What will make it "Star Trek"?

[Sci]

Star Trek has already lasted 50.

It has! I have never argued TOS lacked artistic merit, and I specifically said multiple times it has greater artistic merit than most TV shows produced in the 1960s. My argument has been about its (and TNG's, and DS9's, and VOY's, and ENT's) artistic merit relative artistic merit compared to DIS and PIC.

 

[BillJ]

My argument has been about its (and TNG's, and DS9's, and VOY's, and ENT's) artistic merit relative artistic merit compared to DIS and PIC.

I struggle to see the artistic merit of Discovery and Picard compared to other modern shows, much less seeing them held up to comparable to what we all see as classics, honestly. I don't see them ever having the cultural impact the original Star Trek did, on any level. They just represent copies of copies.

YMMV.

 

[Mudd]

I struggle to see the artistic merit of Discovery and Picard compared to other modern shows, much less seeing them held up to comparable to what we all see as classics, honestly. I don't see them ever having the cultural impact the original Star Trek did, on any level. They just represent copies of copies.

YMMV.

Yep. Current Star Trek is very timid and old hat in comparison to a great deal of imaginative TV aimed at adult audiences now. But then, that's been true for over a generation.

STD is pretty much generic, lowest common denominator shoot'em up stuff, albeit with a big, misspent budget.

 

[Sci]

STD is pretty much generic, lowest common denominator shoot'em up stuff, albeit with a big, misspent budget.

I'm sorry, but even if you don't enjoy DIS, this is just patently false. DIS specifically imbues its conflicts with deeper thematic content from the very first shot in a way that lowest-common-denominator shoot-em-ups do not.

 

[BillJ]

I'm sorry, but even if you don't enjoy DIS, this is just patently false. DIS specifically imbues its conflicts with deeper thematic content from the very first shot in a way that lowest-common-denominator shoot-em-ups do not.

Discovery lost all credibility with me when they turned Lorca into a mustache twirling villain.

 

[Sci]

Discovery lost all credibility with me when they turned Lorca into a mustache twirling villain.

Even if Lorca turning out to be a villain is not to your liking, the MU arc is a story about whether society should be built on the principles of pluralism or cultural homogeny. It's a clear political commentary on the white American reaction against multiculturalism in real life. Even if you don't think the MU arc and/or its thematic content were executed well, that's a level of depth and commentary that lowest-common-denominator shoot-em-ups by definition do not and cannot possess.

 

[DonIago]

And TNG didn't lose all credibility with you when they did "Code of Honor"?

Let's be realistic here: each series has had its moments or entire episodes or entire arcs that aren't anything they should be proud of, if not at the time than at least in retrospect.

 

[BillJ]

Even if Lorca turning out to be a villain is not to your liking, the MU arc is a story about whether society should be built on the principles of pluralism or cultural homogeny. It's a clear political commentary on the white American reaction against multiculturalism in real life. Even if you don't think the MU arc and/or its thematic content were executed well, that's a level of depth and commentary that lowest-common-denominator shoot-em-ups by definition do not and cannot possess.

Or, did you ever think that you are desperately wanting to see something that isn't there?

 

[Sci]

Even if Lorca turning out to be a villain is not to your liking, the MU arc is a story about whether society should be built on the principles of pluralism or cultural homogeny. It's a clear political commentary on the white American reaction against multiculturalism in real life. Even if you don't think the MU arc and/or its thematic content were executed well, that's a level of depth and commentary that lowest-common-denominator shoot-em-ups by definition do not and cannot possess.

Or, did you ever think that you are desperately wanting to see something that isn't there?

No, because while DIS has many virtues, subtlety is not one of them. Its political commentary is very obvious and very clear. And the presence of that commentary by definition precludes DIS from being a lowest-common-denominator shoot-em-up.

 

[yotsuya]

For me it has to have that promising future that Kirk talked about so much. The Federation characters come from a world where hatred for the petty causes we now face has been eliminated. I've been watching TOS and feel more steeped in Kirk's Federation than Picard's, though there is not a lot of difference in the core. Roddenberry's Federation is supposed to be humanity grown up and getting along with our alien neighbors. Not all perfect, but in a way that makes us today look extremely immature and petty. Star Trek is about people from that world going out and exploring and encountering people more like from our world. Star Trek is supposed to show us a better way. That was a key to its success. They other was plenty of action. Space battles, fist fights, etc. Roddenberry plus NBC. You have to have both. The Cage, Star Trek The Motion Picture, and Encounter at Farpoint were all lacking in the NBC desired action. TNG pulled that even more to Roddenberry's vision by advancing the Federation culture another century and getting rid of money. Food replicators would get rid of most of the need for it. DS9 kind of went the other way in the end. Voyager had a better balance. Enterprise was weaker on Gene's vision of the future, but it was closer to the present.

 

[Orphalesion]

I mean, isn't the premise of Buffy the Vampire Slayer somewhat ugly and dealing with base subjects? It's a program about a young woman who is coerced by a cabal of old men into going out every night to murder re-animated corpses that lust for blood.

But it's set in a beautiful looking location, has likeable, interesting characters, many of whom I can relate to, humour, hope, adventure, clever dialogue, vampires and other magical creatures, drama...
Those are the things that make a work of fiction palatable to me.

Sorry that I was a bit flippant towards your message, I think it was mostly because of your examples (ugly mobster show, ugly show about some a-hole in the 50?60?). As I said I think there is objective quality in writing.
To keep it with genre shows...there is clear difference between a clever show like Buffy and superficial drivel like Charmed.

... I honestly didn't mean to write an essay about the gangster genre, but hopefully you can get a sense now of what it is people see in a story about a mobster.

it's alright, it was interesting to read. And I understand where you are coming from. I also enjoy stories about many of the themes you listed.
Thing is I just can't bring myself to enjoy or care about things mobsters or shows that unappealing to look at. I can't relate to Tony Soprano. And while I found some interest in Michael Corleone's story (that was the son int he first godfather movie right who was kind of forced into taking over the "family business", right? It's been over a decade since I saw that movie...) I would have enjoyed it a lot more if the setting had been different.
Without wanting to stereotype now, I also find it possible that Gangster/Mobster/Mafia fiction is a genre that with it's trappings and some of the themes it likes to explore might statistically appeal especially to heterosexual men, and I'm not one.

Like, I enjoyed Game of Thrones before the seasonal rot, it had a lot of ugly themes, but it wrapped them into a parcel that made it palatable to me.
And I stand by the statement that the Last Unicorn explores a lot of dark and bleak topics.

Bottom-line, I don't mind dark themes or exploration of the horror/brutality/pain of human existence. But I don't enjoy stories that take place in a setting that is as unappealing (to me at least) as the world of organized crime.

 

[JesterFace]

And how many times has Star Trek done the “long lost brother” thing?

Where are long lost evil (twin) sisters?

 

[ChallengerHK]

Where are long lost evil (twin) sisters?

Ishara Yar

 

[Mudd]

I'm sorry, but even if you don't enjoy DIS, this is just patently false. DIS specifically imbues its conflicts with deeper thematic content from the very first shot in a way that lowest-common-denominator shoot-em-ups do not.

Nope. It's an improvised narrative that makes no sense, from start to finish. Lorca's story is probably the most glaring example - talk about a complete lack of narrative or emotional honesty - but the series is littered with that shit.

It's a brainless melodrama.

 

[JesterFace]

Ishara Yar

I almost said that she wasn't evil.... but in her own way she was evil towards our crew.
That might have been a nice way to bring Tasha back, not as a Romulan officer but as Tasha's identical sister.

 

[ChallengerHK]

I almost said that she wasn't evil.... but in her own way she was evil towards our crew.
That might have been a nice way to bring Tasha back, not as a Romulan officer but as Tasha's identical sister.

I would agree with you. One of the things I like about Trek when it's done well (and assuming that such a thing exists ) is that we get villains who are more than just heavies.

As for Tasha, I don't think of Denise Crosby as much of an actress, and I wasn't sorry to see her go.

 

[Sci]

Nope. It's an improvised narrative that makes no sense, from start to finish. Lorca's story is probably the most glaring example - talk about a complete lack of narrative or emotional honesty - but the series is littered with that shit.

It's a brainless melodrama.

Being an "improvised narrative" is an entirely separate claim from being "lowest-common-denominator shoot-em-up."

But it by definition cannot be made for the lowest common denominator when the entire MU arc is designed to condemn the political ideology for which 62.9 million Americans voted in 2016. By definition, you cannot be writing for the lowest-common denominator if your writing condemns 19.5% of your national population.

 

[Nyotarules]

He's just depicted as not suffering from long-term trauma.

I think his lifelong obsession with the Enterprise was a sign of trauma ,especially as depicted in TMP. There is a reason why the Kirk's longest 'male - female' relationship was not with a sentient woman, but with a large metallic object that human men describe as female.

 

[Orphalesion]

I think his lifelong obsession with the Enterprise was a sign of trauma ,especially as depicted in TMP. There is a reason why the Kirk's longest 'male - female' relationship was not with a sentient woman, but with a large metallic object that human men describe as female.

You can interpret it that way. In fact fan theories and analyses sometimes can add an additional layer to a work/can actually improve it.
But I think the intention the writers had behind portraying Kirk as in "love" with the Enterprise to the point that he anthropomorphized it as a "woman" was not to portray it as a sign of trauma. To them it probably was the same as the stereotypical idea of a guy "loving" his car/boat and calling it a "her".
I don't think there was much thought put into Kirk and his obsession or the way his career and experiences impacted his mind and life until the Wrath of Khan.

 

[ChallengerHK]

I think his lifelong obsession with the Enterprise was a sign of trauma ,especially as depicted in TMP. There is a reason why the Kirk's longest 'male - female' relationship was not with a sentient woman, but with a large metallic object that human men describe as female.

What this doesn't explain, though, if why the Enterprise and none of his other commands. If there was aa case of transference then one would think it would have kicked in during his very first command. Some people have theorized that he never had a command before the Enterprise, which for me is the outside edge of plausibility.

So what made the Enterprise herself, or at least a Constitution class ship, special to him?

 

[Nyotarules]

What this doesn't explain, though, if why the Enterprise and none of his other commands. If there was aa case of transference then one would think it would have kicked in during his very first command. Some people have theorized that he never had a command before the Enterprise, which for me is the outside edge of plausibility.

So what made the Enterprise herself, or at least a Constitution class ship, special to him?

My theory, the breakdown of his relationship with Carol and giving up his rights to being a father, all he had left was career. I never got the sense the Enterprise was the most special ship in the TOS era, perhaps for Kirk it was a feeling that developed over time? Maybe it was his first command with the 4 pips.

 

[ChallengerHK]

Maybe it was his first command with the 4 pips.

There's a thread about Kirk's career through TOS. It would be interesting to tie your theory in to that.