What is Star Trek and its future?

[Warped9]

I think a lot of good storytelling first stems from asking the question, "What if?"

What if we enounter such and such a situation? What will it mean to our characters and how will they react? What are the ramifications and possible consequences? Are there different ways of looking at the given situation?

Law & Order used investigation of crimes as a window into different aspects of society. And often the cops and lawyers would find themselves discussing what they encountered. Each character held a often differing point of view which allowed further exploartion of a given issue.

Star Trek was/is really no different. In Law & Order crime invesitagation was the springboard to explration (in a sense). In Star Trek new worlds and strange phenomenon are the springboard to exploraing different issues and ideas couched within an adventure story.

Not all the time, of course, as adventure for its own sake works as well, but the mix is part of what set Star Trek apart from its contemporaries.

 

[T'Girl]

The characters were simple and defined - almost binned into boxes.

Characters should be "binned"

What do you mean by "binned?"

 

[MantaBase]

Characters should be "binned"

What do you mean by "binned?"[/QUOTE]

Eh....should of used a better term...sorry.

"separated" is close enough but that implies distance and binning doesn't.

Hmmm...Categorize maybe better?

I think it's one of those words that started as a noun (bin) and got turned into a verb (binning). Sort of like box and boxing (putting things in boxes).

What I meant was restricting the characters with very limited and specific traits. And keeping them that way as much as possible.

 

[Warped9]

How about characters that are well defined?

 

[T'Girl]

Characters should be well defined.

There were scenes in TNG/DS9/VOY where you could have randomly re-assigned dialog to different actors and it wouldn't have made much difference to the episode.

 

[MantaBase]

How about characters that are well defined?

Yeah...I guess I can't explain it well.

Well defined is part of it - but there is more. The "red-shirt" character is pretty well defined. But an entire crew of that character type wouldn't work. Neither would a crew of Kirks. So well defined is not enough - you need categories (or bins).

The character types are generally non-overlapping and maintained as so. In doing that you flatten the characters (not in a bad way) - they have very over-the-top traits that are specific to the character type. The characters are turned into story engines. You make them integral to the show and story telling. If you lose one, there is an entire line of stories you can't delve into. They seem very believable in the story, but if you met the main characters (not the actors - the characters) in real life, chances are you would find them odd.

This is not the case for many other shows or books. AT least not to the extreme TOS takes it. And it works. Think about Gilligan's island - it's the same. If you met any of the characters you might find them "off". Land of Giants? Nope....you could switch the dialog of a crew and passenger and maybe never notice. Lost? You could meet them on the street and have lunch and they would seem regular Joes (or Janes).

I have noticed the same in certain book series - but less so in stand alone books.


lol.....this post is way too long. Sorry

 

[MantaBase]

Characters should be well defined.

There were scenes in TNG/DS9/VOY where you could have randomly re-assigned dialog to different actors and it wouldn't have made much difference to the episode.

Exactly! Do that in TOS and you would know right off.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Characters should be well defined.

There were scenes in TNG/DS9/VOY where you could have randomly re-assigned dialog to different actors and it wouldn't have made much difference to the episode.

Exactly! Do that in TOS and you would know right off.

They did it all the time. Lt Palmer. Lt Lisa. Countless navigator/helmsmen. Even Chekov and Sulu could switch places if Takei or Koenig were unavailable.

 

[MantaBase]

Characters should be well defined.

There were scenes in TNG/DS9/VOY where you could have randomly re-assigned dialog to different actors and it wouldn't have made much difference to the episode.

Exactly! Do that in TOS and you would know right off.

They did it all the time. Lt Palmer. Lt Lisa. Countless navigator/helmsmen. Even Chekov and Sulu could switch places if Takei or Koenig were unavailable.

Those are the same character types. The redshirts are basically the same character. The Nurse is one character type. Try switching Sulu and Bones' dialog. Try switching Spock's dialog with Kirk's - not simply having Spock take the chair, but deliver Kirk's lines while in character as Spock. Kirk's lines are for an entirely different character type and it is noticeable.

There were maybe more than a hundred actors on TOS (maybe a bit less). Yet there are only maybe a dozen character types including aliens. Sulu and Chekov where basically the same character type.

Point is, (and these are my thoughts only) when this is done in a show it's very quickly easy to follow what is going on and who is who. You don't have to "get into it". I think that is one of the things that made TOS so successful. And I am pretty sure it was intentional (just seems to be so rather than luck).

 

[Nerys Myk]

Exactly! Do that in TOS and you would know right off.

They did it all the time. Lt Palmer. Lt Lisa. Countless navigator/helmsmen. Even Chekov and Sulu could switch places if Takei or Koenig were unavailable.

Those are the same character types. The redshirts are basically the same character. The Nurse is one character type. Try switching Sulu and Bones' dialog. Try switching Spock's dialog with Kirk's - not simply having Spock take the chair, but deliver Kirk's lines while in character as Spock. Kirk's lines are for an entirely different character type and it is noticeable.

There were maybe more than a hundred actors on TOS (maybe a bit less). Yet there are only maybe a dozen character types including aliens. Sulu and Chekov where basically the same character type.

Point is, (and these are my thoughts only) when this is done in a show it's very quickly easy to follow what is going on and who is who. You don't have to "get into it". I think that is one of the things that made TOS so successful. And I am pretty sure it was intentional (just seems to be so rather than luck).

Of course it was intentional. It's SOP for most fiction, especially on TV. I think it might be stretch to even call Sulu, Uhura or Chekov "character types". They mostly existed to spout expositional dialog and to give the ship a hint of reality. One step above a redshirt. Scotty had more going on because he played the "man in love with his machine" trope. The three were interchangeable given the needs of the plot/availability of the actor. With TNG+ they took pieces of Kirk, Spock and McCoy and spread them out to other characters as well as adding other character types to the mix. So I don't think you can do an easy dialog switch with TNG characters. Troi for Data or Geordi for Worf.

There are maybe a dozen character types in all of fiction, not just Star Trek.

 

[MantaBase]

Law & Order used investigation of crimes as a window into different aspects of society. And often the cops and lawyers would find themselves discussing what they encountered. Each character held a often differing point of view which allowed further exploartion of a given issue.

This explains why I didn't like that show (the concept) but found myself watching it so often.

 

[MantaBase]

Of course it was intentional. It's SOP for most fiction, especially on TV. I think it might be stretch to even call Sulu, Uhura or Chekov "character types". They mostly existed to spout expositional dialog and to give the ship a hint of reality. One step above a redshirt. Scotty had more going on because he played the "man in love with his machine" trope. The three were interchangeable given the needs of the plot/availability of the actor. With TNG+ they took pieces of Kirk, Spock and McCoy and spread them out to other characters as well as adding other character types to the mix. So I don't think you can do an easy dialog switch with TNG characters. Troi for Data or Geordi for Worf.

There are maybe a dozen character types in all of fiction, not just Star Trek.

Well I agree, to some degree all stories have it I suppose - you need some definition. I guess my comment was that it's pretty extreme in TOS (not that it was unique). I am sure it was intentional that it was maintained so I thought it was likely intentional from the start. However, many early series start of with that feel and then it goes away (compare TNG season 1 to season 3) so I am not so sure they all start that way intentionally. I think the dialog switch in TNG is hard, but look to Voyager. If Janeway and Chicote were switched I might take a while to catch on.

Interestingly, I read a lot of books on writing fiction (especially Sci-FI). Nearly all of them complain about flat characters. "OK for 60's pulp, but not serious writing" one even said (maybe not the direct quote). But as I have thought about it during this thread, I'm thinking it was a real strength for TOS in the end.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Of course it was intentional. It's SOP for most fiction, especially on TV. I think it might be stretch to even call Sulu, Uhura or Chekov "character types". They mostly existed to spout expositional dialog and to give the ship a hint of reality. One step above a redshirt. Scotty had more going on because he played the "man in love with his machine" trope. The three were interchangeable given the needs of the plot/availability of the actor. With TNG+ they took pieces of Kirk, Spock and McCoy and spread them out to other characters as well as adding other character types to the mix. So I don't think you can do an easy dialog switch with TNG characters. Troi for Data or Geordi for Worf.

There are maybe a dozen character types in all of fiction, not just Star Trek.

Well I agree, to some degree all stories have it I suppose - you need some definition. I guess my comment was that it's pretty extreme in TOS (not that it was unique). I am sure it was intentional that it was maintained so I thought it was likely intentional from the start. However, many early series start of with that feel and then it goes away (compare TNG season 1 to season 3) so I am not so sure they all start that way intentionally. I think the dialog switch in TNG is hard, but look to Voyager. If Janeway and Chicote were switched I might take a while to catch on.

Interestingly, I read a lot of books on writing fiction (especially Sci-FI). Nearly all of them complain about flat characters. "OK for 60's pulp, but not serious writing" one even said (maybe not the direct quote). But as I have thought about it during this thread, I'm thinking it was a real strength for TOS in the end.

TOS was probably no more extreme in this regard than its contemporaries. James Kirk was a square jawed hero not all that different than James West or James Bond. You have serious sidekicks like Spock and Mingo or more humorous ones like Artemis Gordon and Leonard McCoy.
But the characters weren't limited to that. Early Kirk had a touch of melancholy to him. Spock has a subtle, sarcastic sense of humor. McCoy wears his heart on his sleeve. So I don't think of them as "flat".

TNG had its types too. Picard as the older experienced veteran. Riker as the young cocky ladies man. Yar as the hard kickass woman. Wesley as the annoying...er, precocious child genius. The characters changed over the years. Picard became more of an Action hero. Worf stepped into the hard ass role ( not much of a stretch). Even TOS had the characters change. Kirk lost the melancholy. Spock became more "alien".

Different books and authors take varying approaches to telling a story. Asimov's Foundation trilogy isn't very character driven. So its a bit flat in that aspect, yet still a SF classic. On TV Dragnet is about the case and the procedure not about Joe Friday. Friday's flatness is now a pop culture reference

 

[MantaBase]

@Nerys

Well, I get what you are saying, but TOS characters feel far more cookie cutter to me than TNG. And I agree that it wasn't unique - or even the most extreme example, but it also wasn't universal (at least to that degree). So I listed it as one of the qualities that sets TOS apart (just my opinion) - Warped9 had other qualities and I am sure there are others listed or missed. I think you and I actually have very similar general points of view, but I draw more lines between things maybe. Some people are groupers and some are splitters - depending on the subject.

At anyrate, warp, or speed, the books about writing books I was talking about - they pretty much all harp on deep character development. Maybe not Bova's - that one had other issues. I just realized it was ironic given exactly what you point out. Heinlein is a good example - 90% of his characters are as flat as Kansas. And he proves he can do deep character development if he wants to, so it was certainly intentional. The stories are about the stories, not the character (generalizing). Murray Leinster was even earlier -same thing (Last Space ship is a great quick read BTW). Flat characters? Sure. Great stories? Yes.

 

[Tim Walker]

Are Galactic Empires the new Middle Earth?

I am having trouble posting a link.

 

[Tim Walker]

Re: Are Galactic Empires the new Middle Earth?

I will give you the gist.

The bright shiny future that was envisioned back in the 1950s has faded away. What has also faded is the notion that Science Fiction will speculate about potentially real futures.

Science Fiction has become more and more like fantasy. It is never never land, or Oz, for adults.

"People like sprawly fantasy novels with heroic men, beautiful women, fantastical creatures, magical powers, swords, and horse back riding".

Galactic empires have become romantic settings for our deepest desires. These settings tend to feature aristocracies/monarchs/princesses.

Comments made by the author:

1. In duration, space travel is comparable to oceanic voyages.

2. There may be high tech weapons, but there is a tendency to bring back the sword.

3. Mysticism and magic are present.

4. Gender roles-strong men, and damsels in distress.

5. Aliens-are they so different from the fantastic creatures of Fantasy?

6. People riding horses, or some comparable animal.

 

[Warped9]

Science fiction has never been about predicting potentially real future. SF simply imagines futures whether they could be possible or not.

 

[Tim Walker]

Comments regarding Space Westerns http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpaceWestern

It been a long time since I watched Firefly, but I seem to recall people riding horses.

Come to think of it, horses appeared in Trek a few times.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Re: Are Galactic Empires the new Middle Earth?

I will give you the gist.

The bright shiny future that was envisioned back in the 1950s has faded away. What has also faded is the notion that Science Fiction will speculate about potentially real futures.

Science Fiction has become more and more like fantasy. It is never never land, or Oz, for adults.

"People like sprawly fantasy novels with heroic men, beautiful women, fantastical creatures, magical powers, swords, and horse back riding".

Galactic empires have become romantic settings for our deepest desires. These settings tend to feature aristocracies/monarchs/princesses.

Comments made by the author:

1. In duration, space travel is comparable to oceanic voyages.

2. There may be high tech weapons, but there is a tendency to bring back the sword.

3. Mysticism and magic are present.

4. Gender roles-strong men, and damsels in distress.

5. Aliens-are they so different from the fantastic creatures of Fantasy?

6. People riding horses, or some comparable animal.

None of this sounds new to me. Has the author never read Foundation or Dune? SF was Fantasy in sheep's clothing long before the 50s.

 

[Warped9]

There is a difference. While both imagine situations and worlds the better SF is distinguished by basing possibilities on what is known or theoretical. Fantasy is purely that in imagining possibilities that could never exist whatsoever. Fantasy also tends to look backward and dresses up "reality" in ways that could never have existed. SF can make educated guesses and extrapolations. Its goal is to imagine possibilities based on or extrapolated from what is actually known. Fantasy is purely arbitrary.

There can indeed be a blurring of the lines, but to make a blanket claim that SF is no different the Fantasy is completely wrong.