Why is Star Trek not that popular in younger people?

[Phantom]

Doctor Who for example is extremely optimistic and one of the more popular sci-fi properties active today.

Dr Who is produced under the BBC system where the response of the viewing market is not the determinate factor in it's continuation. Yes it has a measure of popularity but it also has powerful insider friends who advocate on its behalf to the program deciders.

The Stargate shows had their heyday 10 to 15 years ago and were very optimistic.

Just as I said, better part of a decade and a half ago, NOT the modern SF market.

Firefly, one of the most talked about sci-fi shows of the past 15 years is largely optimistic, it just isn't a utopia.

Apparently you haven't actually watched the show. It's about losers who REMAIN losers and down at the bottom. That's how Joss DESIGNED the show, and he's said as much.

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.

Superheroes are not sci-fi. And we've had two "superheroish" Trek films already, and they were lightweight and unimpressive.

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 is not a straight action show. Kirk comes to understand the trait of mercy, and examining situations from other perspectives, rather than blindly waving the Federation flag and "gung ho"-ing his supposed enemy.

Doomsday machine examines how guilt can affect a person, especially a leader.

And I already listed the philosophical/moral/ethical issues examined by WOK, TVH, TUC, and FC.

Those issues are real and they are there and boards like this have spent pages and pages and pages of posts examining and debating them.

 

[BillJ]

Superheroes are not sci-fi. And we've had two "superheroish" Trek films already, and they were lightweight and unimpressive.

Superman, a man from another world would like to have a word with you.

The two lightweight and unimpressive films are the highest grossing and highest rated by movie watchers. I guess they must fall under "everyone on the planet is stupid but me"?

 

[BillJ]

Arena is not a straight action show. Kirk comes to understand the trait of mercy, and examining situations from other perspectives, rather than blindly waving the Federation flag and "gung ho"-ing his supposed enemy.

You mean exactly like he did in Star Trek Into Darkness when he decided to go against his orders and bring Khan back to Earth for trial?

Gosh darnit! Why must the Abrams films be nothing like the source material!

 

[Starborn Dragon]

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.

What good would it do since all you want to do is correct me? To try to define what real science fiction is would be a fruitless endeavor to you.

And just because some people attempt to use logic doesn't mean they are real thinkers. Some people use logic as a force for mindless soulless conformity too.

So yes, I can. And I will. Don't ever tell me what i can and can't do.

What Americans value most is is conformity. At the risk of sounding like a joke, but which I am not making, it's just that Americans can't agree on what to conform to. That is what is causing all the political infighting in America is all about. Otherwise there would be very little infighting.

And the ONLY reason to point out a flaw is to put someone down so you control how they express themselves. There is no other reason.

Nobody has the right to do that. Well, except maybe the owners of a discussion forum.

All you're doing now is harassing me now.

You're not going to get what you want from me so you might as well let it go.

But i know you won't. You're all the same.

 

[Phantom]

Superheroes are not sci-fi. And we've had two "superheroish" Trek films already, and they were lightweight and unimpressive.

Superman, a man from another world would like to have a word with you.

What does Superman have to do with anything. Superman may have had (originally) a well thought out powerset that had some measure of scientific validity, but that does not make superheroes as a genre part of sci-fi.

Science fiction is a very specific genre with a particular definition as several people have already discussed. Intellectual speculation and thought are central to what science fiction is.

Superman whaling on Doomsday, or Nazis, or whatever is neither intellectual speculation nor is it thoughtful.

The two lightweight and unimpressive films are the highest grossing and highest rated by movie watchers. I guess they must fall under "everyone on the planet is stupid but me"?

The Abrams films are well down the list in terms of ranked popularity of Trek films.

 

[BillJ]

What good would it do since all you want to do is correct me? To try to define what real science fiction is would be a fruitless endeavor to you.

Either all Star Trek is science fiction or none of it is. Because it all uses the same basic trappings. I may not like some of Star Trek but it is silly for me to try to disqualify it as science fiction.

Because it is.

You can argue til your blue in the face whether or not it is good science fiction. Some of it is, some of it isn't. But none of Star Trek is as good as literary science fiction.

 

[BillJ]

What does Superman have to do with anything. Superman may have had (originally) a well thought out powerset that had some measure of scientific validity, but that does not make superheroes as a genre part of sci-fi.

Superheroes use all kinds of technology and fight other world bad guys at regular intervals. Sounds like sci-fi to me.

Science fiction is a very specific genre with a particular definition as several people have already discussed. Intellectual speculation and thought are central to what science fiction is.

No, it isn't.

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

Superman whaling on Doomsday, or Nazis, or whatever is neither intellectual speculation nor is it thoughtful.

But it is fun. It can be thoughtful and intellectual as the writer has to be creative.

The Abrams films are well down the list in terms of ranked popularity of Trek films.

I'm actually talking about people that buy movie tickets, which Star Trek fans only make up a small part of.

 

[fireproof78]

Doctor Who for example is extremely optimistic and one of the more popular sci-fi properties active today.

Dr Who is produced under the BBC system where the response of the viewing market is not the determinate factor in it's continuation. Yes it has a measure of popularity but it also has powerful insider friends who advocate on its behalf to the program deciders.

The Stargate shows had their heyday 10 to 15 years ago and were very optimistic.

Just as I said, better part of a decade and a half ago, NOT the modern SF market.



Apparently you haven't actually watched the show. It's about losers who REMAIN losers and down at the bottom. That's how Joss DESIGNED the show, and he's said as much.



Superheroes are not sci-fi. And we've had two "superheroish" Trek films already, and they were lightweight and unimpressive.

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 is not a straight action show. Kirk comes to understand the trait of mercy, and examining situations from other perspectives, rather than blindly waving the Federation flag and "gung ho"-ing his supposed enemy.

Doomsday machine examines how guilt can affect a person, especially a leader.

And I already listed the philosophical/moral/ethical issues examined by WOK, TVH, TUC, and FC.

Those issues are real and they are there and boards like this have spent pages and pages and pages of posts examining and debating them.

I'm still waiting for the long and lengthy debate that can be spent discussing the importance of fathers commentary that runs through both Abrams films, or how leaders are developed and not just born. The pain of loss that both Kirk and Spock was learn to deal with and cope with, and find a way past through the support of friends.

One of my favorite scenes, in all of Star Trek (and I mean all) is in Star Trek 2009. It is Prime Spock and nuKirk in the cave on Delta Vega and Kirk asks if he knew his father in the Prime reality. Kirk's face has a brief, but intense, look of pain and loss.

Another favorite scene is Sarek and Spock in the transporter room. Again, a fascinating insight in to both characters, as well as the importance of fathers that permeates Trek 09, specifically, and carries forward in Kirk's character arc.

I'm beginning to think that Abrams social commentary was ahead of its time, and that it will come to light as the recognition of mentors and father figures becomes more understood in psychological and sociological terms.

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.

What good would it do since all you want to do is correct me? To try to define what real science fiction is would be a fruitless endeavor to you.

And just because some people attempt to use logic doesn't mean they are real thinkers. Some people use logic as a force for mindless soulless conformity too.

So yes, I can. And I will. Don't ever tell me what i can and can't do.

What Americans value most is is conformity. At the risk of sounding like a joke, but which I am not making, it's just that Americans can't agree on what to conform to. That is what is causing all the political infighting in America is all about. Otherwise there would be very little infighting.

And the ONLY reason to point out a flaw is to put someone down so you control how they express themselves. There is no other reason.

Nobody has the right to do that. Well, except maybe the owners of a discussion forum.

All you're doing now is harassing me now.

You're not going to get what you want from me so you might as well let it go.

But i know you won't. You're all the same.

With due respect, what are you talking about? How is asking for a definition of science fiction harassment?

We are trying to reach mutually agreed upon terms to have a proper discussion. That's logical, not harassment

I'm so confused right now

 

[BillJ]

I'm still waiting for the long and lengthy debate that can be spent discussing the importance of fathers commentary that runs through both Abrams films, or how leaders are developed and not just born. The pain of loss that both Kirk and Spock was learn to deal with and cope with, and find a way past through the support of friends.

One of my favorite scenes, in all of Star Trek (and I mean all) is in Star Trek 2009. It is Prime Spock and nuKirk in the cave on Delta Vega and Kirk asks if he knew his father in the Prime reality. Kirk's face has a brief, but intense, look of pain and loss.

Another favorite scene is Sarek and Spock in the transporter room. Again, a fascinating insight in to both characters, as well as the importance of fathers that permeates Trek 09, specifically, and carries forward in Kirk's character arc.

I'm beginning to think that Abrams social commentary was ahead of its time, and that it will come to light as the recognition of mentors and father figures becomes more understood in psychological and sociological terms.

There is a subset of fandom that would continue to bitch and moan about these movies even if Gene Roddenberry came back from the grave and said they are Star Trek.

 

[Nerys Myk]

What good would it do since all you want to do is correct me? To try to define what real science fiction is would be a fruitless endeavor to you.

Well this is a forum for discussion, so give it try. You must have a definition.

And just because some people attempt to use logic doesn't mean they are real thinkers. Some people use logic as a force for mindless soulless conformity too.

A lot of thinking goes into soul crushing.

So yes, I can. And I will. Don't ever tell me what i can and can't do.

So you will engage hypocrisy when it suits you? Good to know.

I not telling you what to do, just pointing out some inconsistencies in what you've said.

What Americans value most is is conformity. At the risk of sounding like a joke, but which I am not making, it's just that Americans can't agree on what to conform to. That is what is causing all the political infighting in America is all about. Otherwise there would be very little infighting.

That makes little sense.

And the ONLY reason to point out a flaw is to put someone down so you control how they express themselves. There is no other reason.

No, it can also be to correct misinformation and misconceptions. Why do you need to make it into a negative?

Nobody has the right to do that. Well, except maybe the owners of a discussion forum.

To do what?

All you're doing now is harassing me now.

no, I'm engaging you in conversation. Trying to draw out your ideas so they can be discussed.

You're not going to get what you want from me so you might as well let it go.

Your definition of "real science fiction"? No, it doesn't look like I will.

But i know you won't. You're all the same.

Who's all the same?

 

[joeydott]

Way late to this discussion, and admittedly jumping in... but I think the lack of popularity among younger people might have to do with the fact that there hasn't been a really good, new Trek series on TV in a while.

I'm 25, and wouldn't have gotten so deeply into Trek if not for my 51-year-old husband, who grew up with TOS.

Maybe young folks just need Trek mentors? Currently, I'm pregnant with my first child, and can't wait to pull out TAS to show him/her. Heh, husband hates TAS, but I will have an excuse to have it on soon...!

 

[Nerys Myk]

Here's to the next generation!

 

[Gov Kodos]

Welcome to the board, joeydott!

 

[joeydott]

I'm so excited that if I have a daughter, she will have some really awesome women in media to look up to, and good examples of wildly different people interacting with one another peacefully.

I think the question we should be asking is, are society's current ills caused by a lack of Trek awareness among the young?! j/k, mostly...

EDIT: Thank you so much, Kodos!

 

[fireproof78]

I'm still waiting for the long and lengthy debate that can be spent discussing the importance of fathers commentary that runs through both Abrams films, or how leaders are developed and not just born. The pain of loss that both Kirk and Spock was learn to deal with and cope with, and find a way past through the support of friends.

One of my favorite scenes, in all of Star Trek (and I mean all) is in Star Trek 2009. It is Prime Spock and nuKirk in the cave on Delta Vega and Kirk asks if he knew his father in the Prime reality. Kirk's face has a brief, but intense, look of pain and loss.

Another favorite scene is Sarek and Spock in the transporter room. Again, a fascinating insight in to both characters, as well as the importance of fathers that permeates Trek 09, specifically, and carries forward in Kirk's character arc.

I'm beginning to think that Abrams social commentary was ahead of its time, and that it will come to light as the recognition of mentors and father figures becomes more understood in psychological and sociological terms.

There is a subset of fandom that would continue to bitch and moan about these movies even if Gene Roddenberry came back from the grave and said they are Star Trek.

Someone will have to help me, but I thought GR had a quote regarding that someday someone would come along and have their own idea about Star Trek, and would be curious to see the change. I cannot find that quote at all.

Way late to this discussion, and admittedly jumping in... but I think the lack of popularity among younger people might have to do with the fact that there hasn't been a really good, new Trek series on TV in a while.

I'm 25, and wouldn't have gotten so deeply into Trek if not for my 51-year-old husband, who grew up with TOS.

Maybe young folks just need Trek mentors? Currently, I'm pregnant with my first child, and can't wait to pull out TAS to show him/her. Heh, husband hates TAS, but I will have an excuse to have it on soon...!

Here's to the next generation!

I thought of this picture earlier in this thread and find it appropriate for now:

 

[Lance]

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.

This is a really good point. It's worth noting that in the "post-911" era of popular culture, it is the much more cynical Deep Space Nine whose cultural cache has grown, at least among the internet crowd. DS9 arguably feels like it belongs in the current world, whereas the other Trek's are kind of... the phrase "squeaky clean" comes to mind.

Despite the regression to an earlier time and earlier characters, there are a lot of ways in which the two recent Abrams movies actually resemble DS9 more than any other iteration of past Trek.....

 

[Starborn Dragon]

I'm so excited that if I have a daughter, she will have some really awesome women in media to look up to, and good examples of wildly different people interacting with one another peacefully.

I think the question we should be asking is, are society's current ills caused by a lack of Trek awareness among the young?! j/k, mostly...

EDIT: Thank you so much, Kodos!

So if you had a son would you teach him to put the interests of other females and women ahead of his own in the work place?

 

[Gov Kodos]

I'm so excited that if I have a daughter, she will have some really awesome women in media to look up to, and good examples of wildly different people interacting with one another peacefully.

I think the question we should be asking is, are society's current ills caused by a lack of Trek awareness among the young?! j/k, mostly...

EDIT: Thank you so much, Kodos!

So if you had a son would you teach him to put the interests of other females and women ahead of his own in the work place?

What relevance does this have to watching Star Trek?

 

[Starborn Dragon]

I'm so excited that if I have a daughter, she will have some really awesome women in media to look up to, and good examples of wildly different people interacting with one another peacefully.

I think the question we should be asking is, are society's current ills caused by a lack of Trek awareness among the young?! j/k, mostly...

EDIT: Thank you so much, Kodos!

So if you had a son would you teach him to put the interests of other females and women ahead of his own in the work place?

What relevance does this have to watching Star Trek?

None what so ever, I'm simply curious about something, is all.

Stop being so damned sensitive.

 

[Gov Kodos]

So if you had a son would you teach him to put the interests of other females and women ahead of his own in the work place?

What relevance does this have to watching Star Trek?

None what so ever, I'm simply curious about something, is all.

Stop being so damned sensitive.

The thread is not about child rearing nor is her post. She did address the topic of the thread which you ignored for this non-sequitur question.