What storylines do you NOT want to see in Trek?
- Thread starter AmandaSmith
- Start date
Unless they change beyond recognition, toilet visits will still happen, too.
Doesn't mean I have a desire to see those in Trek.
(and no, my goal is not to compare the two. Simply to point out that even though some things are indispensibly part of our human existence, it doesn't automatically follow it has to be depicted in a Trek series,)
Last edited:
...about that...
This. If a captain lives in a fortress that cannot be compromised at any time, he--and his crew--are living in the equivalent of a crib. No drama, and not at all realistic.
Romance happens, whether its in the form of a triangle or not. Removing that--or any kind of romance removes a significant part of the human experience from characters.
Not that all-out war is a necessary plot device in every series, but what kind of universe are you building where it does not occur?
No more holodeck episodes and especially no more holodeck out of control episodes.
No more emotionally stunted characters learning to be emotional.
No more will they or won’t they potential romances that don’t get properly wrapped up.
No more Klingon honor episodes.
No more kid episodes.
I actually wouldn’t mind a classic mirrorverse episode or a transporter accident episode provided it had a good plot.
No more emotionally stunted characters learning to be emotional.
No more will they or won’t they potential romances that don’t get properly wrapped up.
No more Klingon honor episodes.
No more kid episodes.
I actually wouldn’t mind a classic mirrorverse episode or a transporter accident episode provided it had a good plot.
At the risk of sounding like an old fart.... 
Please, no more musicals.
Please, no more musicals.
I see musicals themselves as an old-fashioned throwback to showbiz of eighty years ago and more. And I enjoy them from time to time. But for SF&F dramatic series, I think the musical format is best used very sparingly. The same with purely comedic episodes.
Anyway, storylines I personally do not want to see in Trek: I don't want to see the Earth-Romulan War. Nyaah!
Kor
Anyway, storylines I personally do not want to see in Trek: I don't want to see the Earth-Romulan War. Nyaah!
Kor
I will amend this to say: No more PERMANENTLY blowing up the ship!
Alternate reality destruction, if used sparingly, could be interesting. TNG "Cause and Effect" and VOY: "Year of Hell" both showed the ship getting blown to smithereens without making it stay that way. Again, not every other episode, but once in a blue moon would be interesting with a twist.
Thing is, almost any (serious) story idea one doesn’t like can be done well in the instance. I’ve seen or read any number of things where, had you simply described the idea, would have sounded stupid — but were done well in the actual text or production. So I’d be hesitant to say that I don’t want to see “X” on Star Trek, because it’s not really down to the idea, it’s the execution.
So the only things I wouldn’t want to see would be utterly ridiculous SNL-skit ideas that would never be done anyway.
(“We are the Borg. We are here for loooove. Resistance is futile.” Etc…)
So the only things I wouldn’t want to see would be utterly ridiculous SNL-skit ideas that would never be done anyway.
(“We are the Borg. We are here for loooove. Resistance is futile.” Etc…)
Like a saying in Pro Wrestling "Less is More!".
There's been too many "Blowing Up/Destroying of the Hero Vessel" (especially the USS Enterprise) in the history of the franchise.
We should avoid doing that in the future if possible.
The less we attempt to make a permanent death, than the greater the effect it will have once it happens for real.
Same with killing off real people / characters. Even BackGround ones.
IRL, most good forces are finding ways to minimize casualties in every way possible.
(e.g. using remote robots to detonate explosives or hunt for mines).
Finding ways to minimize casualties on your side or amongst innocents / non-combatants.
That is the best solution moving forward, with as much ability as you can is the right call IMO.
I'm not fond of randomly killing Red Shirts or Yellow Shirts.
If a crew member has to perish to establish stakes, there are other ways to show danger w/o having to actually kill them IMO.
As for "The Borg", the current incarnation of "The Borg".
The Cybernetic Zombies that have a Hive Mind that wants to assimilate you or your technology needs to stay "permanently dead."
If you must have "The Borg" back as a villain/ally/neutral faction or some mix of that.
Have them be free-willed people / faction that choose to have Cybernetic Implants and can silently communicate over SubSpace links, but aren't beholden to a "Hive Mind".
Allow individuality along with freedom to do what they want, all the good/bad that comes with being a person.
The only difference is that you're Cybernetically Enhanced compared to normal biological people.
The "Ghost in the Shell" franchise shows what a Cyborg can do when they live amongst normal folks.
So having shows where "Cyborgs" exist amongst the normal populace as a common thing and has been done in media.
Having a faction of willing Cyborgs or people who choose to Cyberize to gain enhancements would be interesting, especially if they are a faction that chooses it or lives with it openly & proudly.
Last edited:
No more bringing back alien races only to completely change them beyond recognition. Looking at you Discovery.
Take that, Roddenberry, with your TMP and your “bad TV reception from the future”!
Is this referencing how the Klingons were changed? Because I don't like that either.
OK, fair enough: you’re consistent, so while I disagree with you, I can respect that.
Add me to the list of people who don't want to see any more characters discovering they have a child or children they didn't know about. Contraception in the present day is typically reliable if used properly; if a character in the medically-advanced future of the Federation conceives or begets a child without intending to, that smacks of stupidity or carelessness. (Barring unusual circumstances.)
And please -- I'm asking politely -- no more new sibs, half-sibs, or adoptive sibs of the TOS characters. An interesting character doesn't need to be propped up that way. And especially no more any kind of Spock sibs. I used to kinda-sorta like Sarek, but the more kids of his we see, the more he looks like an epically terrible father!
Also: as far as I'm concerned, we've already had too many "Prime Directive" episodes where letting a species or a planetary population die is presented as being the proper "enlightened" solution. In TOS, the PD was presented as an effort to avoid cultural contamination of less technologically-advanced species, but surely cultural contamination is moot if everybody's dead?
And please -- I'm asking politely -- no more new sibs, half-sibs, or adoptive sibs of the TOS characters. An interesting character doesn't need to be propped up that way. And especially no more any kind of Spock sibs. I used to kinda-sorta like Sarek, but the more kids of his we see, the more he looks like an epically terrible father!
Also: as far as I'm concerned, we've already had too many "Prime Directive" episodes where letting a species or a planetary population die is presented as being the proper "enlightened" solution. In TOS, the PD was presented as an effort to avoid cultural contamination of less technologically-advanced species, but surely cultural contamination is moot if everybody's dead?
I don't mind if characters whose family lives are mostly blank pages get siblings we didn't know about. No more for Spock or Kirk, or only child Chekov, but I don't mind Sulu, Uhura, McCoy, and Scotty having fleshed out siblings, as long as their existence is just a fact, not a revelation.
I gather with more of a focus on timelines, time travel, and the wider universe at large (the effect it would have on all of creation in the grand scheme of things if they refrain from saving a planet whose ceasing to exist is supposedly for the better for everyone else), contaminating one planet isn't the issue.
That was one aspect of the Prime Directive that I've never agreed with.
As Pulaski (I think) argued in "Pen Pals," the fact that the Enterprise is able and available to help may itself be a part of fate or destiny -- how can you know? And if you don't have any way of knowing whether the galaxy would be better off if that planet survived or perished, then surely the moral act would be to save it if you can. Or, to use a more down-to-Earth example: if I save a small child from a burning car, they might grow up to be another Hitler, or another Ghandi, or just another ordinary Brennyren -- but as I don't know which, I should save the kid if I can
Absolutely. They just make it way more complicated than it needs to be, because there's many more implications and complications to consider that they weren't aware of before.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked
- Poll
