " . . . to explore strange new worlds; to seek out new life, and new civilizations: to boldy go where no man/one has gone before." I take that as the theme of the series. How on earth do you call that propaganda? Should Star Trek really open with "Space, the last place untouched by the military (until now). These are the voyages of the Dreadnought "Enterprise." Her mission: to keep us safe from strange new worlds; to protect us from new life, and new civilizations: to boldly protect in the same manner we always have?"
Starfleet is not a military using exploration as a cover. It is not a military at all. Think beyond our twenty-first century institutions, which are usually limited to one purpose. Starfleet is an organization with a two-fold mission: first, to exlpore (strange . . . ); second, to defend the Federation. Yes, defence is an apparent responsibility of Starfleet. However, it is not the only, or even the most often engaged in, responsibility. Thus, I fail to see why Starfleet should be oriented soley (in an archaic manner, no less) around its defense responsibilities.
[ November 23, 2001: Message edited by: Raw Cadet ]
Posted by Nevod (Member # 738) on :
I ultimately agree with Mike.Seems right to me.
Damnit,SF primary purpose must be defense,ultimately!You cannot let your race die only because your primary goal is to explore.I'm sure as hell that they must explore,but they must be able to show real force!
Also,I'd like if SF had some tactics and strategy.They must been just blast Bajoran Wormhole,instead of getting involved in such a war.(excuse for grammar)
That's my point.
Posted by Raw Cadet (Member # 725) on :
Could we please think outside of the twenty-first century organization box? Starfleet has no real comparable organization in our time. It is not a military. It is also not an organization devoted soley to exploration. I think of it as an organization responsible for most space based activities of the Federation: exploration, defense, etc. Now, nobody is saying that Starfleet would, or should, let "bad guys" walk all over the Federation. However, that is just one aspect of Starfleet. Can there not be others? For the third time I am granting that defense is a responsibiliy of Starfleet. For the third time let me state that I fail to see why Starfleet should be oriented around what is but one of its responsibilities.
[ November 24, 2001: Message edited by: Raw Cadet ]
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I can think of a real-world (& historical) parallel to Starfleet. In the 19th century, the American West was largely unexplored. A lot of the explorers later became de facto "defensive personnel"--the best examples being Davy Crockett & Jim Bowie.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
The British Navy was actively involved in missions or exploration and science from something like the 1600-1800s, IIRC.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Absolutely nothing.
Well, other than having a chat with the people responsible for "Rascals."
And making sure my name was on all the royalty checks.
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Hey guys, is it just me or does "CaptainMike" seem to really dislike the Okudas and their reference work like the encyclopedias? This must be the tenth time I've read a complaint about the Okudas' work from him. It's not like I care...just an observation, Mike. Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
I think that Michael Okuda is a great graphic artist, and he has managed to make a name for himself that will last for a long time with his creations. And the fact that he can collaborate with his wife just makes them a powerful duo.
The problem i have is the fact that he pulled a lot of the Star Trek Chronology and Encyclopedia out of his ass, and most fans regard it as law when it comes to Star Trek. Even though a lot of the conjecture and supposition in there is unlikely and poorly worked out. And there is very little of the intentions of the story creators carried over into some of the conjecture. I mean, all true fanboys got excited when his graphics read off the registries of many of the ships we had wondered about, but then again why should everything he makes up be regarded as gospel when so much of it makes so little goddamn sense. Maybe I'm just a little angry over old arguments, but i wish that there was some force making Trek coherent, and a little committee work to make sure that the facts fit.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I'm sure Omega is half expecting some of to want the Federal government to name that comission
::shrug::
Okuda writes what he wants, but if and when future Star Trek episodes establish something different then the encyclopedia, so be it.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Now that's a commitee I wouldn't mind watching on C-SPAN.
No, but so, obviously this would have to be something handled at the studio level. A librarian or two. I dunno, I think there's a point to be made for having a council that the writers and producers and artists could consult with that would ensure that details are accurate. It obviously isn't a big priority for the studio. I can't say that I blame them. I don't think the average fan is paying close attention to ship registries or dates. I mean if it were up to me, I'd hire one librarian to oversee and keep track of this sort of thing. With Trek, I'm certain there are plenty of qualified fans who'd work for peanuts...
