Not real Star Trek

[Greg Cox]

If you were a kid in the 70's, the old Battlestar was a fine show. But that was back then...

This. There's an old saying that "The golden age of science fiction is twelve" and I suspect that a lot depends on how old you were when you first encountered the original BSG.

I was in college when BSG debuted, and, as an oh-so-sophisticated freshman, I found it hopelessly juvenile compared to the sf shows I'd grown up on: TOS, The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits. I remember bitching to my friends that TV sf had actually gone backwards, intellectually, and that Glen Larson was basically the second coming of Irwin Allen . . . .

By contrast, the new show, although often bleak as hell, was, at its best, extremely intense and compelling television, featuring complicated, unpredictable characters that were a lot more messed-up and three-dimensional than their 70s counterparts. Heck, Roslin alone was more interesting than pretty much every character on the old show. IMHO.

 

[Robert Comsol]

... extremely intense and compelling television, featuring complicated, unpredictable characters that were a lot more messed-up ...

I see these everyday on TV in the news (and reality shows which I usually try to avoid), so I'm really at a loss to see why that was anything special or unusual about nuBSG.

Bob

 

[Greg Cox]

... extremely intense and compelling television, featuring complicated, unpredictable characters that were a lot more messed-up ...

I see these everyday on TV in the news (and reality shows which I usually try to avoid), so I'm really at a loss to see why that was anything special or unusual about nuBSG.

Bob

So you're saying that science fiction shouldn't resemble reality as far as people are concerned?

I'm not sure Rod Serling would agree . . . .

 

[Robert Comsol]

So you're saying that science fiction shouldn't resemble reality as far as people are concerned?

No, I'm saying that science fiction should take real people, put them into "What if" scenarios and watch how they use imagination and creativity to overcome problems and handle challenging situations

I'm not sure Rod Serling would agree . . . .

Since you mentioned Mr. Serling I think he wrote one episode which essentially wraps up what nuBSG was mostly about. It was called "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street".

Bob

 

[Greg Cox]

So you're saying that science fiction shouldn't resemble reality as far as people are concerned?

No, I'm saying that science fiction should take real people, put them into "What if" scenarios and watch how they use imagination and creativity to overcome problems and handle challenging situations

I'm not sure Rod Serling would agree . . . .

Since you mentioned Mr. Serling I think he wrote one episode which essentially wraps up what nuBSG was mostly about. It was called "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street".

Bob

Exactly. And that was a great episode!

There's no rule that says that sf has to be about "overcoming problems" through creativity and imagination. There's a long tradition of grim, dystopian, often harrowing sf. Look at Wells, Dick, Bradbury, Sturgeon, etc. The dark side of humanity has always been part of sf's subject matter as well. Look at Planet of the Apes, etc.

Just to be clear. I'm not saying that every show needs to be as grim and morally ambiguous as NuBSG. Nobody wants a dark and gritty version of FARSCAPE or CLEOPATRA 2525. But it worked for nuBSG, and produced some powerful television.

 

[Praetor]

It's all real, even "Genesis" and "Threshold." Some of it's not as good as the rest, and some of it's outstanding. It's just how it is.

Now, analyzing whether a particular series or film is true to the spirit of Star Trek, and indeed what that spirit actually is? Related, but separate, question IMO.

 

[Greg Cox]

Praetor: Love your sig line, btw. That's probably my favorite line in all of TNG, and the one that best encapsulates what I personally think of as the "spirit" of STAR TREK . . . .

 

[Khan444]

I think that a lot of the problem with claiming that something isn't "real" Star Trek is that, for many people, "real" Star Trek actually means "my" Star Trek, or the Star Trek "that I like." Those are NOT the same thing. TOS is not the same as TNG, and DS9 is much different than both. The movies don't have the same tone, themes, etc. There is no one "true" Star Trek.

 

[TheGoodStuff]

For me 'real' Star Trek:

1. Must adhere to Roddenberry-esque principles. Each episode should have a 'moral' [however light/heavy], the show should be a vessel for a look at the Human Condition & ponderings on ethics, morality and general philosophy. Generally, the show should encourage us to be as good as we can be while growing and learning.

2. It must NOT be simply about action. Violence is the last resort, least preferred method. It must not be overtly sexual or gratuitous.

I don't know. It seems to be that you're coming dangerously close to making "real" STAR TREK sound like spinach, that it's something we should consume because it's Good for Us, and God forbid there should be (gasp!) sex and violence.

*sigh* I will try this one more time. Nowhere did I say that violence or sex should not be part of Trek.

The way I see it, Star Trek movies and episodes (and books) are more than just a delivery mechanism for delivering Positive Social Messages. That's not art, that's propaganda, and about as dramatically interesting as a Sunday school lesson.

I totally disagree. A program with a philosophical tinge that touches on ethics and morality is certainly not propaganda and is certainly more beneficial and interesting than anything religion can come up with.

You seem to be leaving fun, excitement, entertainment, and, yes, sex appeal completely out of the equation.

No, I assumed rational posters would take things like that as a given for what makes good TV. We are discussing what else benefits Trek.

And, honestly, the idea that there was no sex and violence on TOS makes me giggle. Hell, the very first episode featured a green Orion belly dancer and was all about the Talosians trying to get Pike to mate with Vina--and later offering him a selection of females to breed with! And the very first episode to air had the Salt Vampire luring people to their doom by appearing as attractive members of the opposite sex . . . .

Sex and violence have been part of Trek since Day One.

And the last part, again, is laughable. I didn't state at any point that TOS had no sex or violence so...you're just debating with yourself there. All of that was completely pointless to state.

 

[Praetor]

Praetor: Love your sig line, btw. That's probably my favorite line in all of TNG, and the one that best encapsulates what I personally think of as the "spirit" of STAR TREK . . . .

Thank you sir, agreed. It was a great line in "Q-Who?" and is still a great and appropriate line now.

 

[BillJ]

Yeah, but all their papers, photos and books had the corners cut off.

Wasteful bastards!

 

[Ln X]

It's real trek if it is set in the Star Trek universe; alternative, spinoffs, reboots or otherwise. Still Trek. JJ Trek is set at a point in the Prime universe's past, thus JJ Trek is Star Trek.

So the question is not whether it is Star Trek, the question should be whether it is good Star Trek.

 

[BillJ]

So the question is not whether it is Star Trek, the question should be whether it is good Star Trek.

And the answer for every episode and movie made since 1964 is 'Yes' and 'No'.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Mostly "yes," sometimes "no."

 

[Robert Comsol]

It's real trek if it is set in the Star Trek universe; alternative, spinoffs, reboots or otherwise. Still Trek. JJ Trek is set at a point in the Prime universe's past, thus JJ Trek is Star Trek.

You are describing a franchise where anything labeled "Star Trek" automatically becomes Star Trek and that would make the original question of this thread somewhat meaningless and redundant.

Gene Roddenberry created and produced Star Trek and its most popular representatives, i.e. TOS and TNG, so the "real" Star Trek comes down to the question "would he have approved".

If this line isn't drawn than Star Trek is anything someone wants it to be and becomes indistinguishable from Star Wars and other series and franchises and their distinct properties.

Bob

 

[iguana_tonante]

You are describing a franchise where anything labeled "Star Trek" automatically becomes Star Trek

Perish the thought.

 

[BillJ]

Gene Roddenberry created and produced Star Trek and its most popular representatives, i.e. TOS and TNG, so the "real" Star Trek comes down to the question "would he have approved".

But none of us know Roddenberry well enough to answer that question.

I think Majel Barrett appearing in TNG, DS9, VOY and the first Abramsverse film is as close to knowing whether or not Gene "approved" as we'll ever get.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

You are describing a franchise where anything labeled "Star Trek" automatically becomes Star Trek and that would make the original question of this thread somewhat meaningless and redundant.

Gene Roddenberry created and produced Star Trek and its most popular representatives, i.e. TOS and TNG, so the "real" Star Trek comes down to the question "would he have approved".

If this line isn't drawn than Star Trek is anything someone wants it to be and becomes indistinguishable from Star Wars and other series and franchises and their distinct properties.

Bob

Every film or TV series could be described as an interplay between artistry, commercialism, and vision. With Star Trek, we known exactly what supplies that vision: Roddenberry's worldview. I don't think that it must be "Roddenberry approved," but it must be in dialogue with his worldview. There have been dark chapters and violent confrontations throughough Trek, but in general, they have problematized heroism, something that doesn't happen in JJ Trek.

 

[R. Star]

It's real trek if it is set in the Star Trek universe; alternative, spinoffs, reboots or otherwise. Still Trek. JJ Trek is set at a point in the Prime universe's past, thus JJ Trek is Star Trek.

You are describing a franchise where anything labeled "Star Trek" automatically becomes Star Trek and that would make the original question of this thread somewhat meaningless and redundant.

Gene Roddenberry created and produced Star Trek and its most popular representatives, i.e. TOS and TNG, so the "real" Star Trek comes down to the question "would he have approved".

If this line isn't drawn than Star Trek is anything someone wants it to be and becomes indistinguishable from Star Wars and other series and franchises and their distinct properties.

Bob

In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter if he would approve? I seem to recall reading Gene saying something to the effect that he hopes the best days of Trek will be ushered in by someone other than him.

We can argue if we're there or not, given we have our varying personal likes and dislikes but it's continuing to grow and evolve. I personally don't much care for the JJverse as it doesn't seem that original, but maybe the 3rd movie will be better.

All drawing lines is going to do is put all the writers back into the Roddenberry box that turned out season 1 of TNG. Just because it's different doesn't mean it's not "real." Some may not like it, but those opinions don't constitute everyone else's reality.

 

[Greg Cox]

It's real trek if it is set in the Star Trek universe; alternative, spinoffs, reboots or otherwise. Still Trek. JJ Trek is set at a point in the Prime universe's past, thus JJ Trek is Star Trek.

You are describing a franchise where anything labeled "Star Trek" automatically becomes Star Trek and that would make the original question of this thread somewhat meaningless and redundant.

Gene Roddenberry created and produced Star Trek and its most popular representatives, i.e. TOS and TNG, so the "real" Star Trek comes down to the question "would he have approved".

If this line isn't drawn than Star Trek is anything someone wants it to be and becomes indistinguishable from Star Wars and other series and franchises and their distinct properties.

Bob

But wouldn't this reasoning eliminate DS9, Voyager, and pretty much every movie except the first one? Please don't tell that The Wrath of Khan doesn't count as "real" Trek!