Re:Star Trek is the richest and most positively impactful fr...
by krapp on Thursday September 28, 2017 @10:21PM
(#15362308)
The first problem I have with Star Trek is that Gene Roddenberry insisted that the human characters have no real conflicts or emotional flaws - because they were meant to represent some evolved ideal - as a result, it's impossible to empathize or really even relate to them unless they deviate from the template. Captain Kirk was the antithesis of everything Gene believed in, because Roddenberry was forced to sell the show as "Wagon Train to the Stars" - Kirk was a hard-drinking space cowboy who wasn't afraid to lie, kiss or punch his way out of a bad situation. Wesley Crusher, meanwhile, was Gene's ideal. He was an insufferable boy genius and nobody liked him.
Which is the better character? Whose conflicts are more human, and therefore more inspiring to viewers?
My second problem with Star Trek is that it's "post-scarcity" Utopia is a vaguely realized nonsensical fantasy based on the existence of magitech which conveniently handwaves away anything which might provide legitimate or compelling conflict at a societal level. The only real challenge the Federation can face is space wedgies and phaser fire. But no one starves, no one is homeless, no one lacks for any creative, cultural or intellectual need --- but there's no good reason why.
It's not even good science fiction. Subspace and particles of the week and assorted technobabble. A parallel universe where everyone is evil. Transporters and holograms which appear to randomly create sentient life. The Enterprise once got knocked up and gave birth to a negative space wedgie. Sometimes it comes close to interesting ideas, but because the show was intended for drama, and not scientific rigor, none of the really interesting stuff ever wound up on screen.
So how to we achieve the Trek Utopia in the real world? We need replicators? Sorry - not in this universe, a little thing called the Second Law of Thermodynamics guarantees anything remotely like that will be vastly less efficient than what we have now. Warp drive? Nope - FTL travel is impossible. Free energy? Nope, 2nd Law again. Transporters? Nope - no Heisenberg Compensators in this universe. It doesn't work. It can't work. It can't ever work.
This comment makes it seem like I hate the show, but I don't - I grew up with it and I adore it, but I think its cultural relevance is vastly overrated. Star Trek, at least its later incarnations, gives the world an impossible Utopia to look forward to with impossible people to aspire to be. That's not inspiring to me.
Give me someone like Spike Spiegel from Cowboy Bebop to look up to. Imperfect, flawed heroes doing their best to make sense of a violent and capricious universe which doesn't give you any easy answers and won't keep you from starving to death in the void if you can't find a way to live for another week. Optimism and resolve mean something in a setting like that. In Star Trek, all the problems have already been solved and the characters are just looking for ways to pass the time.
Which is the better character? Whose conflicts are more human, and therefore more inspiring to viewers?
My second problem with Star Trek is that it's "post-scarcity" Utopia is a vaguely realized nonsensical fantasy based on the existence of magitech which conveniently handwaves away anything which might provide legitimate or compelling conflict at a societal level. The only real challenge the Federation can face is space wedgies and phaser fire. But no one starves, no one is homeless, no one lacks for any creative, cultural or intellectual need --- but there's no good reason why.
It's not even good science fiction. Subspace and particles of the week and assorted technobabble. A parallel universe where everyone is evil. Transporters and holograms which appear to randomly create sentient life. The Enterprise once got knocked up and gave birth to a negative space wedgie. Sometimes it comes close to interesting ideas, but because the show was intended for drama, and not scientific rigor, none of the really interesting stuff ever wound up on screen.
So how to we achieve the Trek Utopia in the real world? We need replicators? Sorry - not in this universe, a little thing called the Second Law of Thermodynamics guarantees anything remotely like that will be vastly less efficient than what we have now. Warp drive? Nope - FTL travel is impossible. Free energy? Nope, 2nd Law again. Transporters? Nope - no Heisenberg Compensators in this universe. It doesn't work. It can't work. It can't ever work.
This comment makes it seem like I hate the show, but I don't - I grew up with it and I adore it, but I think its cultural relevance is vastly overrated. Star Trek, at least its later incarnations, gives the world an impossible Utopia to look forward to with impossible people to aspire to be. That's not inspiring to me.
Give me someone like Spike Spiegel from Cowboy Bebop to look up to. Imperfect, flawed heroes doing their best to make sense of a violent and capricious universe which doesn't give you any easy answers and won't keep you from starving to death in the void if you can't find a way to live for another week. Optimism and resolve mean something in a setting like that. In Star Trek, all the problems have already been solved and the characters are just looking for ways to pass the time.