Just so you know, you guys might feel a bit of the Slashdot Effect in the next few days. OSC hit Slashdot frontpage with a column on how much he hates Star Trek.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
Shite.
Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
Interesting article by OSC, though I somehow doubt that Star Trek is dead. There's a movie in the works, and I'd be willing to bet that there will be another series. Whether or not that's a good thing...
I tend to agree that the original series was awful, as was 80% of Enterprise. But I am a big fan of both TNG and DS9. Those were great shows. OSC is also right about Firefly. After all the buzz, I finally watched the dvds, and I was sufficiently impressed.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I love the original series. It was not awful, merely now looks unimaginative and cheap. It has not dated well. However, the stories of many of TOS episodes were very enjoyable.
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
I was a fan of DS9. After that the series just went down hill. Why most there be another Star Trek series? I think it is time to end the Trek era.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I love the original Trek, too. Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
Double Whammy! It's also on Fark
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I find it amusing that on the same webpage where people have been bashing Enterprise for the past couple of years, they are acting as if OSC is the devil for daring to bash Trek
*edit: I just noticed that someone pointed a link over to hatrack in one of the comments*
[ May 04, 2005, 03:10 AM: Message edited by: Lupus ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think its more that OSC bashed all of star trek, which doesn't surprise me.
1) even the best series were sometimes inconsistent, so if he saw the wrong episodes he could form a very different idea about it.
2) most of trek's best episodes are very socially progressive in ways he'd hate.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
1 is fine.
2 is nonsense. Provide support.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Lets see, the vast numbers of episodes that seem to promote a social humanist agenda.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So you don't have any support. You think Card isn't a humanist? Have you actually read any of it?
I'm not picking on you. You just seem fond of making derogatory statements about people that you can't back up.
[ May 04, 2005, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Lets see, we could pick the several episodes supporting non-heterosexual love arrangements, the free love episodes supporting diverse, casual love arrangements, the next generation's almost anti-religious episodes . . . there's just so much material its hard to choose where to start.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I loved getting lectures on society from a series with these two premises:
1) Unlimited energy has enabled us to create a near-perfect society.
2) Sharing our way of life with less fortunate cultures would be evil.
[ May 04, 2005, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So you think the reason OSC doesn't like Star Trek is because of the sex in it? You haven't actually actually read (1) the article, or (2) anything of Card's, have you?
I amazed at the level of BS you think you can spread without anyone noticing.
Amen, Dagonee. I like Star Trek, but it's easy to make ideals about sharing resources when there are unlimited resources and no needs to fill.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I read the entire article, and I've read a good chunk of Cards. And no, I think the reasons he didn't like Star Trek are many and varied, but that two of them are likely: he just didn't watch that much of it, and likely saw a good number of bad episodes, because star trek certainly had plenty of them, and some of the episodes many regard as good he might consider not so good because of their social agendas, which are almost uniformly "liberal".
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Fugu, that's ridiculous, because Card writes things that can be taken as unbelievably liberal. If that weren't true, then there wouldn't be the legions of shocked fans who come to his site and find out he isn't actually an agnostic homosexual.
What basis do you have for thinking that Card would reject a well-written work because he didn't agree with it's politics?
[ May 04, 2005, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"What basis do you have for thinking that Card would reject a well-written work because he didn't agree with it's politics? "
*cough*Pleasantville*cough*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
And American Beauty. Except what he was objecting to there was the perpetuation of the idea that all suburbs are hotbeds of repression and evil. That's not politics or vision of an ideal society - that's lazy filmmaking.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
From the other side:
quote: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 fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And Kat, I wasn't saying "this is why OSC doesn't like Star Trek!"
Take a look at the first line of my post, which ends in
quote:which doesn't surprise me.
Those are just my reasons I'm not surprised OSC didn't like Star Trek. So I'm not surprised you would view them as stuff I pull out of the air, because when I say things in that way it usually is -- impressions and thoughts I have and feel like writing down.
Its quite clear to me that OSC and I disagree at least in part on what's well written, so no, it wouldn't surprise me at all if he were to dislike in part because of a social agenda a work which I consider well written. That's part of having different tastes. Particularly as some of the social agenda episodes weren't particularly well written (that episode with Soren (I think that was how the name was spelled) for instance -- it wasn't good for its writing, it was good for its social approach).
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and he was certainly right that Star Trek is bad Science Fiction. But I'm not watching it to see Science Fiction, good or otherwise, so I don't mind that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Here's why I think the show's social slant may be a reason OSC dislikes the show:
OSC has shown his disdain time and again for shows which craft the story to meet the moral message. Star Trek does this to a greater degree than most shows I can think of off the top of my head.
In other words, The social agenda is a reason to dislike it because of its effect on the quality of the show. The fact that more than half the social agenda is stuff OSC probably dislikes just makes it more likely he'll notice the effect on the art of the story.
Dagonee
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: I loved getting lectures on society from a series with these two premises:
Do people really see shows as propaganda and lectures? I mean, when I watch anti-Star Trek Firefly, I watch people kill, act in the type of indiscriminately free belief that I don't believe is necessarily a good thing. They do things that in the real world I would strongly disapprove of, would stay away from. And yet the plot carries me through past all that. I can imagine that that could or might be the case.
While watching Star Trek, it's the same. I know that it's never going to be that way, yet I can appreciate the optimism and I can imagine that yes, this could be the case.
If I only read or watched things and saw them in terms of propaganda or realism, I would be watching a very boring narrow spectrum of ideas.
Also: I agree with quite a good chunk of what the angry slashdotters are saying.
OSC's thought:
quote: a throwback to spaceship adventure stories with little regard for science or deeper ideas.
I think that science fiction does not have to play a realistically scientific role. That often, if done well, the science can be actually completely irrelevent to the plot. I would say that TOS Star Trek contains a good number of 'deeper ideas'. They may seem cliched now, but they are nevertheless there.
quote:Here's what I think: Most people weren't reading all that brilliant science fiction. Most people weren't reading at all.
I think that this is wrong. I think that behind this is the thought that people were 'dumb' back then and people are 'smart' now. I do not think that this was the case. I do not think people loved Star Trek because they were ignorant of any better. I think they loved it because of something else something that transcended the budget or the acting.
I definately read. I definately read a lot, including science fiction. I definately do not consider myself ignorant or stupid, or wide-eyed with wonder, and yet I came to like Star Trek in the 21st century. I did not grow up with it.
quote: Charlie Kaufman created the two finest science fiction films of all time so far: "Being John Malkovich" and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind."
I haven't seen Being John Malkovich, but I do not think that comparing something written fifty years ago in a totally different world climate, level of technology and sets of ideas. We are developing so rapidly that it's like comparing himself with Dickens. Chalk and cheese! Of course they're different, they're written worlds apart. Of course, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a natural progression of ideas that reflects the chaging and increasing growth of scientific thought, but I don't think that doesn't make earlier works bad.
My belief is to let stories grow and change but do not discard the old as poor, or someday you will find yourself discarded as unworthy.
EDIT: I also do not like 'American Beauty' and I am a liberal. Just sayin'.
[ May 04, 2005, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Do people really see shows as propaganda and lectures?
Some of the episodes of Star Trek, especially STtNG, are hard to classify as anything but lectures.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I don't think I've seen any of those.
EDIT: Hee! Look at my post count!
[ May 04, 2005, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yep, particularly the ones which seem to reject religion as superstition (I'd be surprised if OSC would like those regardless of writing quality).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I enjoy STtNG and DS9. Some of the episodes, though, were miserable. But there are numerous episodes I'll flip right by once I recognize them, and I'd say most of those aren't the pure lecture type. Some of them are just bad.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No doubt. Though I generally thought DS9 was better than TNG on that count, partly because I found DS9 to have better acting (as well illustrated by "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges" for instance, or the episodes where Sisko is a mid 20th century pulp scifi writer).
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
quote:Some of the episodes of Star Trek, especially STtNG, are hard to classify as anything but lectures.
Two come immediately to mind.
There was the lecture against racism in TOS where the people in a certain race were half white and half black. The racism was about which side was black and which side was white.
In TNG, the episode about the race of androgynous people who persecuted those who felt they had masculie or feminine leanings was clearly a lecture for tolerance of homosexuality.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
mph: yeah, I think TOS made a much better point against racism when it had the first on-screen interracial kiss on a mainstream television show.
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
quote:or the episodes where Sisko is a mid 20th century pulp scifi writer
Far Beyond the Stars, one of my favorite episodes, was the first of these.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No doubt. Though I generally thought DS9 was better than TNG on that count, partly because I found DS9 to have better acting (as well illustrated by "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges" for instance, or the episodes where Sisko is a mid 20th century pulp scifi writer).
Absolutely. DS9 was the peak of the franchise.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Of course, many of these arguments are weakened by the fact that Card expressed appreciation for "Firefly," which features legal prostitution, a lax attitude towards the sanctity of life and the rule of law, and sympathy towards the individual battling against a communal society. Obviously he only judges TV shows based on their message...
Speaking as a science fiction fan, a Star Trek fan, and what would be considered a flaming liberal by anyone but another liberal, I'd have to agree that Star Trek as a whole has never been great science fiction. It has been great entertainment, on the whole, but even the Trek faithful admit there are planet-sized holes in the science and some pretty shaky plots throughout.
OSC might have been more precise to say that he never considered ST to be great science fiction, as opposed to forever banishing it from that lofty title forever more, but even the best of us here sometimes slip and write in absolutes with the understood "IMHO."
[ May 04, 2005, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I was going to make an argument that Star Trek wasn't science fiction but I decided it was too silly. It's clearly science fiction, it's just not strictly realistic.
And that's okay.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
A lot of Firefly wasn't social message, it was just the society that was set up. That was one of the great things about it. Especially that there clearly were strongly opposing views on the subject (the main character, Mal, doesn't like the notion of Companions, for instance).
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Teshi, I have an interesting discussion with you on Social Informatics, go through all the trouble of finding a place for you on my buddy list, and then you're never on AIM? tsk tsk Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
You're not on my list, so you'll have to message me. I'm online, now.
And I'm not never online, just infrequently.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote: If that weren't true, then there wouldn't be the legions of shocked fans who come to his site and find out he isn't actually an agnostic homosexual.
::looks around::
::comically puts hand above eyes in order to shield out the sun and get a better view::
::shrugs::
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Actually I'm not sure that Mal is against Companions or just against Inara being a Companion, but that's a different thread...
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
The "Prime Directive" is the embodiment of extreme Left thinking.
"No matter what we think of a foreign culture, we respect its right to exist free of our intervention." Until, of course, that culture runs headlong into our own.
However, there are also practical considerations beyond the potential cultural contamination.
A large number of technological advances have come from weapons research or were implemented into weapons research.
Giving a "primitive" culture access to technology far in excess of anything they've had before is like giving a five year old a loaded weapon. The child is as likely to kill himself as he is one of his siblings or parent.
Imagine if the Moors had access to the firearm technology of the 1940s. Would they have stopped at Spain? Reverse the example - what if Crusaders had Thompson SMGs and light artillery pieces?
This is assuming a "maturity process" in discovering new technology - if you've earned it, odds are you've learned the hard way the dangers and ramifications of using it unwisely.
-Trevor
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
Well, I'm also a liberal, and I also didn't like American Beauty, but...
quote:And American Beauty. Except what he [OSC] was objecting to there was the perpetuation of the idea that all suburbs are hotbeds of repression and evil. That's not politics or vision of an ideal society - that's lazy filmmaking.
I've heard this on Hatrack before. Why is it that American Beauty is regarded as an anti-suburbs film? Does anyone know of any statement by the films' creators that says "Yes, we hate the suburbs, and we intend to bring them down with this film"?
I mean, whenever, oh, I don't know, Woody Allen or any other film director does a pessimistic film that's set in the city, he's not attacked as being anti-city... so why is it that any negative film that's set in the suburbs is seen as being anti-suburbs?
[ May 04, 2005, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: plaid ]
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
I always thought that the prime directive was idiotic.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Actually, I can see the merits of the Prime Directive.
Of course, I also subscribe to the "just because I don't approve of your culture doesn't mean I have the right to dictate how you live in your country" school of thought.
-Trevor
Posted by mimsies (Member # 7418) on :
The thing I always hated about the prime directive was the whole letting entire populations, planets, species be wiped out by some "natural disaster" because of noninterference. That was just too stupid.
I wonder if in Ender's universe they watched reruns of Star Trek, and that's how they came up with the way to deal with the Pequeninos (sp?)
I'll probably get shot, but I'll say it anyway. DSV was my favorite ST of all time, and I think Janeway rocks. I wanted to get a silver plymouth Voyager and a liscense plate that said "JANEWAY". Caravans were on sale though... SIGH
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
I can only speak for myself when I answer the question, why did people latch on to "Star Trek" so. The short form is a three-word answer: "Lost in Space". After that show, the original "Star Trek" was real quality. Yeah, I know, "Trek" was a cheesy show in a lot of ways. But it was light-years better than the space family Robinson, even though I watched that show too, every week, just because it was science fiction. I was about eight or nine years old at the time.
Basically, "Star Trek" was all we had of science fiction on TV. And even most readers like to get a visual fix of their favorite genre from time to time. So we had "Trek" and occasional re-runs of films like "The Day The Earth Stood Still" and "Invaders from Mars". "The Twilight Zone" was gone. So was "The Outer Limits". And they were different, anyway, as anthology shows rather than having a continuing cast. Anyway, I can certainly testify that some of the episodes, of "Outer Limits" especially, were pretty cheesy, too.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Actually, I can see the merits of the Prime Directive.
Of course, I also subscribe to the "just because I don't approve of your culture doesn't mean I have the right to dictate how you live in your country" school of thought.
If I thought those were the only two choices, I might prefer the Prime Directive, too.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
The burning bush was a phaser shot.
-Trevor
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The "Prime Directive" is the embodiment of extreme Left thinking.
More accurately, it's the embodiment of TV thinking, ie "We need to have some reason for which our characters aren't supposed to interfere with this process, and for pain, strife and diversity to still exist in a technological utopia without most types of scarcity."
The Prime Directive, as the writers will freely admit, is an artificial and flawed way to create tension; it's not meant to be any more logical than, say, the frequency with which the holodeck breaks down.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
It may very well be a caricature of Left (Liberal) thinking, but you see it manifested today quite regularly.
-Trevor
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
And is it really the show's position that the Prime Directive is a good thing?
I seem to remember Picard breaking it just about every other episode.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The Prime Directive, as the writers will freely admit, is an artificial and flawed way to create tension; it's not meant to be any more logical than, say, the frequency with which the holodeck breaks down.
Really? I could swear I've read interviews with Rodenberry where he thought it was the morally correct way to behave.
I can see current writers treating it that way, but if so, then it would be very cool to have a character who is adamantly morally opposed to its restrictions. Not someone who just ignores it without comment sometimes.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
One of the many ways that the Prime Directive shows up as a flawed, artificed plot-device is the assumption that once other cultures have acquired the technology on their own, they're sufficiently moral to use it wisely.
Hello? Romulans, Klingons, Ferengi? All of these cultures acquired warp tech. and were hardly 'moral' in their use.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Don't even get me started on the Ferengi.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So, how about those Ferengi? Personally I don't like their voices. Or their ears. And their ship-design is pretty damn stupid, and those ridiculous weapons they had first episode?
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
It seems like it would make more sense to intervene in a culture before they developed warp drive. That way, maybe you can guide them to be productive little members of the Federation before they can go all Klingon on your butt.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Eh, the Klingons turned out okay.
But really. I dunno what the big deal is. OSC doesn't like Star Trek. Why does Slashdot care?
*adds this to list of reasons why I don't read Slashdot*
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I prefer the Death Star approach.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The Klingons turned out OK, after massive war and loss of life, money (well, they didn't have money, opps!), etc.
Besides, the point isn't that they turned out OK, it's that when they had warp-tech., they clearly weren't.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
That's no moon... that's a mad smiley! Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I prefer to call it the 'Sphere o' Fear'
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Or the abbreviated, "S'Fear!"
-Trevor
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:
quote: The Prime Directive, as the writers will freely admit, is an artificial and flawed way to create tension; it's not meant to be any more logical than, say, the frequency with which the holodeck breaks down.
Really? I could swear I've read interviews with Roddenberry where he thought it was the morally correct way to behave.
I heard him say as much in person, IIRC.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I can see current writers treating it that way, but if so, then it would be very cool to have a character who is adamantly morally opposed to its restrictions."
*grin* There have been both episodes and books on this topic. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I said it on the other side, and I'll say it here:
The best Star Trek movie has been Galaxy Quest.
I'm quite serious.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I've seen episodes where there's a particular instance in which they violate it or dither back and forth about it. But there's no one campaigning to have it undone, or an aid group going around interfering and the fleet officially listing it as criminal and trying to stop it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But there's no one campaigning to have it undone, or an aid group going around interfering and the fleet officially listing it as criminal and trying to stop it."
I'm actually almost certain that this IS present in the books. In fact, it's treated like a joke; I remember a flashback about Amanda -- Spock's mom -- in which she attends a student rally all about getting rid of the Prime Directive. *grin*
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
quote:*grin* There have been both episodes and books on this topic. [Smile]
What are some of the episodes, Tom?
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
Didn't Janeway break the Prime Directive? No wait, she broke another race's Prime Directive type law.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's cool, Tom. But I've never read a Trek book, and don't see it happening any time soon.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
The Prime Directive *was* primarily a creator of artificial tension. I was recently watching some old TOS (in broadcast order, *I think*) and after numerous incidents of INTERFERENCE with alien cultures (Landru, etc) suddenly the Prime Directive appears as if it has always been Starfleet's most sacred rule. It was the episode where the crew discovered a planet that had a Roman empire in the 20th century. The 'emperor' turned out to be a former ship captain and friend of Kirk. Kirk and co are kidnapped (as usual ) and they are unable to force their way out using their technology or stop the 'emperor' or his behind the scenes advisor because the prime directive forbade it.
It wouldn't have been so bad except that in the previous few episodes he did just that right and left- destroying entire cultural structures so they were more in line of how he (and Rodenberry) thought they should be. The Prime Directive was, *I THINK*, created simply to have a reason why Kirk and Co couldn't act directly and to create an artificial moral dilemma.
That said, and freely admitting how bad TOS was (with their static characters- a very good observation- with the exception of Ellison's(?) brilliant and moving 'City on the Edge of Forever' episode, which still left the characters exactly where they were before), ST still trancended it's cheapness. I wonder that OSC does not use the same terms to describe ST as he does Edgar Rice Burrough's Tarzan- a cheaply written pulp tale whose power trancends the medium- the myth was larger than the show. ST didn't just appeal because it was the ONLY SF on TV (Twilight Zone had some good eps). It presented to large audiences a vision of the future where man had trancended his tribalism and where, by and large, he had no limits- where he could explore and find adventure and the tension was not in the human family. And some of the episodes, like the one paralleling the cold war as well as the one about racism, were very effective, I thought. Yes it was lamely written, yes it was extremely hokey and formulaic.
But Galaxy Quest (indeed, the best ST movie) answered the question as to why it was so popular even as it was lame. It gave some people meaning and purpose and examples of human ability (though not intelligence or morality ). Even as we are able to laugh at it, we can still be motivated by it. How many people entered scientific fields (or SF ones) because of having the sparks fanned by ST?
Is it time for ST to be let go as SF childhood? I don't know. I liked Voyager (and the superior DS9 and also TNG, as formulaic as many of it's episodes were) though I will admit their were crap episodes in all of them. Enterprise didn't grab me, but then I didn't watch it enough to understand the huge story archs either. Perhaps it can still be done. Or maybe he is right and it should be let go.
But I don't think disdain and elitist attitudes toward it do anyone any good. Laugh at it, sure. But recognize it for what it was and is, even as the actors of Galaxy Quest did the same with their show.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
) and they are unable to force their way out using their technology or stop the 'emperor' or his behind the scenes advisor because the prime directive forbade it.