Ezri or Julian would be logical candidates. Alex has matured into an age where he can look like a considerable bad ass now (he played Ras Al Ghul fercryinoutloud) so if you took him out of the uniform and gave him an interesting backstory... And of course, there's always Worf rumors like, for every Trek property ever
You can't build a successful Star Trek series around simply a character. You've got to have a ship (or in one instance a space station).
That's like saying you can't build a horseless carriage in 1768. (The first one was built in 1769.) It's true, only because nobody's ever done it. In the TOS era, the Enterprise was as much a character of the show as most of the cast. This was less true in the TNG era, and I don't recall Sisko ever speaking of DS9 with the same kind of affection that Kirk had for the Enterprise. I gave up on Voyager in the second season or so, and I never watched Enterpoop, so I dunno about that. With Discovery, folks aren't clamoring for shows about the Enterprise or other ships, but they sure are interested in shows which feature three characters who've played captains in the series.
Actually, it's the other way around. There are some basic storytelling rules such that if you follow them and don't mess up, you will get a basically intelligible story. But that doesn't mean that you won't get one if you break those rules.
But Kirk talked about his wife a lot. How long did it take Sisko to start talking about DS9 as being his home?
Sisko always saw DS9 as a post, his home was Bajor. I'm cautiously interested in Picard because nostalgia, but I'm honestly getting fed up with the bitter cynicist disillusioned with the world archetype that everything is now. It's one reason I hate section 31 so much. Trek was, at least partially, about humanity as a whole becoming better than it is now. But its all an illusion and nothing ever changes.
Trek really wasn't about humanity bettering itself. It was about the adventures of a better humanity, one largely without sin. The better humanity part was a given. This was especially--and annoyingly--true of TNG, where the characters were so devoid of ordinary human weakness, that it made them kind of hard to relate to, though that improved over time.
You have to look at the distinct change in theme between TOS and TNG. In TOS there was an omnipotent god around every corner, as space was a dangerous, unknown place, and it was up to the crew to show that modern morality is better than those old tyranical ways. A lot of the morality tale episodes of TOS were very much a showcase of new, egalitarian morality showing its merits against what was the norms of the past. With TNG, there was pretty much just the one "god", Q, and the majority of it's morality tales were of of a legal nature, questioning the morality of the rule of law, especially within different cultures, or using the legal system as a backdrop to introduce new concepts. The theme of exploration had turned more inward. And I think that was the main flaw of Roddenberry TNG. It wasn't exploring the future vs. the past, but the future vs. the now. "Look at those barbarians with their currency and commercialism, their uncertainty and lack of knowledge." It wasn't saying that we have become better, but telling us that this is how we are, and this is what we should strive for. Post Roddenberry trek changed the message, and it made good T.V., but it became far more cynical, with the message that humanity is still a base animal, and that progress is a struggle and everyone will falter when pressed. Sisko gave into his anger of the maquis, and started torching planets. Janeway twisted starfleet logic to suit her personal whims, up to committing murder. ENT really just kind of piled on with NU-BSG and STD just seems to be more of that, but with a mary sue. I'm hoping we will see a return of the more optimistic and sure of himself and his beliefs Picard, and not just a bitter, broken old man.
Aw, man, can you imagine if there'd been a TOS episode with Telly Savalas as the guest star? That would have been lit.
One of the most popular Star Trek movies didn't involve the Enterprise at all (until the last few moments).
1. A basic rule of English grammar is that a double negative equals a positive. 2. It doesn't matter how the film was marketed, it's still quite popular amongst Star Trek fans, and even though I'm not particularly big on the film, I like it better than 3. 3. The smart thing to do would be to concede that Bailey's point is the exception and move on.
Fine. Exception that proves the rule. But if you get technical the "payoff" at the end when the crew first sees the new Enterprise is arguably the highlight of the movie. Even more than rescuing the whales.
I don't know if this will make you feel better or worse. https://www.cinemablend.com/televis...crying-and-freaking-out-over-sevens-new-voice
First, I would argue that basic human nature never changes. But, beyond that, I've always felt like the franchise was set to close to our own time. TOS was set, roughly, 400 years in the future. But, if we look 400 years to the past, we're already in the early stage of "modern history." Europe is 200 years post Reformation, well within the Classical period, and on the verge of the Industrial Revolution and the Age of Reason (or Enlightenment). Basic human nature has changed very little since that time. While there are obvious, and vast, differences between a Englishman of the 21st century and an Englishman of the 1760's, what makes them human and drives them isn't really that different.
Incidentally and a bit off topic, it is curious to me how anyone who has studied history can maintain that belief. I say that with all respect, and I know you're by far not the only one. But to me, the malleability of mankind seems to stand out in such stark contrast as soon as you open any history book, it might as well have been a different species every few centuries or so. (And I should probably open a different thread on this, but doesn't Christianity imply that human nature has changed at least twice in very essential ways?)
From a storytelling standpoint being in the far future would give more flexibility as compared to now when we know the entire timeline from present day up to Trek time. Being in the relatively near future isn't however a problem for Treks portrayal of human nature but rather a feature. Humans themselves haven't changed into some new barely understandable species, rather they are us having overcome challenges and choosing to live in a better way. Not a "what we could be" but a "what we can be".
Take four different jewelers. One from the Shang Dynasty, one from the height of the Roman Empire, one from the high middle ages in Europe, and me. There are vast differences between our societies, our cultural norms, our moral worldviews, and our societal status. But, our basic human nature is all the same both the good and the bad. That includes but is not limited to the desire to better ourselves and our families, but also the selfishness and greed that's inherent to all humans but is tempered by our moral worldviews and our power to act on those desires. Once, with a second and third change being possible for the individual, not man as a whole. I posit that Augstine was correct about the four states of human nature: In the Garden, before the fall: posse peccare, posse non peccare Man, as the result of the curse of Original Sin: non posse non peccare Regenerate man: posse peccare, posse non peccare Glorified man: non posse peccare
We have certain needs, certain drives, that might be tempered or redirected by our environment or society, might be stronger in one individual or weaker in another, but remain present throughout history. The needs to survive, to reproduce. The urge to belong. The drive to create. A desire for the world to be the way you think it should be. Looked at another way, these raise challenges that different people and cultures define and address in different ways, but the underlying causes remain pretty much the same. Pretty much -- nothing in this universe remains constant, possibly including the physical constants themselves, so I would expect some drift in this regard as well. This extends to alien cultures because they'll probably face many of the same challenges. Survival of the species demands at a minimum that you survive long enough to create more of you. Advancing a society to the point of trade, government, spaceflight requires that you find some way of everyone not killing each other before you can get to that point. If we ever find other intelligent life, we may well find its culture functions much the way a culture on Earth does, or has done.
I don't see that. You pointed out the vast cultural, moral and societal differences. These would include: That you do not share the same context of craftsmanship and certainly not of art (the latter being a creation of the 18th century). That you do not have the same ideas about what is a precious material, or even what it means for a material to be precious. That you do not share the same concepts about property or about employment, sales, or producing for order. Given all of that, I would hesitate to say that you are all engaged with some of the same desires or temptations, including again that your vastly different morality would bring with it vastly different ideas about what desires and temptations even are. Yes, there are moments when a certain aspect of some practice in Ancient Athens suddenly seems very modern to us. But it stands in the face of a hundred other aspects that are almost completely incomprehensible -- that's why those moments of seeming recognition are so striking. But they just demonstrate that sometimes there are two identical starfish on the same beach, not that the whole beach is made of starfish. On the other hand, there are ways to phrase human attributes in so abstract terms that they do apply to everyone, but once you get to things like 'strives to survive', 'strives to reproduce' or just 'strives in general, for whatever', you are no longer describing human nature, but everything's nature, including literal starfish. The way I read Augustine, going from 2 to 3 is a second essential change, in the strict sense of his essentialism. A creature that cannot act without sin and one that can do not have the same nature, even if some of the individuals in the second group never manage to act without sin consistently. Aquinas discusses this in much greater detail, actually pointing out that to fall from grace is by definition a change in essence. Can I just note in passing that us having these conversations instead of discussing the aesthetics of lens flares means that nuTrek is doing something right, at least?
As I've always suspected, even proclaimed holy men are all about the posse. Edit: Does "non posse non peccare" translate to "no woman, no cry"?
I think despite the differences in humanity throughout the ages, there is one thing I think we can agree upon, which everyone before and after us enjoyed:
