Utopian fiction is not obsolete. I think Iain M Banks on his own can be taken as proof of that. Whatever problems Star Trek has had are about creative stagnation, not weaknesses in the overall concept.
Has the Roddenberry Vision of " Trek " become an Anachronism?
- Thread starter the skullcowboy
- Start date
Please. Read some real dystopian works like Nineteen Eighty-Four or Brave New World or Fahrenheit 451 or The Handmaiden's Tale and then tell me with a straight face that Star Trek: Deep Space Nine was a dystopia just because it didn't present an idealized future.
Fine maybe 'dystopian' is slightly too severe. But the fact remains that it became a serial about a war. And thats not at all utopian.
Why does Picard acts like he doen't need a woman? It seems like Star Fleet is all he ever needed.... [laugh] Does he think it's like having a relationship with a woman? 
And why the heck does he treat his family like they are unworthy of him? Maybe he thinks he is too good for them. [laugh] That's why some of the later ST failed to draw in new crowds.
And why the heck does he treat his family like they are unworthy of him? Maybe he thinks he is too good for them. [laugh] That's why some of the later ST failed to draw in new crowds.Utopian fiction isn't obsolete, but it has real limits. If Star Trek actually were essentially that kind of thing it would not be as popular as it it.
I don't want more human factor crap in Star Trek. The main draw was always smart people brain storming to find a problem dictated by the plot. Solving mysteries, realizing paradoxes emphasizes the mind.
The two most popular characters were Spock and Data, what does that tell you?
Would Sherlock Holmes be better if they spent more time talking about his opiate addiction?
After commericals you only get something like 42 minutes of screen time so it better count.
The two most popular characters were Spock and Data, what does that tell you?
Would Sherlock Holmes be better if they spent more time talking about his opiate addiction?
After commericals you only get something like 42 minutes of screen time so it better count.
True but you need to remember that EFC and Andromeda were just crude outlines of series that were found in a desk in a basement ( if you believe the interviews given ) Gene never fully realized them or worked them to their conclusion, Rod was the driving force behind each of them, though the least season of each were just awful.
This.
Most TV watchers today are more interested in watching reality shows or the rare program. This can be seen in Syfy cutting SGU and other science fiction for WWE, which is at best a "reality" show.
TOS came out at a time where there was swings of change in the world and it fit right in with those young viewers of today. The young viewers of today are more into Justin Bieber and Jersey Shore then anything culturally groundbreaking.
I don't even know if most people prefer it, simply that it is the only thing on. The economics of the cheaper production are dictating reality show prevalence.
Even cutting edge modern formats like "Lost" are now to expensive to produce. The serialized good performance stuff is all on cable, mostly HBO.
Last edited:
Gene produced two pilots: Planet Earth and Genesis II set in a post-apocalyptic future (and were mined for elements used in Andromeda). Another pilot was Spectre which dealt with the supernatural and was set in present. Questor Tapes was another Roddenberry project set in the present. Questor Tapes has a slight utopian bent. ( I think that was Questor's goal for humanity)
Well then, you're out of luck. Most good writers want to write about people, and most folks who really like stories want to hear and read and see stories about people.
City On The Edge Of Forever and Amok Time are nothing but "human factor crap."
Human factor crap like "Fair Haven". What the hell was the point of that? I can see relationship garbage on every other show on tv. I need the whole episode dealing with plot like "The Royale".
I want the unique aspects of sci-fi ephasized, to do otherwise is to detract from the escapism. Are people complaining because the hero archetypes are too pure? Would Superman or Optimus Prime be more enjoyable if they were more thuggish?
Then what you want isn't Star Trek. Its always blended the "human factor crap" with SF escapism.
No the detractors want more sex, more domestic problems and more interpersonal conflict ala Edward Jellico syndrome. Old Trek was fine.
If it can't be resurrected leave it be. New is not always better, Nu Who is pretty much garbage.
If it can't be resurrected leave it be. New is not always better, Nu Who is pretty much garbage.
"Interpersonal conflict" and sex have always been part of Trek from TOS on. A major part even. Spock and McCoy bickering, conflicts with the episode's guest star. Kirk sweet talking comely actresses in skimpy and or tight costuimes. Not sure what you mean by "domestic problems".
Remember Sliders?
Cool concept. Nice cast dynamic. Episodic storytelling with a sprinkling of backstory here and there. Fun, light, breezy.
Then they got serious and decided to serialize it--and engage in that dreaded "world-building." And it sucked.
Face it, some shows are built for serialized storytelling. The Sopranos. The Shield. The Wire. Sure. They're not high-concept shows. There's no gimmick; they take place in our world. But do even those shows have truly popular appeal? No. Two and a Half Men will outsell those shows forever on DVD (although this may be due to Charlie Sheen's ability to shoot fire from his fingertips).
Science fiction shows generally have fantastic concepts. Sure, they can be built for serialized storytelling--just forget about popular appeal. There are exceptions--Lost was pretty popular--but Star Trek will never be an exception like that. Never.
So that means no Captain Sulu series.
It means no series set after Nemesis.
It means Kirk, Spock, and McCoy.
Cool concept. Nice cast dynamic. Episodic storytelling with a sprinkling of backstory here and there. Fun, light, breezy.
Then they got serious and decided to serialize it--and engage in that dreaded "world-building." And it sucked.
Face it, some shows are built for serialized storytelling. The Sopranos. The Shield. The Wire. Sure. They're not high-concept shows. There's no gimmick; they take place in our world. But do even those shows have truly popular appeal? No. Two and a Half Men will outsell those shows forever on DVD (although this may be due to Charlie Sheen's ability to shoot fire from his fingertips).
Science fiction shows generally have fantastic concepts. Sure, they can be built for serialized storytelling--just forget about popular appeal. There are exceptions--Lost was pretty popular--but Star Trek will never be an exception like that. Never.
So that means no Captain Sulu series.
It means no series set after Nemesis.
It means Kirk, Spock, and McCoy.
That is why I fell in love w/ Trek (TNG, originally). Not because it was sci fi, but because I loved the optimistic view of the future.
Really? The number of fair play mysteries in Star Trek could probably be counted on one hand.
That a false straight man is usually the funniest person in the room.
I don't even remember that one, so I don't care. My point stands.
As much as I might enjoy single episodes of L&O, CSI, SVU and others, I never remember the name of the characters (or often which show they are in - even worse when they do crossovers). I find myself saying "the grey-haired cranky guy", or "blonde woman with a secret from her childhood", or "the Goth girl with the perky grin". Those shows tell great stories and remind me very much of "The X-Files" without the "X", but Mulder and Scully (and Skinner) were well-rounded characters who were memorable enough for me to know their names. L&O, CSI, SVU and their ilk are really missing... something.
I can't imagine a ST series where I found myself unsure who was in which series, or calling them "that bald captain", or "the female Asian communications expert".
I was drawn to ST due to ST:TMP and TAS. Both were a combination of interesting characters (and a "cast reunion" of a TV series I barely knew), very cool friendly aliens, state-of-the-art special effects, and an optimistic view of the future that says we won't totally destroy the Earth before we can start investigating the stars.
James T. Kirk: "The more complex the mind, the greater the need for the simplicity of play."
The simple holographic Irish village of Fair Haven made abundant sense, in case you haven't picked up upon it, in the 24th century, holodeck adventures are either fantasies realms, wilderness scenes or historical pieces. With two exceptions (Picard in Paris and Paris's own pool hall), our heroes spend no time in their own "utopian" present. The very first holodeck venture was a walk in a simple forest (TAS).
I disagree, the whole utopian thing only dates back to TNG, TOS was more realistic, less utopian, in it's depiction of the future.
Kirk's society seemed very practical, I'm a killer ... but not today.
One of those examples wanted very much to be Human and to engage in "human factor crap." Watching Data's journey was one of the joys of TNG. Data's Day is one my fav episodes.
Similar threads
