Not only that, but it gave the impression that the Federation was a completely stagnant and decadent culture.
no more TV in the future? WTF?!
- Thread starter Dal Rassak
- Start date
Thought I always seem to have when I'm at someone's house, and I'm watching their cable or satellite TV: "It would seem that I'm not missing a damn thing by not having television at home."
TV will not "die" anytime soon. It will transform. Just within this past week I read two items regarding changing attitudes.
Firstly, the broadcast networks are having a harder time getting folks to sample their new one hour dramas. Folks are tired of getting into a show only to have it cancelled. On the flip side, the cable nets are finding the opposite since they generally order/renew on a season-by-season basis.
Secondly, more and more younger people are disconecting from cable and satellite televsion in favor of streaming services (such as Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc..) due to cost. The up to a year delay for new episodes doesn't bother them.
Factor that in with Netflix dipping their toe into the waters of original productions and you can sense of where things are heading.
In terms of "Star Trek," there are already rumors of new animated adventures and the possibility of a new live-action series. I believe TPTB are merely awaiting the results of "Star Trek Into Darkness" to make sure the success of the last film wasn't a fluke.
The culture did come off as a little stuffy at times. TNG was about life in the 24th century, but the culture didn't always seem "contemporary".
Except for Jazz, I've never really heard any other form of music other than classical or opera in Trek. That was the norm.
Foods-- No burgers, no pizza throughout the series, mostly tea, alcohol, some desserts, but no junk food.
I could be wrong, but I think Trek was making a definite statement that TV and even streaming and social media will be extinct in the 24th century.
To be replaced with an interest in the arts. Sitting in front of a screen doing anything other than research or communication is 'primitive', the message seems to say.
They needed to live it up a little
Last edited:
Kirk knew what a movie was when Edith Keeler suggested they go see one (he just didn't know who Clark Gable was) so that form of entertainment must exist in some form in the future. Plus, so much of our movies and television shows now have been preserved by various academies and whatnot that I'm sure they're still around in the 24th century to be viewed. The only reason why we never see Picard watching Citizen Kane, or Sanford and Son is because of the licensing costs. Musical pieces and plays that are in the public domain don't cost Paramount anything to put into the production. As far as them not putting 'modern entertainment' shows into Star Trek would probably just come across as awkward: "Hey Wesley, did you check out the new episode of 'Cardassian Friends' last night? Gul Bing is hilarious!"
^^ B5 and Daffy Duck are both Warner Bros. productions, so they could do that. Trek could have pulled stuff from the Paramount library, but they didn't. I think B5 showed future humans a little more realistically than Trek did with it's uber-evloved humanity nonsense.
Oh the possibilities ...
"The Odd Couple" with one Cardassian and One Bajoran, "Can two divorced humanoids live together without driving each other crazy?"
"The Dukes of Qo'NoS," the adventures of two Klingon cousins in their suped up Bird-of-Prey named the General Chang who every week must outwit the corrupt House of Duras.
I have to knock points off of Babylon 5 though for barrowing so much from Deep Space Nine. Warner Bros. should have tried to be a little more original ... in my opinion.
The first four seasons were good though (unfortunately season 5 was shockingly bad). I liked Crusade, a shame it was cancelled before it aired.
They are much too evolved and enlighten for that.They needed to live it up a little
Paramount did do it with Enterprise.
I think you've got that backwards.
