To those who think Trek is merely 'entertainment' and nothing else

[trek_futurist]

"Star Trek is just a TV show" or "Star Trek is merely entertainment" is usually a way to shut up people who take it way too fucking seriously. You can love the show all you want, and you can even find inspiration and deeper meaning in it, but you need to acknowledge it in the context of the real world. Some of the more hardcore fans seem to think that, just because we're members of this message board, we need believe Star Trek is the most awesome thing ever and treat it like a religion. Those fans need to gain some perspective.

You're not addressing my questions in their presented context.

For example I said that in light of star treks success not only as 'entertainment' but as a source of inspiration of scientists, researchers and humanitarians, why ridicule people who consider it a model for a way to live life? And you have not addressed that aspect of my question. Just jumped over it conveniently with more blind ridicule that is out of the context of my actual multifariously arranged question.

You pick and choose your responses very selectively, ignoring those who have provided responses to your points. As such, you wish to steer this "discussion" to your own agenda, which is to promote the idea that Star Trek is the foundation of great scientific innovation and is far more than just a TV show. If that makes you happy to believe it, go right ahead... but don't try to recruit others to join you.

I'm simply preventing manipulation and citing when people are not responding to the context of my originally framed questions. Which is why I (in my original post) referred to it as a multifarious question. That is, that I would like seemingly contradictory points to be addressed, rather than people to rest on the lack of relative context that they usually approach the subject with.

 

[Amaris]

Star Trek is entertainment, first and foremost. If you gain something from it other than that, good for you. If not, it's still a great show.

This does absolutely nothing to address the context of my original questions, which you conveniently ignored to restate something that you have not proven.

Original context:

If Star Trek is merely 'Entertainment' then why has it managed to inspired more people to become scientists, and thus contribute to the advancement of the human race than any other form of popular 'entertainment'? In this context, considering what it has done to help the human species thrive socially and scientifically you should certainly have no problem when many people consider it as more than simply 'Entertainment', or as a philosophy for life. Yes?

I don't care to address your comments. Your posts come off as demanding and rude to others. Instead, I'm talking to everyone. You may join in when you realize this is a shared conversation and not a lecture.

 

[trek_futurist]

Star Trek is entertainment, first and foremost. If you gain something from it other than that, good for you. If not, it's still a great show.

This does absolutely nothing to address the context of my original questions, which you conveniently ignored to restate something that you have not proven.

Original context:

If Star Trek is merely 'Entertainment' then why has it managed to inspired more people to become scientists, and thus contribute to the advancement of the human race than any other form of popular 'entertainment'? In this context, considering what it has done to help the human species thrive socially and scientifically you should certainly have no problem when many people consider it as more than simply 'Entertainment', or as a philosophy for life. Yes?

I don't care to address your comments. Your posts come off as demanding and rude to others. Instead, I'm talking to everyone. You may join in when you realize this is a shared conversation and not a lecture.

This is also not a venue for people to use manipulative language to influence the direction the conversation goes in.

There is a point to asking a multi-layered question. That point is to avoid such manipulations from occurring. Till then the objective reader can see just who is avoiding what. The question still arises though, for what purpose? Though transparency does not elude us nonetheless.

 

[Count Zero]

A word of advice to you (or rather two ), trek_futurist: Firstly, please don't post multiple times in a row as this is considered spamming according to the rules (see the FAQ linked to at the top of the main page for more). Use the multi-quote function instead to adress posts by several posters.

Secondly, while you might want to see the discussion go along a certain, narrow path, you don't get to decide that. Other posters are free to focus on other aspects than those you favor, just like in any discussion, online or offline. Stating your refusal to engage with these opinions (which were rather thoughtful and well put, I thought) makes you look bad. If you're unwilling to take part in the discussion as it unfolds why start it in the first place?

 

[trek_futurist]

A word of advice to you (or rather two ), trek_futurist: Firstly, please don't post multiple times in a row as this is considered spamming according to the rules (see the FAQ linked to at the top of the main page for more). Use the multi-quote function instead to adress posts by several posters.

Secondly, while you might want to see the discussion go along a certain, narrow path, you don't get to decide that. Other posters are free to focus on other aspects than those you favor, just like in any discussion, online or offline. Stating your refusal to engage with these opinions (which were rather thoughtful and well put, I thought) makes you look bad. If you're unwilling to take part in the discussion as it unfolds why start it in the first place?

You are obviously biased toward the more dumbed down discussions. I shall address the administration on this rather than speak to you. Because here is what I envision will happen, you wish for my thread to be sabotaged by derailers and if I do not allow that you will close it. As I said, I shall address the administrative staff with a long post addressing these points. In it I will mention your biased disposition as a moderator. If this does no good (or if they are all equally as biased) I shall simply stop posting on the forum and go back to the official message boards. Good day.

 

[Kemaiku]

Might as well pack your bags now then.

 

[Amaris]

 

[Kemaiku]

I say that, fully aware he seems to have plenty of "baggage" with him already.

 

[Count Zero]

I laughed, too, but let's stay on topic, please.

 

[Amaris]

I say that, fully aware he seems to have plenty of "baggage" with him already.

The Samsonite Maneuver.

I laughed, too, but let's stay on topic, please.

Yes, ma'am.

On topic, I won't deny that Star Trek is a phenomenon for the fandom, but there are many franchises that started small and became enormously popular. Star Wars, of course, starting out as a one shot movie and becoming a huge commercial and critical success, and it has millions of fans worldwide, even starting a religion as a side effect of it's mass appeal.

Doctor Who has had a big following since it's beginnings as a low budget, black and white television show. Now it's everywhere, and it's popularity, too, is international, and it's fans are legion.

All of these properties speak to people in some way. I, as a fan of all 3 (Star Trek, Star Wars, Doctor Who), can see the mass appeal. It's the idea of brotherhood, that we're all connected in some way that goes beyond mere humanity. It's the idea that we can see aspects of ourselves in these characters, and wonder why they chose the paths they did. Also, it's just a lot of fun, with witty dialogue, space battles, and adventurous themes!

There doesn't have to be a moral or universal message, it just has to be entertaining, and these properties have managed to make themselves a great source of entertainment. Anything else is just icing on the cake.

 

[trek_futurist]

I laughed, too, but let's stay on topic, please.

Stay on topic?

I see no reason to not use my original points (in my first post) as the precedent for what kind of conversation I would like. Hence why I asked a 'multi-layered' question there. Is it not the first post that sets the precedent for the responses? Why are you implying that the responses are what set the precedent, rather than the original post? Biased indeed....

 

[BillJ]

I think maybe the writers knew that the late 80s/early 90s were still a very socially sensitive time for homosexuality. TOS had to disguise its discussions of racism in episodes like 'let that be your last battlefield'. So it makes sense as a logical progression that they dealt with homosexuality this way as well.

See you're playing pick and choose....

Two of those series that lacked gay characters were made in the mid to late 90's and the early 21st century, where gay people were much more openly accepted. Except for on Star Trek.

Yes DS9 had a black captain. But Avery Brooks had to fight to get those little nods and trinkets and cultural history thrown in or else he'd have ended up as non-descript as Geordi LaForge or Travis Mayweather, who could've been played by white actors and it not made a bit of difference.

If you really sit down and look at them, the modern shows simply rode on TOS reputation for diversity. They really didn't add anything to the mix on their own.

By the by... I think there's an interesting discussion to be had here. But you have to be prepared for answers you don't like and aren't expecting.

 

[trek_futurist]

I think maybe the writers knew that the late 80s/early 90s were still a very socially sensitive time for homosexuality. TOS had to disguise its discussions of racism in episodes like 'let that be your last battlefield'. So it makes sense as a logical progression that they dealt with homosexuality this way as well.

See you're playing pick and choose....

Two of those series that lacked gay characters were made in the mid to late 90's and the early 21st century, where gay people were much more openly accepted. Except for on Star Trek.

Yes DS9 had a black captain. But Avery Brooks had to fight to get those little nods and trinkets and cultural history thrown in or else he'd have ended up as non-descript as Geordi LaForge or Travis Mayweather, who could've been played by white actors and it not made a bit of difference.

If you really sit down and look at them, the modern shows simply rode on TOS reputation for diversity. They really didn't add anything to the mix on their own.

Pick and choose?

Not a single person who has responded has done so based on the content of my original post. And you dare say I pick and choose?

 

[Count Zero]

I see no reason to not use my original points (in my first post) as the precedent for what kind of conversation I would like. Hence why I asked a 'multi-layered' question there. Is it not the first post that sets the precedent for the responses? Why are you implying that the responses are what set the precedent, rather than the original post? Biased indeed....

A discussion is organic and developing. People might focus on certain aspects or interpret your posts in different ways. It's normal that it will stray from any narrow path. While we try to prevent threads from getting derailed but as long as posts are within the scope of the discussion they're fine. This is general board policy and has nothing to with any bias.

It's also not a discussion if you just chastise the other participants for not exactly behaving they way you want them to.

 

[BillJ]

I think maybe the writers knew that the late 80s/early 90s were still a very socially sensitive time for homosexuality. TOS had to disguise its discussions of racism in episodes like 'let that be your last battlefield'. So it makes sense as a logical progression that they dealt with homosexuality this way as well.

See you're playing pick and choose....

Two of those series that lacked gay characters were made in the mid to late 90's and the early 21st century, where gay people were much more openly accepted. Except for on Star Trek.

Yes DS9 had a black captain. But Avery Brooks had to fight to get those little nods and trinkets and cultural history thrown in or else he'd have ended up as non-descript as Geordi LaForge or Travis Mayweather, who could've been played by white actors and it not made a bit of difference.

If you really sit down and look at them, the modern shows simply rode on TOS reputation for diversity. They really didn't add anything to the mix on their own.

Pick and choose?

Not a single person who has responded has done so based on the content of my original post. And you dare say I pick and choose?

Honestly? Many of your questions don't make sense. Why do I discuss Star Trek if I only see it as entertainment? Because of the shared experience. Too see how other people interpret something I watch. It's like asking why I talk about sports...

 

[gazomg]

Yes DS9 had a black captain. But Avery Brooks had to fight to get those little nods and trinkets and cultural history thrown in or else he'd have ended up as non-descript as Geordi LaForge or Travis Mayweather, who could've been played by white actors and it not made a bit of difference.

true they could have been played by white people, however the whole idea of "color" in the vision of star trek was that color was not or never an issue., in essence sisko being very culture orientated in theory should not have been as issue as racism did not exist as such in roddenberry's utopia.

I think this is why I like DS9 more as it was a more complex and darker show and dealt with aspects that others tended to avoid, such as muder, politics and religion

 

[trek_futurist]

I see no reason to not use my original points (in my first post) as the precedent for what kind of conversation I would like. Hence why I asked a 'multi-layered' question there. Is it not the first post that sets the precedent for the responses? Why are you implying that the responses are what set the precedent, rather than the original post? Biased indeed....

A discussion is organic and developing. People might focus on certain aspects or interpret your posts in different ways. It's normal that it will stray from any narrow path. While we try to prevent threads from getting derailed but as long as posts are within the scope of the discussion they're fine. This is general board policy and has nothing to with any bias.

It's also not a discussion if you just chastise the other participants for not exactly behaving they way you want them to.

Chastise? Instead of making this ridiculous accusation, point out where exactly. All I have done is request a response to my original points instead of the outright condescending responses I am getting.

Otherwise, what I am perceiving from you is that I must respond to other peoples insults 'or else'. Which isn't happening. If I am banned for this, so be it.

 

[trek_futurist]

Yes DS9 had a black captain. But Avery Brooks had to fight to get those little nods and trinkets and cultural history thrown in or else he'd have ended up as non-descript as Geordi LaForge or Travis Mayweather, who could've been played by white actors and it not made a bit of difference.

true they could have been played by white people, however the whole idea of "color" in the vision of star trek was that color was not or never an issue., in essence sisko being very culture orientated in theory should not have been as issue as racism did not exist as such in roddenberry's utopia.

I think this is why I like DS9 more as it was a more complex and darker show and dealt with aspects that others tended to avoid, such as muder, politics and religion

Besides, isn't it somewhat racist to presume that if black people do not act a certain way, they may as well be white? Is it not racist to presume only white people act a certain way as well?

 

[BillJ]

Otherwise, what I am perceiving from you is that I must respond to other peoples insults 'or else'. Which isn't happening. If I am banned for this, so be it.

If you call these insults, you need to go get your big boy pants on before coming back 'round these parts.

 

[Amaris]

I have a multifarious question for those who think Star Trek is merely for 'Entertainment' and nothing more.

1-What exactly is it that most of you are here to discuss?

I'm usually here to discuss politics and religion. However, I've been a Star Trek fan since the age of 4, so I like to discuss that as well. I generally discuss topics relating to TNG, DS9 and TOS.

2-Why does it seem that the majority of you who assign this 'Entertainment only' label to Trek get into long winded exchanges with people who see it as more than this? Why is it not adequate to you that you see it as merely entertainment? Why must you actively participate in a soft campaign to convince other's that it is merely entertainment, when considering the following facts about Star Trek and its historical effect on our society and culture?

I don't see people here as generally trying to convince anyone else of anything beyond aspects of the various topics raised in each thread. There isn't really a campaign to make Star Trek seen as entertainment only.

A: Star trek has inspired more people to become involved in some form of scientific work than any other form of popular entertainment.

B: A lot of the burgeoning technological advancements we are seeing (and will be seeing) were directly inspired by the technology seen in the original Star Trek series, and following this, The next generation. In fact there are several branches of science actively researching some of the more obscure technological developments witnessed there. Some of these branches include particle physics, nano-technology, advanced medical science and of course several branches of the physical sciences that deal with laser technology, (phasers?), matter displacement (transporter technology?), faster than light travel (warp technology) and advanced imaging technology (tricorders).

C: There are countless charity organizations that have been directly inspired by Star Trek and it's social views of the world (that is, the economy of selflessness portrayed therein) and it's culturally all inclusive, compassionate terminology.

So from A, B and C one could logically conclude that Star Trek has positively effected our world, and doing so conspicuously on the basis of being more than mere 'Entertainment' presumably. For if it inspired people to accomplish all the above merely on the basis of 'Entertainment' then wouldn't Charlies angels, the dukes of hazard and Kojak have done the same? Surely there must be some linear foundation of logic in effect here, as opposed to the capricious phenomenon of random inspiration some of you are indirectly espousing, yes?

No. Star Trek has some high ideas, but it also has explosions, skin tight catsuits, and frequent misuses of scientific fact. That does not take away from the knowledge that Star Trek has inspired people to enter the science field, or try to make the world a better place, but that doesn't make Star Trek any more noble or set apart. It can inspire, while still being entertaining. That may even be a part of the entertaining factor, that you get a nice message with a great show.

Anyway.

3-There is no predicate to your subject of 'Star Trek is there merely for Entertainment'. So why say it? What do you wish to discuss about the subject 'Star Trek is merely entertainment'? Or is it to end conversation about something that other's see much more into than you do? Why is it not enough for you to simply bow out of such discussions? Why must you facetiously attempt to undermine any discussion about the betterment of the species if it is inspired in some way by Star Trek? What is the predicate that comes after 'Star trek is only entertainment'? And if there is such a predicate, how does it enrich the participants of the ensuing discussion (if there is one) more than what those of us perceive as the more meaningful equation of philosophy and an inspiration toward a better way of living that we identify as being qualities of Trek?

You may be tilting at windmills here, because I have not seen anyone here make such statements as you are indicating. You seem to have taken hold of the idea that, somehow, people who only find it to be an enjoyable TV show have somehow taken up arms against you, and that just isn't so.

4-Why does it seemingly offend you so much that people wish to live a life similar to the human beings portrayed on Star Trek? Is there not some subconscious relationship between the viewer and the characters here? Some degree of what we call 'identification' with and a desire for 'a better future'? A 'better way of living'? And if your hypothetical response is that 'we do not agree with Star treks portrayal of this better way of living' then, prey tell, how did you ever get into Star trek to begin with? There was ALWAYS a moral story there, ALWAYS a social commentary, ALWAYS a message about being 'better' than we were before. It was so ingrained in Trek that it was absolutely inescapable by the viewer, which is why it has become historically associated with a medium that has inspired people to make things 'better for humanity'.

I ask of you all, why do you actively attempt to dispense with what Star trek is actually known for? Without these foundations, it would be an empty medium, a lost in space, a meaningless foray into images that do not matter, because they are insubstantial. If any of this were true, why are we as a society still discussing it, being inspired to become scientists because of it? To give of ourselves because of it? To continue learning more about the universe because of it?

I ask these questions in hope to understand the dispositions of those who seem to have a problem with the pursuit of Star treks future vision.

Your statements are fundamentally flawed. Your reasoning is fallacious, and your questions cannot be answered without a poster "admitting" they are against anyone that believes Star Trek is more than entertainment. It is the equivalent of "have you stopped beating your wife?".