Why is Star Trek so popular?

[Asita]

Much of the various Star Trek series focuses on human nature's strengths and weaknesses. Starfleet is not always supposed to be " the good guys" and it often focuses on forcing people to make hard choices for the betterment of mankind. Often it portrays decisions in shades of gray rather than clear cut right and wrong. Most episodes involve testing the crews ability to abide by the " prime Directive" by attempting to force their hand or make impossibly difficult decisions:

Prime Directive - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Evacuating a planet would be a violation of the prime directive. As Scientists, they are supposed to be studying them, not interfering with them. They worry about exposing the civilizations they are observing or changing the natural course of the civilization's development. By even seeing a starship, it could change the entire course of their development from that point on. It is sort of like scientists we have now that study a pack of lions, they generally do not interfere and " save the antelope from the lion" or break up a fight between male lions because they will kill one another, they are just supposed to be observers and whatever happens happens without their interference either way. Besides, it is not even within their capabilities to be equipped or able to save other civilizations, and may just make things worse, not better while they pick and choose who they will save and who they will not. The point of those things is to try and force the crew to make difficult decisions, and show that they do not always make the right ones.

It is like the chain of events set off from " saving the antelopes from the lions" by saving the antelopes, it leads to the extinction of lions in the future. Star Trek has a lot of " because this happened, even if the action was good, it caused this other horrible thing to happen later in the story line" You have to keep watching to figure out why things played out the way they did in another episode. Sometimes the really horrible things have to happen in order for something more important to the story line to happen in a later episode.

I think probably my favorite story in that vein is TNG's Who Watches the Watchers, because it's no-win situation after no-win situation for the Prime Directive, and that ends up asking the interesting question of what their responsibility is after the Prime Directive is (inadvertently) violated. The Federation's technology makes them as gods to the people of Mintaka (Clarke's Third Law in action), and having caught a glimpse of that technology...well, the result is as you'd expect. What's your duty of care when a bronze age civilization has concluded that you are an all-powerful deity? Is that in itself damage control, or do they need a course correction to limit the derailment of their unique culture? While the episode ties everything up neatly, I love that it actually went in that direction at all.

 

[Trunkage]

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.

Much of the various Star Trek series focuses on human nature's strengths and weaknesses. Starfleet is not always supposed to be " the good guys" and it often focuses on forcing people to make hard choices for the betterment of mankind. Often it portrays decisions in shades of gray rather than clear cut right and wrong. Most episodes involve testing the crews ability to abide by the " prime Directive" by attempting to force their hand or make impossibly difficult decisions:

Prime Directive - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Evacuating a planet would be a violation of the prime directive. As Scientists, they are supposed to be studying them, not interfering with them. They worry about exposing the civilizations they are observing or changing the natural course of the civilization's development. By even seeing a starship, it could change the entire course of their development from that point on. It is sort of like scientists we have now that study a pack of lions, they generally do not interfere and " save the antelope from the lion" or break up a fight between male lions because they will kill one another, they are just supposed to be observers and whatever happens happens without their interference either way. Besides, it is not even within their capabilities to be equipped or able to save other civilizations, and may just make things worse, not better while they pick and choose who they will save and who they will not. The point of those things is to try and force the crew to make difficult decisions, and show that they do not always make the right ones.

It is like the chain of events set off from " saving the antelopes from the lions" by saving the antelopes, it leads to the extinction of lions in the future. Star Trek has a lot of " because this happened, even if the action was good, it caused this other horrible thing to happen later in the story line" You have to keep watching to figure out why things played out the way they did in another episode. Sometimes the really horrible things have to happen in order for something more important to the story line to happen in a later episode.

I understand the concept. Re-explaining it doesn't make it better. And, all you saying is that they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. I get it. (Picard deliberately broke the Prime Directive because its was unethical.)

What I don't understand is when people complain that the Federation let the Romulans get destroyed in the main timeline. The Federation letting them die was the most Federation thing I've seen.

Edit: I'll reiterate. A lot of these problems arise from different writers understanding the Prime Directive in their own way. The Prime Directive is shaped by plot, not actually a hard and fast rule.

 

[Trunkage]

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.

Yeah, my dad told me how people hated TNG and I remember people hating Voyager in what we'd call 'Star Trek going woke' today

Hate to be "that guy," but wouldn't it have been better just to plough on to episode 2?

I would submit that many of the first episodes are pretty average but picks up from Ariel on

 

[Trunkage]

On topic (Star Trek OG): it was a humanist show. It was political, but it didn't preach hatred of other factions. They had conflicts (Kingons/Romulans) but they'd work it out with anyone if they could do so. It was a very positive and hopeful show.

Does the new Trek preach hatred to other factions? Because Picard (the show) is literally rehabilitating the Borg so they could be join the Federation in the long run. Discovery rehabilitates the evil emperor of the mirror universe. Both first seasons end with a speech to reduce tensions rather than actually fight.

 

[gorfias]

Does the new Trek preach hatred to other factions? Because Picard (the show) is literally rehabilitating the Borg so they could be join the Federation in the long run. Discovery rehabilitates the evil emperor of the mirror universe. Both first seasons end with a speech to reduce tensions rather than actually fight.

I haven't watched them. I have heard Picard is very anti white men. People just showing this special character, Picard, getting heck from people left right and center. Seen a shot of a guy getting killed almost as a joke on Discovery as he is in mid mansplain. Lot of hate for the two shows out there. I'm not sure I'd watch them if they were available for free. The biggest dig I hear of them is they are just very ugly, mean spirited shows.

 

[Gordon_4]

I haven't watched them. I have heard Picard is very anti white men.

Whoever told you that is a fucking moron. Because it ain’t fuckin’ true.

 

[Trunkage]

I haven't watched them. I have heard Picard is very anti white men. People just showing this special character, Picard, getting heck from people left right and center. Seen a shot of a guy getting killed almost as a joke on Discovery as he is in mid mansplain. Lot of hate for the two shows out there. I'm not sure I'd watch them if they were available for free. The biggest dig I hear of them is they are just very ugly, mean spirited shows.

Most of that is just virtue signalling. They're just trying to make a buck off the anti-Feminist crowd. Picard does get hell from left, right and centre but its more about him breaking the Prime Directive. (You can say that's anti-white man if you want but... that's how most shows work. The hero is usually on the outs with the public consensus. Picard has a tribunal in TNG over his breaking of the rules in Season 2. So, unless you going to call that anti-white man... ) Not saying that either show is really great either. But idiots like this cynical drinker make criticising such works way harder because they're just going for insults and not actually thinking about whether its good or not. (I watched his video when Picard first came out. Edit: I think some of his critiques like: thingamajig wins the day is bad, too serialised, too much interpersonal conflict, too quickly to get into bed, and some of the swearing are all things I agree with. )

Also, I did get these for free. Maybe I'd be more cranky if I had to pay for it. Go watch them for free if you can. Don't expect a masterpiece. Don't expect the worst media ever. It just doesn't fit either. I think I like PIcard and Discovery over TNG. But I've been biased against TNG for a very long time and this rewatch is reinforcing why I don't like it.

(Also, are these guys trying to prove white fragility is a thing because any criticism seem to lead to similar reactions across the board. Im all for MRA fight for men's rights. I'm not really cool with them twisting a nothing into a mountrin.)

 

[Hawki]

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.

Star Trek is soft sci-fi, but not space fantasy.

You could argue that's splitting hairs, but Star Trek takes place in our own universe, and it's a universe that at least pays lip service to real-world science. Star Wars, in contrast, is effectively a fantasy setting - it has no link to our own universe, and predominantly uses fantasy tropes (space wizards, space samurai, the Force is its magic system, etc.)

It also shows examples of why the prime directive became much more important for the time periods that existed in TOS and TNG.

How? Doesn't the PD only come into plot relevance with Saru and his planet?

For those complainers that Star Trek is trying to be too PC and BS, I don't even think they are really Star Trek Fans, as they have always been progressive for their time periods made. Female leaders, prominent minorities in major roles, cast diversity, and interracial/ inter species sex has never been taboo for Star Trek from the beginning. In TOS, Kirk had sex with a green alien, we had minority and female admirals and leaders of other nations and ships, so having gay sex in the new star treks really isn't out of character for the series itself as it would be more unexpected if it didn't at this point.

So, on one hand, I do agree that a lot of the criticism of Discovery has been ignorant at best, and sexist/racist at worst. On the other hand...well, a common theme on this thread is that liking Star Trek has to do with its optimistic future. If that's the case, then it's easy to see why so many people dislike Discovery when it's the least 'trekky' Star Trek I've seen, with a pretty grim setting and aesthetic.

I don't think it will ever be the kind of property Star Trek is: it's pretty dang nihilistic. I do recommend sci fi lovers give it a watch.

I don't think BSG being darker than Star Trek is the reason why - BSG didn't start off nihilistic after all.

I think the key issue is that Star Trek is open-ended, while BSG is close-ended. Like, TOS has the premise of "vessel explores the stars." BSG has the premise of "ragtag fleet has to find Earth." Star Trek also has the advantage of having been reasonably continuous, while BSG was niche until the reboot.

What I don't understand is when people complain that the Federation let the Romulans get destroyed in the main timeline. The Federation letting them die was the most Federation thing I've seen.

Um, they don't let them get destroyed. They try to succeed, Spock just didn't arrive in time.

I would submit that many of the first episodes are pretty average but picks up from Ariel on

Personally, I'd say the quality is pretty consistent. Ariel's actually one of my least favourite episodes, and my least favourite is the final one (the one with Jubal Early). Bleh.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Star Trek is soft sci-fi, but not space fantasy.

You could argue that's splitting hairs, but Star Trek takes place in our own universe, and it's a universe that at least pays lip service to real-world science. Star Wars, in contrast, is effectively a fantasy setting - it has no link to our own universe, and predominantly uses fantasy tropes (space wizards, space samurai, the Force is its magic system, etc.)

Fair enough (barring Star Wars being set in our universe, but long ago and far away or whatever), there's a difference there. Seeing a lot of fantasy tropes in Star Trek, but I'd not say predominately, yeah.

 

[MrCalavera]

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.

Okay, but those shows weren't like Star Trek. Not familiar with Lost in Space, but from what i've heard it differs greatly in scope. Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers seem to be the swashbuckling space operas i mentioned before. And Doctor Who is whole nother beast from what i know.
Star Trek, from my 2nd hand knowledge, tried to build believable(for the standards of tv back then) universe, inhabit it with an multi-ethnic cast during a Civil Rights turmoil(even though Kird and Spock gost the most speaking parts) and focus on, let's say pop-scientific approach and exploratory vibe.

Isn't paralleling modern concerns generally better?

Is it? If you want a down-to-earth show that mirrors contemporary issues.
But if you want an escapist fantasy, then i'd reckon a show with the world you'd want to escape to is a better idea.

I have heard Picard is very anti white men.

...An old white guy is the titular character.

SIDE NOTE:
On the Prime Directive discussion: i always understood it existing as a space-colonialism prevention tool.

 

[Zeraki]

I am offended

...

Where's farscape?

Farscape never gets any love and it's one of my all time favorites.

 

[Trunkage]

Um, they don't let them get destroyed. They try to succeed, Spock just didn't arrive in time..

The Romulans told the Federation not to help. Helping them would break the Prime Directive. So Spock and Picard are going against the Federation

 

[Hawki]

Star Trek, from my 2nd hand knowledge, tried to build believable(for the standards of tv back then) universe, inhabit it with an multi-ethnic cast during a Civil Rights turmoil(even though Kird and Spock gost the most speaking parts) and focus on, let's say pop-scientific approach and exploratory vibe.

Is it? If you want a down-to-earth show that mirrors contemporary issues.
But if you want an escapist fantasy, then i'd reckon a show with the world you'd want to escape to is a better idea.

Those two posts are kind of at odds. Because if Star Trek is trying to be "woke" (for the time) and taking a more realistic view on things scientifically, it's hard to sell it as escapist fantasy.

Anyway, point is, I don't think Star Trek is that escapist, because it's often paralleled anxieties of the time. Certainly TOS, Enterprise, and Discovery have done so.

On the Prime Directive discussion: i always understood it existing as a space-colonialism prevention tool.

More "cultural contamination." The whole idea of not giving a populace technology ahead of their own, of not being worshipped as gods, etc.

The Romulans told the Federation not to help. Helping them would break the Prime Directive. So Spock and Picard are going against the Federation

Where did the romulans tell the Federation not to help them? I don't recall that in Star Trek 09, and according to Memory Alpha, the romulans did ask for aid, and Starfleet tried to provide it, only to be sidetracked by the synth attack.

But the Prime Directive doesn't apply here, because the romulans have warp technology.

Also, side note, Picard and 09 deal with the destruction of Romulus, but does anyone care about the remans? Yeah, Nemesis wasn't the best Star Trek film, but did we ever find out what happened to those poor guys? I assume Remus was destroyed as well as Romulus.

 

[Trunkage]

.Where did the romulans tell the Federation not to help them? I don't recall that in Star Trek 09, and according to Memory Alpha, the romulans did ask for aid, and Starfleet tried to provide it, only to be sidetracked by the synth attack.

But the Prime Directive doesn't apply here, because the romulans have warp technology.

There was a Romulan senator in episode three (I think) that says something to the effect of ‘if we asked for help, it would weaken Romulan spirit.’ I just watched the Spock episode where the Romulans slaughter thousands of their own troops when they get found out they are planning an invasion. So, they’re very willing to throw their people under the bus to save political points.

I haven’t seen Picard twice yet, so I may be wrong.. I’m only up to season 5 of TNG so won’t be doing that for a while

 

[Hawki]

I’m only up to season 5 of TNG

What do you mean, "only?" 0_0

 

[Trunkage]

What do you mean, "only?" 0_0

Well, it has taken me almost 2mths to rewatch TNG. But I get side tracked, like I’ve just started watching Agents of Shield final season and a couple of weeks ago Umbrella Academy

 

[Satinavian]

This whole "Blowing up Romulus to have a villain with a revenge motivation but neither Spock nor the Federation are really at fault so it is even wrong to hate them for it" was stupid. It was the most stupid thing of the whole relaunch. (Destroying Vulcan in the other timeline just to establish the danger for Earth was not much better. Not thst such a time traveller could just have prevented the destruction of Romulus instead of going revenge)

I hated Star Trek 2009.

 

[Hawki]

Well, it has taken me almost 2mths to rewatch TNG. But I get side tracked, like I’ve just started watching Agents of Shield final season and a couple of weeks ago Umbrella Academy

Well, yeah, but that's four seasons over about two months. So that's about two seasons per month, or one season every two weeks, in addition to watching everything else. In contrast, it took me more than a month to get through Flash season 4, which, on average, had me watching one episode per day.

I mean, semantics I guess, but, well...

 

[Trunkage]

This whole "Blowing up Romulus to have a villain with a revenge motivation but neither Spock nor the Federation are really at fault so it is even wrong to hate them for it" was stupid. It was the most stupid thing of the whole relaunch. (Destroying Vulcan in the other timeline just to establish the danger for Earth was not much better. Not thst such a time traveller could just have prevented the destruction of Romulus instead of going revenge)

I hated Star Trek 2009.

That's the problem with most time travel episodes. They never make sense.

 

[Fieldy409]

I like Star Trek for its optimism. The future is bright, we solve our problems and learn how to be truly good guys with strong ethics. That's one thing I hate about new Trek that's always trying to flirt with edginess and showing the federation do lots of bad things. Gene Roddenberry fought hard to make sure the federation were always good guys and suddenly everyone wants to make them do something bad after he's gone.

And the ethical discussions I mean come on, remember the arguments about Data being alive?