Jump to content


Is Star Trek Outdated?


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_1701_*

Guest_1701_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 August 2013 - 08:10 AM

A wonderful topic has come to my attention over on trekweb.com but since it is so hard to navigate around that forum I would like to pose the same question here as the member over on trekweb did. 

 

This was his question:

 

I love Star Trek. I've loved Star Trek for like 30 years. For the first time, however, I've been wondering if Star Trek actually is the dinosaur that people have accused it of being. Usually when people talk about that, they are talking about the moral core or something. I actually vigorously support "Roddenberrianism" or whatever. Also, Trek's storytelling is going to hold up. As an exploration of humanity's future, however, I worry that technology's advances over the past 30 years have made Trek's future exceedingly unlikely.

In the 60s, Trek was utterly visionary except for one thing...thinking it was going to take us 200 years to get there. Sure, we don't have transporters or warp drive...but most everything else in our current lives either does MORE or the same as just about every other piece of tech on Trek. My smartphone does WAY more than a communicator does. Of course, the don't require satellites, but you get what I mean.

Beyond that, however, it seems almost impossible to me that humans are going to look and think the same for the next 300 years. Biologically, it seems like we're getting very close to nanites, etc. Beyond that, the idea that we're not going to incorporate technology into our bodies seems remote. Frankly, it seems likely to me that we'll figure out how to digitize brain information and once that happens, the nature of humanity will change forever. Brains will be hard drives, death will be optional, and people will be able to delete or add information (or access it via cloud-like remote storage) as easily as we currently use wikipedia. Kind of like that Matrix stuff where the learned skills instantly. I think it's possible that stuff will happen in 50 years or less. We might truly be the last generation of "normal" humans that haven't been modified in some fashion. 

I wonder if, for that reason, Trek hasn't become hopelessly naive about what humans will be like in 200 and 300 years. One could argue that WWIII and the rules against genetic engineering would extend to mechanical stuff, too, but I just don't see it. Enhanced eyes, enhanced limbs and hearts...I just don't see that stuff not happening. And soon.

Am I crazy?

I love Trek. I do. But it was always an attempt to predict the future. One wonders if it might not be better to create a show just like Trek (humans exploring space and adopting Roddenberrian principles, etc), but maybe try to do what Spielberg did with Minority Report and get a bunch of nerd scientists in a room and brainstorm what the next generation of tech is going to look like and how it'll impact our society.



#2 Guest_1701_*

Guest_1701_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 August 2013 - 08:21 AM

I have been wondering the same thing..

 

My view is that it has become its own universe, a kind of fantasy universe based on our own world but with its influence on technology long since past. 

 

I think the only real way Star Trek could become quintessentially "Star Trek" again is if it was created in a way that was truly visionary - that just like Roddenberry did in the 60's, it would blow wide open people's perception of not just Science Fiction as an entertainment medium but as a vision of our world from today's standpoint. Gone would be the communicators and all the iconic things that are available to buy down at your local Apple store... But in its place a modern Science Fiction show, challenging the sensors, commentating on taboo subjects and a show not based on it's 60's predecessor, but based on nothing but the world we live in today and the issues that face our world. 

 

Sadly for the studio, I feel Star Trek has become more about reliving the past and making a quick buck than it is about exploring our future. Thats not to say that Star Trek is done telling awesome stories and doing great things, Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness were, in my mind some of the best Star Trek movies ever but I do feel that since Voyager and Enterprise really, it's been more about celebrating everything awesome about Star Trek rather than being true to what Star Trek really was all about when it was created in the 60's.



#3 Qcjoe

Qcjoe

    I can stop I just don't want to.

  • Members
  • 674 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cincinnati
  • Interests:scifi,comics,actionfigures,baseball,football

Posted 02 August 2013 - 09:36 AM

What sells is story.  If you have a good cast and a good story then it works.  My wife hates Superman.  I explained that the only one she knew was the old movies and some of the stories in the comics make him a compelling character.  She saw the new one and saw my point.   Im a comic book fan so Im used to seeing good writers and artists taking boring or shit characters and turning them into something thats worth following and possibly becoming a fan of said character or book. 

 

Think about what it took for Star Trek to move forwards in terms of story telling.  Gene had to pass away before you really started seeing story telling methods.  As much as he liked to look into the future he also was way far behind in story telling.  I mean my God he didnt want any one to fight on TNG or have story lines that link together.  I know that there are other things as well , but you get my point.  So that may be why the product is still almost stuck with us Trekies.   Good topic 1701.



#4 Wildcard

Wildcard

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 1,033 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 August 2013 - 02:53 AM

I've been thinking about this, but in different terms and a much grander scale: Science Fiction in general is currently suffering from Fantasy and dystopia overload. Every non-Trek or non-Wars related Sci-Fi novel I see is either dealing with outlandishly alien worlds, dystopian Earth culture after some horrible apocalypse, or is simply less Sci-Fi and more fantasy.

 

I don't see the "visionaries" of this generation akin to the likes of Jules Vern, Ray Bradbury, and yes even Gene Roddenberry. I've said before that human race (and America in general) seems to be in serious need of a prozac. I see very little "hopeful" and "positive" visions for the future. Even sci-fi television seems to be going through the same thing (i.e. "Defiance" and "Continuum" in particular). 

 

But I think the underlying issue is that what sells drives the genre. And post-9/11, everyone is convinced that humanity will dissolve into chaos or suffer some horrible disaster (environmental or medical). 

 

So because of this paradigm shift, Star Trek seems to be "outdated". I personally wish we could get back to the "one humanity" vision that is Star Trek. So is it outdated? NO! Rather, I think it is what we need to push as "the future". THAT is the real challenge for Star Trek now. 

 

And as Qcjoe says, STORY is what is going to make or break this idea. 



#5 Guest_1701_*

Guest_1701_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 August 2013 - 09:39 AM

I think both of you have some very good points and I agree with them. But is Star Trek of today and even of yesterday (TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise) the Star Trek the world needs?

 

The world has been here before with Sci-Fi. Before Star Trek, Science Fiction was silly, fantasy and unrealistic, sometimes showing humankind a vision of a dystopian future. It took Star Trek to change that way of thinking. These day's I think the problem is, will Star Trek ever be that defining moment again? Or has Star Trek become its own worse enemy in which it can only be done a certain way? Will it ever again put two fingers up at the "Science Fiction" of today's world and say "NO! this isn't how it's going to be for humanity" and furthermore will a new Star Trek be allowed under studio control to ever become the thing it needs to become... Visionary? 

 

A good story is all well and good and I would agree that a good story is the most important thing but what does a good Star Trek story look like in today's world? Is it the stories that stay true to what Star Trek "is" by going back to Kirk and Spock, does a good Trek story celebrate 50 years worth of canon by tying into various threads left open by Roddenberry or does it do its own thing, forgetting what has come before, focusing on our world today in the context of a 23rd/24th century future... 



#6 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 11 August 2013 - 06:59 PM

Before Star Trek, Science Fiction was silly, fantasy and unrealistic, sometimes showing humankind a vision of a dystopian future. It took Star Trek to change that way of thinking. 

 

I have to ask what you mean here? Are you referring to all sci-fi (movies, books, TV, etc?), or just TV?

 

Because sci-fi presenting a utopian, as apposed to dystopia vision, is clearly represented in novel and some movies long before Star Trek came along.



#7 VulcanFanatic

VulcanFanatic

    Leonard Nimoy fan

  • Members
  • 3,165 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southeastern North Carolina

Posted 11 August 2013 - 09:14 PM

 

 

A good story is all well and good and I would agree that a good story is the most important thing but what does a good Star Trek story look like in today's world? 

We should never forget what came before, in our nonfiction history or in fictional Star Trek history. The Star Trek of today, meaning the Abrams Universe Trek is a departure from historical Star Trek and has made a mess of it. Its hard to tell any difference in the people of Abrams 23rd century and our own 21st century. Those stories of TOS,TNG,DS9,VOY and the non Abrams movies that focus on the evolution of mankind into a race of people who have put away greed, hunger, disease, and racism are needed more now than ever with the state our world is in. What we are getting is movies that are called Star Trek , made by Abrams and give me absolutely no inspiration to think that our future will be any better than it is now.



#8 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 12 August 2013 - 07:24 PM

I think that what your describing VF, is a clear difference of a utopian vs dystopian basis. Roddenberry's Star Trek was clearly Utopian, and that's well reflected in both TOS and TNG.

 

DS9 took the route a bit darker, but, I think it still stayed true to a Utopian ideal. What it showed was that the path may still have some bumps in it and there is always a bit of work to do.

 

Overall though, the future of mankind in a DS9 world is still brighter and better, even if the path was a bit rocky.

 

I'm not quite sure where Abram's Trek weighs in... on one hand, people are exploring space, and things seem to have moved forward, on the other hand, Kirk seems to get in brawls with his own people now... not some antagonistic alien race.  Abram's Star Trek is one where the bad guys may loose the war, but win significant battles, such as blowing up entire worlds. Megalomaniacs allow fear and cowardice to judge their reason and will kill innocent civilians to advance their cause. The end of DS9, for as dark as it got, when that show ended, I still wanted to be on that space station! I don't think I want to be in Abram's Star Trek Universe, so maybe it is a bit dystopian. Or maybe they just haven't shown us the Utopian aspects yet?

 

If I reflect on previous Star Trek movies, most still carry that Utopian Ideal.

 

The problem is audiences find dystopian stories much more entertaining. Showing them a world thats really messed up is a sort of escapism. You don't feel so bad about your situation because you've seen how much worse it might be.



#9 Guest_1701_*

Guest_1701_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 August 2013 - 08:13 PM

 

I have to ask what you mean here? Are you referring to all sci-fi (movies, books, TV, etc?), or just TV?

 

Because sci-fi presenting a utopian, as apposed to dystopia vision, is clearly represented in novel and some movies long before Star Trek came along.

 

I was referring to TV... Yet whilst there might have been movies and novels before Trek... Sci-Fi was never ever the same after Star Trek and sci-fi would look a lot different now without it.

 

I think Abrams Star Trek is actually fitting in nicely with todays world in both a business sense in what audiences expect of a franchise like Star Trek but also telling very Star Trek stories within the confines of what you can do story-wise with 1) a 50 year old franchise, 2) a franchise and 3) a summer blockbuster movie.

 

My worry is that Star Trek isn't so much outdated as it is miss-managed. Abrams has come so close in making Star Trek relevant and accessible to the masses, kids, adults and fans but his jumping over to Star Wars has really not done any favours to Trek. Had Abrams been able to do what he wanted to do for Star Trek, I think Trek would have become a true rival to the Wars juggernaut. Right now I think Star Trek is going through yet another identity crisis, Into Darkness was really cool yet it didn't do as well as it should have and I get the feeling that no one really knows why Star Trek Into Darkness didn't do huge numbers... Whilst many here may not have liked it, it got stellar reviews, it was getting A ratings and whilst it had it's flaws, can anyone really say it was worse than Iron Man 3 or Man of Steel? I've seen both of them, fans of both and Into Darkness had the far superior story and spectacle. My worry is also that Paramount and CBS are relying too much on the established fan-base and whilst that's great, it shouldn't be the only aspect of Star Trek's legacy...

 

The other thing I wonder about... Is Star Trek a franchise like Star Wars in that it is a multi-platform franchise or is it a franchise similar to James Bond where we get a great movie and all the tie-ins for that movie but nothing much in between... It seems to me that the studio's kind of don't really know what they want Star Trek to be. The very fact it's split between two studio's is never going to be good news and ultimately I think it's going to take a production house like Bad Robot buying the franchise outright and putting into motion Abrams original plan to create a multi-platform franchise appealing to the kids as well as teens and adults.

 

Ultimately I think it's expectation vs the reality. Star Trek's reality is that its not as big a juggernaut as it should be and people expect it to be more than just 2 modern day movies and some fond memories over the last 50 years... In 2009 Star Trek should have exploded onto the scene and whilst people loved and still love the 2009 movie, the novelty had worn off because the brand was allowed to lay dormant for too long before Into Darkness.

 

I hope Star Trek's future involves someone buying the intellectual property and franchises off of CBS and Paramount, consolidating it under one banner - another thing I'd like to see explored is the possibility of Star Trek being run as an independent (until recently) studio like Marvel? Possibly giving distribution rights to Paramount



#10 VulcanFanatic

VulcanFanatic

    Leonard Nimoy fan

  • Members
  • 3,165 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southeastern North Carolina

Posted 12 August 2013 - 08:43 PM

I think Star Trek is more relevant than ever, given the state of our world now. We really need that kind of inspiration , the kind we got prior to Abrams Trek. I also thought the new movie was awful, and certainly didnt make me feel that 250 years from now we would be living in a better world. I think Abrams is taking Star Trek down the wrong path. He seems to want to completely unmake everything that made Star Trek, Star Trek. 



#11 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 13 August 2013 - 04:36 AM

Whilst many here may not have liked it, it got stellar reviews, it was getting A ratings and whilst it had it's flaws, can anyone really say it was worse than Iron Man 3 or Man of Steel?

 

 As a movie, by itself, it probably is the better than IM3. I'm not so sure about Man of Steel. My issue with both trek movies has come down to plot devices that in the end just don't work for me in the Star Trek universe. I found that MOS, flawed in other ways, the plot actually worked for me.

 

whilst people loved and still love the 2009 movie, the novelty had worn off because the brand was allowed to lay dormant for too long before Into Darkness.

 

 

I think this is true also. The Studio, and Abrams, messed up and waited too long.

 

 

Planet of the Apes, Elysium, Oblivion, Pacific Rim, these are all Dystopian tales, some are ment to be warnings, others are just a not so promising future.

 

If I break down the original Wrath of Khan movie, considered the best of all non-abrams trek movies, that start trek is still a utopian view as Khan represents what we were and is ultimately defeated by his own revenge lust. Even though spock dies and tragedy ensued, you're still left with a sense that the utopian ideal of the Trek universe is left intact.

 

ATWOK, doesn't leave me with that sense.



#12 Qcjoe

Qcjoe

    I can stop I just don't want to.

  • Members
  • 674 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cincinnati
  • Interests:scifi,comics,actionfigures,baseball,football

Posted 03 September 2013 - 09:34 PM

I think Star Trek is more relevant than ever, given the state of our world now. We really need that kind of inspiration , the kind we got prior to Abrams Trek. I also thought the new movie was awful, and certainly didnt make me feel that 250 years from now we would be living in a better world. I think Abrams is taking Star Trek down the wrong path. He seems to want to completely unmake everything that made Star Trek, Star Trek. 

You are 100% correct. I like Abrams Trek even though its not perfect.  I guess Ill take some Trek as to no Trek. They had a story to tell that was topical, but I think the issue is that the flash gets in the way of the substance.  



#13 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 21 September 2013 - 05:39 PM

There have been some great editorials lately over on TrekMovie.com Such as "Star Trek Is Broken" followed by "Star Trek is Not Broken" and more recently, "You Just can't bring STar Trek Back to the small screen (but how you would if you could)".

 

I really enjoyed reading them all, as well as some of the spirited discussions, and for me I think these articles along with the debates helped to quantify and clarify why I like some aspects of Star Trek and why some bits, like the temporal cold war in ENT didn't work for me... as well as why, at its core STID left me feeling empty and flat. 

 

I know some of our more polarized members, like 1701 and VulcanFanatic, have been keying on Star Treks Relevancy, and "freshness", and part of what I've been saying is Star Trek hasn't felt fresh or relevant to me lately. 

 

This is one aspect I gleaned from those articles and discussions, as well as from things members right here have said. 

 

While I've typically always enjoyed all 5 TV shows, (TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY & ENT), for me DS9 was pinnacle, while VOY and ENT represented Star Trek on a bit of a decline, and I believe thats because they started to drift away from relevance. 

 

As one of the article pointed out Star Trek (TOS) originally had many analogues to the politics of the day, which included the Cold War, but when the cold war ended, the U.S. and Russia now had to forge a new relationship and I don't know that we have still sorted that one out, but I saw that reflected in TNG, and then solidified and really explored in DS9. 

 

In a sense, I think thats where VOY and ENT started to loose their way. They were still trying to write stories from a clearly defined hegemony that was Federation centric, and cold war "Us" against "Them", and By the time the temporal cold war arc of Enterprise came about, it clearly wasn't a reflection of the world. Where Enterprise shined, was in the last few seasons where they brought the focus to terrorism in episodes like terra prime.

 

But again, the worm has turned and writing movies and screen plays about terrorist and terrorism isn't really pushing the forefront anymore, its something we deal with, but its not the conversation, from the U.S. perspective, and I say this because Star Trek always did put forth U.S. view point since its made here... the view and conversation is turning to a Post US world order, one that we see where our influence in countries like Egypt are negligible, Russia or other countries Step up and take the lead on the world stage to resolve issues in countries like Syria. 

 

I see some of the in DS9, where the Klingons step up and have to lead and show the federation how its done, which is why I still enjoy it so much. 

 

But I guess I think Star Trek can relate to the world in a Post American way. It can show a perspective where the Federation, while important and formidable, isn't the end all, and planets aren't clamoring to join! It can tell stories from different planetary views that show how, well the federation is a nice place and they have their act together, their are other equally nice places in the universe that do it a bit different, and don't always need to take the federations lead, or sometimes they may have to "school" them to remind them to stay on the true path. 

 

They can mold and tell these stories in a "grittier" way, which is what people want to see. But they could do it in a way that still made you think, "yeah thats the human race advancing". 

 

Lastly, they (creative staff) just need to take the fantasy aspects out, take a few classes (like modern physics or quantum mechanics) at the local University and get an idea of and actually try to predict where science will take us in the next 20-40 years!



#14 Quark

Quark

    Knows the way to Eden

  • Members
  • 145 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Daegu, South Korea

Posted 01 October 2013 - 04:08 PM

Can the idea of a no currency system ever work in this world?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users