Jump to content

New Star Trek Series Premieres January 2017


Tex_NL

Recommended Posts

You raise a lot of excellent points.  I fear we're in danger of hijacking the thread, though, so I'll try to keep my responses brief.

15 hours ago, GeneralVeers said:

The creativity problem is easy to see just by looking at how few plot engines there actually are in movies.

That's a good point, though I also think it's worth considering how much of this is due to an actual lack of creativity versus the reluctance of investors to put their money into a movie that may or may not give a return on their investment, especially given that movies have also gotten much, much, much more expensive.

15 hours ago, GeneralVeers said:

The fear of giving offense?

These are good points, too, and bear thinking about.  I have to wonder if it would be more acceptable if the ethnic and national groups you've singled out were better represented in all sorts of roles.e

15 hours ago, GeneralVeers said:

This episode was not about the present; the human race has never fought a global nuclear war.

That episode was not about a nuclear war, either.  That was an explanation for a plot-driving MacGuffin, which isn't at all the same thing.  And even those episodes that were about nuclear war tended to treat it as a warning to the present.

15 hours ago, GeneralVeers said:

These are not new.

I didn't say they were.  I said they were "among the bigger problems society is aware that it is currently facing".  There's an important difference.

15 hours ago, GeneralVeers said:

The Doomsday Machine, that one ST:TOS episode I keep talking about? Very sensory experience.

Yes, and I said as much.  You'll never have a collection of media that are completely one or the other.  I think we've swung towards a heavier emphasis on experience rather than contemplation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/6/2016 at 8:53 AM, Nikolai said:

You raise a lot of excellent points.  I fear we're in danger of hijacking the thread, though, so I'll try to keep my responses brief.

That's difficult to avoid when Star Trek is the topic.......

Tell ya what, I'll just skip the reply-fest for a bit and run off on a tangent. ^_^

You know what I'd like to see in a new Star Trek series? A series taking place another generation after TNG, where the Federation has gone sour, has thrown the Prime Directive out the airlock, is sick of taking crap from all those alien species who fly up to the Enterprise and greet the Federation with sentences that all end with "or die", has developed warships that could eat the Scimitar for lunch, and is beating the living hell out of EVERYBODY. The overarching theme being "this is what could happen when you treat the good guys like dirt".

Well, ideally they should just stop making new Star Trek, because the idiot writers who keep getting their hands on the franchise (you too, JJ Abrams, I don't wanna hear any flak outta you!) clearly don't know how to write true Star Trek. But if they insist on writing new Star Trek, the above is how they should do it. Turn some of the old tropes on their heads so the audience doesn't know what's going to happen five minutes after an episode starts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/8/2016 at 7:52 PM, GeneralVeers said:

That's difficult to avoid when Star Trek is the topic.......

Well, technically, the new Star Trek series is, not the sins of past Star Trek series.

That said, I applaud your return to rough-and-tumble -- it's what drew me full-circle back into TOS fandom after all these years -- but I worry that too much of that will repeat the problems that have got people complaining about J. J. Abrams.  (Most of the complaints I hear are that there's too much action and not enough thoughtfulness.)  Let me propose something from the other end of the spectrum.

I'd kind of like to see a series that is to the bridge crew what The West Wing was to the President and his cabinet... because so far, we've sort of seen most of the stories from the point of view of people who are comfortably in charge.  (Trek is largely political allegory, and it should come as no surprise that it was written in a country that has enjoyed being a relatively uncontested superpower for some time.)

The parts of Trek that I personally like best (and I realize that other people like it for other reasons, and will probably hate this idea) are not when they're showing us humans flying around and fixing everyone else's problems like British people afflicted with what Kipling called "the white man's burden"; it's when they're struggling to cope with the unknown or things that are outside their direct control, and sometimes showing us things that we need to examine in our society.  So here's the pitch: Our main cast isn't the bridge crew; it's a clique of cadets fresh out of Starfleet Academy, from a race generally considered a Federation backwater, where people hardly ever go to Starfleet Academy at all (never mind manage to secure duty on one of the Federation's finest starships).  The bridge crew is always known and present, the same way that the President was always there in The West Wing, even when he wasn't on camera; but while we get to see the prejudices and difficulties these underdogs encounter as they interact with beings closer to hegemony, we get to see how we treat people without thinking about it.  And we see not only how underdogs understand and interact with brand-new peoples and cultures -- we get to see how they react to how the hegemony understands and interacts with brand-new peoples and cultures.

The biggest flaw I perceive in this goes back to the fact that there are an awful lot of writers who pile into any Trek series, and they tend to dilute its content over time.  I worry that it will eventually devolve into yet another show starring trendy young people having trendy young people problems; there are already too many of those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Nikolai said:

Well, technically, the new Star Trek series is, not the sins of past Star Trek series.

"Those who fail to learn from history....." ^_^

To get the New Star Trek right, we need to study what previous Star Treks did wrong.

 

6 hours ago, Nikolai said:

That said, I applaud your return to rough-and-tumble -- it's what drew me full-circle back into TOS fandom after all these years -- but I worry that too much of that will repeat the problems that have got people complaining about J. J. Abrams.  (Most of the complaints I hear are that there's too much action and not enough thoughtfulness.)

The lack of thoughtfulness is a problem all over the place, not just in Star Trek. The thing is, in modern sci-fi stories (and many outside sci-fi, as well), you're not permitted to "think". There are conclusions you're required to reach, or you're considered a religious nut or a right-winger or a fascist or a whatever else they call politically incorrect people these days. Avatar, Elysium, District 9, and every Resident Evil movie make good examples; it's obvious which side is the Bad Guys, and that side is almost always the side that's racist, corporate, a branch of government, and/or destroying the environment. And the good guys are not permitted to do any of the following: make a profit from their escapades (the good guy usually ends up having to return The Treasure or gets deprived of it via some lame course of events the writers pull out of thin air), kill one person to save a billion, do the opposite of that and exterminate an entire race of evil dirtbags on the off chance that one member of that race of evil dirtbags might only be 99% evil, or receive significant power over people, governments, or the fabric of space and time (the old "power corrupts" trope). The best way you draw attention to a Good Guy and make him stand out is to turn some of these tropes on their heads.

The problem with modern sci-fi is, it's not asking questions. It's providing answers. There's very little actual "thinking". And the problem with this problem is, it obviously works and produces films that are commercial successes, which is ironic whenever a film that preaches against corporate greed makes a billion dollar profit for a corporation. Which happens a lot.

 

6 hours ago, Nikolai said:

 Let me propose something from the other end of the spectrum.

I'd kind of like to see a series that is to the bridge crew what The West Wing was to the President and his cabinet... because so far, we've sort of seen most of the stories from the point of view of people who are comfortably in charge.  (Trek is largely political allegory, and it should come as no surprise that it was written in a country that has enjoyed being a relatively uncontested superpower for some time.)

Uhhh.....you're aware that Star Trek TOS was written during the Cold War? The United States was not "relatively uncontested" back then. I know because I lived it. As time goes on, the world sees an increasing number of people who were born after the Cold War ended, and never knew what it was like to wonder if tomorrow the Soviet Union might be sending over a few housewarming presents........

Star Trek TOS was written in a time when white and black people didn't get along (which is to say they got along very badly compared to today, because some claim there are still issues today) and the Cold War was running full steam. Guess what, Kirk had Uhura and Chekhov on the Enterprise command staff. I liked that part of the show as a kid, and not only for the eye candy in the short skirt at the comms station, deliberately posed to give the camera a very tasty side view........

Well, actually, yeah, it was largely for that reason. But also it showed that the future was different, and some "old" problems had been solved.

 

6 hours ago, Nikolai said:

So here's the pitch: Our main cast isn't the bridge crew; it's a clique of cadets fresh out of Starfleet Academy, from a race generally considered a Federation backwater, where people hardly ever go to Starfleet Academy at all (never mind manage to secure duty on one of the Federation's finest starships).  The bridge crew is always known and present, the same way that the President was always there in The West Wing, even when he wasn't on camera; but while we get to see the prejudices and difficulties these underdogs encounter as they interact with beings closer to hegemony, we get to see how we treat people without thinking about it.

Idea dead on arrival. "Enterprise" tried to do this angle. The humans were the underdog, just getting out into the galaxy, and getting treated rather badly by more advanced races such as the Vulcans. And in a later season, the humans ended up being the ones who were staring down the barrel of a superweapon that turned out to be so Death-Star-ripoff-esque that I facepalmed hard enough to dislocate my jaw.

The show was a flop. The idea did not work. Not because of the bad writing and flat acting. The core ideas just didn't fit in Star Trek.

Nobody blinks twice when the Klingons or the Romulans are mean and nasty to others. That's just who they are and what they do. But when it's the FEDERATION doing it.......that's something never seen before. It would be a huge surprise to the viewers, shocking and terrifying, and at the same time thoroughly satisfying when the Bad Guys get the living hell beat out of them and watch helplessly as their cities burn to the ground. Not the Federation turning evil. Too cliche' (though, Star Trek Voyager's "Living Witness" was a whole lot of fun to watch!). The Federation is still the good guys, and the Bad Guys are still the Bad Guys, but when the Good Guys are cruel and vicious towards the Bad Guys......you've got some serious drama and suspense there.

 

Bottom line. Here's what past Star Treks have been doing wrong. Past Star Treks are too predictable. Too formula. Too preachy. Not provoking thought or imagination because the audience has seen the same themes a billion times already. Changes need to be made so that the audience doesn't know what to expect going in, and has significant imagination and hope as they wait to discover what the Federation explorers are going to find on the other side of the force-fielded doorway. That's why DS9 and Voyager flopped--too dark, and dark all the time. Most of the time there wasn't hope, there was simply dread.

"Enterprise" is a bit more complex than the above. The sense of exploration and discovery was largely absent, just as in DS9 and Voyager--but since "Enterprise" was decades before either, the fact that the mood was very similar killed the sense of the Federation just getting started. It made it feel as if the human race was merely running in circles, from scary and dreadful in "Enterprise" to inspired exploration in TOS and TNG, then running back home and hiding under your bed in DS9 and Voyager for fear of bumping into a deactivated superweapon that's one button push away from going kaboom. Couldn't "Enterprise" have had some episodes where they discovered really neat things that did NOT threaten to trigger an interstellar war?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, GeneralVeers said:

The problem with modern sci-fi is, it's not asking questions. It's providing answers.

I like the succinctness of that.

12 hours ago, GeneralVeers said:

Uhhh.....you're aware that Star Trek TOS was written during the Cold War? The United States was not "relatively uncontested" back then. I know because I lived it.

As did I.  I grew up under the constant threat of nuclear war.  I also paid attention to Russia, and even visited the country.  By "relatively uncontested", I don't mean that there were no shows of power against it -- just that it's been in an economic and martial class by itself, and was even during the height of the Cold War.  We knew that, while a formidable foe with more than enough deterrent to keep us from trying to dictate terms, the economic inertia of the former Soviet Union didn't really compare to the United States.

12 hours ago, GeneralVeers said:

Idea dead on arrival. "Enterprise" tried to do this angle. The humans were the underdog, just getting out into the galaxy, and getting treated rather badly by more advanced races such as the Vulcans.

Right, but the Vulcans weren't always present.  They held a sort of power that amounted to a lot of blustering and threatening, but we never saw them trying to press humans into a larger social order in which they had little to no stake.  In fact, just the opposite -- when the Federation is finally formed, humans are the ones to define large amounts of policy and structure; the Vulcans are large players, but there's no question that Earth is the cultural, political, and military capital of the Federation.  Part of the frustration a lot of people had -- which, I'd argue, led to the show's demise -- is that supposed Vulcan domination was used as little more than an occasional plot point, not as part of a social order that had to be considered at every turn.  As such, it failed to have the ring of verisimilitude.  It was nothing like what we know about hegemonic regimes.

In other words, there was occasional "You will do this, humans, and we will make you, because we are more powerful than you" when some kind of deus ex machina was needed to steer the plot -- but there was no "You will do this, because you are part of us, and this is the way we do things -- and there are more of us who want it this way, even if you don't, so it's clearly good for the society as a whole".  There was no exploration of the tendency of democracies (or democratic republics) to turn into rule-by-majority even in those circumstances where that rule proves a detriment to those who cannot hope to influence the majority.

What is it like to be within a power structure where you were present, but had little say as to how things were made, even as the larger society formed itself in no small part due to the effort and ability of your people?  Where large sections of a society seem bent to preserving the status quo for the people in power and those who might come up after them, even as that society trumpets its freedom and fairness?  That's what I'd like to see.

We also have no sense of how it is that the Vulcans came to recognize their error.  I trust that the humans in the outline I've provided would, but that a quick fix for this sort of thing is difficult and would not be instant.

It's also not meant to be the focus, even though it provides a backdrop.

12 hours ago, GeneralVeers said:

The Federation is still the good guys, and the Bad Guys are still the Bad Guys, but when the Good Guys are cruel and vicious towards the Bad Guys......you've got some serious drama and suspense there.

I disagree.  There's no "drama" in watching fisticuffs play out, or even in the (relatively brief) shock that a Good Guy is Behaving Badly.  Drama comes from watching people try to cope with their problems, not in watching them attempt to destroy their problems.  And suspense that consists mostly of "Who's going to beat up whom?", or even "Who's going to get beat up this episode?", is pretty lazily written.

I'd also opine that this is antithetical to Star Trek as we've come to understand it.  Much of the success the show has enjoyed has been to show that humans can learn from their mistakes and become better at tolerating the differences among ourselves -- and, by extension, other peoples and cultures we encounter.  That we can rise above the kind of vicious pettiness that makes us do terrible things to people we don't get along with or people who scare us.  Determining that this kind of mutual understanding and respect is not the Federation after all would be frustrating to many fans.

Edited by Nikolai
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Nikolai said:

As did I.  I grew up under the constant threat of nuclear war.  I also paid attention to Russia, and even visited the country.  By "relatively uncontested", I don't mean that there were no shows of power against it -- just that it's been in an economic and martial class by itself, and was even during the height of the Cold War.

A contest doesn't have to be fifty-fifty. Yes, the Soviet Union was pretty much completely outmatched, but the Cold War still existed and was a constantly scary thing to everybody (well, everybody in the United States anyway) who lived under its shadow. I stand by my previous statement. The U.S. was not "relatively uncontested". The U.S. lived under daily threat of annihilation. Yet here was this one TV show, with a Russian (notice the show never referred to Chekhov as "Soviet") on the bridge of a human spaceship, his mere presence saying "hey, here's an idea--what if World War III never happened???". That was not a parable/warning about present-day Earth. It was the show trying to entertain people by saying "what if" instead of "humans are dirtbags" (which is another thing modern sci-fi does way too often).

 

Quote

Right, but the Vulcans weren't always present.

They didn't have to be (you can't "unmake" first contact). In fact, that would have detracted from the show, because Star Trek is (well, WAS) supposed to be about a lot of other things besides interplanetary politics. It wasn't named "Antares Wing". ^_^

 

Quote

In fact, just the opposite -- when the Federation is finally formed, humans are the ones to define large amounts of policy and structure; the Vulcans are large players, but there's no question that Earth is the cultural, political, and military capital of the Federation.  Part of the frustration a lot of people had -- which, I'd argue, led to the show's demise -- is that supposed Vulcan domination was used as little more than an occasional plot point, not as part of a social order that had to be considered at every turn.  As such, it failed to have the ring of verisimilitude.  It was nothing like what we know about hegemonic regimes.

Then you and the other people who felt this way shouldn't have been watching Star Trek.

You should have been watching Babylon 5.

This is another problem with modern sci-fi. Some idiot in Hollywood tries to shoehorn currently-existing icons into places where they don't fit in order to use those icons to generate publicity and hype for a mediocre story. There are cases where the writers should instead create a whole new sci-fi story, in a whole new universe. But, of course, that takes actual work.............

Don't try to make Star Trek into something it isn't.

 

Quote

What is it like to be within a power structure where you were present, but had little say as to how things were made, even as the larger society formed itself in no small part due to the effort and ability of your people?  Where large sections of a society seem bent to preserving the status quo for the people in power and those who might come up after them, even as that society trumpets its freedom and fairness?

That was called "grade school". It sucked, and I never needed the television set to tell me why. The reason I turned on the television set after school was to get away from all that crap.

 

Quote

I disagree.  There's no "drama" in watching fisticuffs play out, or even in the (relatively brief) shock that a Good Guy is Behaving Badly.

Not "the Good Guy behaving badly". The Good Guy behaving violently. Violence isn't bad. Violence against GOOD people is bad. Violence against BAD people is GOOD.

 

Quote

Drama comes from watching people try to cope with their problems, not in watching them attempt to destroy their problems.

"The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank." One of my favorite lines in any sci-fi show.

Photon torpedoes make great coping mechanisms.

 

Quote

And suspense that consists mostly of "Who's going to beat up whom?", or even "Who's going to get beat up this episode?", is pretty lazily written.

Usually. But Star Trek is the exception to the above rule. The Federation tries very hard to avoid beating people up--it tries so hard that the audience comes to expect it. When the Klingons or Romulans do violent shenanigans, nobody is surprised. At. All. When the Federation does violent shenanigans----"whoa, what just happened!?!?" When the Federation does violent shenanigans against evil dirtbags who deserve to die screaming----"Yaaaay! Hit 'em again!! HIT 'EM AGAIN!!!"

 

Quote

I'd also opine that this is antithetical to Star Trek as we've come to understand it.  Much of the success the show has enjoyed has been to show that humans can learn from their mistakes and become better at tolerating the differences among ourselves -- and, by extension, other peoples and cultures we encounter.  That we can rise above the kind of vicious pettiness that makes us do terrible things to people we don't get along with or people who scare us.  Determining that this kind of mutual understanding and respect is not the Federation after all would be frustrating to many fans.

The USS Enterprise brings real warfare back to the people of Eminiar and Vendikar. (A Taste of Armageddon)

The USS Enterprise imprisons a career criminal without a jury trial. (I, Mudd)

The USS Enterprise deliberately violates Romulan space for espionage purposes. (The Enterprise Incident)

The USS Enterprise destroys the religion and defense system that protected a primitive culture. (The Apple)

The USS Enterprise destroys a technologically-advanced underground civilization in order to save Spock. (Spock's Brain)

The USS Enterprise commits genocide. (Operation: Annihilate, The Lights of Zetar, Obsession, The Man Trap, possibly others)

The USS Enterprise saves the galaxy using one weapon of mass destruction against another. (The Doomsday Machine)

 

Cue snarky joke: "I dunno what show you were watching, Nikolai, but it wasn't Star Trek!" <drum riff>

 

What made the original Star Trek such a success (well, one thing out of many, but this was a big one) was that you didn't know how it was going to end. Yes, a lot of the time the Federation dealt with situations peaceably, but sometimes they did things that could be considered war crimes even back when the episodes first aired. You didn't know how Kirk and his crew were going to handle whatever situation they got themselves into. But all the time, in every episode, you knew Kirk and his crew were entirely capable of committing extreme violence........

 

Edit: something I just thought of, Nik--this theme you want to see, about the underdog having to deal with The Man? Star Trek TOS already did that theme in "Errand of Mercy" where the Enterprise crew were trying to defend a primitive society from the Klingons. It turned out this "primitive" society was the near-omnipotent Organians.

The episode got a mediocre rating. Since then, the trope of godlike beings who consider humans annoying has been worked to death and past it. Q was amusing early on in TNG, but he was overly cliche' from the start and was merely an annoyance himself later on (he was funny but disappointing in his appearances in Voyager). How did humans learn to cope with The Man? By changing the channel.....

Edited by GeneralVeers
Addenum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/10/2016 at 6:51 PM, GeneralVeers said:

A contest doesn't have to be fifty-fifty.

Excellent point.

On 2/10/2016 at 6:51 PM, GeneralVeers said:

They didn't have to be (you can't "unmake" first contact).

They would in the kind of plotline I'm trying to describe.

On 2/10/2016 at 6:51 PM, GeneralVeers said:

The reason I turned on the television set after school was to get away from all that crap.

Isn't it just as legitimate for people to want to watch television for other reasons -- e.g., to remind oneself that all that crap is temporary, or remember that all that crap can be overcome rather than ignored or stomped into submission?

On 2/10/2016 at 6:51 PM, GeneralVeers said:

Violence isn't bad. Violence against GOOD people is bad. Violence against BAD people is GOOD.

I disagree, since compassion is a virtue.  Violence always carries collateral damage -- innocent people will suffer, sooner or later.  That's why violence should be a last resort.  (Now, come up with a baddie who stands to create even more collateral damage than the use of violence against him/her/it/them, and I'd be right there cheering as you do below.)

On 2/10/2016 at 6:51 PM, GeneralVeers said:

When the Federation does violent shenanigans against evil dirtbags who deserve to die screaming----"Yaaaay! Hit 'em again!! HIT 'EM AGAIN!!!"

It's also been brilliant when it shows that the people who seem to deserve the screaming death you describe can be dealt with more constructively, or may have been misunderstood.  (Consider how Kirk dealt with the Gorn.)

On 2/10/2016 at 6:51 PM, GeneralVeers said:

What made the original Star Trek such a success (well, one thing out of many, but this was a big one) was that you didn't know how it was going to end.

I find myself in agreement with this.  One of the gripes I have about even TNG was that it made space travel seem routine in many regards.

On 2/10/2016 at 6:51 PM, GeneralVeers said:

Star Trek TOS already did that theme in "Errand of Mercy" where the Enterprise crew were trying to defend a primitive society from the Klingons. It turned out this "primitive" society was the near-omnipotent Organians.

So it wasn't really oppressed by an un-self-aware hegemon, then, was it?  And seeing as the Organians had a complete society of their own, it was pretty far away from the plotline I've tried to describe.

Being oppressed isn't always simply a matter of "I have more power than you".  Sometimes it's simply a question of who gets to call the shots in a society where everyone pretends you're included equally.

Edited by Nikolai
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really sure what to say about this new series honestly.  I know I am NOT forking over yet ANOTHER fee for a subscription service so if I do want to see it I'll have to acquire it by other means.  

If its in the JJ-verse then its an automatic !@#$ off from me. 

If it involves a lost ship or a ship that is NOT the Enterprise on a mission of exploration and discovery, then it also gets a !@#$ off.

If its "combat the evil alien of the week" bull hockey like, Voyager, or Enterprise got into, then it can !@#$ off as well.

If it tries to cast anyone that has ever been attached to Disney tween shows or a dumb sitcom or has never done at least some proper theater work, then, well, you know the drill by now.

Lastly, if I have to see one more stupid story arch involving the Borg, I may just gouge out my eyes and lobotomize myself.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, JamesL86 said:

Lastly, if I have to see one more stupid story arch involving the Borg, I may just gouge out my eyes and lobotomize myself.

Actually one Borg episode/two-parter per show is OK in my book. I liked that they came back to First Contact in ST:ENT - I think TOS and DS9 (apart from Sisko's flashbacks) are the only ones not showing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/16/2016 at 7:35 AM, Nikolai said:

Isn't it just as legitimate for people to want to watch television for other reasons -- e.g., to remind oneself that all that crap is temporary, or remember that all that crap can be overcome rather than ignored or stomped into submission?

"Stomping the bad guys into submission" IS the "other" reason. Television and movies already do it your way, and far too often.

Star Trek TOS stood out. It was better than other television. The only way to be better than all the others is to do things differently. Turning Star Trek into the same old storylines as everything else is precisely what will--or rather, already did--kill the franchise.

 

On 2/16/2016 at 7:35 AM, Nikolai said:

I disagree, since compassion is a virtue.

Wrong. Compassion towards good people is a virtue. Compassion towards evil people is itself evil. In fact, compassion is the bait with which many scam artists and other criminals lure their victims. Next time somebody from Nigeria e-mails you and "needs your help"? Think of me. ^_^

 

On 2/16/2016 at 7:35 AM, Nikolai said:

Violence always carries collateral damage -- innocent people will suffer, sooner or later.  That's why violence should be a last resort.  (Now, come up with a baddie who stands to create even more collateral damage than the use of violence against him/her/it/them, and I'd be right there cheering as you do below.)

Oh, come on. One of those has popped up on your computer screen several times already. In this thread.

The Planet Killer from "The Doomsday Machine".

(elsewhere in fiction there's the Galactic Empire, the Borg, Thanos, the Umbrella Corporation, almost all Bond villains, and out here in the real world you've got the Nazis, Imperial Japan, North Korea, drug dealers, pretty much every terrorist everywhere, etc etc etc)

Sure, violence against the bad guys carries collateral damage. Worth it. Because violence by the bad guys causes a lot more. Let the bad guys live, they keep being bad, and they destroy stuff again and again and again. Kill a bad guy and you're done; the collateral damage only happens once.

 

On 2/16/2016 at 7:35 AM, Nikolai said:

So it wasn't really oppressed by an un-self-aware hegemon, then, was it?  And seeing as the Organians had a complete society of their own, it was pretty far away from the plotline I've tried to describe.

Heheheh.......that's just it. It was the ORGANIANS who were the hegemon, not the Klingons. Remember how the episode ended? The Organians disabled entire fleets galaxywide, and then imposed the Organian Peace Treaty. The Organians casually and high-nosedly said "this is how you're going to do it from now on". They became the always-present hegemon.

Except that "Errand of Mercy" got mediocre ratings, and the whole storyline was dropped. If I recall correctly, the Organian Peace Treaty was only mentioned once afterwards ("The Trouble With Tribbles") and that was it. The writers kept other storylines, such as violence between the Federation and Klingons, but they dumped the idea of the Organian Hegemon. And keep in mind, the Star Trek writers at the time were actually good. When people like that decide to dump an idea, it's probably a bad idea.

 

14 hours ago, JamesL86 said:

Lastly, if I have to see one more stupid story arch involving the Borg, I may just gouge out my eyes and lobotomize myself.

Dear God, the Borg have been overused to death. And copied relentlessly in other sci-fi venues.

(basically I went "me too" to your entire list, but the above deserved special mention)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One question remains, what about the decades of canon? J.J. jumbled it quite a bit, sometimes a bit more than I would like, but he gets his alternative reality bonus.

Yet why should we call something Star Trek if we through everything out of the window? A question I asked myself after watching the second X-Files movie, it was a text book crime thriller, but somehow I expect something different from an X-Files movie. Had an episode of the TV show been that mundane it would have been original, but in a movie I expect something more to the core/spirit of a franchise's basic idea.

 

13 hours ago, GeneralVeers said:

Wrong. Compassion towards good people is a virtue. Compassion towards evil people is itself evil. In fact, compassion is the bait with which many scam artists and other criminals lure their victims.

Sure, violence against the bad guys carries collateral damage. Worth it. Because violence by the bad guys causes a lot more. Let the bad guys live, they keep being bad, and they destroy stuff again and again and again. Kill a bad guy and you're done; the collateral damage only happens once.

If the world only was that easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, GeneralVeers said:

"Stomping the bad guys into submission" IS the "other" reason. Television and movies already do it your way, and far too often.

It seems to me that this is the same sort of fallacy that conservatives who complain about "the liberal media" engage in, or the liberals who are convinced that television is wholly steered by moneyed conservative interests.  Taken as a whole, television sends out enough messages that it's a jumbled mess, and it would be difficult to pull a coherent way to view the world out of the pile.

There are lots of television shows that stomp bad guys into submission, and lots of television shows that don't.  Different people prefer different styles for different reasons.

20 hours ago, GeneralVeers said:

Compassion towards evil people is itself evil.

I disagree.  In fact, this disagreement is why I consider things like the American Constitution's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment" (Amendment 8) to be virtuous, as well as old legal standbys like habeus corpus.

The goal of compassionate punishment is not merely punishment; it is also an attempt to get the perpetrator to behave better when the punishment stops.  (We're not very good at this, but I'd like to see us become better.)

20 hours ago, GeneralVeers said:

Oh, come on. One of those has popped up on your computer screen several times already. In this thread.

I know.  Please read the parenthetical bit in the block you quoted.

20 hours ago, GeneralVeers said:

Kill a bad guy and you're done; the collateral damage only happens once.

Sometimes, yes.  Sometimes, you are seen killing the bad guy by those who think you should have handled it differently, and they respond with force when an opportunity becomes available -- enough force that they hope you will learn your lesson.  And it goes back and forth for a long time.  This is as old as human history, and we're watching this sort of thing unfold as I speak.  The only way to get an enemy -- or someone who cares about your enemy -- not to retaliate is either to pound them and everything that loves them into the dust, or to respond in such a way that their hateful rhetoric against you and your kind fails to match reality.  ("They wantonly bomb our innocent civilians" only works to rally people to your cause if they do bomb your innocent civilians, even only as collateral damage.)

20 hours ago, GeneralVeers said:

It was the ORGANIANS who were the hegemon, not the Klingons.

You seem confused about what "hegemon" means.  There is no sense in which the Organians exerted the most powerful cultural influence on either the Federation or the Klingons.  They dictated the terms of warfare, but they did nothing to interfere with the self-governance of, or create any kind of aggression or expansion into, the cultures of these interstellar governments.  Even after the Organian Treaty, the Federation and the Klingon Empire still had something akin to what we would call "national sovereignty" in our day; there was no attempt to erase and supplant the identity of their peoples with something else, even as they assured them that they had equal say in events surrounding them.

I'd argue that "Errand of Mercy" got poor ratings because it employed godlike beings dictating military terms.  Godlike beings generally make for poor drama; consider how they had to weaken Superman over the decades to keep him interesting.  What I'm advocating has absolutely nothing to do with that; it has more to do with the way even cultures that claim to value equality can be thoughtless in their assumption that everyone else sees things the way they do.

Keep the military excitement, if you want.  Keep the exploration into the unknown, and the unpredictable responses to it, that make for thrilling and intriguing television.  These are good strengths to retain.  But please don't misunderstand me.  I'm not trying to depict the Federation as some kind of threat to the main characters in my suggestion, any more than President Josiah Bartlet was a threat in The West Wing when he did things that would sometimes surprise and shock his staff.  He just did things differently than they might have chosen to do them, and that created dramatic tension.

Edited by Nikolai
misspelled "expansion"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Vanamonde, that right there is one of the big reasons good sci-fi should avoid being preachy.

You don't become great sci-fi by offending half the audience. (a few episodes of TNG tried that, and the episodes that did, failed miserably in the ratings)

 

On 2/18/2016 at 7:18 AM, Nikolai said:

You seem confused about what "hegemon" means.  There is no sense in which the Organians exerted the most powerful cultural influence on either the Federation or the Klingons.

The definition of "hegemony" on dictionary.com doesn't have the word "cultural" anywhere in it.

 

Quote

They dictated the terms of warfare, but

And that's all that's necessary. The Organians were the smart-alecky aliens who thought they knew what was best for everybody. The thing that annoyed me most about "Errand of Mercy" was that if the Organians were so smart, they should have realized the humans DIDN'T KNOW who the Organians really were. If the O's had simply told the humans what was going on right off the bat, things wouldn't have gotten out of hand.

But then, of course, we wouldn't have had an episode. The "Scripted Idiocy" trope was required to make it work.

Edit: on further reflection, and recalling more of how "Errand of Mercy" ended, the Organians did exert quite a powerful cultural influence on the Klingons! The entire Klingon culture is based around war, and the Organian Peace Treaty put the icksnay on that. It demanded both sides compete for colonies through peaceable methods, which not only slapped Klingon culture across the face (and slapping a spiky Klingon face is a tall order!) but also played straight to the Federation's strengths.

Hegemony factor five, Captain!

 

Quote

But please don't misunderstand me.

Don't assume I'm misunderstanding you. I understand you perfectly. I disagree with you. Big difference.

The stuff you want in Star Trek has been tried in Star Trek, and it did not work.

(oh, and I categorically disagree with all the political stuff you wrote)

Edited by GeneralVeers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, GeneralVeers said:

The definition of "hegemony" on dictionary.com doesn't have the word "cultural" anywhere in it.

Which version of dictionary.com are you looking at?  "Hegemon" is defined as "a person, nation, etc., that has or exercises hegemony"; and "hegemony" is defined as "leadership or predominant influence exercised by one nation over others, as in a confederation".  The word "cultural" may not be there, but the concept sure seems to be.  How would you exercise "leadership or predominant influence" without cultural domination?

5 hours ago, GeneralVeers said:

The Organians were the smart-alecky aliens who thought they knew what was best for everybody.

Granted.  But they had no "leadership or predominant influence".  They used magic to exert their will on a single aspect of society, and that's it.  There was no leadership -- simply a threat of punishment.  There was no "predominant influence" -- merely a command concerning a single sphere (military action).  That sticks in my craw plenty, too, but it couldn't be described as hegemony.

5 hours ago, GeneralVeers said:

The entire Klingon culture is based around war

To be honest, I think that was something that came out of lazy writing.  The Klingons started out as complex as humans.  They could be aggressive, sneaky, deceptive, sly... in short, they could exhibit that unpredictability you claim to crave.  Over time, though, they were reduced to one-note space Viking-caricatures.  (This may have been due in part, I think, to Kor's line in "Errand of Mercy", when he pines over the war that would not be thanks to the enforced cease-fire: "It would have been glorious!"  They were pretty fleshed out by other episodes through the series' run, like "Elaan of Troyius" and "Day of the Dove".  By TNG, though, the writers decided that war was all there was to the Klingon culture, and ramped up the talk about "honor" and "dying in battle".  This seems unfortunate to me.)

5 hours ago, GeneralVeers said:

I understand you perfectly. I disagree with you. Big difference.

I'd be inclined to believe this if I didn't have to keep referring back to places where I say the same thing you're saying (such as the use of force to prevent a much worse outcome, or the title of "The Doomsday Machine"), but you seem to pretend I never said any such thing; or if you didn't seem to make wholesale judgments about my age and experience (such as whether or not I lived during the Cold War).  Conversational tactics like these seem to indicate that you're not listening.  As do oversimplifications like these:

6 hours ago, GeneralVeers said:

The stuff you want in Star Trek has been tried in Star Trek, and it did not work.

I think it has not, because you're confusing military might or commandment with "leadership or predominant influence".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

Let's please not get into the politics of "the media." That won't end well. 

You're right.  I didn't mean to imply that I thought the media could be described to have a coherent political stance... but I can see how bringing it up could cause ugly arguments.  My apologies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nikolai said:

Which version of dictionary.com are you looking at?

Uhhh......that one. "dictionary.com". <how could there be two dictionary.com's?? what the hell just happened???>

 

Quote

"Hegemon" is defined as "a person, nation, etc., that has or exercises hegemony"; and "hegemony" is defined as "leadership or predominant influence exercised by one nation over others, as in a confederation".  The word "cultural" may not be there, but the concept sure seems to be.  How would you exercise "leadership or predominant influence" without cultural domination?

Military domination. :angry:

Or, the same way the central administration of the European Union manages all its member nations even though their cultures are all different. Or, the way the United States government manages all the states. Texas and California cannot be called "the same culture" or anywhere close to it even though they've both been in the U.S. for around a century and a half.

 

Quote

Granted.  But <the Organians> had no "leadership or predominant influence".  They used magic to exert their will on a single aspect of society, and that's it.  There was no leadership -- simply a threat of punishment.  There was no "predominant influence" -- merely a command concerning a single sphere (military action).  That sticks in my craw plenty, too, but it couldn't be described as hegemony.

I described it as hegemony in my last post. Forcing a warrior race to stop warrioring is a big cultural change.

 

Quote

To be honest, I think that was something that came out of lazy writing.  The Klingons started out as complex as humans.

Not complex at all. They were the stereotypical Bad Guy. Violent, sneaky, dishonest. Back in the day when you could use a stereotype and have it actually work well. The Klingons changed somewhat when TNG came around, but they have always been the type of folks who try to solve problems by head-butting them repeatedly. Comes naturally when you've got a spiked wrecking ball for a head.

 

Quote

I'd be inclined to believe this if I didn't have to keep referring back to places where I say the same thing you're saying (such as the use of force to prevent a much worse outcome, or the title of "The Doomsday Machine"), but you seem to pretend I never said any such thing; or if you didn't seem to make wholesale judgments about my age and experience (such as whether or not I lived during the Cold War).  Conversational tactics like these seem to indicate that you're not listening.

You say the next Star Trek should present the Federation as hegemony. I disagree. You say hegemony implicitly includes cultural domination. I disagree. You say compassion is a virtue. I disagree. You say violence should always be a last resort. I disagree. You say Star Trek is a parable about the present day. I disagree. Etc.

See? I have been listening. "Listen" does not equate to "agree". (thinking it does is a mistake--seen that a million times.)

And that, frankly, is the Big Secret to writing good sci-fi (or good fiction of pretty much any kind). The audience is going to be a lot of different people who disagree about pretty much everything. You have to play to this, in one of three ways.

Way #1: The Moral Of The Story has to be something pretty much everybody can agree on. Which is done far too often.

Way #2: You present the Moral Of The Story as an ethical question/dilemma/puzzle that leaves the characters in the show divided and disagreeing with each other. That allows everyone in the audience to pick a side. Win-win scenario.

Way #3: The show contains enough action and violence that people who want to ignore the ethical crap can do so, and just enjoy the ride. This is the best way because it produces the most fun for the biggest audience (ref. my previous tale about guys sitting next to me in the TV lounge going "yay, Star Trek TNG is going to have some violence in it next time!")

 

Quote

or if you didn't seem to make wholesale judgments about my age and experience (such as whether or not I lived during the Cold War).

I didn't. I described my personal experience of the Cold War, and pointed out the fact that a lot of people had been born after it and had no idea what it was like. Whether you were one of those people? Irrelevant. It doesn't change the fact that a bunch of others were.

Edited by GeneralVeers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, GeneralVeers said:

Military domination. :angry:

I guess I read a bit too much into the "as a confederation" part of the definition.  Ah, well.  Regardless, that's not what I'm trying to talk about.

20 hours ago, GeneralVeers said:

Not complex at all.

I guess your mileage may vary.  It seemed to me that a culture that would try to appropriate Shakespeare for itself, for example, would have to be more complex than a simple one-note caricature.  Plus, you know, the fact that they had a High Council and a Chancellor and so on kind of implied to me a more complex system of government than you saw in the TNG era, where the leader was decided by knife fight.

20 hours ago, GeneralVeers said:

"Listen" does not equate to "agree".

I know.  Remember how it was I who first pointed out that different people like different things for different reasons?

20 hours ago, GeneralVeers said:

You have to play to this, in one of three ways.

Way #4: You make points about what you think regardless of how you think people might respond.  Episodes like "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" didn't try to beat around the bush, or come down in a way that let people "agree to disagree", or bury its larger philosophical points with action -- and they continue to enjoy critical success.

Way #5: You use godlike beings to act as propaganda pieces for your point of view.  I think we both dislike this direction, though.

Way #6: You show why your characters have grown past some ways of thinking about and resolving issues and employ others.

Way #7: You have it remain an ethical dilemma for a while, but then you seek resolution in ways that allow your characters to act like adults who can grow and change.

All of these have different strengths and weaknesses.  It should be pretty obvious, though, that we have different goals; "most fun for the biggest audience" is more simplistic than I'd like to go, but I also admit that this makes it a much harder sell to studio executives.

20 hours ago, GeneralVeers said:

I described my personal experience of the Cold War

Yeah -- in re-reading it, I can see that point.  I first read it as a passive-aggressive snark against all those who didn't grow up under those circumstances, with a sideways glance actually within the conversation.  Sorry about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/21/2016 at 11:16 AM, Nikolai said:

I guess your mileage may vary.  It seemed to me that a culture that would try to appropriate Shakespeare for itself, for example

What's wrong with that?? Most of Shakespeare's plays were disturbingly violent. Right up the Klingon alley! "Hey, guys, look at this play! These humans aren't so weak after all!")

That aside, no: I didn't see the stuff you listed as deviating from the "we're tough" trope. In fact, every time Star Trek tried to change the Klingons away from that, they got stung by it. The Klingon commander quoting Shakespeare in the Sixth Movie was just ridiculous. Star Trek DS9 scored a rare slam dunk, however, when they deliberately turned the trope on its head with the episode about a Klingon ship whose crew were cautious and cowardly--you instantly realized these people had something seriously wrong with them, and it makes the perfect resolution when they find their warrior spirit and finish the episode gloating viciously at their recent victory over a Gem'Hadar battle group.

 

On 2/21/2016 at 11:16 AM, Nikolai said:

I know.  Remember how it was I who first pointed out that different people like different things for different reasons?

Then don't assume "GeneralVeers doesn't get what I'm saying " equals "GeneralVeers must not be listening".

 

On 2/21/2016 at 11:16 AM, Nikolai said:

Way #4: You make points about what you think regardless of how you think people might respond.  Episodes like "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" didn't try to beat around the bush, or come down in a way that let people "agree to disagree", or bury its larger philosophical points with action -- and they continue to enjoy critical success.

Way #5: You use godlike beings to act as propaganda pieces for your point of view.  I think we both dislike this direction, though.

Way #6: You show why your characters have grown past some ways of thinking about and resolving issues and employ others.

Way #7: You have it remain an ethical dilemma for a while, but then you seek resolution in ways that allow your characters to act like adults who can grow and change.

Way #4 is exactly what divides the audience rather than uniting it. You have to play to things most viewers/readers will agree on. ("Last Battlefield" drew poor ratings, by the way--the critics said the episode was drowned by the "overpowering message")

Way #5 will be offensive to religious people, atheists, or possibly both, depending on how the God trope is used. Dividing again.

Way #6 can't be used, for reasons I already covered long ago. This is Star Trek and it's not Star Trek without phasers, photon torpedoes, bat'leths, and the occasional anti-phased polaron verbositron discombobulator beam in it. At least some of the time, a Star Trek episode's "Big Problem" needs to be resolved using Scotty's "Phaser Diplomacy" or Spock's "Peculiar Form of Diplomacy, Sir". Newer Star Treks have gotten stung in the butt every time they tried to mess with this. When you portray the Federation as pacifist, the audience isn't getting what it wants--and then when the writers flip a 180 and put the violence back in, the Federation looks like hypocrites.

And the problem with Way #7 is that when you do seek resolution in boldface, it has to be in a way everyone in the audience can agree on. So, really, with Way #7 you failed the address the actual problem. In fact, if the resolution is an "adults who can grow and change" kind of thing, you're probably going to offend the entire audience, and then draw two thumbs-down from the critics.

(or, if they're really harsh critics, they will demand "thumbs OFF"...... :o)

 

On 2/21/2016 at 11:16 AM, Nikolai said:

Yeah -- in re-reading it, I can see that point.  I first read it as a passive-aggressive snark against all those who didn't grow up under those circumstances

Actually, yes, I threw a little snark in there. ^_^ But the main point was that a lot of the younger generations aren't going to see why Chekhov's presence on the Enterprise bridge in the 60's and 70's was a big thing. It was the show saying "There is no more Cold War! The future is different!" Bonus points for the fact that the show (intentionally) never said how the Cold War ended.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, GeneralVeers said:

Most of Shakespeare's plays were disturbingly violent.

Well, yes, but violence isn't the thing that defines them.  They're more complex than that.  If violence was what they were after, there are far more efficient ways to get at it -- never mind appropriate it as your own, as something that some apparently educated folks in your culture insist came from your culture.

23 hours ago, GeneralVeers said:

I didn't see the stuff you listed as deviating from the "we're tough" trope.

And I don't see "we're tough" as necessarily requiring that "war defines a lot of our society".

23 hours ago, GeneralVeers said:

The Klingon commander quoting Shakespeare in the Sixth Movie was just ridiculous.

I didn't think so.  But your mileage may vary.

23 hours ago, GeneralVeers said:

Then don't assume "GeneralVeers doesn't get what I'm saying " equals "GeneralVeers must not be listening".

I didn't.  I cited reasons why I thought you were completely misunderstanding what I had to say -- at least one of which hasn't been addressed and could still be an example of you failing to pay attention (you attempting to school me on the title of "The Doomsday Machine" when it was in the message you were quoting, or you apparently not understanding that I had already provided for the possibility of using violence to prevent even more violence).

Yes, I did misunderstand some things, like the intent of your point about living through the Cold War.  But don't take misunderstanding of messages as not understanding what "listening" means.  People might accuse you of not listening. ;)

23 hours ago, GeneralVeers said:

Way #4 is exactly what divides the audience rather than uniting it. You have to play to things most viewers/readers will agree on. ("Last Battlefield" drew poor ratings, by the way--the critics said the episode was drowned by the "overpowering message")

Way #5 will be offensive to religious people, atheists, or possibly both, depending on how the God trope is used. Dividing again.

Way #6 can't be used, for reasons I already covered long ago. This is Star Trek and it's not Star Trek without phasers, photon torpedoes, bat'leths, and the occasional anti-phased polaron verbositron discombobulator beam in it. At least some of the time, a Star Trek episode's "Big Problem" needs to be resolved using Scotty's "Phaser Diplomacy" or Spock's "Peculiar Form of Diplomacy, Sir". Newer Star Treks have gotten stung in the butt every time they tried to mess with this. When you portray the Federation as pacifist, the audience isn't getting what it wants--and then when the writers flip a 180 and put the violence back in, the Federation looks like hypocrites.

And the problem with Way #7 is that when you do seek resolution in boldface, it has to be in a way everyone in the audience can agree on. So, really, with Way #7 you failed the address the actual problem. In fact, if the resolution is an "adults who can grow and change" kind of thing, you're probably going to offend the entire audience, and then draw two thumbs-down from the critics.

I'm not sure that trying to keep as large an audience as possible is a good in itself.  Arguably, the reason we see trends in sci-fi that lead to predictable plots, corrupt corporations and governments, etc., is because these tactics offend as few people as possible (and keep an audience as large as possible).  I'd also say that it's not necessarily required that the resolution "has to be in a way everyone in the audience can agree on".  I think I'd get much more out of a television show that made me think, even if I didn't agree with it.  (And I didn't, always.  One of the first episodes we've discussed, "A Private Little War", ended up being "resolved" in a way I didn't like -- but it's still one of my favorites.)

I didn't see as coherent a message from the critics on "Battlefield" as you claim; in fact, I seem to remember reading quite a few who praised Star Trek for being one of the only shows on network prime-time television to try to tackle issues like racism.

Edited by Nikolai
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2016 at 11:36 AM, Nikolai said:

Well, yes, but violence isn't the thing that defines them.  They're more complex than that.  If violence was what they were after, there are far more efficient ways to get at it -- never mind appropriate it as your own, as something that some apparently educated folks in your culture insist came from your culture.

And I don't see "we're tough" as necessarily requiring that "war defines a lot of our society".

The Klingons disagree, seeing as how they called themselves "a warrior race".

 

On 2/23/2016 at 11:36 AM, Nikolai said:

I didn't.  I cited reasons why I thought you were completely misunderstanding what I had to say -- at least one of which hasn't been addressed and could still be an example of you failing to pay attention

Or it could be something I didn't have time to reply to, or that I felt wasn't worth replying to, or that I forgot to reply to, or maybe the posts were just getting too damn long and I decided I had to cut some stuff out (I've noticed that threads in which people argue vociferously about stuff--such as this thread--show a tendency for the posts to increase exponentially in length).

There's lots of reasons people don't reply to stuff in online forums. But you knew that already.

 

On 2/23/2016 at 11:36 AM, Nikolai said:

I'm not sure that trying to keep as large an audience as possible is a good in itself.  Arguably, the reason we see trends in sci-fi that lead to predictable plots, corrupt corporations and governments, etc., is

......not relevant here. As I already pointed out long ago in this thread (probably more than once, because it was worth repeating) is that Star Trek TOS was able to tell great stories, and attained the mantle of Great Science Fiction, without doing the above.

And the minute Star Trek caved in and resorted to the old familiar tropes, it started to tank and lose viewers. That's the central theme here. Everybody's lost sight of what made Star Trek great. You included, with the idea about turning it into West Wing In Space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, GeneralVeers said:

The Klingons disagree, seeing as how they called themselves "a warrior race".

Did this occur in TOS?  If so, can you refresh my memory as to when?

10 minutes ago, GeneralVeers said:

There's lots of reasons people don't reply to stuff in online forums.

Right.  So it seems pretty baseless to insist that every instance of "not listening" must be covered by "doesn't get it", right?  Not to mention that the instances I brought up were specifically where you seemed to ignore what I stated in order to state it again as if you were bringing up the topic.

7 minutes ago, GeneralVeers said:

As I already pointed out long ago in this thread (probably more than once, because it was worth repeating) is that Star Trek TOS was able to tell great stories, and attained the mantle of Great Science Fiction, without doing the above.

And the minute Star Trek caved in and resorted to the old familiar tropes, it started to tank and lose viewers.

It could also be argued that it started to tank when it became predictable, and that they needed to tell new kinds of stories.  After all, the kinds of stories it was telling were already decades old to print sci-fi fans when TOS aired.  To what extent was it "great" because it innovated for the kinds of stories televised sci-fi could tell?  To what extent was it "great" because it adhered to a predictable formula?  That seems a matter of opinion, and pretty hard to gauge absolutely.

I think some pretty good stories came out of changing the formula.  But that's not going to be agreed upon by everyone, obviously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nikolai said:

Did this occur in TOS?  If so, can you refresh my memory as to when?

Not in so many words. "Day of the Dove" and "A Private Little War" pretty much seal it up, particularly the part with a Klingon officer rewarding those of his charges who do the most killing. The Klingons didn't get a lot of screen time in TOS, and when they did appear on the screen they were stereotypically violent and bloodthirsty. The only real difference from TNG being that they were also dishonest.

 

8 hours ago, Nikolai said:

Right.  So it seems pretty baseless to insist that every instance of "not listening" must be covered by "doesn't get it", right?  Not to mention that the instances I brought up were specifically where you seemed to

Key word in boldface. I seemed to. But did I......? I could answer "no", but you have no idea if I mean that or if I simply made it up. That's the problem. You can only see what I type; my actual thoughts and motivations will always be unknown to you.

"Seem" doesn't cut the mustard.

 

8 hours ago, Nikolai said:

It could also be argued that it started to tank when it became predictable, and that they needed to tell new kinds of stories.

Not even. Star Trek was fun even when it was predictable. If you look at the core stories behind every sci-fi book and movie out there, you'll notice there are actually very few stories; it's the same old stories told in different ways. Star Wars is the same as Star Crash is the same as Battle Beyond The Stars. The difference between these three is, one of them was a cheesy story told well. The other two were the same cheesy story--told badly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...