This. There's an old saying that "The golden age of science fiction is twelve" and I suspect that a lot depends on how old you were when you first encountered the original BSG. I was in college when BSG debuted, and, as an oh-so-sophisticated freshman, I found it hopelessly juvenile compared to the sf shows I'd grown up on: TOS, The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits. I remember bitching to my friends that TV sf had actually gone backwards, intellectually, and that Glen Larson was basically the second coming of Irwin Allen . . . . By contrast, the new show, although often bleak as hell, was, at its best, extremely intense and compelling television, featuring complicated, unpredictable characters that were a lot more messed-up and three-dimensional than their 70s counterparts. Heck, Roslin alone was more interesting than pretty much every character on the old show. IMHO.
I see these everyday on TV in the news (and reality shows which I usually try to avoid), so I'm really at a loss to see why that was anything special or unusual about nuBSG. Bob
So you're saying that science fiction shouldn't resemble reality as far as people are concerned? I'm not sure Rod Serling would agree . . . .
No, I'm saying that science fiction should take real people, put them into "What if" scenarios and watch how they use imagination and creativity to overcome problems and handle challenging situations Since you mentioned Mr. Serling I think he wrote one episode which essentially wraps up what nuBSG was mostly about. It was called "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street". Bob
Exactly. And that was a great episode! There's no rule that says that sf has to be about "overcoming problems" through creativity and imagination. There's a long tradition of grim, dystopian, often harrowing sf. Look at Wells, Dick, Bradbury, Sturgeon, etc. The dark side of humanity has always been part of sf's subject matter as well. Look at Planet of the Apes, etc. Just to be clear. I'm not saying that every show needs to be as grim and morally ambiguous as NuBSG. Nobody wants a dark and gritty version of FARSCAPE or CLEOPATRA 2525. But it worked for nuBSG, and produced some powerful television.
It's all real, even "Genesis" and "Threshold." Some of it's not as good as the rest, and some of it's outstanding. It's just how it is. Now, analyzing whether a particular series or film is true to the spirit of Star Trek, and indeed what that spirit actually is? Related, but separate, question IMO.
Praetor: Love your sig line, btw. That's probably my favorite line in all of TNG, and the one that best encapsulates what I personally think of as the "spirit" of STAR TREK . . . .
I think that a lot of the problem with claiming that something isn't "real" Star Trek is that, for many people, "real" Star Trek actually means "my" Star Trek, or the Star Trek "that I like." Those are NOT the same thing. TOS is not the same as TNG, and DS9 is much different than both. The movies don't have the same tone, themes, etc. There is no one "true" Star Trek.
And the last part, again, is laughable. I didn't state at any point that TOS had no sex or violence so...you're just debating with yourself there. All of that was completely pointless to state.
Thank you sir, agreed. It was a great line in "Q-Who?" and is still a great and appropriate line now.
It's real trek if it is set in the Star Trek universe; alternative, spinoffs, reboots or otherwise. Still Trek. JJ Trek is set at a point in the Prime universe's past, thus JJ Trek is Star Trek. So the question is not whether it is Star Trek, the question should be whether it is good Star Trek.
You are describing a franchise where anything labeled "Star Trek" automatically becomes Star Trek and that would make the original question of this thread somewhat meaningless and redundant. Gene Roddenberry created and produced Star Trek and its most popular representatives, i.e. TOS and TNG, so the "real" Star Trek comes down to the question "would he have approved". If this line isn't drawn than Star Trek is anything someone wants it to be and becomes indistinguishable from Star Wars and other series and franchises and their distinct properties. Bob
But none of us know Roddenberry well enough to answer that question. I think Majel Barrett appearing in TNG, DS9, VOY and the first Abramsverse film is as close to knowing whether or not Gene "approved" as we'll ever get.
Every film or TV series could be described as an interplay between artistry, commercialism, and vision. With Star Trek, we known exactly what supplies that vision: Roddenberry's worldview. I don't think that it must be "Roddenberry approved," but it must be in dialogue with his worldview. There have been dark chapters and violent confrontations throughough Trek, but in general, they have problematized heroism, something that doesn't happen in JJ Trek.
In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter if he would approve? I seem to recall reading Gene saying something to the effect that he hopes the best days of Trek will be ushered in by someone other than him. We can argue if we're there or not, given we have our varying personal likes and dislikes but it's continuing to grow and evolve. I personally don't much care for the JJverse as it doesn't seem that original, but maybe the 3rd movie will be better. All drawing lines is going to do is put all the writers back into the Roddenberry box that turned out season 1 of TNG. Just because it's different doesn't mean it's not "real." Some may not like it, but those opinions don't constitute everyone else's reality.
But wouldn't this reasoning eliminate DS9, Voyager, and pretty much every movie except the first one? Please don't tell that The Wrath of Khan doesn't count as "real" Trek!