While I understand what you are saying, I think you'll agree there is a certain standard that defines Star Trek and separates it from other series. See below.
The sparkling sci-fi, while humorous, illustrates my point. A sparkling wine is different than a port (they can only be called ports if they are from Portugal. Otherwise, it's just a fortified wine). A sparkling wine is not a traditional Cabernet. It's definitely not whiskey or vodka.
So, along with what Greg was saying in contrast, real Star Trek follows a theme. People on here (and elsewhere) might argue about the variations, but there is some kind of theme. A certain set of criteria.
Andor is not Star Trek. Neither is Firefly. Orrville is a good example of what people think of as good Star Trek and, apparently, so is Galaxy Quest. These might be the sparkling sci-fi versions of Star Trek Champagne.
The variability is what makes Star Trek more Star Trek. Trying to box it in is how we got so many revenge driven antagonists in the Trek films.
People have been saying for years that all these revenge driven antagonists aren't very Star Trek!
But no one will define Star Trek. It's just all labeled as wrong for Star Trek but that's it.
Meanwhile, I watch TOS and there's revenge by the heroes, combat, violence to solve problems, as well as collaboration and team work and alien weirdness.
TOS had Spock's brain, there are no controversial premises after that...
I would love one see who he is quote lol I see who I am replying based on around your verison of the Eugenics Wars
It should be. The writer that called the planet Andoria should be hit with a fish.
Well, probably a Babel Fish given when Andorians were first introduced.
Works for me.
Real Trek is an official production that has ‘Star Trek’ in the title. It can be great, like Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, or it can be shitty, like Star Trek: Section 31. But it’s all ‘real’ Trek.
Maybe a distinction should be made between 'real' Star Trek and 'official' Star Trek.
Maybe another term would be more helpful. 'Conventional' Star Trek. 'Faithful' Star Trek. 'In-character' Star Trek.
He needs his brain for many science reasons.
What makes a faithful Trek?
You look at it and go 'hey that's Star Trek!'
It follows the secular humanist philosophy of the franchise which puts science over superstition and shows humans can be better. Not just that they have the potential, but that it's possible to thrive without compromises like Section 31. It has an appropriate look for the era it's in. The stories fit within the unwritten rules of the setting (relatively realistic tone, no ghosts, magic is science we don't understand yet etc.). Having a team of competent people on a spaceship debating how to solve space problems in an ethical way is generally considered to be pretty 'Star Trek'.
I dunno, there are things that can be argued and discussed about what Star Trek is, but when people start arguing that Star Trek can be anything, they're arguing that Star Trek is nothing. That it's merely a corporate owned brand name used to sell vaguely utopian sci-fi content. Star Trek SHOULD have an identity, it should have boundaries that define it.
So literally everything with the Star Trek name attached (including Enterprise seasons 1 and 2 which had it retroactively applied in box sets just not the opening credits)
No. Real Star Trek and official Star Trek are synonymous. What you're talking about is subjective and opinion-driven. Just cut to the chase, get it over with, and settle for defining Star Trek you like.
Good, variations on a theme, they should keep doing that.
If you believe Star Trek can be literally anything with a Star Trek name attached, then we really do need a term to distinguish 'something that's trying to be Star Trek' and 'literally anything, except someone wrote Star Trek on the title'.
Similar threads
- Locked
