Will TOS maintain its legendary status as Trek fandom gets younger?

I'm currently in a very long PM conversation with someone on my gaming forum. She's in her late 20s (will probably be 30 next year), and I've known her as an online friend since her teens.

She's just discovered TOS, and has been watching several episodes each day. She PMs her comments about them, and asks questions about things that aren't clear.

It's nice to see that some of our opinions match perfectly. It's interesting to see how there are some episodes she likes that I can't stand (I'm diplomatic about it; I won't pretend to like something I don't, but will just explain why I don't like it).

Some things require explaining that such-and-such an issue was eventually addressed in a future series or movie. She hasn't seen the other series, movies, or fan films yet.

It's refreshing to have this conversation with someone who's a brand-new fan. My brand-new fan days were nearly 50 years ago, and she's coming at this with the benefit of a lot more life experience than I'd had at age 12.

She's read some of the novels and we're sharing recommendations for fanfiction (just read a really good one about Spock being supportive when McCoy starts doubting his effectiveness at being able to balance his Hippocratic Oath with some of Starfleet's decisions that make that oath difficult to keep).

 

bunnytailsREACTS...

Another YouTube reactor. I was watching how someone decades younger than me reacts to TOS. She was reacting to TOS episodes; the one I watched her react to is the Corbomite Maneuver.

 

Commenting so i remember to look it up later...

Also, do we have anyone on TrekBBS who got into TOS in the last 10 years or so? Curious, how they think of it... or how people who started becoming a Trekker with Discovery view the old episodes? Especially those used to CGI from birth, as opposed to me at age 50, who still appreciates the quality of Battle Beyond the Stars (in some ways better than Rebel Moo, now on Netflix).

 

Considering that Miri is at least three hundred years old, (and the actress was eighteen herself) I doubt that it was inappropriate, more like misguided, but mileage may vary for some individuals.

As much as said youth have a right to feel they way they do about TOS, a lot of them are going to get the 'woke' insult thrown at them for feeling so, IMHO (not that there's anything right about them being insulted like that.)

Because it bears repeating...

 

Woke is a stupid insult to begin with

not to mention, ST has always been about progress, so being anti-progress irl yet calling yourself an ST fan is some cognitive dissonance

 

What some people consider progressive and liberal, others consider regressive and illiberal. One of the major divides among the left of center (at least in the US) is between modernist liberals and postmodernist (cultural) leftist progressives.

I think many would agree that TOS was secular, humanist, modernist, and liberal. Both "woke" and nonwoke people can both identify with that through-line to today, but at some point between the 1960's and now, that road gradually split off.

 

Most of the time "woke" is thrown at anything with women or people of color or any group often excluded from most of pop culture, even if if the content is mostly apolitical. Ultimately, if you can believe humanity can abandon money as a whole, and join other aliens in a galactical alliance, without calling it political, then a Black woman can be captain without it being political either.

 

What a coincidence; a recent Disney Pixar movie was deemed by two older movie critics as not being for them because of the youth of the main character. Ageism works both ways.

Just as you would look at a person from the past who had popped up in the present and be repulsed by said person's social attitudes towards women and minorities, so too was Picard and Riker not impressed with these people, who (Offenhouse and Clemons) could not deal with death and so had themselves frozen to be cured in the future (with Offenhouse still wanting to be kept abreast of his finances which no longer existed.) Also, they were busy dealing with something else, and this put a strain on them to be dealing with three people from the distant past, all of weren't anything in life accomplishments like the pilot from the TOS episode Tomorrow Is Yesterday.

 

I never said it didn't. And that's perfectly fine, likes and dislikes are personal, and people are allowed to dislike a piece of entertainment for any reason, including prejudice.

That said, I'm hoping that my son'll appreciate the TOS movies more when he's a bit older.

 

I often watch people do reaction videos on YouTube for movies and television. Recently, two young people have been reacting to TOS, BUNNYTAILreacts and Popcorn in Bed. They seem to have enjoyed TOS. Popcorn in Bed (Cassie) has moved on to TNG, with "The Neutral Zone" being the latest episode watched.

 

Oh, please.

1. You don't know me well enough to assume how I would react to a situation such as this.

2. Granted, I don't like either Offenhouse or Clemons, but it's got nothing to do with their attitudes toward death. That's Picard's hangup; FFS, 24th-century Starfleet had a child whose only parent had died living ALONE in the family quarters, neatly dressed, hair impeccably combed, being "brave" and not falling apart as any normal person would, because apparently 24th century people are "evolved" or "enlightened" so they don't feel grief, or some kind of similar claptrap.

The 20th century people reacted as they did, because that's what their life experience had taught them to react. Picard and Riker got annoyed with them - all of them, including Claire - for being themselves and not magically reacting as "enlightened" 24th-century Starfleet people would react.

Picard and Riker live in their entitled little bubbles, looking down their noses and judging everyone who doesn't measure up. And that includes Claire, whose only crime was experiencing culture shock and grief. Oh, how insensitive and rude of her to experience grief, once she realized that everyone she had ever loved had died centuries ago and she would never see them again. Oh, how INCONSIDERATE of her!

Offenhouse can't be blamed for not knowing that the 24th-century economy doesn't function the same as it did in the 20th century and that Picard has fantasies that there actually isn't an economy, even though his own brother runs the family business and his CMO has a charge account.

Clemons? Well, he'll either learn to moderate his drinking or he won't. Crusher won't be around to cure him a second time.

Claire would, I hope, find a supportive family waiting for her. Hopefully they wouldn't look at her as a person of no worth like Picard did, simply because she had the gall to be born in the wrong century.

 

Picard and co. in "The Neutral Zone" looking down their noses on the late 20th-century people (stand-ins for us as the real-life audience of the time) really made the TNG characters less likeable and less, well, human. I prefer Kirk in "A Taste of Armageddon" acknowledging that we struggle with baser instincts, instead of pompously claiming to have evolved beyond those things even though it's not true.

Kor

 

Exactly.

And as an addendum to my previous post, @Shaka Zulu, I don't recall any of the 20th century people exhibiting racist attitudes. Picard can fuck right off with his judgmental attitudes toward people who have different views of death than he does, and if you recall, Claire hadn't even known she would be frozen. Her husband had made that decision without her knowledge or consent.

As for Picard and Riker looking down their noses at these three just because they hadn't accomplished anything that these two could respect... how would they know? Not all records from the 20th century survived, and who's to say that Claire wasn't an accomplished musician or enjoyed Shakespeare (two things Riker and Picard pride themselves on)? You don't need to be famous or a pilot to be worthy of respect, or even basic courtesy.

 

They're more evolved. Respect is earned not given based on your contributions to society.

That's the Federation way.*


*sarcasm.

Also, Neutral Zone is one episode that keeps Picard lower as a captain.

 

Reactions are reactions, and while you might not have a problem with a person from the past now in the present, they did, owing (as I said) to having to deal with a more pressing matter and the fact that two of them couldn't deal with death, so they had themselves frozen. Also, many women were working outside the home at the time Raymond was frozen, which would not have people look at her in any way other than 'is that all there was for you to do?', Heck, people who've met me and wondered why I haven't accomplished anything other than being on social assistance since 1987 owing to my autism and my dyscalculia/ADD landing me in a crappy rip-off fly-by-night storefront school and then in programs that didn't do anything for me have said the same thing, and have wondered why I'm on social assistance when I look like a strong black guy, even if I have any time to tell them my life story.

As I see it, the episode's a demonstration of why freezing oneself until there was a cure for an illness (as opposed to freezing oneself or having oneself frozen because they were going to travel a long way to a distant planet and no faster than light drive existed) might not be a great idea after all, and that they should've dealt with their impending death rather than cheat it by being frozen ('how we deal with death is as important as how we deal with life.')

 

The only reason Picard would have to be annoyed with them was that they started making demands for explanations and Offenhouse went up to the bridge and started speaking up.

It's not their fault that nobody bothered to explain Starship Life 101 to them, and it's not their fault that Picard has a superiority complex ten parsecs long AT LEAST, looking down on everyone who doesn't measure up to HIS lofty standards. I'm surprised he didn't actually kick Beverly off the ship for having a charge account, thus refuting his prattle that nobody is interested in acquiring material goods (since she literally acquired material goods by using a charge account).

It actually isn't any of Picard's business what these people think about death. Honestly, it isn't. Claire Raymond didn't know she was going to be frozen. She had no opportunity to consent or withhold consent, as her husband is the one who decided. So Picard can get his nose down to the same level as everyone else's and realize that he is NOT the arbiter of what everyone else is allowed to believe or hope.

Why is it a "cheat" to try to avoid dying by being frozen? That's like saying it's a "cheat" to try to avoid dying by going to a doctor or taking a course of medication or other treatment instead of throwing up one's hands and saying, "Ohgosh, I have cancer. Well, since Shaka Zulu thinks people should just roll over and accept death because trying to live is CHEATING, I won't bother with surgery or chemo or any other possible remedies. I'll just lie down and DIE."

Y'know what? My mother died nearly 10 years ago. She had cancer that started in her leg. She had surgery, and thought that was it. Then it came back and she had chemo. They made a mistake with the chemo and basically destroyed the bones in her leg and had to amputate it. Then... oops, they STILL didn't get it. The cancer spread until it was basically everywhere. It spread to her brain, and she died not even knowing her own identity, though she had a vague recollection of knowing her own mother and sister. The first I knew of this was getting an email from my aunt: "Dear ____, we expected this. Your mother died yesterday." And nobody had even told me her cancer had come back.

So you don't have a monopoly on pain and suffering. You do NOT get to preach at anyone that trying to live is a cheat, whether it's RL or a TV show. Picard wasn't right, and you're judging just as he did, and that is NOT OKAY.


So what if Claire didn't work outside the home? Maybe that was a mutual decision between she and her husband. After all, if he had the money to pay for her cryogenic freezing, he may not have needed her working outside the home to support the family. Or she might have had a home business. Many women do.

You say you have a disability that prevents your working? Fine. I don't judge you, because that's your lived experience. Welcome to the club. The non-disabled often have rigid ideas of what disabled people are supposed to "look" like. I've had so many "Can't you just _____" or "Why don't you just ______" speeches thrown in my face, and it takes them aback when I tell them, "If I could, don't you think I would?

So to see you sit there and judge someone (and excuse Picard's judgmental attitudes) when you yourself get judged, and so do some of the other disabled forum members (going by some things some have revealed at times, not going to get specific about names)... it's really off-putting.

Oh, and that final quote? That was Kirk, not Picard. And while Kirk had his preferences, I don't recall that he ever judged a woman for being a housewife or thought she should be working outside the home.

As for how I would react to a person from the past - assuming we could speak the same language, it would still depend on who that person was.

Hm... If Henry VIII (an example of a very bad human) had been found frozen out in space, would I support reviving him, curing his ailments, and setting him free? Not without a crash course in human reproduction and genetics and pondering if Mary Boleyn's descendants had a case for suing him for wrongful death for executing Anne Boleyn - who was innocent of all charges and her only "crime" was in having a couple of miscarriages.