posted
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.
Posts: 3 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But in 20 years we'' HAVE Warp drive at the rate technology is going. Our cell phones were smaller then what TOS had.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Peter David's response to OSC's essay: link
(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...)
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.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*prepares toasted English muffins, spreads them with various flavors of jam and honey, and offers them to everyone on a tray*Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
posted
"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.
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 70 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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? Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5422 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)
posted
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.
Posts: 796 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
exactly. well put. We did not care. It was a useless gesture for the purpose of being "emotional". So very artificial.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
