What Star Trek is all about?

[scotpens]

It's about the cultural acceptance of poor grammar.

"To boldly go..."

There is nothing wrong with splitting an infinitive.
There is nothing wrong with splitting an infinitive.
There is nothing wrong with splitting an infinitive.

 

[Count Zero]

Damn skippy. TNG and its spinoffs started making all these rules and expectations for what Trek could be, and it started getting trimmed and molded to fit in this neat little box they were building for Star Trek.

I don't agree with this, although it seems to be a common enough sentiment around here. But I feel it has more to do with the perception of TNG than with the actual show.
It's true that in TNG Picard & Co. usually were shown to be right in the end but there was also conflict within the crew (mostly involving Worf), ethical dilemmas, humour (though some of it over-the-top - Irish stereotypes FTW! But there was also Q), romance and action. I don't really see a big difference between what stories TOS could tell and what stories the later series could.
Both DS9 and Enterprise went pretty far in showing grey or even darker areas in the morality of our 'heros' and the organisations they worked for. I remember being outraged during ENT's third season about what Archer was doing. "That's not what Trek is about!" I thought. But in the end, they managed to return to the ideals of Trek - negotiation and collaboration. And they showed excellently that Archer's behaviour had consequences for him. It was really one hell of a ride. I know that ENT is pretty unpopular but it was certainly not a goody-two-shoes show.

But maybe you meant something else than what I thought you did?

 

[Nerys Myk]

I see your point.
I grew up in a time when heroes were heroes and villains were "mustache twirlers". Even Kirk had all the right answers in TOS. He would always have to consult with Spock and McCoy to make his decision, which because he was the brain he consulted his own thinking (logic) AND his heart (McCoy). We were right because they were right. To change the characters would be ..well...NOT the same characters.

Well, I just turned 53.

To me many of the villains in TOS were not straight up mustache twirlers and the heroes were not always "right". Kirk, Spock and the others made mistakes. Episodes were even built around their learning curve. Sometimes they even had to get a rap on the knuckles by the Galaxy's "adults". The Romulan Commanders weren't mustache twirlers. Klingons like Kor and Kang weren't exactly Snidely Whiplash either. Like I said the characters ( and stories) were complex at times.

 

[plynch]

It's about the cultural acceptance of poor grammar.

"To boldly go..."

There is nothing wrong with splitting an infinitive.
There is nothing wrong with splitting an infinitive.
There is nothing wrong with splitting an infinitive.

Rules are what keep us from barbarism. The line to securely prevent this must be drawn somewhere (as per Picard in FC), else we all start writing in little 140 character snippets with rampant abbreviating, which imho wd b wrng. omg.

Oh wait . . . .

 

[Skywalker]

"To boldly go" sounds better, anyway.

 

[RyuRoots]

To me many of the villains in TOS were not straight up mustache twirlers

And many of the villains in TNG and DS9 weren't either, so I fail to see your point here. I'm sure it's easy to rant about the "good old days", but Star Trek never STOPPED being about exploration and different kinds of stories.

 

[Gov Kodos]

To me many of the villains in TOS were not straight up mustache twirlers

And many of the villains in TNG and DS9 weren't either, so I fail to see your point here. I'm sure it's easy to rant about the "good old days", but Star Trek never STOPPED being about exploration and different kinds of stories.

Nerys Myk made no reference of or comparison to TNG or DS9 in his post. He talked only of the one show in regards to Captain Mike's discussion of Kirk, Spock and McCoy and what that series was portraying. There was no ranting about the good old days, what are you talking about?

 

[Nerys Myk]

To me many of the villains in TOS were not straight up mustache twirlers

And many of the villains in TNG and DS9 weren't either, so I fail to see your point here. I'm sure it's easy to rant about the "good old days", but Star Trek never STOPPED being about exploration and different kinds of stories.

Well, I didn't say anything about TNG or DS9 having mustache twirlers. Nor am I waxing nostalgic about "the good ol days". I used TOS examples to illustrate my point because those were the first to come to mind. My point was that Star Trek ( the entire franchise, not just TOS) used a variety of storytelling styles and placed its characters in situations that weren't simple black & white "morality plays."

Also, what Gov Kodos said.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Damn skippy. TNG and its spinoffs started making all these rules and expectations for what Trek could be, and it started getting trimmed and molded to fit in this neat little box they were building for Star Trek.

I don't agree with this, although it seems to be a common enough sentiment around here. But I feel it has more to do with the perception of TNG than with the actual show.
It's true that in TNG Picard & Co. usually were shown to be right in the end but there was also conflict within the crew (mostly involving Worf), ethical dilemmas, humour (though some of it over-the-top - Irish stereotypes FTW! But there was also Q), romance and action. I don't really see a big difference between what stories TOS could tell and what stories the later series could.
Both DS9 and Enterprise went pretty far in showing grey or even darker areas in the morality of our 'heros' and the organisations they worked for. I remember being outraged during ENT's third season about what Archer was doing. "That's not what Trek is about!" I thought. But in the end, they managed to return to the ideals of Trek - negotiation and collaboration. And they showed excellently that Archer's behaviour had consequences for him. It was really one hell of a ride. I know that ENT is pretty unpopular but it was certainly not a goody-two-shoes show.

But maybe you meant something else than what I thought you did?

Star Trek's moral and ethical approach always remained dynamic, but the style of characters, the way dialogue was written, the way a plot would unfold, story structure, lighting, cinematography, directing, all kind of got kind of samey after a while. It became riskless, and was content to hide inside a familiar place, endlessly paying homage to itself. ENT had standout episodes and plotlines, but for most of the show's run, there was this bored little voice in the back of my head that said "I've seen this before".

Even the new reboot suffers from this, in a sense. Half the dialogue is built off of quotes from the show, or quotes attributed to the show, and the storyline is a pretty by the book coming-of-age tale, with some time travel thrown in, because all the best Star Trek stories have time travel (I enjoyed the film BTW, no butthurt here). The expectations fans have had for the sequel is telling - people are saying Khan will be back, or trying to guess what TOS character will be a villain, some have even taken stabs at episodes they think will be turned into a film. Trek fans aren't expecting anything new, that we haven't seen before, because Star Trek has been recycling itself for years.

Like all observations, there are exceptions of course. There are a lot of episodes of TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT that stand out, and frankly I'd take the spinoffs over the original any day (sorry guys). As with all opinions, YMMV.

 

[Count Zero]

Thanks for clarifying. I had interpreted your previous post quite differently from what you meant. True, VOY and ENT certainly suffered from staleness, and your observations about the new movie are trues, as well. On the other hand, I think it's somewhat difficult to come up with totally new ideas in the Trekverse and even in Sci-Fi generally. It's more about telling them in a different and exciting way.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Ahhh another one of these threads that get away from me by the time I wander back to it...

Also, IDIC. That's what Star Trek is about, after all.

The funny thing is, it's not about IDIC at all. The Klingons and Romulans and Dominion and Borg aren't portrayed as cultures whose beliefs should be respected, but rather as having beliefs and behaviors that the Federation cannot tolerate. At best, there can be a kind of tense detente, a la the Dominion, where everyone stays in their respective corners. Or you can just rewrite the bad guys into domestication cough*Klingons*cough.

In the end, the message of Star Trek is: Fed values triumph over all because everyone else is evil to the extent that they disagree with these values. IDIC only for the folks we like.

Another thing Star Trek is not about: exploring space. The stories are not actually about exploration, they're about everything else: personal stories, politics, policing, diplomacy, war, even some economic elements.

Because there was no Federation, ENT couldn't do a lot of these story types, so they actually did exploration stories (well, hit-and-run exploration) and they were B O R I N G. Turns out just visiting planets is really not all that exciting, if there's no larger context that makes those planets meaningful. It's just the funny forehead of the week.

 

[Balrog]

"To boldly go" sounds better, anyway.

'To go boldly' would have worked.

'Boldly to go' sounds like you're ordering 'boldly' from a drive-thru.

 

[Anji]

No matter what you think of Roddenberry and the choices he made in his life, he did at least one good thing. He created something that brings hope to the world.

And that one thing is more than most people ever do in their lifetimes.

 

[Captain Mike]

No matter what you think of Roddenberry and the choices he made in his life, he did at least one good thing. He created something that brings hope to the world.

And that one thing is more than most people ever do in their lifetimes.

Agreed. I just wished we had "LIKE" buttons here....