David Gerrold's Post- Fascinating

[Mudd]

Basically he's advocating blind, uncritical, unconditional loyalty to a brand name. We tried that. The results were Enterprise and Nemesis. Critical and commercial failures that nearly killed the property forever.

That really is an analysis that doesn't have any point of correspondence with what actually happened in either case. Completely unobservant, but fascinatingly so.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Someone else said it well: labels are the start of prejudice.

Well, y'know what I always say, "If you're going to label me, lick me first!"

 

[Vger23]

I hate politics.

marlboro, you do not know me from Kahless, but please let me advise you:

Do not hate Politics, because it does not hate you, and hate, to paraphrase Yoda, leads to suffering, and comes from Anger, which comes from Fear, which is the path to the Dark Side.


Having said that, get at smart a brain as you can about your local, regional, Federal, what have you, Politics, because it will run you right over if you do not see it coming!

I don't "hate politics." What I do hate (and when I say"hate," I mean that I'd rather have my genitals caught in a malfunctioning garbage disposal) is people arguing politics. It is the worst online in forums like this, and it never results in anything. It's not like some chucklehead I don't even know is going to change my point of view, so everyone in those discussions should just move on and stop wasting bandwidth.

 

[Vger23]

Someone else said it well: labels are the start of prejudice.

Well, y'know what I always say, "If you're going to label me, lick me first!"

 

[Cyke101]

Someone else said it well: labels are the start of prejudice.

Well, y'know what I always say, "If you're going to label me, lick me first!"

If you're someone who enjoys being licked, then what's the label for that?

 

[Doom Shepherd]

I agree with this point. I do not like pigeon-holing a person on anything, politics included. I may not agree with everything in conservative philosophy or liberal philosophy. I make up my own mind, though "conservative" seems to fit, most of the time.

Same thing with Trek. Trek portrays a lot of different points of view, some pro and some con. The beauty of Speculative Fiction (SF) is the ability to regard those points of view and make up your own mind. Just because the Trek main characters are for something, does not automatically mean I have to support that.

Among my acquaintances, those on the Left generally think I am hopelessly conservative, and those on the Right generally think I'm a damned hippie liberal.

So I figure I must be doing something right.

Anyway, I don't think it's quite "fair" to compare Star Trek politics to today's politics, mainly because it seems clear that Star Trek is set in a world where everybody has enough of everything they want, while we live in a world politically colored by the fact that this is - at least currently - impossible for a host of reasons.

And because of that world, individuals and governments have freedoms and abilities we can only imagine having in ours. When everyone can afford to be generous because resources are practically infinite, it works out a lot differently than when you have to budget your charitable giving so you can be sure to have enough to eat.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Someone else said it well: labels are the start of prejudice.

Well, y'know what I always say, "If you're going to label me, lick me first!"

If you're someone who enjoys being licked, then what's the label for that?

Wet. Very, very... wet...

 

[Doom Shepherd]

I don't "hate politics." What I do hate (and when I say"hate," I mean that I'd rather have my genitals caught in a malfunctioning garbage disposal) is people arguing politics. It is the worst online in forums like this, and it never results in anything. It's not like some chucklehead I don't even know is going to change my point of view, so everyone in those discussions should just move on and stop wasting bandwidth.

I LOVE arguing politics. Or rather, I enjoy small-scale debates about politics, because it gives me an opportunity to exercise critical thinking, and collect new data.

Sure, I think in all the years I've engaged in it, I've changed my mind on an issue exactly ONCE, but hey, that IS once. Means I learned something, or at least expanded my capacity to see beyond my own point-of-view, a transcendent "All Good Things" kind of experience. (That might be a slight exaggeration.)

But it's so hard both avoiding assholes when arguing politics, and restraining from slipping into assholery when one's emotions are triggered, that I mostly refrain from it now unless I'm among close friends where we know each other enough to safely snipe a bit, and at what point we have to back off.

 

[BillJ]

The first one that coms to mind for me is A PRIVATE LITTLE WAR, involving Kirk's necessary ''balance of power'' argument and including McCoy's sensible opposing views.

A Private Little War is a very pro-Vietnam intervention story, surprising given Roddenberry position on the war, of course he didn't write the episode.

Actually, he did. Don Ingalls wrote the original story and teleplay, but Roddenberry did an extensive rewrite that resulted in him getting sole credit for the teleplay.

I never thought 1960's Roddenberry was quite as liberal as people want to believe. They seem to think 1980's Roddenberry is an all encompassing view of him.

 

[137th Gebirg]

I think he was as liberal as the contemporary TV censors of his time would allow him to be. 60's or 80's.

 

[BillJ]

I think he was as liberal as the contemporary TV censors of his time would allow him to be. 60's or 80's.

In the 80's, that obviously isn't the case as he had no real TV censors to deal with and other shows were tackling relevant social issues. I think that is what makes TNG such a disappointment overall. Roddenberry supposedly had this avenue to bring his "vision" to the screen and it ended up being far more tepid than the original Star Trek.

 

[IrishNero]

As with most any show, creators are subject to having their vision 'fixed' by network suits who want to tweak things...

 

[BillJ]

As with most any show, creators are subject to having their vision 'fixed' by network suits who want to tweak things...

Except TNG was sold into syndication on a station-by-station basis. There were no 'network suits' in the traditional sense. No network suit quashed "Blood and Fire", Roddenberry did.

 

[ThankYouGeneR]

I love that Gerrold basically said two things: "don't try to make Trek a hobby-horse for conservative causes" and "don't engage in personal attacks on the people making it." And somehow this has become some kind of Rorschach blot in which people see Gerrold attacking their particular favourite kind of kibbitzing.

I think he's perfectly right on both counts. (On every count, really, including the "Trek needs to be about something more than bashing the latest villain" count.) On conservative hobbyhorses: it's depressing to see people rage-quitting Trek groups on Facebook because someone present says homophobia isn't cool; if Trek doesn't stand for actually broadening your mind and outlook and becoming more accepting in any way, what's the point? About not personally attacking the people making the product: that should be a no-brainer.

But no, apparently he's a narrow-minded old coot who's the real problem. Whatever.

(I would have clicked a Like but I don't think we have one. )

 

[IrishNero]

I know this will surely rankle the Roddenberry zealots, but Roddenberry is not the lone creator of Trek. Of course it was his idea and of course, he would be the nucleus around which everything was initially built, but that doesn't mean that he didn't have bad ideas. Left to his own devices, Spock would have had a tail. Sometimes those suits had good ideas. -But not often...

But I digress. I do not know the backstory of TNG so I defer to your knowledge.

 

[BillJ]

I know this will surely rankle the Roddenberry zealots, but Roddenberry is not the lone creator of Trek. Of course it was his idea and of course, he would be the nucleus around which everything was initially built, but that doesn't mean that he didn't have bad ideas. Left to his own devices, Spock would have had a tail. Sometimes those suits had good ideas. -But not often...

But I digress. I do not know the backstory of TNG so I defer to your knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_and_Fire_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)

"Blood and Fire" is an episode written by David Gerrold for possible use on Star Trek: The Next Generation. The script was commissioned and written, but never actually filmed. According to Gerrold, some of the production staff, including Rick Berman, had a negative reaction to its positive depiction of an openly gay couple.[1] It was eventually adapted by Gerrold into a standalone novel.

In the original script, the crew of the Enterprise-D came upon a derelict spaceship whose crew had all been killed off by Regulan bloodworms. Since these creatures are highly dangerous and can kill within hours, any ship or space station found to be infested with bloodworms must be sterilized and/or destroyed, as per Starfleet orders. The concept of Regulan bloodworms, mentioned in dialogue in the original Star Trek series (but never actually explained until this episode), was intended to be a metaphor for the public's fear of AIDS. Gerrold has since said that he also intended the episode to specifically address the public's fear of donating blood, and that he wanted to include a title card encouraging viewers to donate blood via the Red Cross.

This episode was also noted for its inclusion of two openly homosexual crew members, which would have been a first in Star Trek history. Years later, an AIDS allegory would later be included in the Star Trek: Enterprise episode "Stigma".

Herbert Wright rewrote the script under the name "Blood and Ice", which also was left unproduced.

With Gerrold's permission, Carlos Pedraza rewrote "Blood and Fire" for the fan series Star Trek: New Voyages. Gerrold did a final draft polish and also directed the episode.

This is the Star Trek (and Roddenberry) that some go on an on about. The one with a desire to make the world a better place. But when Roddenberry had the opportunity, he quashed it. Instead we got the planet of black people, the planet of scantily clad white folks, the planet of the women and the episode of Irish stereotypes. Which were all entertaining to one degree or another but not exactly calling cards of a progressive series.

 

[IrishNero]

Interesting read. Thanks for the enlightenment.

 

[M'Sharak]

Is Bjo Tremble still alive?

Check the comment thread for Gerrold's post. She posted in it, a hundred or so replies in.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Among my acquaintances, those on the Left generally think I am hopelessly conservative, and those on the Right generally think I'm a damned hippie liberal.

So I figure I must be doing something right.

I always thought Chris Rock's approach to politics made sense: That's where I am pretty much.

Anyone who makes up their mind before they hear the issue is a f*cking fool. Everybody, nah, nah, nah, everybody is so busy wanting to be down with a gang! I’m a conservative! I’m a liberal! I’m a conservative! It’s bullshit!

Be a f?king person. Listen. Let it swirl around your head. Then form your opinion.

No normal decent person is one thing. OK!?! I got some shit I’m conservative about, I got some sh*t I’m liberal about. Crime – I’m conservative. Prostitution – I’m liberal.

Anyway, I don't think it's quite "fair" to compare Star Trek politics to today's politics, mainly because it seems clear that Star Trek is set in a world where everybody has enough of everything they want, while we live in a world politically colored by the fact that this is - at least currently - impossible for a host of reasons.

And because of that world, individuals and governments have freedoms and abilities we can only imagine having in ours. When everyone can afford to be generous because resources are practically infinite, it works out a lot differently than when you have to budget your charitable giving so you can be sure to have enough to eat.

The thing that baffles me a bit is how many narrow minded people actually watch Trek, knowing full well what it embraces, and yet are offended when they see it feature a topic or scene based on that.

Kirk and Uhura's kiss. The same sex kiss almost 30 years later. A female captain

It seems some people/fans want both worlds--the advanced prosperous society where everyone is happy, and yet insist that certain prejudices still exist in those societies, because it makes them comfortable.

 

[urbandefault]

But no, apparently he's a narrow-minded old coot who's the real problem. Whatever.

Speaking as a narrow-minded old coot who can be a problem, I think there is a point where one has earned the privilege.