• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

What will make it "Star Trek"?

What is the necessary and sufficient condition for entertainment to be considered "Star Trek"?

  • Further adventures of established characters

  • A bright, promising future

  • Exploration of advanced science

  • More and different alien cultures

  • More and different locations

  • The name "Star Trek"

  • Other (describe below)


Results are only viewable after voting.
I'm giving you a hard time, but I think my questions are real. By saying a "permutation" we leave it open to being any kind of permutation. The permutation in which the Enterprise squares off against Godzilla would be permutation.

Hey if they integrate Godzilla into the Star Trek mythos, why not? ;)
And English is not my native language, and I've learned a lot of it through imitation so I might have the wrong term here.
Any version of the Star Trek universe, be it prime, Kelvin or other.
Which could still include a version with Godzilla.
 
Unfortunately, then you get into the conflicting opinions held by Berman and Braga vs what UPN wanted. Berman and Braga really wanted to make the show distinctly different from the other Star Treks. No transporters, and a first season which would largely be Earth centred, as the ship would still be under construction. Then UPN stepped in and said it's not Star Trek without transporters nor is it Star Trek if they stay at Earth. And UPN also wanted a shipboard boy band which would break out into a musical number every episode. Berman and Braga fought UPN about the boy band and won, but the price was they had to do a "traditional" Star Trek series with planets of the week and transporters. And since UPN had no faith in the prequel concept, they had to add the Temporal Cold War to give the show some sort of "future momentum."

Drop the boy band, embrace J-pop magic girl band away teams.
 
Hey if they integrate Godzilla into the Star Trek mythos, why not? ;)
And English is not my native language, and I've learned a lot of it through imitation so I might have the wrong term here.

I think you probably used to right word for your meaning, but that's my guess. If so, I definitely disagree with your premise (Trek is future, space, somehow Trek-related). As I said, Orville fits into that.

Then again, if there is something to the term Star Trek, maybe it's that we can disagree withhout drawing weapons on one another. Although, I've seen a lot of vicious rhetoric :)
 
It's hard to describe what makes it Star Trek. More than the IP rights. But not anything specific either. More an approach.
 
I'm not saying the show can't resonate with a lot of people. Personally I'd say that Buffy the Vampire Slayer, for example, is a much better show, that's much more true to life, but again it's subjective.

<SNIP>

And honestly I'm also kinda confused why a lot of the shows people often laud as "brilliant" have such ugly premises or deal with such base subjects.

I mean, isn't the premise of Buffy the Vampire Slayer somewhat ugly and dealing with base subjects? It's a program about a young woman who is coerced by a cabal of old men into going out every night to murder re-animated corpses that lust for blood.

Like I'm not talking Discovery here. But Sporanos, why would I ever want to watch a show about a mobster?

Honestly, gangster stories function to allow for artistic exploration of themes and ideas in the same way that most genres that deviate in some way from conventional Realism/Naturalism: they allow for the use of a sense of distance in examining universal human themes, allowing the audience to view those themes from POVs they might not have considered before.

I don't want to speak on The Sopranos in detail because, while I'm familiar enough with it to be able to discern that there's a great deal of depth and sophistication to its writing, acting, direction, and thematic content, I never enjoyed it enough to subject it to a deeper analysis to let me discern the specifics of those aspects. But right off the bat, one area in which The Sopranos works as a mechanism to examine universal human themes through a distancing lens is in the question of Tony Soprano's mental health and his relationship with is mother. Sopranos creator David Chase has often said that Tony's relationship with his abusive mother was based on his relationship with his own emotionally abusive mother; he's commented that people may not be interested in the mental health problems and maternal relationship problems of a normal, conventional man -- but make the main character a big, scary, tough Mafioso, and suddenly people become invested in the relationship, because there's a seeming contrast between Tony's image as a dangerous and powerful man and the reality of the emotionally crippling effects of the abuse he's suffered. In fact, the earliest Sopranos episodes were sold almost as though the show were a comedy, emphasizing the idea of Tony the Mafia boss suffered a debilitating anxiety attack and needed to go to therapy.

Honestly, this is similar to how a show like Star Trek functions. The elemental example would be TOS's "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" -- the theme we all know from real life is presented through a science fictional lens through the plot device of the aliens that are both black on one side and white on the other with their respective sides reversed, using audience expectations of fictional alien homogeneity to subvert expectations and look at the broader issue through new eyes. In The Sopranos, familial abuse and mental health are presented through the gangster story lens through the plot device of Tony needing to get therapy because of his abusive relationship with his mother. Science fiction maybe pushes the distancing effect further than the gangster genre, but the function is basically the same.

There are other reasons people are fascinated by gangster stories, of course. The Godfather is considered one of the greatest films of all time for many reasons; it works on many different levels. On one level, the film is an exploration of the age-old theme of moral corruption: we watch as the morally innocent Michael gradually allows himself to be consumed by the lawless violence of the criminal underworld, first by taking revenge for unjustified attacks on his father, and then culminating in his masterminding a massacre of his rivals in the underworld as he assumes his father's mantle as "the Godfather." Stories about corruption are perennially important in human culture because they help us analyze our own world and think about the ways in which real people, and even we ourselves, can be susceptible to corruption.

The Godfather is also considered great because it is a work of political art. The film makes it very clear that the existence of the American Mafia is itself a reaction to forms of oppression to which Italian immigrants were subjected, and to the failures and lack of popular legitimacy of the Italian state in the home country. The opening scene makes the political themes very clear:

[I said:
The Godfather[/I]]
BONASERA: I believe in America. America has made my fortune. And I raised my daughter in the American fashion. I gave her freedom, but -- I taught her never to dishonor her family. She found a boyfriend; not an Italian. She went to the movies with him; she stayed out late. I didn't protest. Two months ago, he took her for a drive, with another boyfriend. They made her drink whiskey. And then they tried to take advantage of her. She resisted. She kept her honor. So they beat her, like an animal. <SNIP> I -- I went to the police, like a good American. These two boys were brought to trial. The judge sentenced them to three years in prison -- suspended sentence. Suspended sentence! They went free that very day! I stood in the courtroom like a fool. And those two bastard, they smiled at me. Then I said to my wife, "For justice, we must go to Don Corleone."

VITO CORLEONE: Why did you go to the police? Why didn't you come to me first?

BONASERA: What do you want of me? Tell me anything. But do what I beg you to do.

VITO CORLEONE: What is that? [Bonasera gets up to whisper his request into Don Corleone's ear] That I cannot do.

BONASERA: I'll give you anything you ask.

VITO CORLEONE: We've known each other many years, but this is the first time you came to me for counsel, for help. I can't remember the last time that you invited me to your house for a cup of coffee, even though my wife is godmother to your only child. But let's be frank here: you never wanted my friendship. And you were afraid to be in my debt.

BONASERA: I didn't want to get into trouble.

VITO CORLEONE: I understand. You found paradise in America, had a good trade, made a good living. The police protected you; and there were courts of law. And you didn't need a friend of me. But now you come to me and you say, "Don Corleone, give me justice!" But you don't ask with respect. You don't offer friendship. You don't even think to call me Godfather. Instead, you come into my house on the day my daughter is to be married, and you ask me to do murder, for money.

BONASERA: I ask you for justice.

VITO CORLEONE: That is not justice; your daughter is still alive.

The entire film is preoccupied with this question of justice, of how you obtain justice when the state has failed -- and of what, exactly, makes the Mafia different from the state. As Michael notes in the film, his father Vito considers himself just as important, and just as legitimate a source of power, as any mayor, governor, or senator; The Godfather essentially views the Mafia as a state within a state, formed through the failures of the so-called "legitimate" government.

Indeed, yet another gangster film, Mystic River, makes this question of what constitutes a "legitimate" state even clearer. Though whereas The Godfather is preoccupied with the idea that the formation of the Mafia is an understandable response to the failures of the legitimate state, Mystic River is concerned with what happens when both institutions fail. When a former mobster's (Jimmy) daughter is murdered, a cop (Sean) who used to be his childhood friend is unable to find a suspect to arrest. Sean is himself disillusioned with his role in society: “I’m tired of wishing things made sense. I’m tired of caring about some dead girl, and there’s just gonna be another one after her. Sending killers to jail is just sending them where they’ve been heading all their dumb, pathetic lives. The dead are still dead.” Jimmy concludes that a third childhood friend, the mentally damaged Dave, likely killed his daughter; he has his former friend murdered in retribution, saying to Dave as he drags him to his death, "We bury our sins out here, Dave. We wash them clean." It later comes out that Dave was innocent; a stranger had murdered Jimmy's daughter. But his wife insists that his actions were righteous: “Their daddy’s a king. And a king knows what to do and does it. Even when it’s hard. And their daddy will do whatever he has to for those he loves. And that’s all that matters. Because everyone is weak, Jimmy. Everyone but us. We will never be weak. And you, you could rule this town."

And in The Sopranos, we arguably find a synthesis of both of these basic themes of gangster stories -- corruption vs. political legitimacy. The series finale infamously ends with Tony's therapist terminating treatment, due to her belief that he is an incorrigible sociopath. Tony believes he has come on top in a short gang war, and he's got an FBI agent in his pocket. His family, who used to object to his position in the Mafia, have all come around and embraced the material benefits Tony's position as a Mafia boss gives them: material security and wealth (his wife), industry connections to start his career (his son), and a position as a lawyer (his daughter). They all gather to meet him at a diner. As Journey's "Don't Stop Believin'" plays, we see one family member after another arrive, and we see other diner customers eye Tony suspiciously. Tony will spend the rest of his life looking over his back, wondering if the rando he sees across the room is gonna get him. But his family have been corrupted along with him; all have embraced their dark wealth. The scene cuts to black. The episode's title? "Made in America" -- a clear statement about U.S. culture's worship of wealth and idealization of violence and power.

... I honestly didn't mean to write an essay about the gangster genre, but hopefully you can get a sense now of what it is people see in a story about a mobster.

So if it can be a permutation, then Orville does count?

I've often thought that there's nothing about The Orville that necessarily precludes it from being a Star Trek series if the background details of the show were changed. The fact that Star Trek restricted itself to one-hour dramas for so long is sad, and I'm glad that we finally have Star Trek exploring other formats like the sitcom in Lower Decks.

To me, the important aspect is the exploration of themes, and an aspiration to tackle though societal debates, from a humanist lens. If it's going to be mindless space pew-pew filled with clichés and dialogue written by 5 year olds ("I like feeling feelings"), like Discovery,

That description of DIS goes beyond being a difference of opinion; it is flat-out false. DIS makes its concern with humanist themes and questions of morality clear from the very opening shot. You may not like how it's executed -- though I question your taste if you do -- but to characterize it as "mindless space pew-pew" is flat-out false.
 
I think the great potential of serialization is exactly why Discovery has been such a creative disappointment. They’re essentially writing season-long episodes, with far more emphasis on inane plot developments than the in-depth character exploration that serialization affords. Lorca is a prime example — could have been a truly great, uniquely timely Trek character, but instead he ends up a cartoon. What a waste.

I’d say the best Discovery has managed has been the handling of Saru, and even that’s not a patch on what they did with Spock in the rigid episodic format 50+ years ago. Pike, too, was good, but that was a straight lift from TOS.

Can Discovery do things TOS or TNG couldn’t? Absolutely. But let’s not confuse potential with what’s actually on screen.
 
I think the great potential of serialization is exactly why Discovery has been such a creative disappointment. They’re essentially writing season-long episodes, with far more emphasis on inane plot developments than the in-depth character exploration that serialization affords.

I strongly disagree. Look at Stamets and Culber; look at the saga of Ash, Michael, and L'Rell; look at the evolving relationship between Michael, Sarek, and Spock. Look at how the relationship between Michael and Mirror-Georgiou has evolved; look at how much Michael herself as changed. Look at Tilly.

All of these characters are at totally different places than they were when they first appeared, and they've all been on more of a journey across two seasons than any character on TNG went on in its first two seasons.

Pike, too, was good, but that was a straight lift from TOS.

I don't agree that the DIS version of Pike has much in common with the "Cage" version of Pike in terms of personality. In "The Cage," Pike is a bitter, aloof man who resents the pressures of his command. In DIS, he's sociable, charming, and playful. Honestly, the DIS version of Pike owes more to Kirk in terms of personality than he does to "The Cage."
 
I strongly disagree. Look at Stamets and Culber; look at the saga of Ash, Michael, and L'Rell; look at the evolving relationship between Michael, Sarek, and Spock. Look at how the relationship between Michael and Mirror-Georgiou has evolved; look at how much Michael herself as changed. Look at Tilly.

All of these characters are at totally different places than they were when they first appeared, and they've all been on more of a journey across two seasons than any character on TNG went on in its first two seasons.

Funny you mention Ash, as I think he encapsulates a lot of what’s wrong with Discovery’s writing. I wouldn’t even call him a character so much as a collection of plot twists. Whatever value he had was in serving the season one plot, and what’s left now is dramatically inert. There’s a way to write that sort of character that I might find interesting, but Discovery hasn’t managed it.

I would agree that many of Discovery’s characters are now in totally different places, but that’s in no small part because the show has been all over the map. Stamets and Culber, like Tyler and Lorca, suffer from “character development” by outrageous, unrelatable plot twist, and I still don’t feel I know Burnham, despite her endless tribulations. A lot of stuff has happened, but the characters remain much less human to me than Spock, Kirk and McCoy.
 
Funny you mention Ash, as I think he encapsulates a lot of what’s wrong with Discovery’s writing. I wouldn’t even call him a character so much as a collection of plot twists. Whatever value he had was in serving the season one plot, and what’s left now is dramatically inert. There’s a way to write that sort of character that I might find interesting, but Discovery hasn’t managed it.

I would agree that many of Discovery’s characters are now in totally different places, but that’s in no small part because the show has been all over the map. Stamets and Culber, like Tyler and Lorca, suffer from “character development” by outrageous, unrelatable plot twist, and I still don’t feel I know Burnham, despite her endless tribulations. A lot of stuff has happened, but the characters remain much less human to me than Spock, Kirk and McCoy.

At this point, we are hitting the wall of subjectivity, because where I see fully-realized characters who have gone on emotional journeys that have changed them, you see collections of plot devices. I have no idea how you can see them that way if you're actually trying to engage with the material on its own terms to be honest.
 
Tyler and Lorca, suffer from “character development” by outrageous, unrelatable plot twist,
Welcome to Star Trek. If they were doing serialised in the early 90s', the Next Gen crew would be dealing with the fallout of nutty stuff like "Genesis" for a whole season.
 
I have no idea how you can see them that way if you're actually trying to engage with the material on its own terms to be honest.

Welcome to humanity? Where we all see things through the lens of our life experiences. I've desperately tried to get into Discovery (even own the first season on Blu-ray), and find many of the same problems as @Jadeb. The characters are terribly dull, and are more defined by outrageous plot twists than anything else. Burnham and Tyler were like watching two wet pieces of cardboard slap together.

I'm hoping that season three, with a steady showrunner will transcend the mediocrity of the first two seasons.
 
At this point, we are hitting the wall of subjectivity, because where I see fully-realized characters who have gone on emotional journeys that have changed them, you see collections of plot devices. I have no idea how you can see them that way if you're actually trying to engage with the material on its own terms to be honest.
Because this isn't just something humans do. We have our own subjective experiences and personalities that we view things through. Engaging art "on its own terms" is very difficult because of our own personalities.
At this point I adhere to the axiom "Any stupid idea than can be produced/published will be produced/published."
I thought that was the rule since comics were published.
 
I agree using the MU and making Lorca from there was an awful idea, but most of the rest of Discovery’s ideas I’ve liked.

My two cents on gangster related stories. A lot of it depends on your ability to morally submerge yourself. When your mind goes to that universe, your own moral judgement ceases to apply and you accept the moral paradigm of the protagonist, and it just becomes a political adventure.

Sopranos is an interesting case study because Dr Melfi takes the role of the viewer turning off her morality for the vicarious thrill of gangsterdom. And that ends with Melfi concluding that Tony is just a sociopath who cons her into seeing him as a human being thrust into a role by a bad childhood. Breaking Bad has a similar arc, only Walter is both Tony and Melfi, conning himself into thinking he was only cooking meth to protect his family’s future.

Mob movies that focus on civilians getting wrapped up in crime like Ozark serve to distill moral decisions to their most simplistic. I’m faced with certain death for my family if I don’t do these horrible things, to satisfy these violent killers I ended up working for, how far am I willing to go?

One of the reasons I think the base ideas often end up being the best is that they’re the least constrained by real world limitations. Your cool idea can’t break realism because there’s no realism to break. Whereas a period piece or political drama has to accurately reflect how humans actually behaved in a place and time.
 
At this point, we are hitting the wall of subjectivity, because where I see fully-realized characters who have gone on emotional journeys that have changed them, you see collections of plot devices. I have no idea how you can see them that way if you're actually trying to engage with the material on its own terms to be honest.

What I find interesting about Trek are the insights into the human condition. Spock is fascinating because he's torn between two worlds, and most of us can relate to that in some fashion, even though he has green skin. I don't find anything insightful or particularly interesting about Ash's skin suit experience. Similarly, I feel bad for Stamets and Culber for Culber's ill-judged fridging, but that's the extent of my emotional involvement. There's nothing more there. And the less said about what the show did to Lorca, the better. That storyline had real long-term potential, and they tossed it in the fire for a goofy, unsatisfying twist.

Welcome to Star Trek. If they were doing serialised in the early 90s', the Next Gen crew would be dealing with the fallout of nutty stuff like "Genesis" for a whole season.

Yeah, and I wouldn't want a deep dive on that either. There are virtues to episodic. But Discovery's failing is that it hasn't capitalized on the virtues of serialization.
 
Last edited:
What I find interesting about Trek are the insights into the human condition. Spock is fascinating because he's torn between two worlds, and most of us can relate to that in some fashion, even though he has green skin. I don't find anything insightful or particularly interesting about Ash's skin suit experience.

I find the question of how fallible memory informs one's identity very interesting! Have you never had an experience where you had a conflict with somebody that you remembered one way, and they remembered it another way, and you had to start reconciling yourself with the contradictions of the past versus your memories? Have you never learned that you caused others harm that you genuinely don't recall? Have you never sought love from someone in spite of the times you've been toxic in the past? These are all things Ash has gone through that I recognize from real life.

Similarly, I feel bad for Stamets and Culber for Culber's ill-judged fridging, but that's the extent of my emotional involvement. There's nothing more there.

You've never tried to sustain a relationship after your partner has gone through a fundamental change that you couldn't relate to, or during a time your partner was experiencing a severe mental health problem? You've never wondered who you really are when your life turns upside down -- never gone through a transformative experience and then gone home, only to find that you can't go home again? These are all things I've been through and I relate to in Stamets and Culber.

And the less said about what the show did to Lorca, the better. That storyline had real long-term potential, and they tossed it in the fire for a goofy, unsatisfying twist.

I've met more than my fair share of people I thought were decent who turned out to be toxic, so I didn't have a problem with that. I do think that Season One shouldn't have been structured the way it was, because sticking the MU arc in final third of the season just hurt the momentum of the Klingon War arc and forced the MU arc to resolve prematurely. It would have been better if the MU arc had comprised either one-half or all of Season Two.

Yeah, and I wouldn't want a deep dive on that either.

I don't know that I'd want a deep dive on the trauma of being turned into an evolutionary ancestral species... but then, if you don't want to d a deep dive on that kind of traumatic experience, I don't know if you ought to do the episode in the first place. It just becomes this dishonest portrayal of trauma otherwise.
 
I don't enjoy The Sopranos. I've seen it; it's not my thing, I didn't watch it regularly, and I don't watch it on streaming. Same with Mad Men. But objectively speaking, these shows are artistically superior to other shows I do enjoy, and I won't pretend otherwise.
Mad Men is my favorite series, bar none. I'm pretty unapologetic about this. It's a show where I'm actually going to be The Snob about it. Although Better Call Saul is giving it a serious run for its money.

As much as I like Discovery, I'm not going to say I think it reached the level of those shows. When I watched the first episode of Picard, I thought it might break through, I thought "This is it! This is the one!" And while I still like Picard a lot, it ended up "only" being neck-and-neck with Discovery for me.

If Picard had a 13-episode season instead of 10, that would've helped it a lot. There are a couple of other things too, but I won't get into them here.

The Sopranos does nothing for me. I recognize it as a "good show" and a "modern classic" but it does nothing for me. And I know how unpopular of an opinion it is that I like Better Call Saul better than Breaking Bad.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top