Why Star Trek Sucks

[borgboy]

I have to be honest: while I think he goes a bit too hard on Star Trek (and goes for the obvious attacks, re: for example the well-worn 'Deanna states the obvious' criticism), there are other parts of the article where he definitely has a point.

From the article:

We have the Klingons, equally on par with the federation technologically, yet ruled by a singular fuedal warlord society. They can create impressive starships that are a match for the Federation, yet they know nothing of personal hygene or dental care. They know computers, but seem to have no patience to deal with any technology or people -- which would be neccesary for technological development. Klingons seem more prone to smashing computer screens in frustration, rather than being capable of making them or programming them.

This is a fair comment. While I think Klingon honor and society does make for an interesting tapestry, it does also somewhat clash for a supposedly space-faring species to be so reliant on what (on the outside) sometimes appears to be an apparently medieval mindset. At least in TOS the Klingons were a believable opposite to our own culture, and it was much easier to believe in them as being a technology sophisticated, space-faring (if somewhat brutal at times) people. The later incarnations of Trek sometimes went too far IMO in portraying them as primitive and backwards, to the point where it does rather undermine their credibility somewhat.

I just assume that the tech wizards who build all this stuff, and are surely unappreciated in a warrior society, don't travel in space, outside of the occasional engineer to keep all the tech working. The strongest, meanest, and sometimes dumbest Klingons are the ones we see. Sure, they seem pretty strange by our pov, but these are aliens, and having them be so different from us is part of the fun.

 

[Commishsleer]

The article implies that Star Trek is full of these montage episodes. Maybe he's including 'The Menagerie' P1 and P2 but that has unshown footage. So the 'worst offense' type of episode only happened once or at most 3 times.

What a joker.

 

[Lance]

Which was more shitful: TNG's "Shades of Grey" or STAR WARS: Caravan of Courage? That's the question which no one seems to have an answer for ...

I've never seen Caravan Of Courage, but I did see its sequel, "The Battle For Endor", which people keep telling me is actually better than the first one. Still crap, mind.

 

[AgentCoop]

Meh. It never bothered me too much that a society as single-minded as the Klingons (or the Ferengi, for that matter) doesn't make a lot of "real world" sense. At the end of the day, they're supposed to function as metaphors for different types of human behavior, and at that they succeed admirably (IMO). Works for me.

 

[Lance]

I did like that TNG:'Suspicions' had that Ferengi scientist. It was kind of cool that at least once it was suggested the Ferengi weren't all just businessmen and entrepreneurs. Although who knows, if he had survived, maybe Doctor Reyga would have ultimately wanted to sell his metaphasic shielding to the highest bidder?

 

[2takesfrakes]

I've never seen Caravan Of Courage, but I did see its sequel, "The Battle For Endor", which people keep telling me is actually better than the first one. Still crap, mind.

That's why when people turn out articles, such as this one about how "STAR TREK Sucks," I get very annoyed. For one thing, it holds up at least as well as STAR WARS ever did and even the slowest episode of STAR TREK is more entertaining than 2001: A Space Odyssey, by far. Which brings up the question - what Science Fiction is the comparison to go by? What product was so properly done and free of cheeze that it's the prototype of all? None that I'm able to point out. STAR WARS '77, perhaps. Taken on its own it's still got legs. But even that movie isn't free of suckage, especially now that Lucas has tooled around with it, for well-over a decade.

 

[Lance]

I've never seen Caravan Of Courage, but I did see its sequel, "The Battle For Endor", which people keep telling me is actually better than the first one. Still crap, mind.

That's why when people turn out articles, such as this one about how "STAR TREK Sucks," I get very annoyed. For one thing, it holds up at least as well as STAR WARS ever did and even the slowest episode of STAR TREK is more entertaining than 2001: A Space Odyssey, by far. Which brings up the question - what Science Fiction is the comparison to go by? What product was so properly done and free of cheeze that it's the prototype of all? None that I'm able to point out. STAR WARS '77, perhaps. Taken on its own it's still got legs. But even that movie isn't free of suckage, especially now that Lucas has tooled around with it, for well-over a decade.

A lot of written science fiction maintains it's dignity forever.

Visual science fiction on the other hand (including even adaptations of the above mentioned written science fiction), has got a habit of starting out with good intentions, but almost inevitably evolving into schlock at some eventual point or other.

I feel proud to say that I honestly think Star Trek maintained a steady keel... most of the time. I'd argue that it's one of the more consistent franchises in tv/movie history, in that it seldom strayed from the original Roddenberry dictum, even if it did sometimes bend and twist it out of shape.

STAR TREK, in my opinion, has got good foundations.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Summary of the article: Star Trek is TV, which is why it sucks.
My rebuttal: Yes, it's TV. So what?

 

[bbailey861]

Fortunately for me, I could not care less what the writer says - I love Trek - just some more than others.

 

[E-DUB]

" Every world that the Federation comes across is run by a single world government, with a homogenous culture" To be fair, a single world government is pretty much one of the criteria for making contact.

 

[sonak]

well, some of that is fair criticism. I've seen the "sterile culture" criticism of it before, and it's true. They all seem to like Shakespeare and classical music. It's beyond absurd. We do see some of Riker and jazz, but we needed some characters with more low-brow tastes. Don't people enjoy old trashy TV and rock music?

And of course the "single culture" aliens thing is true, but it's a necessary part of the show if the idea is to use alien cultures as metaphors for stuff.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

^However, I would have to ask how the author's examples of good sci-fi--Aliens, Terminator, and Jurassic Park--deal with such issues. It's not like the Terminator went back in time to kill (then save) a Tuvan boy.

 

[Hazel]

well, some of that is fair criticism. I've seen the "sterile culture" criticism of it before, and it's true. They all seem to like Shakespeare and classical music. It's beyond absurd. We do see some of Riker and jazz, but we needed some characters with more low-brow tastes. Don't people enjoy old trashy TV and rock music?

And of course the "single culture" aliens thing is true, but it's a necessary part of the show if the idea is to use alien cultures as metaphors for stuff.

Well, Tom Paris was rather fond of low-brow black and white sci-fi as well as old cartoons, and B'Elanna read Klingon romance novels. But yeah, apart from that aliens are a lot classier in the future.

 

[RandyS]

So, some other nameless moron wants to dump on Star Trek and it's fans.

What's the saying? Oh yes, "been there, done that".

One thing though: In his paragraph on conventions, he mentions how we "Trek Nazis", "bar people from wearing other non-Star Trek costumes", or "bar deals from selling other non-Star Trek related items". This is the first I've ever heard of this. Granted, I've only attended one convention (in 1994, no less), but I've never heard of this. Any truth to it, or is it, like the rest of the article, bullshit?

 

[AgentCoop]

I did like that TNG:'Suspicions' had that Ferengi scientist. It was kind of cool that at least once it was suggested the Ferengi weren't all just businessmen and entrepreneurs. Although who knows, if he had survived, maybe Doctor Reyga would have ultimately wanted to sell his metaphasic shielding to the highest bidder?

We saw a Klingon scientist once too, didn't we? Might've even been the same episode.

 

[FormerLurker]

So, some other nameless moron wants to dump on Star Trek and it's fans.

What's the saying? Oh yes, "been there, done that".

One thing though: In his paragraph on conventions, he mentions how we "Trek Nazis", "bar people from wearing other non-Star Trek costumes", or "bar deals from selling other non-Star Trek related items". This is the first I've ever heard of this. Granted, I've only attended one convention (in 1994, no less), but I've never heard of this. Any truth to it, or is it, like the rest of the article, bullshit?

It's BS. And real stinky BS at that. I've been regularly attending the Denver Star Trek conventions for thirty years, and have never, and I mean NEVER, encountered even that mindset, let alone the practice. If the author encountered such, it wasn't at any convention worthy of the name Star Trek.

 

[nureintier]

^He's probably exaggerating. Maybe he met one person he thought was a dickwad that said trek was better than whatever this guy likes, and he inflated it to hordes of "Trek Nazis." I've certainly never heard of it before. But he seems pretty butthurt, since he's lashing out at anyone who goes to conventions.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Conventions are nothing like that. They are fun and full of all kinds of people, most not in costume and non-Trek costumes not uncommon.

It's really a snotty little piece.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

There is truth in a lot of what this article says, but nothing that really matters. The grievances range from petty nitpicks to fashionably cynical "IDEALISM STOOPID" stuff and he throws around the word "Socialist" with the objectivity and accuracy of Sean Hannity.

He's the kind of person who equates "I disagree that this is how human beings would act in any situation because it does not jive with my politics and personal worldview" with "This is stupid and unrealistic".

 

[JirinPanthosa]

well, some of that is fair criticism. I've seen the "sterile culture" criticism of it before, and it's true. They all seem to like Shakespeare and classical music. It's beyond absurd. We do see some of Riker and jazz, but we needed some characters with more low-brow tastes. Don't people enjoy old trashy TV and rock music?

And of course the "single culture" aliens thing is true, but it's a necessary part of the show if the idea is to use alien cultures as metaphors for stuff.

Well, Tom Paris was rather fond of low-brow black and white sci-fi as well as old cartoons, and B'Elanna read Klingon romance novels. But yeah, apart from that aliens are a lot classier in the future.

Bashir was obsessed with James Bond and fetishized 1940s lounge music. Quark had decidedly lowbrow tastes. And I seem to recall somebody giving somebody else a mystery novel at some point in TNG, but I might be thinking of Galactica.

Really most of the 'sterile culture' criticisms of TNG apply to the first season where six year olds learn calculus. After that they really laid off that angle.