What is Star Trek and its future?

[CorporalCaptain]

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.

I don't think so. Star Trek could never exist whatsoever, yet we call it SF and not fantasy. And Star Trek did not even base itself entirely on what is known or even theoretical, nor does it hew that way in terms of what is known and theoretical today.

 

[Nerys Myk]

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.

Still, writers have been transferring fantasy tropes to SF since the genre began. They just change the nomenclature. Yeah they can toss some science in there too and make it more "sciencey"

My point is, it's a Century too late to complain about Galactic Empire and space royalty,

 

[Warped9]

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.

I don't think so. Star Trek could never exist whatsoever, yet we call it SF and not fantasy. And Star Trek did not even base itself entirely on what is known or even theoretical, nor does it hew that way in terms of what is known and theoretical today.

If you're talking about the Trek universe as a whole package in the sense of expecting a future exactly like it. But that doesn't invalidate specific individual ideas.

FTL travel. Based on what is known presently it seems impossible, but based on theoretical ideas from reputable scientists the case might not be completely closed. Sometimes things are impossible from the current understanding of reality and the limitations of the current technology. But new knowledge and newer understandings do arise and technology advances to stages previously thought unlikely if not impossible. And sometimes the new realities take a form not previously thought likely.

Some sci-fi does indulge in mere arbitrariness, but that doesn't invalidate the better ideas that extrapolate from resonable speculation. As I said there can be a mix and/or blurring of reasonable speculation and stuff based somely on whimsy.

Star Trek as a whole as depicted is highly unlikely, but that doesn't negate its overall value for the stories it allows to be told.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

No, I don't mean anything as pedantic as a future literally like it. I mean a future by the 23rd century of FTL, transporters, artificial gravity, lots of humanoid aliens, telepathy; things that would be more or less intrinsic to the premise of Star Trek in broad strokes as it's been realized so far. None of that is even remotely likely. It's so far-fetched that I feel confident saying that it ain't happening. But for the holdouts, stick around, we'll know in less than 300 years.

The fact is, what SF is, what fantasy is, and what the difference between them is isn't so easily pinned down. You went from prescribing SF to base its ideas on what is known or theoretical to basing only some of its ideas on that. And, in the case of FTL, you went from known or theoretical to case not completely closed. You can say case not completely closed about a lot of stuff that's actually nonsense. Either way, that's either shifting the goalposts, or, if one is being generous, a revision in your prescribed definition, which is just case in point about it not being so easy to describe.

We've had this conversation several times on the board. The problem is trying to set up prescriptive definitions. Those rarely work. There are many different kinds of SF. Star Trek is much closer to pure fantasy than, say, 2001, The Andromeda Strain, or even The Day the Earth Stood Still.

Star Trek as a whole as depicted is highly unlikely, but that doesn't negate its overall value for the stories it allows to be told.

Of course not. A story doesn't even have to be SF at all for it to have value, it can even be pure fantasy.

 

[MantaBase]

FTL travel. Based on what is known presently it seems impossible, but based on theoretical ideas from reputable scientists the case might not be completely closed.

I agree. It isn't closed. It's an active field of research by respectable scientists. Thus, not closed.

Sometimes things are impossible from the current understanding of reality and the limitations of the current technology. But new knowledge and newer understandings do arise and technology advances to stages previously thought unlikely if not impossible. And sometimes the new realities take a form not previously thought likely.

And this happens repeatedly and even recently a German group managed to slow photons to under a few hundred MPH in vacuum. Pretty interesting actually - but I haven't had time to get past the abstract. I have a paper which details how meteorites from Mars landing on Earth is impossible - it can't happen - it would violate the laws of physics. Yet, we have them...dozens of them. You can find papers detailing how matter cannot travel faster than the speed of sound - and thus (in a round about argument) we cannot escape Earth's gravity (probably J-Stor if you have access). There is a paper I saw that points out the limitations were based on viewing the problem as a closed system - but it didn't matter in the end because the entire thing was proven wrong empirically - without an open system required. Point being, I agree.

It's arrogant to think that our current understanding is the apex.

Some sci-fi does indulge in mere arbitrariness, but that doesn't invalidate the better ideas that extrapolate from resonable speculation.

You are dealing with fiction - which by it's very definition must contain fantasy - all fiction does - most (vastly) of which is not labeled as FF.

Categorizing stories as SF, FF, hard SF and soft SF is not exact. That doesn't mean it can't be done or shouldn't - and it isn't rocket science or difficult. Most reasonable people understand that ST is in a different category of fiction than LOTR. Publishers do it all the time. Folks that have a hard time with it are overthinking it - just IMO. Ben Bova is a prime example of over thinking it. His definitions are contrived and complex - unnecessarily so and to the point some of his own work does not qualify if we nit pick.

ST is SF.

On another note, I just watched Renegades - after your mention. It has too much FarScape-y-ness for me - but I was very impressed. I could see that being part of the future of ST - given time and resources to shake out. But like you IIRC I don't see a network deal in it or main stream TV. I guess CBS didn't either.

 

[Tim Walker]

Re: What is Star Trek ?

A collection of essays, Boarding The Enterprise; the essay entitled Star Trek in the Real World by Norman Spinrad.

Spinrad commented that science fiction was arcane to the average person (as opposed to fandom). Trek de-mystified science fiction by bringing it into the home and making it familiar. Thus creating a mass audience for science fiction.

"...Star Trek transcended television. It was no longer defined as those seventy-nine episodes of a canceled TV show running over and over again. It had become a popular myth imprinted upon mass culture, as surely as Robin Hood, or Billy the Kid or Cinderella, a modern legend...."

 

[Tim Walker]

There was an old thread regarding gritty space opera. One person commented that a large female audience is a necessary demographic. Another person commented that women tend to prefer fantasy.

I think these will have to taken into consideration if a new direction should be chosen for Trek.

 

[T'Girl]

Given a choice between scifi and fantasy, I think more men would choose fantasy (in some form) over scifi.

 

[Tim Walker]

Discussion of planetary romance http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlanetaryRomance

John Carter is an excellent example.

Note the link for Jungle Opera. Indiana Jones immediately came to mind; I was somewhat surprised that Avatar was listed as an off shoot, but it sort of fits.

Note that planetary romance preceded space opera; the two are similar, but space opera is on a larger scale. Star Wars would be a good example of space opera as Middle Earth.

 

[Tim Walker]

I have answered the concept of "What is Star Trek" often in this forum.

For me it is quite simple:
-Optimism about the future of humanity, which both in the 60s and now would exist in stark contrast to real life experiences.

-Action/adventure with social commentary driven by interesting characters. Really, it should feel almost like a Western in terms of being on the frontier, with a lot of unknown out there to be explored.


A new series, regardless of new continuity or old, would need to incorporate a sense of optimism, a sense of adventure and clever story telling to be successful.

Good points!

 

[Warped9]

Given a choice between scifi and fantasy, I think more men would choose fantasy (in some form) over scifi.

Meh. I might believe that if you're talking porn...which is a very popular form of fantasy.

 

[Kemaiku]

Given a choice between scifi and fantasy, I think more men would choose fantasy (in some form) over scifi.

The greater popularity of Harry Potter and LOTR over any form of Star Trek would seem to imply that, yes.

 

[Tim Walker]

Gender and movie preferences discussed. http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/sfischo/media3.html

Check out tables 4, 7a, and 8. Check out gender-identity congruence.

 

[Warped9]

I don't see anything in there that tells me Trek has to make drastic changes to what it is. Add to the fact that Trek has had decent female interest since the beginning even though SF has been generally recognized as something boys and men gravitate to. Something about Trek clicks with quite a few women. Indeed I've known quite a few women who liked Trek but otherwise didn;t care much for SF in general.

 

[stardream]

I don't see anything in there that tells me Trek has to make drastic changes to what it is. Add to the fact that Trek has had decent female interest since the beginning even though SF has been generally recognized as something boys and men gravitate to. Something about Trek clicks with quite a few women. Indeed I've known quite a few women who liked Trek but otherwise didn;t care much for SF in general.

I lived in a bubble and didn't realize that sci fi/fantasy was supposed to be a 'guy' thing until I started seeing articles asking why all these women were so excited about seeing Lord of the Rings. They concluded that it had to be the hot men.

 

[Warped9]

I think a big element is that SF is largely thought of as something techie or gadget oriented, by the general public anyway. But SF that puts focus on story and characters rather than tech and gadgets should have appeal to women.

It could be one of those perceptions born decades ago thats still widely accepted despite evidence to the contrary.

 

[Tim Walker]

According to the linked poll, drama is rated highest of all. And, looking at Table 8, it appears to be equally popular with both genders. At its best, Trek can do drama well.

A substantial number of people like comedy, and is about equally popular with both genders.

Substantial numbers will entertain a departure from the mundane world....

 

[Jeffe525]

In the interest of reining this back in...

A lot of ideas are shared on this forum regarding new projects for Star Trek whether it be film or television.

What I find odd among the divergent ideas are those ones pitched that seem to have little to do with Star Trek other than slapping on the name. To me such ideas would serve better as wholly original non Trek projects.

For me Star Trek is "Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages..."

I know that disappoints some, but thats what it is and thats what the broader audience recognizes. It's not predominantly politics and war (seen in DS9) and gritty and nihilistic like nuBSG and Sopranos.


Why did TOS click and go on to enjoy an expanding popularity? Why does it still draw younger viewers? Why did TNG click? Conversely why did DS9, VOY and ENT not really click and drew diminishing numbers of viewers?


So what does Star Trek have to have to remain recognizable? And what things are distinctly not Star Trek?


Thoughts anyone?

I read some one post that TOS and TNG were the right shows at the right time. TOS did have a good, balanced mix of adventure, humor, and intelligence. It had an abundance of social issue source material and successfully posed important questions in a fantastical environment where viewers felt safe pondering them.

I haven't seen anyone post about NASA and the Apollo program. TOS also had to compete with live broadcasts from the moon, and other real life, exciting space news of that time. So I would assume that the cancellation of Apollo may have contributed significantly to Trek's resurgence in the 70's.

I also think for Gene, TNG was really just TOS-2.0; it was his chance to do ST the way he always imagined it could be.

I know what critics and fans say: That DS9, VOY, and ENT failed. But you know what? They didn't fail me.

Admittedly, I didn't appreciate DS9 when it first aired, but thank God for Netflix for giving me a second chance to see what diehard DS9 fans saw in it. VOY was my favorite from the start - I loved all the characters and almost every episode, and I'm proud of that. And once it found some balance, I really liked ENT (including Bakula) and loved the direction it was headed in. And season 4 gave us the best TOS back story we could have ever dreamt of.

Look, we're all on here because we're core Trek fans. For all it's flaws, stumbles, mishaps, and corniness, we love what Trek has become over the years, decades, and now, generations.

I don't want Trek to change. I want it to evolve, just like it has been for 50 years (woot!)

So to answer the OP's original question, "What does Star Trek have to have to remain recognizable?" It just has to have more Trek.

Yes, I have my own opinions about it: I do think Trek should embrace the new world of shorter seasons, complex plots, ensemble casts, and arching story lines. But I also don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to keep one foot in the episodic format if it works. And I'm definitely not saying we should be petitioning for Game of Thrones in Space or Star Trek Wars. I'm saying that Trek should just use the new entertainment environment to show us more of the universe we love and what Trek can be. As long as it's done with integrity, wit, and respect for established history, I'll be excited to watch it.

 

[Warped9]

Which essentially affirms that Star Trek isn't as broken as some seem to believe.

 

[Jeffe525]

Which essentially affirms that Star Trek isn't as broken as some seem to believe.

True true... not broken, just a little stagnant for lack of new content. IMO TV is Trek's real home, while the movies have always just been a bonus.

I'll be honest: I'm not a fan of nuTrek. It's ST: The Roller Coaster Ride in movie format. I don't mind the cast, the sets, changes to the Enterprise (even the Apple-store bridge), the overuse of action sequences (though 2009 had a better balance or that), or any other little detail. Those are fine - some are even great.

But I have not been able to get over the way they just wiped away 100 years of established history in the first 5 minutes. If they wanted to reboot, they should have just reboot (like 007 did with Casino Royale). There was plenty of room to show the adventures of young Kirk and crew without stepping on TOS (which, let's face, wasn't a shining star of continuity anyway).

But I digress. I'll save that rant for another Thread.

I just think CBS needs to realize that Trek can do more than just offer superficial entertainment. In fact, that's the ONLY reason it has lasted this long. Trek can be a forum to try new methods of story-telling, present fresh concepts, and test original formats because they have a fan base that will typically go along with it, at least for a while.