What's the Big Lesson in STXI?

[Sci]

Every TOS movie has given us a Big Idea or Big Lesson in its storytelling.

<SNIP>

What is the Big Idea or Big Lesson in STXI?

I don't know, what do you think the overly-obvious, obnoxious hit-you-over-the-head-with-the-meaning-of-the-film-because-the-writers-are-no-damn-good-at-subtext "message" of the film was? Because I surely would like to see more hackneyed allegories and obnoxious morals of the story to get in the way of actual storytelling.

Why shouldn't a story be about ideas? If it's just about beating bad guys, that's certainly not unique to ST and not very interesting as it's obvious that the good guys will win.

I've got no problem with a story being about ideas. I have a problem with a story being about Big Lessons. This is Star Trek, not Aesop's Fables.

Most of the time, when Trek tries to do Big Lessons, it just gets in the way of storytelling. It comes across as being more akin to a political tract or thesis than it does an actual, relevant story.

The best way I can think to describe it is the difference between Star Trek V: The Final Frontier and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. TUC is about ideas -- it's about the end of an era of history, and how it affects people who have always lived under certain political realities suddenly having to adjust to living in a world that's nothing like what they grew up in. TFF, on the other hand, is about a Big Lesson, and it beats us over the head with it -- Kirk is thinking about death and there's this crazy guy looking for God and then they find God but God is not God because God is in our hearts.... It's an absolute mess.

With the TUC, the deeper meaning of the film is seamlessly integrated with the character and plot arcs; it's just what the film is about. With TFF, the plot and character arcs are built, artificially, around the Big Lesson, and it doesn't flow organically from the plot and character arcs. In TUC, even when it's being really obvious in its politics ("Colonel West," "Only Nixon could go to China"), it just works as the political reality of the characters' lives. In TFF, it just feels like Shatner is taking a baseball bat to your head saying, "THIS! IS! DEEP! STUFF!"

As for ST09...

It has a deeper meaning. It's about how we react to tragedy and pain, about what kinds of people we choose to be in the face of horror. And it's about learning to get past conflict and dislike to form a real and lasting friendship. And, most of all, it's about the idea that there's a better future ahead of us. And it manages to be about all these things without letting them get in the way of the story.

 

[Cheapjack]

I know hardship, I'm just not like kids today. At least they have cars and girlfriends and some money.
.

I don't think you really have any idea about kids today. Certainly not as much as you think you do.

And in any case even if they were so bad, they didn't spring from the ground... Maybe you old folks should take a good look in the mirror and do a better parenting or teaching job.
The world young people live in today is a world of your making....not theirs. Their turn has yet to come.

Both of you have excellent points. Yes the kids today are very spoiled...they don't realize what they have and what they get without even having to work for it. I guess we can say that each successive generation has more then the one before it...right?
But then you can turn right around just like Mr. Hard did and blame the parents...which I do...they are ultimately responsible for this (this is just what I've seen in my life). I see it time and time again.... no rules, they don't have to do shit around the house, come and go as they please, everythings paid for...back talk.... up to all hours... watch whatever the hell they want....I could go on but the parents don't run a tight ship with child rearing and then they wonder why they have no authority!? I'm afraid to see when it's "their turn"...I bet they are going to be even worse then their parents....where the hell is that gonna leave us?

I do want to say that I believe my parents were too strict -- never flexible but today's parents are way too loose...somewhere in between those 2 extremes would do the world wonders.

I would say that youth today seem to operate like that Queen song: 'I want it all and I want it NOW!'!! A lot of pop stars are very selfish and materialistic, so I suppose it's not their fault. A lot of them have had one thing I've never had, after years of work, and that's love, and that's all you need.

They also seem to be determined to wipe out all that has gone before and have no sense of history, and if you don't have that, you might get assassinated!

God willing it'll all turn out alright. ST11 was a lesson for ME, too.

 

[Mr Awe]

I know hardship, I'm just not like kids today. At least they have cars and girlfriends and some money.
.

I don't think you really have any idea about kids today. Certainly not as much as you think you do.

And in any case even if they were so bad, they didn't spring from the ground... Maybe you old folks should take a good look in the mirror and do a better parenting or teaching job.
The world young people live in today is a world of your making....not theirs. Their turn has yet to come.

Both of you have excellent points. Yes the kids today are very spoiled...they don't realize what they have and what they get without even having to work for it. I guess we can say that each successive generation has more then the one before it...right?
But then you can turn right around just like Mr. Hard did and blame the parents...which I do...they are ultimately responsible for this (this is just what I've seen in my life). I see it time and time again.... no rules, they don't have to do shit around the house, come and go as they please, everythings paid for...back talk.... up to all hours... watch whatever the hell they want....I could go on but the parents don't run a tight ship with child rearing and then they wonder why they have no authority!? I'm afraid to see when it's "their turn"...I bet they are going to be even worse then their parents....where the hell is that gonna leave us?

I do want to say that I believe my parents were too strict -- never flexible but today's parents are way too loose...somewhere in between those 2 extremes would do the world wonders.

There's a lot of over generalization going on here!! Parents are this or that. Kids are this or that. Let's be accurate about this.

Some parents are too loose. And, some of their kids are spoiled. Big difference. There are still plenty of parents around who discipline their kids properly and plenty of kids who are bright, hard working, and responsible. You have the full spectrum . . . as always.

I have a 4 year old daughter and it's been very eye opening. If anything, I'd say kids are smarter these days than when I was her age. She's only 4 and she's telling me about all sorts of things that I didn't know then. Her friends and classmates run the full spectrum of bright to not so bright, good up bringing to not so good, etc. In fact, her best friend's parents are way too strict. It's not good for the kid but it does fly in the face of the overgeneralization going on around here!

Sheesh! Dang people without kids who are suddenly kid experts!

On top of that, I used to work at a university and worked closely with many of the students. Again, you get the full spectrum. There are those who are very bright and hardworking and then those, not so much. The full spectrum just like when I was in college all too long ago.

Mr Awe

 

[Cakes488]

I don't think you really have any idea about kids today. Certainly not as much as you think you do.

And in any case even if they were so bad, they didn't spring from the ground... Maybe you old folks should take a good look in the mirror and do a better parenting or teaching job.
The world young people live in today is a world of your making....not theirs. Their turn has yet to come.

Both of you have excellent points. Yes the kids today are very spoiled...they don't realize what they have and what they get without even having to work for it. I guess we can say that each successive generation has more then the one before it...right?
But then you can turn right around just like Mr. Hard did and blame the parents...which I do...they are ultimately responsible for this (this is just what I've seen in my life). I see it time and time again.... no rules, they don't have to do shit around the house, come and go as they please, everythings paid for...back talk.... up to all hours... watch whatever the hell they want....I could go on but the parents don't run a tight ship with child rearing and then they wonder why they have no authority!? I'm afraid to see when it's "their turn"...I bet they are going to be even worse then their parents....where the hell is that gonna leave us?

I do want to say that I believe my parents were too strict -- never flexible but today's parents are way too loose...somewhere in between those 2 extremes would do the world wonders.

There's a lot of over generalization going on here!! Parents are this or that. Kids are this or that. Let's be accurate about this.

Some parents are too loose. And, some of their kids are spoiled. Big difference. There are still plenty of parents around who discipline their kids properly and plenty of kids who are bright, hard working, and responsible. You have the full spectrum . . . as always.

I have a 4 year old daughter and it's been very eye opening. If anything, I'd say kids are smarter these days than when I was her age. She's only 4 and she's telling me about all sorts of things that I didn't know then. Her friends and classmates run the full spectrum of bright to not so bright, good up bringing to not so good, etc. In fact, her best friend's parents are way too strict. It's not good for the kid but it does fly in the face of the overgeneralization going on around here!

Sheesh! Dang people without kids who are suddenly kid experts!

On top of that, I used to work at a university and worked closely with many of the students. Again, you get the full spectrum. There are those who are very bright and hardworking and then those, not so much. The full spectrum just like when I was in college all too long ago.

Mr Awe

Hi There! If you read my post carefully I made sure to include "this is what I've seen in my life"...because obviously not every parent, kid is this way or that way and it runs gamut. And I'm not talking about bright and hardworking.....the kids that I know of that have been raised by these slacker parents actually turned out pretty good (a few didn't though), and they're smart to boot. They go to college and even have jobs...but they still don't have to pay for anything and not one chore is done around the house...by the time I was 19 I was paying rent at home, as well as anything else I needed/wanted...and that really helped me when I moved out. I do believe there is a distinct difference in the way I was raised in the 70's compared to kids today...it's just different times and things will always change. Some things have changed for the better but quite a bit has changed for the worse. Playdate anyone?

 

[Mr Awe]

Hi There! If you read my post carefully I made sure to include "this is what I've seen in my life"...because obviously not every parent, kid is this way or that way and it runs gamut. And I'm not talking about bright and hardworking.....the kids that I know of that have been raised by these slacker parents actually turned out pretty good (a few didn't though), and they're smart to boot. They go to college and even have jobs...but they still don't have to pay for anything and not one chore is done around the house...by the time I was 19 I was paying rent at home, as well as anything else I needed/wanted...and that really helped me when I moved out. I do believe there is a distinct difference in the way I was raised in the 70's compared to kids today...it's just different times and things will always change. Some things have changed for the better but quite a bit has changed for the worse. Playdate anyone?

It sounds like you and I were raised around the same time, in the 70s, at least for those key formative years.

I think kids today are different but not any worse. Perhaps the spectrum is more stretched out than when we were raised? Perhaps there are more slackers as a proportion of the spectrum (maybe) but there are also more on the extreme other side of the spectrum.

I still maintain that for every kid who is a slacker with no chores, everything is provided, etc. there are more kids on the other side of the spectrum who are smarter and more responsible. There is much more emphasis on learning at an earlier age now. There are actually loads of educational shows. More research on how children learn, etc. Later on, there is more emphasis on acquiring job skills in college and getting actual experience through internships (which was rare when I went to college).

I'm guessing here, but I'm thinking you're noticing the slacker end of the spectrum more than the other end because of your strict upbringing.

In a nutshell, kids today are probably no better or worse overall than before, but they are definitely different. Any generation previous to ours probably said the same thing about us! Dang latch key kids with no adult supervision!!! Grumble, grumble!

Mr Awe

 

[Hartzilla2007]

You know eeryone this debate about kids these days and their problems or lack of problems is very, very interesting.

But what does it have to do with Star Trek (2009) either having or not having some big moral or lesson?

 

[Cakes488]

Hi There! If you read my post carefully I made sure to include "this is what I've seen in my life"...because obviously not every parent, kid is this way or that way and it runs gamut. And I'm not talking about bright and hardworking.....the kids that I know of that have been raised by these slacker parents actually turned out pretty good (a few didn't though), and they're smart to boot. They go to college and even have jobs...but they still don't have to pay for anything and not one chore is done around the house...by the time I was 19 I was paying rent at home, as well as anything else I needed/wanted...and that really helped me when I moved out. I do believe there is a distinct difference in the way I was raised in the 70's compared to kids today...it's just different times and things will always change. Some things have changed for the better but quite a bit has changed for the worse. Playdate anyone?

It sounds like you and I were raised around the same time, in the 70s, at least for those key formative years.

I think kids today are different but not any worse. Perhaps the spectrum is more stretched out than when we were raised? Perhaps there are more slackers as a proportion of the spectrum (maybe) but there are also more on the extreme other side of the spectrum.

I still maintain that for every kid who is a slacker with no chores, everything is provided, etc. there are more kids on the other side of the spectrum who are smarter and more responsible. There is much more emphasis on learning at an earlier age now. There are actually loads of educational shows. More research on how children learn, etc. Later on, there is more emphasis on acquiring job skills in college and getting actual experience through internships (which was rare when I went to college).

I'm guessing here, but I'm thinking you're noticing the slacker end of the spectrum more than the other end because of your strict upbringing.

In a nutshell, kids today are probably no better or worse overall than before, but they are definitely different. Any generation previous to ours probably said the same thing about us! Dang latch key kids with no adult supervision!!! Grumble, grumble!

Mr Awe

LOL LOL I was definitely a "latch key kid". I'd like to address you're point about more education and obtaining it at an earlier age. I do agree with you.... but really in the scope of things education in America is a joke. Every time I turn around there is a day off from school -- how can we really be all we can be when a good part of the year the kids aren't even in school? Jesus I sound old!!! Of course I didn't complain about all the vacations when I was going to school . Just as there may be more educational shows nowadays there are 20 times more that are not. Can you imagine growing up with cartoons etc on 24/7? We got a few hours on Saturday mornings and that was it...the rest of the time we played outside with neighbors on the block...didn't need any playdates!

I'm noticing more of the slacker end because that's just what I've seen...I do want to clarify that my parents weren't that strict compared to say my older sisters and bro, by the time I came around they were looser...but still there were chores and responsibilities that had to be met. I was also a very good kid...not sure what happened there LOL. I'm sorry this post may be all over the place but I've spent the last hour writing it in between work stuff and I haven't remained focused. Please keep that in mind when you read all my posts...LOL LOL ahhhhhhhhh I kill me.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Star Trek's lessons aren't very deep or complex really. I think I got deeper life lessons during Sunday school when I was 8 years old. Trek's rep for teaching deep philosophy is way overrated. That stuff in an episode is more of a bonus than a main course. It makes the show a bit more interesting than Kirk getting in fist fights every 15 minutes or some lame comedy bit at the end.

QFT.

It really worries me that some folks have said - not just here, but in many venues, over the years - that they learned morality or ethics from Star Trek growing up. Good god...

 

[Mr Awe]

LOL LOL I was definitely a "latch key kid". I'd like to address you're point about more education and obtaining it at an earlier age. I do agree with you.... but really in the scope of things education in America is a joke. Every time I turn around there is a day off from school -- how can we really be all we can be when a good part of the year the kids aren't even in school? Jesus I sound old!!! Of course I didn't complain about all the vacations when I was going to school . Just as there may be more educational shows nowadays there are 20 times more that are not. Can you imagine growing up with cartoons etc on 24/7? We got a few hours on Saturday mornings and that was it...the rest of the time we played outside with neighbors on the block...didn't need any playdates!

I'm noticing more of the slacker end because that's just what I've seen...I do want to clarify that my parents weren't that strict compared to say my older sisters and bro, by the time I came around they were looser...but still there were chores and responsibilities that had to be met. I was also a very good kid...not sure what happened there LOL. I'm sorry this post may be all over the place but I've spent the last hour writing it in between work stuff and I haven't remained focused. Please keep that in mind when you read all my posts...LOL LOL ahhhhhhhhh I kill me.

I was a latch key kid too. I don't even know what a latch key is anyway?

Long ago, I was involved in the education field, fortunately that was long ago and I bailed before it became anything close to a career (I would've been on the policy side, not a teacher). Anyway, I agree that our system is not great. But, it's not that it's worse than before, I think it's improved over the years. It's just that other countries have advanced more quickly. So, relatively speaking, we're falling behind. But, our public education is advancing. Now, our college system, is 2nd to none.

The TV thing is true. That definitely comes down to parenting. And, I think you'd be surprised about lots of current parents. Maybe you've seen a non-representative sample. But, there are plenty whose style would be very familiar to you: chores, responsibility, etc.

Anyway, I think it's normal for one generation to be wary of the next. Honestly, I think the current crop will be just fine. They'll have strengths and weaknesses unique to this generation but overall, no more problematic than previous generations. I guess time will tell!

Mr Awe

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Maybe we should consult the Wheel of Morality?

Something that must've been in the TNG writer's room, especially in season one. "Symbiosis," anyone?

"Um, drugs are bad... o'kay."

Star Trek's lessons aren't very deep or complex really. I think I got deeper life lessons during Sunday school when I was 8 years old. Trek's rep for teaching deep philosophy is way overrated. That stuff in an episode is more of a bonus than a main course. It makes the show a bit more interesting than Kirk getting in fist fights every 15 minutes or some lame comedy bit at the end.

Star Trek was never sophisticated in its allegorical or message, especially considering the literature of the 60s zeitgeist. TOS has always been behind the curve to what was being done in print, both contemporary lit and SF, but slightly ahead of some of the other stuff on television.

In terms of gender equality, other shows had Trek bested like Mission: Impossible, Big Valley just to name a couple.

But it sure as hell was entertaining, and there's nothing wrong with that. As Michael Chabon wrote in an essay, entertainment has become a dirty word best handled with gloves.

Messages, as you state, only get in the way of the storytelling. The themes and ideas should evolve organically from the characters, thereby dramatizing whatever it is the writer is trying to get across. If not, then it becomes a soapbox polemic.

And Trek could've pushed the envelope farther, but it often held back. If an episode had to chose between the ambiguous question and the straight-up, moralizing answer, it would always go with the latter.

Roddenbery, imo, often trapped his show (s) in a limiting format and stagnant characterizations, especially in TNG. For example, the original ending of COTEF, which I feel says more about humanity than anything else in Trek. Yet it does it through character and dramatization, not speech making. It was changed. Why? Because our hero wouldn't do that. Typical television mentality.

In the end, I watch Star Trek to be entertained. If it challenges me, great. If it tells me a good story, even better, because with good story comes good characters which contributes to good themes.

It really worries me that some folks have said - not just here, but in many venues, over the years - that they learned morality or ethics from Star Trek growing up. Good god...

And when I pointed out the same thing a few months ago, everyone nearly jumped down my throat.

 

[Mr Awe]

You know eeryone this debate about kids these days and their problems or lack of problems is very, very interesting.

But what does it have to do with Star Trek (2009) either having or not having some big moral or lesson?

If you don't see it then:

1) Read this thread in excruiating detail
2) If you still don't see it, use your imagination!

Mr Awe

 

[Mr Awe]

Star Trek's lessons aren't very deep or complex really. I think I got deeper life lessons during Sunday school when I was 8 years old. Trek's rep for teaching deep philosophy is way overrated. That stuff in an episode is more of a bonus than a main course. It makes the show a bit more interesting than Kirk getting in fist fights every 15 minutes or some lame comedy bit at the end.

QFT.

It really worries me that some folks have said - not just here, but in many venues, over the years - that they learned morality or ethics from Star Trek growing up. Good god...

That's a lot scarier than the whole parenting issue!

Morality in Trek is really just a patina.

Mr Awe

 

[Cakes488]

Star Trek's lessons aren't very deep or complex really. I think I got deeper life lessons during Sunday school when I was 8 years old. Trek's rep for teaching deep philosophy is way overrated. That stuff in an episode is more of a bonus than a main course. It makes the show a bit more interesting than Kirk getting in fist fights every 15 minutes or some lame comedy bit at the end.

QFT.

It really worries me that some folks have said - not just here, but in many venues, over the years - that they learned morality or ethics from Star Trek growing up. Good god...

And what is so wrong with that? It may be a little sad but surely nothing to look down upon. (?) Not every kid growing up had parents/adults to teach and influence them. Kids are often left to their own devices....and if these wayward kids (lol) were able to gleen some life lessons from Trek well than that's great. That didn't happen for me of course, as I remain moral-less to this very day .
I will say that Trek made me feel like one far off day we would be able to get along with others that were "different" from us (including other races, nationalities, species etc.). Jack Bauer I do feel that there were often "messages" in the ep's but it's not shoved down your throat...so you can ignore it if you choose to. Not every episode...but quite a few. But I agree that it's not a deep philosophy, it couldn't be.....but on occassion it did want to be. As for Kirk getting into fist fights...wasn't there supposed to be a lot less of that in the first place and that element had to be added because the studio suits said this show is too damn cerebral?

Will you say good god to me because I got absolutely nothing out of Sunday School? As a matter of fact all the Sunday Schools and weekly masses made me the atheist that I am today. and sinning is so much more fun now -- no guilt! LOL LOL

 

[M'Sharak]

Star Trek's lessons aren't very deep or complex really. I think I got deeper life lessons during Sunday school when I was 8 years old. Trek's rep for teaching deep philosophy is way overrated. That stuff in an episode is more of a bonus than a main course. It makes the show a bit more interesting than Kirk getting in fist fights every 15 minutes or some lame comedy bit at the end.

Star Trek was never sophisticated in its allegorical or message, especially considering the literature of the 60s zeitgeist. TOS has always been behind the curve to what was being done in print, both contemporary lit and SF, but slightly ahead of some of the other stuff on television.

In terms of gender equality, other shows had Trek bested like Mission: Impossible, Big Valley just to name a couple.

But it sure as hell was entertaining, and there's nothing wrong with that. As Michael Chabon wrote in an essay, entertainment has become a dirty word best handled with gloves.

Messages, as you state, only get in the way of the storytelling. The themes and ideas should evolve organically from the characters, thereby dramatizing whatever it is the writer is trying to get across. If not, then it becomes a soapbox polemic.

And Trek could've pushed the envelope farther, but it often held back. If an episode had to chose between the ambiguous question and the straight-up, moralizing answer, it would always go with the latter.

Roddenbery, imo, often trapped his show (s) in a limiting format and stagnant characterizations, especially in TNG. For example, the original ending of COTEF, which I feel says more about humanity than anything else in Trek. Yet it does it through character and dramatization, not speech making. It was changed. Why? Because our hero wouldn't do that. Typical television mentality.

In the end, I watch Star Trek to be entertained. If it challenges me, great. If it tells me a good story, even better, because with good story comes good characters which contributes to good themes.

I'd call this a pretty thorough and thoughtful assessment.

...

...

I would say that youth today seem to operate like that Queen song: 'I want it all and I want it NOW!'!! A lot of pop stars are very selfish and materialistic, so I suppose it's not their fault. A lot of them have had one thing I've never had, after years of work, and that's love, and that's all you need.

They also seem to be determined to wipe out all that has gone before and have no sense of history, and if you don't have that, you might get assassinated!

God willing it'll all turn out alright. ST11 was a lesson for ME, too.

This, though -- it reads like a collection of bumper stickers: all half-regurgitated slogans, snatches of song lyrics and pseudo-moralistic nonsense, showing no evidence of original thought. What was the lesson you learned from Star Trek, again? What message?

Series or movie, just to make it easier.

LOL LOL I was definitely a "latch key kid". [...]

I was a latch key kid too. I don't even know what a latch key is anyway?

[...]

Latchkey:

The term refers to the latchkey of a door to a house. The key is often strung around the child's neck or left hidden under a mat (or some other object) at the rear door to the property. The term is claimed to have originated from an NBC documentary in 1944, due to the phenomenon of children being left home alone becoming common during and after World War II, when one parent would be enlisted into the armed forces, so the other would get a job.

It probably follows at least in part from the earlier "latchstring" (as in: put the latchstring out.)

 

[dmleo]

Maybe we should consult the Wheel of Morality?

Something that must've been in the TNG writer's room, especially in season one. "Symbiosis," anyone?

"Um, drugs are bad... o'kay."

Star Trek's lessons aren't very deep or complex really. I think I got deeper life lessons during Sunday school when I was 8 years old. Trek's rep for teaching deep philosophy is way overrated. That stuff in an episode is more of a bonus than a main course. It makes the show a bit more interesting than Kirk getting in fist fights every 15 minutes or some lame comedy bit at the end.

Star Trek was never sophisticated in its allegorical or message, especially considering the literature of the 60s zeitgeist. TOS has always been behind the curve to what was being done in print, both contemporary lit and SF, but slightly ahead of some of the other stuff on television.

In terms of gender equality, other shows had Trek bested like Mission: Impossible, Big Valley just to name a couple.

But it sure as hell was entertaining, and there's nothing wrong with that. As Michael Chabon wrote in an essay, entertainment has become a dirty word best handled with gloves.

Messages, as you state, only get in the way of the storytelling. The themes and ideas should evolve organically from the characters, thereby dramatizing whatever it is the writer is trying to get across. If not, then it becomes a soapbox polemic.

And Trek could've pushed the envelope farther, but it often held back. If an episode had to chose between the ambiguous question and the straight-up, moralizing answer, it would always go with the latter.

Roddenbery, imo, often trapped his show (s) in a limiting format and stagnant characterizations, especially in TNG. For example, the original ending of COTEF, which I feel says more about humanity than anything else in Trek. Yet it does it through character and dramatization, not speech making. It was changed. Why? Because our hero wouldn't do that. Typical television mentality.

In the end, I watch Star Trek to be entertained. If it challenges me, great. If it tells me a good story, even better, because with good story comes good characters which contributes to good themes.

It really worries me that some folks have said - not just here, but in many venues, over the years - that they learned morality or ethics from Star Trek growing up. Good god...

And when I pointed out the same thing a few months ago, everyone nearly jumped down my throat.

Having recently watched a number of TOS episodes for the first time in a few years, I was struck by the lack of deep meaning that some Trek fans are harping on. With the exception of seminal episodes like City on the Edge and Amok Time I found it all pretty fluffy, but ultimately very entertaining. Lots of sex appeal, a very attractive cast and guest stars, and tons of action. Gee, doesn't that sounds familiar?

I've never associated any Trek, regardless of how compelling it might be, with a deeper lesson. If I want to be challenged by a film, I'll get out my copy of The Virgin Spring or Kurosawa's brilliant High and Low. If I want to be entertained and have a perpetual smile on my face then Voyage Home always does the trick - "Computer, hello computer."

 

[Franklin]

Star Trek's lessons aren't very deep or complex really. I think I got deeper life lessons during Sunday school when I was 8 years old. Trek's rep for teaching deep philosophy is way overrated. That stuff in an episode is more of a bonus than a main course. It makes the show a bit more interesting than Kirk getting in fist fights every 15 minutes or some lame comedy bit at the end.

QFT.

It really worries me that some folks have said - not just here, but in many venues, over the years - that they learned morality or ethics from Star Trek growing up. Good god...

Especially when at the time, that's what The Andy Griffith Show was for. WWAD. What would Andy do?

Of course, it's not like any Roddenberry or anyone else ever tried to dissuade people from thinking Trek was more high-brow and intellectual than it really was. Roddenberry never told anyone to "get a life."

 

[flemm]

It really worries me that some folks have said - not just here, but in many venues, over the years - that they learned morality or ethics from Star Trek growing up. Good god...

It would worry me more if I thought that's what was actually going on. What is more common, I'm sure, is that fans of Star Trek find in certain aspects of Trek a reflection of values that they have already learned, or were simultaneously learning in other ways when they first became fans, through their own experience, from their parents, family, school, friends, religion, society, whatever.

Also, in my experience many people are bad at accurately describing what they are looking for in books, movies, television, or whatever media. In the case of this thread and others like it, the "Big Lesson" is really a misnomer, as fans are not really looking to learn anything from the movie.

On the contrary, certain fans are looking for something they already know or think they know (about Star Trek specifically) to be confirmed, which is not the same thing at all.

So I think you can be at peace

 

[Hartzilla2007]

For example, the original ending of COTEF, which I feel says more about humanity than anything else in Trek.

Okay I have to ask what was the original ending?

 

[Franklin]

For example, the original ending of COTEF, which I feel says more about humanity than anything else in Trek.

Okay I have to ask what was the original ending?

It was Spock who had to prevent Keeler from being rescued and allow the accident which killed her to occur, not Kirk. Kirk, hopelessly in love with her, could not bring himself to act and to let her die.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

For example, the original ending of COTEF, which I feel says more about humanity than anything else in Trek.

Okay I have to ask what was the original ending?

It was Spock who had to prevent Keeler from being rescued and allow the accident which killed her to occur, not Kirk. Kirk, hopelessly in love with her, could not bring himself to act and to let her die.

It's a little more complex than that. The timeline is altered when a Beckwith, a crewman who was selling drugs aboard the Enterprise, flees into the time vortex of the Guardians of Forever. Once in Earth's past, it is he, the vile, villainous person, who saves Edith Keeler from the truck accident.

When Kirk and Spock are present, Beckwith still tries to save Keeler.

Kirk is frozen, unable to act, paralyzed by his love of Keeler and the inner conflict within him over what to do. Spock is the one who stops Beckwith, allowing Edith Keeler to be run over by the truck.

Kirk, the hero, in an emotional lapse is unable to do anything. Whereas it is the "scumbag" Beckwith who, in a moment of heroism, saves Keeler. In the end it is Spock, the rational one, who does what's best for the universe.

Not everyone is what he or she seems. Not Kirk. Not Beckwith. Through the action of the characters, we see that human beings aren't always predictable from moment to moment. That even the best of us can succumb to not being able to make the right choice.

IMAO, that says more about human beings than any of the speeches on how "humanity has evolved"... blah.. blah.

Moreover, it ends with a quiet scene between two men who have shared much through this adventure. "No woman was offered the universe for love," Spock says to console his captain.

Had Roddenberry let that ending stand, imagine how much more of a biting, edgy drama Star Trek could've been. I don't mean in terms of the grit, dark drama of nuBSG, but stories which say something interesting about the psychology of our heroes, especially James T. Kirk.