why STAR TREK works

[RobertScorpio]

Well...here is why I think "STAR TREK" works, for the most part...and you may not agree, but oh well..such is life.

Firefly, for as good as it is, is, in my opinion, vastly over rated. The problem I always had with that show, all the way to Serinity, is that it never was that serious to me. The early episodes were aloof, and I thought, just trying be 'hip-trendy'...and that turned me off. It bent over backwards to be 'oh so cool' with its group of characters, that for me, were just not meaty enough...Firefly will not stand the test of time outside fans of scifi circles.

nuBSG is the absolute opposite, I think nuBSG has, from the very start, taken itself tooooo seriously. It has been an absolute chore to get through some of the 'realistic' drama they have on nuBSG. Way to sour, I think, to stand the test of time....

Star Trek, TOS-TNG mainly, and by the way, the most successful of TREKS, got it right. They had the right mixture of sci, with good writing. I think, at times, TNG suffers from being to laided with Technobabble. But these two shows, I think, and TOS even more so, are better shows because, for the most part, they are fun to watch with being so funny-trendy. And they are meaty enough to watch, without ending your hope for humanity (nuBSG has this down to an artform)

And that is why I say here, with a loud voice, for the entire world to hear...STAR TREK had it right. The others will always be 'interesting' sidebars....


Rob
Scorpio

 

[Johnny]

I miss the episodes of TNG, the ones where they would be interacting with a new specis as a side line to sorting out Lwoxana's headacre, the ones where the story was still interesting without phasers and photon torpedoes.
For all intent and purpose, Voy was to similar BSG, in it's main story at least.
imo I think it was picards interest in peace, archiology and culture, and his ability to make them sound exciting, is what makes us want to watch them. It's always HIS acting which makes me want to watch TNG.

 

[chris32482]

Well...here is why I think "STAR TREK" works, for the most part...and you may not agree, but oh well..such is life.

Firefly, for as good as it is, is, in my opinion, vastly over rated. The problem I always had with that show, all the way to Serinity, is that it never was that serious to me. The early episodes were aloof, and I thought, just trying be 'hip-trendy'...and that turned me off. It bent over backwards to be 'oh so cool' with its group of characters, that for me, were just not meaty enough...Firefly will not stand the test of time outside fans of scifi circles.

nuBSG is the absolute opposite, I think nuBSG has, from the very start, taken itself tooooo seriously. It has been an absolute chore to get through some of the 'realistic' drama they have on nuBSG. Way to sour, I think, to stand the test of time....

Star Trek, TOS-TNG mainly, and by the way, the most successful of TREKS, got it right. They had the right mixture of sci, with good writing. I think, at times, TNG suffers from being to laided with Technobabble. But these two shows, I think, and TOS even more so, are better shows because, for the most part, they are fun to watch with being so funny-trendy. And they are meaty enough to watch, without ending your hope for humanity (nuBSG has this down to an artform)

And that is why I say here, with a loud voice, for the entire world to hear...STAR TREK had it right. The others will always be 'interesting' sidebars....


Rob
Scorpio

I will agree that Star Trek is the greatest sci-fi franchise, though it really is a matter of opinion. I love it because I love the future that it portrays. I really hope that humanity in the 24th century resembles Star Trek.

However, I can't knock other shows because they are too serious, or too aloof. I've never watched Firefly, but Battlestar is my favorite show right now (its actually the only thing I watch besides History, Discovery, National Geographic, and CNN). You're right, it is dark, but I think the premise of the show requires it to be. I mean, if an entire civilization is reduced to a just a few thousand people, the survivors probably aren't going to be in a very good mood. Battlestar has everything I could ask for in a televison show: mystery, suspense, drama, action, spaceships, and hot chicks. Enough said.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Well...here is why I think "STAR TREK" works, for the most part...and you may not agree, but oh well..such is life.

Firefly, for as good as it is, is, in my opinion, vastly over rated. The problem I always had with that show, all the way to Serinity, is that it never was that serious to me. The early episodes were aloof, and I thought, just trying be 'hip-trendy'...and that turned me off. It bent over backwards to be 'oh so cool' with its group of characters, that for me, were just not meaty enough...Firefly will not stand the test of time outside fans of scifi circles.

nuBSG is the absolute opposite, I think nuBSG has, from the very start, taken itself tooooo seriously. It has been an absolute chore to get through some of the 'realistic' drama they have on nuBSG. Way to sour, I think, to stand the test of time....

Star Trek, TOS-TNG mainly, and by the way, the most successful of TREKS, got it right. They had the right mixture of sci, with good writing. I think, at times, TNG suffers from being to laided with Technobabble. But these two shows, I think, and TOS even more so, are better shows because, for the most part, they are fun to watch with being so funny-trendy. And they are meaty enough to watch, without ending your hope for humanity (nuBSG has this down to an artform)

And that is why I say here, with a loud voice, for the entire world to hear...STAR TREK had it right. The others will always be 'interesting' sidebars....


Rob
Scorpio

I will agree that Star Trek is the greatest sci-fi franchise, though it really is a matter of opinion. I love it because I love the future that it portrays. I really hope that humanity in the 24th century resembles Star Trek.

However, I can't knock other shows because they are too serious, or too aloof. I've never watched Firefly, but Battlestar is my favorite show right now (its actually the only thing I watch besides History, Discovery, National Geographic, and CNN). You're right, it is dark, but I think the premise of the show requires it to be. I mean, if an entire civilization is reduced to a just a few thousand people, the survivors probably aren't going to be in a very good mood. Battlestar has everything I could ask for in a televison show: mystery, suspense, drama, action, spaceships, and hot chicks. Enough said.

This is all speculation on my part. I'm just saying, that IMO, both those shows (FIREFLY-nuBSG) will never ever be as popular as TOS or even TNG were because they are extremes...

No space show, IMO, is as realistic as nuBSG. And that is why, I think, it has never really been a ratings hit. It appeals to the crowd that prefers more reality to their tv viewing, like the other shows you mentioned.

Some people want the show to be, you know, off kilter, like SOUTH PARK or DEXTER, or in this case, FIREFLY. More of a 'different' twist on the average formula, with characters that are more realistc and not 'good'....they like 'gray' characters because they do seem more real (and I mean Dexter/Firefly)

Just a theory..thats all...

Rob
Scorpio

 

[TheGodBen]

I always assumed that Firefly was supposed to get meatier later on, but it started more aloof to help you get into the characters and the universe at large. Once you had bonded with them the show would start to be about something more, with perhaps another civil war breaking out and difficult decisions to make among the crew. The only real problem I have with it is the prostitute character who was just a waste of time as far as I am concerned.

As for nuBSG, I love the bleak episodes the most. With the exception of Exodus Part 1, I think the whole New Caprica arc was utterly fantastic and the show's high-point. From the suicide bombings, to Baltar being forced to sign execution warrants at gunpoint, to the brutal way they dealt with collaborators . . . it was dark, but it was riveting drama.

I think that BSG may be better TV, but I certainly wouldn't want to live there, and that is where Star Trek got things right. We all want to believe that the future will be a better place, and Star Trek showed that future. Humans are at peace and Earth is a utopia. At times it can be absurdly simplistic, it can be annoyingly preachy, and sometimes it is just stupid (yes Threshold, I'm looking at you), but it is a future that I want to live in an be a part of. I can think of no other show that makes me feel that way.

 

[Navaros]

I agree that TOS got it right. Don't agree that TNG did. TNG was nothing like TOS at all; I don't see any way to compare the two. They share a show name, a ship name, and that's about it. IMO TNG was not even a good show. Whereas TOS was a masterpiece of a show. TOS had fun & adventure. TNG had nothing but bland conversations with no conflict.

I agree that Trek doesn't need to be super extremely vulgar/depressing/obscene and everything else that (inexplicably) makes nuBSG popular amongst hardcore SciFi fans (but not among the general population), but that doesn't mean TNG got it right. TNG is wayyyyy too far in the other direction.

 

[Sci]

Well...here is why I think "STAR TREK" works, for the most part...and you may not agree, but oh well..such is life.

Firefly, for as good as it is, is, in my opinion, vastly over rated. The problem I always had with that show, all the way to Serinity, is that it never was that serious to me. The early episodes were aloof, and I thought, just trying be 'hip-trendy'...and that turned me off. It bent over backwards to be 'oh so cool' with its group of characters, that for me, were just not meaty enough...Firefly will not stand the test of time outside fans of scifi circles.

I would suggest that if you felt that Firefly wasn't serious, you weren't paying attention. Whilst there was certainly an undercurrent of humor, the show's fundamental nature was deeply serious. It was about a man who had lost everything he believed in during a war for independence that he lost -- including his God. It was about the struggle to find meaning in a world where nothing means anything anymore. It was about the realization that a world without sin is a world without life -- that the gods are dead and we must live for ourselves. It was about the people that history stepped on. Watch episodes like "Objects in Space" or the film Serenity again and focus less on the jokes than on the actual content. Listen to Whedon's commentaries. Firefly, for all its humor, was a deeply serious, deeply tragic show full of nuanced characters.

nuBSG is the absolute opposite, I think nuBSG has, from the very start, taken itself tooooo seriously. It has been an absolute chore to get through some of the 'realistic' drama they have on nuBSG. Way to sour, I think, to stand the test of time....

I disagree here too. While I agree that nuBSG is sometimes too serious for my personal taste, I don't for a second think that it won't stand the test of time because of it. And besides, it's a story about the near-extermination of the entire human race -- of course it's going to feel very bleak.

Star Trek, TOS-TNG mainly, and by the way, the most successful of TREKS, got it right. They had the right mixture of sci, with good writing. I think, at times, TNG suffers from being to laided with Technobabble. But these two shows, I think, and TOS even more so, are better shows because, for the most part, they are fun to watch with being so funny-trendy. And they are meaty enough to watch, without ending your hope for humanity (nuBSG has this down to an artform)

I think TNG's characters were much less well-developed than TOS's, and certainly less so than nuBSG's and FF's. They were very stiff and two-dimensional, and seemed to lack genuine human emotions much of the time.

And that is why I say here, with a loud voice, for the entire world to hear...STAR TREK had it right. The others will always be 'interesting' sidebars....

I see no particular reason to imply some sort of competition between the shows. I think Firefly, Battlestar Galactica, and Star Trek will all last, and none of them are "sidebars" to the others.

 

[Balthier the Great]

I think Trek got it right mostly by keeping it simple. The intricate plots of BSG or B5 made it hard to just have a simple adventure story. With trek, at least at first (TOS mostly) they didn't flesh out the entire universe to the point where you couldn't tell a certain story because it contradicted some obsure point in the canon. If it was a good story you could do it.

My other favorite space opera was much the same. Farscape was awesome for much the same reason. You could do a lot of cool things in the Farscape without stepping on canon too much.

Too much canon and jargon to worry about kills the drama. The stories should be about the people in your ship, not the engines and the torpedos. Technobabble is what brought down trek, as well as having cliches all over the place. It won't really live again until it can surprise people again. I want a genuine WTF moment in trek -- something I couldn't have possibly seen coming.

 

[dreadpiraterose]

Eh... I'm going to respectfully disagree about Firefly. I think that actually captured a lot of the great elements from many different successful sci-fi series. I mean, yes, Trek got a lot right. But Firefly got a lot right too. They are just different styles.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Star Trek works because it is about relate-able people in crazy-ass sci fi situations that they get out of because of their qualities as people and not their ability to spout technobabble or any other factor. That is, when the stories are being written correctly, that happens.

There are certainly other sci fi series/stories that work for the same reason. Farscape for instance. So an additional thing to remember about Star Trek is what makes it unique - that's where the "optimistic version of the future" thing comes into play.

And since we're on the subject:

BSG works because the actors are very good and the writing, even when it's not very good, is at least thought-provoking.

B5 works because the characters are charming and the overall story arc is well constructed.

Firefly worked as long as it lasted because the characters were well constructed and cast to interact with each other to create interesting dramatic situations. Also the premise had real promise.

Stargate works because it's comfort food. Just give Shep a p-90 and let him shoot up some shit, and we're happy. Right?

 

[Johnny]

Stargate works because it's comfort food. Just give Shep a p-90 and let him shoot up some shit, and we're happy. Right?

Watching season 5 as we speak!

 

[C.E. Evans]

I think TOS worked because it simply worked for people on different levels. It had action, characters people could relate to (and even inspire to be), a cool "military" aspect (i.e., Starfleet), starships, babes in ultra-short miniskirts for guys, a hunky (if later chunky) captain who occasionally lost his shirt for gals, Spock, humor, drama, philosophy, stuff being blown up, allegory, space monsters, phaser gun fights, fist fights, memorable catch phrases, a positive message for Humanity's future, as well as babes in ultra-short miniskirts.

 

[Sci]

One of the curious habits of some Trekkies, as I think of it, is a tendency that they have to try to make Star Trek out to be the be-all-end-all of all art, the Alpha and the Omega of all art forms by which all other television programs, films, songs, paintings, novels, etc., ought to be compared, and which must be justified as superior to all other works.

Which makes absolutely no sense to me. It's one form of art, it's a good form of art. But what's the point of saying that trait X makes Trek work, but TV Series Y doesn't have Trait X, and ergo TV Series Y is inferior? The great thing about art is its diversity -- which itself is supposed to be one of Trek's main themes: Diversity. So I see no reason to regard Trek as being in competition with these shows.

 

[xortex]

Uh for the same reason a Mozart symphony 'works' and a Salieri symphony doesn't.

 

[Mistral]

Uh for the same reason a Mozart symphony 'works' and a Salieri symphony doesn't.

Bahahahahaha! Nice retort. We are arguing about people's perception-which means there is no right answer. I'm going to weigh in as one of the above posters did:

Star Trek is a place I'd like to live. It evokes that feeling on a deep level in so many viewers that it has become a virtual institution in our culture. It is the idealization of the world, the place we would aspire to create, a Fabrege egg version of our own world. That's why it works. I hope JJ kept that in mind when he did the re-boot, cause its at the heart of the ST universe. I think the one scene that sums it all up is Carol Marcus showing off the Genesis cave.

"Can I cook or can I cook?"

The majesty, the beauty of Star trek is all right there-the creation of hopeful life and beauty from cold nothingness.

But as I said, its all subjective.

 

[xortex]

I don't think it's being subjective by saying Mozart was a great composer or Roddenberry a great producer.

 

[Sci]

I don't think it's being subjective by saying Mozart was a great composer or Roddenberry a great producer.

I'm not sure I'd equate Roddenberry with Mozart. He was a wonderful producer, certainly, but some of the best and most enduring aspects of TOS were the creations of others -- in particular, Gene L. Coon and D.C. Fontana. And I particularly have trouble equating Roddenberry with a TV series creator Mozart when there are writers like Aaron Sorkin or Joss Whedon or Steven Moffat or Russell T. Davies or J. Michael Straczynski or David Chase or Alan Ball or Matthew Weiner or David Shore or Ronald D. Moore.

 

[john titor]

Uh for the same reason a Mozart symphony 'works' and a Salieri symphony doesn't.

Bahahahahaha! Nice retort. We are arguing about people's perception-which means there is no right answer. I'm going to weigh in as one of the above posters did:

Star Trek is a place I'd like to live. It evokes that feeling on a deep level in so many viewers that it has become a virtual institution in our culture. It is the idealization of the world, the place we would aspire to create, a Fabrege egg version of our own world. That's why it works. I hope JJ kept that in mind when he did the re-boot, cause its at the heart of the ST universe. I think the one scene that sums it all up is Carol Marcus showing off the Genesis cave.

"Can I cook or can I cook?"

The majesty, the beauty of Star trek is all right there-the creation of hopeful life and beauty from cold nothingness.

But as I said, its all subjective.

That's it in a nutshell. I've always considered it to be a virtual reality, or an ideal which people can aspire towards.

Star Trek works because it shows a future where rationality and empathy have prevailed. I think this is the direction humanity needs to go in if it is to survive. Also it combines philosophy, scientific concepts, politics, ethics etc without dumbing down. The characterization tends to be excellent if not sheer genius ( for example, Picard, Data, Worf).

 

[xortex]

So there were alot of Mozarts. I'm sure everyone can agree what GR did was special and very different in a different way somehow. a transcendant way, not just the writing but the whole production.

 

[Sci]

So there were alot of Mozarts. I'm sure everyone can agree what GR did was special and very different in a different way somehow. a transcendant way, not just the writing but the whole production.

I think that Roddenberry was wonderful, but not transcendent. His special genius was in developing a fictional universe that allowed for a great deal of innovation and evolution by other, more talented writers, I would argue, whilst still being based in the values of mid-20th Century American Liberalism.

In other words... Roddenberry was to the one-hour drama as Rogers and Hammerstein were to musicals. They took the elements of the musical form as it existed before them under Cohen or Porter, and used it to fully develop the basic form. But it was up to later composers and creators, like Sondheim, Robert Brown, or Kander and Ebb, to develop the content to their fullest extents.

In other words, Roddenberry, like Rogers and Hammerstein, fully developed the form, but not the content.