It's only a "defeatist" if you assume that Trek is supposed to be "realistic." And that hard-SF is automatically better than more fanciful SF.
Me, I grew up on Edgar Rice Burroughs and Ray Bradbury and Weird Tales and The Twilight Zone and Marvel Comics, so I've never demanded "realism" when it comes to SFF (except maybe where human nature is concerned). If anything, I loved that you had everything from Greek gods to Jack the Ripper to witches and warlocks showing up on TOS -- and regretted that the TNG-era shows sometimes seemed reluctant to get that fantastical.
To me, what makes TOS great is the imagination and energy and drama and excitement, as well as the engaging characters and the fact that it's set in one of the few SF futures you'd actually want to live in. Whether it's scientifically realistic and believable is not really a concern.
We all have our own priorities. Don't assume that all Trekkies want Trek to be as "realistic" as possible. We're not all hard-SF fans.
Last edited:
I am a hard sci-fi fan, thanks to the original Star Trek. I don’t want Trek to be hard sci-fi. I want the weird and the wild. That’s in its DNA.
In terms of literary roots, I'll cop to being more Weird Tales than Astounding at heart.
And, honestly, if you look at the writers Roddenberry recruited to write for the Original Series -- Matheson, Sturgeon, Bloch, Ellison, et cetera -- you don't see a lot of classic hard-sf writers. Maybe Spinrad, although that's a stretch.
Give me weird and wild and I'm a happy fan.
(Says the guy who just sold a very pulpy short story about a giant alien space mummy!)
And, honestly, if you look at the writers Roddenberry recruited to write for the Original Series -- Matheson, Sturgeon, Bloch, Ellison, et cetera -- you don't see a lot of classic hard-sf writers. Maybe Spinrad, although that's a stretch.
Give me weird and wild and I'm a happy fan.
(Says the guy who just sold a very pulpy short story about a giant alien space mummy!)
Bloch was definitely more of a 'Horror' writer than sci-fi. How could you not be with 'Psycho' on your resume.
Matheson could go either way. He wrote 'Horror' novels like 'I Am Legend' and 'Legend of Hell House', but he tried to give a scientific rationale for the vampires and the haunting.
Matheson could go either way. He wrote 'Horror' novels like 'I Am Legend' and 'Legend of Hell House', but he tried to give a scientific rationale for the vampires and the haunting.
True with regards to Matheson, but even in his more science-fictional works, like "The Shrinking Man," he's generally more concerned with the emotional experience of his protagonist than with the nuts-and-bolts of the science behind it. See also "Somewhere in Time," where the explanation for the time travel is more metaphysical than scientific. And "A Stir or Echoes" and "What Dreams May Come" and "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet," etc.
Full disclosure: I was Richard's editor at Tor Books for more than twenty years, so I can ramble on about him at length.
I bet he had some stories to tell about working with Rod Serling on The Twilight Zone.
It's trying to sell you not that it's realistic, but that the characters are buying things as an explanation.
Most of the episodes take place somewhere other than Earth and somewhen other than present day of airdate. Most of the bizarre things that do happen rely on tech and aliens which originated either out in unknown to the audience space/realms or an unexperienced by the audience future.
Most of the episodes take place somewhere other than Earth and somewhen other than present day of airdate. Most of the bizarre things that do happen rely on tech and aliens which originated either out in unknown to the audience space/realms or an unexperienced by the audience future.
Sturgeon is even harder to pigeonhole. SF? Fantasy? Horror? Suspense? More than one at the same time?
True story: I once did a panel on "Horror and SF" with Sturgeon. At first, he expressed confusion as to why he was even on the panel. "I don't write horror."
I respectfully suggested otherwise, citing "It!", "Bianca's Hands," Some of Your Blood, etc.
Okay, he conceded, maybe he had written some stuff that might be considered horrific . . . .
True story: I once did a panel on "Horror and SF" with Sturgeon. At first, he expressed confusion as to why he was even on the panel. "I don't write horror."
I respectfully suggested otherwise, citing "It!", "Bianca's Hands," Some of Your Blood, etc.
Okay, he conceded, maybe he had written some stuff that might be considered horrific . . . .
I remember him commenting that he preferred to work on anthology shows like Twilight Zone and Amazing Stories, where he could invent his own stories and characters, to writing for shows like Star Trek, where he was stuck using the show's regular cast of characters.
It’s not a simple dichotomy. Hard scifi vs high fantasy. Of course there were then and are now harder scifi out there for niche audiences who really want it. What Trek did was make the average scifi less fantastical. To great success that, again, changed everything after. If fans or powers that be want to point to transporters or fucking time crystals and say there, done, too late, and move ahead like it’s just Captain Proton, that’s just sad. The best Trek is the Trek that tries harder to be less ridiculous. That makes suspension of disbelief smooth enough to make you think it’s hard scifi.
Fair enough, but like I said, that's a personal preference, not a statement of fact. You're still taking for granted that Trek should at least strive to feel like hard sf, as though that goes without saying.
But we all have our own priorities and expectations where Trek is concerned.
Some folks are all about the topical allegories, or the utopian vision, or the world-building, or the science and engineering, or shipping Kirk and Spock, or whatever. Some folks insist that TMP is the best Trek movie because it's the most "cerebral." Others believe WOK feels much more like TOS in terms of the characters and emotion. Others prefer the whale movie because it's just so much fun.
None of these positions is objectively correct.
There is no "right" way to watch Trek.
Last edited:
At least ST doesn't use iron as a source of limitless power, and radium as a jewelry/currency metal. (Are you listening, Doc Smith, wherever you are?)
There is no “right” way to watch anything. Or “right” anything to watch. It’s all subjective. That said, people gravitated to Trek for its distinctiveness. For what it did vs what Flash Gordon or Lost in Space or what have you did at the time, or since. It might serve Trek to try to be its own best self rather than anything else. What Trek blew people away with at the time was its verisimilitude. That patina of hard scifi that made you think it was only a matter of time till we were doing just that. Sure it had its fun, but its core felt real. Inviting you to live in it, to know that your great great great grandkids would.
And extremely depressing to realize Trek future is not going to work that way. Space travel doesn't work that way
Give me Heinlein first.
Give me Heinlein first.
"This isn't reality. This is fantasy." -- Uhura.
Seriously, the "patina of hard sf" may be what drew some viewers to TOS, but I wouldn't go so far as to insist that this applied to everyone who got hooked on Trek back in the day. Personally, I don't need to believe that an SFF story could really happen in the future to enjoy it; it just needs to be imaginative and entertaining. I love Planet of the Apes and Dark Shadows, too, but I don't seriously expect gorillas to take over Earth or believe that vampires are infesting Maine.
Same with Star Trek.
And I don't think I'm alone there. Heck, back in the day, I suspect a good chunk of the audience was watching because they thought Spock was seriously cool (and sexy), or because they appreciated the multi-racial cast and crew, or because they grew up on classic space operas like Forbidden Planet and This Island Earth, or simply because they found it more colorful and exciting than Family Affair or That Girl.
Seriously, the "patina of hard sf" may be what drew some viewers to TOS, but I wouldn't go so far as to insist that this applied to everyone who got hooked on Trek back in the day. Personally, I don't need to believe that an SFF story could really happen in the future to enjoy it; it just needs to be imaginative and entertaining. I love Planet of the Apes and Dark Shadows, too, but I don't seriously expect gorillas to take over Earth or believe that vampires are infesting Maine.
Same with Star Trek.
And I don't think I'm alone there. Heck, back in the day, I suspect a good chunk of the audience was watching because they thought Spock was seriously cool (and sexy), or because they appreciated the multi-racial cast and crew, or because they grew up on classic space operas like Forbidden Planet and This Island Earth, or simply because they found it more colorful and exciting than Family Affair or That Girl.
No.
No. That would be a major disaster waiting to happen. As it stands, the SNW TOS recasts are not good.
The Eugenics Wars as a topic, inspiration or reference in filmed media had enough coverage--the most impactful being Space Seed", "The Infinite Vulcan" and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
No. The final episode of ENT was the last time I needed to see the Archer character.
Sheesh. That reads like one of the hair-thin, creatively bankrupt backdoor pilots from terrible 70s and 80s sitcoms that were just scratching to drain the last drop of a dying concept by focusing on a character near the bottom of view interest.
Considering the lack of growth of the character Picard often treated like an overgrown, aggressive dumb dog, I'm sure I would not want to see a Worf series where he continues to act like an overgrown, aggressive dumb dog.
No. Sulu was and always would be a C-list supporting character, and the actor who portrayed him never had the talent or charisma to be a leading man on a series or movie. His TUC and VOY scenes should be hard evidence of that view.
...why? ST is not a medical drama. There have been great episodes involving certain doctors and/or a problem they had to deal with, but that was not the purpose or focus of an entire series.
Yes. The backdoor pilot was one the most intriguing of TOS, with its two guest stars (and their chemistry) working so well, that it was easy to imagine new stories with the duo.
Undoubtedly.
Conversely, all of these positions are objectively correct, and there is no "wrong" way to watch Trek.
Due respect to all of them, none of them are the cultural phenomenon that is Star Trek. That inspired astronauts into space and chairmen of the join chiefs to visit the bridge of the Enterprise and people in the hospital to keep going and physicists to remark that they’re working on [warp drive]."This isn't reality. This is fantasy." -- Uhura.
Seriously, the "patina of hard sf" may be what drew some viewers to TOS, but I wouldn't go so far as to insist that this applied to everyone who got hooked on Trek back in the day. Personally, I don't need to believe that an SFF story could really happen in the future to enjoy it; it just needs to be imaginative and entertaining. I love Planet of the Apes and Dark Shadows, too, but I don't seriously expect gorillas to take over Earth or believe that vampires are infesting Maine.
Same with Star Trek.
And I don't think I'm alone there. Heck, back in the day, I suspect a good chunk of the audience was watching because they thought Spock was seriously cool (and sexy), or because they appreciated the multi-racial cast and crew, or because they grew up on classic space operas like Forbidden Planet and This Island Earth, or simply because they found it more colorful and exciting than Family Affair or That Girl.
Similar threads
