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

[KelisThePoet]

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.

That's not true in academia, among literary critics, any more than television critics still hold the same consensus they did in 1950. And if most people outside literary studies still hold the same consensus about what constitutes the greatest literature as they did in 1950, it's only because most people don't read as much literature, compared to how much television they watch--especially because so many people have been convinced that the books they choose to read for fun aren't "literature," whereas no one thinks the shows they choose to watch aren't "television." So pull random Joe off the street and ask him which television is the best, and he'll probably rattle off a bunch of his favorite shows that are on right now. But ask him which literature is the best, and if he has any opinion at all on the subject, he's likely to say Shakespeare and Austen and Dickens and whatnot, rather than rattle off a bunch of his favorite books published in the last five years.

 

[KelisThePoet]

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 . . ..

Right, because the pattern of challenge and outrage will continue, even though the content plugged into that pattern keeps changing.

 

[Greg Cox]

Right, because the pattern of challenge and outrage will continue, even though the content plugged into that pattern keeps changing.

And Star Trek does not exist in a bubble, cut off from changes in popular taste and standards. One would hope that any new Trek show would push the envelope the same way TOS did back in the 1960s . . . or be at least as bold when it comes to going where no STAR TREK series has gone before.

 

[KelisThePoet]

Star Trek does not exist in a bubble, but after fifty years it has established an identity.

As to what Star Trek should do, which boundaries it should cross, different people with their own personal standards will no doubt disagree, but I don't hold to the anarchic view that crossing any and every boundary is a virtue in and of itself.

And as much graphic violence and sex is on non-network TV these days, Star Trek wouldn't be doing anything brave or groundbreaking in entertainment by including it, anyway.

 

[Trekkin]

Star Trek does not exist in a bubble, but after fifty years it has established an identity.

And in another fifty, that identity can be further 'established.'

There were massive differences in 'identity' between TOS-Movies-TNG. So why is 'Fifty years' the cut-off date for refinement? Surely Trek also had an established 'identity' after the first ten years? And another after twenty?

I don't hold to the anarchic view that crossing any and every boundary is a virtue in and of itself.

There were only ever two 'boundaries' for Trek:

1) The network ones. Which changed over the years.
2) The edicts of individual showrunners. Which also changed at various times, for obvious reasons.​

The past content itself 'binds' jack-all, and it was never intended to do so. We're not talking about legal precedent here, and even that is inevitably overhauled with time.

 

[KelisThePoet]

There are commonalities between the original series, the movies and Generation-era Trek (as well as Kelvinverse Trek), as well as differences. Why does it have to be a choice between one or the other, now? Why can't there be some balance (as there is in the popular and critically well-regarded Kelvinverse Trek)?

 

[Sci]

To quote T'Pol from "Terra Prime:" Neither of our species is what it was a million years ago, nor what it'll become in the future. Life is change.

So it is with art. So it is with Star Trek. Honor the past, but embrace the future.

 

[Greg Cox]

And, honestly, I'm sure this will be recognizably STAR TREK, with the usual iconography and staples: transporter beams, landing parties, tricorders, the Prime Directive, warp drives, impulse engines, Starfleet, the United Federation of Planets, etc. Probably even the occasional Klingon or Vulcan.

But it will be a 2017 version of STAR TREK, with the pacing and direction and production values and more serialized storytelling of a 2017 television series. And if it's less G-rated than the earlier versions ... well, SUPERGIRL is less G-rated than THE ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN with George Reeves. Doesn't mean it's not the same kind of show, just done for different era with different standards.

The same way a modern DRACULA movie is still a DRACULA movie, even if it goes further than, say, the Bela Lugosi version.

To my mind, STAR TREK is not defined by how "adult' it is or isn't.

 

[Trekkin]

Why does it have to be a choice between one or the other, now?

It's not.

The Trek with the 'identity' that you want is still there. And it's a hell of a lot easier to access than it would have been for Trekkies in the 80's.

 

[The Overlord]

And, honestly, I'm sure this will be recognizably STAR TREK, with the usual iconography and staples: transporter beams, landing parties, tricorders, the Prime Directive, warp drives, impulse engines, Starfleet, the United Federation of Planets, etc. Probably even the occasional Klingon or Vulcan.

But it will be a 2017 version of STAR TREK, with the pacing and direction and production values and more serialized storytelling of a 2017 television series. And if it's less G-rated than the earlier versions ... well, SUPERGIRL is less G-rated than THE ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN with George Reeves. Doesn't mean it's not the same kind of show, just done for different era with different standards.

The same way a modern DRACULA movie is still a DRACULA movie, even if it goes further than, say, the Bela Lugosi version.

To my mind, STAR TREK is not defined by how "adult' it is or isn't.

I agree with this, Star Trek doesn't have to be Game of Thrones, but it should take more risks and be less willing to play it safe, avoid some of the pat writing we saw in say Voyager.

I think the darker content should come from the villains rather then the Federation. Make the villains more willing to cross lines, it might be interesting to see a Klingon version of Caligula show up, show the darker side of the Klingon warrior code.

 

[RJDiogenes]

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.

I remember that one. It's like the Underground Comix back in the 70s-- whenever you saw something labeled "Adults Only," you knew it was probably aimed at teenagers.

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 . . . ."

And this is why I love Walt Whitman.

 

[fireproof78]

I agree with this, Star Trek doesn't have to be Game of Thrones, but it should take more risks and be less willing to play it safe, avoid some of the pat writing we saw in say Voyager.

I think the darker content should come from the villains rather then the Federation. Make the villains more willing to cross lines, it might be interesting to see a Klingon version of Caligula show up, show the darker side of the Klingon warrior code.

I have a feeling the first violent act will be the Klingons executing someone.

 

[The Overlord]

I have a feeling the first violent act will be the Klingons executing someone.

I can see that.

Like I said I said in the Klingon Empire thread, I would like to see the Klingon warrior code come under some more scrutiny, with the Klingon captain believing in making his actions as honorable as possible, while his superior officer is an egomaniac who thinks everything he does in naturally honorable.

I can see a scumbag superior officer treated a conquered world with cruel brutality, forcing the locals to engage in gladiator games, massacres of anyone he deems weak and massive plundering of natural resources. Give some reason why Kirk disliked the Klingon Empire in the first place and with the captain, show there are people within the Empire who want change, which is part the reason the Klingons made peace with the Federation later.

 

[Greg Cox]

I can see that.

Like I said I said in the Klingon Empire thread, I would like to see the Klingon warrior code come under some more scrutiny, with the Klingon captain believing in making his actions as honorable as possible, while his superior officer is an egomaniac who thinks everything he does in naturally honorable..

Works for me. That was basically the situation in "Balance of Terror," where the world-weary Romulan commander was a man of honor beset by overly ambitious and war-hungry superiors.

 

[KelisThePoet]

The Trek with the 'identity' that you want is still there. And it's a hell of a lot easier to access than it would have been for Trekkies in the 80's.

I think you're mistaken about the Trek I want, since I basically like all Trek and prefer Kelvin-verse Trek to much of Generation-era Trek.

And, honestly, I'm sure this will be recognizably STAR TREK, with the usual iconography and staples: transporter beams, landing parties, tricorders, the Prime Directive, warp drives, impulse engines, Starfleet, the United Federation of Planets, etc. Probably even the occasional Klingon or Vulcan.

Those things are just the furniture of Star Trek. A show could have none of those and feel like Star Trek. It could have all of them and feel like a soulless copy, Star Trek in name only. But I think it's time for me to bow out of this conversation; because until we actually see some Discovery, we have no idea how it will compare to other Trek; and I can't add any more detail to my position that a hypothetical Trek show ought to have something (something hard to define and impossible for fans to order up in advance) that makes it like the other Trek shows in spirit as well as form.

 

[Cake]

When it comes to old vs. new series, I think on average I like the current ones better than the ones from decades ago. One thing a lot of old series have in common is blatant sexism. This improved over the years and is hopefully still further improving. I am also a big science fiction and fantasy fan. It might not matter so much, when you mainly watch crime or hospital series, but I prefer genre series, which really profit from CGI. Modern special effects just help so much to create fantastic and futuristic worlds.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

One thing a lot of old series have in common is blatant sexism.

Thankfully blatant sexism is not part of new Trek TV like Enterprise and new Trek movies like Into Darkness.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

May be right. i think real fictiony sci fi has had a rough go since TNG ended.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

…As opposed to fake fictiony sci fi.

 

[Trekkin]

I think you're mistaken about the Trek I want, since I basically like all Trek and prefer Kelvin-verse Trek to much of Generation-era Trek.

I had no assumptions about that, one way or the other.

It's just improving technology means that the 'this Trek, or no Trek at all' choice doesn't really exist anymore.