Was Trek ever really intelligent sci-fi?

Aside from the what did the medium contemporaneously or earlier have to offer in comparison points that have been discussed, to what degree, King Daniel, is your question colored by your knowledge and appreciation of science fiction that is developed as and never moves beyond its written presentation as a novel or short story?


Obviously, Trek as final product on the large or small screen starts with the written word. But if materially, the creative act does not have to concern itself with issues such as production values being able to properly display a certain technological creation, the degree to which violence or sexual content will pass muster of different layers of vetting, the difficulty in adapting certain literary styles to a visual platform, or the primary factor of having to hew to a model that by definition must work around fairly orthodox time constraints, then it may very well be perceived as a fuller and richer representation of the form itself.


I don't mean to suggest that in its visual representation, a work of science fiction of necessity is to be considered of lesser merit or of having inferior creative weight. However, if an individual's history of beoming exposed to the genre has been primarily through its written works, becoming immersed in their various modes of expression and range of ideas, knowledgable about their antecedents and offshoots, and integrally, discerning of how any given work embodies a worthier example of excellence, then it would seem reasonable that the prism the person would employ to judge quality, intelligence, or other superlatives might tend to diminish an appreciation of the form in manifestations that are mediated by external concerns.


As with any creative effort, strictly literary sci-fi endeavors do not come to be in a vacuum, untouched by various pressures and demands on the artist. I suppose I mean in the sense that the novel or short story isn't bounded in some matters of definition by being part of an ongoing series(admittedly a not insignificant portion of all new works) or is constructed purposefully with an eye towards adaptation (only a guess but probably not very common).


All of the preceding folderol presented as a way of asking if your original query might not be predicated on how you have, over time, come to value the way that different media best encapsulate what you regard as crucially important in science fiction. Just sayin.....

 

You're right here. They got rid of Geordi's visor, the Enterprise-D, the families aboard... It really didn't feel like TNG anymore once they moved to the feature films.

 

That was on of the many reasons the TNG films sucked. They forgot they were TNG films and tried to be action/allegorical lesson/wrath of Khan instead.

 

I never understood this. Hadn't the success of "Best of Both Worlds" established beyond doubt that TNG audiences actually appreciated "unorthodox" problem solutions and didn't need action spectacle?

It's really amazing that Michael Piller thought BoBW I was his last TNG contribution and left the difficult conclusion of the story to his successor - who turned out to be himself.

And near the end of the episode they still hadn't figured out how to wrap up the story. I think they were really positively surprised how well the audience reacted to their unusual approach (which encouraged them to continue to "walk boldly" and feature unorthodox concepts which, IMHO, became an outstanding and unique trademark of TNG).

ST VII-GEN rather looked to me as if by that time they were still stuck in Season One, the movie reminded me more of "The Battle" than an above-average episode of Season Six.

Bob

 

Frakes said in an interview (albeit one I saw in a clip on a Redlettermedia review!) that he thinks audiences expect a Star Trek movie to be an "action" movie. If this is his primary mindset then it's little wonder why the TNG movies are geared that way.

 

It's circular logic. You get the audience you aim for. If they did psychological thriller Star Trek and that worked, they'd argue that people wanted to see psycho thriller Trek.

 

Depends on what one means by "intelligent."

In its early episodes, Trek TOS told stories with some honest emotional appeal on the level of other good early TV drama series, as distinct from network evening "family" programming or simple action/adventure stuff like a lot of the TV westerns of the day. And the show did have a point-of-view on the world - several, actually - where politics and social issues were concerned. You didn't see much of either in the Trek movies, which were dominated by sentimental nostalgic emotionalism or feints in the direction of so-called social commentary that was not strongly controversial or representative of minority viewpoints - ie, Save The Big Cuddly Whales. War Is Bad, 'mkay?

STID embraced controversial political content to an degree that "Star Trek" really hasn't since the second year of the original series at the latest.

 

I think this is an interesting question and many of the responses (I read most of them) are articulated well.

That said, I don't expect Trek to be intelligent all of the time. Many episodes were filler. This is one of my gripes about Star Trek, however, the more intelligent it is, has no relationship to how popular it is. Take, for instance, "The Best of Both Worlds." The Borg are science fiction about the limits and pitfalls of technology. Their greatness lies in the collective mind and they seem rather unbeatable. However, acting against Picard's instincts solves this crisis. They turned the collective mind on itself. It became their greatest weakness as well. They had established the link to Picard and gained all of his knowledge, but in the end, Picard knew enough about the Borg to end the crisis. It's a very intelligent ending and probably Michael Piller's best contribution to Star Trek. However, the resolution, which is referenced in this post, is not where people feel the episode shined. Many feel that the second half, where we out-think the Borg, is not the episode's greatest moment. They much prefer the first half where we are painted into the position of killing Captain Picard.

Too often in Trek, what is valued by the audience is having a bigger weapon, a better piece of technology. It isn't sitting down and challenging yourself to see beyond the action and adventure. Therefore, it misses its mark and it is very easy to dismiss as an overblown concept.

Personally, Star Trek has challenged and informed the world in which I live. I enjoy contemplating the effect on society if a child was raised by computers only in space (Charlie X). I enjoy contemplating the effect on society if we were immortal (Star Trek: Insurrection). This is not the most celebrated Trek. Tribbles are universal because it's a fun episode and easy to understand.

We fans define what is good Star Trek. If we contemplated a race that wishes to explore by sending babies out into space (The Search, Part II) or improved the minds of its subjects (The Nth Degree), we would see that our need to explore is universal, but there are interesting ways, given more power or intelligence, to do it.

One of my largest points in my philosophy is that science has limitations. We can only experience life as it exists in that moment, as the animal we are, and the experiences that we bring to the event. Many sources have helped that philosophy. Hume and Kant, for instance. However, the spark, the first thought, came from Star Trek: "I have been everything in that garden, and I am no closer to understanding what it is to be a rock. (Odo, The Search, Part II and I paraphrased because my memory isn't exact).

So if you like the action adventure and think that is the only thing in Star Trek, that the rest is just subjective interpretation or marketing of the series, fine. But you're missing out on a lot of cool experiences where you consider the world around you; being reflective; and using popular fiction as an entertaining way towards improving your mind.

 

Alternatively, one can read and watch fiction with content that's actually challenging on an adult level.

 

You don't feel that Star Trek does that?

 

I can't speak for Mr. Clown_Meat. But for me? No. It's not even close to being challenging on an adult level most of the time. It was my introduction to science-fiction and for that I'll be forever grateful.

 

Well said.

 

Exactly so.

"Star Trek" is intriguing on an adolescent level - and that's just fine, I continue to love lots of adolescent entertainment just as I continue to love superhero comics and children's movies and storybooks; everything that's good is good and valid in the context for which it's intended or for which it works. Struggling with basic personality integration and autonomy or learning to assume moral responsibility in the broadest sense are adolescent concerns, and telling those kinds of stories well is what makes shows like "Star Trek" or "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" so strongly appealing when they're good.

 

While I can appreciate straightforward adventure along with (contextual) humour I feel Star Trek lost it's way when it catered to the conventional. Part of the original idea for the series was to challenge convention and when it got lazy or caved to pressure to cater to convention is when it lost it's distinct nature for SF on television.

It isn't necessary to do "hard" SF to do good and smart as well as entertaining (fun) SF. It matters to always look for a better way to tell a story.

"Where No Man Has Gone Before" really isn't any less "cerebral" than "The Cage," but it has an added dose of excitement. There's a level of dynamic character and energy, passion, to the whole effort that makes it feel more alive. In this respect NBC was right in telling GR to try again. That isn't to say WNMHGB didn't make mistakes. While I haven't really thought out what they could have done differently there are choices in the episode that don't really make sense.

Firstly why is there no discussion or even mention of trying to "cure" Mitchell before accepting Spock's recommendation that Mitchell be stranded or even killed? The possibility is never mentioned.

Why tell Kelso to rig a self-destruct switch that needed to be triggered from right inside the outpost? Why not rig a remote switch from the Enterprise in orbit? You might dismiss this one as Kirk only thinking of the self-destruct option right at that moment.

But why does Kirk fight Mitchell hand-to-hand when he should have just grabbed the phaser rifle and killed Mitchell right then? One could rationalize that while Kirk understood what had to be done he still wasn't quite ready to do it and maybe hoped to beat Mitchell into submission. But we don't really get that sense from how things unfold.

Those are but three points where a bit of extra thought might have come up with a smarter and yet equally effective choice in terms of drama.

You can make allowances for things that come across as believable even if they're not the best choices. Such things happen in real life all the time when we make a choice in the intensity of the moment even though upon reflection afterward another option would have been a better alternative. But to rationalize such a choice in fiction you have to set it up properly to be believable.


In "The Best Of Both Worlds" the resolution to defeating the Borg comes across as anticlimactic for television, but it would have been perfectly fine for SF in literature. It made sense, but it came across as flat on the heels of all the preceding tension and excitement. It would have been nice if they could have thought of something that made as much sense while also being more dramatic.


The difference between smart or intelligent SF and storytelling can be a rather fine one.

 

Oh, come on, it's not like that's some personal delusion of Frakes's. Trek films have been under pressure to be action movies ever since TWOK set the precedent. Audiences found TMP's attempt to be more thoughtful and intellectual to be tedious, but went wild for TWOK's bloodsoaked violence and starship combat, so ever since then, Trek movies have been forced into the action mold, with TVH being the only one that managed to buck the trend. And of course that's just part of the broader industry trend driven by the success of Star Wars, which conditioned a generation of filmgoers to equate "science fiction" with nonstop action and space battles and gunfights (even though George Lucas considered SW to be space fantasy, not science fiction).

 

I dunno, I feel like Enterprise addressed issues of terrorism and the racism associated with it. Maybe it wasn't done as well though.

 

I'm wondering what people consider to be truly adult science fiction then?

I think many of the Star Trek episodes deal with adult concepts. Maybe not in a movie like way such as in 2001 or 'Silent Running' but in a low-key episodic television sort of way. Maybe the 'message' is not as obvious when the crew appear happy next week seemingly unaffected.

 

To this, I vote Nay.

Spoiler: I am not of The Body...

Seems to me that Dastardly Plotting Admirals who need to be taught the true meaning of the Federation have been a standard plot device for a long time. Moreover, issuing a full-throated defense of due process when your franchise is still busy trying to out-pulp Flash Gordon is a meaningless gesture that carries no real risk of controversy whatever.

STID's gestures toward Being Topical would only have been meaningful in the context of a story that made sense (instead of just having more moving parts than ST09's), in much the same way as its villains might have been genuinely compelling characters if they'd been provided with decipherable motivations and before they abruptly swerved into Moustache-Twirler territory in the final act.

YMMV.

As for whether Star Trek was ever "challenging at an adult level," that's a vague phrase. Most of Star Trek was quite discernibly adult-oriented to a degree that much televised SF was embarrassed to be seen doing (a mindset that should certainly ring some bells today). Whether it was "challenging" per se depended on the episode.

Spoiler: ... or maybe I am

TOS spanned the gamut from humiliating cheese to outings worthy of (and often penned by authors of) quality literary SF of its day.

TNG spanned an even wider spectrum from monster-of-the-week nonsense, or the ignominy of having made Trek's only clip episode, to deservedly Hugo Award-winning adult-oriented drama and vivid engagement with themes like torture, corruption and emotional trauma in ways that are taken for granted now.

DS9 deserves credit that few are now willing to extend to it for grappling with political issues and character drama in even more daring ways for television of the time -- an episode with the dramatic power of "Duet" would have been possible on no other Trek show -- and despite having been a concept cribbed from Babylon 5, it at first found its own distinctive way.

Certainly there came a point (post- the early seasons of DS9) where Trek mostly ceased to be interested in pushing the envelope any further and began simply working within the parameters of what TNG had done, which must have seemed the safest ratings bet (though it didn't pan out that way). And settling into that rut proved disastrous.

But prior to that, attempts to claim that Trek was only ever interesting on "an adolescent level" seem to me, much like the OP, to be protesting far too much. Trek has now been sold on a purely adolescent level, of course -- that's the level on which the Hollywood Reboot Machine usually works -- but that's not what distinguished or sustained The Auld Franchise.

 

You might want to review the scene again.

After it was knock out of his hands, Kirk never had a chance to get to the phaser untill after Mitchell was in the grave.

 

Almost nothing? Certainly not most commercial sf.