You can always tell which histories of SF are the fluff ones. Invariably, they're the ones that claim women weren't interested in SF until Mr. Spock gave them all a bad case of "Vulcan Fever".
Posted by signine (Member # 7671) on :
*sigh*
I still think Enterprise had an amazing amount of totally wasted potential. Here we are, humanity just having united in a world government, exploring the stars with ships they just learned how to build, and being held back by a technologically superior species who wants to "guide" them.
So much potential for a really good long-running story, all of it wasted.
Posted by signine (Member # 7671) on :
Also: Firefly was the best sci-fi television series ever. Watch the box set in order and you'll wonder why Fox was dumb enough to cancel it.
<- has tickets to Serenity. So excited it's hard to keep his pulse steady.
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
Maybe Fox will bring the show back. They did it once with Family Guy to great success...If the movie does well I mean...
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I will be honest, I did like Voyager and The Next Generation. But I do agree, it's had its time. It's just... (gyah, I don't want to say this.) over.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
I am so Glad that OSC is with us on the Firefly thing! we have to get that show back, I have never seen a series killed in its prime like that, the box set was so good that we ration it out as one show a day at FT Stewart.
It was not even like Highlander which started weak and got good (with Adrian Paul)
Oh I will miss Trek, but I wish that someone would just do the Galactic Patrol Novels as a series instead.
BC
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
Though I agree with his take on "Lost," I have to think Unky Orson's comments are a bit of the Simpson's "Comic Book Guy" peeking through...
...you know, the arrogant (!) sci-fi intellectual who dismisses something's value simply because it doesn't keep to the laws of physics. It's happening to him! He's transforming!!
Okay, so it's not sci-fi exactly but the first two series had characters that DID have resonance and change over time and DID connect with many intelligent, mature people. I respect Roddenberry's ideas and intents with the series, having heard him lecture over 20 years ago. Compared to the kind of TV programming of the time, the original series is more ahead of its time than many might think.
But hey––I stopped watching after The Next Gen, but that was because I was hooked on "The X-Files." Posted by B-HAX (Member # 6640) on :
Sounds like SOMEBODY has a resentment over not receiving their Nichelle Nichols autograph after waiting in line for 4 hours.
I like Star Trek! Maybe it wasn't smart sci-fi, but it was fun. Can't something be fun and enjoyable even if its a little campy?
I'm too young to have seen the show when it originally came out, but the episodes I've seen are entertaining AND FUN. As for the spin offs, Next Generation got me interested, didn't really get into it until a couple seasons in. DS9 had some good seasons, Voyager was so so, though I got into it towards the end.
Enterprise, the latest, had an awful start and I wrote it off. The last two seasons got really good, and I'm left a little disappointed that its getting cut just as it was getting good.
Anyone else notice that the respectable sci-fi Card referenced can hardly be considered sci-fi. It's nothing new, I have always hated how sci-fi and fantasy share shelf space at the book store. I realize OSC plays in both leagues, but I just don't care for the fantasy genre. Elves and dragons need not apply. For me sci fi IS the space opera.
Luckily for fans of the Space Opera there will still be Battlestar Galactica to fall back on. That's right, I didn't mention Andromeda, even *I* have my limits. As an after thought, the new Dr. Who has been enjoyable, for us deprived Americans, may I recommend btefnet.org to catch up on episodes, it airs every Saturday evening on the BBC.
B-HAX
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:As science fiction, the series was trapped in the 1930s — a throwback to spaceship adventure stories with little regard for science or deeper ideas. It was sci-fi as seen by Hollywood: all spectacle, no substance.
But, to be fair, compared to its predecessor Lost in Space, it was a vast step forward. (What other science fiction shows were on TV back then? I can't think of any except Twilight Zone.)
quote:Most people weren't reading all that brilliant science fiction. Most people weren't reading at all. So when they saw "Star Trek," primitive as it was, it was their first glimpse of science fiction.
And, being introduced to science fiction, they discovered that they liked it. Flawed as it was, Star Trek helped bring science fiction as a genre into the mainstream. Kids like me who grew up watching Star Trek reruns after school became the audience driving the expansion and improvement of both written and film SF.
Watching the original series now, I can certainly see the flaws, but as an eleven-year-old I was addicted. (And I couldn't tell how bad the special effects were, because I was watching on a 14-inch black and white set.) I wanted to go and live in a time and place where exploration, friendship, and peaceful cooperation were the order of the day, and where it was good to be very smart because you could fix the ship/cure the alien disease/find a way to communicate with the new species and save everybody's life. (In the world I actually did live in, that of a small-town middle school, the order of the day was merciless teasing and harassment for kids like me who didn't wear the "right" clothes or have the "right" hair style or like the "right" movies, and girls were not supposed to be very smart -- they were supposed to be pretty, which I wasn't.)
That said, I'm not particularly crushed by the demise of Enterprise, after last season's writers managed to make the imminent destruction of the Earth boring.
And I have a dog named Seven of Nine. Her motto is: Resistance is futile. You WILL pet me.
[ May 04, 2005, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*sigh* Hates Star Trek and thinks Smallville is great TV. Yep, certainly he has different taste than I do!
Of course, I knew that already. He watches American Idol!
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
I admit, it's a shock to me too, but regardless of bad acting and weak story lines, the show will always have a special place in my heart.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
[ May 04, 2005, 02:40 AM: Message edited by: Lupus ]
Posted by Wendy (Member # 7955) on :
As a Star Trek fan I must comment on the LA Times commentary. I sent this letter to the editor:
Dear editor, Orson Scott card, as a well-respected science fiction writer and mentor should know better than to slam what for many was the mother of the genre. I hope he realizes many of his own readers began with Star Trek, and hold a deep and undying love for what he has just ridiculed. Some of his readers would probably not be reading his books if they hadn't been exposed to science fiction through the easily captivating, if not highly literary franchise. Star Trek speaks to the spirit of humans, our urge to explore. It has motivated many to become involved in the space industry or other scientific endeavours. It captivates the young, yet still holds the mature, becoming a shared experience to draw families into stimulating discussions on science and social issues. Star Trek has become an ingrained part of our culture, with references such as "going at warp speed," being commonplace. If Mr. Card thinks the cancellation of the recent series, "Enterprise," is the end of Star Trek, he is badly misguided. As he so astutely pointed out, when one tries to kill Trek, it only rises up stronger. It will be back! Wendy Stevens
As a teen and read all of James Blish's adaptations to the original Trek episodes before ever reading an episode, so it's not like Trek fans weren't readers. I started off with a childrens trilogy including "The City of Gold and Lead," then moved to Heinlein's "Starbeast", and others before my siblings and I discovered the Trek stories in the library. Later we clued in we could watch it on tv. My Dad, a research chemist, also enjoyed them greatly with us. I'd like to know what's so great about Buffy compared to Trek. There's some witty dialogue, character drama, albeit teen-agerish -- but I often find it degenerates into monster chase (boring!). Where's the excitement of being "out there" discovering new things in Smallville? It's good fun, but not on par with the ideology of Trek. I'd best be off, I should be finishing an artist feature I'm writing.
Posted by TheClone (Member # 6141) on :
OSC also made Fark.... it wasn't so pretty.
Posted by lonelywalker (Member # 7815) on :
LOL. I have to respect a writer who knows that his opinion is going to start a huge argument, but goes ahead and states that opinion regardless.
I disagree with OSC's assessment of Star Trek. The original series was indeed lacking in any character development whatsoever, and relied mostly on formulaic plotlines (another week, another redshirt, another suspiciously familiar cardboard landscape). However, the original show did play a huge role in the development of television science fiction. The following shows: Next Generation, and Deep Space Nine, displayed some of the most brilliant writing I have ever seen on television. They were adventurous, and DS9 in particular was never afraid to venture outside traditional Star Trek fare and into something a little more dangerous.
But, alas, Voyager and its almost-carbon-copy Enterprise lost that brilliant writing and sense of doing something new. They didn't even have the heart of the original series, or the charisma that could keep a show standing up even despite poor plotlines. No one, not even Trek fans, can get excited about spatial anomalies. Any show that makes spatial anomalies the centre, and not the people, has some serious problems.
So in a way I agree with OSC. Star Trek DID need to be killed off. Perhaps it will be permanent, which I doubt, but I hope that it is long enough for the show only to return when it has learned to be adventurous again, to be dangerous, and to have a heart.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I hope he realizes many of his own readers began with Star Trek, and hold a deep and undying love for what he has just ridiculed."
Did you read his article? That was his point. Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Wow. I had no idea. Card respects Buffy?
That's awesome. I know he didn't say he was a fan, exactly, but hey, it got a mention.
My husband just finished watching the series, and I watched some of it over again with him. I, of course, cried AGAIN at several points--and laughed...
Anyway... that's cool.
-Katarain
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Yep, the fark and slashdot mouthbreathers are laying into him pretty hard.
I believe a few posters even went so far as calling Ender's Game "tripe".
Although this from people who think Star Trek is the height of SF.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
I would like to hear how OSC views Doctor Who as compared with Star Trek.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, it's fair to say that OSC is doing "Star Trek" a bit of a disservice, especially since some of the same writers -- like Ellison -- he's lauding in that piece actually wrote for the original show.
But he's right: there's nothing so inherently special about it that it should be required to go on endlessly. Fans have kept it alive by remaining obsessively loyal to it despite its flaws -- or, at least, that's his premise; in practice, especially when you look at the ratings for the last two series, this doesn't appear to be the case.
The accurate bit of what he's saying -- and I'll put it here in a way that's not worded to deliberately rile up readers; I suspect his article was so worded -- is that for many years, Star Trek was really the only science fiction on television. And for people who wanted to see science fiction on television -- leaving aside the issue of whether they were in fact not readers or whether they simply liked to supplement their reading with visuals -- it was the only game in town.
This is no longer the case. It faces much steeper competition; in fact, most shows nowadays have strong sci-fi elements. So the audience, by definition, is going to be both more fragmented and more discerning -- and so any sci-fi show that's going to appeal over the long haul is going to have to be of a higher quality than "Star Trek" often was.
But if you put it like this, you don't get Slashdotted. Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
Lets me put it another way. Battlestar Galactica and Enterprise are shown at the same time. BSG wins hands down in the ratings and its on cable. You can't expect a show to survive on name alone when it's being beaten by a show on cable.
[ May 04, 2005, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged ]
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
Enterprise is on cable too. At least it is here.
Posted by Gryphonesse (Member # 6651) on :
oh lordy, someone call in the militia... my favorite AUTHOR doesn't like one of my favorite TV SHOWS???
pfft... We're all entitiled to our own opinion. I happen to love Star Trek. I watched from the womb, and I haven't stopped. Personally, I think the later seasons of DS9 up to the finale were the pinnacle of the entire series. I have even gone to a convention or two. Just because OSC disagrees doesn't change my opinion of him one iota. Really... Why should it?? Does it affect his writing? If it has, it hasn't bothered me up to this point.
The Trekkies who are getting their knickers in knots over this are proving everyone else's point. Wonder if they realize that? Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
If anybody is really interested in knowing why OSC thinks that Star Trek is really bad science fiction, read his book How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy, which is a very enjoyable book even if, like me, you have no interest in writing.
Many of his examples of bad science fiction are take from Star Trek. Agree or disagree, but if you want to understand his thinking better, read that book.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Of course he thinks Star Trek should be over and done with. He never liked it to begin with. I would have found the article much more compelling if he said he was a fan, and thought the show should be completed. When Survivor ends, I could probably write an article just as long, but I never liked it anyways. So why bother?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Oh, and I loved Eternal Sunshine, Being John Malcovich, and Lost. But as for being the best Sci Fi movies and series? I think not. JJ Abrams has even said Lost will not go into the science fiction realm. Or was this OSC's way of saying the whole genre on screen is horrible?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"JJ Abrams has even said Lost will not go into the science fiction realm."
*blink* How so? It's already there.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Maybe that just reveals Abrams's narrow definition of science fiction He's probably just thinking of Star Trek, and doesn't think of Alias as science fiction, either.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
Which it definitely is.
Posted by Gryphonesse (Member # 6651) on :
man oh man -
I guess my view of sci-fi is *completely* plebian.
Honestly, I really don't care about categories. I care about whether I like the story.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The best Star Trek of all-- Galaxy Quest.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
JJ Abrams said in some interview back in October that Lost would have some kind of realistic explanation. Of course he may have been saying that to keep the non sci fi fans hooked on the show...
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!
Posted by dinzy (Member # 6858) on :
DS9 was a good SciFi/fantasy show and I doubt OSC really watched the later seasons. Sure Enterprise and Voyager were dull and unispiring, but DS9 had character development and political complexity.
Paramount could very well produce a good show using the Trek license if they had the balls to do so, but as it is with most TV I don't see it happening.
However I do beleive the core of what he said to be true. Lame formulaic SciFI is not needed. Enterprise could have been good if it wasn't season 18 of TNG with a couple of cast changes.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"JJ Abrams said in some interview back in October that Lost would have some kind of realistic explanation."
Since when is sci-fi necessarily unrealistic?
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Sometime last week a link was posted on the other side to a list of bad sci-fi cliches, with the ones that come from Star Trek clearly labeled. Looking at it now, I'd say that's about three quarters of them.
--j_k
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
That is a cool list.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I also have to disagree with OSC about Star Trek, as well as the shows he mentioned. Not that I felt hurt by it, as much as confused. Although it is true that Star Trek had many "pop-sci-fi" moments, it also had some brilliant meaningful stories. As was pointed out, top notch science fiction writers of the time wrote for the series. Frankly, I think the original *still* holds up well to repeated viewings; despite the 60s low budget special effects. I can't believe I am about to say this, but I don't think he sounds like someone who doesn't like Star Trek. Rather, I think he sounds like someone who is ignorant of Star Trek and what it is and was. To compare Star Trek to anything else is apples and oranges. Now, if he said those things about Star Wars I would totally agree.
And, on top of all that, I can't think of any of the shows he mentions coming even close to Science Fiction. Perhaps one out of them can remotely be called Science Fiction, where the others are Fantasy. OSC, I know that you write in both genres, but there is a particular reason its called SCIENCE Fiction. For those of us who hate most fantasy, it is insulting to conflate the two.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
I agree with OSC that it's about time that Star Trek died- the last two series having been nothing short of awful- but I get the feeling he never really watched Deep Space Nine. DS9 is up there with Firefly as my favorite sci-fi television series of all time, precisely BECAUSE it subverted Roddenberry's ludicrously squeaky-clean view of the future, while delivering on long-term storylines and character development.
One particular episode, "In the Pale Moonlight," is probably my favorite hour of television, period. It's a sharply written (and brilliantly performed) exploration of whether the ends justify the means, full of moral ambiguities, told on the backdrop of a galactic war. Plus it features a great monologue from one of Trek's best characters, Garak the Cardassian tailor:
(Spoilers ahead for those who haven't seen DS9)
"That's why you came to me, isn't it, Captain? Because you knew I could do those things that you weren't capable of doing? Well, it worked. And you'll get what you want: a war between the Romulans and the Dominion. And if your conscience is bothering you, you should soothe it with the knowledge that you may have just saved the entire Alpha Quadrant, and all it cost was the life of one Romulan senator, one criminal... and the self-respect of one Starfleet officer. I don't know about you, but I'd call that a bargain."
DS9 is also the source of this lovely exchange, which sums up why I like the series quite succinctly:
Garak takes a drink of root beer. Quark: What do you think? Garak: It's vile! Quark: I know. It's so bubbly and cloying and happy. Garak: Just like the Federation. Quark: And you know what's really frightening? If you drink enough of it, you begin to like it. Garak: It's insidious! Quark: Just like the Federation.
[ May 05, 2005, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Tarrsk ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: OSC, I know that you write in both genres, but there is a particular reason its called SCIENCE Fiction.
If you're the type who uses all caps for "science" in "science fiction," then I don't quite understand why you like Star Trek. Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
Lost will not go into the science fiction realm?
Obviously said by someone who thinks that "science fiction" is what Star Trek did. If he READ science fiction, he would know that Lost is sci-fi from beginning to end - no matter HOW they choose to "explain" it all.
Look, folks, I only had 700 words. I couldn't go into nuances. I couldn't talk about how much better the acting was in the later stories.
But I could also have gone into the rigid formula that the writers followed in writing their Star Trek episodes in the more recent series. But once locked into that mindset, they couldn't escape. Had a chance to see it up-close-and-personal, and the obliviousness of the writers so damaged is astonishing.
Sure, Star Trek was the introduction to sci fi for many people - but that was my POINT.
And look at the result. In REAL science fiction, the readers are constantly looking for new worlds, for revisions of reality, for ideas they haven't had before.
But Star Trek fandom devours books that return them to the SAME world, the SAME "characters," the same experience, over and over. Like Harlequin romances. Ditto with Star Wars fans. What do you think all those novels are about? Endless repetition. Safety in familiarity.
That's just not science fiction, folks. It's a different experience; Star Trek fans sometimes make the transition to be part of the science fiction community, but most of them have found a safe haven and put nothing at risk in their reading. That's fine - everybody should have the stories they want - but because it's CALLED science fiction, people who read this poorly imagined, safe-as-mommy's-arms writing are NOT getting anything like what science fiction actually can be and IS - outside the media-centered stuff.
If only they could have called it something else, and erased the confusion. THEN nobody would have asked a sci-fi writer to comment on Star Trek, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"What do you think all those novels are about? Endless repetition. Safety in familiarity."
Hm. It depends, actually. While I think there's a strong contingent in any fan base that just wants the safe and familiar -- and to some extent this is understandable, as clearly they wouldn't be a fan if there wasn't some element of the product that they liked and therefore would not want to see change -- I think the truly hard-core fans of both Star Trek and Star Wars wanted to see more dynamism in both universes; certainly the novels written for both settings catered primarily to that urge, as much as was possible within their remit. The problem here is really two-fold:
1) The casual fan does not like story arcs. 2) There will always be a passionate fan disappointed by anything you change. To some people, "Star Wars" is all about Luke Skywalker; if you kill Luke Skywalker, the remaining stories aren't "Star Wars" anymore.
In TV, these two facts conspire against any truly dynamic ongoing series. Heck, the same sensibility forced Worf to show up in the movies, despite the fact that his character was transferred to another post -- and off the Enterprise -- long ago.
You're writing comics now, and I think you'll find the same thing is true of that medium. Unless you're deliberately shooting for a miniseries, you can't make significant changes to a character once it's established. And while trade paperbacks are making minis more common than they used to be, in the old days it took serious guts to say "Okay, I'm done with this story. It's reached its conclusions. I'm going to stop now."
At some point, characters -- and franchises -- like Superman or Batman or Darth Vader or Jean-Luc Picard stop being characters in the literal sense, because they've been shoehorned into too many plots; they become archetypes. And if you think of shows like "Star Trek" and "Star Wars" as archetypal, I think it helps.
[ May 06, 2005, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
It's too bad that book stores put "science-fiction" and "fantasy" together because in many ways the two are very different creatures. I'm glad many places have a section devoted to media-related books so there's at least a distinction between "Star Trek" and "Rendevous With Rama."
The MAJORITY of sci-fi (and fantasy) is ridiculous, repetitive, dated, characterless, ad nauseum. That's the joy of imagination––one man's stew is another man's lobster. Roddenberry himself said the original Star Trek wasn't science-fiction as it was "Wagon Train" in space. The point wasn't the science. It was the relationships, and THAT's what keeps the fans coming.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
Nicely put, Tom.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Scott, how many Star Trek novels have you read? How many Star Trek conventions have you attended?
In my case, the answer would be over a hundred and half a dozen, respectively. So I think I am qualified to speak to your claims regarding Star Trek fans. Are there some who read no other SF, and who disdain those novels which stray from canon? Certainly -- I know many.
But at least as many -- and in the (admittedly completely informal and unscientific) sample of fans I have met -- a far greater percentage ALSO enjoy reading large amounts of other SF&F. The authors of some of which (Diane Duane, Diane Carey, Jean Lorrah, A.C. Crispin, the incomparable Barbara Hambly,) they have been introduced to via ST novels.
And anyone who claims that ST novels are not (good) SF has not read The Wounded Sky, Spock's World, Yesterday's Son (and its even better sequel, Time for Yesterday), The Tears of the Singers, or many other spectacular ST novels.
Don't get me wrong, some of the novels are incredibly, spectacularly dreadful. And a fair percentage (especially in the last ten years) are simply flat -- neither particularly good nor terribly awful. But to declare that all Star Trek fails to be good SF -- or fails to be SF at all -- is simply false. And to claim that all, or even most, ST fans like the show(s) and novels and the fandom in general because it's the equivalent of comfort food is simply tripe.
As penance, I suggest that you visit a Star Trek convention a year for the next ten years. Or ten this year, if that works better for you. Listen to the fans, and see that they are not as you have painted them. Take a look around the dealer's room, and see how much "real" SF gets sold alongside the ST stuff.
Including YOUR BOOKS.
Posted by BryanP (Member # 7772) on :
As for the original series, yes, it's cheesy, and downright cheap at times. I think the later shows are better quality in terms of character development, etc. (true, TV in the 1960s wasn't a bastion of literary prowess). So, yes, Card does make a few decent points, but to condemn the entire franchise on account of birthing pains, well, that's just foolish. Card needs to recognize there are different types of sci-fi. He seems to enjoy the more heady material, which I love too, but let's be honest, most of the best written sci-fi is damn near impossible to transfer to the screen with any level of integrity. I'd love to see some of Asimov's stuff get made (like Foundation), or Ender sequels, but much of the complexity and appeal of those stories is gleaned from the internal--the thoughts and conflicts of characters in extraordinary situations.
One point that Card makes is that the universe is familiar and therefore no risks can be taken in it and it is boring and uninteresting. I will agree that Voyager and Enterprise have been too familiar, too formulaic (even bad). But to say that a familiar universe is not conducive to good stories indicates that Card had better stop writing Ender novels. I'm sorry, but it's just too familiar and friendly at this point, it can't be science fiction. No, I don't care how good the books have been, you just can't call it sci-fi anymore.
Of course, I don't really believe that, but that is essentially the implication of Card's argument. Which is ridiculous. If you want to say that about Voyager and Enterprise, fine, but if you are throwing all of Star Trek into that category, you are wrong.
I'm glad it's over for now. I want to see it come back with a fresh perspective and some writers who can bring something new and interesting to the table. Because Star Trek certainly can be damn good sci-fi, and has, and will again.
[ May 06, 2005, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: BryanP ]
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Tom, that's only true of comics if one is writing company-owned franchise characters.
And then, only the "money" characters.
It's not true of "the medium".
Just saying.
[ May 06, 2005, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: Puffy Treat ]
Posted by Hiroshima (Member # 7970) on :
I normally just lurk, but there are some things that need to be said on this topic.
*Star Trek should be classified as Science Fantasy by virtue of the warp drive alone.
*Roddenberry didn't always have room for character development in Star Trek. The show spent much creative energy finding ways to make social commentary. Remember, we had a Japanese man at the helm 20 years after fighting a major war with Japan. We had a black woman on the bridge. We had a mixed-species major character with the ears of a devil. The first interracial kiss occurred on Star Trek. Read some of the history of the show to learn how much risk Roddenberry took every single week. It was not science fiction, but it broke new ground in plenty of other ways.
*Original Star Trek was always about the story. solutions were usually found diplomatically, not by channeling the food processors through the sensor dish to produce a tachyon particle beam to disrupt the...well, you get the point.
*Enterprise had the most potential since the original series, and it was wasted. The entire series, with the exception of a handful of shows in season four, were missing an essential element of Star Trek, that of hope. Enterprise centered on hopelessness and despair. The best episode they ever filmed was the recent story line where Archer forced the Tellerites, Vulcans, and Andorians to cooperate against (what we should never have been told to be) the Romulans. That story foreshadowed the Federation, and made some very good fiction.
*The major problem plaguing Star Trek is that the franchise is a monarchy, not a collaboration. I'm not here to point fingers, but you can probably guess the name if you watch frequently.
I agree it is time to retire the series, it has outlived its usefulness.
I should also point something out to whoever mentioned that Harlan Ellison wrote for Star Trek. Ellison wrote "City on the Edge of Forever," but the story he wrote was not the story that filmed. Ellison's work was too radically un-Star Trek for Roddenberry, who had the script rewritten, and I believe Ellison held a grudge the rest of his life.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
Well, the version that Ellison wrote was un-filmable, at least for TV and the budget that Star Trek had.
edit: At least, that's what Shatner claims.
[ May 07, 2005, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: Portabello ]
Posted by Wendy (Member # 7955) on :
I read the article all right. I disagree that was his point. Or if it was, doesn't he realize that there are always more young people, and more who are new to the genre? There will always be people who can be caught up into the genre by Trek -- not by Smallville, or Buffy (which are entertaining fantasy, not encouragement to explore and discover new science).
posted May 04, 2005 07:45 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hope he realizes many of his own readers began with Star Trek, and hold a deep and undying love for what he has just ridiculed."
Did you read his article? That was his point.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
Star Trek has about as much to do with real science as Buffy does.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Wrath of Kahn so far surpassed the quality of TOS that it's almost miraculous. The gap between TOS and TNG caused a massive improvement in the quality of Star Trek storytelling. Maybe a 10-20 year hiatus will help the franchise.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
But in 20 years we'' HAVE Warp drive at the rate technology is going. Our cell phones were smaller then what TOS had.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
(Peter David's written some of the better Star Trek novels, and also wrote some Babylon 5 episodes and writes comics for Marvel, DC, etc.)
quote:Orson Scott Card recently heaped some abuse on "Star Trek" in the LA Times, vigorously trashing everything about original "Star Trek," although generously conceding:
"The later spinoffs were much better performed, but the content continued to be stuck in Roddenberry's rut. So why did the Trekkies throw themselves into this poorly imagined, weakly written, badly acted television series with such commitment and dedication? Why did it last so long?"
Well, I can answer that: They, and I, did NOT see it as poorly imagined, weakly written, or badly acted. Opinions are merely opinions, and not absolutes. That, and the growth of "Trek" conventions made it more than a canceled TV show, but instead a solid socialization experience for many people--including me--who had no social life to speak of.
"Here's what I think: Most people weren't reading all that brilliant science fiction. Most people weren't reading at all. So when they saw "Star Trek," primitive as it was, it was their first glimpse of science fiction. It was grade school for those who had let the whole science fiction revolution pass them by."
I wouldn't disagree. But that's not the point. Rather than gleefully heaping dirt on Trek's ostensible grave, as Card does, he might stop to consider that a considerable number of those "grade school" fans went on to high school and college. The first time I saw the name "Harlan Ellison" was on the credits of "City." Granted, the aired version didn't represent his vision. Didn't matter. It led me like an arrow to other works of his that most certainly DID represent his vision. Nor was I alone in that respect. I was already reading SF when "Trek" came along, but others weren't, and "Trek" created a new wave of SF fans whose interest spread from "Trek" to Ellison, Asimov, Clarke, Bradbury, Gerrold, and even some guy named Card.
To say nothing of the fact that "Trek" fandom had a huge female population (no, not a population of huge females, although yeah, there was a bit of that.). Maggie Thompson recounted how she was at a WorldCon where a roomful of fans were bitching about this influx of *yuckickypoo* Trek fans to their beloved WorldCon. And Maggie pointed out, "Guys? You've been crabbing for years how there's hardly any women attending these conventions. Look around the room; I'm the only female here. Have ANY of you noticed that the vast majority of the Trek fans are female?" The guys looked at each other; they hadn't noticed, because they'd been so busy excoriating the TV show that brought them there.
"Trek" got me into conventions, and I met both my wives at conventions (at different times). Four kids were the cumulative result, all of whom have attended conventions. "Star Trek," if NOTHING else, may well be the single greatest contributor to the perpetuation of SF fandom in general.
So, Mr. Card...how about a little goddamn respect, okay?
If OSC had included some of his opinions from his post in this thread in the original essay, he probably wouldn't have gotten such a response from David. (I know, OSC didn't have that much space for nuanced opinions... but OSC did write the essay in his bellicose rhetoric style, so I'm not surprised that he gets strong reactions from folks.)
(Note: for anyone going to Peter David's website to read the comments there -- some of the comments responding to David's essay are pretty rude and immature, just to warn ya...)
[ May 07, 2005, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: plaid ]
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I guess I'll weigh in.
Later series (late TNG, DS9) weren't poorly imagined, weakly written, or badly acted. Some episodes weren't that great, but some were excellent.
But they did have Rodenberry's rut. Which was: * high-ranking officers go on missions. They made this the exception in the later series. * everybody's essentially human (a limitation of F/X) * human beings are all completely secular * the Federation is always good
Roddenberry hated religions (other than secularism). So we have "Who Mourns for Adonis?" (apparently, nobody), and in TNG, "Who Watches the Watchers?" (in which a new belief in God among stone-age people leads to its inevitable result -- a wish to torture people --!?!), and "Devil's Due" (the devil shows up, but she's a charlatan). Gods are to be unmasked and have their power sources blown up.
But once he was out of the way, Trek was free to notice that not all have the same perspective on ultimate questions -- not even all people capable of operating machinery. So we had DS9, which was, essentially, about religion. The Bajorans', mostly. But also Klingon and Dominion religions.
One of the major characters (Kira) was devout, and yet neither evil nor stupid. The primary character was good, intelligent, and became devout, will-he nill-he.
Janeway (Voyager) was a confident, Roddenberry-esque atheist . . . who lost her certainty that she had all the answers when she went to a monastery of the ancestral spirits (can't remember the episode title).
Because of Roddenberry's constraint, no Christian shows up, ever. Nor Jew, Moslem, nor Hindu. Too bad! A friendship between Catholic O'Brien and Moslem Bashir (or Catholic O'Brien and atheist Bashir) would have been all the more interesting. The only exception was Chakotay (Voyager), who was allowed to have some American Indian practices.
The Federation remained good-guy throughout DS9 . . . barely. Our paragon of virtue Sisko ended up knowingly arming a terrorist, being an accessory after the fact to six murders, and tricking a nation into war (and I'd have to agree with him: "a guilty conscience is a small price to pay for the safety of the entire Alpha Quadrant -- so I will learn to live with it!"). Starfleet attempted a coup against the elected government. Finally, it attempted genocide against its enemies. Enough opposed these last 2 actions that we can still say Starfleet was, overall, good guys, but the rot was up to the highest levels. And the lowest.
The rules weren't broken, but they were bent so far they may as well have been. Roddenberry must be spinning in his grave. And that would be a good thing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Roddenberry hated religions (other than secularism)."
Just want to point out that secularism doesn't meet any of the definitions of an organized religion. You can return to your regularly-scheduled program now. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Of course, he didn't say "Roddenberry hated organized religions (other than secularism)." Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
"Secularism" doesn't fit the definition of any religion at all. It's not a set of beliefs and practices, or even just beliefs. To call secularism a "religion" in any sense is to stretch the definition of "religion" to its breaking point.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
You haven't SEEN my bellicose rhetorical style. And I'm tired of seeing people call MY style aggressive, when there really ARE bellicose writers out there. For instance, writers who, without actually disputing any of my points, use a blasphemous expression in direct address to me at the end of their "answer" to my essay.
No matter how clever the writers of the later ST series may have been, they still worked within the ludicrous, stunted, undernourished, formulaic, and unoriginal-except-where-stupid Roddenberry universe. Wash garbage, it's still garbage.
Bellicose enough for you?
Furthermore, I have SEEN close at hand at least one ST showrunner's idea of "inventive writing." It consisted of taking a genuinely original series idea - which, years before Smallville and Lost, melded through character arcs and relationships and longterm continuing with weekly episodic sci-fi jeopardy plots - and proceed to kill it by insisting that HE knew how to write science fiction ... and it consisted of the endlessly repetitive Star Trek formula.
There might very well have been some very good writers in the later series; there might also have been some genuinely good dialogue and interesting characters from time to time. But never was it even POSSIBLE, within Roddenberry's straitjacket, to break free and create any real science fiction.
I did not suggest that Star Trek was a significant factor in leading new READERS to SCIENCE FICTION. My personal belief as that Star Trek led new readers to read more Star Trek. Those who did go on to read genuine, imaginative science fiction almost certainly would have found said literature without the intervention of Star Trek. Though of course "would-haves" are impossible to know and ridiculous to argue.
Star Trek readers want More Of The Same. And they are given it by faithful writers who don't see the treason they're committing against their own talent by continuing to use Roddenberry's pathetic vision in place of their own.
I only suggested that Star Trek helped people get used to 1930s era sci-fi concepts, and that might well have prepared a generation to be ready for REAL science fiction when it finally reached the SCREEN, in films and television shows of the last ten years.
Star Trek's social function might be compared to Teletubbies for Teenagers, but that would be unfair.
Bellicose enough for you?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Only in relation to the writer's voice we read in your fiction works. Compared to, say, Ellison, you're still a pussycat.
But as long you make flat statements like "Star Trek readers want More Of The Same" you're going to alienate those of us who don't. Some of us agree with many of your points but because we don't agree with all of them we feel relegated to less-than-OSC, to be scorned.
Many of us found entertainment in a flawed series. Many of us did so knowing it was flawed.
I read an awful lot of science fiction. Most of it would probably meet your standards. Some of it surely doesn't, and I enjoy it anyway. I don't apologize for it or hide the covers from other people. It entertains me.
And yet, reading your essay I feel insulted. Clearly anyone who likes Star Trek is a fool. I doubt that was your intent -- it certainly wasn't stated -- but it is how it comes off, at least to me.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
*prepares toasted English muffins, spreads them with various flavors of jam and honey, and offers them to everyone on a tray* Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*dittos Chris Bridges' post*
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Wow. I was going to write a reply, Scott, but Chris said it perfectly.
[ May 08, 2005, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Except he didn't say "My opinion is the only right, true, possible view of Star Trek."
At all.
When writing an editorial, isn't it a given that the content will be the writer's personal opinion?
Do you really need constant assurance that the writer of the piece isn't a malevolent ogre who hates all who disagree with him?
Really, this is coming from someone who LOVED Next-Gen back in the day...you guys seem _very_ insecure. OSC disliking something you guys like is _not_ the same thing as attacking you for liking it.
[ May 08, 2005, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: Puffy Treat ]
Posted by BryanP (Member # 7772) on :
quote:Furthermore, I have SEEN close at hand at least one ST showrunner's idea of "inventive writing." It consisted of taking a genuinely original series idea - which, years before Smallville and Lost, melded through character arcs and relationships and longterm continuing with weekly episodic sci-fi jeopardy plots - and proceed to kill it by insisting that HE knew how to write science fiction ... and it consisted of the endlessly repetitive Star Trek formula.
The only thing I can think of that he is talking about is Battlestar Galactica. Does anyone know for sure?
I just starting watching that show and I think it is very good and not at all like Star Trek.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I don't know. I did love later Trek (except Enterprise), but I absolutely loathe Trek novelizations. I found I didn't want more of the same! Same reason I didn't like Enterprise. There'd be a potentially interesting situation -- like when the male engineer was pregnant -- and they did everything they could to prevent any interesting complications.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
This whole thread is why I stopped going to conventions. You either had those who were so in love with fictional characters as to dress up like them, or those who were so drunken with their own intellectual superiority that they never realized how silly they were.
So the guy doesn't like Star Trek. Whoopie! He hates Star Wars too, and I'm still lining up to see Revenge of the Sith in ten days. I'm not fan of most science-fiction, but I read some of Unky Orson's work anyway. Some of it is brilliant, some of it stinks...
...and yet, somehow, the sun keeps rising...
Posted by BryanP (Member # 7772) on :
I would like to know, though, what Card's definition of "science fiction" is.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"When writing an editorial, isn't it a given that the content will be the writer's personal opinion?
Do you really need constant assurance that the writer of the piece isn't a malevolent ogre who hates all who disagree with him?"
I'd prefer the occasional recognition of the fact that the author's perceptions and biases may not actually be universally accurate for all cases. This is actually one of the things I can't stand about talk radio, too; it smells of Demosthenes. I think the reason people complain that he's "bellicose" (if not in so many words) is not because he is in fact bellicose, but rather because they don't know how to articulate the real source of their unease.
There were dozens of ways OSC could have worded to article to avoid offending fans and/or writers; he deliberately chose one that would be offensive -- not because it necessarily described his position and/or opinion most accurately, but because it would bring him notice.
[ May 08, 2005, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'd like to point out that when this essay was mentioned on the other side, I defended it. I was commenting here more on the perception of the essay than the essay itself. Portions of it were needlessly general without offering modifiers.
"While Star Trek still appealed to millions who loved it, flaws and all, it never lived and rarely tried to live up to its incredible potential."
Just as critical, but it at least throws a bone to fans who aren't dressing up in Spock ears or learning how to perform Shakespeare in Klingon but enjoy it anyway.
Posted by Hiroshima (Member # 7970) on :
R. I. P.
Posted by Miranda (Member # 7647) on :
I tend to equate me affection for Star Trek to that of someone who grew up eating macaroni and butterscotch. I grew up watching Star Trek: the Next Generation, and whole it may not always be healthy brain fodder, it is comforting. While I do that that Star Trek hit some interesting political points of its various eras, it isnt always intellectual. So what? Man cannot survive on carrot sticks alone, and neither can Woman.
And no, I did not grow up eating macaroni and butterscotch. But if I had, I'm certain that I would find it both comforting and fattening now.
m.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I know that in this particular crowd my comment is going to be seen with a grain of wonder. However, I grew up in a house where Science Fiction was part of life. That includes the high and the low kinds of the genre. Star Trek was always considered nearer the high end than the low end of Sci-Fi concepts. I still think that Star Trek was and is one of the more scientifically sound visual Science Fiction shows ever created. I mean, at least they explained how things worked and why. Compare that to say "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century" or "Battlestar Galactica" old series. Star Trek actually had things to say and science to introduce.
Posted by Hiroshima (Member # 7970) on :
Like when the Enterprise was 35 microns and closing.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Sometimes I get the feeling OSC considers himself an anti-elitist under a very different definition than I understand it to be.
edit: And to add, because this is one of my things, the rightness (or respectfulness) of your actions are not contingent on what other people are doing (or what you yourself could do). We don't let 10 year olds get away with that; we certainly should expect a great deal more from people who claim to be adults.
[ May 15, 2005, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
Having seen the last two episodes of Enterprise, now I'm mad.
*SPOILER**
They KILLED OFF TRIP! For NO GOOD REASON! The writers hate us.
And they killed off the baby, too! That wasn't necessary!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It's called the "if we're going down, we're taking all the good characters with us! and you can't do anything about it! nyaaah!" syndrome. Posted by B-HAX (Member # 6640) on :
SPOILERs .. .. . . . . . . . There has been alot of whining about these last episodes. Put it quite simply, they didn't try to go out with anything really dramatic. As I see it this was resume pumping material for the underlings. Alot of the plots revolved around the actors that didn't usually get the screen time. Alot of "range" proving material, Bizaro(sp) Trek, crying, blah balh. For that I give them credit for helping out their people.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
***********spoilerzzzzz*******
I think it's more the fact that during the normal course of a show like Enterprise, it's really hard to take risks like killing off a character, because they're afraid of a fan uprising. so now that there is no risk, they feel free to do something "risky" and kill people off.
Posted by Hiroshima (Member # 7970) on :
Why couldn't they kill a character that needed killing off, namely Malcolm?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
As a long time Trek fan I liked the last episode. I even got the pegasus episode from blockbuster to watch beforehand. Hearing a good old fashion Data rambling was great. I could even overlook Riker's obvious aging, and Troi's wrong hairstyle. I loved seeing Riker playing the cook. Of course they did go out with one last continuity error. Riker says he is ready to have that talk with Picard. He never did! In Pegasus it seemed like a split second decision to tell Picard the truth when the Enterprise was in danger.
As an Enterprise fan I hated it. How could none of the characters have changed at all in 6 years! I understood Trip's death, I think it was predestined from Season 1 if I remember correctly. I just hated the way he died. There was just no drama in the episode for the Enterprise crew.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
quote:Why couldn't they kill a character that needed killing off, namely Malcolm?
Because then they couldn't pretend that they were being dangerous.
quote:Hearing a good old fashion Data rambling was great.
While I found it exactly as painful as I find it in TNG. Come one -- I can write a program that can deal with contractions and idiomatic phrases better than Data can. How stupid do the writers think we are? Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
I was disappointed in the last episode. The conclusion the the Terra Prime episode was well done. I enjoyed that (though I hardly ever watched Enterprise after the first season).
But the second and final episode was so ho hum.
SPOILERS!!!!
Bottom line, the episode's main plot was that Archer helped an Andorian save his daughter. And lost Trip in the process. That's it. Nothing of Galactic importance. Nothing threatening the nascent federation. Just a usual episode. And they killed Trip. That was the big emotional punch.
And all the Riker/Deana crap was stupid. I know why they did it. They wanted to firmly put Enterprise in the ST universe, to make it part of the Canon by referencing it from TNG. But the constant back and forth between TNG time and the holodeck recreation of the death of Trip broke up an already weak episode so that there was no emotional impact at all. Instead of relentless pacing to build up tension and fear and concern (even with a plot as weak as that), they broke it up so that any emotional concern was stopped.
And what was Riker trying to find out anyway? And what did it have to do with Archer and the death of Trip? And why did Deana keep sending him back to the story? IT made no sense.
If they really needed to tie in TNG, why not bookend it, instead of difuse the flow?
Disappointing, especially after the Terra Prime conclusion.
I guess that fits the show as a whole, huh (like Smallville has become.)
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
I agree with almost everything IanO just said.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
Almost?
Hmmph!
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
I just saw that episode of Enterprise this weekend. It was the final one? Wow, pretty underwhelming. Ian, I agree that the whole Riker tie in seemed to break things up too much. It seemed to me Riker was trying to decide whether or not he was leaving HIS Enterprise, placing that episode just before Star Trek: Nemesis.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
Actually, this was during an old TNG episode when Riker's old captain or something was on board and he had to hide the fact that they had been working on a cloaking device in violation of the Romulan treaty. That's why Deana and Will are just friends and not more (which they were after Insurrection)
Lame episode (Enterprise), though.
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
What was the point of the episode? In the grand scheme of things the Federation was never in danger, and I never even cared that Trip died. There was no emotional impact and he pretty much died for nothing.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
exactly. well put. We did not care. It was a useless gesture for the purpose of being "emotional". So very artificial.
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
American Idol!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)