https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net

Everyone's got "must-have" ideas for the next Star Trek

Given that so little info was given from the CBS announcement (aside from the zany "streaming video only" aspect of its distribution, it's not surprising that everyone's jumping on what the show should be about and, more importantly, what the characters should be like.

A lot of that has been (on a number of sites) about inclusiveness, which the attached article focuses on, specifically looking for the next show to have:

– A female captain
– Openly gay character(s)
– Multi-racial characters
– Committed relationships
– Openly trans character(s) (played by trans actors)
– A non-human captain

Part of this, it seems to me (from my own ethnic / racial / gender / orientation privileged perspective) searching for a couple of different things:

A. An interesting cast of characters that will lend itself to interesting stories.

B. A desire for representation, either in the abstract (the future should look like X), the professional (more Y people should be employed in Hollywood), or the personal (I want a Z character that I can better identify with).

Those are all laudable goals — and, honestly, there's a lot of overlap there (especially with a good writing team). The problem, creatively, is making sure that (A) comes first. If there's a perception that (B) is given priority, that there is box-checking for maximum diversity for the sake of maximum diversity, that bodes poorly, especially if it further has the sense of Kumbaya / "the future is pleasant and progressive and diverse and everyone lives in harmony" about it that so hampered S.1 of TNG.

On the other hand, if there's a perception that the producers are playing it safe and going for a mostly-white / male / straight / cis cast for fear of alienating audience members and/or sponsors, that's sacrificing (A) as well.

Some other issues to consider are:

– Core vs recurring characters and crew
– Under-representing vs over-representing
– Inclusion vs tokenism

One question that comes up is how to fit in diversity without making the show about diversity that, in the Star Trek future, is presumably not even seen as a diversity issue, the same way that nobody comments on the eye color of that new ensign that just beamed on board. Is it enough, for example, to have a chief engineer who is gay (and, presumably, has same-gender romantic involvements), or does that character's gayness need to be the centerpiece of some stories (imprisoned on the planet of Throwback Puritans or whatever)?

I'd add into the mix as well consideration about some other minorities and how they fit into the world of the 2Nth Century. Body form / weight / attractiveness. Age. Religion. Disability. There's some representation there which could make for some interesting plot hooks (or even just be part of the background for the characters, the way Picard's Frenchness was, with a couple of notable exceptions, part of his background, not foreground).

I think the last item the writer suggests — the idea of increase alien representation — is potentially the most exciting as hooks for plots and interesting characters within them. Some of the best Star Trek characters (especially in terms of how they then reflect upon humanity) have been (primarily) non-human (Spock, Data, Dax, Odo, arguably Seven of Nine, the EMH). Humans (or humanoids) with a non-mainstream-Earth cultural backgrounds (the Bajorans, the Maquis) also carried a lot of interesting ideas (both realized and not) that have potential. Greater representation there, including some aliens that are not just nose/forehead/ear-appliance aliens, makes a lot of sense for a Star Trek series. The question then becomes how to make sure that your core crew that has one human and five non-humans don't (a) turn into a bunch of "really are just humans who have different makeup demands" but (b) remain relateable to an audience that is, in fact, mostly human.

But, then, writing about the human condition is what good drama, and good Star Trek is all about, whatever alien or Earthly demographic we're talking about.




6 Things We Need the New Star Trek TV Series to Do With Its Characters

View on Google+

70 view(s)  

4 thoughts on “Everyone's got "must-have" ideas for the next Star Trek”

  1. I'd like to see:

    A seriously alien alien, one who thinks differently, even if they don't look too different.

    Wesley Crusher _done right_ (bear with me on this please). I think every boy of my generation probably daydreamed about being a teenager aboard the USS Enterprise. Roddenberry recognized this and created the character to fit that new role. Then by plan or bad writing, Wesley was turned into some kind of proto-superhuman. It was unnecessary, all he needed to be was a normal human kid along for the ride.

    Gay/Trans/cross-species relationships have been done already, but there is more to explore.

    Transporter medical procedures. This has sort of been done, but they have missed a significant application of the technology. Does the character need a new liver? Just re-materialize them using the pattern for a healthy liver. Granted, this might make characters effectively immortal, but that would be interesting to explore too.

    Lower Decks was a good ST:TNG episode, featuring non-bridge officers, but they missed the opportunity to relate to these characters on a regular basis. There is a lots more room for character growth if they are just getting started.

  2. +Dan Eastwood An alien alien would be cool.

    And, y'know, there were some interesting races already encountered over multiple series that could be interesting developed past their two-dimensionsal plottiness. Borg. Melkotians. Hortae. Imagine (in the context of an exploration type show) a portion of the ship dedicated to majorly non-humans who could be trotted out as needed (within the bounds of not becoming deus ex xenomorph).

    (Riffing a bit on the alien sector on B5. Including Ambassador Kosh.)

    The impact of transporter/holodeck technology has been delved into, but hardly enough.

    And, yes, a show that is (at least in part) about the "downstairs staff," not just the command team. Or how about those redshirts / Away Team fodder?

    I think the thing that really needs to happen, as well, is dis unity amongst the crew. Voyager missed out on a huge potential in having the Maquis and the Feds immediately make nice together. Imagine a ship where reps from the Federation, the Klingons, and the Romulans, each with their own agenda, have to work together (but how far together) for some cause. (Only, y'know, smarter-sounding than that.) NuBSG delved into this a bit (as well as being a lot of what Voyager never managed to be), and it would be interesting to see it happen in a way that melds with the less-gritty Trekverse.

  3. Personally, I'd love to see Star Trek: Renegades get a studio budget… and maybe a little polishing with the storyline. For a crowdsourced project, it's not bad but it could be so much better. Loved seeing familiar faces like Chekov and Tuvok, and enjoyed little shout-outs to other shows in the franchise (like having a ship named Archer). Favorite twist was Khan's daughter as the captain. They never really explain how she can be Khan's daughter but love the idea of it. Also, because it's not an official Starfleet crew, there's no 'one big happy family' feeling, which sort of reminded me of DS9 in a way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *