Ditch Morality

[RobertScorpio]

One reason I always thought Star Trek, and I mean TOS, could be watched over and over as a child, and then again as you grew up, was because it had layers...

You watch it when you are young, and get into the phasers, the Transporter, the FX of the Doomsday Machine, whatever. Then, as you got older, you started to figure out that they, the writers, were trying to say something..the story had a moral to it. We learned about ourselves, hopefully, in that small hour of TV viewing...

The other shows did this as well, but I don't think they ever really got it down as TOS because the other shows seem, to me, to realistic. IMO I just don't think TNG-DS9-Voy-Ent were as fun for a young person to watch as TOS was for me as a kid. That's not a bad thing, its just an opinion.

If Trek comes back to TV should it ditch the intent of wrapping a morality around their stories. In essence, should there be less meat to the story, and a little more action and straight story telling than just another generation of episodes about racism, sexism, nationalism...heck, just no more 'isms'?

Put simply...less talking and more action..

Rob
Scorpio

 

[Hermiod]

Then it wouldn't be Star Trek anymore. It would be Generic Space Action Show #47.

 

[AlboOfBorg]

Put simply...less talking and more action..

I agree.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

This would be boring for adults.

 

[Carpe Occasio]

Then it wouldn't be Star Trek anymore. It would be Generic Space Action Show #47.

Agreed. It would turn into Space Rangers (remember that shortlived show?).

 

[RobertScorpio]

Then it wouldn't be Star Trek anymore. It would be Generic Space Action Show #47.

Agreed. It would turn into Space Rangers (remember that shortlived show?).

Yes...and I had done a pretty good job wiping it from my memory banks!!..thanks for reminding me...wink wink!

Rob
Scorpio

 

[erastus25]

Then it wouldn't be Star Trek anymore. It would be Generic Space Action Show #47.

I completely agree. ST would be no better than Transformers - a horrifying thought. Hopefully JJ and company realized that as they wrote/produced this movie. All one needs to do is compare the original Superman to subsequent generic superhero movies and see that Superman still stands out not because of its effects, but because it captured the essence of the superhero concept, which was derived from an exploration of human dreams and ideals.

 

[Haytil]

You watch it when you are young, and get into the phasers, the Transporter, the FX of the Doomsday Machine, whatever.

...

The other shows did this as well, but I don't think they ever really got it down as TOS because the other shows seem, to me, to realistic. IMO I just don't think TNG-DS9-Voy-Ent were as fun for a young person to watch as TOS was for me as a kid.

I don't think that you're really in a position to make that assessment if you grew up watching TOS. If so, then you didn't grow up watching TNG-DS9-VOY-ENT, and can't see them through the same eyes that a child would (or the same eyes that you used to first watch TOS).

I grew up watching TNG-DS9-VOY-ENT. And it's precisely the reasons you list TOS as being interesting for children that made 24th-century Trek interesting for me and my friends (yes, there were a lot of us kids interested in 24th-century Trek back in the day).

The phasers and torpedos. The red alerts. The transporter. The warp drive FX. The Borg. The alien costumes.

Your judgement in this matter is both incorrect and unfair.

 

[RobertScorpio]

You watch it when you are young, and get into the phasers, the Transporter, the FX of the Doomsday Machine, whatever.

...

The other shows did this as well, but I don't think they ever really got it down as TOS because the other shows seem, to me, to realistic. IMO I just don't think TNG-DS9-Voy-Ent were as fun for a young person to watch as TOS was for me as a kid.

I don't think that you're really in a position to make that assessment if you grew up watching TOS. If so, then you didn't grow up watching TNG-DS9-VOY-ENT, and can't see them through the same eyes that a child would (or the same eyes that you used to first watch TOS).

I grew up watching TNG-DS9-VOY-ENT. And it's precisely the reasons you list TOS as being interesting for children that made 24th-century Trek interesting for me and my friends (yes, there were a lot of us kids interested in 24th-century Trek back in the day).

The phasers and torpedos. The red alerts. The transporter. The warp drive FX. The Borg. The alien costumes.

Your judgement in this matter is both incorrect and unfair.

You know; you might be right. I remember watching my neice watch TNG-DS9 and she was about ten or so..and she really dug it...so yeah, maybe I was a bit Harsh..

Even I, ROBERT SCORPIO, can be wrong...it has happened once before...so yeah, I stand corrected

Rob
Scorpio

 

[ZERO_of_ZERO]

Trek must try to stand above the rest; give the masses space battles, yet try to 'say something' too :

You can do this and have a lot of action etc, with good writers, stories and production surley?

 

[Space Cowboy]

While I grew up watching TNG/DS9, I also caught reruns of TOS and I loved all of them. IMO, Trek should be about humanity becoming better than where they started at the beginning of the episode. That seems to be a part of a winning formula that still has people talking about it after more than 40 years after the first episode aired.

 

[Turtletrekker]

The first option would make for an extremely boring show.

 

[Anthony Sabre]

We had this. It was called Firefly. I say the keep the morality. We still need Trek shows which give the watcher something to aspire to. Just don't beat me over the head with it like TNG.

 

[Lynx]

The trademark of Star Trek has always been:

Good stories and good characters.

Keep that.

Otherwise it will turn Star Trek into one of those third-rate series which is cancelled after two seasons and then forgotten.

 

[Navaros]

I agree with the OP to some extent. TOS had plenty of adult story and action. The other shows swung the pendulum way too close to the "very little action at all" side of things, and thus were usually a lot more boring than TOS. And, even TOS' "talking" parts" were immensely more entertaining than the "talking parts" of most modern Trek shows, so that also factors into making the problem described in the OP even bigger.

However, adding more action to Trek akin to the amount in TOS does not mean that the stories or characters would need to be or should be dumbed-down or less meaty. Doing that would indeed be a huge mistake.

The point is that Trek should have a proper balance of action and character & story meat, with the lion's share of screen-time going to character/story. The problem with modern Trek shows is that they put almost no action in them, which is taking things way too far to the other extreme and hence also the wrong way to do things. Any new Trek products should correct that, without going too far the other way.

 

[maryh]

I voted to tone down. It did not say ELIMINATE morality rather it said to tone it down. Certainly Star Trek needs thought provoking stories. It is not a Star Wars shoot-em-up, all special FX type program. However entertainment is its purpose for existing not pontificating. Too much morality makes for unexciting, apathetic episodes.

When I look at the TOS stories generally considered the best:
Devil in the Dark, Balance of Terror, Journey to Babel, Doomsday Machine, Amok Time, City of the Edge, Trouble with Tribbles, A Piece of the Action, Menagerie, Enterprise Incident.

I notice that these are not riddled with moral pontification. It is there if you look for it but the story is good and well developed without the in-your-face type moral lesson.

OTOH
When I look at TOS stories generally considered poor:
Mark of Gideon, The Cloud Minders, Spock's Brain, Let that Be Your Last Battlefield, The Omega Glory.

I notice that these are in-your-face type social commentaries trying to make a point or promote some type of morality. The stories are weak, boring and forgettable. Trying to make a story when your real purpose is to moralize results in lousy stories. Putting sub-plots of moralizing within a good, exciting story line that keeps us glued to the TV works better.

 

[greenmystik]

I say stand above the rest.

 

[Kegek]

IMO I just don't think TNG-DS9-Voy-Ent were as fun for a young person to watch as TOS was for me as a kid. That's not a bad thing, its just an opinion.

My opinion: TNG was a lot of fun for kids. It was the coolest show on the air. I say this from personal experience. It had interesting characters, top-notch special effects, and stories that intrigued me even as a child.

Besides, it's what Star Trek is. Deride the franchise's moralism all you want, it's the heart and soul of it.

 

[USS Kongo]

IMO I just don't think TNG-DS9-Voy-Ent were as fun for a young person to watch as TOS was for me as a kid. That's not a bad thing, its just an opinion.

My opinion: TNG was a lot of fun for kids. It was the coolest show on the air. I say this from personal experience. It had interesting characters, top-notch special effects, and stories that intrigued me even as a child.

Besides, it's what Star Trek is. Deride the franchise's moralism all you want, it's the heart and soul of it.

^ Couldn't agree more on both points.

TNG was a show that entire families could enjoy, including the kids. And Trek's moralism is what makes it stand apart from so many other SF series.

Sean

 

[Shaw]

I've been a Star Trek fan my whole life. But I am not sure that I would classify myself as a Science Fiction/Fantasy fan though. Star Trek is fundamentally different from most everything else in that at it's core it is about people. And not just any people, it is about looking at us from a different perspective (where we might not originally see ourselves because of the setting).

Star Wars came out when I was 9, and I saw it once in the theater. I was totally underwhelmed by the experience and considered the movie rather trivial. I didn't start liking Star Wars until the Empire Strikes Back, and even then I only ever considered the first movie to be a character introduction for the second movie.

I'll be the first to admit that I am not a good judge of what works for the viewing public, nor have I ever been a good judge of what any given age group I was part of might like (as most everyone I knew who was my age back in 1977 thought Star Wars was the greatest thing ever). But I know what I like and why I like it, and would never (even as a child) let others determine what I found enjoyable.


Personally, I find that most of what passes for Science Fiction/Fantasy writing is a ton of crap thrown up against a wall in the hopes that something worthwhile will stick. I will never understand the mind set of people who think that being prolific at turning out mediocrity is in any way a substitute for quality. If I can't put forward quality work in my creative endeavors, then I don't put anything forward at all.

Star Trek is meant to be complex. The moment anyone attempts to distill it down to something simplistic (be it because they don't get it themselves or believe that others won't get it), the true heart of Star Trek is lost.