At this point, theres almost no way of knowing what the newStar Trekshow might be like.
But that doesnt stop us having a wish list of what wed like to see.
And those people, for me, are very wrong.
As a suggestion, it makes a certain sort of sense.
In short: because insularity wasStar Treks problem the last time it died.
To say that it wasnt replacing the thing people loved, it was following it up.
Even if theres nothing else recognizable about the show.
Star Trekhas happily accepted praise for its progressive treatment and race and gender for decades.
But its no longer the 1960s, or even the 1980s.
Its stars want it.
Its showrunners claim to want it.
Gene Roddenberry promised gay characters would appear inStar Trekin 1987.
The fact that it hasnt happened in the 30 years since is not the series finest hour.
Representation of diverse sexualities is bad across the spectrum of entertainment media.
IfStar Trekcant lead the way in rebalancing the scales, what can?
Riker never got past being the devil-may-care ladies man.
Harry Kim was always the tentative newbie.
But times have changed.
The way people watch television has changed.
The fact thatStar Trekis debuting on a streaming service is proof enough of that.
Whatever the newStar Treklooks like, I want it to look like nothing else on TV.
Thats what made it great before, and thats whatll make it great again…
