Why Do we Need More Trek?

[PKTrekGirl]

The "down and dirty" or "nitty-gritty" part is why I could never really get into BSG. I also think it is why the latter ST series didn't work very well. They strayed away from Gene Roddenberry's original vision of a more positive future. GR's universe was full of optimism that no matter what happens we will rise to the occasion and triumph.
The latter series showed too much reality and too many of our flaws... the "glass became half-empty" instead of "half-full".
What do you think?

Frankly, I never saw TOS as 'full of optimism'. I think TNG was happy-shiny like you describe, but I never saw TOS that way. The TOS crew battled plenty of enemies who threatened from all sides...and the characters in TOS were not perfect - they all had flaws - right up to and including Kirk, who was perhaps the biggest womanizer in all of Trek. But these flaws, by the way, are what made the characters interesting and 'real'.

IMO, TOS and TNG are very different shows. The TNG characters talked constantly about how far they'd 'evolved'....but I don't recall nearly as much talk of 'evolution' in TOS. Sure, they were the good guys...just like our heroes in DS9, VOY and ENT were the good guys. But they were flawed heroes. In fact, the ONLY crew that was portrayed as near perfect human beings were the TNG crew - who I thought was by far the most plastic crew of the bunch. Seven years of that show, and I can't say I really KNOW a single one of those characters. This was not the case with any of the other shows.

And because of that, IMO, it is TNG that strayed the most from TOS.

And no...I don't give a hoot that Roddenberry was involved in TNG. I don't see it as anywhere near his original 'vision' (as everyone likes to refer to it - as if the man was some sort of prophet or something) - at least not the 'vision' I saw in TOS. TNG is chock full of 80's PC mentality that is not present in TOS, DS9 or ENT. I think a little of it leaked into VOY...but not nearly to the extent it was present on TNG. So as far as Roddenberry's 'vision' goes? - I think he betrayed his OWN vision with TNG.

Me? I LIKE my heroes to be flawed. Because to me, that is a real reason for optimism: that even flawed individuals like you and I can do great things...and rise to the occasion, despite our flaws and mistakes...despite our humanity. That, to me, is the definition of a true hero.

It's easy to be a saint in heaven, after all.

 

[Michael]

The "down and dirty" or "nitty-gritty" part is why I could never really get into BSG. I also think it is why the latter ST series didn't work very well. They strayed away from Gene Roddenberry's original vision of a more positive future. GR's universe was full of optimism that no matter what happens we will rise to the occasion and triumph.
The latter series showed too much reality and too many of our flaws... the "glass became half-empty" instead of "half-full".
What do you think?

Frankly, I never saw TOS as 'full of optimism'. I think TNG was happy-shiny like you describe, but I never saw TOS that way. The TOS crew battled plenty of enemies who threatened from all sides...and the characters in TOS were not perfect - they all had flaws - right up to and including Kirk, who was perhaps the biggest womanizer in all of Trek. But these flaws, by the way, are what made the characters interesting and 'real'.

IMO, TOS and TNG are very different shows. The TNG characters talked constantly about how far they'd 'evolved'....but I don't recall nearly as much talk of 'evolution' in TOS. Sure, they were the good guys...just like our heroes in DS9, VOY and ENT were the good guys. But they were flawed heroes. In fact, the ONLY crew that was portrayed as near perfect human beings were the TNG crew - who I thought was by far the most plastic crew of the bunch. Seven years of that show, and I can't say I really KNOW a single one of those characters. This was not the case with any of the other shows.

And because of that, IMO, it is TNG that strayed the most from TOS.

And no...I don't give a hoot that Roddenberry was involved in TNG. I don't see it as anywhere near his original 'vision' (as everyone likes to refer to it - as if the man was some sort of prophet or something) - at least not the 'vision' I saw in TOS. TNG is chock full of 80's PC mentality that is not present in TOS, DS9 or ENT. I think a little of it leaked into VOY...but not nearly to the extent it was present on TNG. So as far as Roddenberry's 'vision' goes? - I think he betrayed his OWN vision with TNG.

Me? I LIKE my heroes to be flawed. Because to me, that is a real reason for optimism: that even flawed individuals like you and I can do great things...and rise to the occasion, despite our flaws and mistakes...despite our humanity. That, to me, is the definition of a true hero.

It's easy to be a saint in heaven, after all.

Wow! I couldn't agree more, PKTrekGirl! You know, being a non-english speaker sometimes makes it very hard to make myself understood on these boards. I could have never written it down in such an elaborate fashion. So, thank you for saying what I just can't say.

 

[SeerSGB]

The "down and dirty" or "nitty-gritty" part is why I could never really get into BSG. I also think it is why the latter ST series didn't work very well. They strayed away from Gene Roddenberry's original vision of a more positive future. GR's universe was full of optimism that no matter what happens we will rise to the occasion and triumph.
The latter series showed too much reality and too many of our flaws... the "glass became half-empty" instead of "half-full".
What do you think?

Frankly, I never saw TOS as 'full of optimism'. I think TNG was happy-shiny like you describe, but I never saw TOS that way. The TOS crew battled plenty of enemies who threatened from all sides...and the characters in TOS were not perfect - they all had flaws - right up to and including Kirk, who was perhaps the biggest womanizer in all of Trek. But these flaws, by the way, are what made the characters interesting and 'real'.

IMO, TOS and TNG are very different shows. The TNG characters talked constantly about how far they'd 'evolved'....but I don't recall nearly as much talk of 'evolution' in TOS. Sure, they were the good guys...just like our heroes in DS9, VOY and ENT were the good guys. But they were flawed heroes. In fact, the ONLY crew that was portrayed as near perfect human beings were the TNG crew - who I thought was by far the most plastic crew of the bunch. Seven years of that show, and I can't say I really KNOW a single one of those characters. This was not the case with any of the other shows.

And because of that, IMO, it is TNG that strayed the most from TOS.

And no...I don't give a hoot that Roddenberry was involved in TNG. I don't see it as anywhere near his original 'vision' (as everyone likes to refer to it - as if the man was some sort of prophet or something) - at least not the 'vision' I saw in TOS. TNG is chock full of 80's PC mentality that is not present in TOS, DS9 or ENT. I think a little of it leaked into VOY...but not nearly to the extent it was present on TNG. So as far as Roddenberry's 'vision' goes? - I think he betrayed his OWN vision with TNG.

Me? I LIKE my heroes to be flawed. Because to me, that is a real reason for optimism: that even flawed individuals like you and I can do great things...and rise to the occasion, despite our flaws and mistakes...despite our humanity. That, to me, is the definition of a true hero.

It's easy to be a saint in heaven, after all.

Well said.

What people forget, is that TOS never really had a "vision". If you go through and start reading up on the series's production and development, you'll see that they were approaching more as an allegory for 1960s America. Using a sci-fi setting, with little [no] reference to an actual date allowed them to get by with a lot.

Hell, look at Kirk, he's the poster boy for American philosophy at the time-- and even today's: His way, the Federation's-- ie America's, way of doing things is the best way. And he imposes that will on several cultures over the cross of the series.

 

[TrueQ]

In my opinion, some people need more Trek and some don't. Needing more of it kind of means that you're a bit "addicted". The more you watch it, the more you need it. I certainly need more Trek, because I'm totally addicted. Star Trek is something I've always liked, because I learned so much from it.
I surely won't forget it even if they don't make more of it.

 

[Triskelion]

The "down and dirty" or "nitty-gritty" part is why I could never really get into BSG. I also think it is why the latter ST series didn't work very well. They strayed away from Gene Roddenberry's original vision of a more positive future. GR's universe was full of optimism that no matter what happens we will rise to the occasion and triumph.
The latter series showed too much reality and too many of our flaws... the "glass became half-empty" instead of "half-full".
What do you think?

Frankly, I never saw TOS as 'full of optimism'. I think TNG was happy-shiny like you describe, but I never saw TOS that way. The TOS crew battled plenty of enemies who threatened from all sides...and the characters in TOS were not perfect - they all had flaws - right up to and including Kirk, who was perhaps the biggest womanizer in all of Trek. But these flaws, by the way, are what made the characters interesting and 'real'.

IMO, TOS and TNG are very different shows. The TNG characters talked constantly about how far they'd 'evolved'....but I don't recall nearly as much talk of 'evolution' in TOS. Sure, they were the good guys...just like our heroes in DS9, VOY and ENT were the good guys. But they were flawed heroes. In fact, the ONLY crew that was portrayed as near perfect human beings were the TNG crew - who I thought was by far the most plastic crew of the bunch. Seven years of that show, and I can't say I really KNOW a single one of those characters. This was not the case with any of the other shows.

And because of that, IMO, it is TNG that strayed the most from TOS.

And no...I don't give a hoot that Roddenberry was involved in TNG. I don't see it as anywhere near his original 'vision' (as everyone likes to refer to it - as if the man was some sort of prophet or something) - at least not the 'vision' I saw in TOS. TNG is chock full of 80's PC mentality that is not present in TOS, DS9 or ENT. I think a little of it leaked into VOY...but not nearly to the extent it was present on TNG. So as far as Roddenberry's 'vision' goes? - I think he betrayed his OWN vision with TNG.

Me? I LIKE my heroes to be flawed. Because to me, that is a real reason for optimism: that even flawed individuals like you and I can do great things...and rise to the occasion, despite our flaws and mistakes...despite our humanity. That, to me, is the definition of a true hero.

It's easy to be a saint in heaven, after all.

Wow! I couldn't agree more, PKTrekGirl! You know, being a non-english speaker sometimes makes it very hard to make myself understood on these boards. I could have never written it down in such an elaborate fashion. So, thank you for saying what I just can't say.

I don't get it. You're a non-english speaker? What's non-english? Is that some kind of pidgin of all the world's languages mixed together? What can't you say? What are you keeping from us? Or is it that you aren't an English speaker but you can say, but you can't write it? Or can you make yourself less understood? At least less than most non-world-pidgin language speakers? Did I not misunderstand you correctly?







Put your dictionary down I'm just messing with ya .

Also, I agree with PKTrekGirl, and not just because she writes like she's cute. The TOS bunch had flaws, and biases, and convictions. They laid it on the line knowing some beliefs were downright selfish, but they usually erred on the side of "doing the right thing". Also, actors like George Takei could bring so much passion to their roles. Takei is one of the great captains. No question about that. He just never had his own series to justify a place in the Pantheon. But his attitude--through TOS, the films, and even Voyager and the fan film World Enough and Time ("Do it, damn you!") - establish him, in my mind, as one of the Pillars of Trek. And he represents us in ways that TNG can't; though TNG managed to create a vision of humanity that was worth seeing. Sans dysfunctional petty aggressions. Not boring to me, but I can see how it would bore some. (Maybe that was the point - to distill something pure from our original and contemporary aggressive nature).

 

[Michael]

Put your dictionary down I'm just messing with ya .

It's April 3rd.

But yeah, I'm German — English is not my mother tongue.

 

[Baldus885]

my response; their is never enough trek, it's kinda like sex.

I agree. As long as they make watchable Trek I'll keep watching it, in the same way as if people write readable books, I'll keep reading them. Recent Trek has sucked pretty badly, but if this movie spawns sequels or series or whatever, and they are good, I'll watch. Same with Dr. Who.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

my response; their is never enough trek, it's kinda like sex.

Which makes "Star Trek: Enterprise" the really hideous fat chick.

 

[number6]

my response; their is never enough trek, it's kinda like sex.

Which makes "Star Trek: Enterprise" the really hideous fat chick.

That's as may be, but she gave great head.

 

[M'Sharak]

Oy.

 

[Sector 7]

But yeah, I'm German — English is not my mother tongue.

I'm very much surprised. Your command of the English language is better than some here. Or maybe you are just better at using your spell-checker... heheh.

 

[Michael]

But yeah, I'm German — English is not my mother tongue.

I'm very much surprised. Your command of the English language is better than some here. Or maybe you are just better at using your spell-checker... heheh.

Thank you. The funny thing is I don't even use a spell-checker ...

 

[idreamedmusic]

Frankly, I never saw TOS as 'full of optimism'. I think TNG was happy-shiny like you describe, but I never saw TOS that way. The TOS crew battled plenty of enemies who threatened from all sides...and the characters in TOS were not perfect - they all had flaws - right up to and including Kirk, who was perhaps the biggest womanizer in all of Trek. But these flaws, by the way, are what made the characters interesting and 'real'.

[snip]

Me? I LIKE my heroes to be flawed. Because to me, that is a real reason for optimism: that even flawed individuals like you and I can do great things...and rise to the occasion, despite our flaws and mistakes...despite our humanity. That, to me, is the definition of a true hero.

It's easy to be a saint in heaven, after all.

Wow, very well said and ITA!
I used to love TNG when I first saw it - and I still like it a lot - but the more I watched it, the more it grated on me. Describing the crew as "plastic" is a perfect way of putting it. There was almost no conflict amongst the characters or even within the characters themselves and, to me, that makes for a rather bland set of characters. I guess that's why eps like "Pegasus" are my favorites, as they at least tried something there. Conversely, that may also be why TNG's first season is so awkward and all over the place, as the TOS inspired eps simply didn't work with that set of characters.

And totally, totally agree about your point about flawed heroes. That's what makes them real. That's what lets them grow. The only character on TNG that even remotely approached something like a character arc was Data with his quest to be more "human", though that was pretty much stalled during the show and then totally killed in the movies.

The TOS crew had more conflict in general. You only need to look at Kirk and some of his self-doubts that cropped up, especially in the first season. Despite some, by now, generic character traits and stories back in the day, that's what really puts TOS above the other shows for me (though I have to admit I can't comment much on VOY and ENT, as I never really got into those).

As for needing more Trek... I do find myself getting excited about the new film, but then I'm also scared it's gonna go the route of young, pretty Trek aimed at the main demographic of movie-goers that also eat up shit like "White Chicks".

 

[PKTrekGirl]

^ Well, I liked TNG when I first saw it too. And there are certain episodes that I still like (Pegasus, Yesterday's Enterprise, most of the Q episodes, and a few of the Data-looking-to-be-human episodes, mainly). However, a crew that flies around the galaxy insisting that everyone else in the universe be more like them, because, after all, they are Just That Perfect, gets rather tedious.

Personally, I think this is the chief reason why TNG hasn't aged as well as any of the other shows. It feels very 80's...and I'm talking about the attitudes of the characters as well as the sets and costumes. TOS has a much more modern message...and if you could take the TOS characters off of those 60's sets, change the women's hair and makeup, and plant them on the sets of ENT, for example, the stories from the 60's would still hold up, for the most part.

But I can't even imagine the senior TNG crew on DS9, for example. You couldn't have a Quark, for example...or a Garak. Those characters are far too flawed to work with the TNG senior officers over anything more than 1 episode - an episode in which they would no doubt 'learn the error of their ways' and become regular Starfleet. *yawn*

Indeed, when Worf moved to DS9, that was one of the main issues they had to deal with...and there was an entire episode devoted mainly to forcing Worf to lighten-the-hell-up after he butted in to one of Odo's investigations with disastrous results. But even after that episode (in which he supposedly learned his lesson and began to understand that he wasn't in Kansas anymore), he came off as the biggest boresville stick-in-the-mud in existence throughout most of that show...so finally the writers simply had him embrace that stick up his ass and moved him onto the Defiant, where he could pretend he was still on TNG until Martok came and rescued him with more I-don't-fit-in-as-a-Klingon stories.

Fortunately, O'Brien didn't bring as much backstory with him...so they could fit him in much easier. Plus, he was an enlisted man with a more casual attitude, and that helped as well.

I guess the bottom line for me is that PC 80's mentality on TNG has really caused that show to age very badly.

I was thrilled when it first came on and I watched every episode religiously...but now I can barely get through an episode without cringing at least once...unless it's one of the ones I listed above.

 

[Balthier the Great]

The "down and dirty" or "nitty-gritty" part is why I could never really get into BSG. I also think it is why the latter ST series didn't work very well. They strayed away from Gene Roddenberry's original vision of a more positive future. GR's universe was full of optimism that no matter what happens we will rise to the occasion and triumph.
The latter series showed too much reality and too many of our flaws... the "glass became half-empty" instead of "half-full".
What do you think?

Optimism is good. After-school specials suck. I think the future will be more positive. I just don't think that all conflict is going to end. People disagree with each other. They do have weaknesses. That's not pessimism, it's just not Disneyfacation. I think some of the grttiness was good -- It's damn easy to act like Picard and preach about being evolved human beings when you have nothing to worry about. It's hard to be in favor of a free press when printing something controvercial will get you killed.

I'm an optimist, but I think it's more optimistic to say "We shall overcome" than "Sugar pies and lollipops". I'm not interested in moral platitudes preached from a barcalounger. Show me a moral man who does the right thing when every survival instinct says give in. And people can and will do that.

 

[ST:RPG]

^ Well, I liked TNG when I first saw it too. And there are certain episodes that I still like (Pegasus, Yesterday's Enterprise, most of the Q episodes, and a few of the Data-looking-to-be-human episodes, mainly). However, a crew that flies around the galaxy insisting that everyone else in the universe be more like them, because, after all, they are Just That Perfect, gets rather tedious.

Personally, I think this is the chief reason why TNG hasn't aged as well as any of the other shows. It feels very 80's...and I'm talking about the attitudes of the characters as well as the sets and costumes. TOS has a much more modern message...and if you could take the TOS characters off of those 60's sets, change the women's hair and makeup, and plant them on the sets of ENT, for example, the stories from the 60's would still hold up, for the most part.

But I can't even imagine the senior TNG crew on DS9, for example. You couldn't have a Quark, for example...or a Garak. Those characters are far too flawed to work with the TNG senior officers over anything more than 1 episode - an episode in which they would no doubt 'learn the error of their ways' and become regular Starfleet. *yawn*

Indeed, when Worf moved to DS9, that was one of the main issues they had to deal with...and there was an entire episode devoted mainly to forcing Worf to lighten-the-hell-up after he butted in to one of Odo's investigations with disastrous results. But even after that episode (in which he supposedly learned his lesson and began to understand that he wasn't in Kansas anymore), he came off as the biggest boresville stick-in-the-mud in existence throughout most of that show...so finally the writers simply had him embrace that stick up his ass and moved him onto the Defiant, where he could pretend he was still on TNG until Martok came and rescued him with more I-don't-fit-in-as-a-Klingon stories.

Fortunately, O'Brien didn't bring as much backstory with him...so they could fit him in much easier. Plus, he was an enlisted man with a more casual attitude, and that helped as well.

I guess the bottom line for me is that PC 80's mentality on TNG has really caused that show to age very badly.

I was thrilled when it first came on and I watched every episode religiously...but now I can barely get through an episode without cringing at least once...unless it's one of the ones I listed above.

The "down and dirty" or "nitty-gritty" part is why I could never really get into BSG. I also think it is why the latter ST series didn't work very well. They strayed away from Gene Roddenberry's original vision of a more positive future. GR's universe was full of optimism that no matter what happens we will rise to the occasion and triumph.
The latter series showed too much reality and too many of our flaws... the "glass became half-empty" instead of "half-full".
What do you think?

Optimism is good. After-school specials suck. I think the future will be more positive. I just don't think that all conflict is going to end. People disagree with each other. They do have weaknesses. That's not pessimism, it's just not Disneyfacation. I think some of the grttiness was good -- It's damn easy to act like Picard and preach about being evolved human beings when you have nothing to worry about. It's hard to be in favor of a free press when printing something controvercial will get you killed.

I'm an optimist, but I think it's more optimistic to say "We shall overcome" than "Sugar pies and lollipops". I'm not interested in moral platitudes preached from a barcalounger. Show me a moral man who does the right thing when every survival instinct says give in. And people can and will do that.

Frankly, I never saw TOS as 'full of optimism'. I think TNG was happy-shiny like you describe, but I never saw TOS that way. The TOS crew battled plenty of enemies who threatened from all sides...and the characters in TOS were not perfect - they all had flaws - right up to and including Kirk, who was perhaps the biggest womanizer in all of Trek. But these flaws, by the way, are what made the characters interesting and 'real'.

[snip]

Me? I LIKE my heroes to be flawed. Because to me, that is a real reason for optimism: that even flawed individuals like you and I can do great things...and rise to the occasion, despite our flaws and mistakes...despite our humanity. That, to me, is the definition of a true hero.

It's easy to be a saint in heaven, after all.

Wow, very well said and ITA!
I used to love TNG when I first saw it - and I still like it a lot - but the more I watched it, the more it grated on me. Describing the crew as "plastic" is a perfect way of putting it. There was almost no conflict amongst the characters or even within the characters themselves and, to me, that makes for a rather bland set of characters. I guess that's why eps like "Pegasus" are my favorites, as they at least tried something there. Conversely, that may also be why TNG's first season is so awkward and all over the place, as the TOS inspired eps simply didn't work with that set of characters.

And totally, totally agree about your point about flawed heroes. That's what makes them real. That's what lets them grow. The only character on TNG that even remotely approached something like a character arc was Data with his quest to be more "human", though that was pretty much stalled during the show and then totally killed in the movies.

The TOS crew had more conflict in general. You only need to look at Kirk and some of his self-doubts that cropped up, especially in the first season. Despite some, by now, generic character traits and stories back in the day, that's what really puts TOS above the other shows for me (though I have to admit I can't comment much on VOY and ENT, as I never really got into those).

As for needing more Trek... I do find myself getting excited about the new film, but then I'm also scared it's gonna go the route of young, pretty Trek aimed at the main demographic of movie-goers that also eat up shit like "White Chicks".

Kirk wasn't an abberration of his time, he was representative of all Federation captains of his era. Any one of them would have acted as Kirk did, if they were to become the focus of attention. Kirk's advantage, which was supposed to be echoed in Data, was Spock--and good luck.

I too agree with the lack-luster appeal of TNG, DS9...and to be honest, I never liked Voyager...except for the holographic Doctor...he was the only reason you'd catch me watching that show. I recall an article in TV Guide at the time of Voyager's launch. Neelix was forcast as the character who would give us 'a break-out performance'. How wrong they were.

What really gets me is how many fans are involved in Free-Form roleplaying games that are set in the TNG era, Enterprise-E included. What we need is a game we can play that puts us back in the place that Trek was meant to be: The Original Series. The new Trek film is going to help this move forward, and I have the highest aspirations it is going to be a superb film.