What Star Trek is all about?
- Thread starter Captain Mike
- Start date
It's all about the butthurt.
Nah, it really isn't.
I'd appreciate it if the discussion didn't get personal again.
What people want Star Trek to be about...
What Star Trek is about...
Well said.
I understood the question more to be about the message or the feel of the show rather than about the intentions of its creator which I think are somewhere in between your two pics, Bill. Everyone who pitches a TV show wants it to be successful and pay off but they also want to tell a story. I agree that Star Trek is not a simplistic morality tale although ethical conflicts play their part in a number of stories. But it's not mindless entertainment, either.
Good points. The above was more about the people who want to divorce "Gene's Vision" from Gene Roddenberry the man, which I just don't think is possible. In order to find out what Star Trek is, you have to analyze all aspects of the man who put it forth, not just the elements that make you all warm and tingly inside.
There's no need to be offended by the humorous/satiric posts, just bored. The not funny goes right with the not thinking.
Star Trek doesn't have much unique to it. It tended to tell better SF stories because it sensibly grabbed up something more recent than Flash Gordon serials. By definition, that is pretty much not unique. Like most good SF, it rather tended to think the future would be different. Even if the most obvious thing it thought was that women would dress sexier in the future, the idea is still there. It is an idea that is amazingly offensive to huge numbers of people, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The notion that we might become better people was not unique to Star Trek, it was a common hope in the days of the civil rights movement. The Sixties had its fair share of reactionaries but there was much more of a left than there has been for decades. Like all "popular" (i.e., large scale commercial) culture, it reflected the issues of the time. Being allegedly about someplace else, it had a built in escape clause so that anyone could freely dismiss the aspects that were displeasing. It's how Christians manage to enjoy Star Trek. And the SF trappings still allow what is now an unacceptable political attitude to escape censure.
The other Treks as time went on were increasingly about nostalgia for the Sixties vew of the future or about clumsily splicing in fatuous notions about the human condition. Retro is pretty much always a minority taste or ephemeral fad. So the increasing irrelevance of the first and the dreary pomposity and falseness of the other led to ever smaller audiences.
Star Trek doesn't have much unique to it. It tended to tell better SF stories because it sensibly grabbed up something more recent than Flash Gordon serials. By definition, that is pretty much not unique. Like most good SF, it rather tended to think the future would be different. Even if the most obvious thing it thought was that women would dress sexier in the future, the idea is still there. It is an idea that is amazingly offensive to huge numbers of people, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The notion that we might become better people was not unique to Star Trek, it was a common hope in the days of the civil rights movement. The Sixties had its fair share of reactionaries but there was much more of a left than there has been for decades. Like all "popular" (i.e., large scale commercial) culture, it reflected the issues of the time. Being allegedly about someplace else, it had a built in escape clause so that anyone could freely dismiss the aspects that were displeasing. It's how Christians manage to enjoy Star Trek. And the SF trappings still allow what is now an unacceptable political attitude to escape censure.
The other Treks as time went on were increasingly about nostalgia for the Sixties vew of the future or about clumsily splicing in fatuous notions about the human condition. Retro is pretty much always a minority taste or ephemeral fad. So the increasing irrelevance of the first and the dreary pomposity and falseness of the other led to ever smaller audiences.
I always felt Star Trek was about four themes: morality, spirituality, politics and science.
Together the Star Trek series explored these themes to:
a) give the audience messages (implicit and explicit) about humanities present state and how things should be done
b) the obvious one of entertaining the audience (but in a sophisticated way)
c) give a vision for humanities future
d) use alien races based around the best and worst bits of humanity
e) explore the unknown (wacky sci-fi stuff)
I would sum up that Star Trek is like Shakespearean morality/sci-fi tales, and some of it may be a little out of place with the present (or people's idea of the future) and could even be regarded as preachy at times. But ultimately those who enjoyed Star Trek enjoyed it for the same reasons why every other great and good series/film works: good triumphing over evil, seeing characters grow and develop, romance and friendship and everything else inbetween.
The only two things unique about Star Trek is one it is its own genre, and two it went against the status quo from the very start (like having a black woman as a main character in TOS and all the other controversial things other series explored).
I think this loosely sums up what Star Trek is about.
Together the Star Trek series explored these themes to:
a) give the audience messages (implicit and explicit) about humanities present state and how things should be done
b) the obvious one of entertaining the audience (but in a sophisticated way)
c) give a vision for humanities future
d) use alien races based around the best and worst bits of humanity
e) explore the unknown (wacky sci-fi stuff)
I would sum up that Star Trek is like Shakespearean morality/sci-fi tales, and some of it may be a little out of place with the present (or people's idea of the future) and could even be regarded as preachy at times. But ultimately those who enjoyed Star Trek enjoyed it for the same reasons why every other great and good series/film works: good triumphing over evil, seeing characters grow and develop, romance and friendship and everything else inbetween.
The only two things unique about Star Trek is one it is its own genre, and two it went against the status quo from the very start (like having a black woman as a main character in TOS and all the other controversial things other series explored).
I think this loosely sums up what Star Trek is about.
To me star trek has always been about us and our possible future, the hope that we will grow up and leave behind the worst part of ourselfs.
As I stated in my first post:
This is NOT about the man but about his optamistic view of the future. If your blind hatred towards him because he cheated on his wife and other things you have read, colors your views of what I think is an better and perfect future for all mankind. Then perhaps no longer posting on my thread is an option?
Once you create a thread you have no control over the direction it takes. As long as it stays within board rules and more or less on topic, any opinion is allowed. Besides, BillJ explained why he thinks Roddenberry's intentions matter in this question. Also, you mentioned Roddenberry's statements in interviews and the likes yourself so it seems only logical that he would be discussed in the thread.
You cannot separate "Gene Roddenberry's Vision" from Gene Roddenberry anymore than you can separate Gene Roddenberry from Star Trek.
Star Trek reflects on Gene Roddenberry for good and for ill. For all his bravado about treating each other with respect, he was cheating on and stealing from those closest to him. For me, all the stuff he spewed about an optimistic future kinda went out the window when he lied about why the suits wanted to get rid of Majel and when he started the "fan" campaign to save the original series. I guess you could still call it a "fan" campaign as Gene was a "fan" of getting a regular paycheck and was a "fan" or getting up-and-coming starlets onto the "casting couch".
If he'll lie once about Star Trek or a hundred times, what makes you think the crap he's fed you about an optimistic future isn't just that, crap? What makes you think he wasn't just peddling a placebo that he knew would sell to the masses thus keeping his cash-flow going?
I didn't know Gene Roddenberry, but I know he was a man of questionable moral standards from every source that has come forward. Great TV producer? Yes. Respectable human being? No.
Nothing will replace what Star Trek meant to five-year old Billy Jasper from Norwood, Ohio. It was big time action with a cool hero who punched the bad guy, saved the day and got the girl. But adult Bill Jasper, while still loving Star Trek realizes that the man who made it possible was a deplorable human being and I refuse to worship at his alter. YMMV.
To each his own I suppose.
Well he cheated on his first wife with various women who appeared on the show namely Nichelle Nichols and Majel Barrett.
He also stole work, credit and/or royalties from the likes of Bob Justman, Alexander Courage, D.C. Fontana and David Gerrold.
Inside Star Trek by Solow and Justman is a good place to start...
Nevertheless, wouldn't you say that Star Trek, by and large, does indeed portray an optimistic view of humanity and its future? Sure, it is by no means an original idea, but still, I always found that quite appealing about the show(s).
I understand that some people can get soured on a work of art when they learn its creator had some serious shortcomings but that doesn't make what once appealed to you any less present in it, does it? I guess, I'm approaching art more from an "it's what you make of it" angle.
Similar threads
