Is the utopistic Trek gone with this movie?

[Greg Cox]

I wouldn't put a chainsaw massacre or an R-rated sex scene into a NANCY DREW book either. That would be inappropriate.

But also awesome.

Especially if they're both the same scene.

If you haven't seen it already, I strong recommend you check out TEXAS CHAINSAW HOOKERS. Linnea Quigley performing the Virgin Dance of the Twin Chainsaws is worth the price of admission alone.

Although that scene probably wouldn't work in a STAR TREK movie--unless it involved Klingons!

 

[Arpy]

I agree with much of what you've said, but, and without promoting them, I want to point out a common mistake that people make when describing utopias: that they're boring.

It's not a mistake.

A utopia is not "someplace better than here." It's an ideal society, embodying whatever the author happens to think constitutes a perfect social organization.

So when Sisko calls the Federation "paradise" he means Paradise?

Human beings are more complex, greater creatures than any ideal about how we should live. The shortcoming of all utopian notions is that human beings as we exist cannot live in them; only the author's idealized, perfected - ie, truncated - notion of what human beings are can inhabit them. Since the people in them cannot exhibit the whole range of real human thought, passion and behavior, utopias are boring.

Which is why it's best to leave it vague. No different than the inner workings of the warp engines. I don't see anyone arguing that there shouldn't be any FTL travel in Star Trek because it's impossible.

 

[Greg Cox]

TOS was never a sterile, disease-free zone. Why do you think they kept Dr. McCoy around?

Okay, smartalecs, I mean the grungy old diseases had been eradicated, clearing space for shiny new sci fi diseases that are so much more charismatic and fun! Far be it from me to expect a cosmos devoid of flying fried eggs and giant space ameobas. .

At the risk of jumping back several pages in this thread, I was watching "This Side of Paradise" again yesterday and was amused to note that tonsilitis, appendicitis, and pneumonia are apparently still commonplace in the McCoy's time!

McCoy notes that Sandoval has grown back his appendix and that his lungs are no longer scarred by an earlier bout with pneumonia. He also mentions in passing that he'd had his own tonsils removed years ago, presumably on Earth!

 

[M'Sharak]

I agree with much of what you've said, but, and without promoting them, I want to point out a common mistake that people make when describing utopias: that they're boring.

It's not a mistake.

A utopia is not "someplace better than here." It's an ideal society, embodying whatever the author happens to think constitutes a perfect social organization.

So when Sisko calls the Federation "paradise" he means Paradise?

Wasn't it Earth that Sisko called a paradise, though, rather than the Federation? (1) (2) (3) Jaresh-Inyo and Admiral Leyton made similar remarks (so also, much later, did Bashir) but the references were always to Earth and never to the Federation as a whole.

 

[NSTrekfan]

Don't worry, Kirk doesn't slaughter anyone, innocent or otherwise, in any of my Trek books (although there is a good, old-fashioned TOS-style fistfight in the new one). And, of course, I wouldn't write a STAR TREK novel as though it were CONAN or UNDERWORLD. Different series, different approaches. I wouldn't put a chainsaw massacre or an R-rated sex scene into a NANCY DREW book either. That would be inappropriate.

But that's more about being consistent to the tone of the franchise, and keeping the characters in character, than trying to promote some sort of utopian philosophy or agenda. It's like writing Batman or Zorro. They're the heroes so you write them that way. Ditto for Kirk or nuKirk.

There's many ways to write heroes. NuKirk doesn't have to be a cookie cutter of TOSKirk. I can certanly see him get frustrated and angry if he was in the situation with the Gorn. I think he'd be much less likely to spare the Gorn captain for instance. I don't think he's be quite as restrained if he were in Balance of Terror either. He tried diplomacy once. Spock talked him out of it. He's also a lot younger and has a lot less Starfleet experience that his prime counterpart.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

So when Sisko calls the Federation "paradise" he means Paradise?

What's the answer to that - whatever it may be - got to do with anything?

The term "utopia" means something. There's the specific imaginary island described in More's work, and then there's the general meaning derived from that - a society which functions in a perfect or ideal manner. Neither is reducible to "a somewhat better place than here."

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ Nor are they analogous with "paradise" except in extremely sloppy usage. Risa can be considered a paradise, but it is not exactly a utopia.

 

[Arpy]

It's not a mistake.

A utopia is not "someplace better than here." It's an ideal society, embodying whatever the author happens to think constitutes a perfect social organization.

So when Sisko calls the Federation "paradise" he means Paradise?

Wasn't it Earth that Sisko called a paradise, though, rather than the Federation? (1) (2) (3) Jaresh-Inyo and Admiral Leyton made similar remarks (so also, much later, did Bashir) but the references were always to Earth and never to the Federation as a whole.

Yeah I remember. I guess the DS9 writers believe that only humans can live in paradise. Aliens are too ethnic to ever match us.


EDIT:

So when Sisko calls the Federation "paradise" he means Paradise?

What's the answer to that - whatever it may be - got to do with anything?

The term "utopia" means something. There's the specific imaginary island described in More's work, and then there's the general meaning derived from that - a society which functions in a perfect or ideal manner. Neither is reducible to "a somewhat better place than here."

What it's got to do with is that you directed me to the original "Utopia" so I directed you to the original "Paradise." If you're going to be snarkily literal to others expect them to be just as snarkily literal to you.

"Utopian" doesn't necessarily refer to More's Utopia but can to many idealistic societies - the most famous being Plato's Republic from 900 years earlier. There are others - including Roddenberry's Federation. You'd have to be God to come up with an absolute perfect utopia everyone could get on board with but even he decided against. Still, it's fun to consider.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Yeah I remember. I guess the DS9 writers believe that only humans can live in paradise. Aliens are too ethnic to ever match us.

Only perhaps in that "aliens" such as they appear within that era of Star Trek were not constrained to work within Roddenberry's (foolish) writing box, where humans, and StarFleet officers were always supposed to not behave as an actual human being might. Such edicts brought about more dullness than the often blamed and misidentified "over saturation" of Star Trek as a franchise.

 

[Arpy]

The writing box Piller liked? I have no problem with it. When the writers were up to the challenge, they came up with lots of great stuff; when they weren't, they kept the paychecks and mocked their own words.

Roddenberry's utopia, like many of his ideas (starships, phasers...ummm, Star Trek) works for me even if his writing left a lot to be desired.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Yes I know Pillar "liked it" though I get the impression, not at first and then I'd say mostly cause the motivation of "working on a Star Trek" was indeed its own inducement to not join in with his fellow writers who loathed it.

I think said box however is a later day invention and in many ways itself not "True Trek" but more a personification of GR's view of his role in the universe, that of being some sort of prophet, and bringer of enlightenment to us barbarian humans.

Roddenberry's utopia, like many of his ideas (starships, phasers...ummm, Star Trek) works for me even if his writing left a lot to be desired.

You're into it for its sectarian function rather than that of its entertainment value? It is not a thing alone, seperate from its storytelling.

None of those things though are particular to Star Trek. Space ships existed before GR and rayguns have been a staple of SciFi for a long time. And utopias are but a pathway to sorrow...

Star Trek is only as good as its writers make it, and when they become boxed in by stupid rules which exist to promote an agenda it becomes undermined as drama, it grows stale. That is, being Star Trek alone is not enough for it to have worth, it needs to tell interesting or at least entertaining stories.

I'm pleased the current producers feel no obligation to kowtow to GR's Box. When I became aware of these things behind the scenes I better understood why I had begun to drift further and further away from Star Trek over the years.

 

[M'Sharak]

So when Sisko calls the Federation "paradise" he means Paradise?

Wasn't it Earth that Sisko called a paradise, though, rather than the Federation? (1) (2) (3) Jaresh-Inyo and Admiral Leyton made similar remarks (so also, much later, did Bashir) but the references were always to Earth and never to the Federation as a whole.

Yeah I remember. I guess the DS9 writers believe that only humans can live in paradise. Aliens are too ethnic to ever match us.

That's kind of an odd conclusion to draw when the implication seemed to be that Earth had become a paradise in comparison to what it had been before. The notion of aliens being "too ethnic" had nothing to do with it and neither did utopia; "paradise" was a slightly rosier name for the result of the same pulling back from the brink of mutual annihilation and the same rebuilding of Earth society which had already been told in the Original Series and described further in TNG.

 

[Arpy]

"Yes I know Pillar "liked it" though I get the impression, not at first and then I'd say mostly cause the motivation of "working on a Star Trek" was indeed its own inducement to not join in with his fellow writers who loathed it."

I think he tried his best to understand the world he was tasked with writing for and producing. And went on to present that world often better than its creator. The writers under him threw fits until they got to produce and then did their best work when they didn't deal with the Federation - which they demonized.

"I think said box however is a later day invention and in many ways itself not "True Trek" but more a personification of GR's view of his role in the universe, that of being some sort of prophet, and bringer of enlightenment to us"

I think the man was an artist with a voice. His shortcomings as an artist and as a human being aside, he had some wonderful ideas.

"You're into it for its sectarian function rather than that of its entertainment value? It is not a thing alone, seperate from its storytelling."

So you can't like a show more for character than plot or themes more than effects? Besides, I DO like it for its overall entertainment value. And Roddenberry wrote a lot that I did like, but that his gifts were more those of producer than writer - so what? TV's a producer's medium anyway, and that just left more room to get to know Coon, Piller, Moore, and the rest.

"None of those things though are particular to Star Trek. Space ships existed before GR and rayguns have been a staple of SciFi for a long time."

Obviously, but I like TREK's versions.

"And utopias are but a pathway to sorrow..."

Why do you say that? I think they're very hopeful.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I hated the utopian aspects of modern Trek. TOS wasn't like that.

 

[Arpy]

I respect your right to your opinion, and admire the one you have, I but don't appreciate your just dropping it there again after you've made it clear earlier. What's one who disagrees with you to do? Reiterate his disagreement again also?

Regarding TOS, that it was first does not make it better. Still, it has never left my top 2 or 3 favorite series.

 

[FarStrider]

I respect your right to your opinion, and admire the one you have, I but don't appreciate your just dropping it there again after you've made it clear earlier. What's one who disagrees with you to do? Reiterate his disagreement again also?

Regarding TOS, that it was first does not make it better. Still, it has never left my top 2 or 3 favorite series.

From this, I'm guessing you haven't been on many message boards before. . . If you are able to keep reiterating your opinion (which you have), then so is anyone else. It is rare that someone's argument actually changes someone else's mind, but hey, anyone can reply.

. . .as for the Dennis' point about TOS, it's important because the latest movie was a reworking of TOS. . . not "modern" Trek. . .and TNG and beyond sensibilities would have very little place in such an endeavor.

~FS

 

[Arpy]

Typically when one posts something there's something new being communicated, even if it's of the same opinion as earlier. It's tantamount to spamming to just try and get the last word in. The other person can do it too, back and forth, again and again, till a moderator steps in. Not that it doesn't happen...often it's like how when lawyers push the patience of a judge but still manage to get their digs against the other side in. It happens but I don't have to necessarily let it pass unchallenged.

 

[FarStrider]

Typically when one posts something there's something new being communicated, even if it's of the same opinion as earlier. It's tantamount to spamming to just try and get the last word in. The other person can do it too, back and forth, again and again, till a moderator steps in. Not that it doesn't happen...often it's like how when lawyers push the patience of a judge but still manage to get their digs against the other side in. It happens but I don't have to necessarily let it pass unchallenged.

If you don't let it pass unchallenged, then you are also part of the problem.

If you find someone repetitive, then you can ignore them. . . you don't have to read or answer them. But unless you are a moderator, it is not up to you to decide what is or isn't spam or to tell someone on the board that they can't share their opinion, no matter how many times you have read it. . .as it is, M'Sharak does a really good of moderating this board. . .if there is a problem, you can always ask him to look into it. . . otherwise, it's the internet: as long as people aren't being rude and calling you (or your mom) names, how is their opinion hurting anything?

~FS

 

[Arpy]

I agree to a point - that's why I said "necessarily." And it's why I was apprehensive about using the word unchallenged. But you know, you can only choose your words so carefully and I had stuff to do.

The point to which I don't agree though is in simply letting people walk all over you or the things you like. I don't think that's me being part of the problem but adding a check to maintain balance. Most of the time, I find myself drifting away conversations because they go around in circles and I've said what I wanted to better three posts earlier. I don't need to have the last word, but I do like to believe that we are talking with each other on the internet and not just clucking at each other.

Regarding the moderators, they chime in to curtail flaming, spamming, trolling, and tend to leave civility to the civilians. Though I think they generally do a good job here compared to some of the other boards you see out there where they're basically all Neutral Zone.

Now if you'll forgive me, I'm going to find another thread and geek out for the rest of the night. Or porn.

EDIT: But before I do, Farstrider, what's your avatar from? Dennis, I've been meaning to tell you that I really like yours, and, Sci, why is yours now upside down?

 

[Sci]

Sci, why is yours now upside down?

Not to start a political debate that's utterly unrelated to the topic at hand, but it is upside down in expression of my strong disapproval of the recent debt ceiling deal, which I feel will damage the United States economy and hurt the working class.