Oolite Bulletins

Disembodied wrote:

The worst thing about the whole Star Trek concept is that they wander the galaxy finding people they can teach (the answer is always "be more human", for which read "be more American")...

Ye gods, that is the last thing I would wish for any terrestrial or extra-terrestrial being, and I happen to be one (American).

CaptSolo wrote:

Disembodied wrote:

The worst thing about the whole Star Trek concept is that they wander the galaxy finding people they can teach (the answer is always "be more human", for which read "be more American")...

Ye gods, that is the last thing I would wish for any terrestrial or extra-terrestrial being, and I happen to be one (American).

In fairness, it is really "be more (good and decent) American". You'd make a pretty fair representative for humanity, Solo! And Trek generally deserves a lot of credit for pushing the idea of the melting pot, and for having female and multi-ethnic main characters amongst all the white male heroes. Yes, sure, Uhura was just a glorified receptionist, but she was also just about the only black person on mainstream American TV at the time in a non-criminal role, and other main characters liked her, listened to her, and respected her.

Other later Trek series also stand out for having prominent female and non-white characters. There's a depressing trend in TV sci-fi for (especially male) black characters to be big, physically violent and indeed not quite human, who are there to be gently guided and taught the rules of polite society by the nice white folks - e.g. Tyr Anasazi from Andromeda, Teal'c from Stargate, Worf from TNG (generally they're just sci-fi retreads of Mr T). But TNG also had Geordi LaForge, who got to save the day by being clever, not by hitting things. And other Trek series also had Commander Sisko, and Tuvok, among others. It's hardly a cultural revolution, but Trek series have been consistently better in this regard than most other TV shows of their day.

Disembodied wrote:

You'd make a pretty fair representative for humanity, Solo!

Solo for POTUS!

All the trek shows have their own moments, i look forward to watching the older series polished and in hd.
I remember a time the bbc aired six days of the week a star trek show.

TOS only three seasons
TNG picards big ship
DS9 i liked the place, the boulevard and the bar
VOYAGER homeward bound with Neelix kitchen gourmet

the last tv show, looked fine, but the storylines... went any and everywhere, i liked the blue women ( yep blue not green )

Thanks for the replies guys! I will be watching TNG very soon, though the fact that I'm addicted to oolite again may delay it.

As for Americanism/Colonialism in sci-fi shows, it's such a huge theme it drives me crazy. I'm pretty sure the writers want to make an episode about some "virtue", write about X lacking that "virtue", then proceed to have the main characters teaching X said "virtue", which resolves all conflict because "virtue" is great! Normally the "virtue" is connected to some kind of freedom, and the episode ends up being about how X's culture should change to American culture because of "virtue." I have not seen one instance of a character seeing the X's culture as simply different. I don't think it's supposed to be colonialist, just really bad writing.

While we're on star trek and before this topic dies off, here something for people who haven't seen it already: Le Wrath di Khan

This topic may die off but TOS will not - http://www.startrekcontinues.com/

This is how it's done, J.J.

ocz wrote:

While we're on star trek and before this topic dies off, here something for people who haven't seen it already: Le Wrath di Khan

epic!

Amah wrote:

ocz wrote:

While we're on star trek and before this topic dies off, here something for people who haven't seen it already: Le Wrath di Khan

epic!

you could say Operatic....

spud42 wrote:

Amah wrote:

ocz wrote:

While we're on star trek and before this topic dies off, here something for people who haven't seen it already: Le Wrath di Khan

epic!

you could say Operatic....

I guess if I had to pick one it would be the original series. The remastered version does not interfere with the original storylines just improved shots of the Enterprise mostly. But Babylon 5 (for me at any rate) eclipsed the Star Trek franchise with its far grittier take on Humanity's all too fallible place amongst other equally fallible spacefaring races.

Disembodied wrote:

It is being a bit hard to expect any great depth from any TV series, especially one pitched as "family-friendly". And all brands of Trek (with the possible exception of the infamous "He turned me into a newt! ... I got better" depths plumbed by Voyager) are considerably more intelligent and thought-provoking than the usual dribble.

All that said, a lot of the post-original series Trek could get very tiresome. Given that it was just bubblegum for the eyes, in a lot of episodes they really could have done with dumping the dialogue and getting stuck into the action ...

'Starship captain James T Kirk: "We come in peace, shoot to kill, shoot to kill, shoot to kill..."' springs to mind

Being late (again) to this little conversation. One would have to look at -
a)How old were any of us when we saw our first ST?
b)When do we consider that the world around us shaped our view of it, or when were we the most impressionable?

I love TOS, together with Dr Who (Pertwee and Baker), UFO and heaven save me, Space 1999, because they were my first forays into SF television. The problems of a one tv family - first world problems. I was pre teen/young teen and fairly impressionable at that age. This age also shaped my tastes in music - classical from my father and R&R/Rock from Countdown (Australia's Top of the Pops) and Sounds Unlimited on Saturday mornings (and many other things).

TNG came by in my (late) 20's, so I was impressed with the eye candy (better than Star Wars, and for a tv show). By the time the others came along, although I watched them for nostalgia-ish reasons, I was old enough to look past the glitz, emotional heartstring tugging and twisty storylines and think that not much had (really) changed. Probably because I'm getting older and find it easy to drop into cynical mode.

To the original post; whichever you watch first (if you haven't seen any of them) will set the benchmark for the others. If you've seen more of the modern (er.. post 2000) television offerings, then TOS will seem a little... how would you phrase it? Twee. But I like it!

SteveKing wrote:

I love TOS, together with Dr Who (Pertwee and Baker), UFO and heaven save me, Space 1999, because they were my first forays into SF television.

I re-watched some Space 1999 less than a decade ago, and it's woeful. Nowhere near the quality of UFO (still the best sci-fi TV series ever made, by a country mile) or Thunderbirds. The miniature effects are great - I assume by Derek Meddings, I haven't checked - but the screenplays were woeful.* It's the only word that fits; once more for effect: woeful. Music also great. Cast not bad. Sets were expensive and detailed for their time. So it was really just the screenwriters who let it down. Space 1999 is a good example to trot out when you want to assert that it's the storytelling that matters most, not the acting, directing, set design, special effects, music, wardrobe, etc. Someone on usenet (ask your parents, kids) remarked that the writers were obviously on acid. Tru dat.

UFO should be required viewing for all. Look beyond the incessant smoking, drinking & workplace sexual harassment (the story they didn't realize they were telling), and appreciate the stories they were telling. There's more substance in five minutes of UFO than in an "hour" of most other sci-fi shows. You'll never look at cats the same way again. And if you download these classics (1) a PM to let me know where you found 'em would be nice (2) make sure they're 52 minute episodes, most you'll find online are 47 minute edits. Even the 52 minute episodes as they originally aired in the UK were sometimes heavily edited and reading the scripts reveals more story.

The less said about Dr Who the better. Suffice to say it peaked with Pertwee and Baker. Regarding the new version, invent your own snarky comment about spending millions on sets then employing boofhead screenwriters and imagine I said it. See Space 1999 above.

* What's wrong with that sentence?

Wildeblood wrote:

- but the screenplays were woeful.*
* What's wrong with that sentence?

If you're stating how woeful you think the Space 1999 scrips are, then nothing I would have thought 'are' is better than 'were' given that you state the miniatures effects 'are' great.

I didn't count Thunderbirds, because I consider it 'futuristic fiction'.

SteveKing wrote:

The less said about Dr Who the better. Suffice to say it peaked with Pertwee and Baker.

See what I mean about impressionable age (but I'm not disagreeing with you WB, I just watch it now for nostalgia reasons).

Wildeblood wrote:

... Nowhere near the quality of UFO (still the best sci-fi TV series ever made, by a country mile)

I couldn't agree more...