Why is Star Trek so popular?

[Hawki]

...what? Star Wars got a thread, why not Star Trek?

Anyway, yeah. As some of you are probably aware, I'm not a big fan of Star Trek, or at least, I've never been as into Star Trek as so many other people seem to be. I can list my gripes, but I guess that whatever Star Trek supposedly does, other shows do better.

Want realistic sci-fi? Watch The Expanse (and I've never got why people insist that Star Trek is "realistic sci-fi," because this is a show that the term technobabble comes from).

Want time travelling shennanigans? Watch Doctor Who.

Want a fun ship dynamic? Watch Firefly.

Want political sci-fi? Watch Babylon 5.

Want socio-political commentary? Watch Battlestar Galactica.

Want light-hearted situation of the week stuff? Watch Stargate

Want an expansive sci-fi universe? Watch...okay, I'll give Star Trek that, but its lore is a bit of a mess, and it's a case of what I call "lore by accumulation" rather than "lore by design."

The above shows are ones off the top of my head, and there'll be some dispute as to what counts as being better, but the point is, there's so much good stuff out there that's under-appreciated (of the above list, none moreso than B5), but Star Trek is the IP that everyone knows, everyone loves, and is the IP that keeps getting shows and movies made for it. It's like...I dunno, Star Trek is popcorn, and I see someone eating popcorn, and I'm eating a steak dinner, and I'm wondering why they're eating popcorn rather than steak.

The actual reason I can guess is that a lot of people grew up with Star Trek when there were fewer options available, and from the above, you could argue that Star Trek is the jack of all trades in the genre, but even so, in this day and age, why's this thing still going?

Anyway, engage, and give me your answers. Or not.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

I am offended

...

Where's farscape?

 

[BrawlMan]

Want a fun ship dynamic? Watch Firefly.

Cowboy Bebop and Outlaw Star already did that better. Isn't that right, Joss Whedon?

I could never really get into Star Trek, but I do respect its legacy and what it has done for people of color and women. Star wars I'm more or less done with at this point. I know there are better projects on the horizon, but I really just don't care. There are plenty of other scifi-fantasies to keep me company.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Star Trek was progressive and optimistic (for reals, sorta) before it was cool, and sorta kinda built on that a little, though not much.

Also had a bunch of legitimately great stories.

 

[Gordon_4]

Because Star Trek presented a vision of the future that none of those other shows present (Stargate excepted): one that isn't shit. I would not want to live in any of the futures presented in Battlestar Galactica, Firefly, or The Expanse. They're fucking miserable, shitty places. Babylon 5 is barely much better, what with San Francisco a nuclear wasteland thanks to terrorists, the PsiCorps, bloody President Clarke oh and getting nuked back to the Stone Age.

And that's probably all it is. People look at Star Trek, and they see a future on Earth without conflict based on geopolitics, religion, resources and anything else. And I don't give a shit if its unrealistic, blind to reality or whatever else. I'd live in that future before I lived in any of the others you've listed.

 

[Hawki]

I am offended

...

Where's farscape?

In a special place in my heart that weeps, yet nourishes this precious flower with my tears.

Cowboy Bebop and Outlaw Star already did that better. Isn't that right, Joss Whedon?

Much as I like both of them, still like Firefly more than Cowboy I'm afraid.

Star Trek was progressive and optimistic (for reals, sorta) before it was cool, and sorta kinda built on that a little, though not much.

Historically, that's correct, but by your own admission, not by much.

Saying "X is progressive, so like it" isn't really an argument for quality.

Also had a bunch of legitimately great stories.

And some absolute stinkers. For every Measure of a Man, there's a Shades of Grey.

Because Star Trek presented a vision of the future that none of those other shows present (Stargate excepted): one that isn't shit. I would not want to live in any of the futures presented in Battlestar Galactica, Firefly, or The Expanse. They're fucking miserable, shitty places. Babylon 5 is barely much better, what with San Francisco a nuclear wasteland thanks to terrorists, the PsiCorps, bloody President Clarke oh and getting nuked back to the Stone Age.

Okay, that's fair, but Star Trek doesn't have the monopoly on bright futures. Also, to borrow a phrase, "conflict is the essence of drama."

I might prefer to live under the Federation than, say, live in the 'Verse from Firefly (well, least on the frontier), but as a paradigm, I find it a more engaging one. Characters who have to struggle to achieve their objectives generally present more compelling storytelling than characters living in utopia. Which is what Star Trek is by the timeframe of TNG, if not necessarily TOS.

Granted, conflict doesnt automatically make a show better (hello Discovery), but it doesn't make it worse. Overall, more conflict, the more interest (note that when I say conflict, I mean it in the literary rather than literal sense).

 

[BrawlMan]

@Hawki

That is fine so long as you remember the pecking order. I tried watching Firefly, but Siri didn't work me. Especially since I had already seen better.

 

[Gordon_4]

Okay, that's fair, but Star Trek doesn't have the monopoly on bright futures.

Are you sure about that? I mean, every single show I've seen that's not Star Trek that's based in the future that seems ideal or not just today+150 years and some technology assumed/required for their plot to work, seems to have it revealed by the mid point that there's a seedy underbelly of suffering that enables the good life.

Star Trek is imperfect as a show, I'm never going to claim otherwise unless I'm a full bottle of scotch to the wind, but I honestly don't see any other shows about our future that aren't rooted in juvenile cynicism. At least juvenile optimism makes me feel less like putting a gun between my teeth.

 

[Trunkage]

And that's probably all it is. People look at Star Trek, and they see a future on Earth without conflict based on geopolitics, religion, resources and anything else. And I don't give a shit if its unrealistic, blind to reality or whatever else. I'd live in that future before I lived in any of the others you've listed.

Are people watching a different Star Trek then me? Because, so far, they have hardly ever go back to Earth. It's pretty much non existent. The times they have gone back is when society is falling apart. Oh, and that time after the Borg and JL visits his brother.

What I have seen is the Starfleet is very willing to let millions die to protect their principles. So now I understand why Conservatives love it so much. It's the Libertarian nightmare people go so worried about - 'You gotta pull yourself up by you bootstraps. You gotta ignore that shelling from your enemies, that means nothing.' Just finished the first ep with Ensign Ro.... it just hammers home how the Federation is trash. (Perhaps I'm being harsh here. It is VERY clear that the writers don't talk to each other or even watch previous episodes. Federation rules fly out the window very quickly when its convenient to the plot. So saying this is consistent across the series is a bit much.)

#QuarkandGarrickwereright

OT: I'd really love a stand alone storyline in TNG that doesn't somehow involve mind control. It was really bad in season 1 but is still pretty prevalent is season 4. But season 4 does have episode where the crew completely screw up and there is no fixing it. Winning every episode is not good TV.

 

[Gordon_4]

Are people watching a different Star Trek then me? Because, so far, they have hardly ever go back to Earth. It's pretty much non existent. The times they have gone back is when society is falling apart. Oh, and that time after the Borg and JL visits his brother.

What I have seen is the Starfleet is very willing to let millions die to protect their principles. So now I understand why Conservatives love it so much. It's the Libertarian nightmare people go so worried about - 'You gotta pull yourself up by you bootstraps. You gotta ignore that shelling from your enemies, that means nothing.' Just finished the first ep with Ensign Ro.... it just hammers home how the Federation is trash. (Perhaps I'm being harsh here. It is VERY clear that the writers don't talk to each other or even watch previous episodes. Federation rules fly out the window very quickly when its convenient to the plot. So saying this is consistent across the series is a bit much.)

#QuarkandGarrickwereright

OT: I'd really love a stand alone storyline in TNG that doesn't somehow involve mind control. It was really bad in season 1 but is still pretty prevalent is season 4. But season 4 does have episode where the crew completely screw up and there is no fixing it. Winning every episode is not good TV.

Yeah, I’m not taking cultural criticism from Quark because his society culturally didn’t move from the industrial revolution despite the technology epochs, and Garek was a member of the Cardassian secret police and ergo involved in all the sorts of shenanigans we associate with the vilest regimes - I don’t give a fuck what they think.

 

[09philj]

There's one very important component to it's impact: they made three series of the original. This is important because it had enough episodes to go into syndication. Not that many people actually watched the original broadcasts on NBC, although it did garner a cult following because Star Trek's particular tone and style did make it stand out for people looking for a progressive, interesting family show. (MLK was a big fan, according to Michelle Nichols who played Uhura) In syndication, filling evening slots where there wasn't much else on, Star Trek found a much larger following. This created the demand to make the films, which cemented the franchise's bankability and encouraged the creation of TNG and it's offspring DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise.

 

[Trunkage]

Yeah, I’m not taking cultural criticism from Quark because his society culturally didn’t move from the industrial revolution despite the technology epochs, and Garek was a member of the Cardassian secret police and ergo involved in all the sorts of shenanigans we associate with the vilest regimes - I don’t give a fuck what they think.

It was a joke. Mainly because they're talking about the Federation killing you with kindness
I'm talking about the Federation killing you through callousness.

 

[Hawki]

Are you sure about that? I mean, every single show I've seen that's not Star Trek that's based in the future that seems ideal or not just today+150 years and some technology assumed/required for their plot to work, seems to have it revealed by the mid point that there's a seedy underbelly of suffering that enables the good life.

Star Trek is imperfect as a show, I'm never going to claim otherwise unless I'm a full bottle of scotch to the wind, but I honestly don't see any other shows about our future that aren't rooted in juvenile cynicism. At least juvenile optimism makes me feel less like putting a gun between my teeth.

Sci-fi doesn't begin and end with TV. Utopian sci-fi existed before Star Trek.

But we're limiting that to TV, then, maybe. I guess I could nominate Lost in Space.

 

[Gordon_4]

It was a joke. Mainly because they're talking about the Federation killing you with kindness
I'm talking about the Federation killing you through callousness.

This is presumably in reference to the fabled 'Prime Directive'. Which in fairness, is both a point of contention within Star Trek fandom AND inconsistently applied seemingly at the whims of the writer. For me personally I can see the logic in it, since science fiction is replete with examples of tragedy where technological uplift occurs before societal and philosophical ones are achieved. In fact there was an episode having a look at that. And man, do Starfleet fumble it pretty bad.

Sci-fi doesn't begin and end with TV. Utopian sci-fi existed before Star Trek.

But we're limiting that to TV, then, maybe. I guess I could nominate Lost in Space.

Lost in Space? Really? You mean the show that's basically The Swiss Family Robinson - down to the name - and is now more famous for Dr. Smith being an inept diva who trades barbs with the robot. Also the name is kind of anti-ethical to the Utopian ideals: they're lost, and if I recall the pilot (which I fully admit I may be confusing with the movie or recent reboot) their mission was to save an Earth on the verge of environmental collapse.

 

[Hawki]

Also the name is kind of anti-ethical to the Utopian ideals: they're lost,

And Voyager wasn't lost in the Delta Quadrant?

and if I recall the pilot (which I fully admit I may be confusing with the movie or recent reboot) their mission was to save an Earth on the verge of environmental collapse.

That's the movie.

 

[Gordon_4]

And Voyager wasn't lost in the Delta Quadrant?

Yes, but that is where the similarities end. Like I said, its in the name: Lost in Space is the Swiss Family Robinson IN SPACE! And there's nothing wrong with that, hell, Lost in Space out-rated Star Trek pretty handily in their heydays. But in terms of societal presentation, Lost in Space is still reflective of the era it was made in, Star Trek was attempting to look forward. I mean, it didn't do it perfectly, but it tried. And sometimes that's enough.

That's the movie.

And probably the remake. So strike that complaint from the record.

 

[MrCalavera]

My guess is that probably causei it was first.

It set the standard.
And where other shows went down the lane of more gritty "there's only WAAAAR" future and space swashbuckling, Trek (until recently at least)tried to keep it more utopian and idealistic.

 

[Hawki]

But in terms of societal presentation, Lost in Space is still reflective of the era it was made in, Star Trek was attempting to look forward. I mean, it didn't do it perfectly, but it tried. And sometimes that's enough.

I'll grant you that TOS at least tried to look forward, but it's still a product of its time in a lot of ways. Sometimes that's a good thing (e.g. klingons being the USSR, and the sixth film referencing the end of the Cold War within its own script), sometimes not (e.g. how women are often treated). I'd maintain that the idea of the Star Trek universe being utopia didn't really come into vogue until TNG, where we get a season of Picard being absolutely insufferable about how woke humanity is now.


(That's a good take on how I feel Star Trek shifted between TOS and TNG in a lot of ways, even if they weren't necessarily intentional ones.)

And probably the remake. So strike that complaint from the record.

Eh, sort of.

The movie operates under the premise that Earth will be uninhabitable in two decades (from 2058) due to pollution. The reboot series has Earth in a fairly grim state, but that's due to an asteroid impact (later revealed to be a starship). But the crew of the Resolute get on well with each other, and science their way out of their problems (least in season 1, havent' seen season 2). Point is, the remake is a fairly optimistic show. And frankly, I hold it above Star Trek, or at least Star Trek as it currently stands (*cough*Discovery*cough)

My guess is that probably causei it was first.

It set the standard.

Except Star Trek wasn't first. There were sci-fi shows before it - Lost in Space, Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Doctor Who, etc. And definitely sci-fi shows before them.

And where other shows went down the lane of more gritty "there's only WAAAAR" future and space swashbuckling, Trek (until recently at least)tried to keep it more utopian and idealistic.

Again, which other shows? Because of those ones I listed, that wasn't the case in LoS or DW.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

It's a show about a hopeful future.
Humanity has mostly put aside it's petty squabbles and worked towards being better and trying to understand rather than dominate.
It was described as "Humanist".
Yes it does tackle things that are "Political" in nature but often it was about the fight between ideas (at least TNG onwards).
Yes you could argue Bablylon 5 did Politics in a more complex way but it also was very much a show with a lot of elements that paralleled modern times in terms of the issues with society. Be it greed, corruption, addiction out of control ambition.

Star Trek was a show where what was essentially a court room debate could be made more interesting than starship battles and special effects.


It seems "New Trek" has forgotten a lot of this.

I mean to get Star Trek your best bet is to watch The Orville which riffs on some of the ideas and pokes holes in some of the bits of logic in Star Trek about how things wouldn't work or how people would want to intervene.

Doctor Who has the idea of The Doctor as the all knowing (well mostly) space alien whisking people away to explore and often hostile galaxy. It's one hope in the darkness where the darkness overwhelms while in Star Trek it's kind of the opposite. It's a massive hope against a small bit of darkness that remains.

 

[Hawki]

It's a show about a hopeful future.
Humanity has mostly put aside it's petty squabbles and worked towards being better and trying to understand rather than dominate.
It was described as "Humanist".
Yes it does tackle things that are "Political" in nature but often it was about the fight between ideas (at least TNG onwards).
Yes you could argue Bablylon 5 did Politics in a more complex way but it also was very much a show with a lot of elements that paralleled modern times in terms of the issues with society. Be it greed, corruption, addiction out of control ambition.

Isn't paralleling modern concerns generally better?

The idea that Star Trek is a "fight between ideas" doesn't match the IP, even TNG onwards. A lot of Star Trek has been set in the context of its production period. TOS to Undiscovered Country is very much in the context of the Cold War. Enterprise, albeit haphazardly, is produced in the context of the War on Terror. Discovery, at least in its first season, is influenced by the context of multiculturalism and globalism. TNG, at least in its first two seasons, doesn't seem to have a clear parallel, but that's arguably a sign of the times as well - the end of the Cold War, and thus, the "end of history." Small wonder in a sense that TNG is more utopian than TOS.

Of course, as I stated before, I think a lot of shows have done this better than Star Trek (B5 for politics in general, Battlestar Galactica for the War on Terror, etc.), but if you get a pure 'ideas show?' That can work, but it's certainly not how Star Trek started out.

Doctor Who has the idea of The Doctor as the all knowing (well mostly) space alien whisking people away to explore and often hostile galaxy. It's one hope in the darkness where the darkness overwhelms while in Star Trek it's kind of the opposite. It's a massive hope against a small bit of darkness that remains.

That take on Doctor Who isn't unreasonable, especially since that sentiment is indirectly expressed within the show itself, but I think it's a onesided view of it.

Doctor Who repeatedly emphasizes how wondrous the universe is. It's telling that the Doctor's main course of action is to simply spend his (or her, right now) time exploring for the sake of discovery and enjoyment. Him saving Earth and everything else is part of the package. Like, by the requirements of storytelling, most of the time we see the Doctor is when he's dealing with trouble, but it's clear within the series that the Doctor and his friends have a lot of "me time," able to visit places where nothing bad happens and they can enjoy themselves.

As for Star Trek, maybe. But I'm not sure if the likes of the Dominion, the borg, and everything else counts as "small darkness."