What would Roddenberry want in XI??

[DaveyNY]

I think that there are one or two here who havn't got a clue what I'm talking about which is sad, with such a show.

No, I think that the majority of us get what you are trying to say and disagree with your views. It does not mean that we don't have a "clue." We very much do.

It's always easy to dismiss disagreeing views when one lectures from a self-righteous pulpit. However, there is one question that burns in the back on my mind since this thread veered into this one-sided didactic.

The question: If one must seek morality in a television show, such as Star Trek, then what does that say about the person and not the show itself?

It most likely says that THAT particular person, looks for deeper meaning in many aspects of his/her life.

Not a bad thing mind you, a bit over-zealous at times, perhaps, but certainly not a reason to try to indicate through subtly, that someone is somehow "not right" in the head.

IMVHO, Cheapjack is correct in that Star Trek was kind-sorta created to be able to present Moral Idea's to the audiences of the late '60s (among several other reasons already talked about.)

Many of those Ideas nowadays, probably seem kinda quaint to folks who weren't around back then, but remember that this was a Prime Time Show on the air during the era of The Beverly Hillbillies, Gunsmoke and Gentle Ben... (Oh yeah...let's not forget The Flying Nun.)

It was considered rather heady at the time.

It's all a matter of Perspective, and since everybody has there own Perspective...

Nobody's Opinion is more Right or Wrong/Good or Bad/Better or Worse.

 

[Qonos]

I don't think it's about a person's mental state as more as something maybe was lacking in their lives. I think most of us got a good moral upbringing from our parents more than television. My parents taught me right from wrong, they also sent me to bible class and allowed me to explore religion, even though now I'm and Agnostic I picked up alot of moral teaching from that. Morality should not be doled out weekly by television, it should be taught daily in your life and the lives of those you love. There should be constant reminders of right and wrong in every aspect of your life and what you view. Some people though forget to help in the teaching of that because they feel they shouldn't be bother and that there are other sources for this teaching.
'
Yes Star Trek helped with the re-enforcing of these daily teachings by having a message woven in to some of it's tales, but that wasn't Roddenberry's original intent no matter how my interviews he did in the seventies saying it was (After the fact like Lucas saying he wrote all of Star wars before he ever shot the first three films.) It's the duty of all society to be the pointing stone for what is right and wrong, and yes writers of Trek did their part with the show, but that was not the core of trek, the core of the show was to be entertaining and to provide an excape, and a glimpse of the future with the underlying tone that mankind can be better that we are now.

We still have a long way to go to get to a society like that marked out in Star Trek.

As to what Gene would want out of Trek if he were alive today? Well I think he'd want it to be entertaining and he'd want it to be successful. Those would be his main concerns with what would then still be his property, the point is kinda moot though seeing as he's dead.

 

[SonicRanger]

It most likely says that THAT particular person, looks for deeper meaning in many aspects of his/her life. Not a bad thing mind you, a bit over-zealous at times, perhaps, but certainly not a reason to try to indicate through subtly, that someone is somehow "not right" in the head...

The problem is that, if we don't agree with Cheapjack, he/she/it calls us immoral and clueless. How IDIC is that? Talk about irony...

 

[DaveyNY]

I don't think it's about a person's mental state as more as something maybe was lacking in their lives. I think most of us got a good moral upbringing from our parents more than television. My parents taught me right from wrong, they also sent me to bible class and allowed me to explore religion, even though now I'm an Agnostic I picked up alot of moral teaching from that. Morality should not be doled out weekly by television, it should be taught daily in your life and the lives of those you love. There should be constant reminders of right and wrong in every aspect of your life and what you view. Some people though forget to help in the teaching of that because they feel they shouldn't be bother and that there are other sources for this teaching.

Looking for a deeper meaning in many aspects of ones life doesn't necessarily mean that a person is "lacking" anything in their life.

I don't think that anybody was saying that a TV Show was/is the only source of Morality in their life.

I agree whole-heartedly with the part that I underlined in your quote.
The Teaching part ...could apply especially on a BBS.

Yes Star Trek helped with the re-enforcing of these daily teachings by having a message woven in to some of it's tales, but that wasn't Roddenberry's original intent no matter how my interviews he did in the seventies saying it was (After the fact like Lucas saying he wrote all of Star wars before he ever shot the first three films.)

Actually it was part of his original intent as stated in "The Making Of Star Trek" in 1968.

Also, Lucas started saying he had the entire story of Star Wars scribbled out, during many interviews in 1977-78.

It's the duty of all society to be the pointing stone for what is right and wrong,...

Also agree with this sentiment whole-heartedly.

...and yes writers of Trek did their part with the show, but that was not the core of trek, the core of the show was to be entertaining and to provide an escape, and a glimpse of the future with the underlying tone that mankind can be better that we are now.

Quite true, and also a Moral Idea which kinda-sorta reinforces CheepJacks' point.

We still have a long way to go to get to a society like that marked out in Star Trek.

Unfortunately, this is proved time and time again right here on the TBBS.

As to what Gene would want out of Trek if he were alive today? Well I think he'd want it to be entertaining and he'd want it to be successful. Those would be his main concerns with what would then still be his property, the point is kinda moot though seeing as he's dead.

But an interestingly speculative conversation none the less.

 

[number6]

It really doesn't matter what GR would want. After the first film he was billed as "Creative Consultant" and pretty much ignored on all subsequent TOS films.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

As to what Gene would want out of Trek if he were alive today?... the point is kinda moot though seeing as he's dead.

But an interestingly speculative conversation none the less.

Not really. The first fifty thousand times somebody brought up "what Gene would want," maybe, but that counter rolled over years ago.

 

[AlanC9]

Not really. The first fifty thousand times somebody brought up "what Gene would want," maybe, but that counter rolled over years ago.

And yet, here you are in the thread.....

 

[number6]

And so are you.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Not really. The first fifty thousand times somebody brought up "what Gene would want," maybe, but that counter rolled over years ago.

And yet, here you are in the thread.....

And not, you might have noticed, devoting much attention to that topic lately. The OP seems to have wanted to discuss something else, which is fine with me.

 

[AlanC9]

Well, yeah, but you must have read the thread before you knew where the OP was going. Or do you just know him?

Come to think of it, the only reason that I read the thread was that I couldn't imagine what anyone could have to say about the topic.

 

[Cheapjack]

Well, yeah, but you must have read the thread before you knew where the OP was going. Or do you just know him?

Come to think of it, the only reason that I read the thread was that I couldn't imagine what anyone could have to say about the topic.

Considering that even ST11 has 'based on Star Trek created by Gene Roddenberry', that's a little hard to understand.

I think some of theses posts have cured my sniffles. I thought that I would have to get used to the concept that amorality is the new morality, which is a little difficult to swallow.

I'm not the only one, you know.De Kelley,Shatner,Doohanand Nimoy used to get dozens of letters from people who said they went on to be engineers or doctors because of ST. Doohan said he once even saved somebody's life; stopped them from commiting suicide. OK, we're talking about role models, rather than morality, but is that sad pathetic or weird?

I just watched 'The Apple' again, 35 years after originally seeing it. Loved the message.

 

[SonicRanger]

I just watched 'The Apple' again, 35 years after originally seeing it. Loved the message.

Which is? It is okay to interfere with other cultures to make them more like your own?

I thought that I would have to get used to the concept that amorality is the new morality, which is a little difficult to swallow.

Again with your statements that a viewpoint different than yours is immoral or amoral... And again I ask: How IDIC is that?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I just watched 'The Apple' again, 35 years after originally seeing it. Loved the message.

Which is? It is okay to interfere with other cultures to make them more like your own?

Really..."The Apple" is one of the most vapid and ethically confused episodes of the original "Star Trek."

That's on top of the plot making absolutely no sense, of course.

 

[xortex]

It really doesn't matter what GR would want. After the first film he was billed as "Creative Consultant" and pretty much ignored on all subsequent TOS films.

Yea, and look what happened with the TOS films. The apple was a stagnated society and they liberated them ? and taught them good from evil.

 

[Balthier the Great]

I just watched 'The Apple' again, 35 years after originally seeing it. Loved the message.

Which is? It is okay to interfere with other cultures to make them more like your own?

Really..."The Apple" is one of the most vapid and ethically confused episodes of the original "Star Trek."

That's on top of the plot making absolutely no sense, of course.

It makes perfect sense. The leader guy was Charles Manson. Helter Skeltor Baby!

Anyway, what would GR want in Trek Xi? A big royalty check and some porn actress to have fun with on the set. I mean, say what you want, the guy was somewhat of a pimp.

I see where there were messages in the shows. But I think what made it work was the simplicity of the set up. It was a framework for telling good stories. You could put the Ent just about anywhere, have them meet aliens who just so happen to believe X whick is of course absurd, and have Kirk fix their culture for 'em. Or you could have them fight Klingons, or give disaster relief. It's simple and you can shape it to whatever you need.

Personally, I don't think there was ever just one Trek, there are hundreds. The funny ones, the shoot 'em ups, the morality tale, the internal conflict, the character building etc. They're all real, and all very different. DS9 is very political. It's still Trek. So is Voyager which never touched on politics.

 

[Therin of Andor]

De Kelley,Shatner,Doohanand Nimoy used to get dozens of letters from people who said they went on to be engineers or doctors because of ST. Doohan said he once even saved somebody's life; stopped them from commiting suicide. OK, we're talking about role models, rather than morality, but is that sad pathetic or weird?

Who's to say that JJ's ST movie, and its cast, won't get similar correspondence from fans saying that the message of the film and its characters inspired careers, and saved lives?

So is Voyager which never touched on politics.

Never?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The apple was a stagnated society and they liberated them ? and taught them good from evil.

Gee, I sure hope that when the flying saucer people land they approve of everything about our society. I particularly hope that they think we're progressing nicely and at a good clip along a social path that they consider "good."

Otherwise, we are fucked.

I'm far more amused, though, by the remarkable feat of engineering that enabled the ancestors to create Vaal: a machine capable of controlling the weather on a planetary scale, defending itself by firing lightning bolts with pinpoint precision and pulling interstellar ships out of orbit...and completely dependent upon being fed a few pounds of fruit every day by the native folk lest its energy reserves falter within hours.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I think that there are one or two here who havn't got a clue what I'm talking about which is sad, with such a show.

No, I think that the majority of us get what you are trying to say and disagree with your views. It does not mean that we don't have a "clue." We very much do.

It's always easy to dismiss disagreeing views when one lectures from a self-righteous pulpit. However, there is one question that burns in the back on my mind since this thread veered into this one-sided didactic.

The question: If one must seek morality in a television show, such as Star Trek, then what does that say about the person and not the show itself?

It most likely says that THAT particular person, looks for deeper meaning in many aspects of his/her life.

Not a bad thing mind you, a bit over-zealous at times, perhaps, but certainly not a reason to try to indicate through subtly, that someone is somehow "not right" in the head.

IMVHO, Cheapjack is correct in that Star Trek was kind-sorta created to be able to present Moral Idea's to the audiences of the late '60s (among several other reasons already talked about.)

Many of those Ideas nowadays, probably seem kinda quaint to folks who weren't around back then, but remember that this was a Prime Time Show on the air during the era of The Beverly Hillbillies, Gunsmoke and Gentle Ben... (Oh yeah...let's not forget The Flying Nun.)

It was considered rather heady at the time.

It's all a matter of Perspective, and since everybody has there own Perspective...

Nobody's Opinion is more Right or Wrong/Good or Bad/Better or Worse.

Gunsmoke would seem to be the odd man out in your list. it was an "adult" Western in the same way Star Trek was an "adult" Science Fiction show. Nor were these shows alone in dramas tackling "adult" issues.

 

[Cheapjack]

The apple was a stagnated society and they liberated them ? and taught them good from evil.

Gee, I sure hope that when the flying saucer people land they approve of everything about our society. I particularly hope that they think we're progressing nicely and at a good clip along a social path that they consider "good."

Otherwise, we are fucked.

I'm far more amused, though, by the remarkable feat of engineering that enabled the ancestors to create Vaal: a machine capable of controlling the weather on a planetary scale, defending itself by firing lightning bolts with pinpoint precision and pulling interstellar ships out of orbit...and completely dependent upon being fed a few pounds of fruit every day by the native folk lest its energy reserves falter within hours.

Starship:

The TOS only appears jaded now becuase it has been seen so many times. For the 60's. it was very innovative. I bet you couldn't think of something better in a week, and if you did write an episode, you wrote it by standing on the shoulders of giants and building on what had gone before.

As to learning morality from television: It's a very powerful thing, television. It could be used as a force for evil. (That would please Dirth Nader, here.) Star Trek provided me with role models. My parents didn't like me and I thought,' Maybe if I base myself on these people, maybe one day someone will like me! Maybe, one day, someone will employ me.'

I'm glad to see people seem to have dug out their 'Cage' DVD. Roddenberry made those statements in 67 and 87, though some here would ignore them and would prefer to tell us what he REALLY wanted when he set the whole thing up.

 

[trekkerguy]

Starship:

The TOS only appears jaded now becuase it has been seen so many times. For the 60's. it was very innovative. I bet you couldn't think of something better in a week, and if you did write an episode, you wrote it by standing on the shoulders of giants and building on what had gone before.

Like almost all of Star Trek.

And I've thought of better in less than 24 hours.