The difference is that Discovery did it not TOS. When DSC does it its bad. When TOS did it its groundbreaking and historical.
I trust you to figure out the difference.
I trust you to figure out the difference.
Drop the S31 show for a Captain Pike show?
- Thread starter Tom
- Start date
Exactly. Kirk drinks coffee, eats chicken sandwiches, grumbles about doctor appointments, argues with bureaucrats, has awkward encounters with old girlfriends, and, yes, sometimes has to deal with cynicism and realpolitik--even when dealing with giant space amoebas, silicon-based lifeforms, and insane computers.
It's the realistic touches that keep classic Trek semi-believable and easy to identity with. And as for taking inspiration from things that happened in real life . . . God forbid that Trek should, say, base an episode on Viet Nam or the Pueblo Incident.
Last edited:
I think the simpler explanation is he just types out whatever pops into his mind at any particular moment.
But, if all of this is silly, then anything Georgiou did is silly because it's all a silly sci-fi show. So no need to take anything she did seriously at all because it's all ridiculous, and no need to have a long, drawn-out debate over it either... unless it can be used to bash the character and, in turn, the show. It's all about bashing the show. How, why, doesn't matter. As long as that's the end result.
Ooohh, you're right. We take this way to seriously. Because Star Trek fans don't do that.
My bad!
Stories about black ops skullduggery, cynical government/corporate organizations and moral compromise are good enough, but don't pretend that they're more grounded in "real human experience" than any of these other fantasies. At most, they may suit the nebulously skeptical worldview of folks in the audience most of whom will never have a closer encounter with that kind of a world than that time when they tried to bribe the emissions test guy at the DMV to let their clunker through.
Exactly. Kirk drinks coffee, eats chicken sandwiches, grumbles about doctor appointments, argues with bureaucrats, has awkward encounters with old girlfriends, and, yes, sometimes has to deal with cynicism and realpolitik--even when dealing with giant space amoebas, silicon-based lifeforms, and insane computers.
It's the realistic touches that keep classic Trek semi-believable and easy to identity with. And as for taking inspiration from things that happened in real life . . . God forbid that Trek should, say, base an episode on Viet Nam or the Pueblo Incident.
These are things I like about Star Trek. The fact that it's more than the image people have of '50s sci-fi B-movies. Anyone who thinks it should stay in the "50s sci-fi B-movie" box is wrong. And if that's all they see when they look at Star Trek, then they don't see Star Trek at all.
On the subject of Star Trek, "exploring the human condition" is more than just looking at the positive side of it. That's only half of it. There's a whole other half to look at too.
Honestly, at the risk of beating a dead horse, I'm still lifting my jaw off the floor from that comment.
Forget TOS or DISCO for the moment. Even TNG did entire episodes about McCarthyism, traumatized war veterans, terrorism, refugees, even the forced relocation of Native Americans for Pete's sake. Are we seriously pretending that those stories weren't inspired by stuff that happened in real life?
Trek has always drawn from real life and politics, whether we're talking arranged marriages to cement alliances, prosecuting alleged war criminals, political assassinations, or negotiating the boundaries between church and state. Nor has it always shied away from the thorny dilemmas and compromises involved.
Last edited:
Sure.
That's not the point.
If something in a fictional narrative is bad - implausible, tonally out-of-place, arbitrary, etc. - offering "but that really happened" doesn't make it otherwise.
I think you're shifting the goal posts here. Sure, most of us audience members don't encounter black-ops skullduggery in our everyday lives (as far as we know), but most of us are not daring starship captains, Vulcan ambassadors, Klingon warriors, brilliant archeologists, or shady interplanetary con artists either, but that doesn't mean those can't be the stuff of STAR TREK stories. Same with shady intelligence agencies, cynical government officials, moral compromises, etc.
And surely you're not suggesting that the latter only exist in the "skeptical" imaginations of cynics?
I don't pretend. I just know that they work well as stories because they relate to relatable topics. Not that they are "more grounded." The term is relatable, not realistic. And, in fantastical settings, having humans behave, well, human, is preferred to keep people in the story.
So, I'm not going to sit there and pretend that Star Trek is a fantasy. But, humans are survival oriented creatures. One need only study human history to recognize that the actions of parties in Star Trek is as human, as part of the tone of Star Trek, as anything else.
I would like to see the whole human experience please. Is that an option?
I confess: I breezed past that bit before, but that's a really good way to put it.
Well, you can open up the floor here to the real-life, first-hand "human experience" with such things among our many posters and we'll see.
We may have someone who's served in the military or civilian government who's touched on intelligence.
You're find that mostly they've seen it on TV or something and just think it's kewl. It's the thrill of ersatz sophistication.
He's gonna keep at this for a while. Might as well fix something to put in the microwave.
Star Trek is fine dealing with real issues as long as it does so in abstract subtext and metaphor. The problem, however, is when it tries to make the "real world issues" a tangible set piece or plot device, it just feels incredibly spurious.
This was a common problem with DS9. Depicting the "anguish of war" with adults in pajamas play-shooting toy guns at guys with plaster and rubber on their head from behind styrofoam rocks whilst worrying about the whatchamacallit coming into contact with the thingamajig is ridiculous. And really hard to take seriously.
This was a common problem with DS9. Depicting the "anguish of war" with adults in pajamas play-shooting toy guns at guys with plaster and rubber on their head from behind styrofoam rocks whilst worrying about the whatchamacallit coming into contact with the thingamajig is ridiculous. And really hard to take seriously.
I found it engaging and interesting, and far more enjoyable than many other shows...
Again, it's not about first-hand experience. Most of us are capable of watching the news, studying history, and can cite any number of real-life instances of espionage, political corruption, corporate misbehavior, and, ahem, moral compromises throughout human history.
I confess: I've never personally prosecuted an alleged war criminal, but that doesn't mean "Conscience of the King" or "Duet" aren't inspired by reality. Nor have I ever personally witnessed a political assassination, but I'm pretty sure "Journey to Babel" didn't invent that concept.
So, yes, such things are part of "the human adventure," which is supposed to be what Star Trek is all about.
He's suggesting whatever lets him look like the adult in the room, so as to better impress the community he clearly resents but can't stop hanging around.
Nailed it.
Passing around the Jack Daniel's Tennessee Fire. Who wants a shot of it?
Similar threads
