Illness

[JeffinOakland]

Why not just watch Friends, then? Those episodes tell stories, too. What's so special about ST that you participate in an online ST forum?

What's wrong with Friends? Or Big Bang Theory? Or Buffy? Or American Horror Story? Or Dexter? Or The Americans? Or Vikings? Or X-Files? Or Warehouse 13? Just to rattle off some of my past and present faves that I enjoy along with Star Trek.

Don't get me wrong. It can be fun to debate the finer points of STAR TREK lore and tech, but that's not the only reason people watch the shows and movies or like to gab on-line about them. Ultimately, people watch shows because they like the characters and settings and because (hopefully) the episodes are well-acted, well-written, and well-produced. Execution often trumps content . . . or genre.

And now I'm going to go watch "The Thing That Cannot Die" on SVENGOOLIE, so you can tell I'm a serious connoisseur of quality television . . .

I recognize all that. I'm of the opinion that there's no such thing as a "guilty pleasure". If you like it, don't apologize to yourself or anyone else for liking it. I think there's something different about ST. Friends, while perfectly respectable as entertainment, is not famous for inspiring children to become astronauts and scientists. ST is.

 

[JeffinOakland]

Why would I watch it if there wasn't? I like the characters, the setting, the costume and set designs. The idealism it presents is also appealing.

Does it fire your curiosity?

Depends on the subject. It's a show with a "toe hold" in reality, so I don't look to it to tell me how the real world will handle space travel. It's drama based fiction not a documentary. It's needs are driven by plot, budget and film making technologies. They don't have the time to give an in depth lecture on how they protect them selves from disease. A hand wave about "biofilters"and "safe for humans" pretty much covers it unless it's the plot point for that episode.

You don't "take it further" and wonder for yourself how such problems might be solved in the future?

 

[Greg Cox]

Why not just watch Friends, then? Those episodes tell stories, too. What's so special about ST that you participate in an online ST forum?

What's wrong with Friends? Or Big Bang Theory? Or Buffy? Or American Horror Story? Or Dexter? Or The Americans? Or Vikings? Or X-Files? Or Warehouse 13? Just to rattle off some of my past and present faves that I enjoy along with Star Trek.

Don't get me wrong. It can be fun to debate the finer points of STAR TREK lore and tech, but that's not the only reason people watch the shows and movies or like to gab on-line about them. Ultimately, people watch shows because they like the characters and settings and because (hopefully) the episodes are well-acted, well-written, and well-produced. Execution often trumps content . . . or genre.

And now I'm going to go watch "The Thing That Cannot Die" on SVENGOOLIE, so you can tell I'm a serious connoisseur of quality television . . .

I recognize all that. I'm of the opinion that there's no such thing as a "guilty pleasure". If you like it, don't apologize to yourself or anyone else for liking it. I think there's something different about ST. Friends, while perfectly respectable as entertainment, is not famous for inspiring children to become astronauts and scientists. ST is.

Which is great and part of the appeal. But you seem to be asserting that the only reason to watch STAR TREK (as opposed to FRIENDS or whatever) is to think Deep Thoughts about Space and the Future. Which is certainly one thing you can get out of it if you're so inclined, but people watch their favorite shows for all sorts of reasons: because they like the actors or the setting or the humor or whatever. There's no "right" way to watch STAR TREK or any other show.

Or to chat about it on-line.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Does it fire your curiosity?

Depends on the subject. It's a show with a "toe hold" in reality, so I don't look to it to tell me how the real world will handle space travel. It's drama based fiction not a documentary. It's needs are driven by plot, budget and film making technologies. They don't have the time to give an in depth lecture on how they protect them selves from disease. A hand wave about "biofilters"and "safe for humans" pretty much covers it unless it's the plot point for that episode.

You don't "take it further" and wonder for yourself how such problems might be solved in the future?

I might, but that's something separate from why I watch the show. Now, if I was writing a episode about a disease that breaks out on the ship I'd do some research and contact people in fields relates to that. It would be a catalyst for the drama, though. More about the characters dealing with the disease and its threat. But I'm more of an "Arts" guy, so I'm looking at the story idea more than the science/tech stuff.

 

[Silvercrest]

The "it is a tv show" reason is lazy, obvious and a cheap cop-out.

The universal translator is lazy, obvious and a cheap cop-out. So is the transporter. So are the infallible artificial gravity, human aliens, 20th/21st-century anachronisms, and a host of other things. None of these things are consistent with the universe they purportedly represent. And that's okay. All are just narrative shorthand to make it easier to tell the stories that they intend to tell.

How do you feel about that?

Aren't you at all CURIOUS? Doesn't ST make you CURIOUS about interstellar travel and all of logistical nightmares it presents (like not accidentally killing off billions of aliens with the human flu)?

Sure. But that's not what Trek is about. At its heart, Trek is about exploring what it means to be human, using space travel as a medium for telling the stories. I'm sure you've heard it before, but it's still true.

I'm not clear how much Trek you've watched. But if you're looking for the realistic ramifications of interstellar travel, you're probably not going to find them.

 

[wulfio]

@ OP, I can think of many episodes where local illness's affected the crew.

As for the crew infecting indigenous populations, I imagine they didn't send sick people on away missions. I gather your analogy is in regards to the pioneers infecting the native americans. And well, if you're comparing sanitation on a sail boat crossing the Atlantic, and medical knowledge of the 16th century with what has been represented on starships in the 24th century, then I think that's a whole other topic...

 

[JeffinOakland]

What's wrong with Friends? Or Big Bang Theory? Or Buffy? Or American Horror Story? Or Dexter? Or The Americans? Or Vikings? Or X-Files? Or Warehouse 13? Just to rattle off some of my past and present faves that I enjoy along with Star Trek.

Don't get me wrong. It can be fun to debate the finer points of STAR TREK lore and tech, but that's not the only reason people watch the shows and movies or like to gab on-line about them. Ultimately, people watch shows because they like the characters and settings and because (hopefully) the episodes are well-acted, well-written, and well-produced. Execution often trumps content . . . or genre.

And now I'm going to go watch "The Thing That Cannot Die" on SVENGOOLIE, so you can tell I'm a serious connoisseur of quality television . . .

I recognize all that. I'm of the opinion that there's no such thing as a "guilty pleasure". If you like it, don't apologize to yourself or anyone else for liking it. I think there's something different about ST. Friends, while perfectly respectable as entertainment, is not famous for inspiring children to become astronauts and scientists. ST is.

Which is great and part of the appeal. But you seem to be asserting that the only reason to watch STAR TREK (as opposed to FRIENDS or whatever) is to think Deep Thoughts about Space and the Future. Which is certainly one thing you can get out of it if you're so inclined, but people watch their favorite shows for all sorts of reasons: because they like the actors or the setting or the humor or whatever. There's no "right" way to watch STAR TREK or any other show.

Or to chat about it on-line.

I think ST or any other half decent show can be watched on a multitude of levels from pure fun to deep thought. Obviously, no one is going to be a fan of a show they don't enjoy on a basic level to begin with, myself included. However, I would argue that ST fires the imagination and curiosity of the average viewer in a way very few tv shows ever had. I just cant help but think that viewers who aren't inspired to think beyond what is concretely presented on the screen are missing out. Perhaps that sounds arrogant or presumptuous.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I recognize all that. I'm of the opinion that there's no such thing as a "guilty pleasure". If you like it, don't apologize to yourself or anyone else for liking it. I think there's something different about ST. Friends, while perfectly respectable as entertainment, is not famous for inspiring children to become astronauts and scientists. ST is.

Which is great and part of the appeal. But you seem to be asserting that the only reason to watch STAR TREK (as opposed to FRIENDS or whatever) is to think Deep Thoughts about Space and the Future. Which is certainly one thing you can get out of it if you're so inclined, but people watch their favorite shows for all sorts of reasons: because they like the actors or the setting or the humor or whatever. There's no "right" way to watch STAR TREK or any other show.

Or to chat about it on-line.

I think ST or any other half decent show can be watched on a multitude of levels from pure fun to deep thought. Obviously, no one is going to be a fan of a show they don't enjoy on a basic level to begin with, myself included. However, I would argue that ST fires the imagination and curiosity of the average viewer in a way very few tv shows ever had. I just cant help but think that viewers who aren't inspired to think beyond what is concretely presented on the screen are missing out. Perhaps that sounds arrogant or presumptuous.

Depends on what's actually being fired. Getting caught up in the minutia of the show is different that being inspired to pursue a career in the sciences. Being a "treknologist" probably won't contribute much to mankind. Being a physicist probably will, even if its just teaching.

Other shows probably inspire people too. Medical shows might lead someone into a career in health care. Cop shows might lead to a career in law enforcement.

 

[wulfio]

I don't think it'd be a bad thing if it "only" inspires someone to accept diversity, and work to better themselves. There's a lot of good philosophy in Star Trek.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I don't think it'd be a bad thing if it "only" inspires someone to accept diversity, and work to better themselves. There's a lot of good philosophy in Star Trek.

I'm sure it inspired me in those areas when I was a kid.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Equally great philosophy in fortune cookies, too.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Equally great philosophy in fortune cookies, too.

Plus lucky numbers.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Equally great philosophy in fortune cookies, too.

Plus lucky numbers.

Now, I want Chinese food.

 

[JeffinOakland]

Which is great and part of the appeal. But you seem to be asserting that the only reason to watch STAR TREK (as opposed to FRIENDS or whatever) is to think Deep Thoughts about Space and the Future. Which is certainly one thing you can get out of it if you're so inclined, but people watch their favorite shows for all sorts of reasons: because they like the actors or the setting or the humor or whatever. There's no "right" way to watch STAR TREK or any other show.

Or to chat about it on-line.

I think ST or any other half decent show can be watched on a multitude of levels from pure fun to deep thought. Obviously, no one is going to be a fan of a show they don't enjoy on a basic level to begin with, myself included. However, I would argue that ST fires the imagination and curiosity of the average viewer in a way very few tv shows ever had. I just cant help but think that viewers who aren't inspired to think beyond what is concretely presented on the screen are missing out. Perhaps that sounds arrogant or presumptuous.

Depends on what's actually being fired. Getting caught up in the minutia of the show is different that being inspired to pursue a career in the sciences. Being a "treknologist" probably won't contribute much to mankind. Being a physicist probably will, even if its just teaching.

Other shows probably inspire people too. Medical shows might lead someone into a career in health care. Cop shows might lead to a career in law enforcement.

Yeah, I'm not trying to make the world a better place. I just enjoy talking about ideas that make me think.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Thinking is okay, but doing is better,

 

[JeffinOakland]

The "it is a tv show" reason is lazy, obvious and a cheap cop-out.

The universal translator is lazy, obvious and a cheap cop-out. So is the transporter. So are the infallible artificial gravity, human aliens, 20th/21st-century anachronisms, and a host of other things. None of these things are consistent with the universe they purportedly represent. And that's okay. All are just narrative shorthand to make it easier to tell the stories that they intend to tell.

How do you feel about that?

Aren't you at all CURIOUS? Doesn't ST make you CURIOUS about interstellar travel and all of logistical nightmares it presents (like not accidentally killing off billions of aliens with the human flu)?

Sure. But that's not what Trek is about. At its heart, Trek is about exploring what it means to be human, using space travel as a medium for telling the stories. I'm sure you've heard it before, but it's still true.

I'm not clear how much Trek you've watched. But if you're looking for the realistic ramifications of interstellar travel, you're probably not going to find them.

Its very entertaining. It is the one show I have seen that combines so many different elements and do so consistently well (morality, philosophy, the nature of man, scientific and exploratory curiosity, human relations, where we are going as a race). On the other hand, its fiction; a story and, as such, its all very silly when one thinks it for longer than a few moments. Particularly the "sci-fi" which is 99.99% just stuff they made up. Even so, I find myself intrigued as to whether there might be a tiny little hint of real science to any of the future technology. Books have been written about the "science" of ST.

 

[wulfio]

I think existentialism and egalitarianism is a bit more meta than a fortune cookie. But hey, if you think idealism is only for kids, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[JeffinOakland]

Thinking is okay, but doing is better,

Agreed...but I'm a bit short for an astronaut

 

[Nerys Myk]

Yuri Gagarin was 5'2"

 

[Drone]

I thought Janeway and Chakotay got some disease in VOY and were left behind so as not to infect the rest of the crew but that could have been a technobabble disease so I'm not sure

IIRC the illness was contracted from insect bites.