posted
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.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1855 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 796 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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*
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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
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).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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'.
posted
Yep, particularly the ones which seem to reject religion as superstition (I'd be surprised if OSC would like those regardless of writing quality).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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::
posted
Actually I'm not sure that Mal is against Companions or just against Inara being a Companion, but that's a different thread...
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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?
posted
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.
posted
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
Posts: 772 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
