Star Trek will be out of date soon!

[Flake]

It is science fiction though, not fantasy. Uhura is wrong in this context

[robau]

I like to think in the Utopia they took a more minimalist and disconnected approach to technology. Shit like computers in glasses and smartphones became too distracting for the goal of self improvement and were discarded. The future doesn't necessarily have to mean hyperconnectivity and whatever just because of what we have now.

[R. Star]

Flake I really think you're focusing way too much on the trivial things like what gadgets and gizmos they use. Star Trek isn't about that. It's about a sense of hope for a better future of humanity. How cool and futuristic the props are is really secondary.

[Nerys Myk]

Flake wrote:

---

It is science fiction though, not fantasy. Uhura is wrong in this context

Because the Vulcan Mind Meld is more realistic than the Jedi Mind Trick?

[Melakon]

I would think the OP also has trouble watching something like 2001: A Space Odyssey, since it seems to be impossible for him to suspend disbelief.

[T'Girl]

One of the biggest complaints of post-TOS Star Trek from the fans was the excessive amount of "techno-babble" used in the shows. TOS had tablet E-readers (by another name), but they were in the background. Kirk had a phone (by another name), but it wasn't the center of the story. It did not hinder the plot that he couldn't play angry birds.

There's been conjecture for years that the universal translator was a implanted technological device in their brains, supplemented on occasion with a larger external unit. But for purposes of telling a fictional story, the audience just need to be able to understand the different Human/alien characters when they spoke.

When Kirk needed a piece of information, he didn't ask his internet contact lenses, he asked Spock, McCoy or Scotty. He asked a person.

Star Trek really isn't about technology, it's about drama and adventure and ethical quandaries. It's ultimately about people interacting with people.

The City on the Edge of Forever wasn't an episode about a time machine.

[Flake]

It is indeed sad if, in the future, the crew are indeed unable to play angry bids to pass the time during Datas poem recitals.

It's is equally unfortunate that they cannot play fruit ninja whilst sitting on the bridge when nothing is happening

Also I just realised the uniforms in tng had no pockets! How on Vulcan did thy manage?!?! I never saw anyone with hands in pockets. This is a critical development, if there are no pockets in the future then how can mankind survive?

[BillJ]

Star Trek simply changes with the times. It is about the characters, not the technology they use (even though its pretty cool).

What they need to do is bring in sci-fi writers and people who study trends in technology when laying the groundwork for the next series. Some staples will obviously exist, warp drive and transporters and phasers, but everything else should be on the table to be redeveloped.

[C.E. Evans]

It'll be a never-ending process of retcons and inconsistencies whenever Trek's fictional universe doesn't match up with the real world. The goal posts will always have to be moved.

[Josan]

Every show becomes dated with the passage of time.

TOS is dated. I still watch and enjoy.

Classic Doctor Who is dated. I still watch and enjoy.

The X-Files is dated. How on earth did they manage having to suffer with those clunky cellphones and that primitive internet 20 years ago.

Most people watch for the stories and the characters. Not whatever equipment they happen to be using.

[sonak]

YARN wrote:

---

Uhura got it right in Star Trek III,"This isn't reality, this is fantasy!" Star Trek has always been more fiction than science.

Yep. I don't see this as an issue at all. Star Trek is as much "space fantasy" rather than sci-fi as SW is. I don't see it becoming out of date, and they can always make it so the Trek universe is in a slightly different reality than our own to explain discrepancies when things like "first contact with the Vulcans" doesn't happen in 2063.


Folks still like the "Terminator" and "2001" series, and those are very inaccurate now.

[Melakon]

Methinks criticizing a production made nearly 50 years ago, because it fails to predict our current technological development, is as shallow as refusing to watch a movie or series because it was filmed in black and white.

And who's to say our current scientific marvels will still exist in ST's future after its (maybe or maybe not) World War III and world government?

[RPJOB]

“Science fiction is for real, space opera is for fun.”
― Brian W. Aldiss

Star Trek is fun with a tine side order of "This is something to think about". There's no need to change the date of the Eugenics Wars or worry about the fact that there wasn't an orbital nuclear platform that almost started a war when it's launch vehicle failed or rewrite history when the Vulcans don't show up. It's a product of it's time. Let it live there. Making changes is simply a marketing gimmick to sell more stuff.

[Gary7]

Very little that is made becomes "timeless". There is always something to succeed it. The pre-2009 Star Trek franchise has already become "dated", just as Star Wars has. There's no real disappointment involved with watching a supposed future time not leveraging tech as good as what we have today, because it's not real. It's a "possible" future, one of many.

Have you seen Fringe? There was an alternate universe depicted and you see airships (dirigibles, or "blimps") docking with the Empire State Building, as was originally intended. It could have happened here... but it didn't. The Star Trek we see is just one interpretation of a future. As long as the stories and acting is compelling, it's fun to watch regardless of how "true to life" the technology is.

[Carcazoid]

Star Trek is not dated at all. It exists in an alternate reality.