Or at least acknowledge it? Could any potential new Star Trek series really hold up those same all-too-perfect two-dimensional cardboard cut-outs to us, when (admittedly, RDM's version of...) real people were shown on another science fiction series which let's face it, is similar at least in our tastes. If we saw another goody-goody crew try to tell us what's right, would we really believe it?
I remember watching Enterprise and Battlestar Galatica beside each other, and the differences were ridiculous. Archer and his crew were one dimensional, their motivation cliched, and the various wires the series had to walk to literally avoid not offending the most helpless of individuals was insulting to the rest of us. I'm no fanboy of Battlestar Galactica, I sometimes find it pretentious, boring, the characters unempathasible, let alone unlikeable; but I knew it had edge, I knew it had ideas, I knew it had impetus and this was a big change from Enterprise, Voyager and to a lesser extent, Deep Space Nine.
So what i'm asking, will any new Star Trek story have to have strong ideas? Not necessarilly dark, but with every powerful positive or negative message, a story has to show a proportional counter-idea, positive or negative. Battlestar Galactica achieved this; or will it simply have toothless ideas like Earth getting blown up by aliens (No, that's not a 9/11 parallel.) Or Genetic Engineering! Or the same moral messages over and over again that really have little more wisdom than Sesame Street... or will it simply be all a disguise for an elaborate power fantasy which everything in popular science fiction is fast becoming.
Pathetic and didactic like before, or edgy and idealistic?(Idealistic does not mean positive.)
Or will it go sideways and resemble a J.J Abrams series (possible considering, he's helming the movie: very likely he'll have fingers in any new series.)
Could arguably be style over substance. (Not a bad thing, i'd watch if it was gripping, be a tad disappointed intellectually though.)
I remember watching Enterprise and Battlestar Galatica beside each other, and the differences were ridiculous. Archer and his crew were one dimensional, their motivation cliched, and the various wires the series had to walk to literally avoid not offending the most helpless of individuals was insulting to the rest of us. I'm no fanboy of Battlestar Galactica, I sometimes find it pretentious, boring, the characters unempathasible, let alone unlikeable; but I knew it had edge, I knew it had ideas, I knew it had impetus and this was a big change from Enterprise, Voyager and to a lesser extent, Deep Space Nine.
So what i'm asking, will any new Star Trek story have to have strong ideas? Not necessarilly dark, but with every powerful positive or negative message, a story has to show a proportional counter-idea, positive or negative. Battlestar Galactica achieved this; or will it simply have toothless ideas like Earth getting blown up by aliens (No, that's not a 9/11 parallel.) Or Genetic Engineering! Or the same moral messages over and over again that really have little more wisdom than Sesame Street... or will it simply be all a disguise for an elaborate power fantasy which everything in popular science fiction is fast becoming.
Pathetic and didactic like before, or edgy and idealistic?(Idealistic does not mean positive.)
Or will it go sideways and resemble a J.J Abrams series (possible considering, he's helming the movie: very likely he'll have fingers in any new series.)
Could arguably be style over substance. (Not a bad thing, i'd watch if it was gripping, be a tad disappointed intellectually though.)
That's not 
