Star Trek will be out of date soon!

[Rarewolf]

Josan wrote:

---

You seem to have missed the point of my post especially since you only quoted part of it which means you've got it out of context. But oh well, thanks for playing.

My point is the 90s will always be the 90s. The 24th Century will never be the 24th Century.

[JoeZhang]

Forget the tech, what dates Star Trek are the cultural and social norms that are revealed by viewing - each series (as it should be) tells us about the time it was made not the future.

Having said that - if you do consider the tech, Star Trek is a very 1950s view of the future even in its most recent versions include the latest film series.

[Dale Sams]

Christopher wrote:

---

I do think that eventually it will be necessary to reboot Star Trek from the ground up -- not just do an alternate timeline in the same reality, but completely start over and build a new version of the universe from first principles -- in order for future generations to relate to it. And I don't understand why many fans are so resistant to that. What's important about Star Trek isn't the minutiae of continuity or worldbuilding, but the characters and themes and ideas, the spirit of adventure and sense of wonder. In its day, ST was on the cutting edge, not only in its futurism but its social progressiveness, its dramatic sophistication (it was the first non-anthology SF series to be written on the same level as the adult dramas of the era), and its daring sexuality. By the '90s and '00s it had become the stolid, conservative establishment franchise that new upstarts like Babylon 5 and the rebooted Battlestar Galactica were pushing beyond and deconstructing. Now it's increasingly seen as retro and nostalgic. Which doesn't seem right for a franchise that's about looking forward to the future. It would be good to have a Star Trek that was as much on the cutting edge for its own era as TOS was for the '60s.

I would have no problem seeing re-imaginings of any of the TOS eps. 2009 Trek passed the 'Shakespeare Test' for me...

As for the spirit of the OP...I don't know...I'm still waiting for my flying car and jetpack.

[Dale Sams]

YARN wrote:

---

Really? Has Shakespeare had to adapt and change? Homer? Twain? How did adaptation and changing work for Lucas and Star Wars?

If Trek did something really new I would be genuinely surprised. Our stories are archetypal and tap into the same psychological appetites. There's a reason why popular action stories follow Campbell's monomyth so closely.

They'll have different gadgets and different sensibilities (about politics and sexuality), but the structure will be the same.

The narrative will only really change once the human race hits the singularity, and we will have much bigger issues to consider at that time than the continuity of Star Trek.

Did Shakespeare have to adapt and change???? Of course it did.

No one would go see a bunch of men in dresses, absolutely 1600's period, SHOUTING all their lines for four hours.

[Leroy]

I won't see Star Trek as outdated tech wise until we start building anti-matter powered interstellar starships with FTL, artificial gravity, and deflector shields. As for cell phones can your cell phone use supspace to contact a ship in orbit without the aid of a tower? Modern tech might have some things beat in the looks department however.

[A beaker full of death]

Flake wrote:

---

Is it possible to adapt Star Trek or will this generation and the next generation simply stop watching it because its seems so dated?

Yuh, I understand people have stopped viewing Metropolis and reading 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.

[JirinPanthosa]

A beaker full of death wrote:

---

Yuh, I understand people have stopped viewing Metropolis and reading 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.

People do still read old science fiction films and novels.

Usually, they do it after they've explored and gotten bored with modern ones.

Although instead of a rebooted Star Trek universe with the original principles and modern sheer, I'd rather see a completely new universe with the original principles.

Or, heck, just have a show that's set in the same universe but not in the Milky Way galaxy. You can do whatever you want, have things look however you want, and then maybe later in the series when races like humans and klingons show up somewhere it can be an exciting surprise.

[Lance]

One thing I was thinking about at work today (as opposed to, you know, focusing on my job - we all do this, right?):

A lot of modern television sci-fi seems to be of what I'd call the 'Buffy school' of show formats. No disrepect to Buffy, a show I loved back in the day. But it seems to have had a massive cultural impact. Most every 'genre' series these days is of that type, that kind of "Supernatural themes in a modern day Earth setting" format. I could only think of two traditionally Star Trekky-type "ships in space" shows in the last few years, those being nuBSG and Firefly. Even Doctor Who, admittedly a series which always skewed close to Earth anyway, is far less inclined to focus itself on far-away planets or spaceships. As a genre, science fiction has become much more grounded than it used to be. Is there a reason for this? Is it cheaper to film when all your locations can be found in real life, instead of having to build elaborate sets?

Is Star Trek's format outmoded, as far as television is concerned? (There's obviously room for it on the movie screen). Or would it, in theory, stand out better now than it ever did before, as 'something different' in the context of (what seems to me) to be a fairly bland genre as far as televison goes at the moment?

[QCzar]

Lance, for what it's worth, the Space Opera sub-genre of science fiction has always been a niche. It's hardly the sci-fi default or something. Not even in literature. During all the running time of all the Trek series, there have been lowly Earth-based series running alongside them. Some pretty good ones too. They're not some new trend.

Keep in mind that it's only been a few years (2011) since the last spaceship drama was on air. Prior to that, they'd been running them continuously since TNG. Rumors of the death of space opera have been greatly exaggerated.

Also, "only" Firefly and BSG? Exactly how many space shows do you think should be on in a given time period? They may not be "outmoded" as you've posited, but they've certainly never been cop-drama ubiquitous. They're a very particular sub-genre of genre television. It's like complaining that there aren't enough vampire shows (there are 3, FWIW).

[JirinPanthosa]

Lance wrote:

---

One thing I was thinking about at work today (as opposed to, you know, focusing on my job - we all do this, right?):

Personally I can't focus on my job without being just a little bit distracted.

I think part of the problem is that the sort of people who want to watch space operas are the same sort of people who download everything. So there's less profit in making stuff for us.

And I think people are totally open to shows set in the future, but they don't want to feel preached at.

[CorporalCaptain]

QCzar wrote:

---

Lance, for what it's worth, the Space Opera sub-genre of science fiction has always been a niche. It's hardly the sci-fi default or something. Not even in literature. During all the running time of all the Trek series, there have been lowly Earth-based series running alongside them. Some pretty good ones too. They're not some new trend.

That's true, if by this you mean that there has always been plenty of science fiction that's not space opera. However, at least since Star Wars, it's hard for me to reconcile the pervasiveness of space opera in media with the connotation that a niche market be specialized and not mainstream.

I still agree with your main point that it is incorrect to expect science fiction to be space opera, whether in literature or on TV. I recently did a re-watch of most of The Prisoner and was deeply moved and totally blown away.

[JirinPanthosa]

It's true space opera has always been a niche in the scifi crowd, but it's the only niche capable of getting a mainstream crossover audience.

[RPJOB]

Nerys Myk wrote:

---

Those would be the parts that are ignored when the real calender catches up with Star Treks continuity. Not always, but most of the time. You know, like I said in my second paragraph.

What about when we discover that you can't travel faster than light (you know, like now)? Or that a human/alien hybrid is just silly (again, like now)? Or that turning someone into energy in order to reassemble them someplace else would just create a big BOOM (once again, like now)?

Leave Trek be what it is. If we require something to replace it let's have something new, like Roddenberry did back in the 60's.

[Temis the Vorta]

It's amusing that the TOS people still have their flip-top cell phones. I ditched mine years ago.

[BillJ]

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

It's amusing that the TOS people still have their flip-top cell phones. I ditched mine years ago.

Well, it likely serves as some type of antenna since not to many unexplored worlds have cell phone towers.