Spoilers Yeah... I give up - Star Trek has abandoned philosophical naturalism - it's depressing/juvenile

[SolarisOne]

To be honest, I don't consider Star Trek to be science fiction at all. It's science fantasy, and always has been. Of course, the majority of television and movie "science fiction" is actually science fantasy by my standards--fantasy with the (usually technological) trappings of science fiction. To me, fantasy includes any work with integral elements, treated as valid in-universe, that are impossible in the real world. Period. No incantations or potions or spells required.

In true science fiction, you have to at least take basic real-world science seriously, even if you use a lot of bleeding-edge speculation for your more exotic elements, and you have to do so consistently. Star Trek has never fit that bill, despite what they might tell you in the footnotes of the TNG Technical Manual. Hard science fiction is more conservative with the speculation, soft less, but all of it always respects the basics.

Does this mean I like Trek any less for it? Heck, no! I'm also a fan of Doctor Who, after all, and that's even further towards the "fantasy" end of the scale.

But, I'm also a fan of science fiction literature--both the hard and soft varieties--and it's pretty easy to tell the difference between that and science fantasy like Trek, at least for me.

 

[Spot261]

To be honest, I don't consider Star Trek to be science fiction at all. It's science fantasy, and always has been. Of course, the majority of television and movie "science fiction" is actually science fantasy by my standards--fantasy with the (usually technological) trappings of science fiction. To me, fantasy includes any work with integral elements, treated as valid in-universe, that are impossible in the real world. Period. No incantations or potions or spells required.

In true science fiction, you have to at least take basic real-world science seriously, even if you use a lot of bleeding-edge speculation for your more exotic elements, and you have to do so consistently. Star Trek has never fit that bill, despite what they might tell you in the footnotes of the TNG Technical Manual. Hard science fiction is more conservative with the speculation, soft less, but all of it always respects the basics.

Does this mean I like Trek any less for it? Heck, no! I'm also a fan of Doctor Who, after all, and that's even further towards the "fantasy" end of the scale.

But, I'm also a fan of science fiction literature--both the hard and soft varieties--and it's pretty easy to tell the difference between that and science fantasy like Trek, at least for me.

This.

All the way.

Trek has always had human reason front and centre bu the idea that it has any strong grounding in science or has never included what we might euphemistically term "mysticism" is just nonsense and barely warrants taking the time to address.

It's genuinely like @USS Einstein has never actually watched the show.

 

[Hythlodeus]

So it's the shittiest version of Star Trek then?

nah, that's still Voyager

 

[Hythlodeus]

And apparently Sisko's whole big god ordained destiny was to throw an evil spellbook in the Mount Doom. It was ridiculous.

Actually it was leading the chosen people (Bajorans) into the promised land (Federation), but you probably know this anyway

 

[Mudd]

This is what I don't understand, why people can't see where this has been heading from the start. The show-runners and writers have stated it explicitly many times. This show is showing how they got to a more enlightened, more hopeful society.

They're doing nothing of the kind. The show is slapdash, mediocre tittilation with a big budget.

 

[Butters]

They're doing nothing of the kind. The show is slapdash, mediocre tittilation with a big budget.

Yes, it’s a TV show. Your point is?

 

[KennyB]

Well they can't all be Tin Man............

 

[GeekUSACarl]

 

[BillJ]

They're doing nothing of the kind. The show is slapdash, mediocre tittilation with a big budget.

While I've enjoyed bits and pieces of Discovery, it has yet to make me go "oh my GOD!!! I can't wait until next week!!!" Just something that gets tossed on the pile and I get around to. I'm enjoying Supergirl (watching season two on Netflix) and MacFarlane animated reruns far more.

 

[Hythlodeus]

I'm enjoying Supergirl

I won't judge you for that, just.. a little bit

 

[Agony_Boothb]

They're doing nothing of the kind. The show is slapdash, mediocre tittilation with a big budget.

Thanks for educating us lowly plebs. What would we do without you to speak down to us? Good to see you renewed your CBSAA subcription.

 

[Mudd]

Thanks for educating us lowly plebs.

You're welcome.

Good to see you renewed your CBSAA subcription.

Nope. Never paid a penny for this show.

While I've enjoyed bits and pieces of Discovery, it has yet to make me go "oh my GOD!!! I can't wait until next week!!!" Just something that gets tossed on the pile and I get around to. I'm enjoying Supergirl (watching season two on Netflix) and MacFarlane animated reruns far more.

Supergirl and The Flash lost me a few weeks into the season this year. Grand Tour and The Orville are the only things I bother with now other than streaming movies. I'll give Doctor Who another look when Jody Whittaker starts her run.

 

[BillJ]

You're welcome.



Nope. Never paid a penny for this show.

Friendly fire!

 

[Michael]

This is what I don't understand, why people can't see where this has been heading from the start. The show-runners and writers have stated it explicitly many times. This show is showing how they got to a more enlightened, more hopeful society.

Thing is, though, that at this point it's hard to take the writers and what they are saying very seriously. This is not the diverse show with a female captain and female first officer they promised. The first gay couple on Trek for which they patted themselves on their backs is torn apart halfway through the first season. The Klingons are promised to be deeper and more layered than ever before, and yet they are even more one-dimensional than any Klingons we ever met. They promise to explore the PTSD of POW Ash Tyler, but no, he's just an evil Klingon spy. And don't get me started on black badges, the “fascinating” concept of the mycelial network and other stuff that didn't really go anywhere.

“Trust us” is all they are saying. But more and more it's becoming clear that they have no fucking clue what they want to do with this show.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Picard had a conversation with his dead mother at the edge of reality in TNG season one! This is science cocking fiction. None of its new. Discovery isn’t breaking away from some trek paradigm, if anything it’s just retreading old ground.

Ah yes, the traveler... "In Soviet Russia, thoughts have you!"

I'll grant that Discovery is the first show in a while to handwave away the mystical stuff with a "Huh... that's weird... maybe we'll understand it someday?" But I suspect that's mainly because the weird shit is still going on and they haven't gotten to the "Huh... that was weird" stage yet.

 

[Mudd]

Thing is, though, that at this point it's hard to take the writers and what they are saying very seriously. This is not the diverse show with a female captain and female first officer they promised. The first gay couple on Trek for which they patted themselves on their backs is torn apart halfway through the first season. The Klingons are promised to be deeper and more layered than ever before, and yet they are even more one-dimensional than any Klingons we ever met. They promise to explore the PTSD of POW Ash Tyler, but no, he's just an evil Klingon spy. And don't get me started on black badges, the “fascinating” concept of the mycelial network and other stuff that didn't really go anywhere.

“Trust us” is all they are saying. But more and more it's becoming clear that they have no fucking clue what they want to do with this show.

Exactly so.

What apparently happened was that when CBS required big changes to the direction of the show, the casting - as well as assets on which a great deal of money had been spent such as all the Klingon sets and other elements - were locked in as stuff that had to be amortized through the first part of the season. A lot of that is being shed as they've improvised new storylines for the "arc" and for the characters beyond the two-part pilot which was itself revised.

 

[eschaton]

To be honest, I don't consider Star Trek to be science fiction at all. It's science fantasy, and always has been. Of course, the majority of television and movie "science fiction" is actually science fantasy by my standards--fantasy with the (usually technological) trappings of science fiction. To me, fantasy includes any work with integral elements, treated as valid in-universe, that are impossible in the real world. Period. No incantations or potions or spells required.

In true science fiction, you have to at least take basic real-world science seriously, even if you use a lot of bleeding-edge speculation for your more exotic elements, and you have to do so consistently. Star Trek has never fit that bill, despite what they might tell you in the footnotes of the TNG Technical Manual. Hard science fiction is more conservative with the speculation, soft less, but all of it always respects the basics.

Does this mean I like Trek any less for it? Heck, no! I'm also a fan of Doctor Who, after all, and that's even further towards the "fantasy" end of the scale.

But, I'm also a fan of science fiction literature--both the hard and soft varieties--and it's pretty easy to tell the difference between that and science fantasy like Trek, at least for me.

I partially disagree with this. TOS was definitely about as rigorous as science fiction of its time was, with many of the episodes written by legitimate science fiction writers of the time (Theodore Sturgeon, Larry Niven, Harlan Ellison, etc). This was less the case with later Trek, which basically stuck its head up its ass with canon, becoming its own thing, but the original core of the series was based upon exploration of themes from relatively "hard" works of literary science fiction.

Also, I tend to reserve the term "science fantasy" for things like Star Wars which use sci-fi trappings but basically tell a heroic fantasy story. Star Trek doesn't fit this mold. With a few exceptions (like "the Sisko") there are no chosen ones/heroes. There are just ordinary people doing their best to make the world a slightly better place.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I think the change happened in DS9. Compare how Picard treats Qo to how the Wormhole Aliens are treated. Both are super advanced energy being aliens, and Picard treats Q as such. Sisko on the other hand starts to treat the Wormhole Aliens like they were actual gods.

Well, no... Sisko treats actual gods as if they are super advanced energy beings. Which pretty much makes him a student of Starfleet history because we have at least two different incidents that seem to prove this.

 

[fireproof78]

Thing is, though, that at this point it's hard to take the writers and what they are saying very seriously. This is not the diverse show with a female captain and female first officer they promised. The first gay couple on Trek for which they patted themselves on their backs is torn apart halfway through the first season. The Klingons are promised to be deeper and more layered than ever before, and yet they are even more one-dimensional than any Klingons we ever met. They promise to explore the PTSD of POW Ash Tyler, but no, he's just an evil Klingon spy. And don't get me started on black badges, the “fascinating” concept of the mycelial network and other stuff that didn't really go anywhere.

“Trust us” is all they are saying. But more and more it's becoming clear that they have no fucking clue what they want to do with this show.

When the story is done, I will judge their competence. I think they have a better understanding than they are given credit for, even if it isn't perfect.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I partially disagree with this. TOS was definitely about as rigorous as science fiction of its time was, with many of the episodes written by legitimate science fiction writers of the time (Theodore Sturgeon, Larry Niven, Harlan Ellison, etc).

Legitimate science fiction and "rigorous" science fiction are NOT the same thing. Larry Niven's "known space" novels are VERY soft science fiction and borderline fantasy; nothing he's written since then stacks up all that well (in terms of scientific accuracy) compared to Arthur C. Clarke or Robert Heinlein. Space Odyssey set the bar for "hard science fiction" just two years after Trek went off the air and the rest of the genre -- yes, even future writers of Star Trek -- took note.

This was less the case with later Trek, which basically stuck its head up its ass with canon, becoming its own thing, but the original core of the series was based upon exploration of themes from relatively "hard" works of literary science fiction.

I admit I have not read a huge amount of Harlan Ellison's stories, but the ones I've seen I would HARDLY classify as "hard" science fiction. And Star Trek flirted with being a hard scifi story in TMP before doing a full 180 and going "scifi-action/adventure" in all successive films, and then TNG ran back to scifi fantasy with its very first episode.