"Why Calls for Subtlety in Star Trek are Misguided" Topic

"Whenever there's news that a new Star Trek character will be queer, female, or a person of color (POC), the internet erupts with cries of "Star Trek was better when it was subtle, when it didn't rub its message in our faces." This critique is disturbingly common in the current political climate, but is there any truth to it? Was Star Trek better back during this unspecified time when the message was subtle?…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

I sincerely doubt many fans would rank ‘Let that be you last battlefield" or "rejoined" as their favorite episodes.

I thought " beyond the stars" was awkward and forced at best.

Just one person's opinion.

Did you ever get the feeling all those strange worlds found in TOS were never to be seen again? Cast off on the ash heap of the galaxy? Were they brought into the Federation or staked out as no-go zones?
If they wanted to break new ground they would show 'X' main character with 3 wives. That would be a message.

I think in TOS they kinda let you draw your own conclusions about some things. Now everything has to be explained to the nth detail because a lot of people are too lazy to use their own imaginations, or because the writers are too OCD…

The essayist is unusually clumsy. If he prefers stories in which a world or a species is created to make the argument for one side in a current controversy--well, the Romans were right: matters of taste are not settled by reasoned debate.

But he also muffs his own argument at least two ways--first by pretending the time in which contemporary politics was background rather than plot is "unspecified." He knows as well as anyone that it was the first two seasons of the original series. And second by arguing that it both is and is not "subtle"--as though it were a unified whole, and as though doing one nullified criticism of the other.

Welcome to the world of modern criticism--and much of modern entertainment. It's great stuff if you like socialist realism. For me, thank Heaven, there are shelves of books and banks of DVDs which predate or defy this. Someone please send me an e-mail when the era of tone-deaf and strident propaganda passing itself off as fiction goes the way of all cultural things.

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Clearly the big difference between today and the time of the original series is that back then the episodes were written by actual sci-fi authors not some committee.

My own view is that Star Trek ceased to have any interest after the original series – since then it has basically been c@@p. Whereas Star Wars has consistently been c@@p since day 1.

Give me Serenity, The Expanse, Altered Carbon or even Travellers…

Agree with you my friend.

Amicalement
Armand

I'm personally burned out on it all. Writers are more inclined to beat you over the head with their personal politics than engage in legitimate, genuine, worldbuilding. I'm tired of it. All the gore, degeneracy and political insinuation in modern drama is quite literally pushing me towards the Hallmark Channel.

When Calls the Heart is terrific. Watch it.

Well, most modern TV/Movie writers couldn't write a simple article on how to get out of a paper bag so..?

"Star Trek" – the 1966-1969 original was definitely good for it's time. It did have the advantage of REAL SciFi writers getting involved and yes – some stories DID take a bit of committee work (City on the edge of forever – would have been WAY too long and expensive otherwise).

The Next Generation, Deep Space 9, and even on rare occasion Voyager, did have their moments of SciFi excellence. Often sprinkled far too heavily with PC silliness and or episodes that just made you say "huh?".

Enterprise – started off very unevenly – even though it had good potential at the beginning. When Manny Coto took the reigns, it started to improve quite a bit but, it was far too little, far too late.

Anything after that (ST09, Disco etc…) has been absolute mindless rubbish.

Star Wars – the original trilogy was actually fun and Empire will always be the best of all Star Wars films (sorry Disney – you're not competent enough to beat that). The prequels – ranged from horrible to marginal and so far, the sequels have as well. The only bright spot being "Rogue One" – despite an editing error or two.

Star Wars was never meant to be "SciFi" as such but, was always intended to be Sci-Fantasy or Space Opera along the lines of the classic Buck Rogers/Flash Gordon serials of the 1930's.

This was also a major influence on the Indiana Jones films as they feel like an old school serial – and are meant to…

The best writers would be writers whose first career was a scientist, astronaut, astronomer then retired and goes into sci-fi. They would try to get the science at least in the ball park instead of making social comment.

Does the Federation have unlimited resources for star ships or not. If not then the crew should be highly paid to attract the best. Else everyone gets a star ship. Like the Oprah show. You get a star ship. You get a star ship. You get a star ship.

Actually no one gets paid in the federation, last I checked. There may be occasional script inconsistencies suggesting the contrary, but the general idea is money no longer exists in federation/earth. Ferenginar, on the other hand…

What do they use for chips in the Poker games of TNG? I thought they used money of some sort.

But the no money theme must mean that everyone gets their own star ship as well as a house at the beach.

You can use chips with out exchanging them for money. You don't swap Monopoly hotels for the real deal at the end of the game.

I think Star ship acquisition is based upon rank or occupational promotion level, based upon hard work and experience. Again, there are script inconsistencies or non federation dealings that may ignor this.