Welcome to Star Trek Simulation Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Crash Calestorm

Elitist Star Trek?

37 posts in this topic

Will the true Star Trek Fans of Voyager, Next Gen, and Deep Space Nine please make themselves known!

 

I found an article link posted on a Facebook page. It was the typical sort of thing we see every few months, that someone is looking into producing a new Star Trek TV series. One of the comments went something like this: 

 

“...please continue the storyline with TNG, voyager, and DS9. Thats what true Star Trek fans want.”

-          FaceBook User, February 2012

 

What, did this person get whacked in the head with an Engineering spanner? They’re clearly not working on all thrusters.

 

My (pardon the pun) true loyalty lies with the Classic Star Trek series, Enterprise and now New TOS; I might not be a huge fan of TNG, VOY and DS9, but I don’t diss ‘em, I’ve watched ‘em and it’s all good because they represent the Star Trek franchise.

 

I wasn’t aware that as a Classic/New TOS fan, I was considered NOT a true Trek fan....

 

The user comment is pompous and snobbish, and illustrates how the franchise has splintered into so called elitist fans in the past twenty years or so.

 

TNG, VOY and DS9 are not the better Star Trek series’. All the ‘Star Treks’ have their pros and cons. It is what it is.

 

Thoughts? Comments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh suuuure, you *would* say that! (heh-heh, sorry, couldn't resist)

 

Yup, it is all of Star Trek that brought us here. It could be styrofoam boulders and alien babes in silver swimwear; Brits from France and First Officers with no ambition; Security Chiefs who live in a bucket and con artists who never con anyone; Borg babes (hmm, a trend?) and a replicator with unending supply of weaponry and shuttle parts; Vulcan babes (yeah, definitely a trend) and the Captain's Beagle; or even just a Cadet who gets promoted to Captain after one mission.

 

We love it all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, what brought me here was some people hogging the old startrek.com chat rooms. You know, the ones that will have been back online soon for about 5 years now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, it wasn't the Star Trek franchise per se that brought me here. I came because it offered nice settings and props, while giving me the room to ignore the character of Star Trek. Isn't a mystery that my first choice was the Qob.

Edited by Ethan Neufeld

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, it wasn't the Star Trek franchise per se that brought me here. I came because it offered nice settings and props, while giving me the room to ignore the character of Star Trek. Isn't a mystery that my first choice was the Qob.

 

I sense a spy among us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I'm a fan of the newer series more than TOS.

 

What do I want? A series that is well-written and well-produced. If someone can do that, it doesn't matter what the setting is.

 

And really, this person needs to remember the title of the TNG series finale - All Good Things (must come to an end). I loved TNG, DS9, and Enterprise, and I liked Voyager, but everything has to end sometime, and there's a reason they do. Time to stop living in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And really, this person needs to remember the title of the TNG series finale - All Good Things (must come to an end). I loved TNG, DS9, and Enterprise, and I liked Voyager, but everything has to end sometime, and there's a reason they do. Time to stop living in the past.

 

Well Said Bruce! The only series that really didn't have an "official" finale was TOS, but even then it lived on with TAS followed by the movies, with TUC truly its finale. Shatner, Doohan, and Koening in the beginning of Generations was like having De Kelley in the pilot of TNG- passing the torch to a new franchise, in this case the movies.

 

Star Trek will always have its detractors, no matter what the series. The TNG/DS9/VOY fans were closed minded to ENT and New TOS. And just because its not the "continuing story-arc" of the TV shows, doesn't mean its any less Trek worthy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We also have it pretty good; 40+ years, five series', 11 movies, novels. Not many sci fi franchises can boast that, and we're lucky to have all the enjoyment.

 

Now if the elite TNG/DS9/VOY mindset fans like the FB comment can get that through their thick skulls...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to stop living in the past?? Wait, isn't that what we do here, while living our view of the future? The future-past, eh? Okay, I'm getting a headache now.

 

(and don't get me started on lumping together TNG and VOY fans into one group...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK then. Time to stop living in the future and the way, way future. The way future is still OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(and don't get me started on lumping together TNG and VOY fans into one group...)

 

You mean...you 24th century guys aren't all the same?! (kidding, kidding!)

 

Next Gen is definitely the Golden Child of the franchise; so many new fans were brought into the fold because of Picard and Company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do miss the Roddenberry ideals, the notion that humans can learn and will behave better and build a better society than the future. I'm an old Baby Boomer, got to know the brand spanking new Spock for the first time when I was in high school, and associate Trek with Roddenberry's vision of a future that was truly different culturally. Other SF franchises might feature militaristic societies and might makes right ethics, but Trek was supposed to be different.

 

Hey, I designed Joy for that, loaded her Asimov Processor with Roddenberry compatible behaviors. I used to be able to casually run three copies of Joy all over STSF. She'd fit in fine. Now? She's retired. She doesn't fit anywhere anymore. I too am on the Qob, playing an Orion character in a Firefly inspired culture. If you can't play a good girl, the heck with it, I went naughty. I'm having a good time, but I've had to divorce myself from what I used to like about Star Trek. In any future Trek movies, on line, in any upcoming TV show I might expect to see produced, Trek is dead. What we'll see is space opera using Star Trek like props and special effects.

 

I'm not all that fond of the props and special effects. Transporters require excessive suspension of disbelief. If one has transporters, why are you still having fire fights using phasers? Star Trek as Space Opera is just problematic. It's the role playing environment I miss, where one expects one's character to be treated with respect, where if the captain is doing something illegal or immoral there is a role playing opportunity rather than a presumption of being above law, morality and in some cases basic human decency.

 

What would a new Star Trek series bring to the table? Would it be easier to get an initial financial investment in the series? You don't have to spend extra time in the early episodes demonstrating how the props work? Less need to imagine new uniforms, alien species and politics? OK, call me the token idealist here, but if one is going to dishonor the props by perverting the culture and ideals, (expletive deleted), design your own (expletive deleted) props.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Transporters require excessive suspension of disbelief.

 

Give you that. There are a few props I'd like to forget. Transporters and replicators make things too conveinent and source too many contrived plot devices. They sap away the precariousness, the impression that these people are living in a reality that takes time and effort to navigate.

 

I do miss the Roddenberry ideals, the notion that humans can learn and will behave better and build a better society than the future.

 

I could be wrong, but from what I've read, it seems to me that human errancy was still kicking in TOS. In spite of the tolerant society they'd built, they were flawed. Humans hated the Klingons, the Klingons hated Humans. They learned to work around their prejudices, but they did it the hard way and had to relearn how every time. It wasn't until after sustained hostilities that they finally realized they could get along indefinitely. Call me unsophisticated, but I prefer stories where the characters are flawed, decisions are fumbled and the result is never tidy. Sometimes the characters learn and grow; the majority of the time they almost take a step forward and then fail miserably. The few episodes following that pattern I might enjoy if I stopped to watch them. The rest, no offense, sound just like space opera.

 

Of the clips I've seen, TNG seemed to add a sermon on top of that space opera. Humans weren't flawed anymore; the obstacles were external. It was everyone else that had the problem and Picard was always there to lecture misbehaving aliens into repentance between splices of melodrama. Suddenly it wasn't just transporters that required suspension of disbelief. Don't get me wrong; I like the idea of an evolved society. But if you eliminate too many of the internal flaws, I can't relate to the characters. Add to that an apparent hypocracy. I seem to remember a trekkie mentioning that a Klingon can't help but act the way they do because they're Klingon. That sort of stereotyping's a little out of place for a society that has evolved to the point they can confidently preach to other societies.

 

Just couldn't get into it, but maybe Roddenberry's idealism wasn't for me.

Edited by Ethan Neufeld

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're saying it's bad that this Trekkie says Klingons act like Klingons? How should Klingons act if not like Klingons? Does every Trek race have to have an inate HUMAN nature? Wouldn't be very interesting as a series if they did.

 

We act the way we do in part because our DNA drives us to act that way. Why would you expect a race with different genetics and a different evolution to act just like us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're saying it's bad that this Trekkie says Klingons act like Klingons? How should Klingons act if not like Klingons? Does every Trek race have to have an inate HUMAN nature? Wouldn't be very interesting as a series if they did.

 

We act the way we do in part because our DNA drives us to act that way. Why would you expect a race with different genetics and a different evolution to act just like us?

 

Mm, the point was that if Humans in Star Trek can rise above their innate natures, then why can't the other species do the same? What's stopping their behavioral evolution? That said, the fact that Klingons should act "Klingon" is an odd observation to me, given that Humans write these stories and Klingons are a personification of certain warrior and/or aggressive examples in Human society. In TOS, Klingons were an allegory for the Soviets. I've heard TNG Klingons referred to as 'samurai in space'. So, if anything, they do act just like us, and the hypocracy comes into play when they aren't allowed to act beyond their genes like the starring species.

Edited by Ethan Neufeld

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is the Facebooker being described as "elitist" is probably my age. Post TOS Essentially A Star Wars kid, who didn't really care much about Trek until the movies came. Then the poster was first treated to "Trek" with TNG, and went to DS9 then Voyager. Where I chose to rediscover TOS while watching TNG..this poster may of tried but just had to have "the modern look" Foam Rocks unacceptable. Kinda sad . If the poster only read the reference books that are so hard to come by and discover the history of The Original Series perhaps a greater appreciation may of developed.

 

I cannot say for sure why Enterprise was left off. I have a theory though below.

 

What I am fairly certain of is this person is a "Primeliner" a group of fans who chose to cling those happenings of the TOS (which this quote omitted),TNG,DS9 ,VOY timeline. Enterprise perhaps this poster considered revisionist history unacceptable to the "Primeline." he/she so adheres to.

 

I would really like to see the whole FB post on where this came from. Just a single sentence rant. Or something like I tend to do and go on for ever on a topic. (People are reaching for the mouse now).

 

I personally would not call the three shows mentioned "elitist" nor the poster. I don't see anything "elitist" about them. Again the full post would be nice here. But I am aware of a base of Trek fans known as "Primliners" who desperately want to see a show with the Enterprise-F or something. They do not want Vulcan destroyed, they don't want Romulus wiped off the slate..and they certainly do not want the Original NCC-1701 launched from the surface of Earth, purported to be the same size as the Enterprise D. Heresy!!!

 

That is my guess where this person is coming from. Sorry I tend only to mention the ship angle..for those who have survived my posts on this forum a habit of mine.

 

Oh and yes I sim on the Qob as well as Manticore. And I love both universes they are in.

 

Thank you,

Mitar Precip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't get completely non-human since the writers are human, that is true. However, even the humans were still subject to the DNA. Some of Sisko's and Janeway's and Pcard's actions were downriight deplorable even by our standards. Can anyone argue that the way Sisko brought the Romulans into the Dominion war was the ethical high ground? Yes they may have learmed to overcome their instincts, but it still took a lot of effort and they didn't always succeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And we've returned to the reason I didn't like the show: sermons they had no business making. Ever get tired of going in circles?

Edited by Ethan Neufeld

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's one of the reasons I liked the role Quark played. He had some stinging indictments of humanity and it turns out we are more like Ferengi than we care to admit.

 

However, being like the Ferengi isn't so bad. Did they ever have a recession? You could argue (although based on one DS9 episode) that they had crony capitalism but they didn't exactly try to hide it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He had some stinging indictments of humanity and it turns out we are more like Ferengi than we care to admit.

 

Ironic how those allegories work. The aliens, who are supposed to be evolutionarily dissimilar, end up embodding and trapped inside our unwanted traits. Ferengi: greed; Romulans: paranoia; Klingons: aggression; Cardassians: deception with a smile; Bajorians: maladjustment; Vulcans: cold, hard ascetism. Maybe that's what it'll take to reach social enlightenment: forcing aliens to take on our unwanted faults.

 

Honestly never been able to reconcile the Federation's imaginary economy.

Edited by Ethan Neufeld

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philosophically Ethan Neufeld that is a hard post to follow.

 

You are correct I believe, many Star Trek races portray human traits/faults. However, our own traits/faults or emotions are all we have to draw upon for a Alien race. I agree, races like the Ferengi are portraying the human vice of "Greed." Yet overtime we saw more than greed from Quark, Rom and his son. We saw an alien culture develop on screen, Yes. The start was most certainly "Greed" but we saw other traits develop. I think Armin Shimerman deserves credit for getting the writers of DS9 to move beyond the Ferengi form the one word starter "human" trait :Greed.

 

Most races never got the chance. Nausicaans (although one was seen in an auction at DS9 bidding on an antique not clobbering people). Romulans, the worst case I think never got the chance to develop away from their assigned Human trait :paranoia. They never were given a seven year character to work with.

 

Now, of course one can turn to the countless fictional books written by many authors over the years. The fictional books provide the opportunity to have characters move on from their Human Trait Label, easier than an hour long TV show. Many embrace these works. Yet I believe the powers that be in Trek have declared fictional books Non-Canon. Of course here in STSF, we can liberate ourselves from that declaration with permission of the Council I believe. We have at least one sim of I am aware of that is based on a fictional writers work..maybe more.

 

I would like to think a Star Trek Race was created not on the basis of a human trait, however humans created Star Trek. Where is an alien writer for Star Trek when we could use him to add something different. ;)

 

BTW..best Human deviation from perfection I believe was on DS9 with bringing the Romulans into the war with Garak's insistence. That was a fantastic departure from the fictitious human perfection genre.

 

Precip

If you made it this far..I salute you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never been a big DS9 fan but one of my favorite Trek episodes is The Siege at AR-558. It shows what humanity is like when the chips are down. Quark nails it when he says humans are a wonderful, generous people when they have full stomachs and sonic showers. That's the world Picard spends most of his time in. No wonder he thinks humans have an evolved sensibility. Did that soldier who wore ketracel white tubes around his neck for every Jem Hadar soldier he killed have that same evolved sensibility? I doubt it. We didn't have evolved sensibilities, it just felt good to think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philosophically Ethan Neufeld that is a hard post to follow.

 

Of course here in STSF, we can liberate ourselves from that declaration with permission of the Council I believe.

 

I would like to think a Star Trek Race was created not on the basis of a human trait, however humans created Star Trek. Where is an alien writer for Star Trek when we could use him to add something different. ;)

 

BTW..best Human deviation from perfection I believe was on DS9 with bringing the Romulans into the war with Garak's insistence. That was a fantastic departure from the fictitious human perfection genre.

 

Admittedly mine is an outsider's opinion; haven't seen a lot of Star Trek and I'm shaking the clubhouse tree. I've watched more movies from beginning to end than episodes: The Wrath of Khan, The Undiscovered Country, First Contact, and Star Trek (2009). I enjoyed The Undiscovered Country; won't say I didn't enjoy the rest, but I haven't gone out of my way to watch them again.

 

Not that I haven't tried to watch the series; I just don't feel the draw. I've seen a bit of TNG; but, given I tend to turn it off when Picard starts in on the morality lesson, I haven't seen much. My experience with DS9 and VOY is limited to clips friends sent me. I use memory-alpha a lot to fill in the blanks while simming; before that it took me years to figure out who "Quark" was. I watched most of one TOS episode; was it Errand of Mercy? Thought it was an interesting exploration of Soviet and American interactions. I wouldn't mind seeing more like it, but I'm not interested in sifting through the space opera to find them.

 

It wasn't an accident or unwanted side-effect that Humans writing aliens produced aliens with Human traits. Personally, I think that commentary on the Human condition was the whole point of Star Trek. In my opinion, emboddying Human traits in an alien form is meant to provoke self-reflection: "Geeze, why'd they do that? That was dumb. Do we do that?" But, like I said, I couldn't get into it when Picard took over. I couldn't relate. The rest looked like pure space opera.

 

Liberation is why I came here and I'm enjoying it. Thank (or curse) a buddy of mine for how far I've come; it's his fault I'm in this genre..

Edited by Ethan Neufeld

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we can all agree that STSF provides a platform for all sorts of RPGers - from the die hard Trek fan, to the non-Trek fan, to the casual Trek fan - to come and play within a universe that inspires the imagination and the 'theater of the mind' (aptly described by a STSF GM). If the Sims adhered directly to the Trek franchise with no room to 'do our own thing', it'd be constrained. Not to mention boring, and difficult for a casual fan to acclimate.

 

Not to get preachy, because we get enough of that in our daily lives, but I've always felt that 'Star Trek' as a whole - and I include of all the series' and movies - is that rare commodity these days: family entertainment. Trek might not be perfect, but it's a safe bet and you'll always know the score.

 

However, I still want to know why certain people are so opinionated within the context of fandom. On that note, let me do the 'elitist' thing: the following is a tongue in cheek satire/working article directed at Star Trek 2009 and the Trek fan base in general I'd started a while back.

 

I've been told that the initial draft comes across as "mean". I admit, it's an abrasive stance...

 

= = = =

Random Comments on Star Trek 2009

 

"I don't really like the design of the new Enterprise 1701"

 

You're kidding, right? The Enterprise is like, the coolest ship ever introduced in sci fi history, and you just happen to not like the current incarnation?

 

I bet if it was a redesigned Defiant or Intrepid-class or Enterprise 1701-D you'd like it. Classic Star Trek haters.

 

"I don't like the use of the Red Matter and the non-Science of the concept"

 

I know many Trek fans enjoy the technobabble and science aspects of the franchise, and I understand when something really doesn't make sense, it can be annoying.

 

Sure, the concept was a little whacky, but what're you gonna do? I'm sure the same thing was said back in the 1960's when people saw the transporter effect for the first time.

 

"I don't like the New Timeline"

 

That's your choice. Just remember to let those of us that do enjoy it exist in peace.

 

"I don't like these New Timeline changes in the Star Trek canon"

 

Star Trek canon has been changing continuously since The Motion Picture in 1979. Get over it.

 

"I don't like Amanda's death"

 

Well, she's still alive in the Trek Prime Timeline so don't worry about it. And we always have the excellent Trek novel 'Sarek' for the non-canon (and noble) version of her death.

 

"I don't like the destruction of Vulcan"

 

Well, the planet is still around in the Trek Prime Timeline so don't worry about it.

 

"I don't like the destruction of Romulus in the Prime Timeline/2387"

 

Yeah, the Romulans are scrooged. Well, maybe those freaky looking batty Romulans from Star Trek: Nemesis will be taken out in the explosion as well. We can only hope!

 

Ever notice that the Trek writers never really explode Earth? Wimps! Earth is always saved at the last minute by an intrepid Trek crew or due to a timeline flux.

 

"I don't like the new Captain Kirk"

 

As my crew is well aware, I'm not too fond of the little SOB either. He took command of the Enterprise from Spock based on future knowledge from a mind meld. How shady is that?!

 

"I don't like Spock and Uhuru's romance"

 

I think it's hysterical that Spock gets the girl and Kirk doesn't. About time!

 

You also need to bone up on your Classic Star Trek and watch "Charlie X" as compared to Trek 2009; there's some hints regarding what might have been with Spock and Uhuru in this episode. Spock smiling? Uhuru singing to him? Wow. Who knew?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0