I re-watched episode 1 of Firefly multiple times, just, not getting into it. I kept trying. I heard of so many loving it. Then, finally, it stuck, I went on to episode 2.
I don't even have time for it right now (too many movie and shows on my to watch list). I do thank you for the encouragement, but everytime I try watching it, Outlaw Star drills in to my skull. If it's any conciliation, I used to have a copy of Serenity. Sold it when I was 19.
Does Romeo and Juliet suffer for not being topical enough or are some of the themes and ideas long lasting?
I'd say the later series of Enterprise with the Xindi etc but earlier on it was more about the start of the ideas and ideas of the federation. The cusp of humanity taking the next step as such.
I dunno the Borg and the Dominion are more creeping shadows than big darkness as such. I mean to have them be a bigger Darkness you need more "All is lost" moments and often the Federation beats them to a stand still (well except one of the fights with The Borg) They're a threat but they're rarely if ever portrayed as such an unbeatable massive threat. The Borg are often single vessels just probing for a weakness.
Hate to be "that guy," but wouldn't it have been better just to plough on to episode 2?
Okay, that's a fair point. I guess the short answer is that Shakespeare did it better, but that isn't fair. I guess I'll put it like this:
I never made it beyond season 2, but the ideas are there in the first season. There's the suliban, and how they come across a suliban concentration camp, where they've been imprisoned simply by virtue of their species. Also, the desert planet where rebels are fighting a government, and Archer has to decide how much he wants to be involved, if at all. Now, those are fairly broad analogies, but in the context of the time, they do fit the War on Terror. That said, Into Darkness is a better analogy.
The weird thing about STD is that so many people criticize it as being woke, when, least by my reading, it's kind of critiquing the idea of multiculturalism and integration.
I can't actually think of shows that have done that/did that. If anything, the prime directive concept trope is far more common, and even Star Trek itself has taken shots at it.
I do agree there though, time travel in Star Trek is a mess. Apparently any ship can do it, but they don't, even if it might be tactically beneficial to do so.
I find your take on it a bit strange to be tbh. I am likely the biggest Star Trek fan on the Escapist, *looks over at my boxes of original phasers, ship models and Mego figures*... and would think that conservatives would like it less than progressives as it directly goes against many conservative ideals. Earth in the Star trek Universe is what people would consider " true communism" that was achieved after they solved scarcity through replicators and colonizing and trading with other planets and space objects. Humans eliminated currency and wealth inequality on earth and their other inhabited planets, and instead were driven by " the betterment of mankind" to pursue their personal goals rather than the need to survive. People could choose to join the federation as scientists, pilots, engineers ect, they were not forced to do so out of necessity, but instead they chose to do so out of the " human desire to explore the universe and to learn as much as they can about the universe and all that dwell within". Curiosity was the primary motivating factor, and those that did not wish to do so were not left to " pull themselves up by their bootstraps" as you put it, they instead were given access to the resources they needed to pursue their own goals and desires. People replicated what they wanted whenever they wanted and recycled what they no longer wanted back into the replicators so that the materials could be used to make something else for whoever needed it instead. " For the betterment of mankind" was the determining factor for distribution of less prevalent resources, and determination of the laws, not individual rights.
TNG is 30 years old. At that time it was different.
What's the first episode go like? Meet a new species that wants to join the Federation. A strange ship and blast the people. The Enterprise sits to the sidelines and does nothing. Later, they find out that some people in this species had done some wrong. Federation says, 'peace out" and Cancels them. The end. (Let's not worry about all those deaths we could have saved just by lifting a finger. We found out much later that they deserved it. They George Floyd it, retroactively reasoning out why someone should died instead of trying to help in the moment.)
IIRC, Macbeth was intended to be very topical, but having long lasting themes and ideas people have forgotten that.
That seems like a stretch.
TBH, I've always felt the Star Trek vs. Star Wars thing to be a false dichotomy. Star Trek is sci-fi, Star Wars is space fantasy, as you kind of allude to. Despite them both taking place in space, they're separate genres in my eyes. I'd say the closest thing Star Trek had to a rival was Stargate, at least in the 90s to 00s. Course, that's no longer the case now, for better or worse.
Star Trek's 'war' seems to be a fanbase one, as to what counts as "real" Star Trek or not, and invoking "Rodenberry's vision" as if it's the Old Testament. Usually it's applied to the Kelvinverse and Discovery, but if you go back far enough, the whole "betrayal of Rodenberry's vision" goes at least as far back as Wrath of Khan.
I'd argue that Star Trek is generally space fantasy as well, it just pretends to be sci-fi. For example, the Force is front and centre in Star Wars, whereas Star Trek has similar things in there, just not so obvious.
Nobody said it does. You asked why we LIKE it, that's one major reason. The fact that other shows have also depicted a positive future outlook, doesn't somehow negate "We like Star Trek because of it's optimistic humanism" as a reason for liking it.
The first Episode is " Man Trap" on TOS. Which Star Trek are you talking about? You have to be a bit more specific as to what you are addressing here, as there are numerous STar Trek spin off series now with very different things happening within the Federation of Planets. The first episode is about a shape shifting alien manipulating and endangering the crew. It focuses much on the strengths and weaknesses of human and humanoid "feelings" or lack there of.
en.wikipedia.org
Personally, I think Discovery is the best Star Trek made by far. Sure, there are plenty who disagree with me, but being a life long fan since I was in diapers and watching TOS reruns with my Dad, I like that they are more willing to break rules and are far more adaptable than previous crews. It also shows examples of why the prime directive became much more important for the time periods that existed in TOS and TNG.
The problem with this, is that they are very often well equipped to save other civilizations, as multiple episodes have pivoted on that very point as the focus of the story.
Depending on what was happening in the federation of planets at the time, the prime directive was interpreted differently. As the people making the decisions changed within the Federation council, so did their objectives, guidelines and laws. Some times they had " bad leaders" making the decisions, and sometimes, they had " bad captains" making bad decisions, or even individual crew members making bad decisions... I am not aware of any character who only made the right choices, they pretty much made sure that every character was fallible in Star trek.
Because by the time I would decide to give it another shot, I didn't remember anything from the 1st episode. I didn't know who these people were or what their situation was. So I'd rewatch episode 1 to remind myself. (Should have looked online for a summary of the episode).
USA
