Why is Star Trek not that popular in younger people?

[K'Toska]

1)Define "real" science fiction.

Thanks for bringing this up. I see a lot of people referring to Trek as not being real science fiction. I see it with a lot of others shows, movies, and books as well. What does it take for something to be considered real science fiction?

 

[Nerys Myk]

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.

It's the flute music. Very relaxing.

1)Define "real" science fiction.

Thanks for bringing this up. I see a lot of people referring to Trek as not being real science fiction. I see it with a lot of others shows, movies, and books as well. What does it take for something to be considered real science fiction?

This has probably been tue since SF began. I can imagine Verne fans saying Wells' work wasn't real Science Fiction and vice versa

Humans are oddly attracted to tribalism.

 

[The Wormhole]

1)Define "real" science fiction.

Thanks for bringing this up. I see a lot of people referring to Trek as not being real science fiction. I see it with a lot of others shows, movies, and books as well. What does it take for something to be considered real science fiction?

Someone is likely about to waltz in with a long-worded diatribe explaining the traits that "real" science fiction has that are void in most of the popular sci-fi properties these days, but what it all boils down to is this:

If I like it, it's real science fiction.
If I don't like it, it isn't real science fiction.

 

[Starborn Dragon]

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.

I wasn't trying to be insulting, at least on purpose, and I apologize if I come across as such.

However, those who believe in logic are always insulting to people who don't use logic. They think we all have to be the same and we all have to use logic and they're ALWAYS putting people who don't agree with them down. They always think they are justified in insulting people that are not like them. ALWAYS AND FOREVER.

The odd thing is nowhere in any book that I've read, in all the college courses I've taken, nowhere in all of that does it say we must all use logic and those that do sue logic are always smarter and more intelligent than others and nowhere does it say that we must all use logic like they demand.

I don't understand where they get this idea that it is okay to put people down for not being like them.

In this way, they are absolutely no different than anybody else who puts people down who are not like them, regardless of belief, opinion, or ideology.

 

[Nerys Myk]

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.

I wasn't trying to be insulting, at least on purpose, and I apologize if I come across as such.

However, those who believe in logic are always insulting to people who don't use logic. They think we all have to be the same and we all have to use logic and they're ALWAYS putting people who don't agree with them down. They always think they are justified in insulting people that are not like them. ALWAYS AND FOREVER.

The odd thing is nowhere in any book that I've read, in all the college courses I've taken, nowhere in all of that does it say we must all use logic and those that do sue logic are always smarter and more intelligent than others and nowhere does it say that we must all use logic like they demand.

I don't understand where they get this idea that it is okay to put people down for not being like them.

In this way, they are absolutely no different than anybody else who puts people down who are not like them, regardless of belief, opinion, or ideology.

Why are we discussing logic? Where did that come from?

 

[Gov Kodos]

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.

I wasn't trying to be insulting, at least on purpose, and I apologize if I come across as such.

However, those who believe in logic are always insulting to people who don't use logic. They think we all have to be the same and we all have to use logic and they're ALWAYS putting people who don't agree with them down. They always think they are justified in insulting people that are not like them. ALWAYS AND FOREVER.

The odd thing is nowhere in any book that I've read, in all the college courses I've taken, nowhere in all of that does it say we must all use logic and those that do sue logic are always smarter and more intelligent than others and nowhere does it say that we must all use logic like they demand.

I don't understand where they get this idea that it is okay to put people down for not being like them.

In this way, they are absolutely no different than anybody else who puts people down who are not like them, regardless of belief, opinion, or ideology.

Why are we discussing logic? Where did that come from?

He seems to mean none of this is meant to be a rational discussion?

 

[Starborn Dragon]

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.

I wasn't trying to be insulting, at least on purpose, and I apologize if I come across as such.

However, those who believe in logic are always insulting to people who don't use logic. They think we all have to be the same and we all have to use logic and they're ALWAYS putting people who don't agree with them down. They always think they are justified in insulting people that are not like them. ALWAYS AND FOREVER.

The odd thing is nowhere in any book that I've read, in all the college courses I've taken, nowhere in all of that does it say we must all use logic and those that do sue logic are always smarter and more intelligent than others and nowhere does it say that we must all use logic like they demand.

I don't understand where they get this idea that it is okay to put people down for not being like them.

In this way, they are absolutely no different than anybody else who puts people down who are not like them, regardless of belief, opinion, or ideology.

Why are we discussing logic? Where did that come from?

The idiot who slammed me for using a no true Scotsman fallacy.

 

[Starborn Dragon]

I wasn't trying to be insulting, at least on purpose, and I apologize if I come across as such.

However, those who believe in logic are always insulting to people who don't use logic. They think we all have to be the same and we all have to use logic and they're ALWAYS putting people who don't agree with them down. They always think they are justified in insulting people that are not like them. ALWAYS AND FOREVER.

The odd thing is nowhere in any book that I've read, in all the college courses I've taken, nowhere in all of that does it say we must all use logic and those that do sue logic are always smarter and more intelligent than others and nowhere does it say that we must all use logic like they demand.

I don't understand where they get this idea that it is okay to put people down for not being like them.

In this way, they are absolutely no different than anybody else who puts people down who are not like them, regardless of belief, opinion, or ideology.

Why are we discussing logic? Where did that come from?

He seems to mean none of this is meant to be a rational discussion?

This is an informal discussion, not a formal debate.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I wasn't trying to be insulting, at least on purpose, and I apologize if I come across as such.

However, those who believe in logic are always insulting to people who don't use logic. They think we all have to be the same and we all have to use logic and they're ALWAYS putting people who don't agree with them down. They always think they are justified in insulting people that are not like them. ALWAYS AND FOREVER.

The odd thing is nowhere in any book that I've read, in all the college courses I've taken, nowhere in all of that does it say we must all use logic and those that do sue logic are always smarter and more intelligent than others and nowhere does it say that we must all use logic like they demand.

I don't understand where they get this idea that it is okay to put people down for not being like them.

In this way, they are absolutely no different than anybody else who puts people down who are not like them, regardless of belief, opinion, or ideology.

Why are we discussing logic? Where did that come from?

The idiot who slammed me for using a no true Scotsman fallacy.

Do you understand why he brought it up?

 

[Gov Kodos]

Why are we discussing logic? Where did that come from?

He seems to mean none of this is meant to be a rational discussion?

This is an informal discussion, not a formal debate.

Informal discussion isn't rational?

 

[BillJ]

I wasn't trying to be insulting, at least on purpose, and I apologize if I come across as such.

However, those who believe in logic are always insulting to people who don't use logic. They think we all have to be the same and we all have to use logic and they're ALWAYS putting people who don't agree with them down. They always think they are justified in insulting people that are not like them. ALWAYS AND FOREVER.

The odd thing is nowhere in any book that I've read, in all the college courses I've taken, nowhere in all of that does it say we must all use logic and those that do sue logic are always smarter and more intelligent than others and nowhere does it say that we must all use logic like they demand.

I don't understand where they get this idea that it is okay to put people down for not being like them.

In this way, they are absolutely no different than anybody else who puts people down who are not like them, regardless of belief, opinion, or ideology.

Nothing to do with logic. Just simple manners and understanding that not everyone likes the same things.

I can't argue the popularity of "The Inner Light" even though the episode does absolutely nothing for me. But to call it dumb, shallow or crap does nothing to make me seem smart or educated, even though I can absolutely shred the episode.

 

[Starborn Dragon]

Why are we discussing logic? Where did that come from?

The idiot who slammed me for using a no true Scotsman fallacy.

Do you understand why he brought it up?

It doesn't matter why. He was wrong to slam me.

I am not wrong either.

Those movies are not real science fiction.

 

[Autistoid]

Nothing to do with logic. Just simple manners and understanding that not everyone likes the same things.

I can't argue the popularity of "The Inner Light" even though the episode does absolutely nothing for me. But to call it dumb, shallow or crap does nothing to make me seem smart or educated, even though I can absolutely shred the episode.

We live in a closed system it's not rocket science.

Why on earth am I gonna be nice about someone else making my quality of life lesser.

When people like shinny flashing lights, there are less products based on other qualities.

Your acting like tastes are completely subjective they are not. There is a tonne of evidence that pretty strongly sugguest thats movies are dropping in theatrical quality, as cgi, home dvds, and foreign markets change the artform.

We don't live in a closed system.

The wonders of the free market society is that people far too often choose the path of least resistance, and when your a minority there is close to nothing you can do.

When the majority prefer something that is of lesser quality as a theatrical artform I'm stuck with less quality.


Why hate yourself when you can hate others

 

[BillJ]

Why hate yourself when you can hate others

If hate comes into play over a piece of entertainment, then you have some deep, deep issues you need to resolve.

 

[Autistoid]

Why hate yourself when you can hate others

If hate comes into play over a piece of entertainment, then you have some deep, deep issues you need to resolve.

I'd argue a healthy dose of hating is quite healthy.

People are made to hate, unhealthy is pretending casual hatred isn't absolutely common.

It's one of those things, people are afraid to acknowledge they are guilty of doing.

Everyone hates people that hate the most are those that critizes others for hating.

 

[BillJ]

Why hate yourself when you can hate others

If hate comes into play over a piece of entertainment, then you have some deep, deep issues you need to resolve.

I'd argue a healthy dose of hating is quite healthy.

People are made to hate, unhealthy is pretending casual hatred isn't absolutely common.

Okay...

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKmUd0zHW4w[/yt]

We can admit that we're killers, but we're not going to kill today.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The idiot who slammed me for using a no true Scotsman fallacy.

Do you understand why he brought it up?

It doesn't matter why. He was wrong to slam me

he didn't "slam"you. He pointed out you were using an informal fallacy.

I am not wrong either.

Those movies are not real science fiction.

Provide a definition of "real science fiction".

Science fiction has been around a long time, some cite "Frankenstein" as the first SF novel. All sorts of stories have been told in the genre from straight up space opera to metaphorical mindblowing existentialism. It can't be narrowed down and put in the box your're trying to make.

And come on , don't try to paint a picture of real SF fans as deep intellectuals and then get thrown when someone tosses the "No True Scotsmans" fallacy your way.

Also you can't say "Americans don't think" in one post and then complain about those using logic as a way of "putting people who don't agree with them down" in another.

 

[BillJ]

he didn't "slam"you. He pointed out you were using an informal fallacy.

This seems to be the new face of fandom. If you use any kind of facts in an argument, it is a slam.

Provide a definition of "real science fiction".

Science fiction has been around a long time, some cite "Frankenstein" as the first SF novel. All sorts of stories have been told in the genre from straight up space opera to metaphorical mindblowing existentialism. It can't be narrowed down and put in the box your're trying to make.

And come on , don't try to paint a picture of real SF fans as deep intellectuals and then get thrown when someone tosses the "No True Scotsmans" fallacy your way.

Also you can't say "Americans don't think" in one post and then complain about those using logic as a way of "putting people who don't agree with them down" in another.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science fiction

Seems either all or none of Star Trek falls under the definition. Because it is all relatively the same.

fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component

 

[JWPlatt]

United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once said he knows science fiction when he sees it. Or something like that. He presciently determined in 1964 that Star Trek is science fiction, according to me.

 

[fireproof78]

The idiot who slammed me for using a no true Scotsman fallacy.

Do you understand why he brought it up?

It doesn't matter why. He was wrong to slam me.

I am not wrong either.

Those movies are not real science fiction.

I'm sorry, but I have read a lot of science fiction over the years, and have watched even more. Since when is Star Trek films not real science fiction?

So, I went on a search for definitions of science fiction, since defining the terms is important in any discussion. This is what I found:

Science fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with imaginative content such as futuristic settings, futuristic science and technology, space travel, time travel, faster than light travel, parallel universes and extraterrestrial life.

a form of fiction that draws imaginatively on scientific knowledge and speculation in its plot, setting, theme, etc.

And so on and so forth. Less I look like I'm cherry picking my definitions, here is an io9.com article discussing the many different ideas from a variety of authors and sources.

So, there are several working definitions from which to start.

Beyond that, I have always taken science fiction as an extrapolation of science and/or technology and the impact that it has upon people, regardless of the nature of the change. An argument can be made that in some ways Deadwood or Dr. Quin Medicine Woman are science fiction in some aspects because they present changes in technological understanding that affected people and their behavior.

As for Abrams Trek, honestly, there is so much more commentary in those films that they ever get credit for. So, if they are not science fiction, that's fine. They are still interesting speculations regarding technology and characters impacted.