[Allan Hood]

What's everyone's opinion on this???

Star Trek: Discovery to ditch a long frustrating Trek rule
By JAMES HIBBERD@JAMESHIBBERD
http://ew.com/tv/2017/06/23/star-trek-discovery-rules/

"Star Trek: Discovery is shedding a creative restriction that’s long frustrated top writers on previous shows in the franchise.

Showrunners Aaron Harberts and Gretchen J. Berg — working from a creative roadmap laid out by executive producer Bryan Fuller — are delivering a Trek saga that gets rid of one the franchise’s decades-old limitations in an effort to evolve the series.

As part of Trek creator Gene Roddenberry’s utopian vision of the future (and one that Trek franchise executive producer Rick Berman carried on after Roddenberry’s death in 1991), writers on Trek shows were urged to avoid having Starfleet crew members in significant conflict with one another (unless a crew member is, say, possessed by an alien force), or from being shown in any seriously negative way.

This guideline wasn’t strictly followed across all 700 previous franchise episodes, of course (there are especially some notable exceptions in The Original Series). But in an aspirational effort to make the future more idyllic, Starfleet crew members typically weren’t supposed to demonstrate baser human flaws. For writers on Trek shows, the restriction has been a point of behind-the-scenes contention (one TNG and Voyager writer, Michael Piller, famously dubbed it “Roddenberry’s Box”). Drama is conflict, after all, and if all the conflict stems from non-Starfleet members on a show whose regular cast consists almost entirely of Starfleet officers, it hugely limits the types of stories that can be told..........."

[Zairu]

I am for the change depending on how it is implemented.

As a US Navy veteran I've gone on my fair share of deployments, while being on a starship is vastly different then being on an American warship I still believe that there would be internal conflict. 6 months into our deployment people (especially newer crew members) would be at each other's throats, imagine being cooped on for 5 years, or in Voyagers case 7+.

I would like them to carry the series into a more grittier and true to life.

Some might argue the federation is above that, however I must disagree, 300 years is quite awhile, but it isn't long enough to drastically change human nature (Sisko for example, had a temper. )


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Petrarch]

If it was introduced in a realistic way, as opposed to being forced for the sake of it, then I've no worries about it coming in. DS9 especially started to show inter-personal conflict and that not everything - or everyone - was a straight arrow and shiny happy.

We did see this previously a bit in TOS. The one that specifically sticks in my mind is from The Trouble with Tribbles when Kirk was openly hostile to the Federation bureaucrat and made no real effort to hide his contempt for the man.

As Zairu said above, by that point in the future, you could argue that an organisation or people may be above that sort of thing, but it certainly doesn't mean they've been rendered incapable of still doing it or that it can never happen.

[Allan Hood]

I totally agree with the two of you.

Since the Earth is more inclined to keep world peace and are not limited by scarcity, that will have an influence on citizens' attitude hailing from such a planet. With that said, Humanity is still humanity, and some conflict is expected. Ambition and pride will always exist, even if we've made world peace and have limitless energy sources.

[StellarPyro]

This is kind of the reason why I liked Babylon 5 so much more than Star Trek.

Now, don't get me wrong, I love the Star Trek series and the stories, and especially the characters. Star Trek does a much better job of portraying alien culture and creates much more interesting alien races. However, what Star Trek lacks is the realistic view of human conflict. Yeah, sure, there's the mirror universe, but there's no real internal and personal struggle with them. For the few of us who have seen Babylon 5, one of the main plots is the fact that humanity is at war with itself and it's portrayed so freaking well. It was realistic and gave you a sense of friends and fellow humans fighting each other with regret.

If they can capture interpersonal and human conflict that well and actually make a good series (Not holding my breath after that lens flare of a trailer), then I'll be the first to be giving the screen a standing ovation.

[Spaceland]

Even if they broke this rule and will give conflict between crew men.

This Stark Trek show, compare to all other, is block behind a wall of subscription.

That for me alone, put the new show at the bottom of a list of what i want to see.

[Danska101]

I love Star Trek because the future it presents is better and kinder and portrays humanity as finally having got its heads together to work towards a better future. It's finally gotten past internal conflicts and feuds partly because most of the sources of those conflicts - land, resources, wealth, religion etc - are either no longer relevant or education and understanding is finally great enough that no one considers them worth fighting over.

The entire purpose of Star Trek was not to show humans as they are now, but to show them as we can be at our best. A large part of that is showing how much better people are at conflict resolution. If people have differences they are discussed, talked about and worked out. The entire purpose of the Federation is to do that on a galactic scale.

Obviously Star Trek has taken the odd detour from that strict road map, such as DS9. But that was an exceptional circumstance for a number of reasons. It was on the fringes of Federation space, dealing with a significant number of non-Federation species and personnel, in particular a planet suffering the aftermath of a brutal occupation. Not every officer was the perfect Starfleet officer you might see on their more prestigious Starships and then a massive war broke out on their doorstep that threatened the way of life of the entire quadrant. Under those exceptional circumstances, I am not surprised a few of humanity's rough edges came to the surface.

But the rest of the time, most of the time, that is not what Star Trek is about. Grim or dystopian futures showing humanity's flaws and darker nature are ten a penny, and every one of them seems to think it's somehow special or important or different because it 'dares to show humanity when it's not perfect and the mistakes we can make' etc. I disagree. I think Star Trek is special because it dares to show humanity being good. It dares to suggest that the future can be better, that we can be better if we try hard enough. That's what makes Star Trek what it is.

So no, I do not want to see more conflict between the crew. I have no problem with conflict in Star Trek - there's certainly plenty of that - but now, more than ever, I want Star Trek to be the beacon of optimism and hope it was created to be. I want it to show people having differences, of course. Put two people in a room and you get three points of view. But I do not want to see those differences escalating to conflict.

[Allan Hood]

This is kind of the reason why I liked Babylon 5 so much more than Star Trek.

Now, don't get me wrong, I love the Star Trek series and the stories, and especially the characters. Star Trek does a much better job of portraying alien culture and creates much more interesting alien races. However, what Star Trek lacks is the realistic view of human conflict. Yeah, sure, there's the mirror universe, but there's no real internal and personal struggle with them. For the few of us who have seen Babylon 5, one of the main plots is the fact that humanity is at war with itself and it's portrayed so freaking well. It was realistic and gave you a sense of friends and fellow humans fighting each other with regret.

If they can capture interpersonal and human conflict that well and actually make a good series (Not holding my breath after that lens flare of a trailer), then I'll be the first to be giving the screen a standing ovation.

I bet that's what they're going to try to do, make it more like B5. I think DS9 started to go that way with the Maquis and ENT went that direction a little, too. TNG played with the idea; I remember the episode with all the ensigns and the girl that flew with Crusher at the Academy.

People keep telling me that it's going to trash Roddenberry's vision. I don't think it will because the Federation is still utopian, unless of course there's an alien take over.

[Allan Hood]

Even if they broke this rule and will give conflict between crew men.

This Stark Trek show, compare to all other, is block behind a wall of subscription.

That for me alone, put the new show at the bottom of a list of what i want to see.

You mean you aren't able to watch it?

[Allan Hood]

I love Star Trek because the future it presents is better and kinder and portrays humanity as finally having got its heads together to work towards a better future. It's finally gotten past internal conflicts and feuds partly because most of the sources of those conflicts - land, resources, wealth, religion etc - are either no longer relevant or education and understanding is finally great enough that no one considers them worth fighting over.

The entire purpose of Star Trek was not to show humans as they are now, but to show them as we can be at our best. A large part of that is showing how much better people are at conflict resolution. If people have differences they are discussed, talked about and worked out. The entire purpose of the Federation is to do that on a galactic scale.

Obviously Star Trek has taken the odd detour from that strict road map, such as DS9. But that was an exceptional circumstance for a number of reasons. It was on the fringes of Federation space, dealing with a significant number of non-Federation species and personnel, in particular a planet suffering the aftermath of a brutal occupation. Not every officer was the perfect Starfleet officer you might see on their more prestigious Starships and then a massive war broke out on their doorstep that threatened the way of life of the entire quadrant. Under those exceptional circumstances, I am not surprised a few of humanity's rough edges came to the surface.

But the rest of the time, most of the time, that is not what Star Trek is about. Grim or dystopian futures showing humanity's flaws and darker nature are ten a penny, and every one of them seems to think it's somehow special or important or different because it 'dares to show humanity when it's not perfect and the mistakes we can make' etc. I disagree. I think Star Trek is special because it dares to show humanity being good. It dares to suggest that the future can be better, that we can be better if we try hard enough. That's what makes Star Trek what it is.

So no, I do not want to see more conflict between the crew. I have no problem with conflict in Star Trek - there's certainly plenty of that - but now, more than ever, I want Star Trek to be the beacon of optimism and hope it was created to be. I want it to show people having differences, of course. Put two people in a room and you get three points of view. But I do not want to see those differences escalating to conflict.

I don't mind seeing conflict as long as there is a resolution, as you say. There's always an argument, difference of opinion, but then they usually go as the captain says. I'm thinking in this case there's going to be a mutiny or something.

[Allan Hood]

To my understanding, the series will take place in 2255. That was the beginning of the Treaty of Armens between the Sheliak Corporate. A bunch of class H planets were given to the Sheliak, then we lost contact. We didn't hear from them again until TNG: "The Ensigns of Command"
(WOW I was just talking about them in the previous post! I didn't know they were connected until just now!)

Also, Kirk got promoted to lieutenant and had his first planetary survey mission and visits the planet Neural...so he's around...

[SCOOP]

I love Star Trek because the future it presents is better and kinder and portrays humanity as finally having got its heads together to work towards a better future. It's finally gotten past internal conflicts and feuds partly because most of the sources of those conflicts - land, resources, wealth, religion etc - are either no longer relevant or education and understanding is finally great enough that no one considers them worth fighting over.

The entire purpose of Star Trek was not to show humans as they are now, but to show them as we can be at our best. A large part of that is showing how much better people are at conflict resolution. If people have differences they are discussed, talked about and worked out. The entire purpose of the Federation is to do that on a galactic scale.

Obviously Star Trek has taken the odd detour from that strict road map, such as DS9. But that was an exceptional circumstance for a number of reasons. It was on the fringes of Federation space, dealing with a significant number of non-Federation species and personnel, in particular a planet suffering the aftermath of a brutal occupation. Not every officer was the perfect Starfleet officer you might see on their more prestigious Starships and then a massive war broke out on their doorstep that threatened the way of life of the entire quadrant. Under those exceptional circumstances, I am not surprised a few of humanity's rough edges came to the surface.

But the rest of the time, most of the time, that is not what Star Trek is about. Grim or dystopian futures showing humanity's flaws and darker nature are ten a penny, and every one of them seems to think it's somehow special or important or different because it 'dares to show humanity when it's not perfect and the mistakes we can make' etc. I disagree. I think Star Trek is special because it dares to show humanity being good. It dares to suggest that the future can be better, that we can be better if we try hard enough. That's what makes Star Trek what it is.

So no, I do not want to see more conflict between the crew. I have no problem with conflict in Star Trek - there's certainly plenty of that - but now, more than ever, I want Star Trek to be the beacon of optimism and hope it was created to be. I want it to show people having differences, of course. Put two people in a room and you get three points of view. But I do not want to see those differences escalating to conflict.

Yes, I think along the same lines.. 200 years ago ppl were still asking for 'satisfaction':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnGd...utu.be&t=6m18s

In 200 years from now I expect humans to have overcome their petty little differences, especially, like you've said, after the elimination of poverty and the constant contact with alien races.. Furthermore, there're always ways to create conflict within starfleet's own ranks like in TNG's 'Aquiel' where a SF officer is accused of murder or 'Eye of the Beholder' where someone who worked on the Enterprise-D before she was commissioned murdered his wife and her lover. There was also Barclay or Broccoli who had such severe self-confidence issues that people made fun of him and openly disliked him like La Forge who did not want to work with him.. Or VOY's 'Maneuvers' where it turns out that a fellow crew member and former maquis is actually a cardassian spy.

There're always workarounds for such limitations as a writer like some sort of 'space sickness', which allow you to get around the fact that humanity after WWIII has mostly overcome their petty little character flaws.. Take a crew member, for example, make him act in an unusual way for star trek like excessive jealousy for one or two seasons and then make the cast find out that the way he/she acted were actually symptoms of a disease or side effects of the crew member developing telepathic capabilities. The last thing I wanna see is starfleet officers back-stabbing each other for personal gain or pointless bitching like 14 year old high school girls over who is the prettiest and deserves to romance the commander of the ship, which isn't entirely unreasonable to presume considering nowadays movie and TV environment where the focus almost exclusively lies on the lowest common denominator..

However, I wanna end my post with a quote by Lt. Tuvok:
'The Vulcan heart was forged out of barbarism and violence. We learned to control it, but it is still part of us. To pretend it does not exist is to create an opportunity for it to escape.' - Cold Fire.