Has the Trek franchise exhausted itself

[STR]

I've elaborated on this before, but I think 09 has two through lines in it. The first is the importance of father figures and mentors to make great men. Pike for Kirk (and Kirk Sr. to Prime Kirk) and Sarek for Spock. The second is the danger of allowing the darkness to consume you, which is a little more generic. We get these pictures in Nero for Spock and Marcus for Kirk. It's nice because we actually get to see what the darker side could potentially look like. But, I think the fathers' one is the preeminent, and the more important one.

That isn't social commentary, those are bromides. "Don't be evil" is so diluted of all context as to be meaningless.

Also, ST09 doesn't point out the necessity of fatherhood anyway. If anything, the moral of ST09 is that you'll never find your place in the world until your father dies. And then your adopted father figure gets maimed. After that, you're good. Which makes for a messed up message, because you're trying to contrive meaning from mindless fluff.

Nemesis isn't doing social commentary even when it asks its own variation on the nature v nurture argument.

Beyond, despite touching the dangers of losing one's self in the wilderness, didn't offer a lick of social commentary. It throws peans towards antiempiralism and unity, but that's not social commentary. It's more fluff.

Into Darkness and Insurrection did offer social commentaries, albeit in ham fisted ways. Social commentary is, explicitly, commenting on issues which affect societies. ST09, STB are more about issues affecting individuals.

And no, just because society is made up of individuals does not make everything into social commentary.

 

[STR]

Well Star Trek has definately exhausted itself, but mainly due to ito limiting itself due to its obession to always try to be a social commentary instead of just good drama.

This seems to be a common line from people who simply disagree with Trek's politics. Trek has always been explicitly humanist, egalitarian, and environmentalist. The entire premise of the show is built on these foundations. Starfleet and the Federation doesn't make sense without it. This is a feature, not a bug.

One does *not* have to agree with the politics of a show to acknowledge it and even enjoy it.

 

[Mudd]

I agree with most of Trek's politics and I'm past tired of the trite, repetitive way in which the writers assert and reassert the simplest of Sunday school morality without irony or real challeng..

 

[Paradise City]

Social commentary flows from good drama. You can't just have one and not have the other. Good drama - and even bad drama - will always kick up themes to kick about. Universal themes, that have been done before countless of times I might add.

 

[Jetboogieman]

In these times, with people like Trump popping up all over the world, we've never needed the optimistic vision of the future Star Trek offered more then we do now.

 

[Paradise City]

Sure. Better Star Trek than Star Trump.

 

[publiusr]

Insert hairpiece jokes here.

 

[AnonWeirdo]

First post so umm... hi?

I don't think that trek is dead but I do think the world is a far different place from what it was in the late 60's, the time in which it first blossomed and started to become the phenomena we enjoy today.

The late 60's saw man walk on the moon. The public trusted, and even loved science. We see a far darker reality today. People mistrust science. When once we marveled at the apollo program and the scientists that lead the way to the moon today we distrust science. The science behind climate change is questioned. People mistrust the medical community at every turn. Learned men are seen as the intellectual elite and mistrusted. Instead of being enthralled by the space program we spend our time believing in conspiracy theories.

That's not really a climate in which star trek can flourish IMHO. And when they change Trek to reflect our times I don't believe it translates over all that well. That being said I think there is an audience for star trek's message, it's just smaller than it was in the late 80's. I personally think the small screen where it doesn't have to pull in huge numbers (just respectable ones) it can do well providing it's done right.

 

[Emperor Norton]

An idea never exhausts itself. Creative people can exhaust themselves. And in their angst, they may blame it on the idea, or the people invested in the idea. But it's really that they themselves have nothing more to say with it, but keep trying to say it.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

An idea never exhausts itself. Creative people can exhaust themselves. And in their angst, they may blame it on the idea, or the people invested in the idea. But it's really that they themselves have nothing more to say with it, but keep trying to say it.

Exhibit A: Star Trek Nemesis

I agree with this assessment. It isn't Star Trek that's limited, it's the creators. That's natural though. That's why with a franchise this expansive and long-running it's necessary to bring in new people with fresh ideas.

 

[AnonWeirdo]

An idea never exhausts itself. Creative people can exhaust themselves. And in their angst, they may blame it on the idea, or the people invested in the idea. But it's really that they themselves have nothing more to say with it, but keep trying to say it.

The Martian is a good example of the spirit of star trek, proving that there is still an audience. Still, it's an uphill battle. Most science fiction fans seem to want season long arcs that are driven by armed conflict. Remind me if I'm wrong but every season long arc in star trek has been about one war or the other (The xindi conflict, the dominion, the klingons). I believe had enterprise been given a fifth season there was a strong possibility of seeing the romulan conflict.

The original business model of broadcast TV was that each episode be a self contained entity so you would never be lost if you didn't see an episode. Obviously that model has changed, but it seems the producers have never really came up with a big season long arc that revolves only around exploration. Because of the nature of TV at the time he never got to try it (or I believe was even in favor of it), but it would be interesting what the Great Bird of the Galaxy might have came up with in regards to an season long arc. Back in the day (before DS9) I always wanted to see how the federation handled themselves in all out conflict. Well we've seen it, IMHO it's time to move back to what Gene originally intended.

But at the end of the day, IMHO it's a tough sell to have a science fiction story that doesn't revolve around blowing shit up and dark story lines in this day in age.

 

[STR]

Insert hairpiece jokes here.

Is that a rug on your head, or is a tribble trying to eat you?

It's the newest style, straight from the Neutral Zone. Ferengi in the front and Klingon in the back.

Why yes, I was a guest alien on TNG. I tried to get on Babylon 5 too, but they said my look was a little too "out there" for them.

Well, it used to be Picard's hairpiece, but Geordi & Data started messing with it, and it took on a life of its own. Literally.

So, you're telling me it was a BAD idea to hire a bald Bolian as a barber?

So I was talking to Guinan when she insisted I take her hat as a gift. She said her people's custom demanded I wear it immediately and keep it on until she left.

If Neelix could rock this look...

 

[Matthew Raymond]

You've made your last hair joke, STR. Now you're going toupée!

 

[KelisThePoet]

Social commentary flows from good drama. You can't just have one and not have the other. Good drama - and even bad drama - will always kick up themes to kick about. Universal themes, that have been done before countless of times I might add.

Good drama might "kick up" father/son stories (and I do believe such stories could be considered social commentary if they overtly address familial trends in society as a whole). Good drama will never "kick up" a story about the arms race between the US and the Soviet Union in southeast Asia during the 60s or a story about US drone policy in 2012. We need those stories too, and thankfully, Star Trek sometimes delivers them.

The late 60's saw man walk on the moon. The public trusted, and even loved science. We see a far darker reality today. People mistrust science. When once we marveled at the apollo program and the scientists that lead the way to the moon today we distrust science. The science behind climate change is questioned. People mistrust the medical community at every turn. Learned men are seen as the intellectual elite and mistrusted. Instead of being enthralled by the space program we spend our time believing in conspiracy theories.

I've said this on another thread, but an era that ignorantly challenges science is an era that needs Star Trek. And I don't think Trek is doomed to fail in such an era. It's easy to look back on the 60s through rose-colored glasses, but there were plenty of conspiracy-theorists and no-nothings back then. And while our current era has too many of those, the STEM disciplines have never been emphasized and valued more, so I think a show that valorizes science can still find a sizable audience today, if the show is given good writing, good marketing and a fair amount of luck.

 

[Trekfan12]

Well, we don't have transporter beams yet.

oh I WISH we had transporters, especially in the winter weather. (the likelihood is pretty nil that will happen)
I think one factor that has injected life into Star Trek is fiction (both pro and fanfic) I love reading TOS novels and they've explored avenues that I never saw in any of the series or books. Or expanded on scenarios that were covered but not fully explained or explored because of timing or cost of filming scenes.

 

[Trekfan12]

oh I WISH we had transporters, especially in the winter weather. (the likelihood is pretty nil that will happen)
I think one factor that has injected life into Star Trek is fiction (both pro and fanfic) I love reading TOS novels and they've explored avenues that I never saw in any of the series or books. Or expanded on scenarios that were covered but not fully explained or explored because of timing or cost of filming scenes.

I meant series or movies (not books)

 

[fireproof78]

That isn't social commentary, those are bromides. "Don't be evil" is so diluted of all context as to be meaningless.

Also, ST09 doesn't point out the necessity of fatherhood anyway. If anything, the moral of ST09 is that you'll never find your place in the world until your father dies. And then your adopted father figure gets maimed. After that, you're good. Which makes for a messed up message, because you're trying to contrive meaning from mindless fluff.

I think you missed my overall point, nor is it "mindless fluff."

The message isn't boiled down to bromide level, as is alleged. If anything, it works on a level that requires not only an understanding of the Kelvin Universe, but the broader implications of who Kirk Prime was. Which, is actually served well by the fact that Captain Kirk is the face of the Star Trek franchise, even to non-fans.

ST 09 goes out of its way to lift Kirk Prime up as a "great man" between Nero and Spock Prime. What was the difference between the two, and what motivates Kelvin Kirk to change? Could it be that great leaders need great mentors? Given current research in social and psychological science, I'm inclined to say, "Yes."

 

[Voth commando1]

Perhaps Trek can continue in its novelverse not for social commentary or preaching the virtues of progress and tolerance but a franchise still beloved by a not small number of people who will rewatch all 720 episodes or so every year and read the Ds9 relaunch novels. Make it oriented to the fans who love it.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Perhaps Trek can continue in its novelverse not for social commentary or preaching the virtues of progress and tolerance but a franchise still beloved by a not small number of people who will rewatch all 720 episodes or so every year and read the Ds9 relaunch novels. Make it oriented to the fans who love it.

How a person can watch all 720 episodes of Star Trek and not see that social commentary and preaching the virtues of progress is literally the point of Star Trek just boggles my mind to no end.

 

[Voth commando1]

How a person can watch all 720 episodes of Star Trek and not see that social commentary and preaching the virtues of progress is literally the point of Star Trek just boggles my mind to no end.

I'm saying orient it to the fans not use it as a vehicle to change/influence wider society.