Let's talk about the elephant in the room, this series violates Roddenberry's vision big time
- Thread starter Sci-fi fan
- Start date
Same here. I just like penalty flags. I find them very useful in every day life.Is there a 'none of the above' option?
DS9?
Speaking only for myself here, I absolutely do, and always have. I'm re-watching TOS right now, and continuing to love and enjoy it for what it is, despite all the very prominent flaws that severely date it—and I don't merely mean its production design and special effects, here.
I just don't need or want more of the same in 2017. I like that DSC reflects our times every bit as much as TOS reflected its day. They give different perspectives, and complement each other.
-MMoM
Yep, I don't mean to imply DSC fans are anti-TOS. I'm one.
"I think that there is a postmodern attitude towards the genre that tries to disarm or disassemble the genre in a postmodern way and I think that when you approach characters with earnest love, it’s a lot less safe because you’re not above the material."
But there are others who sometimes do trash Star Trek for it's philosophy; they don't share it so they can't treat it un-ironically, hence the Guillermo Del Toro quote. I.E. he thinks horror can't be done ironically, you have to love it for what it is. I think that applies to pretty much all entertainment in any genre; seeing the genre conventions as a burden to be ashamed of, instead of a fantastic heritage to draw upon, is a mistake.
EDIT:
For example, looking back to a thread on whether or not Star Trek was ever good sci-fi, I remember reading people saying that The Wrath of Khan and The Undiscovered Country, had superficial themes (the comment got likes). I would say to that person; just because you think the themes are obvious does not mean they are superficial. Others are embarrassed about Star Trek's 'sermonising', and cite that as a big no-no.
Last edited:
Well, Guillermo's quote can be taken too far to a simplistic conclusion, either because his conclusion is simplistic or because his point is more limited than most people would think.
The whole point of deconstruction and trope-aversion is to avoid cliches. This can be an interesting treat for fans of the genre because you play on their expectations and manage to surprise them in various ways (like if a stage magician uses the "saw the lady in half" trick and then "forgets" to put her back together so that his assistant -- a paraplegic -- has to walk around on her hands for half the act until he "remembers" to reattach her lower body). Star Trek has done this successfully in the past, and sometimes it has worked. It has also done this terribly unsuccessfully ("Chosen Realm") which resulted in a terrible episode with a very obvious and un-interesting storyline that nobody really cared about.
If Guillermo's point is that trope inversion is what's CAUSING a drop in quality of monster movies, it's a very simplistic theory; quality is a thing unto itself, and bad writing remains bad writing whether you're a purist or a post-modernist.
The whole point of deconstruction and trope-aversion is to avoid cliches. This can be an interesting treat for fans of the genre because you play on their expectations and manage to surprise them in various ways (like if a stage magician uses the "saw the lady in half" trick and then "forgets" to put her back together so that his assistant -- a paraplegic -- has to walk around on her hands for half the act until he "remembers" to reattach her lower body). Star Trek has done this successfully in the past, and sometimes it has worked. It has also done this terribly unsuccessfully ("Chosen Realm") which resulted in a terrible episode with a very obvious and un-interesting storyline that nobody really cared about.
If Guillermo's point is that trope inversion is what's CAUSING a drop in quality of monster movies, it's a very simplistic theory; quality is a thing unto itself, and bad writing remains bad writing whether you're a purist or a post-modernist.
I don't think that is what he is getting at.
It sounds like he is saying people try too hard to circumvent tropes, when they should be thinking first and foremost about how to create an enjoyable movie - and a loving un-ironic use of trope may be just what it needs - because the reasons they are tropes in the first place, is that they have power when done right. It's up to the director to make the Kirk Summation or Picard Speech or Battle of the Mutara Nebula not campy or embarrassing, but earnestly relevant - to matter to the viewer emotionally. The problem isn't the trope, but how it is used.
(Simulacra and Simulation appearing in The Matrix)
There is a term called "simulacra" - the idea that each adaptation, of a given work, that does not understand the original's full intent, loses something of an original's intent, and comes off as a less sincere and complete world as a result - like a photocopy - some pixels are lost each time.
Aside from creating something new with an understanding of the full intention of the original, which can inject new meaning into an existing work..... to be faithful, you have to unironically accept the ideas of the work you are intending to rekindle. To me, there is a force that ruins adaptations even faster than the process of simulacra - and that is when the original work is treated as embarrassing, instead of being accepted - then it becomes like redacting, in addition to photocopying - if you see what I mean.
Or to put it another way; you need to genuinely love something to do it justice, and the love shows through in your work. You make the best decisions when approaching the work with love. You owe it to the genre to play it straight, and take it as seriously - there were moments in Star Trek 2009 that felt like the director was doing a send-up, Galaxy Quest style (again even though there is a lot to like in those films too) - not comedy, which I'm fine with, more like piss-taking.
As one author put it, comparing Joss Whedon to JJ Abrams (whatever you think of Joss, who loves self-satire, he puts his heart and soul into a project, and loves genre):
I've never met [JJ Abrams]. I am not a member of his fan club or anti-fan club. ... I disliked Star Trek intensely. ... And I think part of my problem is that I feel like the relationship between JJ Abrams' projects and geek culture is one of relatively unloving repackaging - sort of cynical. ... As compared to somebody like Joss Whedon, who - even when there are misfires - I feel
Yeah, I think if you just set out to make a good sci-fi, instead of being self-conscious about whether it is campy, and just find the value in it, making it relevant, play it straight, and put your love into it, it makes for a much more interesting experience, warts and all.
Take Rogue One or Blade Runner 2049 - not an apology or ironic send-up in sight - Villeneuve could have treated the 80s material as campy - could have poked fun at the film noir stylings - instead he put his heart and soul into it, treated it as his bible, and it's a critical darling - Rogue One is much closer to a fan film than a fresh work, but also treats it's ancestor with seriousness - 70s mustaches and all. Obviously this isn't a literal advocacy of reusing old sets, but rather looking at original creative intent.
It remains to be seen if DSC will bear out well, I enjoy it, but one thing I know for certain is that The Orville is a faithful and un-ironic love letter to shows like TNG, VOY and SG-1 - which is ironic because it's marketed as a comedy.
Last edited:
^ In terms of Discovery being faithful to if not 'loving' of its predecessors I have doubts to be honest. It chose to place itself in the timeline it has. To be more than a part of the franchise but to lead into the Original Series, a series it is at pains to be opposite to.
It's not supposed to be loving. It's its own story trying to make a mark in the franchise and expand upon the lore.
Prequels are difficult for that reason. To forge its own name while telling the story that leads to the next.
I personally feel DSC could do with more of TOS's overt statements of belief in peace, justice, truth, the paramountcy of even a single life, forgiveness, cooperation, and progressiveness. Maybe a few outright TOS/TNG/Orville style morality plays, that last one episode.
Even if these things come after a long and bitter struggle against the Klingons. They would be all the more cathartic if the characters realize these things anew, after fighting fanatics who don't believe it.
That is where I've been hoping Discovery has been heading from the start - a show that moves towards Star Trek's core message when confronted with adversity. They have to win however they can right now, but realize in seeing the Klingons, who and what the Federation is, all the more.
When the American Civil War ended, after years of slaughter, in which Union troops had seen emaciated skeletal prison camp survivors made of their friends, generals made their men salute the surrendered Confederates as they marched past and laid down their arms, Grant told his men not to cheer as Robert E Lee rode out of Appomattox - you can't build lasting peace without forgiveness, and respect for all life.
Right now the Klingons are at a stage in their social development where they are not prepared to see others as valuable they see themselves, so Starfleet has to defend democracy, but that does not make Lorca's act of leaving Mudd behind in any way right, or the slavery of the tardigrade - it makes them expedient, and if he is a truly good man, he should leave expediency behind the moment the war is over - that will be a test of who he really is.
Even if these things come after a long and bitter struggle against the Klingons. They would be all the more cathartic if the characters realize these things anew, after fighting fanatics who don't believe it.
That is where I've been hoping Discovery has been heading from the start - a show that moves towards Star Trek's core message when confronted with adversity. They have to win however they can right now, but realize in seeing the Klingons, who and what the Federation is, all the more.
When the American Civil War ended, after years of slaughter, in which Union troops had seen emaciated skeletal prison camp survivors made of their friends, generals made their men salute the surrendered Confederates as they marched past and laid down their arms, Grant told his men not to cheer as Robert E Lee rode out of Appomattox - you can't build lasting peace without forgiveness, and respect for all life.
Right now the Klingons are at a stage in their social development where they are not prepared to see others as valuable they see themselves, so Starfleet has to defend democracy, but that does not make Lorca's act of leaving Mudd behind in any way right, or the slavery of the tardigrade - it makes them expedient, and if he is a truly good man, he should leave expediency behind the moment the war is over - that will be a test of who he really is.
So now we know that GR only liked a max of 2 women regulars on his shows, I think Discovery fits into his vision more so than Voyager. He must have turned in his grave when Voyager had 4 women regulars.
Voyager had far better representation of strong women. CAPTAIN Janeway. B'Elanna, Chief Engineer. Kes and Seven. Michael is pathetic compared to any of those characters.
I don't think it's as cut and dry as that though. Absolutely Seven quickly becomes a great character, but the way they chose to depict her physical appearance is hardly a progressive representation of womanhood, she's stereotypically attractive and basically naked, undoubtedly this was a decision to bring in more masturbatory male viewers. Further than that she was brought onto the show to replace Kes, so they basically swapped out one of the women.
Everyone seems to be bashing Michael for the mutiny, but Kes's last appearance was pretty mutinous. As was B'Elanna's involvement with the conspiracy to integrate the Sikarian technology into Voyager's mainframe.
TNG could be pretty sexist too, Deanna Troi goes on about chocolate all the fucking time.
It’s not like seven wasn’t popular with the ladies XD
Trek has always been fairly equal opportunity with its ‘eye candy’ approach.
And chocolate is hardly a female only domain.
I think I agree with the previous post, Voyager is as good as it gets representation wise.
Yeah, all those guys in skintight suits with their padded bulges is one the first things I think of when I hear "Star Trek eye candy"
Season one tng then?
Yeah of course, but it's a pretty well reinforced stereotype that women and chocolate go together like Riker and beards.
What, they only really settle in and good stuff happens around them once they get some chocolate on their chin? This is an intriguing hypothesis.
Personally I found the chocolate something I could relate too. I felt like Deanna was some distant descendant of mine.
Yeah, that's fair. I don't think it's an offensive characterisation or anything, it's just a bit broad.What, they only really settle in and good stuff happens around them once they get some chocolate on their chin? This is an intriguing hypothesis.
Personally I found the chocolate something I could relate too. I felt like Deanna was some distant descendant of mine.
Kirk's unending torn shirts and various other excuses to be bare-chested (and apparently waxen, no less) in TOS were supposed to be eye-candy for the ladies, if I'm not mistaken. And Chekov was supposed to be a Davy Jones-esque teen heartthrob. (Not that he ever quite pulled that one off, of course.)
