Was the Federation-class ever refitted?

[SuperSaiyaMan12]

He was incharge of the first one and used it as a reference. After that he didnt like the way it portrayed starfleet and tried to un-cononise it. But since he wasnt involved in the other movies much he couldnt stop it being used.

Good thing too. In a bizarre state of affairs, Roddenberry was almost a curse on Trek. Not to the extent that B&B were but bad enough.

Like Lucas is a curse on Star Wars now?

[Duskofdead]

He was incharge of the first one and used it as a reference. After that he didnt like the way it portrayed starfleet and tried to un-cononise it. But since he wasnt involved in the other movies much he couldnt stop it being used.

Good thing too. In a bizarre state of affairs, Roddenberry was almost a curse on Trek. Not to the extent that B&B were but bad enough.

He was...? I'm aware he had a few ideas that were a little out there, and some of his ideas fell a little flat. But many of his ideas blasted off and became some of the best parts of Trek. When you look at everything that was done without Roddenberry's input whatsoever, it's stuff a lot of fans tend to hate.... much of Voyager, Enterprise, etc. So if we blast B&B and we blast Roddenberry, exactly to whom do you give any credit?

[Teaos]

GR was a curse on latter Startrek. He was the driving force behind the first few seris of TNG which were by far the worst. He institued some of the more stupid and limiting rules. His personal feeling and selfishness almost crippled the series.

I'm not saying the guy didnt have some great ideas but he is not the god most make him out to be.

[Duskofdead]

GR was a curse on latter Startrek. He was the driving force behind the first few seris of TNG which were by far the worst. He institued some of the more stupid and limiting rules. His personal feeling and selfishness almost crippled the series.

I'm not saying the guy didnt have some great ideas but he is not the god most make him out to be.

To be honest I don't really recall anyone making him out to be a god. In fact I can't ever even recall anyone saying anything to the effect that Trek should be all about Roddenberry or what he says. Personally I think his ideas could have beaten up Lucas's with one arm tied behind his back, but that's part of the problem. Roddenberry had more of a "vision"... even if it was stuff that would not always be popular, gripping, or profitable. Lucas had a marketing strategy in a sci fi skin.

[Captain Seafort]

He was...? I'm aware he had a few ideas that were a little out there, and some of his ideas fell a little flat. But many of his ideas blasted off and became some of the best parts of Trek.

His core "wagon train to the stars" concept was good. He was simply bad at turning general concepts into detailed plans.

When you look at everything that was done without Roddenberry's input whatsoever, it's stuff a lot of fans tend to hate.... much of Voyager, Enterprise, etc.

It also includes DS9, the later seasons of which were the best Trek since mid-series TNG.

So if we blast B&B and we blast Roddenberry, exactly to whom do you give any credit?

Ron Moore and Michael Pillar, among others. Even Berman was pretty good earlier on.

[Aaron]

He was...? I'm aware he had a few ideas that were a little out there, and some of his ideas fell a little flat. But many of his ideas blasted off and became some of the best parts of Trek. When you look at everything that was done without Roddenberry's input whatsoever, it's stuff a lot of fans tend to hate.... much of Voyager, Enterprise, etc. So if we blast B&B and we blast Roddenberry, exactly to whom do you give any credit?

Sure he was, the first few seasons of TNG were what he saw as the optimum Trek. A good portion of his scripts for TOS where horrible and he was responsible for TMP.

He had an excellent idea, the execution was weak. If you want to give credit for great Trek there's Coon, Meyer, Moore and B&B before they went nuts.

Like Lucas is a curse on Star Wars now?

I have no idea what your talking about.

To be honest I don't really recall anyone making him out to be a god. In fact I can't ever even recall anyone saying anything to the effect that Trek should be all about Roddenberry or what he says. Personally I think his ideas could have beaten up Lucas's with one arm tied behind his back, but that's part of the problem. Roddenberry had more of a "vision"... even if it was stuff that would not always be popular, gripping, or profitable. Lucas had a marketing strategy in a sci fi skin. Wink

What do you think Roddenberry's goal with Trek was? To make money.

[Teaos]

and he was responsible for TMP.

For that alone he deserves to be castrated with a chese grater...

[Blackstar the Chakat]

His core "wagon train to the stars" concept was good. He was simply bad at turning general concepts into detailed plans

Yep. I think they should do something with the same western in outer space kind of feel Kirk and his crew had. Roddenberry wanted it to be more like TNG where everyone is in what's basically a flying city, complete with it's own science centers and schools.

That's why I liked TOS. Kirk's crew usually came to the edge of disaster and came out by the skin of their teeth. DS9 was undergunned at first and later had to deal with the Dominion. Even VOY and ENT was more gung-ho with the "we have no clue what we're doing"-themes then what Roddenberry wanted.

[Teaos]

A show like DS9 which was about politics and real life away from the paradise of Earth couldnt have been done any sooner. The Trek universe needed to be built. Any show made from now on has to tie into the universe created already. I think another show like TOS would be very hard to pull off unless you did what VOY did and send them far away from known space with no wasy way home.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

A show like DS9 which was about politics and real life away from the paradise of Earth couldnt have been done any sooner. The Trek universe needed to be built. Any show made from now on has to tie into the universe created already. I think another show like TOS would be very hard to pull off unless you did what VOY did and send them far away from known space with no wasy way home.

I'm not saying, exaclty like that with going into the unknown, I'm saying it should be more gung-ho.

[Teaos]

If they do that it needs to be set at least 50 years after DS9, the Feds arent in any position to be very gun-ho just yet.

[Captain Seafort]

The next series needs to be set well into the future regardless of what its tone is - the late 24th century is absolutely saturated, making it extremely difficult to set another show in that period while still allowing it to stand on its own.

[Teaos]

But if you set it to far in the future technology becomes a problem.

You'd expect them to be substantually more powerful and faster. One thing I always thought would be a problem for future series is that as soon as they get trasnwarp speeds reinforcements are never more than a few hours away.

I agree it needs to be in the future but I think 2400 is the lattest they can go with out running into problems.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

If you set Transwarp (or if I had my way Quantum Slipstream)as a newer technology equipped on only a handful of new classes it might not be so bad.

Or it could just render the playing field bigger, possibly even bring back species from the Delta Quadrent to the show.

[Captain Seafort]

Why would technology be a problem? If I were to set the premise for the next series (in a decade or so at least), I'd advance it a few centuries, and set it aboard Starfleet's first interstellar explorer, the USS Enterprise (of course) NCC-1701-K (or some such high letter). The Federation would be a Galactic power, with the Klingons and Cardassians (and possibly the Romulans) as member races, allied with the Dominion (massively changed by Odo's reforms), and pushing back the Borg. The main "new" species, and the focus of the series' adventures, would be from the Magellanic Clouds, and possibly Andromeda.