Will an old school Trek episode be accepted by modern audiences?

I'm just a ("shit happens so deal with it") realistic-optimist, typical-pisces-starsign dreamer. No crying because my pal "unfriended" me on Facebook here.

 

Keep the morals, philosophy and exploration of what it means to be human. But drop the obsession with technobabble and let's "tech the tech so we can science the thing".

Change the pacing too, it needs to be more fast paced like modern shows.

 

Alcubierre drive. Quantom entanglement. Explored at lengths by dozens of prominent theoretical physicists, Lawrence Krauss wrote a number of books aggregating latest thought on how each StarTrek technobabble concept will work. Most people just don't realize that StarTrek's seemingly mindless stream of technical terms relies on real world theories.

Already touched upon this in some other thread, basically the premise of Belters relies on a vision of the future we had in 1920's, during the height of the industrial era, it no longer applies. There are not going to be any human asteroid miners. The Expanse is set in a distant future but somehow with pre-WW2 technology. Makes less sense than a series of well known movies set "Long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away"

 

I'd love to see at least one Sci Fi show trying to be realistic, can you name one? So far Star Trek has come closest, despite all of its flaws.

 

Trek is a vision of the future based on the 1960s. Most of the technology that's comparable is due to engineers purposely trying to make things they saw on Star Trek.

 

This would have been a compelling premise if we were from 1920's, however today, after the publication of such works as Abundance by Peter Diamandis, and the extensive decade-long research and planning conducted by Asteroid Mining corporations such as Deep Space Industries and Planetary Resources, and the emerging post-industrial economics of ubiquitous fully automated 3D manufacturing, - the premise of human laborers being deemed cheap labor and used for asteroid mining is pretty laughable. What happens in the future to all these emerging technologies that we go back to early 20th century manual labor concepts for space exploration?

I can see the appeal of it as a light fantasy show, although the gritty/dark ambiance kind of ruins that as well, but it's hardly a sci fi show.

 

Not quite, ST was inspired by a lengthy body of visionary Sci Fi works produced between 1940s and through 1960s. Which is still more accurate than the latest Sci Fi, such as the Expanse, which has failed to accomplish anything comparable and just takes past technologies and extrapolates them to a grander scale - which is devoid of any logic.

With the extensive body of works dealing with the realm of futurism that we have access to now, thanks to a wide range of prominent futurists/physicists, we should be living in the golden age of science fiction. In many instances we can make very precise projections into the future today, to the point of knowing the maximum processing capacity per $1 in a specific year. There are just no good writers to take advantage of this, or maybe they're unknown. Instead we get writers that write stuff like the Expanse and other BS, showing a future that has nothing to do with reality. Lazy Sci Fi writing from 2017 is still easily trumped by strong Sci Fi work from 1966,

 

I don't believe Horatio Hornblower and Wagon Train count as visionary Science Fiction.

 

If you mean Flash Gordon with the solid fuel rocket ships flying through a sky in space, between planets in an hour or so, around the galaxy, with "laser guns" and in one episode a city like Atlantis held up with "legs of light" (just spotlights folks) then yeeeeeah, no.

 

Good Science Fiction is as much a creative process as it is extensive research, a technique that was refined to perfection by Jules Verne, enabling him to make precise forecasts 100 years into the future, as we've read in "Paris of the 20th century." Modern writers don't even need to do that, they have access to extensive research done for them by the likes of Ray Kurzweil, but they're too lazy to do even that which is the reason for the permeation of Fantasy in this age - the bastion of lazy writing.

 

I'm not sure why you are fixating on the Belters' operations to represent your dismissal of the entire story of The Expanse book series and TV show as "not science fiction, but fantasy".

To me, the story is more about the "what if" ideas explored in a political climate that includes Mars wanting to flex its muscles to show its independence and show that it is no longer reliant on Mother Earth, and whats to prove it is no longer under Earth;s thumb.

...And then there's the whole idea of the Protomolecule and the alien sentience that grows out of it as it begins to spread through our solar system.

I mean, it goes without saying that the story of the Protomolecule is the stuff of science fiction, but even the idea of a solar-system wide conflict arising from a former Mars colony struggling to assert its independence from Earth is still the kind of stuff that is not uncommon in some of the best literary science fiction.

Sure -- maybe in reality, future asteroid mining will be done mostly by robots rather than people. However, this isn't reality, but science fiction, and science fiction sometimes has real laborors handling mining operations, even on Star Trek -- such as the Zenite Miners on Ardana (TOS: The Cloud Minders) or the dilithium mines of Rura Penthe (ST VI: TUC).

 

Scientist Adam Frank on The Expanse

 

I don't doubt that there are other aspects to the show, but to get something so wrong that is well understood today removes any realism that the writers might have been going for. And yes, the mining episodes in Star Trek don't make any sense either, but at least there's no premise of a disenfranchised, discriminated, working class of miners. The Expanse is a retrospective view that looks at the future from the point of view of the height of the industrial revolution era, with class struggles and the need for an exploited proletariat. StarTrek attempted to look forward from the 1960's perspective. It would be great if there was a show that looked at the future from the perspective of 2017 or even 1985, since no StarTrek made an attempt to "upgrade" the future from the original vision of mid 60's, even the Holodeck is a late TOS idea.

However, a sophisticated 1960's projection is still light years ahead of a lazy 2017 fantasy.

 

I don't think the Earth-Mars conflict, the Protomolecule (with many revelations of the Protomolecule still upcoming in the TV series, if they continue to faithfully follow the books), the quest for Mars to be able to get out from the shadow of Earth enough to begin terraforming operations, farming on Ganymede, and all of the other things we see on The Expanse are examples of the ideas from the Industrial Revolution era.

In fact, I'm not even convinced that there will NOT be a denigrated and disparaged working class of people 200 years in the future. Human nature tells me there will always be a class of people whom others look down upon and step upon. I don't think it is unrealistic at all for a science fiction story set in the future to in part explore the denigration of the labor class in future societies.

 

It is your prerogative to hold this view. Based on what I've seen and heard it's a story that draws its inspiration from 1850's literature in tone, morality, sources of conflict etc., such as the Tale of Two Cities, and sets it in 1920's - 1960's that is frozen in time for a few centuries, allowing for a crawling expansion across the Solar System. It's like people in the 19th century were imagining that the amount of horse manure on the streets of NYC and London is going make habitation impossible by the year 2000.

Star Trek is at the lowest bar in terms of realism that I need to enjoy a story, the Expanse doesn't make the cut, unfortunately, as I'm dying for a decent SciFi show - there are only so many times one can re-read Rendezvous with Rama.

 

Star Trek depends on the idea that human nature will suddenly change the moment we meet aliens, also that there are countless species of aliens out there and some of them want to be pals with us.

Maybe I'm cynical, but human nature hasn't changed so far and that's after we've done some pretty awful things. Realistically we try to improve for a generation, forget about it and then make the same mistakes again. I'm not really familiar with the Expanse, I've seen the pilot. The space travel aspect seems more plausible for what we could achieve in the next few centuries than warp drives.

The most plausible scifi story is Zardoz though. Deep down we all know its true.

 

It seems your definition of what constitutes "Science Fiction" is different than the rest of the world, and even the science fiction literary community. That's fine -- you can personally define it any way you want, but it really isn't realistic to say that The Expanse is not science fiction. The world of science fiction calls it science fiction, even if you don't. You could say that you don't think a dog-show-poodle is a dog because real dogs don't have their coats cut like a show-poodle --- but no matter how you personally feel about it, the dog world would still consider that poodle to be a dog.

Science fiction can still (and often does) take place in a world with deep social issues that does not have FTL space-faring capabilities nor is part of a galactic civilization.

And I'm not saying that you have to LIKE The Expanse; heavens knows there is plenty of science fiction (both on film and in books) that I personally do not enjoy. However, even if I don't like some works of science fiction, the works I don't like are still science fiction.

 

Asking "what is science fiction" is like asking "what is life", you're gonna get a lot of different answers that almost all will be partially right. What makes the answers "all" right instead of "partially" right is the individual's perception.

What makes The Expanse look more realistic to me is the settings not the science content. The Expanse and Star Trek both look pretty silly if you take a hard look at their science, but that shouldn't distract anyone. The actual absurdity of zombies, vampires and werewolves doesn't keep me from enjoying them.

 

Just to throw it in but I kind of hope we don't have a precocious child in the cast. I didn't mind Naomi in Voyager she was actually a good kid. Sorry Wesley but no Wesleys please.

The modern audience is no more superior than a previous one, we're just in a different context. I was thinking about when I first saw Star Wars when it was just Star Wars. When people saw Star Trek it wasn't referred to as the 'Original'. It was.. it. Stand alone. They saw if fresh out of the gate. Watching Star Wars when it was ground breaking and an event cannot be recreated. Watching Star Wars The Force Awakens I actually enjoyed BUT. There's always a butt. It was a little too structured. That perfect formula of character and social commentary for the now. The heroine went from scrappy to best Jedi ever in two hours. Luke was like an identifiable dreamer who was clumsy at times but he captured the wonder. Still, The Force Awakens was entertaining.

Big part of this audience will be people like us aficionados in their own minds, it is not all about the drive by viewer when you talk Star Trek. Discovery will have to carve its own niche without losing face with the rest of the franchise. I will be so onto them if they start over lecturing me. I want to like some of the characters and for them to be adventurers.