Why it is important some people are unhappy

[lawman]

Quite a number of people here (and Trek fans, in general) came in via TNG or via one of the subsequent series, often simply because of the age they happened to be when Star Trek: (your series here) was in first-run. Some of them branched out and discovered and learned to enjoy all of the rest of the series in turn and some didn't; that's fine, and there's no call for terms like "paralogia" to be tossed around. That's being no less dismissive than those you criticize.

Well, it's hardly the snarkiest thing I've read on these boards, but apologies to anyone who took it personally. I intended the exaggerated rhetoric strictly for sarcastic effect.

In all seriousness, though... I can understand how someone might have been exposed to TNG or later shows first. I was a teenager when TNG started in first-run, myself, theoretically the perfect target audience... those first two seasons dimmed my enthusiasm way, way down below any level that could have bloomed into fandom for the show on its own merits, but I suppose others could have seen it differently. However, I still can't grasp how anyone who did become an afficionado of the Trek universe could then reject TOS, the show that gave birth to so many of the tropes and concepts that the later shows built upon.

It's like someone claiming they (somehow) enjoyed Phantom Menace, but didn't like Star Wars. Just doesn't make sense.

 

[lawman]

Well it happened. I was president of a 200-strong ST club when TNG started and our ranks quickly swelled to 1000. ST IV drove away a lot of the older, TOS-avid fans and many of the new, younger fans knew ST only from ST IV and TNG, and rejected TOS as kitschy, and too 60s-based...

Bizarre. I hate kitsch, but never saw TOS as infected by it. And what sort of problem could anyone possibly have with the 1960s? (Save perhaps reactionary right-wingers, who wouldn't like Trek anyway.) That decade more than any other was responsible for the society we live in today... and hell, the late '80s were all about revisiting the pop culture of the '60s: in a way, TNG itself was a manifestation of that.

Personally, I missed TOS in first run myself, although I was old enough if we'd owned a TV, so I spent the 80s playing catchup after TAS and TMP bowled me over. TNG was my series, which I followed from creation to finale and beyond.

I wasn't old enough to watch TOS in first run, myself, only in syndication in the afternoons after school... but having seen that, and then the early movies, I was a fan. There was no way I could embrace TNG as "my" series; it was clearly just the knock-off. (And worse, especially in the early years, it was boring. Its main virtue was Patrick Stewart, a skilled actor whose material, however, seldom lived up to his abilities. On the other hand, Frakes was a far hammier actor, and Riker a far less interesting character, than anyone who appeared in TOS.)

 

[Neopeius]

(I've never seen DS9 or ENT, but I suspect them too)

Never seen? Ever? Wow.

Well, I saw the first ep of DS9 and wasn't impressed. It looked like a TNG version of B5 at the time. I'm not going to judge the show on one episode, however.

And ENT just looked bad and the ep synopses didn't help.

 

[Neopeius]

Edit: As a matter of fact, given that the defining elements of Space Opera are the mingling of SF with western and naval fiction, I'd say Trek might be one of the purest examples of Space Opera.

Space Opera does not mean "like Star Wars".

Star Wars is a classic example of Space Opera. Anything in the Matsumoto universe (Harlock, Yamato, etc.) is very Space Opera.

Star Trek actually feels a lot like the science fiction of the 50s, a subject I know *very* well as I own every Galaxy, Astounding, and F&SF from that decade through the 70s and have read most of them. So the worst you can accuse Star Trek of being is slightly behind the curve for *written* science fiction. Doc Smith was literary Space Opera. Was Starship Troopers Space Opera?

Star Trek wasn't always the hardest of science fiction, but it was often written by bonafide science fiction authors and it was far closer to scientific than Star Wars or Matsumoto films.

If you look at Star Wars and Star Trek and see them synoptically, you're not very discriminating.

If anything Trek is a synthesis, taking elements from military SF, space opera, planetary romance, hard SF and soft SF.

That sounds about right, and makes sense considering it was written by 50 different authors.

 

[M'Sharak]

Quite a number of people here (and Trek fans, in general) came in via TNG or via one of the subsequent series, often simply because of the age they happened to be when Star Trek: (your series here) was in first-run. Some of them branched out and discovered and learned to enjoy all of the rest of the series in turn and some didn't; that's fine, and there's no call for terms like "paralogia" to be tossed around. That's being no less dismissive than those you criticize.

Well, it's hardly the snarkiest thing I've read on these boards, but apologies to anyone who took it personally. I intended the exaggerated rhetoric strictly for sarcastic effect.

Fair enough, then. There are one or two others about who have been known to employ such a term in sarcastic fashion, but it's a fine line to tread and, at the level of... animation often found in discussions here, sometimes too easily taken the wrong way.

 

[Vigilance]

Star Wars is a classic example of Space Opera. Anything in the Matsumoto universe (Harlock, Yamato, etc.) is very Space Opera.

I agree Star Wars is space opera.

Star Trek actually feels a lot like the science fiction of the 50s, a subject I know *very* well as I own every Galaxy, Astounding, and F&SF from that decade through the 70s and have read most of them. So the worst you can accuse Star Trek of being is slightly behind the curve for *written* science fiction. Doc Smith was literary Space Opera. Was Starship Troopers Space Opera?

Eh, I'd say Starship Troopers is not space opera. While big military conflict in space is a staple of space operas from Lensmen to Star Wars, I don't think that's enough. I also think a space opera needs a western or naval fiction influence as well, before it crosses my threshold.

And the science in Starship Troopers is WAY more realistic than anything found in Trek.

Star Trek wasn't always the hardest of science fiction, but it was often written by bonafide science fiction authors and it was far closer to scientific than Star Wars or Matsumoto films.

Yes, Trek had episodes that were science fiction and employed a lot of great sci-fi writers. But Trek also has just about every element required to label something space opera, namely:

1. Large military conflict in space
2. Outlandish science
3. Western or naval fiction influence

Does this mean never delves into sci-fi? Nope, that's one of the things that causes me to prefer Trek to SW. But I'd still say there are always too many elements of space opera. There's maybe a handful of early TOS episodes that I'd consider sci-fi and then after that, it spun into more fantastic areas and went space opera.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Emphasis mine

TOS had many space opera elements to it: the Roman Empire independently developing on an alien planet anyone?

The transporter shunting people into alternate dimensions? Splitting people into Jeckyl and Hyde? Jack the Ripper in space? Big god hand grabbing the Enterprise?

What about flying around the sun as a way to go back in time?

Now here are some more examples of those kitsch elements that seem to be dismissed by fans when defending TOS as being social conscious television. Entertaining episodes all, but hardly very deep or challenging writing.

And, of course, the transplanting of our own history onto a planet is very much a space-opera trope. However, imagine those elements in TNG. There would be some technobabble nonsense to over explain the existance of those elements. Something far more bogged down than Hodgkins Law of Parrellel Planet Development.

Come to think of it TOS did jump hoops to explain its more siller elements,
so why is that fans have a problem if Abrams and co. do the same?

 

[dougkeenan]

And the science in Starship Troopers is WAY more realistic than anything found in Trek.

It's been a minute since I read the book - how again did the troopers get from star to star?

 

[Neopeius]

And the science in Starship Troopers is WAY more realistic than anything found in Trek.

How? Mobile suits powered by.. something. Interstellar ships driven by.. something. The good ol' Americans.. er.. Terrans vs. the monstrous, intractable bugs in a jingoistic romp across the galaxy.

BTW, I *love* Starship Troopers. And I hope to God I didn't just kill my own point...

Yes, Trek had episodes that were science fiction and employed a lot of great sci-fi writers. But Trek also has just about every element required to label something space opera, namely:

1. Large military conflict in space
2. Outlandish science
3. Western or naval fiction influence

What makes something Space Opera, according to the dictionary, is the element of melodrama--plot and gimmicks at the expense of characterization. One thing Trek does not lack is characterization.

As for outlandish science, it's three centuries in the future. It's not outlandish science. What's important is that it be *consistent* science, and it generally is--certainly way the hell more consistent than TNG and especially VOY.

 

[Vigilance]

And the science in Starship Troopers is WAY more realistic than anything found in Trek.

How? Mobile suits powered by.. something. Interstellar ships driven by.. something. The good ol' Americans.. er.. Terrans vs. the monstrous, intractable bugs in a jingoistic romp across the galaxy.

BTW, I *love* Starship Troopers. And I hope to God I didn't just kill my own point...

As fantastic as some of that stuff is, it's still way more realistic than Trek. There's no wormholes teleporting you across the galaxy (made by aliens who exist at all points in time simultaneously and occasionaly spit out time manipulating artifacts for the benefit of the nearby primitive races), no talking time portals, no teleporting machines splitting one dude into a good dude and an evil dude (and then putting him back together again), no giant energy barriers that surround galaxies and occasionally turn people who try to fly through them into psionic demi-gods, no indepently developing Roman Empires on alien worlds, no big god hands grabbing starships, no all-powerful energy beings capable of disabling starships with their minds, no aliens making anyone re-enact the shootout at the OK Corral, no aliens feeding off "hate", no time travelling by flying really fast around suns, etc etc.

Yes, Trek had episodes that were science fiction and employed a lot of great sci-fi writers. But Trek also has just about every element required to label something space opera, namely:

1. Large military conflict in space
2. Outlandish science
3. Western or naval fiction influence

What makes something Space Opera, according to the dictionary, is the element of melodrama--plot and gimmicks at the expense of characterization. One thing Trek does not lack is characterization.[/quote]

Well, according to dictionary.com it's any melodrama/soap opera set in outer space. That's definitely Trek. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/space opera

According to Wikipedia, it's science fiction that grows out of naval and western fiction. That article also lists Star Trek as one of its examples of the genre, along with Star Wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_opera#Definitions_by_contrast

As for outlandish science, it's three centuries in the future. It's not outlandish science. What's important is that it be *consistent* science, and it generally is--certainly way the hell more consistent than TNG and especially VOY.

Again, Trek science is way more outlandish than stuff will be 300 years from now, or 3000 for that matter. We might someday gain the ability to turn a person into energy and beam him around, but that will never split you into Jeckyl and Hyde, and then rejoin you again 45 minutes later.

Im also pretty confident in my belief that there are no talking time portals to be found, no matter how hard we look.

TOS transporters were basically magic. In TNG, the Holodecks were. In DS9 the Prophets were literally a deus ex machina on occasion, and a nice juicy source of SCIENCE!

In short, I find nothing particularly consistent or realistic about Trek science. It's there to serve the story and provide plot hooks, nothing more.

If a writer has a cool plot idea about Kirk being split into a good and evil side, he doesn't care how silly it is that the transporter would do that, he waves his magic writing wand and makes it happen, because we get to learn something about Kirk (but mostly because it's cool).

 

[btflash]

Here's why you're wrong, as I wrote about a similar claim in another thread:

You know what the base of Trek fans are? 3 million. That's about how many people were tuning in to ENT at its lowest points in the ratings. So we know that there are around 3 million Trekkies out there who are more or less reliable at even the lowest points of Trek's popularity.

you mean the base of "enterprise" fans , not neccessarily the original series or trek in general.i know many hardcore trekkers who absolutly hated enterprise , but loved the original series. so , i think the numbers you are giving arent really indicitive of all trek fans!i believe there are many more than that.

 

[Australis]

It's apparent to me that ST, SW and B5 were all influenced by the Lensman books, which were just brilliant for their day. When I saw the opening shot of SW Ep4, i thought "Wow, that's what I've seen in my head for years!!" Space Opera owes a HUGE debt to Doc Smith.

Which brings up a relevant point.

There's talk of a film series based on them (and boy, I'd give anything to write them!), but some big decisions would/will have to be made right at the very start, namely, does it have a retro feel or a very modern feel? Because to film the books as they were written is just impossible - the attitudes and social structures are just completely unpalatable today. Example - women can't wear the Lens, they 'don't have the mental stamina' or something. And I don't think there's a single black guy. Of course, maybe colour isn't mentioned, but on the other hand stuff written in that day rarely did. In no way am I saying Doc Smith was a racist, he just lived in a certain time when things were different.

And in the same way Trek has to be updated. Of course it was actually a pioneer for mixed race crews and women in command roles, which were important in the 60s, but we can't keep presenting those ideas the same way they were presented then - it looks old school. We can't have Kirk going round the galaxy mixing it up with alien babes in William Ware Theiss costumes (yes, I know, Kirk snogging Orion girl, let's hope it's not an ongoing thing). My worry is that it won't leave enough of those attitudes behind and will look 'old fashioned' to a new audience.

 

[Therin of Andor]

but at least nicholas meyer sat down and watched every single episode of trek in his preparation for directing wok. he got it right! that film still stands out as the best trek movie of them all.
in some ways i think that is also why the fans have not really turned out in large numbers for any of the movies after that.

Huh?

IIRC, ST IV and "First Contact" were box office gold.

 

[Neopeius]

As fantastic as some of that stuff is, it's still way more realistic than Trek. There's no wormholes teleporting you across the galaxy (made by aliens who exist at all points in time simultaneously and occasionaly spit out time manipulating artifacts for the benefit of the nearby primitive races), no talking time portals, no teleporting machines splitting one dude into a good dude and an evil dude (and then putting him back together again), no giant energy barriers that surround galaxies and occasionally turn people who try to fly through them into psionic demi-gods, no indepently developing Roman Empires on alien worlds, no big god hands grabbing starships, no all-powerful energy beings capable of disabling starships with their minds, no aliens making anyone re-enact the shootout at the OK Corral, no aliens feeding off "hate", no time travelling by flying really fast around suns, etc etc.

That doesn't make any of the features of Starship Troopers any more realistic. There's just fewer of them. This makes sense. Star Trek has 79 episodes. Starship Troopers has fewer than 200 pages.

Well, according to dictionary.com it's any melodrama/soap opera set in outer space. That's definitely Trek. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/space opera

TOS is absolutely not a soap opera. A soap opera (which is not a space opera) is "chiefly characterized by tangled interpersonal situations and melodramatic or sentimental treatment". Star Trek is not chiefly characterized by those things.

According to Wikipedia, it's science fiction that grows out of naval and western fiction. That article also lists Star Trek as one of its examples of the genre, along with Star Wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_opera#Definitions_by_contrast

That's nice. Show me *any* science in Star Wars.

Again, Trek science is way more outlandish than stuff will be 300 years from now, or 3000 for that matter.

Thank you, oh seer.

We might someday gain the ability to turn a person into energy and beam him around, but that will never split you into Jeckyl and Hyde, and then rejoin you again 45 minutes later.

Because you are an authority on matter transmission.

In fact, personality splitting may be a plausible consequence of human teleportation and reconstitution. Why not? All you're doing is taking a human massed lump of energy and imposing a stored matrix on it. You could turn it into anything you want. In fact, they do just that in episodes where they revert a person to an earlier form (see TASx2).

Im also pretty confident in my belief that there are no talking time portals to be found, no matter how hard we look.

TOS transporters were basically magic.

And the most advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

*All* science fiction features something which doesn't exist yet. It's always speculative. Otherwise, it's just "present day drama". Some science fiction is more grounded in known science than others. Larry Niven's work is considered very hard and crunchy science fiction, yet most of the stuff he wrote is *horribly* dated. Is it no longer science fiction?

Star Trek was written in the mid 60s. Kirk thought a quasar was a fluffy cloud thing. Does that make Galileo Seven no longer science fiction?

 

[ST-One]

Star Trek was written in the mid 60s. Kirk thought a quasar was a fluffy cloud thing. Does that make Galileo Seven no longer science fiction?

the very end of which was:

"chiefly characterized by tangled interpersonal situations and melodramatic or sentimental treatment"

 

[btflash]

but at least nicholas meyer sat down and watched every single episode of trek in his preparation for directing wok. he got it right! that film still stands out as the best trek movie of them all.
in some ways i think that is also why the fans have not really turned out in large numbers for any of the movies after that.

Huh?

II
RC, ST IV and "First Contact" were box office gold.

if you adjust the box office results for inflation and production budgets you would find wok did substancially better than the ones you listed.but, the greater question remains..... were they better films? none of those movies made huge sums of money.they did "good" box office , not great.

 

[btflash]

but at least nicholas meyer sat down and watched every single episode of trek in his preparation for directing wok. he got it right! that film still stands out as the best trek movie of them all.
in some ways i think that is also why the fans have not really turned out in large numbers for any of the movies after that.

Huh?

II
RC, ST IV and "First Contact" were box office gold.

if you adjust the box office results for inflation and production budgets you would find wok did substancially better than the ones you listed.but, the greater question remains..... were they better films? none of those movies made huge sums of money.they did "good" box office , not great.

heres some additional info for you. star trek the motion picture cost 35 million to make , grossed 82 million and was seen by 27 million people.

wrath of khan cost 11 million to make ,grossed 79 million and was seen by 26 million people.

star trek 4 cost 27 million to make , grossed 109 million and was seen by 22 million.

first contact cost 45 million to make , grossed 92 million and was seen by 13 million people.
anyone see a pattern here?

 

[DaveyNY]

Huh?

II
RC, ST IV and "First Contact" were box office gold.

if you adjust the box office results for inflation and production budgets you would find wok did substancially better than the ones you listed.but, the greater question remains..... were they better films? none of those movies made huge sums of money.they did "good" box office , not great.

heres some additional info for you. star trek the motion picture cost 35 million to make , grossed 82 million and was seen by 27 million people.

wrath of khan cost 11 million to make ,grossed 79 million and was seen by 26 million people.

star trek 4 cost 27 million to make , grossed 109 million and was seen by 22 million.

first contact cost 45 million to make , grossed 92 million and was seen by 13 million people.
anyone see a pattern here?

Yeah...
.............Trek Fan's must be dying off in droves!!!!!

 

[The Wormhole]

Most of the dissension isn't even rational. It's crying about zeroes starting registry numbers and how a movie made in 2008 doesn't look exactly the same as a 60s TV show. It's Captain Robert April, MattJC and The Wormhole. They're Team Stewey.

[snip]

How many of the haters will watch the movie with the intent to bash every second of it to fulfill their own prophecy so they can tell everyone how right they were?

First of all, it's time we cleared up a misconception you seem to have about me. I am not intent on "fulfilling my prophecy to hate this movie." I want to like it, I really do. However, out of the currently available info, pictures, and trailers, there is nothing I like. This movie is not appealing at all. I'll see it regardless, my duty as a Trek fan demands nothing less.

I could care less about things having a different look than they did in TOS. My complaint is that the new look just isn't that good, and in some regards, they would have been better off keeping the original look.

And zeroes in registries is a legitimate complaint which I have explaied in great detail in many other threads.

However, I am honoured that you compare me to Stewey. I always admired him and his views regarding Enterprise. I didn't agree with him 100% but he was one of the more intelligent and thought out posters in the Enterprise forum in its day, and I miss his honest criticism.

 

[BillJ]

I just love how everyone complains how dated Trek looks. But say nothing about when J.J. Abrams kept the most dated thing in The Original Series... the mini-skirts.

Still be there at the midnight showing... being really unhappy.