Social commentary in "Star Trek" may make some viewers "feel smart" - as Harve Bennett once suggested - while watching space opera, but Trek's never advanced an idea that wasn't overly simplified and alreadly firmly embedded in the political/social zeitgeist. Hell, most Trek "philosophizing" is basic Sunday school stuff.
Why it is important some people are unhappy
- Thread starter AudioBridge
- Start date
I'm inclined to disagree. Even aside from the details of any specific episode, just look at the broad strokes. The idea of a complete meritocracy without regard to race, gender, or ethnicity certainly wasn't mainstream in the mid-'60s, nor was the idea of a society that had transcended capitalism, or the concept of exploration without conquest.
We're still far from achieving (or even agreeing on) these kinds of ideals today, never mind 40+ years ago.
It was humanistic ideals like those, together with the pervasive sense of optimism about the future, and the sense of imagination and wonder at exploring the "final frontier," that gave Trek its lasting place in the popular consciousness. It was never about big action set-pieces or fancy special effects. (Star Wars has those down cold—lots more flash, but lots less substance.)
So you contend that extra time spent detailing a model costs nothing? That a production crew standing around waiting for a model to be delivered costs nothing?
---------------
Does it matter so long as they watch the movie? I went into First Contact with arms folded, fully expecting it to suck. I was pleasantly surprised and saw it again.
So, just because one goes into a movie with a negative impression doesn't mean they'll maintain it.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's a matter of childhood perception. Now, bear with me here. By childhood perception, I don't mean that we fans look upon Trek as something childish but, rather, see it through the lens of childhood fondness or remembrance. We make Trek more than it was, especially TOS and perceive it to be far greater in its place in our society. Trek, to be sure, is a piece of Americana and has earned its place in our pop culture much as Superman, Batman, Mickey Mouse and apple pie. But it is still a piece of pop culture, a space opera adventure series.
In the 60s, it was billed as "the first adult space adventure" for television and it was in its way, but it was hardly the deep social and philosophical work that fans later ascribed to it and thus created the myth of Gene Roddenberry, junior philosopher.
Trek was entertaining. Hell, it is the dreams of my childhood and the brand that was imprinted, like Superman, onto me at an early age. But it was nothing more than an entertaining space opera that occasionally dipped into a morality play. I still think that the venue of Trek can be used to further explore these "social commentaries" through the lens of science fiction but TOS was just a series telling entertaining and good stories. And let's not forget that it also told bad stories. However, because of this childhood perception, we fondly remember the "deep" parts and ignore the kitsch parts.
As someone else on this board stated, Trek was not camp. True. Camp is deliberate, but certainly Trek was kitsch in the same way that comics are kitsch. It doesn't invalidate it as a piece of iconic pop culture. Kitsch is not a dirty word. We should still at least be able to recognize it and accept it. I mean, come on, there were stories about the Third Reich on another planet, 20s gangsters on another planet, tribbles, a garish lighting scheme and a pointy-eared fella. I love those things, but Trek was hardly this peek into what space travel would really be like in the 23rd century. Nor was it the biting social commentary that we liked to think that it was.
Last edited:
Not one of those ideas was original to "Star Trek" and every one of them was to be found somewhere on the not-so-broad spectrum of American political and academic thought. Hell, most of what you list was simply part of the dogma of Kennedy-era liberalism - not surprisingly, the kind of ideology that many of the Trek producers subscribed to.
You know, "war is bad" and "all men are brothers" were not real shockers by mid-century.
I was an average twelve year old kid living in a working class American suburb when "Star Trek" premiered. In three years "Star Trek" didn't introduce me to a single new political or philosophical idea or ideal - not one. What was exciting and a little remarkable was that at the time this kind of thing was real unusual as early evening network television fare. There's no reason to confuse that, or the fact that a simple majority of Americans might not have been comfortable with some of those ideas, with the ideas themselves being particularly novel in society at large.
ya never know.......
DS9 drove viewers away as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
To attract people who have dismissed TOS and its trimmings as "old hat" since the 80s. Lots of people liked TOS in the 70s, but many newer fans, who were attracted to TNG, never took to TOS. This film might attract them, plus all the new youth of today.
Replicating a 60s TOS TV episode for the big screen wasn't the way to go for ST:TMP in the late 70s, and it won't wash today either.
As I wrote upthread, it is quite literally beyond me how someone could be drawn into Trek fandom through TNG (the pale imitation), yet be dismissive of TOS (the robust original).
Regardless, it's not TNG that's (hypothetically) being retconned here, so insofar as such fans exist (their paralogia not withstanding), one can certainly understand how they wouldn't be particularly bothered by this prospect. (Not sympathize, but understand.) It's not their ox being gored.
Quite a number of people here (and Trek fans, in general) came in via TNG or via one of the subsequent series, often simply because of the age they happened to be when Star Trek: (your series here) was in first-run. Some of them branched out and discovered and learned to enjoy all of the rest of the series in turn and some didn't; that's fine, and there's no call for terms like "paralogia" to be tossed around. That's being no less dismissive than those you criticize.
It takes all kinds, including those who never caught on to TOS. Maybe this movie will draw in those last and make them curious enough to take another look. Hey, it could happen.
Star Trek was many things, but it was not space opera.
It was science fiction, one of the few science fiction shows to make the small screen.
Note: TNG and VOY (I've never seen DS9 or ENT, but I suspect them too) were not science fiction. They were science fantasy--shows with no real science in them, but with the trappings of science fiction. Ditto Star Wars. Ditto Battlestar Galactica.
Well it happened. I was president of a 200-strong ST club when TNG started and our ranks quickly swelled to 1000. ST IV drove away a lot of the older, TOS-avid fans and many of the new, younger fans knew ST only from ST IV and TNG, and rejected TOS as kitschy, and too 60s-based. These kids are now married with families of their own.
Personally, I missed TOS in first run myself, although I was old enough if we'd owned a TV, so I spent the 80s playing catchup after TAS and TMP bowled me over. TNG was my series, which I followed from creation to finale and beyond.
In nearby ACT, a club started up called "NextGen". It was focused around US-taped TNG screenings at the university ('cos we were lagging way behind with new releases of sell-thru VHS), grew quite large and, again, rejected 60s TOS as a source of entertainment, although they did watch the TOS movies, esp. II-VI.
Smilarly, when "Doctor Who" went into hiatus, the Sydney club was swamped by new young fans who were suddenly aimless and wanting new SF TV, and they found TNG - motly as sell-thru video! These fans, mostly, knew nothing of TOS either, and had almost zero interest in finding out. At the same time, the UK magazine turned from "Doctor Who Bulletin", to "DWB", to "Dream Watch Bulletin", and began covering all aspects of TNG.
Star Trek contained elements of space opera. Perhaps in my haste, I was too general when I called it a "space-opera action adventure series." Space opera presents a romanticized, melodramatic adventure which TOS did at times, much as horse opera romanticized the Wild West. Even GR stated that he traded a wagon for a starship and six-shooters for phasers (this is a paraphrase to his introduction to the video release of "The Cage" color/b&w print). George Clayton Johnson, writer "The Man Trap," stated in an interview in Cinefantastique (Volume 27 #11/12, June1996)that TOS was almost a redressing of the old Captain Future stories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Future).
Space opera can still be well-done science fiction; things such as the Uplift Books by David Brin, Trek, Babylon 5, the new space opera of Iain M. Banks, et all.
However, TOS, especially in the first season, tried to present a naturalistic space adventure with some truly science-fiction stories but the series was hardly on the cutting edge of 60s New Wave SF, despite some of those writers participating in TOS. Nevertheless, it is a good introduction to the genre. I'm sure there are others who can speak with far more knowledge, such as TGT. Hell, Trek was the best space based science fiction on television especially at the time. It still depended on a lot of the trappings of space opera and other subgenres of science fiction.
One thing that TOS, especially in that first season, did well was preserve a sense of logic. We didn't see space pirates with swords on the series; although, we got them in the Gold Key comics.
TOS was more "science fiction" in its first year and TMP. After TWOK, though, it delved more and more into space opera with the melodrama on high. I do agree that TNG and later series used to the trappings of science fiction to tell "fantasy" stories but so did TOS; "Catspaw" anyone?
If anything Trek is a synthesis, taking elements from military SF, space opera, planetary romance, hard SF and soft SF.
TOS had many space opera elements to it: the Roman Empire independently developing on an alien planet anyone?
The transporter shunting people into alternate dimensions? Splitting people into Jeckyl and Hyde? Jack the Ripper in space? Big god hand grabbing the Enterprise?
What about flying around the sun as a way to go back in time?
There's only a little more science in Trek than there is in Buck Rogers. Whatever they needed to happen to tell the story happened. It has as much to do with reality as the magic in LOTR.
Edit: As a matter of fact, given that the defining elements of Space Opera are the mingling of SF with western and naval fiction, I'd say Trek might be one of the purest examples of Space Opera.
Space Opera does not mean "like Star Wars".
yeah ,but at least nicholas meyer sat down and watched every single episode of trek in his preparation for directing wok. he got it right! that film still stands out as the best trek movie of them all.
in some ways i think that is also why the fans have not really turned out in large numbers for any of the movies after that. in my humble opinion wok was the only truly great trek film. nothing since has been anywhere near as good.ive said it before ... if you make a great trek film people will go see it ! its as simple as that.
Not at all - that's a pretty fair generalization, though it leaves out the occasional exception.
Somewhat true, though TNG's ratings rose again in its final season.
Never seen? Ever? Wow.
