Thoughts about a TOS revival with AI technology

[Quantum21]

To feed off the corpse of TOS?


Right now, Star Trek is very much comfort food viewing. That is the primary goal, to increase that feeling of safety in the audience. That is why there is the draw to the TOS era, to use TNG, and the highlight what would be considered massive iconographic touchstones that even casual audience members will recognize, i.e. the Enterprise-D, the Starship Enterprise, Mr. Spock, etc.

The idea that Trek is anything but safe is one that doesn't track with current efforts. When it does things that are unsafe they are declared "out of bounds" and "not Trek." To use a Trek phrase "They are not of the body."

Why? Because it doesn't feel right.

I think Discovery very much made trekkies feel uncomfortable and unsafe. I'm all for that.

But the bar is very low. Having a hologram in DSC or SNW made some older Trekkies cry into the night. They still cry but we barely listen to their mewling these days.

Such is the enjoyment of this awesome period of Trek.

This is where I had trouble connecting with either Discovery or Strange New Worlds. They "feel" off compared to the original.

Ah, I see your problem.

It's only supposed to be familiar, it's not supposed to BE those things. Glad we cleared that up early on!

 

[fireproof78]

I think Discovery very much made trekkies feel uncomfortable and unsafe. I'm all for that.

Same here.

 

[aridas sofia]

“They still cry but we barely listen to their mewling these days.”

Wow. Fucking TV show and it inspires anesthetic sociopathy.

 

[fireproof78]

“They still cry but we barely listen to their mewling these days.”

Wow. Fucking TV show and it inspires anesthetic sociopathy.

Trek fans have not exactly always been the most sympathetic to different points of view in my experience.

 

[1001001]

“They still cry but we barely listen to their mewling these days.”

Wow. Fucking TV show and it inspires anesthetic sociopathy.

Come on, now.

The Gnashing of Teeth and Tearing of Garments by those who hate all NuTrek is often more over the top.

 

[at Quark's]

Trek fans have not exactly always been the most sympathetic to different points of view in my experience.

Which is interesting, given the IDIC ideal of Trek and all that.

(Then again, I've also met quite aggressive followers of religions that claimed to be about love).

 

[fireproof78]

Which is interesting, given the IDIC ideal of Trek and all that.

It is, but also a little sad for me. Like, being accepted is a rarity at times in my experience as an SF fan (at least younger me), The idea that Trek has to follow this one specific idea and never deviate always struck me as extremely odd.

 

[Ricky Spanish]

I think Discovery very much made trekkies feel uncomfortable and unsafe. I'm all for that.

It just made me sleepy.

 

[Ragitsu]

Does "ultimately unimpressed" count?

 

[aridas sofia]

Trek fans have not exactly always been the most sympathetic to different points of view in my experience.

Oh, I get it. I’m just saying, take the high road. If someone is going to cry from the rooftops about how bad everything after TOS is, there’s something going on there. I don’t mean, you know, nuts. I mean, there is a reason why someone would be attached to something to the exclusion of something else, and instead of ignoring it, or denigrating it, it might help YOU to try to understand it and maybe even find room for empathy. And that comes from me, who is pretty damned discriminating when it comes to this stuff. In discussions of what qualifies as your personal head canon, I don’t even count all 79 episodes. Maybe half. And I am the guy who carved out such a deviant branch of Trek Tech that it had James Dixon as its biggest fan, so there are very few who are more niche than moi. I may be a fan of some Star Trek, a fanatic about a very select bunch of episodes, and meh about quite a bit. I don’t proselytize about it because I am busy caring about other things. And I know the likelihood I will change anyone’s mind is very slim. And frankly, I don’t care if I change anyone’s mind. I’m fine in my little warped bubble. But still… I wouldn’t ignore “mewling”. I’d at least give it the time of day. Because, when I think back to the fans I talked to at those old conventions in the 70s and 80s, when people got really introspective, the reason for loving TOS often came down to something as simple as the fond memories of watching it on the sofa with their dad. I can grok that.

 

[fireproof78]

Oh, I get it. I’m just saying, take the high road. If someone is going to cry from the rooftops about how bad everything after TOS is, there’s something going on there. I don’t mean, you know, nuts. I mean, there is a reason why someone would be attached to something to the exclusion of something else, and instead of ignoring it, or denigrating it, it might help YOU to try to understand it and maybe even find room for empathy. And that comes from me, who is pretty damned discriminating when it comes to this stuff. In discussions of what qualifies as your personal head canon, I don’t even count all 79 episodes. Maybe half. I may be a fan of some Star Trek, a fanatic about a very select bunch of episodes, and meh about quite a bit. I don’t proselytize about it because I am busy caring about other things. And I know the likelihood I will change anyone’s mind is very slim. And frankly, I don’t care if I change anyone’s mind. I’m fine in my little warped bubble. But still… I wouldn’t ignore “mewling”. I’d at least give it the time of day.

I normally am all for such an exploration. Few people are actually willing to ask the questions of the sorts of purposes to explore that attachment. But, the "mewling" continues on at times just because newer Trek continues on, despite the fact that older Trek remains intact. It would be like me saying how bad TNG is compared to TOS despite both continuing to exist.

I have empathy, given that fans often derided me for not liking TNG as a younger man. But, I feel like it goes on to a certain extent that defies both empathy and willingness to explain.

 

[Ragitsu]

When it comes to works designed as entertainment to be sold, the only thing worse than hatred is indifference; at least with the former, attention is being paid.

 

[F. King Daniel]

“They still cry but we barely listen to their mewling these days.”

Wow. Fucking TV show and it inspires anesthetic sociopathy.

Good sci-fi challenges your perceptions. But Discovery does it regarding non-sci-fi things like sexuality and gender and that REALLY bother some people. And perhaps they should be bothered in that way, if they like Star Trek they'll just have to come to terms with gay, nb and trans people just being regular people. Which they are.

 

[Ragitsu]

I thought the point of contention revolved around execution and not existence.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

I don't think classical Star Trek fans are motivated by petty, personal bitchiness when they reject current Trek. There is a genuine underlying conflict that they are responding to, often without consciously recognizing the salient principles involved. Not for nothing are they annoyed.

I'm not a philosopher, but it has been suggested online that the Star Trek franchise from TOS thru Star Trek: Enterprise, and the movies of that period, were produced to reflect the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment, and the values of meritocracy and individual rights over group rights. The facts of reality were accessible to anyone who cared to look, the facts would be the same for everyone, and the facts were more important than anyone's inner feelings. This was all taken for granted. A actor's race and sexuality were treated as incidental to their moral character, and unimportant. The universe was about "the truth" rather than "my truth."

Starting with JJ-Trek and the post-Enterprise TV series, the franchise writing is said to reflect (at least sometimes) the beliefs of Postmodernism, Relativism, Identity Politics, and "therapy culture." Now introspection and personal feelings are central to the narrative, emotional issues need to be "worked through," hugs are cheap and taken for granted (men really need them!), and the casting office treats race and sexual issues as the essential, defining facts of humanity and our moral worth.

To the extent this change has in fact occurred, we're looking at two different creative-writing universes. I bailed after the first few episodes of Discovery, so I'm not even qualified to say. But it wasn't my Star Trek.

 

[aridas sofia]

I agree with most of the above but it needs to be acknowledged that TOS, in the character of Spock, did try to deal with issues of introspection and personal feelings that were central to the narrative, emotional issues that needed to be worked through, etc. I agree on the broader question of racism, sexism, etc. and simply make the observation that the change in perspective reflects the evolution of our culture. As I stated earlier, it is ironic that efforts to purge society of the evils of prejudice have instead had the devilish effect of perpetuating them, spawning a populist counter reaction, and threatening gains that were made. If there have been two chapters in the Star Trek story as you say, there is a need for a third that takes account of the conundrum that minorities given power are by definition averse to majoritarianism, and majorities have the nasty habit of populist reaction.To circle back, maybe unraveling that conundrum could be the gist of AI-generated TOS.

 

[Warped9]

In TNG’s “The Outcast” it could be said they touched on an element currently happening in our society—that if one rejects the dictates and perspectives of the majority one faced ridicule, being ostracized and forced re-education/conditioning.

Sounds rather like being cancelled.

 

[Michael]

In TNG’s “The Outcast” it could be said they touched on an element currently happening in our society—that if one rejects the dictates and perspectives of the majority one faced ridicule, being ostracized and forced re-education/conditioning.

Sounds rather like being cancelled.

No, it doesn't sound like that, and I’d argue you are misinterpreting “The Outcast” and what it is really about. Soren and other J’naii like her don’t simply have a different “perspective” compared to the majority. It’s about who and what they are, not just some opinion or what they think. The majority doesn’t just disagree with them and wants them to change their fucking perspectives. No, it actually doesn’t even recognize their right to exist.

If you absolutely must see this as a parallel to something that’s happening today, it’s much more obviously about vile, inhumane practices like conversion therapy or forcing trans people to live as the gender they are not. And last I checked there wasn’t any “forced re-education/conditioning” happening for folks saying stupid stuff online. So the parallel you want to draw with “being cancelled” is rather off the mark. No, you’re not some oppressed hero valiantly fighting the synchronized masses just because you have a shitty take online that people disagree with.

 

[Warped9]

No, it doesn't sound like that, and I’d argue you are misinterpreting “The Outcast” and what it is really about. Soren and other J’naii like her don’t simply have a different “perspective” compared to the majority. It’s about who and what they are, not just some opinion or what they think. The majority doesn’t just disagree with them and wants them to change their fucking perspectives. No, it actually doesn’t even recognize their right to exist.

If you absolutely must see this as a parallel to something that’s happening today, it’s much more obviously about vile, inhumane practices like conversion therapy or forcing trans people to live as the gender they are not. And last I checked there wasn’t any “forced re-education/conditioning” happening for folks saying stupid stuff online. So the parallel you want to draw with “being cancelled” is rather off the mark. No, you’re not some oppressed hero valiantly fighting the synchronized masses just because you have a shitty take online that people disagree with.

Your take. It still comes down to punishment for dissent. And make no mistake that people are being attacked for not agreeing with the latest societal fad in arguing with science.

There is a vocal minority claiming there is no such thing as gender when science has already long established there damn well is. Good luck not bowing to that message. And while adults certainly should have the right to live as they choose children not yet old enough to understand the import of deciding such things should be protected against hacks interested solely in their own agendas. Children and youth are already protected from making certain decisions until they are old enough to understand the import and responsibility of them. This is certainly one of those things .

It’s not enough to simply disagree anymore. You need to be shouted down, silenced, shamed and exiled. So much for freedom of speech. And you cannot have diversity if what you practice is yet another form of censorship and intolerance.

 

[Michael]

Your take. It still comes down to punishment for dissent. And make no mistake that people are being attacked for not agreeing with the latest societal fad in arguing with science.

There is a vocal minority claiming there is no such thing as gender when science has already long established there damn well is. Good luck not bowing to that message. And while adults certainly should have the right to live as they choose children not yet old enough to understand the import of deciding such things should be protected against hacks interested solely in their own agendas. Children and youth are already protected from making certain decisions until they are old enough to understand the import and responsibility of them. This is certainly one of those things .

It’s not enough to simply disagree anymore. You need to be shouted down, silenced, shamed and exiled. So much for freedom of speech. And you cannot have diversity if what you practice is yet another form of censorship and intolerance.

Sure, whatever. Just felt compelled to point out that the actual metaphor crafted in “The Outcast” firmly puts its main character in the position of someone being forced to deny their own gender identity and go through conversion therapy, and the people who do that to her and deny her the right to live and exist the way she is are just like those folks you think are being unjustifiably “cancelled” today for wanting to do that. So your reading of it is certainly off.

Also, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences and people disagreeing with you. Plus, the vast majority of science in the field agrees that gender is a social construct and exists on a spectrum. The people disagreeing with that are usually cherry-picking the few scientist coming to different conclusions (they are usually the ones with some “agenda”).