The show?
No.
The fan base?
Yes.
Spock and Data and everyone needs to be logical, and not emotional, or overemote, or whatnot.
And then to completely embrace an irrational idea without any reflection or investigation is just odd.
NCC -1701 (TOS).....
- Thread starter Dar70
- Start date
No.
The fan base?
Yes.
Spock and Data and everyone needs to be logical, and not emotional, or overemote, or whatnot.
And then to completely embrace an irrational idea without any reflection or investigation is just odd.
If it wasn't rational, then what drew people to it? A misunderstanding of what it actually was? Or, how much it could go outside the perceived norms of TV at the time and get away with it? How often it could cook up absolutely ludacris scenarios and have audiences totally buy into what was going on.
Presumably characters and drama.
"Setting as a character," as per TV Tropes:
Look at the TOS opening narration, and the Enterprise is the main focus. "It" is assigned the "five-year mission" and the motivation to "explore strange new worlds" and "new civilizations."
In most works, the setting is static. A backdrop against which the world itself is painted. The world affects the characters, but it doesn't interact with them. These works are different. Sometimes the setting itself is treated like a character in the work. It interacts with the characters. Reacts to what they do. It's almost like the setting understands the characters, and is one itself.
This often happens when the setting is some kind of ship. Spaceships and large boats like breaking down at inopportune moments, then starting right back up after the mechanic sweet talks them.
This often happens when the setting is some kind of ship. Spaceships and large boats like breaking down at inopportune moments, then starting right back up after the mechanic sweet talks them.
Look at the TOS opening narration, and the Enterprise is the main focus. "It" is assigned the "five-year mission" and the motivation to "explore strange new worlds" and "new civilizations."
Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before!"
It looked and played like nothing else on TV at the time, for both good and ill.
I've been on the other side of this argument when I was younger. I watched Star Trek because it was "smart", "rational" and a dozen other things that made me think I was more special than the people around me. I wasn't and I'm still not, and neither is Trek.
The original was a fun show with ray-guns and spaceships, and had some really out there things going on that fired my imagination. What I want from Trek now is far different than what I thought I wanted from it all those years ago. I just want to be entertained, and if I'm lucky it will periodically fire my imagination.
I feel like you are missing my point but you said it so well I will give you a like.
In theater, that is in stage theater, what the audience sees is literally never what things look like in-universe. The fourth wall isn't there physically, to the audience it is invisible and insubstantial, but to the characters it exists. What things look like in-universe is ultimately make-believe. Actors can come and go, set designers and prop masters can come and go, but the make-believe can transcend all.
In theatrical terms, what we're seeing now is Star Trek produced with a different cast, different set designers, and different property masters. Their mandate was never to make it look the way it did back in the 1960s. There's room for different interpretations of 221B Baker Street, why not of NCC-1701?
There absolutely can be different interpretations, as we see in the Abrams Star Trek movies.
For me, when all the shows recognize one type of Constitution class ship over fifty years, reimagining in what is supposed to be the same story is off the table. We even see the TOS Enterprise in Star Trek: Discovery’s “If Memory Serves”, you’ve kinda killed the whole reasoning for changing the design.
Yes, we did. In its "Previously on Star Trek" recap, which is an out-of-universe designation, since by Star Trek they meant the TV show, not Cochrane's never-ending quest. And they had different actors for Pike, Spock, Vina, and the Talosians, as well as Number One. It couldn't have been more obvious that there was no implication that things had to continue to look the same, while at the same time it couldn't have been more obvious that it was a continuation of that same story.
Could I be directed to the "Anti-Bully Lunch Money Protection" themed threads, please? Is there lots of sports there?
Childhood, their eyes blackened with wallets emptied.
Nerds, when the wedgies rose.
Temarc, in therapy.
I also felt gut-punched when the Defiant was destroyed, right on par with the Enterprise self-destruct in STIII. Unfortunately any drama, sense of loss or hurt feelings associated with this were immediately ruined by the carbon-copy Defiant introduced a few episodes later. Same with the Delta Flyer. Apparently Berman Trek didn’t quite understand the concept of permanent loss.
And on the subject of the ship also being a character: of course it is, and of course fans are going to have an emotional response to the ship’s destruction, precisely because of that. It’s not that hard to understand, even when trying to be a serial contrarian about it.
Inanimate objects are not characters. This is why it is hard to understand.
I can understand feeling an emotional loss over a beloved item. That's not the same as a character.
This is an irrational facet of humanity that I do not understand, but am constantly being told that I must understand.
Inanimate objects are not characters. This is why it is hard to understand.
I can understand feeling an emotional loss over a beloved item. That's not the same as a character.
This is an irrational facet of humanity that I do not understand, but am constantly being told that I must understand.
I was more devastated by the destruction of the Enterprise than when Spock died.
You are under no obligation to understand people who see the world differently than you do. Though you will have to put up with us irrational people on the internet.
