Spaceships are cool.
What? Were you expecting something deep and profound?
What? Were you expecting something deep and profound?
Star Trek: What's Not to Love?
- Thread starter JustKate
- Start date
Thanks, Jeff.
Holy crap, I forgot Shran! I love Shran. "The Andorian Mining Consortium runs from NO ONE!"
Plus interesting, appealing characters.
Hey, I love Trek for a number of reasons, but spaceships ARE cool.
The visual design of 24th-century starships (exteriors and interiors) is one of my favorite things about Trek, actually. But I love the setting overall. There's a vastness, a scope and depth to the Trek universe that is very compelling. The number of stories that can be told in this universe seems limitless. And the optimistic outlook on humanity's future is also something that I find interesting, and unique. A lot of people who don't like Trek rag on it for this very reason: people are too nice, humans won't be that virtuous in the future, we'll be lucky if we don't destroy ourselves, etc etc... Something that I feel is often overlooked when people make these criticisms is that TV and movie sci-fi productions portraying a somewhat bleak or even downright post-apocalyptic vision of our future are EXTREMELY common, and have become even more so in the last 20 years or so. Bravo to Trek for being different, I say.
Me, too, me, too. Besides, although this may mark me as SciFi Pollyanna...what is the pessimists' logical basis for being so dang gloomy? Yes, humans have done horrible things to each other, but we've gone this long without actually destroying ourselves, so why is unavoidable gloom considered "realistic." It's not. It's a possibility, of course, but then again, there are lots of possibilities. That's why they're called possibilities - because they're possible, not certain.
And the space ships are cool, BTW. So are the aliens, even some of those not named Spock.
And the space ships are cool, BTW. So are the aliens, even some of those not named Spock.
Last edited:
The timelessness of the characters and themes especially from TOS. The fact that after 40+ years, Star Trek still holds a tremendous amount of appeal, is fascinating. The fact that it's produced so many episodes, movies, books, and a whole universe of imagination and even technology.
And McCoy. McCoy is my favorite character. I love his grumpiness and emotion. I love the interactions between McCoy, Kirk, and Spock. That these 3 different personalities could be best friends is wonderful.
And McCoy. McCoy is my favorite character. I love his grumpiness and emotion. I love the interactions between McCoy, Kirk, and Spock. That these 3 different personalities could be best friends is wonderful.
Exactly! There's plenty of sci-fi exploring those kinds of darker possibilities, what's wrong with Trek exploring a different possibility? And also, while we're on this topic, I think some people who complain about this confuse "optimism about what we humans will do with our society and our planet" with "eternal optimism within the stories themselves." Just because Trek holds a positive outlook on what will become of humanity doesn't mean that's the content of the stories are all ducks and bunnies; far from it. See "City on the Edge of Forever", "Chain of Command", "The Siege of AR-558," the Destiny novel trilogy, etc.
Fascinating.
But yus... this is another area in which Trek receives a lot of flak: human-looking aliens. And again, I don't really have a problem with this. Is it realistic? Probably not. Do I care? Not really. That's how I look at it, anyway. Trek has never been about adhering to realism, not just in terms of aliens, but in general. It's unapologetic about doing things that might not make realistic sense, but make sense within the established parameters of the universe (no, of course it doesn't ALWAYS succeed with the latter, but in a general sense). Plus, one of the things that makes so many of Trek's alien characters interesting is this odd sort of combination of human-like qualities and alien culture.
And personally, I loved the "explanation" (lamp-shading) in TNG's "The Chase." I thought it was a pretty clever way of acknowledging that the creators of the shows are aware that there really are a LOT of humanoid aliens, yet at the same time, being cheeky and saying "See? Now we have a reason for it, so there."
That the aliens look suspiciously human doesn't bother me at all. For one thing, there's only so much you can do with makeup and prosthetics and the like. For another, there are special effects that are far more important to me than creating the Squid Monster from Planet Bazinga or whatever.
And most importantly - to me, anyway - if you make the actors wear too much STUFF, they can't really act. And there have been some damn good actors on Trek, including in alien roles. With CGI, they can start to get past some of this, but even with CGI, we're going to have to have aliens who have facial expressions, aren't we? "Ooh, look what a weird alien they created this week!" will only take us so far.
If you want realism in your entertainment, why even bother with sci-fi at all?
And most importantly - to me, anyway - if you make the actors wear too much STUFF, they can't really act. And there have been some damn good actors on Trek, including in alien roles. With CGI, they can start to get past some of this, but even with CGI, we're going to have to have aliens who have facial expressions, aren't we? "Ooh, look what a weird alien they created this week!" will only take us so far.
If you want realism in your entertainment, why even bother with sci-fi at all?
I agree with you to an extent. While aliens who are actually Alien are fun there's just as much entertainment to be had with humanoid aliens. However, I am sick of all the aliens of the week which are just humans with a forehead bump. That's just cheap and lame. Really, if they're that strapped for time or money, than why even bother with the forehead bump?
I can understand why it bothers some people. All I can say is, it doesn't bother me (at least hardly ever). To me, the alien makeup - that bump or weird hair or whatever - is simply shorthand for "This is an alien species." That's why it needs to be done even if it is, as you put it, "lame." If nobody included aliens unless they could really weird them up, well, we wouldn't have very many aliens, would we? And that would be a shame.
It's like in Shakespeare when a character dons a mask or a girl dresses like a boy...and suddenly nobody recognizes anybody! To me, this is exactly the same - a convention that moves the plot along. So therefore, I play along so as to enjoy the rest of the show. If they can do more elaborate makeup and still do the stuff that I want Trek to do - including giving the actors an opportunity to act - great. But I don't let The Forehead of the Week spoil my enjoyment of what would otherwise be a good episode.
On the other hand, if it's a bad episode or a bad character...well, uninspired makeup is just one more thing to dislike about it.
It's like in Shakespeare when a character dons a mask or a girl dresses like a boy...and suddenly nobody recognizes anybody! To me, this is exactly the same - a convention that moves the plot along. So therefore, I play along so as to enjoy the rest of the show. If they can do more elaborate makeup and still do the stuff that I want Trek to do - including giving the actors an opportunity to act - great. But I don't let The Forehead of the Week spoil my enjoyment of what would otherwise be a good episode.
On the other hand, if it's a bad episode or a bad character...well, uninspired makeup is just one more thing to dislike about it.
I completely with JustKreepy. I don't think the appearance of the aliens is crucial to the show. After all, a good TV show is about story and characters rather than special effects, gadgets and make-up.
Besides, I recently saw in a National Geographic documentary that some scientists believe that the humanoid-looking aliens we see in movies are not entirely unrealistic. They argue that it's very probable that intelligent life could have evolved to similar form in different parts of the Universe, much like different species on Earth develop similar organs.
Besides, I recently saw in a National Geographic documentary that some scientists believe that the humanoid-looking aliens we see in movies are not entirely unrealistic. They argue that it's very probable that intelligent life could have evolved to similar form in different parts of the Universe, much like different species on Earth develop similar organs.
"Random forehead bumps" look really silly though. There's nothing wrong with having aliens look completely human, if the budget is that limited. In fact, it's preferable to a silly bump which is kind of distracting, and besides the time they spend applying that single bump could probably be better used elsewhere.
And I'm not a big Shakespeare fan nor a fan of his storytelling conventions.
And I'm not a big Shakespeare fan nor a fan of his storytelling conventions.
I think that's an oversimplification. Kind of like saying "This story doesn't use FTL. That's silly. They might as well not even have spaceships." Depending on how silly the silly bump is, I might agree but in general I don't think it's a rule. And JustKreepy's point wasn't really about Shakespeare or liking him or not. I think the point was that certain stories use certain plot devices that are unrealistic. But realism isn't necessarily important, especially when you're talking about a show where people warp space itself to move around, often disassemble themselves and get put back together long distances away, travel through time by flying around the sun, and so on. Nitpicking that the aliens are unrealistic is a bit silly - to a point. Certain aliens are ridiculous, others less so. But I don't think they are ever ridiculous ONLY because of the forehead bumps.
Thanks, Tiberius - well put. My point was not, "Shakespeare did it so Trek ought to be able to as well," though in retrospect I can see why Wormhole thought it was. (You don't like Shakespeare, though? My. Oh, never mind - I digress.) My point is that every single storytelling genre/format/whatever has its conventions, and in order to enjoy that genre, you have to find a way to enjoy or overlook those conventions. Even shows that are supposedly "realistic" have conventions - they're just not conventions that include, for example, time travel.
Cop shows tend to feature oddly-matched partners, for example - I mean, they do that a LOT. Does that mean it's realistic? Probably not. They do it because it makes for good drama or humor or something. Well, sci-fi has aliens, and only sometimes are they going to be able to make those aliens look, you know, really alien. And that's OK with me. For those of you it isn't OK with - and really, I can understand why you find it annoying though I don't always understand the depth of that annoyance - I hope you manage to overlook it. Because if you can't, you're going to miss some good stuff.
Which does bring up another thing I love about Trek - although actually Sinistra made reference to this first. And that is that Trek often does focus more on character. Not all the time, of course, but at its best, it does more than some other sci-fi, and that is my favorite kind of sci-fi.
Shakespeare contributed to my bad grades in school.
I don't have a very high opinion of math either.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
