Star Trek

[Traveler]

I have long been a fan of Star Trek.  I know we call this stuff science fiction and yet it seems that there is lots of fiction and very little if any science.  The idea of exploring space is something I have always dreamed about.  The strange new lifeforms (that have become basically messed up humans in Halloween costumes and the boldly going where no man has gone before (at least intelligent humans) seem to be going the normal direction of humans with an IQ that is not quite room temperature (Fahrenheit system).

Am I outgrowing this stuff?  I have been watching the latest Star Trek Discovery series.  Is it me or Disney?  I get the impression that the plot is being written as a sophomore high school English project for students with learning disabilities.  It is like the Star Ship gets in trouble with the worse villains in the galaxy and then the captain says to the crew, “Everybody close your eyes, cross your fingers and repeat 3 times in your mind – I believe in elves”.  Then somehow it works, and they get out of another impossible situation.   Interwoven into the rest of the plot is every other possible love relationship, with the exception of traditional marriage and family.  Oh, wait there are some traditional families in the plot with some character that is the only survivor of his interplanetary species from some galactic tragedy or war.

Is anybody finding any entertainment value in this stuff that surpasses what used to be 3rd grade level when I was a kid?  I admit that back then we had pitiful special effects, but it seems that now all that exists in visual entertainment is the special effects.

 

The Traveler

[zil2]

16 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Is it me or Disney?

It's Disney.

And, for the record, though The Next Generation was my favorite Star Trek series, it's total fantasy - magic solves pretty much all their problems, with science barely in the background.

[Vort]

I loved Star Trek growing up, but as an adult, I find it to be nothing like hard SF, rather something more like second-rate sci-fi. TNG was embarrassingly bad for fully the first two, maybe three, seasons before it finally found its sea legs. Even then, it was more entertaining for its comfortable predictability than for the thought of deeply exploring any relevant topic thoughtfully. I could never really get into Star Trek after that. The following series (DS9, the execrable Voyager, and the ridiculous Enterprise) did not draw me in, and I watched few episodes. I know other series have come since then, such as Picard, but I have never worked up enough interest to watch them.

I have tried to avoid turning in to a cranky, cynical old man. I've tried, but I've succeeded only partially. It's not only Star Trek. I remember as a very young adult seeing part of a fantasy film about King Arthur and the round table. This would be probably early to mid 1980s; I'm guessing it was Excaliber. What I saw of it seemed gritty, unadorned, and realistic. Three or so decades later, I managed to watch a part of what I'm very sure was the same movie. It looked stilted and amateurish, not just the special effects (such as they were), but the writing, the acting, the directing--more like a high school play than professional theater. (Pretty sure it would have been rated R in the 1980s, as well, due to the naked female breast in a scene depicting Arthur's magic-induced seduction by his half-sister Morgana, resulting in the conception of Mordred*.) Disappointing to see a movie I had remembered fondly, despite only watching a part of it, reduced in my eyes.

*In The Lord of the Rings and related books, Melkor's/Morgoth's name always reminded me of Mordred for some reason, and I wondered if that was intentional by Tolkien.

The good news for old guys is that while some books and movies and other entertainment lose their luster with age, other life experiences become increasingly precious. Family time and ties stand out foremost among those. Scriptures, too, improve greatly with age. So the effects of aging are six of one and a half-dozen of the other.

Apropos of nothing, we're preparing to move later this summer, and Sister Vort went through my sock and underwear drawers today and found some Spock's socks that Santa left in my stocking some years back, still unworn (imagine that). So she gave them away, along with some really beautiful spider socks that I don't know why I never wore. I mean, who wouldn't want to wear spider socks to Church? Or Spock's socks, for that matter?

Edited May 30, 2024 by Vort

[zil2]

11 minutes ago, Vort said:

spider socks

Those are ants. 6 legs, not 8. (But from a distance, they do look like spiders, except the one turned sideways.)

[Vort]

24 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Those are ants. 6 legs, not 8. (But from a distance, they do look like spiders, except the one turned sideways.)

I forgot they were ants, not spiders. My bad.

[Carborendum]

12 hours ago, zil2 said:

It's Disney.

And, for the record, though The Next Generation was my favorite Star Trek series, it's total fantasy - magic solves pretty much all their problems, with science barely in the background.

What are you talking about?  I know that the isoplavial interface monitors the kelalactrals generated by the firomactal drive.  That's how they got out of the dillemma.

[Carborendum]

14 hours ago, Traveler said:

Am I outgrowing this stuff? 

Yes and no.

The Star Trek Universe was never intended to be about the science.  It was merely a vehicle by which they were able to depict situations that would be too far-fetched to happen on earth.  They then used these situations to make commentary on the human condition.  And it turned out that we have actually had historical events that were similar in theme to the episode at hand.

If people were looking to Star Trek for a sneak peek at the future of science, there really wasn't anything beyond their electronic devices (e.g. the communicator was the inspiration of the modern flip phone -- which is now obsolete).

TNG tried to carry on that tradition.

All the other series were just plain garbage.  But I always like watching Scott Bakula's acting.  He's reputed to be one of the most dedicated and hard-working actors on any set.  And I love his performances.  But he has to have the right part.  And the lines they gave him on that show... meh.

Edited May 30, 2024 by Carborendum

[Ironhold]

18 hours ago, Traveler said:

I have long been a fan of Star Trek.  I know we call this stuff science fiction and yet it seems that there is lots of fiction and very little if any science.  The idea of exploring space is something I have always dreamed about.  The strange new lifeforms (that have become basically messed up humans in Halloween costumes and the boldly going where no man has gone before (at least intelligent humans) seem to be going the normal direction of humans with an IQ that is not quite room temperature (Fahrenheit system).

Am I outgrowing this stuff?  I have been watching the latest Star Trek Discovery series.  Is it me or Disney?  I get the impression that the plot is being written as a sophomore high school English project for students with learning disabilities.  It is like the Star Ship gets in trouble with the worse villains in the galaxy and then the captain says to the crew, “Everybody close your eyes, cross your fingers and repeat 3 times in your mind – I believe in elves”.  Then somehow it works, and they get out of another impossible situation.   Interwoven into the rest of the plot is every other possible love relationship, with the exception of traditional marriage and family.  Oh, wait there are some traditional families in the plot with some character that is the only survivor of his interplanetary species from some galactic tragedy or war.

Is anybody finding any entertainment value in this stuff that surpasses what used to be 3rd grade level when I was a kid?  I admit that back then we had pitiful special effects, but it seems that now all that exists in visual entertainment is the special effects.

 

The Traveler

The issue is that due to corporate drama at Paramount (not Disney), a number of legal concerns have arisen regarding the previous entries in the franchise (The Original Series through to Enterprise). This has led to the requirement that the theatrical reboot movies and the new TV shows be visually distinctive from the previous entries even when they involve the same characters and situations. Under normal circumstances, this would be no problem for a group of competent writers, show runners, and set designers. 

The problem, however, is that the current crop of show runners and writers have, like the people in charge of so many other franchises these days, declared themselves the owners and powers-that-be, and the need to make current Star Trek visibly different has only emboldened them in this regards. 

As a consequence, current-era Trek has forsaken everything Roddenberry was going for in the name of modern-era sensitivities. Even the Trek comic books are a risky investment these days. 

 

[Ironhold]

17 hours ago, Vort said:

I loved Star Trek growing up, but as an adult, I find it to be nothing like hard SF, rather something more like second-rate sci-fi. TNG was embarrassingly bad for fully the first two, maybe three, seasons before it finally found its sea legs. Even then, it was more entertaining for its comfortable predictability than for the thought of deeply exploring any relevant topic thoughtfully. I could never really get into Star Trek after that. The following series (DS9, the execrable Voyager, and the ridiculous Enterprise) did not draw me in, and I watched few episodes. I know other series have come since then, such as Picard, but I have never worked up enough interest to watch them.

What people forget is that TNG and DS9 were syndicated rather than network. This meant that Paramount (et al) had to front the initial money for the first few seasons with no guarantee of even getting their money back, let alone getting enough money to pay for the next season. As a result, they had to swing for the fences with every single episode despite the incredibly limited resources they had in the hopes that both shows would generate enough momentum for advertisers, individual television stations, and merchandisers to develop enough interest to keep it going. 

A big part of the reason why TNG got so much better as it went along is because they got enough of that momentum in place to where they were able to devote more money and resources to producing each episode. 

In contrast, Voyager and Enterprise were network shows, meaning that they had someone with a big wallet backing them up. They could literally afford to be mediocre at best as long as corporate was willing to keep them going. Many fans of the franchise regard Star Trek going back to being network as the reason for its slow decline since the 2000s. 

[Carborendum]

9 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

What people forget is that TNG and DS9 were syndicated rather than network. This meant that Paramount (et al) had to front the initial money for the first few seasons with no guarantee of even getting their money back, let alone getting enough money to pay for the next season. As a result, they had to swing for the fences with every single episode despite the incredibly limited resources they had in the hopes that both shows would generate enough momentum for advertisers, individual television stations, and merchandisers to develop enough interest to keep it going. 

A big part of the reason why TNG got so much better as it went along is because they got enough of that momentum in place to where they were able to devote more money and resources to producing each episode. 

In contrast, Voyager and Enterprise were network shows, meaning that they had someone with a big wallet backing them up. They could literally afford to be mediocre at best as long as corporate was willing to keep them going. Many fans of the franchise regard Star Trek going back to being network as the reason for its slow decline since the 2000s. 

I'm not sure if I buy that logic.  I've seen plenty of network shows that are fantastic year after year.  And I've seen syndicated shows that were only mediocre that kept getting renewed anyway.

[NeuroTypical]

19 hours ago, Traveler said:

I have been watching the latest Star Trek Discovery series.  Is it me or Disney?  I get the impression that the plot is being written as a sophomore high school English project for students with learning disabilities.  It is like the Star Ship gets in trouble with the worse villains in the galaxy and then the captain says to the crew, “Everybody close your eyes, cross your fingers and repeat 3 times in your mind – I believe in elves”.  Then somehow it works, and they get out of another impossible situation.

It's not you.  Season 1 and 2 of DIS were ok.  A little emphasis on inclusion of minorities, a little emphasis on various woke topics, but still OK trek IMO. 

S3, however, was produced and released during COVID lockdown, the George Floyd/BLM riots, cities on fire across the US, the trans/gender theory emergence, an energetic ANTIFA wanting to burn the system down, and the ensuing panicky response by businesses, especially the entertainment industry.  It seemed to me like the emphasis on woke got turned up to 11 starting in season 3. 

Quote

Spoilers.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

The nontraditional family unit of Stamets and Colber standing smilingly and supportively behind the nonbinary Adira as they learn lessons about self-acceptance.  The planet of the black people.  Federation destroyed by the scream of an outraged child.  Michael gets to wear the hair of her people. Tilly gets to finally be herself in a universe that doesn't fat shame.  The only characters thinking about traditional marriage are different species.  

Between S4 and S5, we heard that they understood that social justice messaging was turning people off, so they promised to make S5 more story-focused.  I'm still watching to see what I think.

 

But despite DIS almost fatally wounding all things Trek in my eyes, the Trek Universe gave me two gifts that make up for it.

1. Animated snarky and irreverent Lower Decks.  Finally saying all the quiet parts out loud, like the real purpose of the holodeck.  Hilarious.

2. For me and the one other guy out there who have waited decades for a Star Trek musical episode, Strange New Worlds came through with Season 2, Episode 9:

The Enterprise crew notices a problem.

Nurse Chapel dumps Spock to pursue her career

Spock deals with both getting dumped, and being the unanticipated variable

 

Honestly, if the rest of Trek stinks forever, those 2 things will be enough for me to be happy.

Edited May 30, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[Ironhold]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I'm not sure if I buy that logic.  I've seen plenty of network shows that are fantastic year after year.  And I've seen syndicated shows that were only mediocre that kept getting renewed anyway.

TNG and DS9 were syndicated in an era where syndicated content was even more disposable than facial tissue, while Voyager was the flag carrier for UPN. Big world of difference. 

[Carborendum]

5 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

TNG and DS9 were syndicated in an era where syndicated content was even more disposable than facial tissue, while Voyager was the flag carrier for UPN. Big world of difference. 

I'm not sure what your point is vis-a-vis my comment that you quoted.

[Vort]

5 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Spock deals with both getting dumped, and being the unanticipated variable

Nice pun.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

As far as 'Hard Science Fiction,' I would say of all the series out there that The Expanse is the closest to reality. Besides the overuse of a certain swear word and graphic violence, I would say it is the best series to follow actual physical laws. Star Trek Discovery is everything that is wrong with modern story telling. 

 

[NeuroTypical]

9 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

As far as 'Hard Science Fiction,' I would say of all the series out there that The Expanse is the closest to reality. Besides the overuse of a certain swear word and graphic violence, I would say it is the best series to follow actual physical laws.

Agreed.  And I'd also say it had a pretty good grasp on how humans behave, and what a possible future might look like.  "Take humanity, assume the historical ramp of technological advancement and sociopolitical trends continues for a couple hundred years, add the Epstein Drive and the Protomolecule.  Discuss."

I especially appreciate the fact that Mormons are still around in this future, and the church is still so wealthy we're able to afford a generation ship to get us to the next habitable solar system in 300 years.

Edited May 31, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[Ironhold]

On 5/30/2024 at 2:15 PM, Carborendum said:

I'm not sure what your point is vis-a-vis my comment that you quoted.

The way syndicated television worked in the 1980s and 1990s, shows had to put in extreme amounts of effort just to get numbers and financial statements that network TV shows in the 1990s and 2000s just took for granted. 

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Ironhold said:

The way syndicated television worked in the 1980s and 1990s, shows had to put in extreme amounts of effort just to get numbers and financial statements that network TV shows in the 1990s and 2000s just took for granted. 

Yes, you said that.   What I said was that there are plenty of examples of the exact opposite. 

[Still_Small_Voice]

I like many of the Star Trek original series (with enhanced special effects), Star Trek the Next Generation and Voyager. 

The newest productions of Star Trek have lost Gene Rodenberry's dream for a better future so I dismiss them.

[zil2]

1 hour ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

Gene Rodenberry's dream for a better future

Pfff.  Maybe by his definition of "better" - certainly not by God's.

[Still_Small_Voice]

17 hours ago, zil2 said:

Pfff.  Maybe by his definition of "better" - certainly not by God's.

I thought the Star Trek economics to be very unrealistic.  The Aliens movie science fiction future economics seemed much more plausible to me.

[mirkwood]

I liked the original the best.  TNG was pretty good.  DS9 was awful.  Voyager was all right.  I stopped watching after that series.

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

I thought the Star Trek economics to be very unrealistic. 

Oh, there's no need for capitalism in a universe with limitless energy and where free things come out of a magic box on a whim.  Until we have those things, we'll need a way to allocate limited resources, and we humans have had the best luck with capitalism so far. 

I also note with smug satisfaction that ST eventually gave up on their notions of a post-scarcity utopia with DS9.  There'll always be Ferrengi, and there'll always be a need for something like gold-pressed latinum. 

Anyone mad at DS9 should go back and watch what they did with Quark and his people.  Here's the money-grubbing Ferrengi using logic to win an economics-based argument against a Vulcan: