Explore What?

[Marie1]

I'm not saying "would be" like Past Tense- look around you- in a lot of places, they already are, or have been recently, even in the US. Humans ain't learning quickly...

You'd be hard pressed to find a period of history without some sort of injustice going on. So I fail to see how Past Tense is prescient.

No, you're missing my point. PT wasn't just about "injustice" or "racism," though if humanity was as great as it thinks it is, we would have gotten over that already. My point is what they did with people- included educated people who because of economical crisis temporarily couldn't find work. This practice the world has of just cramming people they don't know what to do with in enclosures without medicine or enough food. And its not happening in Africa any more... they did it to the people who survived New Orleans in the US, millions of people are losing their homes now, there's all those people trapped in Guantanamo Bay without trial... back in the 90s, did you look at that and think- thats not our future because we're getting better? If so, that was a mistake. And just because there's always been injustice doesn't make it excusable.

How is ST not diverse? From Uhura to... all the other races, its been quite tolerant that way.

The diversity is shallow. Is it really so important that the guys in the next system have a different series of head ridges if they behave exactly the same way?

ST is seriously lacking in cultural diversity.

I'm not saying "would be" like Past Tense- look around you- in a lot of places, they already are, or have been recently, even in the US. Humans ain't learning quickly...

You'd be hard pressed to find a period of history without some sort of injustice going on. So I fail to see how Past Tense is prescient.

How is ST not diverse? From Uhura to... all the other races, its been quite tolerant that way.

The diversity is shallow. Is it really so important that the guys in the next system have a different series of head ridges if they behave exactly the same way?

ST is seriously lacking in cultural diversity.

You have a point regarding "aliens with head ridges that act the same".

In another thread someone said regarding having aliens and humans serve together aboard starships.

What if an alien Starfleet officer was stationed aboard a starship with humans that had the thousand year long custom of giving birth every two years to four babies.

And the mother and father always killed and ate the three weakest and allowed only the strongest baby to survive.

Or something to that effect.

Would humans be willing to tolerate that kind of thing in their midst?

ST has seen tons of diversity- not all of it racial, a lot of it cultural.

The ep. the Quickening- we had to accept a culture of adults who committed suicide. Yes death was coming, but they didn't fight death as much as we'd expect.

The Dominion- the Feds. looking for peace with them despite their dictator-ship running of the quadrant and mass murder. They can't change the way it runs, but they didn't say that the Dominion were jerks and cut off contact. For that matter, killing off the Founders despite their mass-murdering ways was still morally wrong.

The Cardassians took over Bajor, ruined the land, murdered the people, raped the women- but Dukat was allowed at times after the withdrawl to wander the station freely.

The Andorians react violently to everything- we got around it, worked together.
The Xindi tried to wipe out earth, later joined the Federation.

Some guy on DS9 "buds" to reproduce every few months- 8-18 kids each time- inconvenient? Yep. Just keep giving him larger quarters.

We get the Romulans to help us even though they'd have gladly sided up with the Dominion- which was stupid since the Founders logically would have wanted to wipe them out as much as the Cardassians. Yet we fought beside them.

There have been plenty of weird cultures in ST. And if their cultures involved things like killing innocents, theres nothing wrong with helping them change.

 

[kv1at3485]

No, you're missing my point. PT wasn't just about "injustice" or "racism," though if humanity was as great as it thinks it is, we would have gotten over that already. My point is what they did with people- included educated people who because of economical crisis temporarily couldn't find work. This practice the world has of just cramming people they don't know what to do with in enclosures without medicine or enough food. And its not happening in Africa any more... they did it to the people who survived New Orleans in the US, millions of people are losing their homes now, there's all those people trapped in Guantanamo Bay without trial... back in the 90s, did you look at that and think- thats not our future because we're getting better? If so, that was a mistake.

Right, because there are some bumps in the carpet (and there are always bumps in the carpet) means everything is rotten and their are no fundamental improvements occurring or have ever occurred.

Just because we're not all getting it together at the same rate, or that there are temporary regressions which are the exception rather than the rule. doesn't mean that things aren't getting better, period.

But back to ST, you'd think they'd come up with episodes that do more than explore problems we're all familiar with today. You'd think they'd have new problems to explore instead of just rehashing what we see on the news all the time.

And just because there's always been injustice doesn't make it excusable.

Quite so.

ST has seen tons of diversity- not all of it racial, a lot of it cultural.

The ep. the Quickening- we had to accept a culture of adults who committed suicide. Yes death was coming, but they didn't fight death as much as we'd expect.

The Dominion- the Feds. looking for peace with them despite their dictator-ship running of the quadrant and mass murder. They can't change the way it runs, but they didn't say that the Dominion were jerks and cut off contact. For that matter, killing off the Founders despite their mass-murdering ways was still morally wrong.

The Cardassians took over Bajor, ruined the land, murdered the people, raped the women- but Dukat was allowed at times after the withdrawl to wander the station freely.

The Andorians react violently to everything- we got around it, worked together.
The Xindi tried to wipe out earth, later joined the Federation.

Some guy on DS9 "buds" to reproduce every few months- 8-18 kids each time- inconvenient? Yep. Just keep giving him larger quarters.

We get the Romulans to help us even though they'd have gladly sided up with the Dominion- which was stupid since the Founders logically would have wanted to wipe them out as much as the Cardassians. Yet we fought beside them.

There have been plenty of weird cultures in ST. And if their cultures involved things like killing innocents, theres nothing wrong with helping them change.

As I said, pretty shallow. Trek is big on: one species, one culture, one polity, even one physical form. Trek is about conformity: everybody should be "human", and the closer they are to being "human", in the way they act, the way they look, the better they will be. This is practically what our heroes go about the galaxy preaching most of the time. Diversity in ST is frequently portrayed as being undesirable.

(Of course, I use the term "human" a bit loosely, as I can't see why anybody would want to be like ST humans.)

 

[Marie1]

I just mean that ST is going to have trouble imagining new problems and issues when we're struggling with the same ones- especially ones that places like the US shouldn't be having. ST writers can't move on if most of the world hasn't. They can't identify with the problems- what would they say if a planet complained that peace was boring? That the medical care people weren't having enough work because everyone was healthy? Most people would find that reaction absurd and tell people to find other things to do.

Though I'm not a big fan of ST humans either... but ST has come against a lot of violent peoples- Klingons, Andorians, Xindi, Capellans that really could use some non-violence, and most people wouldn't shut off emotion like Vulcans... so even though those changes are more "human" they aren't necessarily bad. As Quark says, humans shouldn't be so cocky- we have horrible things in our past that other species, for all their issues, don't.

 

[Ezri II]

It is going to be hard to tell were ST is going in the next 10 years until the movie ST XI comes out and we have to deal with the fall out. What I feel is going to happen, is that ST is going to be more action and more violence.

The era of meeting new people and just shake hands and say FRIENDS FOREVER is over with. Really, the utopia dream we can get along with each other if we are willing to be nice to each other is over with. Even with TNG and DS9 more, we were moving to an era that says meeting new people is not always a plus for both sides.

Think how Earth would be like is someone like Picard came to Earth with a big ship and everyone on Earth understood there is a federation. After having a long nice talk and being nice to each other they just beam back to their ship and we do not talk to them in say a century.

Oh ya, they will tell us we have to make progress on our own and they will not help us out with poverty, globel warming, war and other negatives. They cannot help us as they cannot change our view of ourselfs. Oh ya, when you told us that it really did alter how we view ourselfs as humans and how we look at the universe.

Nope, really that dream was a dream and we know that bumping into different people is not always a plus.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

TOS didn't spent all that much time with exploration. They were busy playing space solider, space cop and space diplomat all the time.

They patrolled and defended the Federation, fighting with Klingons, Romulans, Doomsday Machines and parasitical flying fried eggs. They visited Federation-sponsored colonies, mines and looney bins to make sure things were going okay and deal with it when they turned out to be going very badly. They cleaned up Federation messes when somebody left a book behind or decided the Nazis were okay after all. They dealt with Federation diplomacy, ferrying VIPs around, taming wild Dolmans and muscling disguised Klingons out of tribble-infested space stations.

Star Trek has always been a very mixed bag. Sure, a little exploration is okay as well, but what I really want is to go back to the space cop/diplomat days. DS9 brought the space soldier role back into the mix, but I want the whole TOS menu again.

 

[Bonzo the Fifth]

I would contend that a competent writer can build an interesting episode around an astronomical phenomenon -- but I would contend that the phenomenon wouldn't actually be what the episode is about. The phenomenon, whatever it might be, would have to be the catalyst, and/or a metaphor for, something important that's going on in the characters' lives. The Doctor Who episode "The End of the World," for instance, is built around the idea of the Sun expanding to destroy Earth. One could imagine, for instance, a pulsar or supernova used in a story to represent the idea of renewal or new life, whilst dark matter could be used to represent depression and existential anguish. It depends on its execution.

The problem, of course, is that most of Trek's writers over the years haven't produced stories that were sufficiently emotional or character-based to make those kinds of episodes work. But if you get a writer like Aaron Sorkin or Russell T. Davies or Joss Whedon on the job, and you could get a decent story. Don't believe me? Watch the West Wing episode "Galileo."

I would take great exception to that... I'm not as familiar with Sorkin's writing, but Davies and Whedon are not examples of what you're trying to convey. They've both dabbled in Science fiction, but Dr. Who and Firefly definitely don't have much, if anything, in common with Star Trek other than the space setting. Completely, and frankly, incompatible writing styles for all three...

 

[Bonzo the Fifth]

As I said, pretty shallow. Trek is big on: one species, one culture, one polity, even one physical form. Trek is about conformity: everybody should be "human", and the closer they are to being "human", in the way they act, the way they look, the better they will be. This is practically what our heroes go about the galaxy preaching most of the time. Diversity in ST is frequently portrayed as being undesirable.

(Of course, I use the term "human" a bit loosely, as I can't see why anybody would want to be like ST humans.)

Not to undermine your point, but how is this any different than any other SF franchise's depiction of humanity (or any genre that deals with these kind of large scale issues)? There really isn't an example fitting what you're describing, and, while that doesn't necessarily mean that it CANNOT exist, I can't find fault with a franchise for not being able to achieve what's probably not possible...

Though one has to wonder why a misanthropist would even be doing watching a show like Star Trek instead of something more suiting their sensibilities, like Battlestar Galactica, which seems to glorify the ideal of Humans are Bastards (which is no slight on my part... it's an excellent show)

On the issue of exploration, though... I think a lot of people who say that are long-time fans who really don't understand what they really want, anymore... What they want is that sense of novelty and wonder that came back when Trek was fresh and every angle not played into the ground for what it was worth. This is typically phrased as the need to 'get back to exploring', even though, as others have said, exploring wasn't really a priority in those early missions, either...

We live in a different world now, though, than then. In the '60's (and even the '80's), there was a lack of general public knowledge of phenomena and concepts that we take for granted, now. Black holes, time travel, quantum phenomena were far less ingrained in popular consciousness before, and writers could do all kinds of magical things with that public ignorance that would never fly, now...

By way of example: We accept that, in the 24th century, time travel can be achieved by warp speed acceleration around a gravity well (slingshot effect). In the 60's, that was a 'just crazy enough to work' idea (public knowledge of such things were pretty poor back then). Try to fly a concept like that in 2008, with much more science savvy fans and you'd be laughed out of the room. Same goes for any manner of pseudoscientific technobabble that's become essential jargon and continuity throughout Trek history. After 40 years, some of us really like the sense of history it seems to give to the universe, even if it's underpinnings don't really hold up under scrutiny... Unfortunately, this causes a greater and greater disconnect between 'Trek' and the real world as we become more postmodern, more cynical, and more immersed in an information culture that caught everyone, ESPECIALLY the Science Fiction prognosticators, by suprise.

In the end, though, it's not the exploration, or the rubber forehead aliens, the kitbashes and reused effects that make Star Trek. It's the ideas, the characters, and the philosophy that, maybe, against our best efforts, we might actually manage to do some good out there in the universe and learn from our mistakes...

It's one reason why I'm OK with the idea of the 'reboot' movie... I think, as long as the core ideas and traditions of Trek are contained intact, that a postmodern reboot of the series would be a good thing, allowing an avenue for those idealistic notions and senses of wonder and possibility to be communicated to a more modern audience without the baggage associated with the cultural Zeerust of the 20th century that hangs onto some aspects of Trek like a parasite (hammy moralizing, green skinned space babes, faux diversity due to lack of a proper FX implementation existing at the time, etc.)

As Battlestar Galactica and the new Batman trilogy are showing, it is possible for these ideas to find a new interpretation, even with the same characters and settings, with a proper reexamination and a fresh perspective. After all, isn't that the essense of myth: the tailoring of the story to the audience?

Sorry, that got a little off topic and out of hand...

 

[Dayton3]

^That was a really great post.

You brought out some excellent points about how the 1960s audience didn't have many of the wild and fascinating things in the future ingrained in their minds like audiences today do.

 

[Dayton3]

I just had another thought.

If you really want to do some exploring, you might have to go the "Corps of Engineers" type of route.

It seems that in those stories a lot of exploring gets done though it is more of the archeological type (ancient alien machines and what have you).

 

[Marie1]

^ Have you read any of the those books? I just finished Wounds... have you read it?

 

[HRHTheKING]

It seems that a call among many Trek fans in recent years has been for the franchise to "get back to exploration".

I'm asking the next question:

Explore what?

I get the feeling that Trek fans are not all that interested in space travel in and of itself. The astronomical part of it that is.

If all Trek does is tell stories with a moral through encounters with bumpyheaded aliens of the week, then I'm not that interested.

I heard a similar thing from people who hate DS9 simply because it was on a space station and apparently "they didn't go anywhere"

Some Trek fans believe that only with "aliens of the week" and CGI nebulas can one explore things. They forget that issues can be explored without going anywhere at all. "Duet" for example, explored issues such as guilt and coming to terms with atrocities without leaving a holding cell.

 

[Sci]

I would contend that a competent writer can build an interesting episode around an astronomical phenomenon -- but I would contend that the phenomenon wouldn't actually be what the episode is about. The phenomenon, whatever it might be, would have to be the catalyst, and/or a metaphor for, something important that's going on in the characters' lives. The Doctor Who episode "The End of the World," for instance, is built around the idea of the Sun expanding to destroy Earth. One could imagine, for instance, a pulsar or supernova used in a story to represent the idea of renewal or new life, whilst dark matter could be used to represent depression and existential anguish. It depends on its execution.

The problem, of course, is that most of Trek's writers over the years haven't produced stories that were sufficiently emotional or character-based to make those kinds of episodes work. But if you get a writer like Aaron Sorkin or Russell T. Davies or Joss Whedon on the job, and you could get a decent story. Don't believe me? Watch the West Wing episode "Galileo."

I would take great exception to that... I'm not as familiar with Sorkin's writing, but Davies and Whedon are not examples of what you're trying to convey. They've both dabbled in Science fiction, but Dr. Who and Firefly definitely don't have much, if anything, in common with Star Trek other than the space setting. Completely, and frankly, incompatible writing styles for all three...

Of the three, Sorkin's is probably closest to both the structure (ensemble cast vs. focus on a few main characters) and the spirit (hope and optimism) of traditional ST. Davies's stuff -- at least on DW -- is built on hope and optimism, too, but he also balances that with a lot of pain and angst mixed in, and he tends to focus on two main characters per season, whilst Whedon's stuff is often about personal pain and despair, though it does tend to have ensembles.

Davies and Whedon would both have to adjust their writing style if they were writing for Trek. Whedon because Trek is a comedy in the traditional sense of the term -- a story that begins in darkness and ends in light; Davies because it's a far more ensemble-based show that doesn't seek to balance its optimism with intense loneliness. Sorkin would actually have the least amount of adjustment to make -- his work, especially on The West Wing, was already with ensemble pieces that romanticize the possibilities of human achievement and of the potential for communities to choose to build a better world through the institution of politics, which, to me, perfectly captures the spirit of ST.

Either way, though, the point is that ST can evolve, can learn to accommodate intensely character-driven work that it hasn't in the past whilst also doing interesting stories using McGuffins as seemingly boring as astronomical phenomena provided that the writers are sufficiently competent, character- and theme-driven, and capable of using metaphors.

 

[Dayton3]

^ Have you read any of the those books? I just finished Wounds... have you read it?

I haven't gotten it yet.

Grand Designs was one of my favorites.

 

[HRHTheKING]

See, I don't personally think Star Trek has EVER been about "exploration" in the sense of nebulas, planets, stars etc....

Many times, Star Trek episodes begin with "Captain's Log....we are monitoring the collapse of Star Alpha I893....." and then something happens, which is where the main story takes place. Actual "space exploration" is usually just the starting point for a different type of issue/character exploration.

 

[KirksFlyingFist]

Personally, when I watched TOS I watched it FOR the space travel. That's what got me into it. Sure it grew into more, but the idea of never knowing what you're going to find "out there" is really what made Star Trek so appealing to so many people. Not the idea of an arcing war or a ship lost at sea, but the idea of humanity moving forward and exploring the stars... I don't agree with your proposal that Trek fans don't care about this, most I know do more so than any other component of Trek this was intergral.

 

[KirksFlyingFist]

Edit: Oops double post, internet was lagging and I hit the button twice by accident. Sorry!

 

[TheGodBen]

Sorkin would actually have the least amount of adjustment to make -- his work, especially on The West Wing, was already with ensemble pieces that romanticize the possibilities of human achievement and of the potential for communities to choose to build a better world through the institution of politics, which, to me, perfectly captures the spirit of ST.

I've often thought that Sorkin would fit in well as a ST writer. Like you said, he has the optimism and sense of duty stuff from his days at the West Wing, even Studio 60 had a sense of duty and that was about a comedy show.

His characters would often speak very quickly about political matters that nobody could understand, so that should make an easy transition to technobabble.

Most importantly, he would continue the Trek tradition of having characters disappear without an explanation given (Yeoman Rand, Dr Pulaski, Lt Carey). There was Mandy, who disappeared in the middle of a shooting without anybody wondering where she went. There was Ainsley who disappeared right after the episode where she was given a promotion to make her more important. Even Sam, the guy who was supposed the show's main character before they cast Martin Sheen as the President, disappeared after he was supposed to be given the position as a senior advisor.

He'd fit right in.

But there was that one episode where he did that rant about Trekkies, so he would probably be more demonised than JJ currently is by a certain section of the community.

 

[Admiral2]

I get the feeling that Trek fans are not all that interested in space travel in and of itself. The astronomical part of it that is.

I am. I wish they'd do more of it in the show and do it more realistically.

 

[Balthier the Great]

No. Not as plot lines.

Why?

The only way to work these into storytelling is to have something weird or bad happen as a result of getting too close to them, which has been done.

Do you really want a whole story in which the climax is "OMG we found this incredible new element, hydrohippocarbonlitium!!"

How about being real damn close when a star goes Hypernova. Something powerful enough to swallow stars isn't going to be avoided by reversing the polarity.

Maybe a truely weird alien -- not bumpy headed Californians but something that we don't have a clue about. Or maybe something that sees us as wildlife -- imagine the shock of discovering that the entire milky way is a game preserve made for some rich andromedon to go hunting in. Or even just studied -- I remember seeing how seven's parents were studying the borg, and it would be kinda creepy to think that somebody was cloaked and studying me. I think most biological studies involve samples of blood and so on, and probably a tracking system. Do something with the aliens other than bumpy heads. There are thousands of things that could be done.