Why is Star Trek not that popular in younger people?

[Phantom]

oldTrek is not much like modern entertainment. It is very much like the shows I watched when I was fifteen years old; one of them was the original Star Trek. There's no reason to believe that Star Trek can be the sole exception that thrives by fossilization rather than innovation after five decades.

I don't call dumbing-down and sexing-up "innovative". I call it "cynical". I call it "pandering to the lowest common denominator". Because it is both. Trek should have more substance than the average Tom Cruise movie.

Yes, the current cultural winds are against Trek. But winds change. Sooner or later, a more positive, optimistic outlook will return. Trek needs to be ready for when it does.

Yeah, which is why movies are written and performed the way they were in the 1930s - because this stuff actually goes in cycles.

You can hold your breath waiting for the return of that "good ol' time entertainment" if you like. Fact is that the audience and styles have moved on and oldTrek is never coming back in the form you like to imagine. It's dead.

They said serials were dead and along comes Star Wars. They said adventure films were dead and along comes Indiana Jones.

I refuse to believe that our society will forever-more be trapped in the mire of cynicism and despair that have colored much of sci-fi for the last 10-15 years.

Trek should have more substance than the average Tom Cruise movie.

Why? It hasn't before. I've been watching Star Trek since 1975 and am still waiting for this deep, progressive franchise everyone keeps talking about.

TMP - Is the physical all that exists? Are we nothing more than the components that made us?

WOK - What does a man who has spent his life cheating the odds do when the odds can no longer be cheated? What does a man do when he is confronted with the life he could have had?

SFS - What is the value of one man's soul? How far will a person's friends go to save him?

TVH - What price might we pay tomorrow for our foolishness yesterday?

TFF - What is the nature of God and faith?

TUC - What happens when two groups who have hated each other for years have to work together to solve a crisis? What will one group do to another when they have them at their mercy? How will individuals within those groups face their own inner prejudices and can they overcome them?

GEN - How does a man come to grips with what he sees as the end of his useful life? What can happen when a man holds too dearly on to the past and refuses to look forward? (again) How does a man confront the "roads un-traveled"?

FC - The terrible price of obsession. How do people respond when they find that their heroes are just normal men such as themselves? How does a man who has lost so much in his life that he has become bitter and cynical find new hope?

INS - How do people who have become too busy in their lives learn to slow the pace and actually live those lives? What rights do majorities and minorities have when their needs conflict? What is the "greater good"?

NEM - What is the controlling factor in a person's life? Nature or nurture?

The various serieses had no shortage of topics to comment on either, ranging from terrorism (The High Ground, any Maquis episode), to the ethics of war (In the Pale Moonlight), bio-ethics and human experimentation (Unnatural Selection, Dr Bashir I Presume, the "Jack Pack" episodes), the unintended consequences of changing environments (Home Soil), ethical considerations of intervening in the lives of others (Pen Pals), torture (Chain of Command), recovery from horrific violations of person (Family), and how "saints" react when brought face to face with a decidedly "unsaintly" universe (Homefront, Paradise Lost, Siege of AR-558).

That's just off the top of my head.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

oldTrek is not much like modern entertainment. It is very much like the shows I watched when I was fifteen years old; one of them was the original Star Trek. There's no reason to believe that Star Trek can be the sole exception that thrives by fossilization rather than innovation after five decades.

I don't call dumbing-down and sexing-up "innovative". I call it "cynica"l. I call it "pandering to the lowest common denominator". Because it is both. Trek should have more substance than the average Tom Cruise movie.

Yes, the current cultural winds are against Trek. But winds change. Sooner or later, a more positive, optimistic outlook will return. Trek needs to be ready for when it does.

Yeah, which is why movies are written and performed the way they were in the 1930s - because this stuff actually goes in cycles.

You can hold your breath waiting for the return of that "good ol' time entertainment" if you like. Fact is that the audience and styles have moved on and oldTrek is never coming back in the form you like to imagine. It's dead.

THIS. And what Phantom says about 'dumbing down' is nonsense/bullshit, since Star Trek is an action-adventure franchise to begin with, and has been mentioned as such by a lot of people here on this board in various discussions umpteen million times. Anything else is just the fantasies of Gene Roddenberry years after the fact pun by fans at the big conventions of the '70's blowing smoke up his ass.

Basically, while no one might have predicted that Got would be a big hit, the creators approached it as did the folks behind "Mad Men," "Breaking Bad" and so on. That begins with portrayals of human emotions, motives and behavior that are far more observant and nuanced than fits into the oldTrek format. Human beings in adult drama may be complex but they're motivated by a few simple things, none of which are really acknowledged in Star Trek. Characters who hold themselves to standards, follow ideals and act heroically are still motivated by the same kinds of things, and that's a good part of their struggles and conflicts both with themselves and others.

If you want to cling to the simplistic, supposedly Utopian characterizations of oldTrek you're not creating something that will hold the attention of a lot of intelligent adults for very long. You're doing "family" or kid's stories.

If you can't let go of those simplistic Trek characters, well then you can always feature them in stories which bring a little faux "darkness" into the mix by addressing controversy in ways that will leave the kids behind while not challenging the audience at all and call that adult - but then you're just producing yet another CSI or NCIS or Blue Bloods or one of dozens of other procedurals that the networks crap out to distract a somewhat older and undemanding audience. If that's what you want, have a great time.

Again, THIS.

 

[Autistoid]

A great dramatic moment and it's so bloody shallow.

Whenever I see an example of "that sucks!" I instantly want to see an example of "that's awesome!" from the POV of the complainant so that I know where they are coming from and get a better sense of their tastes. And vice versa...

So...

How about an example of a similar scene which you believe was handled in an exceptional way (in any movie - not just Star Trek)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7WlyuI7xGI

Hows this

 

[Autistoid]

Film is a visual medium. For the first quarter-century of commercial motion pictures, movies did just fine with no dialogue except for occasional brief intertitles (and sometimes not even those).

You ever wonder why no one watches them now????????????????????

You can argue tastes and all that jazz, the reality is the acting is all about dialogue, tone of voice, body language etc.

Acting and developing characters seems to be a pretty big part of film, some might argue that's why there is a thing called the academy awards who knows.

Maybe all the neuroscientists and acting professionals are clueless.

But it is not, as you mentioned, not just about dialog. Body language is nonverbal. Facial expression is nonverbal. There is more to Spock than his dialog, Nimoy's body language helps sell the character. Lifting an eyebrow says as much as the line "fascinating". Silent actors were the masters at acting without words.

By bringing body language into this discussion, you've pretty much sunk your point about dialog.

I don't see how, dialogue isn't about merely saying lines.

Good dialogue is about all the things you just mentioned.

 

[Autistoid]

I think I know why the younger crowd isn't all that into Star Trek. Nothing to do with attentions spans. Everything to do with tastes changing.

Look at the TV shows that have been popular lately: Is Breaking Bad set in a utopia where the protagonists are always morally upright? How about The Walking Dead? Game of Thrones? Absolutely not. The morality in the most popular TV shows today is far more gray and gray than black and white because that's how the viewing public doesn't see the world that way, and thus a squeaky clean utopia seems more unrealistic. Morally upright characters aren't gone (see Captain America), but the worlds they are put into are no longer clearly divided between good and evil as they once were.

I think this is essentially how adults view moralty.

Just look at the godfather a classic, and clearly shades of gray.

We all grow up thinking in the past that people had this simplistic sense of right and wrong, yet nearly every historical record shows people always had a mix of gray thinking and pragmatism.

How do you think things like slavery happened, it wasn't like people thought it was clearly right and wrong, there was a complex ethic at work.

An optimistic view of the future, doesn't me everything is good and peaceful.

Optimism is looking at the bad, and having hope.

 

[Nerys Myk]

You ever wonder why no one watches them now????????????????????

You can argue tastes and all that jazz, the reality is the acting is all about dialogue, tone of voice, body language etc.

Acting and developing characters seems to be a pretty big part of film, some might argue that's why there is a thing called the academy awards who knows.

Maybe all the neuroscientists and acting professionals are clueless.

But it is not, as you mentioned, not just about dialog. Body language is nonverbal. Facial expression is nonverbal. There is more to Spock than his dialog, Nimoy's body language helps sell the character. Lifting an eyebrow says as much as the line "fascinating". Silent actors were the masters at acting without words.

By bringing body language into this discussion, you've pretty much sunk your point about dialog.

I don't see how, dialogue isn't about merely saying lines.

Good dialogue is about all the things you just mentioned.

The word you're looking for is "acting".

 

[The Wormhole]

I refuse to believe that our society will forever-more be trapped in the mire of cynicism and despair that have colored much of sci-fi for the last 10-15 years.

Eh? BSG is not all the sci-fi that has existed in the past 10-15 years. Optimism still exists in sci-fi, Doctor Who for example is extremely optimistic and one of the more popular sci-fi properties active today. The Stargate shows had their heyday 10 to 15 years ago and were very optimistic. Indeed, it was SGU which tried to be darker that led to that franchise's decline. Firefly, one of the most talked about sci-fi shows of the past 15 years is largely optimistic, it just isn't a utopia. Granted, Serenity did get a little darker, but that was mainly a story necessity. Finally, one of last year's most popular sci-fi movies Guardians of the Galaxy has no cynicism or despair in it at all. In fact, Paramount allegedly wants the next Trek movie to be like GotG.

TMP - Is the physical all that exists? Are we nothing more than the components that made us?

WOK - What does a man who has spent his life cheating the odds do when the odds can no longer be cheated? What does a man do when he is confronted with the life he could have had?

SFS - What is the value of one man's soul? How far will a person's friends go to save him?

TVH - What price might we pay tomorrow for our foolishness yesterday?

TFF - What is the nature of God and faith?

TUC - What happens when two groups who have hated each other for years have to work together to solve a crisis? What will one group do to another when they have them at their mercy? How will individuals within those groups face their own inner prejudices and can they overcome them?

GEN - How does a man come to grips with what he sees as the end of his useful life? What can happen when a man holds too dearly on to the past and refuses to look forward? (again) How does a man confront the "roads un-traveled"?

FC - The terrible price of obsession. How do people respond when they find that their heroes are just normal men such as themselves? How does a man who has lost so much in his life that he has become bitter and cynical find new hope?

INS - How do people who have become too busy in their lives learn to slow the pace and actually live those lives? What rights do majorities and minorities have when their needs conflict? What is the "greater good"?

NEM - What is the controlling factor in a person's life? Nature or nurture?

The various serieses had no shortage of topics to comment on either, ranging from terrorism (The High Ground, any Maquis episode), to the ethics of war (In the Pale Moonlight), bio-ethics and human experimentation (Unnatural Selection, Dr Bashir I Presume, the "Jack Pack" episodes), the unintended consequences of changing environments (Home Soil), ethical considerations of intervening in the lives of others (Pen Pals), torture (Chain of Command), recovery from horrific violations of person (Family), and how "saints" react when brought face to face with a decidedly "unsaintly" universe (Homefront, Paradise Lost, Siege of AR-558).

That's just off the top of my head.

I think you're looking too hard to see thing which aren't there. Sure, I love Star Trek, it's a great and entertaining series of TV shows and movies. But it's not the kind of deep intellectualism everyone makes it out to be. And some of the more popular episodes and movies of the franchise are the ones that are straight action fare such as Arena, The Doomsday Machine, Yesterday's Enterprise, The Best of Both Worlds, TWOK, TUC, First Contact, or lighthearted comedies like The Trouble with Tribbles, Q-Pid, or TVH.

 

[Nightdiamond]

I think I know why the younger crowd isn't all that into Star Trek. Nothing to do with attentions spans. Everything to do with tastes changing.

Look at the TV shows that have been popular lately: Is Breaking Bad set in a utopia where the protagonists are always morally upright? How about The Walking Dead? Game of Thrones? Absolutely not. The morality in the most popular TV shows today is far more gray and gray than black and white because that's how the viewing public doesn't see the world that way, and thus a squeaky clean utopia seems more unrealistic. Morally upright characters aren't gone (see Captain America), but the worlds they are put into are no longer clearly divided between good and evil as they once were.

I think this is essentially how adults view moralty.

Just look at the godfather a classic, and clearly shades of gray.

We all grow up thinking in the past that people had this simplistic sense of right and wrong, yet nearly every historical record shows people always had a mix of gray thinking and pragmatism.

How do you think things like slavery happened, it wasn't like people thought it was clearly right and wrong, there was a complex ethic at work.

An optimistic view of the future, doesn't me everything is good and peaceful.

Optimism is looking at the bad, and having hope.

Shows like GOT and Breaking Bad are major hits because of the entertainment value of the moral grey situations.

It's exciting and fun to watch. The real life issues like slavery and forced marriages? No way- moral absolutism and sort everything out later.

Tyrion Lannister's speech at his trial? That's good dialog plus acting. Picard saying 'there are FOUR lights? Good dialog and good acting.

Data and Geordi talking about Data's cat? Well.............OK it's boring lol.

 

[Inactive-Shapeshifter]

Note - I'm new at this.

I'm under 20 (not gonna say real age) and I've noticed I'm the only one in my school who likes Star Trek. I was wondering if anyone knew why young people don't like it. I started watching it when I was 11 and have finished TOS , TNG, VOY. I'm in the middle of DS9. Live long and prosper.

MY FRIEND, LET ME SALUTE YOU, AFTER ALL THOSE YEARS, I FIND ANOTHER OF MY KIND. I'm under 20 as well, and i have only one friend in school that likes Star Trek the way i do. You are the FIRST PERSON under 20 that i found in the foruns on the NET!

 

[Autistoid]

Shows like GOT and Breaking Bad are major hits because of the entertainment value of the moral grey situations.

It's exciting and fun to watch. The real life issues like slavery and forced marriages? No way- moral absolutism and sort everything out later.

Tyrion Lannister's speech at his trial? That's good dialog plus acting. Picard saying 'there are FOUR lights? Good dialog and good acting.

Data and Geordi talking about Data's cat? Well.............OK it's boring lol.

I think that's missing a bit of detail.

In breaking bad for example, it'd be near impossible for the mass audience to relate to a Christian narco, nor a straight up bad drug dealer.

people wanna see real people in danger acting like real people.

It doesn't matter what the source, as long as its real.

People attack "dark" pessimistic" Stuff from their viewpoint.

For many adults, getting escapism from something that is too safe, too unnatural, or too goody is bloody hard to relate too.

Thats what drives me with this "it's only good fun" type arguments.

Danger is a key element to star trek, being brave in the face of danger is another key, finally making these characters like everyday people broadens your audience.

Optimism is a point of view.

Similar to utopia.

 

[FormerLurker]

TMP - Is the physical all that exists? Are we nothing more than the components that made us?

WOK - What does a man who has spent his life cheating the odds do when the odds can no longer be cheated? What does a man do when he is confronted with the life he could have had?

SFS - What is the value of one man's soul? How far will a person's friends go to save him?

TVH - What price might we pay tomorrow for our foolishness yesterday?

TFF - What is the nature of God and faith?

TUC - What happens when two groups who have hated each other for years have to work together to solve a crisis? What will one group do to another when they have them at their mercy? How will individuals within those groups face their own inner prejudices and can they overcome them?

GEN - How does a man come to grips with what he sees as the end of his useful life? What can happen when a man holds too dearly on to the past and refuses to look forward? (again) How does a man confront the "roads un-traveled"?

FC - The terrible price of obsession. How do people respond when they find that their heroes are just normal men such as themselves? How does a man who has lost so much in his life that he has become bitter and cynical find new hope?

INS - How do people who have become too busy in their lives learn to slow the pace and actually live those lives? What rights do majorities and minorities have when their needs conflict? What is the "greater good"?

NEM - What is the controlling factor in a person's life? Nature or nurture?

The various serieses had no shortage of topics to comment on either, ranging from terrorism (The High Ground, any Maquis episode), to the ethics of war (In the Pale Moonlight), bio-ethics and human experimentation (Unnatural Selection, Dr Bashir I Presume, the "Jack Pack" episodes), the unintended consequences of changing environments (Home Soil), ethical considerations of intervening in the lives of others (Pen Pals), torture (Chain of Command), recovery from horrific violations of person (Family), and how "saints" react when brought face to face with a decidedly "unsaintly" universe (Homefront, Paradise Lost, Siege of AR-558).

That's just off the top of my head.

I think you're looking too hard to see thing which aren't there. Sure, I love Star Trek, it's a great and entertaining series of TV shows and movies. But it's not the kind of deep intellectualism everyone makes it out to be. And some of the more popular episodes and movies of the franchise are the ones that are straight action fare such as Arena, The Doomsday Machine, Yesterday's Enterprise, The Best of Both Worlds, TWOK, TUC, First Contact, or lighthearted comedies like The Trouble with Tribbles, Q-Pid, or TVH.

Arena - Are humans mere animals, only capable of seeking revenge for wrongdoing, or can we rise above, and if not forgive, at least accept that ours is not the only point of view?

The Doomsday Machine - What price obsession? Must we destroy ourselves in futile and vain efforts at vengeance, or can we find a better way?

The Trouble with Tribbles - Are we justified in removing native creatures to new environments solely for our own pleasure, or are they better left alone?

Q-Pid - Q messing with Picard, offering little to no justification for his actions. As with all Q episodes, the less said the better.

For all the films, I can't put it better than Phantom did, as seen above.

Just because you don't, or don't want to, see the intellectualism in these stories doesn't mean it isn't there. Often the most subtle presentation of such things is the most successful. When it gets dismissed as Star Trek has been, it's usually because of the trappings, not the story. The unimpressed viewer is disappointed by the spaceship, the rayguns, and the pointy-eared guy, and can't see past them to the deeper, more resonant elements of the story itself.

I forgot to comment on Yesterday's Enterprise and Best of Both Worlds, and won't, as that will take much more consideration.

 

[Autistoid]

Just because you don't, or don't want to, see the intellectualism in these stories doesn't mean it isn't there. Often the most subtle presentation of such things is the most successful. When it gets dismissed as Star Trek has been, it's usually because of the trappings, not the story. The unimpressed viewer is disappointed by the spaceship, the rayguns, and the pointy-eared guy, and can't see past them to the deeper, more resonant elements of the story itself.

This I think is why trek is truly great.

You can have both heavy intellectualism side by side with mindless escapism.

It's I think the best way to make stories in a capitalist artform where the broader the audience the better.

The problem is when action plots, come at the expense of ideas or vice versa.

I think as an ideal, Star Trek should be series where virtually any faculty in a university or college, can use a full episode as part of a lecture.

Whether it's sociology talking about wealth inequality, a biologist talking about evolution, or a human kinetics professor talking about the power of a klingons punch.

The pothead freshman in the class should be able to sit down and be glued in.


I think it's a habit of trekkies to think your average person doesn't like intellectual ideas.

What people want are intellectual ideas that are relevant and not just useful information.

 

[Starborn Dragon]

Science fiction has never really been very popular. Most people in America are incapable of understanding it or can't identify with some of the elements in it like how some people identify with Spock.

That's non-sense.

Didn't you see the list earlier in this very thread that shows a whole slew of sci-fi/fantasy films as top earners. Studios don't keep making these movies for the nerd crowd. They make them because people like them and will pay to see them.

Except for one thing.

They are not real science fiction. They are far more action and adventure than science fiction meant for nerds. Even the JJ Ab rams Star Trek movies are not real Star Trek or science fiction. They're just adventure yarns. I don't mean that as a bad thing, mind you, so please don't take it as such.

Science fiction for nerds is like "The Cage" or "The Motion Picture".

While they may be cerebral, they explore things and inspire people to think about things and other possibilities. Nerds like to think about things. That's why nerds love things li9ke science fiction and astronomy and history and the like. Most people in America are not like that.

There's nothing really thought provoking about those movies.

Most people in America are not really thinkers. I apologize if that sounds insulting, but I am not truly trying to be, as I am just trying to make an observation.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Except for one thing.

They are not real science fiction.

Ah, yes, I was waiting for the no true Scotsman gambit.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

^And you've just got it.

 

[Starborn Dragon]

Except for one thing.

They are not real science fiction.

Ah, yes, I was waiting for the no true Scotsman gambit.

Logic is the mere beginning of w2isdom.

To force us all into using logic is irrational and just another form of tyranny.

And tyranny is the default condition of all human existence.

And also an episode of South Park.

 

[BillJ]

Literary sci-fi makes the best of Star Trek look simple. I'm sure that there are people here who would be very offended if literary sci-fi fans came to this board and told them what they liked was dumb, shallow or crap. Yet those very same people have no issue looking down on people who have different tastes than themselves.

For a fanbase that says they are followers of Roddenberry's vision, they come off rather poorly when dealing with people who have different tastes.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Except for one thing.

They are not real science fiction. They are far more action and adventure than science fiction meant for nerds. Even the JJ Ab rams Star Trek movies are not real Star Trek or science fiction. They're just adventure yarns. I don't mean that as a bad thing, mind you, so please don't take it as such.

1)Define "real" science fiction.

What ever you want to call it, it's probably a subset of Science Fiction

2) Define "nerd".

I'm a pretty big nerd. I like many flavors of SF

3) Star Trek is a an action adventure show. That's from the mouth/typewriter of The Great Bird himself.

Science fiction for nerds is like "The Cage" or "The Motion Picture".

So fights with alien barbarians, green dancing girls and big old lasers blowing shit up are what counts as "cerebral". GR's spin on why it didn't sell doesn't make "The Cage" cerebral. A plodding pace and ship porn doesn't make TMP cerebral either.

While they may be cerebral, they explore things and inspire people to think about things and other possibilities. Nerds like to think about things. That's why nerds love things li9ke science fiction and astronomy and history and the like. Most people in America are not like that.

What did "the Cage" and TMP make you "think" about?

I think your opinion of nerds is a lot higher than mine and as I said, I am a nerd There are nerds who have contributed to society and non nerds who have done the same. You don't have to be a nerd to have an impact.

Liking science fiction doesn't make you a thinker, an intellectual or somehow better than people who don't. If you take anything away from Star Trek it should probably be that.

There's nothing really thought provoking about those movies.

Or perhaps you missed it. Social commentary is a slippery beast and not always as obvious as a shovel to the face.

Most people in America are not really thinkers. I apologize if that sounds insulting, but I am not truly trying to be, as I am just trying to make an observation.

Based on what? Which movies they enjoy?

 

[The Wormhole]

TMP - Is the physical all that exists? Are we nothing more than the components that made us?

WOK - What does a man who has spent his life cheating the odds do when the odds can no longer be cheated? What does a man do when he is confronted with the life he could have had?

SFS - What is the value of one man's soul? How far will a person's friends go to save him?

TVH - What price might we pay tomorrow for our foolishness yesterday?

TFF - What is the nature of God and faith?

TUC - What happens when two groups who have hated each other for years have to work together to solve a crisis? What will one group do to another when they have them at their mercy? How will individuals within those groups face their own inner prejudices and can they overcome them?

GEN - How does a man come to grips with what he sees as the end of his useful life? What can happen when a man holds too dearly on to the past and refuses to look forward? (again) How does a man confront the "roads un-traveled"?

FC - The terrible price of obsession. How do people respond when they find that their heroes are just normal men such as themselves? How does a man who has lost so much in his life that he has become bitter and cynical find new hope?

INS - How do people who have become too busy in their lives learn to slow the pace and actually live those lives? What rights do majorities and minorities have when their needs conflict? What is the "greater good"?

NEM - What is the controlling factor in a person's life? Nature or nurture?

The various serieses had no shortage of topics to comment on either, ranging from terrorism (The High Ground, any Maquis episode), to the ethics of war (In the Pale Moonlight), bio-ethics and human experimentation (Unnatural Selection, Dr Bashir I Presume, the "Jack Pack" episodes), the unintended consequences of changing environments (Home Soil), ethical considerations of intervening in the lives of others (Pen Pals), torture (Chain of Command), recovery from horrific violations of person (Family), and how "saints" react when brought face to face with a decidedly "unsaintly" universe (Homefront, Paradise Lost, Siege of AR-558).

That's just off the top of my head.

I think you're looking too hard to see thing which aren't there. Sure, I love Star Trek, it's a great and entertaining series of TV shows and movies. But it's not the kind of deep intellectualism everyone makes it out to be. And some of the more popular episodes and movies of the franchise are the ones that are straight action fare such as Arena, The Doomsday Machine, Yesterday's Enterprise, The Best of Both Worlds, TWOK, TUC, First Contact, or lighthearted comedies like The Trouble with Tribbles, Q-Pid, or TVH.

Arena - Are humans mere animals, only capable of seeking revenge for wrongdoing, or can we rise above, and if not forgive, at least accept that ours is not the only point of view?

The Doomsday Machine - What price obsession? Must we destroy ourselves in futile and vain efforts at vengeance, or can we find a better way?

The Trouble with Tribbles - Are we justified in removing native creatures to new environments solely for our own pleasure, or are they better left alone?

Q-Pid - Q messing with Picard, offering little to no justification for his actions. As with all Q episodes, the less said the better.

For all the films, I can't put it better than Phantom did, as seen above.

Just because you don't, or don't want to, see the intellectualism in these stories doesn't mean it isn't there. Often the most subtle presentation of such things is the most successful. When it gets dismissed as Star Trek has been, it's usually because of the trappings, not the story. The unimpressed viewer is disappointed by the spaceship, the rayguns, and the pointy-eared guy, and can't see past them to the deeper, more resonant elements of the story itself.

I forgot to comment on Yesterday's Enterprise and Best of Both Worlds, and won't, as that will take much more consideration.

I don't care if one can find some sort of deeper intellectualism in the episodes I cited (although I still think you're looking too hard at stuff which isn't there) my point is that the most popular episodes/movies are usually the ones which are straight action or light hearted comedies. In fact, are there any really popular episodes that don't fall under either category? I suppose TMP did haul in loads of money, but that's it with the movies. As for the shows, The Conscience of the King does generate a lot of popularity and it's a character piece. Darmok, I guess, but there really isn't that many.

 

[BillJ]

As for the shows, The Conscience of the King does generate a lot of popularity and it's a character piece. Darmok, I guess, but there really isn't that many.

"The Inner Light" seems to be popular, but it puts me to sleep.