Why is Star Trek so popular?

[Hawki]

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.

Hate to be "that guy," but it seems that Star Trek gets better the further away Rodenberry is from it.

Rodenberry hated Wrath of Khan, but it's widely regarded as the best installment in the franchise. Rodenberry oversaw TNG, but it's consensus that the show got better from season 3 onwards (can't comment personally, but season 1 is absolutely insufferable, and season 2 was only a slight improvement). And while DS9 may have critiqued the Federation, it usually ranks pretty highly on the series list. Rodenberry seems to be to Star Trek what Lucas is to Star Wars in a lot of aspects.

If the argument is against the Federation being shady, the ship's kind of sailed on that one. Edgy though? Well, with Discovery, I'll give you that.

 

[Satinavian]

Rhodenberry did not only want the federation being the good guys but wanted humans themself having become something better. DS9 and later TNG had humans still being humans with all their ancieties and little problems and the federation still being pretty much utopian.

Rhodenberry basically was against interpersonal conflicts between federation officers. He also forbade an episode about dealing with trauma and loss because future humans should be above such things. That is also where some of Picards earlier speeches about how modern humans are so different from old humans come from.

But after he was gone, humans were just humans and only their society and socialisation had changed.

 

[Trunkage]

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

Hate to be that guy too. This... is not a good argument. By both sides. It would not acceptable under today's standards of storytelling

 

[Gordon_4]

Hate to be that guy too. This... is not a good argument. By both sides. It would not acceptable under today's standards of storytelling

Yeah you need to expand on that, in a big way.

 

[MrCalavera]

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.

...How?

There's adhering to basic laws of physics, while all the more fantastic stuff is handwavedexplained by technological progress and knowledge not available for us, yet.
There's also a society where poverty, racism etc. have been largely eliminated due to that progress and knowledge. How are those things at odds?

 

[gorfias]

Rhodenberry did not only want the federation being the good guys but wanted humans themself having become something better. DS9 and later TNG had humans still being humans with all their ancieties and little problems and the federation still being pretty much utopian.

Rhodenberry basically was against interpersonal conflicts between federation officers. He also forbade an episode about dealing with trauma and loss because future humans should be above such things. That is also where some of Picards earlier speeches about how modern humans are so different from old humans come from.

But after he was gone, humans were just humans and only their society and socialisation had changed.

The 1st year of STNG was awful. Conflict creates drama. Having the Enterprise crew all acting like chirpy happy getting along troopers was dull.
They also claimed to be non judgemental about other cultures, often trying to engage in those cultures without judgement and yet, would mercilessly mock Worf for his culture. Troy to Worf (paraphrase) "It's your birthday? I suppose you're going to go hit yourself with a pain stick or something". It was on an episode of Deep Space 9 that really did the right thing. A Ferengi blasts Sisko for the paternalistic attitudes towards non-humans.

Among the criticism I'm hearing of the new Treks are they are just ugly. Violent, bloody, dark,.. I mean, 7 of 9 becomes and alcoholic remorseless killer? People cuss at Picard? White males are killed mid "mansplain" for humor? There's a difference between adult think pieces and just ugly darkness just to look edgy.

 

[Hawki]

...How?

There's adhering to basic laws of physics, while all the more fantastic stuff is handwavedexplained by technological progress and knowledge not available for us, yet.
There's also a society where poverty, racism etc. have been largely eliminated due to that progress and knowledge. How are those things at odds?

You're focusing on the wrong part of my statement. The scientific accuracy isn't the issue, it's the analogy to real-world stuff. So when Star Trek makes specific parallels to the anxieties of the time, I don't see how it can just be "escapist fantasy."

Like, technically you could watch everything from TOS to Undiscovered Country and not be aware of how the relationship between the klingons and Federation mirrors the real-time development of the USSR/USA relationship, but I'm guessing that most people on this site are informed enough to spot it.

White males are killed mid "mansplain" for humor?

Da fuq?

Look, a lot of idiots freaked out over Michael's gender and ethnicity, but this strikes me as just as assinine.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It was on an episode of Deep Space 9 that really did the right thing. A Ferengi blasts Sisko for the paternalistic attitudes towards non-humans.

Dunno, IMHO that was really undermined because it was a Ferengi doing it, and they are depicted comedy bad guys or just bad guys. Their entire culture revolves around being selfish, greedy and misogynistic, almost everyone has a right to look down on them because they aren't good people.

Later on they magically fix this and they become respectable, though.

 

[gorfias]

Dunno, IMHO that was really undermined because it was a Ferengi doing it, and they are depicted comedy bad guys or just bad guys. Their entire culture revolves around being selfish, greedy and misogynistic, almost everyone has a right to look down on them because they aren't good people.

Later on they magically fix this and they become respectable, though.

Treating them like comedy bad guys was part of the problem. You cannot have a story line in which they claim that all cultures are equal and to not be judged... and then do so by treating the Ferengi (and Worf) as sources of disdain/humor.
The Ferengi are, by my values, problematic. But that is me, judging them.
At least from a story telling point of view, claiming all cultures equal and not to be judged is like the chirpy characters of season 1: no judgement = no conflict = no drama. In the episode I reference, at least the Ferengi offer a dramatic differing POV. It was as refreshing as a fist fight between Kirk and Spock!

Look, a lot of idiots freaked out over Michael's gender and ethnicity, but this strikes me as just as assinine.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Treating them like comedy bad guys was part of the problem. You cannot have a story line in which they claim that all cultures are equal and to not be judged... and then do so by treating the Ferengi (and Worf) as sources of disdain/humor.
The Ferengi are, by my values, problematic. But that is me, judging them.
At least from a story telling point of view, claiming all cultures equal and not to be judged is like the chirpy characters of season 1: no judgement = no conflict = no drama. In the episode I reference, at least the Ferengi offer a dramatic differing POV. It was as refreshing as a fist fight between Kirk and Spock!

Eh, early on Picard says that there's a whole bunch of alien races with different cultures on the Enterprise, and he respects them all...but if anyone's culture clashes with their duty as Starfleet officers they should resign. They explicitly don't put up with cultures inherently hostile to them (because they can't, obviously), and that includes the Ferengi, or should.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Treating them like comedy bad guys was part of the problem. You cannot have a story line in which they claim that all cultures are equal and to not be judged... and then do so by treating the Ferengi (and Worf) as sources of disdain/humor.

This to me is a misunderstanding of TNG era Star Trek.

The federation in TNG era Star Trek don't believe that all cultures are equal and deserve not to be judged, they believe that it's wrong to interfere in the natural development of other cultures. One recurring plot line in TNG era Star Trek is a planet wanting to join the Federation and then it turns out they practice slavery or something. In these episodes, the antagonist will usually accuse the federation of judging them unfairly, and Picard will go away and think deeply about the ramifications of judging other cultures not give a shit because slavery is wrong.

The standpoint of TNG is explicitly that the Federation is correct, and that opposing the federation is bad. The Ferengi, as a society and a culture, are bad. The Klingons, when they were first introduced, were bad. One common feature of Star Trek is that over time the portrayal of other societies softens and becomes more nuanced. It happened to the Klingons in TNG, it happened to the Cardassians and Ferengi in DS9. It even happened to the Borg (sort of) in Voyager. But Star Trek never comes from the standpoint that all societies are equal and that judging them is wrong.

Even as the portrayal of Klingons became softer, there are still elements of Klingon culture which are never depicted as admirable, and the position of the Klingons within the federation is consistently shown to be predicated on the fact that they've worked to reform the worst excesses of their society.

Personally, I don't like the prime directive. I feel that it's a fundamentally selfish philosophy which the show tries to present as altruistic and has to constantly find excuses to make it work despite the fact it obviously doesn't. But even as written, the prime directive never implies any kind of equal respect for all cultures, only not necessarily having the right to interfere.

 

[happyninja42]

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).

I'm guessing you are watching them from a DVD/Blu Ray yes? And thus they are actually in intended order? I ask because when the show aired, Fox aired them out of order, and it seriously fucked up the narrative flow. They started with the second episode, which is a train heist, where they had already established the characters and setting. So if you are watching them in the order they aired...then yeah you are going to be confused. First episode should be Serenity.

 

[gorfias]

Personally, I don't like the prime directive. I feel that it's a fundamentally selfish philosophy which the show tries to present as altruistic and has to constantly find excuses to make it work despite the fact it obviously doesn't. But even as written, the prime directive never implies any kind of equal respect for all cultures, only not necessarily having the right to interfere.

What would a Watcher says!?!?

 

[gorfias]

Personally, I don't like the prime directive. I feel that it's a fundamentally selfish philosophy which the show tries to present as altruistic and has to constantly find excuses to make it work despite the fact it obviously doesn't. But even as written, the prime directive never implies any kind of equal respect for all cultures, only not necessarily having the right to interfere.

What would a Watcher say!?!?

I feel like Rodenberry wanted equality in culture in STNG as he did between individuals. They had Worf acting plain silly. That did develop as did the drama of the show over a few seasons.

I'm guessing you are watching them from a DVD/Blu Ray yes? And thus they are actually in intended order? I ask because when the show aired, Fox aired them out of order, and it seriously fucked up the narrative flow. They started with the second episode, which is a train heist, where they had already established the characters and setting. So if you are watching them in the order they aired...then yeah you are going to be confused. First episode should be Serenity.

I did have them all on disc... but I think they were streaming for a while too. Don't recall how I watched them. My favorite is the episode the Cap'n got married. I think I'll watch that again ASAP. FYI: It is on Hulu with commercials at this time.

 

[happyninja42]

I did have them all on disc... but I think they were streaming for a while too. Don't recall how I watched them. My favorite is the episode the Cap'n got married. I think I'll watch that again ASAP.

I would definitely make sure you're watching them in the order Joss actually intended to air them, as it makes WAAAAY more sense that way. But yeah, the episode where Mal get's hitched is really good. I was always a fan of Simon though, he was my favorite character in that show by far.

It sounds like you have sense watched the whole series? If so, cool, if not, I would suggest trying to finish it up, as it's really good. I mean unless you just genuinely don't enjoy it. If so, then feel free to not watch it, varying tastes and all.

 

[gorfias]

I would definitely make sure you're watching them in the order Joss actually intended to air them, as it makes WAAAAY more sense that way. But yeah, the episode where Mal get's hitched is really good. I was always a fan of Simon though, he was my favorite character in that show by far.

It sounds like you have sense watched the whole series? If so, cool, if not, I would suggest trying to finish it up, as it's really good. I mean unless you just genuinely don't enjoy it. If so, then feel free to not watch it, varying tastes and all.

Nope, saw them all. Going to watch again on Hulu. Got to see if Serenity is on there. Loved the villain in that movie.

Holy Moly: 1) that movie came out 15 years ago and 2) Baron Mordo! https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0252230/?ref_=tt_cl_t10

 

[Hawki]

Computing Forever stuff

I'm not a fan of CF. Every so often he has some insights, but most of the time, he's firmly in SQW territory.

Anyway, the video is rediculous. It seems to operate under the premise that "white male character is arrogant and offed, ergo, mansplaining." Because, y'know, there's never been arrogant male characters before in Star Trek. If he was criticizing the article itself, then it would be fair game, but he's attributing the article's rediculous assertion to what's actually in Discovery (or not in it).

There's plenty to criticize Discovery for, but racism/racialism isn't among them. And that's something that both SJWs and SQWs should take to heart.

The Klingons, when they were first introduced, were bad.

Not necessarily. The organian episode draws moral equivalance between the Federation and klingons. I agree that the klingons were fleshed out over time, but it didn't operate under the premise of "klingons are evil" in the original series.

 

[Trunkage]

Yeah you need to expand on that, in a big way.

Riker's thesis: I pushed a button!
Picard thesis: But he can analyse!

To be fair, it's Riker's argument that's terrible. Turning off as a way to disprove sentience is just lame. Picard only has to say, 'He thinks therefore he is' (paraphrased obviously) and he wins.

Also, shouldn't there be more questioning and especially rebuttals? Shouldn't we start with the Turing test but about sentience (because that test it more about effectively replicating human behaviour)? You go through the list of points and discuss how Data either fulfils (or not) those requirements? Because there are points, its a back and forth as you step through them, automatically creating dramatic tension if you have good writing. Hopefully, you can show, through previous episode, of him fulfilling these requirements

Also, the conflict of interest by all three parties is glaringly obvious. Maddox is the cleanest one there. It should be thrown out based on that alone

 

[Gordon_4]

Riker's thesis: I pushed a button!
Picard thesis: But he can analyse!

To be fair, it's Riker's argument that's terrible. Turning off as a way to disprove sentience is just lame. Picard only has to say, 'He thinks therefore he is' (paraphrased obviously) and he wins.

Also, shouldn't there be more questioning and especially rebuttals? Shouldn't we start with the Turing test but about sentience (because that test it more about effectively replicating human behaviour)? You go through the list of points and discuss how Data either fulfils (or not) those requirements? Because there are points, its a back and forth as you step through them, automatically creating dramatic tension if you have good writing. Hopefully, you can show, through previous episode, of him fulfilling these requirements

Also, the conflict of interest by all three parties is glaringly obvious. Maddox is the cleanest one there. It should be thrown out based on that alone

I like most of what you're outlining here. Sadly there's only 45 minutes in an episode, and equally sadly since this is an early season 2 episode there aren't many of the better examples of Data being Data to draw on. Actually one reason I'm sad Denise Crosby left the show is that I think a genuine testimony from her would have been a pretty interesting dramatic scene. As for conflicts of interest, even allowing for the subtle but important differences between civil and military courts - of which Starfleet JAG is most certainly the latter - they're an issue but this probably has more to do with writers not understanding legal nuance.


This will no support my appreciation of the episode, but its worth a goose.


EDIT: I had something else but fuck it, I don't care.

 

[happyninja42]

they're an issue but this probably has more to do with writers not understanding legal nuance.

This, more than anything, is what irks me about criticisms of entertainment. People seem to forget that the people making these stories, are not scientists, or lawyers, or whatever other specialized knowledge base is being discussed in a piece of entertainment. They are film makers, and writers, and actors, and all kinds of very specialized professions, that are decidedly NOT the other things. Sure they might be able to hire consultants, assuming it's a field that is a real one (something that is not always the case in scifi), but maybe they don't have the budget for it, or the consultant comes with some unreasonable requirements for their help, like the US military dictating how scripts will portray the US military, in order to provide equipment and vehicles and consultation.

The reality is that entertainment has NEVER understood legal nuance, that's why a channel like Legal Eagle (which I love by the way), is able to make entertaining content, because none of the shows ever really get it right. In fact he gets really excited when they get even just a handful of details correct, because the norm is that it's all just total bullshit. But it's also not actual law, so it doesn't matter.

I mean honestly, NONE of us can honestly say what the legal debate over the right to life an artificial being could have, so it's all pure speculation. I mean the judge starts talking about a fucking SOUL in her final statement, as if that's at all relevant in a court of law. But who cares? Because it's just a good episode, that tells a very broad lesson about equal rights to thinking beings, and that we shouldn't be so quick to judge something as un-deserving of those rights. Is it legally accurate? Who cares?