Debunking TOS exceptionalism

[Ian Keldon]

Not the same thing. I'm talking about helping your own people.

And Star Trek is not. The principle of non-intervention applies to planets which are not members of the United Federation of Planets.

Turkana IV was a Federation colony until it broke ties. The problem is, it broke ties AFTER the government had collapsed.

Where was the Federation when the government was collapsing and the colony was still a Federation protectorate?

Again the appropriate analogy would be that of California descending into anarchy and the Federal government not lifting a finger to stop it.

Really the important issue here is that it remains a democracy - this is the biggest failing of the fallout in Iran 1979. Aiming for something like Turkey - a secular country with a secular constitution (even with a majority Islamic party and more frosty relations with Israel than in recent years) is the practical best there.

No, the best bet would have been to back the stabilizing influence of Mubarak's government, not helping aggressive Islamists overthrow ANOTHER ME nation and turning it into a copy of Iran politically.

 

[Kegg]

Where was the Federation when the government was collapsing and the colony was still a Federation protectorate?

We don't know. Logically it needed to have had a government the Federation would recognize to secede from the Federation. Honestly been a while since I watched the episode with Yar's sister, which is the one that goes into the greatest detail regarding Turkana IV, but the series was always fudgy on those details.

What we are sure of is how the Federation treats the planet in the 'present tense' of the Next Generation, where it does fall under issues of non-interventionism because it seceded from the Federation.

not helping aggressive Islamists overthrow ANOTHER ME nation and turning it into a copy of Iran politically.

It's not a copy of Iran and it won't be one unless and until the democratic process breaks down, which has yet to occur. Hence the explicitly drawn comparison between Iran (a fundementalist theocracy) and Turkey (a secular democracy with a current majority from an Islamist party).

 

[stj]

Most of this is breathtaking for its obliviousness.

When you can learn to argue without taking this kind of tone then maybe I'll bother replying. Since you seemingly can't, it's not worth the effort.

The brothers were canceled for their topicality. Holding them up as the standard is pretty much like holding John Brown as your standard for a non-racist white. It's an extreme standard intended solely to enable condemnation. Also, if the brothers' show is the true standard for topicality, then you have pretty much everything broadcast in the last fifty years to criticize. And if coy metaphors are objectionable, you have most episodes of most television series to criticize. Against the prevailing opinion of the overwhelming majority of reviewers and critics that blatancy is poor writing! It's perfectly obvious that these supposed standards exist solely as special grounds to dismiss Star Trek, forgotten in every other context for the good reason they're foolish. Most of your post is this kind of snotty imposition. You want to improve the tone, make real arguments, not phony ones.

 

[Mutai Sho-Rin]

ENOUGH. PERSONAL. INSULTS.

( Most of your post is this kind of snotty imposition. You want to improve the tone, make real arguments, not phony ones.)

 

[Ian Keldon]

Where was the Federation when the government was collapsing and the colony was still a Federation protectorate?

We don't know. Logically it needed to have had a government the Federation would recognize to secede from the Federation. Honestly been a while since I watched the episode with Yar's sister, which is the one that goes into the greatest detail regarding Turkana IV, but the series was always fudgy on those details.

What we are sure of is how the Federation treats the planet in the 'present tense' of the Next Generation, where it does fall under issues of non-interventionism because it seceded from the Federation.

Which it never should have been able to do, not having a proper, functioning government at the time. The colony was spiraling down towards anarchy, and the Federation sat on it's fat a....principles and did nothing, citing high-minded platitudes about "non-interventionism" so it could sleep at night. I'm sure all the people murdered and raped by the gangs that took over were comforted by the Federations holy purity in regards to "non-interventionism".

It's not a copy of Iran and it won't be one unless and until the democratic process breaks down, which has yet to occur. Hence the explicitly drawn comparison between Iran (a fundementalist theocracy) and Turkey (a secular democracy with a current majority from an Islamist party).

There is no functional difference between an unelected rabidly Islamist theocracy and an elected one; they both are clear and present dangers to world peace and stability.

Your so-called "democratic" Egypt under the MB? Read this AP article about what was said at a recent campaign rally by and on behalf of the MB's presidential contender...then tell me with a straight face that there's no danger from this "elected" government...

http://news.yahoo.com/presidential-bid-egypts-muslim-brotherhood-moves-harder-line-205012603.html

Tying this back to Trek so as to not derail the thread too much...why would the Federation not be well within it's rights and responsibilities if some planet, member or not, with the capacity to start a war with it's neighbor planets started talking in a similar manner?

 

[Tribble Herder]

At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, Hitler was elected.

 

[Maurice]

Okay, now that the ignore list has been updated—

There are no absolutes here. And I think it's a mistake to try to push Star Trek into being either ground breaking or entirely conventional. The show was clearly exceptional in some regards, but it also was demonstrably a fairly mainstream product of its time. The show has antecedents, some of which did some things better than it did, some of which Star Trek built on and improved. I think anyone who grew up on a lot of 60s television can see that. I don't think it takes anything away from the show to say that it wasn't exceptional in all the ways that the mythos and fans would have us believe. Let's acknowledge what is it and what it IS exceptional for rather than making up excuses to give it credit for things it didn't really do.

 

[Harvey]

I agree with Maurice here.

To steal a phrase from Catherine Johnson, what Star Trek did was "regulated innovation." Her point, in other words, is that the show (like many programs produced in the mid-1960s) pushed the envelope of television, while still remaining within certain limits (like the action-adventure format). I think this is largely right.

 

[stj]

^^^You really believe that Spock is just a variation on Mingo? That if your show isn't so fearless it gets canceled, you aren't really being topical? That if you don't directly comment on social problems, you're just being "coy," which evidently means trite or cowardly or both? These are wildly extreme claims, less defensible than anything else said in this thread, if I recall correctly.

There isn't much case to be made (which explains of course why no one has troubled to make it) that there really is a significant "mythos" somewhere out there, or that there really are a bunch of "fans" making such extreme claims.

The notion that Star Trek "has antecedents, some of which did some things better than it did, some of which Star Trek built on and improved..." is pretty vacuous. But it would be interesting to learn what Rocky Jones, Space Ranger or Flash Gordon (the TV series filmed I think in West Berlin) or Tom Corbett, Space Cadet did better than Star Trek? Please share.

 

[Ian Keldon]

Okay, now that the ignore list has been updated—

There are no absolutes here. And I think it's a mistake to try to push Star Trek into being either ground breaking or entirely conventional. The show was clearly exceptional in some regards, but it also was demonstrably a fairly mainstream product of its time. The show has antecedents, some of which did some things better than it did, some of which Star Trek built on and improved. I think anyone who grew up on a lot of 60s television can see that. I don't think it takes anything away from the show to say that it wasn't exceptional in all the ways that the mythos and fans would have us believe. Let's acknowledge what is it and what it IS exceptional for rather than making up excuses to give it credit for things it didn't really do.

That's fair.

 

[Ian Keldon]

The notion that Star Trek "has antecedents, some of which did some things better than it did, some of which Star Trek built on and improved..." is pretty vacuous. But it would be interesting to learn what Rocky Jones, Space Ranger or Flash Gordon (the TV series filmed I think in West Berlin) or Tom Corbett, Space Cadet did better than Star Trek? Please share.

SF was not the sum totality of TV back then stj...so your question is disingenuous. ST may have been better SF than those shows, but the question is was it "exceptional" television. That's a very different question.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I agree with Maurice here.

To steal a phrase from Catherine Johnson, what Star Trek did was "regulated innovation." Her point, in other words, is that the show (like many programs produced in the mid-1960s) pushed the envelope of television, while still remaining within certain limits (like the action-adventure format). I think this is largely right.

Here's mainly what TOS managed that was at least unique for American TV about people in spaceships up until that time: got through a couple of seasons without turning entirely stupid.

It would remain exceptional in that regard, in fact, until TNG.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The notion that Star Trek "has antecedents, some of which did some things better than it did, some of which Star Trek built on and improved..." is pretty vacuous. But it would be interesting to learn what Rocky Jones, Space Ranger or Flash Gordon (the TV series filmed I think in West Berlin) or Tom Corbett, Space Cadet did better than Star Trek? Please share.

SF was not the sum totality of TV back then stj...so your question is disingenuous. ST may have been better SF than those shows, but the question is was it "exceptional" television. That's a very different question.

Indeed, Star Trek was taking its cues from shows like Twilight Zone and current adult dramas , not children's SF. One of Roddenberry's goals was to create an adult drama with a SF setting.

 

[Mr_Homn]

The notion that Star Trek "has antecedents, some of which did some things better than it did, some of which Star Trek built on and improved..." is pretty vacuous. But it would be interesting to learn what Rocky Jones, Space Ranger or Flash Gordon (the TV series filmed I think in West Berlin) or Tom Corbett, Space Cadet did better than Star Trek? Please share.

SF was not the sum totality of TV back then stj...so your question is disingenuous. ST may have been better SF than those shows, but the question is was it "exceptional" television. That's a very different question.

Indeed, Star Trek was taking its cues from shows like Twilight Zone and current adult dramas , not children's SF. One of Roddenberry's goals was to create an adult drama with a SF setting.

I'm sorry to go off topic but nerys Myk, your avatar is incredibly cool. Did you make it, and are there others like it?

 

[Warped9]

Indeed, Star Trek was taking its cues from shows like Twilight Zone and current adult dramas , not children's SF. One of Roddenberry's goals was to create an adult drama with a SF setting.

I don't know if it's groundbreaking, but it definitely seemed to be challenging convention in doing this. Some films had done it, but not TV series.

 

[Nerys Myk]

SF was not the sum totality of TV back then stj...so your question is disingenuous. ST may have been better SF than those shows, but the question is was it "exceptional" television. That's a very different question.

Indeed, Star Trek was taking its cues from shows like Twilight Zone and current adult dramas , not children's SF. One of Roddenberry's goals was to create an adult drama with a SF setting.

I'm sorry to go off topic but nerys Myk, your avatar is incredibly cool. Did you make it, and are there others like it?

I made it. I did a few others with Korax, Koloth, Mara and Kras, but Kang was the best so I made it an avatar. I also placed Arne Darvin in TOS make up. Tried to do Kor but was never satisfied with the results.

 

[Mr_Homn]

Indeed, Star Trek was taking its cues from shows like Twilight Zone and current adult dramas , not children's SF. One of Roddenberry's goals was to create an adult drama with a SF setting.

I'm sorry to go off topic but nerys Myk, your avatar is incredibly cool. Did you make it, and are there others like it?

I made it. I did a few others with Korax, Koloth, Mara and Kras, but Kang was the best so I made it an avatar. I also placed Arne Darvin in TOS make up. Tried to do Kor but was never satisfied with the results.

Those are all SOOOO cool! I love it. Kras has never looked so Klingon! I hope you try and make a Kor again one day since he's the most classic of all Klingons! Thanks for sharing. Back to your regularly scheduled thread.

 

[Maurice]

SF was not the sum totality of TV back then stj...so your question is disingenuous. ST may have been better SF than those shows, but the question is was it "exceptional" television. That's a very different question.

Exactly right. My earlier posts referenced shows like I Spy, Mission: Impossible, The Smothers Brothers, etc. To limit the idea of exceptionalism and innovation to science fiction shows is to hack off a lot of really good shows so as to narrow the field in order to make Star Trek look better than it is. That's not fair.

 

[Aeolusdallas]

I'm just working through this, so please contribute everything you have to say...

I've been listening to a lot of old radio shows, and watching a good number of older tv shows that haven't achieved the longevity of Star Trek as a pop culture icon.

And the thing that strikes me most is how absolutely absurd it is when talking heads or acolytes of the church of All Things Roddenberry talk about how groundbreaking the show was.
Now, TOS is probably my favorite tv show, and has been for decades. It was good, quality television. But the mythology that's grown up around it is a bunch of bunk (something Melinda Snodgrass pointed out in an issue of Omni in the early '90s what she called Roddenberry on believing his own BS at that point).

All the technology (faster-than-light speed, teleporters, starships, shields, video communication...) had been envisioned decades earlier.

Showing Russians and Americans working together? Man From UNCLE featured Russian and American spies working together during the cold war.

Different races working together? I Spy featured a black leading character who was the brains of the team (the other guy was the jock).

First interracial kiss? Lucy, you got some 'splainin to do (yeah, this one might be arguable).

All the major creative talent involved in Trek were featured prominently in other shows first, and did top work there. Including GR.

Please share your thoughts on this.

Ricky was Cuban and they were generally counted as "white" back then. Not at all the same as a black and white person kissing

 

[Aeolusdallas]

There's no teleportation in Forbidden Planet, but there is a "D/C" platform aboard C-57D that looks a good deal like the Enterprise's transporter room. It does something to the crew that protects them during deceleration from FTL, but exactly what isn't explained - it looks like it's converting them to energy beams.

Yep looks like i really did your your feelings.

Its people like you that give trek fans the bad image that they sometimes get.

Pot meet kettle.

I always thought it was just wrapping them in a force field so they didn't get squished.