Was Trek ever really intelligent sci-fi?

[Kemaiku]

Brilliant! But does this mean that the stupidest Trek is the best Trek

Since the stupidest Trek has been the largest success with the audiences and brought in the most money, yes.

Everything else is up to the individual and fuck all to do with the people making it/making money from it.

 

[BigJake]

Since the stupidest Trek has been the largest success with the audiences and brought in the most money

Most of the profits for the studio come in terms of retail and the small screen. The Trek franchise as a whole brought in multiple billions in revenue prior to 2009. (Note also that short-term profit and long-term success are different things. "It's a Wonderful Life," "The Wizard of Oz," "Citizen Kane" and "Blade Runner" were all box office bombs.)

The "Kirk's Brain" idea may just be genius.

 

[T'Girl]

brought in the most money

Excellent definition of quality Star Trek, personally I found the movie Titanic to be the best of the Trek films.

 

[Push The Button]

Well, Trek is more sci-fi than Lost in Space or the Star Wars movies. Making the stories more realistic in terms of the science and technology would have made the stories pretty dull.

To make Trek more sci-fi, you would have to get rid of the transporter, all of the "humanoid" aliens (including Spock, of course), and add in the stretching/slowing of time from travelling faster than light, assuming that FTL travel would even be possible.

It's a myth that the level of scientific accuracy defines how "sci-fi" something is. Science fiction is fiction based on conjectural scientific or technological advances and their consequences. There is no requirement that the advances be genuinely possible, merely that they be treated as hypothetical science rather than magic or divine intervention, and that their consequences on human life be explored. A lot of science fiction begins with premises that are most likely impossible, such as psi powers or time travel, but explores their consequences in a realistic manner -- i.e. if this impossible thing did exist, what effects would it have in the context of otherwise real science, psychology, and sociology? E.g. Alfred Bester's The Stars My Destination: if humans gained the impossible ability to teleport anywhere at will, how would that realistically transform privacy rights, law enforcement, the transportation industry, etc.? The key isn't what the initial hypothesis is, but how convincingly its ramifications are thought out.

Scientifically plausible SF is merely one particular subgenre, known as "hard" SF. It's the type I personally prefer to write and read, but it isn't more valid or real SF than the "softer" kind, just a different flavor of SF. And it's got nothing to do with how intelligent an SF story is. There's a ton of intelligence in the soft SF of writers like Bradbury, Sturgeon, Butler, LeGuin, etc. The intelligence of science fiction is not just about its grasp of physics and engineering, but about its grasp of human nature, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and the like, not to mention the skill of its prose and characterization. Science fiction is still fiction, still literature, and its intelligence should be measured the same way you'd measure the intelligence of a mystery or romance or political thriller or any other genre of story. If it's well-written, if the characters are well-drawn and their actions and choices believable, if the plot is not cliched or obvious, if it makes the reader or viewer think, then it's intelligent. A crime thriller or courtroom drama can be intelligent in its portrayal of its characters and the ideas it expresses without needing to go into detail about forensics or legal technicalities. A hospital drama can be intelligent without needing to focus in depth on anatomy and surgical procedure. Such stories certainly can go into that kind of detail for added texture and as a stylistic choice, but that choice isn't what defines the intelligence of the story, because ultimately stories are about people and emotions and ideas, and that's where the true intelligence of a story lies. And the exact same thing is true of science fiction.

I respect your opinion, but a matter-energy transportation system that can map the location, velocity and type of each and every single subatomic particle in a human body, then convert it all into a signal and rebuild it all back into a human body again thousands of miles away with perfect integrity probably isn't going to happen, though it is theoretically possible, of course. Also, we (humans) have more in common, biologically, with a tomato plant than we ever would with beings that evolved on another planet.

Remove just these two elements from Trek and you have something quite different, which could appeal to a certain audience, but might look and feel more like nu-BSG or the Alien movies. So, elements like the transporter, humanoid aliens, space battles that make the ship rock when a phaser shot just misses our ship, and being able to travel at warp speed without distorting time make the show so much more exciting and fun, at least for me.

 

[Christopher]

I respect your opinion, but a matter-energy transportation system that can map the location, velocity and type of each and every single subatomic particle in a human body, then convert it all into a signal and rebuild it all back into a human body again thousands of miles away with perfect integrity probably isn't going to happen, though it is theoretically possible, of course.

Of course it's not going to happen, but that has nothing to do with whether a story about it qualifies as science fiction. You're mistaken to think that the genre is defined in such narrow technical terms. Hard science fiction is, more or less, but that's only one subcategory of science fiction as a literary genre. There is a very great amount of science fiction out there which is based on things that will never happen in real life. Whether they might really happen is irrelevant, because science fiction is not about trying to predict the actual future. It's about postulating hypothetical futures or alternate realities and examining what their ramifications would be.

I mean, saying that something isn't science fiction just because its science will never happen is like saying that, oh, The West Wing doesn't qualify as political fiction because Jed Bartlet will never be president, or that Die Hard doesn't qualify as an action movie because you couldn't really crawl through ventilation ducts without being heard. Nobody expects the things presented in fiction to actually happen. The goal is to explore what the consequences would be if they happened, if we inhabited a world where they were possible.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

^Ceci n'est pas une pipe?

 

[The Old Mixer]

When I said it was trying to strike a balance, I didn't mean a balance between kiddie and adult sci fi, but a balance between the intelligent sci fi being debated and an action-adventure show.

 

[Christopher]

When I said it was trying to strike a balance, I didn't mean a balance between kiddie and adult sci fi, but a balance between the intelligent sci fi being debated and an action-adventure show.

Ah, okay. Well, I definitely think it was trying to be more of a drama in the early episodes, but like many shows over the decades, was under network pressure to incorporate action. There are so many TOS episodes that have totally tacked-on fight scenes that are blatantly just there to fit a formula, and often feel like an intrusion on the story being told. (Like the Finnegan fight in "Shore Leave." As entertaining as it may be, it drags the story to a halt for several minutes and is a totally inappropriate bit of humor at a point in the story where Kirk should, by all rights, be mourning McCoy's apparent death.)

 

[F. King Daniel]

Thanks for the responses, all. Especially Christopher putting TOS into perspective for it's era.

You know, I love the Avengers and Pacific Rim, but I don't go around trying to tell people they stack up to Star Trek or ST:TNG as intelligent sci-fi or that Trek's instances of cheese invalidate its reputation as SF.

It's the "cheese invalidating the SF" that I'm asking about, that's a nice way to put it. If Trek were an anthology show it would have a reputation for occasionally producing smart stories. But as a massive interconnected franchise, I don't see how people can overlook the overwhelming majority of cheese and call any whole where "Spock's Brain", "Genesis" or even the hugely celebrated Wrath of Khan are part of the same continuity as CorporalCaptain's examples.

I'm pleased others have seen fit to humour the OP, but if you're telling me you need it explained to you at length why this is, I'm sorry but I have to suspect whether the question is being asked in the best of faith. It basically looks to me like you're grinding an axe here.

I'm questioning traditional Trekkie thinking, but not trolling.

 

[BillJ]

I'm questioning traditional Trekkie thinking...

That's not allowed. If you don't recognize "Spock's Brain" as brilliant sci-fi, then there's obviously something wrong with you.

I remember on Futurama, Fry saying there were seventy-nine episodes and about thirty of them were good in reference to Star Trek. Which sounds about right if you sat down and did an unbiased review of the series (quite frankly, some of it sucks really bad). I think that ratio pretty well holds for the spin-off series as well. About forty-percent of the episodes were actually "good".

 

[BigJake]

I'm questioning traditional Trekkie thinking, but not trolling.

Well, I'm pleased to see we got some informative posts out of it, at any rate.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Meh. Who cares if it is "intelligent" or not anyway?

As long as it is fun to watch, doesn't trip over its own feet too often, and doesn't insult me, I am happy to tune in.

I just get the vibe the OP is trying to use this argument to either lead to another or substitute for another argument.

 

[Keith1701]

oh yes, of course

 

[2takesfrakes]

I never really had issue with the smarts of the show, my biggest gripe with all of the T.V. STAR TREK shows was the cinematography. Occassionally, a couple oddly well-done, artsy shots would sneak in, but for the most part, everything was shot "House Style." Never enough excitement where the action was concerned, regardless of how little or lot there was of it. For example, even moving people to the saucer section in ENTERPRISE "D" was shot in such a straightforward manner that those scenes just slowed everything down. Whereas, in WRATH of KHAN, you've got people running everywhere, some people are panicking, others are moving along orderly, it's got this music that's getting your adreneline up. The television franchise never quite accomplished that.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

What are we comparing it to here? Star Trek at its best has always had a balance of philosophical themes and accessible action. Obviously not every episode lives up to that. If we're comparing Star Trek to Philip K Dick, no, it is not smart scifi. If we're comparing it to most other TV and mainstream movie scifi, it is quite intelligent.

 

[dub]

No, Star Trek has always been stupid, King Daniel, so Abramstrek is perfectly in line with that, as it's the perfect recreation of the original series. So all the stupidity was perfectly recreated as well.

I desperately needed a laugh...thanks for delivering!

 

[Robert Comsol]

I feel the need to play devil's advocate or Whoopi Goldberg (still haven't gotten over Shatner ignoring her "Twilight Zone" comment in the Captains Summit documentary, after all he participated in two episodes prior to being cast in TOS).

Reading the question I can't help but to compare "Star Trek" to "The Twilight Zone" and just look at one of my particular sci-fi interests, i.e. time travel stories.

Ironically, although anything was possible in "The Twilight Zone" they stuck to the Novikov self-consistency principle (i.e. what happened will always happen, you can't change the past) unless a supernatural power like the devil was involved.
The self-consistency principle is logical and rather easy to understand.

In contrast TOS was rather going for this illogical (IMBO) BS that you can change the past and - worse - had the icon of logic, Mr. Spock played by Leonard Nimoy, say some of the most illogical things I've ever heard on TV (in comparison Jonathan Frakes asked Eric Stillwell prior to shooting "Yesterday's Enterprise" many questions regarding time travel paradoxes and some of his concerns seemed to have made it on-screen ).

Admittedly, stories like "The City on the Edge of Forever" and "Assignment: Earth" turned out to be Novikov examples, but early on the audience needed to be convinced that everything was at stake, needed to believe that changing the past is possible.

So, regarding this particular Sci-Fi theme or trope, drama and storytelling was given more consideration than scientific accuracy or - logic.

(I love TOS and TNG but I'm not that stubborn not to admit to some of its shortcomings)

Bob

 

[Nightdiamond]

TOS was the most limted of Star Treks but I think it had some of the best Sci-Fi. Mainly because they had to rely more on writing characters and music than on special effects at that time.

Spectre Of The Gun us good example-- Spock's explanation about the reason Chekov was killed was because he believed the bullets were real, but if they knew--without the slightest doubt, that the bullets weren't real they wouldn't be harmed.

It was a standard plot, but the explanation itself sounded like real sci fi.

 

[The Old Mixer]

I never really had issue with the smarts of the show, my biggest gripe with all of the T.V. STAR TREK shows was the cinematography. Occassionally, a couple oddly well-done, artsy shots would sneak in, but for the most part, everything was shot "House Style." Never enough excitement where the action was concerned, regardless of how little or lot there was of it. For example, even moving people to the saucer section in ENTERPRISE "D" was shot in such a straightforward manner that those scenes just slowed everything down. Whereas, in WRATH of KHAN, you've got people running everywhere, some people are panicking, others are moving along orderly, it's got this music that's getting your adreneline up. The television franchise never quite accomplished that.

Give LeVar Burton a little credit for his barrel rolls under the bulkhead.

 

[2takesfrakes]

The barrel rolls were cool, you're right, I have to hand it to the man. Very Indiana Jones'ish. But when Geordi traded in his VISOR, I just didn't like it, I'm sorry. I know LaVar was tired of acting with it and having his vision obscured onset all the time. I'm sure he's tripped over a power cable once or twice, over the years. It's very hard to hold it against him, but ... it was like having Mister Spock get an ear job and still ranting on about Logic. I almost don't buy it now, you know? It was better before ...