News Discovery isn't on TV because no-one would watch it

[KelisThePoet]

That's kind of how Star Trek got started. Roddenberry wanted to emulate the very popular and successful Adult Westerns of the day.

Whether or not he really was influenced by them, or whether or not he pitched his show that way to get it on the air, he and the other show creators made something with its own identity. And again, I'm not trying to say Star Trek should do nothing new, including draw from new influences. I'm just saying that Star Trek should also have a familiar element and that novelty is not a virtue in and of itself.

Being popular is how one stays on the air. Whether it be the 50's, 70's, 90's or the 2010's.

There's probably no sure no-risk formula for being popular, but if there is such a formula, it's not copying something else that's popular. It comes off like a lifeless, cheap bid to get viewers. Again, I'm not saying Star Trek should have no influences or that none of its influences should be current (nor am I saying that the producers shouldn't try to make a popular show). I'm just saying that they shouldn't transparently pander in chase of ratings (or whatever the equivalent of ratings are in this strange new world where the TV is the internet).

And in another 20-30 years, I'm sure whatever constitutes 'TV' at that time will be considered vastly superior to the current crop of entertainment shows being produced today. It's all relative.

Yeah, while there will always be grumps like me who don't like what's on TV now, it stands to reason that what's on TV now is on TV because it's found an audience. So, of course, the idea that the current TV is the best will always be the consensus of most current TV viewers.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Whether or not he really was influenced by them, or whether or not he pitched his show that way to get it on the air, he and the other show creators made something with its own identity. And again, I'm not trying to say Star Trek should do nothing new, including draw from new influences. I'm just saying that Star Trek should also have a familiar element and that novelty is not a virtue in and of itself.

Anyone familiar with those shows can see the influence in both the stories told and the characters used. Star Trek wasn't created in a vacuum. The thing that sets it apart is it's setting and that's unlikely to be changed in any significant way. We won't be seeing Star Trek set in the distance past and revolving around a tribe of hunter gatherers or set in the present and focused on a group of medical professionals.

 

[Greg Cox]

We won't be seeing Star Trek set in the distance past and revolving around a tribe of hunter gatherers.

Although STAR TREK: THE QUEST FOR FIRE has a certain appeal.

"Damnit, Kirok! I'm a medicine man, not a mammoth hunter!"

And maybe Spokk is torn between his Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon halves . . .

 

[Noname Given]

Although STAR TREK: THE QUEST FOR FIRE has a certain appeal.

"Damnit, Kirok! I'm a medicine man, not a mammoth hunter!"

And maybe Spokk is torn between his Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon halves . . .

Council Member Spokk: "To try and make adobe bricks without straw is unwise..."

 

[Nerys Myk]

Although STAR TREK: THE QUEST FOR FIRE has a certain appeal.

"Damnit, Kirok! I'm a medicine man, not a mammoth hunter!"

And maybe Spokk is torn between his Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon halves . . .

Atook alunda Lana

 

[Greg Cox]

Tool-Maker Scott: "The flints cannae take it anymore!"

Uhura: "The fog is too thick! Our signals can't be seen!"

Chekov: "The wheel is a Siberian invention."

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Although STAR TREK: THE QUEST FOR FIRE has a certain appeal.

"Damnit, Kirok! I'm a medicine man, not a mammoth hunter!"

And maybe Spokk is torn between his Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon halves . . .

Tool-Maker Scott: "The flints cannae take it anymore!"

Uhura: "The fog is too thick! Our signals can't be seen!"

Chekov: "The wheel is a Siberian invention."

Sounds like an awesome novel! It practically writes itself!

 

[KelisThePoet]

Anyone familiar with those shows can see the influence in both the stories told and the characters used. Star Trek wasn't created in a vacuum. The thing that sets it apart is it's setting and that's unlikely to be changed in any significant way. We won't be seeing Star Trek set in the distance past and revolving around a tribe of hunter gatherers or set in the present and focused on a group of medical professionals.

I'm not sure I have any practical, specific disagreements with you about what should be in a new Star Trek show, but no, I do not subscribe to the theory that any show set on a ship in space will be Star Trek, by virtue of its setting alone.

The fact that the franchise has, had, will have and should have influences doesn't mean it has no identity of its own. I never said Star Trek was created in a vacuum and, for the umpteenth time, I never said Star Trek should avoid novelty or variety. I just said, it should have a balance between novelty and familiarity, a balance between variety and consistency; a balance that needs to go beyond the basic matter of sets and setting, I'll add now.

And I will say, it's somewhat misleading to say that the original Star Trek was based on "adult" westerns, as the term "adult" when applied to entertainment today implies a level of violence, sex, profanity and vulgarity that was never allowed on the original Star Trek or on any of the previous shows that influenced it.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm not sure I have any practical, specific disagreements with you about what should be in a new Star Trek show, but no, I do not subscribe to the theory that any show set on a ship in space will be Star Trek, by virtue of its setting alone.

I don't subscribe to that theory either. To expand, setting an adult drama in space and on a spaceship is what set Star Trek apart.

And I will say, it's somewhat misleading to say that the original Star Trek was based on "adult" westerns, as the term "adult" when applied to entertainment today implies a level of violence, sex, profanity and vulgarity that was never allowed on the original Star Trek or on any of the previous shows that influenced it.

Misleading how? It's the term that was applied to shows like Gunsmoke,Bonanza and yes Wagon Train. One that I think people familiar with the history of American Television would recognize. I think I first came across the term in "The Making of Star Trek".

 

[KelisThePoet]

Well, I understood what you meant by "adult," so apologies if I'm just being nitpicky. But I thought it was worth pointing out that the primary current connotation of the word "adult," when applied to entertainment, is different. There's an "adult" section of most video stores (and streaming services, I presume), and you won't find Star Trek or Bonanza in it.

 

[Greg Cox]

And I will say, it's somewhat misleading to say that the original Star Trek was based on "adult" westerns, as the term "adult" when applied to entertainment today implies a level of violence, sex, profanity and vulgarity that was never allowed on the original Star Trek or on any of the previous shows that influenced it.

I don't know. TOS was pretty edgy, adult stuff compared to, say, Lost in Space or Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea. Just look at "The Cage": Voyeuristic aliens try to get a virile male specimen to mate in captivity, with lots of talk about hidden desires, Orion animal women, "Adam and Eve," and "strong female drives."

It's all relative. The "adult" westerns of the 1960s dealt with heavier themes than, say, The Lone Ranger or Zorro, which were aimed primarily at kids, while STAR TREK was more adult than Commando Cody or Space Patrol. DISCOVERY will probably no be more "adult" than any other modern TV series aimed at the 18-40 demographic, in that it won't be targeted at small children..

 

[Mudd]

Early Star Trek was a Western, when it wasn't being a WWII story or lifting premises from The Outer Limits or The Twilight Zone. It really was the development of the main characters that made it distinctive.

"Wiving settlers," hmm?

 

[RJDiogenes]

I'm just saying that Star Trek should also have a familiar element and that novelty is not a virtue in and of itself.

Agreed. Every imaginative world (or franchise, as they say these days) has its own unique flavor or aesthetic. If a painter wants to homage van Gogh, he doesn't paint in the style of Rockwell; if a band wants to produce a Disco album, they don't write Heavy Metal songs; if a poet wants to write a sonnet, he doesn't produce a haiku. Being creative within the boundaries of your chosen project is a greater challenge than just blowing it off, but that's the sort of thing really creative people enjoy.

Although STAR TREK: THE QUEST FOR FIRE has a certain appeal.

I've always considered Three's Company to be set in the Star Trek universe. There's nothing in the canon that contradicts it!

But I thought it was worth pointing out that the primary current connotation of the word "adult," when applied to entertainment, is different.

This is why I always distinguish between "Mature" and "Rated M For Mature."

 

[Jedman67]

Would love to see Robert Picardo star in a Star Trek: ER parody.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

And in another 20-30 years, I'm sure whatever constitutes 'TV' at that time will be considered vastly superior to the current crop of entertainment shows being produced today. It's all relative.

I can't name any other medium except maybe video games where current output is considered the best ever for the medium.

Obviously there is subjectivity in taste and different trends, but critical and popular consensus tend to emerge a few years after the trend has ended, and for music, film, literature, and almost every other media, it has converged on a historical period.

There is wide variation in individual taste but the literature that was aggregately considered greatest ever in 1950 is pretty much still considered greatest ever.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

I can't name any other medium except maybe video games where current output is considered the best ever for the medium.

Music and movies.


<SARCASM>

 

[Greg Cox]

On the other hand, current generations also tend to denounce today's arts and media as being more indecent and corrupting than yesterday's books and poems and plays and TV shows and such.

As it happens, I'm currently reading a mammoth new biography of Bram Stoker and it's amusing to see how nineteenth century critics and self-appointed moral guardians denounced then-contemporary works--such as, say, the poems of Walt Whitman or the "sensation" novels of Wilkie Collins--as being more "immoral" than the literature of the previous century. (Young Bram actually took part in a public debate on this topic at Trinity College back in the 1860s--and was a huge Walt Whitman fanboy back in the day.)

In many ways, the tone of such complaints reminds me of the concerns that today's TV is too violent or sexy or potty-mouthed or whatever.

The more things change . . ...

 

[Sci]

And in another 20-30 years, I'm sure whatever constitutes 'TV' at that time will be considered vastly superior to the current crop of entertainment shows being produced today. It's all relative.

I certainly hope so! And I hope those programs are able to achieve an even greater level of artistic achievement than television does today. The level of psychological and thematic depth on display in programs like Mad Men or Breaking Bad put the relative shallowness of most older episodic programs to shame, and I hope that trend continues.

Art must always evolve!

 

[KelisThePoet]

I don't know. TOS was pretty edgy, adult stuff compared to, say, Lost in Space or Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea. Just look at "The Cage": Voyeuristic aliens try to get a virile male specimen to mate in captivity, with lots of talk about hidden desires, Orion animal women, "Adam and Eve," and "strong female drives."

It's all relative. The "adult" westerns of the 1960s dealt with heavier themes than, say, The Lone Ranger or Zorro, which were aimed primarily at kids, while STAR TREK was more adult than Commando Cody or Space Patrol. DISCOVERY will probably no be more "adult" than any other modern TV series aimed at the 18-40 demographic, in that it won't be targeted at small children..

Star Trek challenged some of the standards of its day (just as Whitman challenged some of the standards of his). Now, current TV challenges current standards with more graphic violence and sex than you'll ever find in Star Trek (or Whitman). The gesture of challenge may be the same. The moral outrage by social conservatives in reaction may be the same. But the content is still different. And loads of graphic violence and sex won't feel like Star Trek, just because Star Trek dealt with mature sexual themes in a more discrete, less visual way (think of "Return of the Archons," for instance).

And just to try to clarify what I mean by "loads" of graphic violence and sex, I don't think the Kelvinverse movies have too much violence for Star Trek or come even close to having too much sex. By contrast, if Discovery looks like the new Battlestar Galactica, it will lose me.

This is why I always distinguish between "Mature" and "Rated M For Mature."

Reminds me of a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon (paraphrased from memory): CALVIN: It says this movie involves adult situations. What does that mean? HOBBES: Paying bills. Going to work. That sort of thing. CALVIN: Boy, they're not kidding when they say, 'for mature audiences.' HOBBES: I don't understand how those movies make any money.

 

[Greg Cox]

Just wait. Twenty years from now, folks will be fretting that the latest Trek show won't be be as discreet and tasteful as DISCOVERY . . ..

Just for fun, here's how a prominent 19th-century literary critic trashed Whitman back in the day: "a mass of stupid filth . . . a degrading, beastly sensuality that is fast rotting all the social virtues . . . ."

Make most of the anxiety over DISCOVERY sound mild in comparison!