It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionThe future of Star Trek(539 posts)(539 posts)
(539 posts)
Pages:
1
5
10
15
16
17
18
19
20
25
30
36
This is my favourite topic
Posted May 22, 2017
avatar
morolf: Star Trek's "diversity" is of the most superficial kind imaginable...basically everybody is some kind of liberal American. Just silly.
You know? I can't think you're wrong, pal. In a ""bipolar world"" it was ok to adhere -or better yet, adress- to such racial and geographical issues, much like that infamous Voyager Golden Record and all but nowadays this is just... silly. It isn't like that in the Olympics, man, so why would it be like that on the Enterprise?! :P

Jokes aside, it's all much like some sorta weird propaganda on "hey, check how diverse we are". Your argument? Spot on.

avatar
anothername: Its the back-door explanation for why humanity works so well together for an utopian society in the trekverse. They got bombed nearly to extinction in WW3 so they decided to get rid of the major motivators (greed, religion) to became the good guys they have become by the time Trek plays in.
Oh thanks.
Scary as it might look but that's a feasible scenario (WWIII, "west vs someone*") (who isn't India or China ;P) for me. I won't get political in here and all, rest assured.

*much like some prophets state
avatar
morolf: and even TNG doesn't hold up that well when watched today imo
You're right. I feel the same.
Post edited May 22, 2017 by vicklemos
Posted May 22, 2017
avatar
morolf: and even TNG doesn't hold up that well when watched today imo
avatar
vicklemos: You're right. I feel the same.
I couldn't disagree more. Hell, I think even Voyager, except for maybe it's final "dying" season, is a much better show than most people give it credit for, and TNG is way better. I actually managed to convince some friends of mine to watch Star Trek finally, who had no nostalgia for it or prior knowledge of it, they started with TOS, then TNG, and except for maybe the first season of TNG they ended up being very impressed and admitting that it's great stuff. And one of them is not a big sf fan at all, so the shows had to really impress him to get him hooked. So if it can still have that effect on entirely new audience, it has to be holding up pretty well.
Posted May 22, 2017
avatar
vicklemos: You're right. I feel the same.
avatar
Breja: I couldn't disagree more. Hell, I think even Voyager, except for maybe it's final "dying" season, is a much better show than most people give it credit for, and TNG is way better. I actually managed to convince some friends of mine to watch Star Trek finally, who had no nostalgia for it or prior knowledge of it, they started with TOS, then TNG, and except for maybe the first season of TNG they ended up being very impressed and admitting that it's great stuff. And one of them is not a big sf fan at all, so the shows had to really impress him to get him hooked. So if it can still have that effect on entirely new audience, it has to be holding up pretty well.
They managed to be good without.. well.. lets call it hyper emotional drama. The cast played adult professionals who behaved like that. Mostly. They do had their emotional stuff going on but when it did it just had more meaning that in every other show these days which feels like they require an outburst at least once per episode.
Posted May 22, 2017
avatar
anothername: They managed to be good without.. well.. lets call it hyper emotional drama. The cast played adult professionals who behaved like that. Mostly. They do had their emotional stuff going on but when it did it just had more meaning that in every other show these days which feels like they require an outburst at least once per episode.
Very true. As it happens I'm rewatching TOS right now, and one of the first "new" thoughts to strike watching it this time is how refreshing it is to see characters acting like that- professional, reasonable, smart. And when they disagree, their debates are actually interesting to listen to, as they consider interesting, difficult dilemmas. It's remarkable how often in todays tv or movies the plot relies on the characters being rock stupid or hyper emotional (the cast of many shows today would make McCoy look like Spock).
Post edited May 22, 2017 by Breja
Posted May 22, 2017
avatar
vicklemos: You're right. I feel the same.
avatar
Breja: I couldn't disagree more. Hell, I think even Voyager, except for maybe it's final "dying" season, is a much better show than most people give it credit for, and TNG is way better. I actually managed to convince some friends of mine to watch Star Trek finally, who had no nostalgia for it or prior knowledge of it, they started with TOS, then TNG, and except for maybe the first season of TNG they ended up being very impressed and admitting that it's great stuff. And one of them is not a big sf fan at all, so the shows had to really impress him to get him hooked. So if it can still have that effect on entirely new audience, it has to be holding up pretty well.
Wow easy there, champ: doesn't hold up THAT well ;p
Kiddin', Breja; yeah, it's a bit dated, we all know, but it's not as corny as it may sound. The latter seasons as you've pointed out are way less chessier than the first ones so it's a good starting point. Acting is, coming from someone who isn't a huge fan, a plus. Not all times, though, as in pretty much everything, I suppose.

avatar
anothername: They managed to be good without.. well.. lets call it hyper emotional drama. The cast played adult professionals who behaved like that. Mostly. They do had their emotional stuff going on but when it did it just had more meaning that in every other show these days which feels like they require an outburst at least once per episode.
Tell me about it...
Posted May 22, 2017
avatar
anothername: They managed to be good without.. well.. lets call it hyper emotional drama. The cast played adult professionals who behaved like that. Mostly. They do had their emotional stuff going on but when it did it just had more meaning that in every other show these days which feels like they require an outburst at least once per episode.
avatar
Breja: Very true. As it happens I'm rewatching TOS right now, and one of the first "new" thoughts to strike watching it this time is how refreshing it is to see characters acting like that- professional, reasonable, smart. And when they disagree, their debates are actually interesting to listen to, as they consider interesting, difficult dilemmas. It's remarkable how often in todays tv or movies the plot relies on the characters being rock stupid or hyper emotional (the cast of many shows today would make McCoy look like Spock).
Made me chuckle ;)
It's somewhat a bit true. I usually don't watch these new tv shows and.. who am I lying to, man, I don't watch tv at all but it's reasonable to state that, despite a lot of faulty lines and little over-dramatization of common issues (or maybe a lot? don't wanna judge) the series is renowned for its top notch acting. But even these situations are a bit dated, even though I can still see it as a bit of fresh air in the midst of today's crappy sea of nasty tv shows.
Posted May 22, 2017
avatar
morolf: basically everybody is some kind of liberal American.
Quite an interesting statement. Especially considering how similar is Star Trek universe to communism utopia. )
Posted May 22, 2017
avatar
vicklemos: You're right. I feel the same.
avatar
Breja: I couldn't disagree more. Hell, I think even Voyager, except for maybe it's final "dying" season, is a much better show than most people give it credit for, and TNG is way better. I actually managed to convince some friends of mine to watch Star Trek finally, who had no nostalgia for it or prior knowledge of it, they started with TOS, then TNG, and except for maybe the first season of TNG they ended up being very impressed and admitting that it's great stuff. And one of them is not a big sf fan at all, so the shows had to really impress him to get him hooked. So if it can still have that effect on entirely new audience, it has to be holding up pretty well.
Voyager is mediocre imo, has some entertaining episodes, but they had such a cool premise and did so little with it. And the ending was simply retarded (such time-travel stories are just stupid, got much worse in Enterprise of course with that "temporal Cold war" nonsense).
TNG is much better of course...but when I occasionally watch an episode today, I find that I don't really like the cast, it lacks the charming qualities of TOS. And quite a few episodes are pretty boring (though of course there are some really great ones, like the two-parter about the Borg invasion).
Sadly, I feel Star Trek missed its potential to evolve and at some point just got a bit too silly.
Post edited May 22, 2017 by morolf
Posted May 22, 2017
avatar
morolf: basically everybody is some kind of liberal American.
avatar
LootHunter: Quite an interesting statement. Especially considering how similar is Star Trek universe to communism utopia. )
I don't know about that, it's not like they ever delivered a convincing, detailed explanation how the economic and political system in Star Trek actually works (yes, I know, money has been abolished...profound). In my opinion it's basically just liberal Americanism, with some superficial nods towards multiculturalism from TNG onwards.
Also interesting how they avoided some potentially very interesting issues (iirc in Star Trek the Federation doesn't practice genetic enhancement, modifications etc. because of the bad experiences in the Eugenic wars...is that really believable? And certainly the other powers like the Romulans wouldn't have such scruples, so the Federation should be at a disadvantage in the contest for power).
Post edited May 22, 2017 by morolf
Posted May 22, 2017
avatar
morolf: Also interesting how they avoided some potentially very interesting issues (iirc in Star Trek the Federation doesn't practice genetic enhancement, modifications etc. because of the bad experiences in the Eugenic wars...is that really believable?
Uhm... yes? Given that experience was a global conflict to free the human race from being forever enslaved by a "master race" I think it's very much believable. Red flags don't really get much bigger than that.

avatar
morolf: And certainly the other powers like the Romulans wouldn't have such scruples, so the Federation should be at a disadvantage in the contest for power).
Well, the Klingons tried, it didn't work to well for them either. Perhaps at that point the others just decided to learn on those mistakes and leave it well enough alone.
Posted May 22, 2017
avatar
morolf: Also interesting how they avoided some potentially very interesting issues (iirc in Star Trek the Federation doesn't practice genetic enhancement, modifications etc. because of the bad experiences in the Eugenic wars...is that really believable?
avatar
Breja: Uhm... yes? Given that experience was a global conflict to free the human race from being forever enslaved by a "master race" I think it's very much believable. Red flags don't really get much bigger than that.

avatar
morolf: And certainly the other powers like the Romulans wouldn't have such scruples, so the Federation should be at a disadvantage in the contest for power).
avatar
Breja: Well, the Klingons tried, it didn't work to well for them either. Perhaps at that point the others just decided to learn on those mistakes and leave it well enough alone.
"The Klingons tried"...you mean that storyline in Enterprise which led to their ridges disappearing? Can't recall the details about that, was a mistake imo.
I don't find that convincing as an explanation though...genetic engineering (with CRISPR or whatever it's called), transhumanism etc. are already discussed today...why would people in the 24th century give up on all that potential because of some bad experiences 400 years earlier?
Posted May 22, 2017
avatar
morolf: I don't find that convincing as an explanation though...genetic engineering (with CRISPR or whatever it's called), transhumanism etc. are already discussed today...why would people in the 24th century give up on all that potential because of some bad experiences 400 years earlier?
Because it's a show that assumes that in the future people will be smart enough to learn from history and not forget it. Again, this is not just "some bad experience", it was a damn global disaster. And remember, it's not like the matter just disappeared. Some genetic engineering happens, but it's illegal. I would guess that probably there is an ongoing debate about it there very much like this one :D

That's the in-universe explanation. Now, obviously the real deal is that Star Trek is all about humanity striving to improve through learning and exploring, not taking a short-cut through genetic manipulation. It's one of those things were you kinda just have to roll with the explanation given. In fact, many a sf universe wouldn't bother even giving you one. Now, if something like that really irks you, you just don't accept the explanation given and you really, really need one... I get that. You do you. Me, I think the show is so good, I don't need everything about the set up explained in detail, as long as some explanations are provided, enough to have the universe hold up while focusing on the actual stories, and not the backstory.
Posted May 22, 2017
avatar
Breja: ,
Because it's a show that assumes that in the future people will be smart enough to learn from history and not forget it. Again, this is not just "some bad experience", it was a damn global disaster. And remember, it's not like the matter just disappeared. Some genetic engineering happens, but it's illegal. I would guess that probably there is an ongoing debate about it there very much like this one :D

That's the in-universe explanation. Now, obviously the real deal is that Star Trek is all about humanity striving to improve through learning and exploring, not taking a short-cut through genetic manipulation. It's one of those things were you kinda just have to roll with the explanation given. In fact, many a sf universe wouldn't bother even giving you one. Now, if something like that really irks you, you just don't accept the explanation given and you really, really need one... I get that. You do you. Me, I think the show is so good, I don't need everything about the set up explained in detail, as long as some explanations are provided, enough to have the universe hold up while focusing on the actual stories, and not the backstory.
Well, you're of course right that one probably has just to accept that...it's not like the rest of the show is "realistic". But still, personally I'd very much like to see radical life extension and live to 500 years or so. It just seems hard to imagine that people in the 24th century would still be content with our short lifespan (I assume it is like that...iirc Dr Mccoy made an appearance in the very first TNG episode when he must have been well over 100 - and looked like it...but there is no indication as far as I know that humans in Star Trek live youthful lives lasting several centuries).
Anyway, I just read a bit about the new show, and was quite irritated about the names...why is the main character called "Michael" isn't she supposed to be a woman?
Posted May 23, 2017
avatar
morolf: it's not like they ever delivered a convincing, detailed explanation how the economic and political system in Star Trek actually works
Honestly. Do you know any sci-fi show that delivers?
avatar
morolf: In my opinion it's basically just liberal Americanism
Can you elaborate? I mean, there are indeed more references to american culture, then others. But for me as a russian, Americanism is the policy where US considers themselves the most righteous nation, who is worthy to judge what right and what is wrong. And that's exactly what is not happening in Trek.
Post edited May 23, 2017 by LootHunter
Posted May 23, 2017
avatar
morolf: it's not like they ever delivered a convincing, detailed explanation how the economic and political system in Star Trek actually works
avatar
LootHunter: Honestly. Do you know any sci-fi show that delivers?
avatar
morolf: In my opinion it's basically just liberal Americanism
avatar
LootHunter: Can you elaborate? I mean, there are indeed more references to american culture, then others. But for me as a russian, Americanism is the policy where US considers themselves the most righteous nation, who is worthy to judge what right and what is wrong. And that's exactly what is not happening in Trek.
I don't really know of any good sci-fi shows, sorry...I don't watch that much TV anymore. I enjoyed some of the Outer Limits episodes from the 1990s, but that's often somewhat of a guilty pleasure, and also quite depressing since almost every episode ends badly.
Regarding Star Trek...well, in a way you're right, they have that Prime directive of non-intervention after all. But the entire atmosphere of the show just oozes Americanism (I mean come on, the ships have "USS" as a designation, and the most prominent ships in the series had the same name as a US aircraft carrier) and the Federation is clearly some sort of idealized version of the US...the Federation may have flaws, but they're clearly the good guys facing various evil empires.
There are differences between the shows though...classical American liberalism was most prominent in TOS (there was that one extremely silly episode where Kirk encounters "Koms" and "Yangs" on a planet and finds a garbled version of the US constitution). From TNG onwards multiculturalist motives became more dominant, in tune with the changes in the general culture.
Pages:
1
5
10
15
16
17
18
19
20
25
30
36
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionThe future of Star Trek(539 posts)(539 posts)
(539 posts)