Star Trek

[JarlWolf]

You also have to remember who the show is being marketed to: Sure, people like us want hard science coupled with exotic cultures and completely alien experiences (pardon the pun) something different to shatter our spines with and make us want more.
But you have lots of people who just tune in and want something contemporary and familiar, and that's what these shows lack depth in aspects of realism and other things.


For me personally I find there is certain shows that portray different cultural values and cultures in general are generally ones based on alternative history or ones based on historical events. I caught a show that aired a while back, someone linked me online to it called VIKINGS. Now sure, the name is simple enough and while the cast is interesting and initially the plot is pretty simple the show grows a bit and it shows the contrast between cultures: While still having some identifying points. They also have a certain character to show contrast between the character's culture and the Christian "culture" as well, and generally there is a subliminal atheist tone about the show, at least how it comes off. And it shows the societies in a nice, blunt way, straight to the point. Sacrifices, sex and pillaging with some powerplay its got some appeal to it.

Of course its no Sci Fi or Fantasy obviously but I am one for more realistic shows to begin with. I personally like harder Sci Fi's and am more a fan of the post apocalyptic genre as opposed to mild Space Opera's like Star Trek or Space Fantasy's like Star Wars.

[Doc Nebula]

BSG wasn't designed to be hard science though; it's science has about the same degree of accuracy and integrity as, say, Star Wars, and knowing that it's an intentional decision allowed me to enjoy the show for its merits rather than for failing astrophysics class. As for your comments on culture, you're absolutely right and that is largely irrelevant; the show isn't about the kind of clothing people wear or what card games they play, the show is about how the characters deal with faith, doubt, betrayal and destiny, as well as cool space dogfights.

Then it shouldn't be dressed up with the trappings of 'science fiction'.  In science fiction, the science is important.  Apologists who come in afterward and whine and boo hoo because, you know, a show that's about people living in a gigantic space craft for years while they flee from renegade robots of their own creation... oh, THAT show isn't REALLY about science... frankly, I have no time for that.  To say that STAR WARS, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, or STAR TREK "aren't about the science" is just stupid.  If they're not about the science, then that is an inherent and unforgivable flaw in how the show is conceived and executed, because they ARE about the science, or they aren't science fiction.

[JarlWolf]

Note though, Science FICTION. And not all fiction explains things properly; though I do agree that on the account of Star Wars/Star Trek they don't explain lots of the technology sufficiently enough or provide logical means as to how they work. Not sure about BattleStar Galactica as I've never really watched it. But does it mean the shows/movies are necessarily bad...? Debatable, depends on your stance on how hard you want the science part of the science fiction.

Edit: Whats a good Sci Fi that tickles your fancy? Just seeing where your interests lie, maybe have read/seen it myself or its worth checking out.

[Green1]

BSG wasn't designed to be hard science though; it's science has about the same degree of accuracy and integrity as, say, Star Wars, and knowing that it's an intentional decision allowed me to enjoy the show for its merits rather than for failing astrophysics class. As for your comments on culture, you're absolutely right and that is largely irrelevant; the show isn't about the kind of clothing people wear or what card games they play, the show is about how the characters deal with faith, doubt, betrayal and destiny, as well as cool space dogfights.

Then it shouldn't be dressed up with the trappings of 'science fiction'.  In science fiction, the science is important.  Apologists who come in afterward and whine and boo hoo because, you know, a show that's about people living in a gigantic space craft for years while they flee from renegade robots of their own creation... oh, THAT show isn't REALLY about science... frankly, I have no time for that.  To say that STAR WARS, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, or STAR TREK "aren't about the science" is just stupid.  If they're not about the science, then that is an inherent and unforgivable flaw in how the show is conceived and executed, because they ARE about the science, or they aren't science fiction.

True, but there are different levels that sci fi takes science. There is hard sci fi and space opera.

Take Ender's Game or any of that entire series. Space travel does pay attention to relativistic travel in those novels. Star Wars and Star Trek, not so much so.

It's all sci fi, just different levels of realism.

I am with you that I like my sci fi a bit more on Heienlin side and a bit less on the George Lucas side. But, I am a sucker for a good story, too and will overlook some things.

[Doc Nebula]

Science fiction is about exploring how human behavior is changed by technology.  To boil down nearly all my gripes and [complaints or disagreeable women; may be a verb, may indicate management of prostitutes] about SF as done in visual medias meant for huge audiences of stupid humans -- the technology is simply there as plot fodder and eye candy.  The characters still behave exactly like their audience members.  Same culture.  Same taboos.  Same mores.

People who live with access to the level of technology they have in the Federation would live very differently than we do.  But most people would not be comfortable watching a STAR TREK with a bisexual Kirk or Riker.  They would not want to hear about Picard's four wives and two co husbands back in France.  And the writers do not want to lose the drama of someone who needs implants to see, even though you should be able to cure any injury or disease by running someone through the transporter.  There shouldn't be any old age, either, and people should be able to switch genders at will. 

But all of those things would give rise to extremely different cultural behaviors, many of which would shock and offend potential audience members. 

So we can't have real science fiction on TV.  Or in the movies.

I get that.  But sometimes it just gets SOOOOOOO stupid and scientifically subliterate that I can't watch any more. 

[Green1]

I hear you. I could see the shock if you put a movie up like what you talk about. Imagine Hieinlins Cat Who Walks Through Walls as TV series, lol. Those books are exactly like that.

[Doc Nebula]

Well, CAT WHO WALKS THROUGH WALLS, like most of the last few Heinleins (except FRIDAY and JOB) is very weak and kind of stupid, compared to the original material that RAH is trying to go back and 'correct'.  Read TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE, and throw out your copies of BEAST, CAT, and SUNSET. 

[Green1]

Well, CAT WHO WALKS THROUGH WALLS, like most of the last few Heinleins (except FRIDAY and JOB) is very weak and kind of stupid, compared to the original material that RAH is trying to go back and 'correct'.  Read TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE, and throw out your copies of BEAST, CAT, and SUNSET. 

Time Enough for Love was excellent. I disagree somewhat about Cat. The first part was excellent. Ending was stupid, though.

[Doc Nebula]

CAT simply had too much stupidity jam packed into it for me to like it at all.  The first three chapters were the best of it, but old school publishers generally used to buy the first three chapters and an outline.  This is why so many bad Zelazny books have a wonderful first three chapters, and then drop into the toilet.

Honestly, though, I simply have no tolerance for Heinlein's The World As Myth.  Any story in which the characters know they are characters in a story bores the [poop] out of me.  It's the ultimate plot cop out.  I simply cannot respect it.  And Heinlein used it as a plot cop out, too... "why are these strange things happening?  Because the writer wants them to!"  No, Bob.  Screw you.

Heinlein really did lose control badly over his last half dozen books or so.  He kind of kept FRIDAY disciplined... a little, there's still quite a lot about that book that ain't right... and in JOB, he made the whole surreal thing work for him... but JOB did not go back and rape the storylines of previous, better books.  It was just, essentially, Heinlein's way of saying "you know that weird [poop] I did in 'Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag'? I can do that better now".  And he did.  So I was okay with that.

[Green1]

But... back to your analysis of Federation society. I got some food for thought.

I believe, other than some of the sci-tech glitches, it is pretty close.

The thing about Star Trek - particularly TNG era more than TOS (because of TV censors), is it is a Unitarian Universalist  work. Roddenberry was a staunch UU and member of that church. UUism, for those that do not want to tab out to wikipedia is that all people have merit and are all valuable despite any belief system. It is Roddenberry (and the UU church's) vision of paradise on Earth. Everybody is valuable. Everybody is a skeptic. Everybody respects everybody else.

Now, just because the UU does not care if, say, Kirk slept with men and women, does not mean that society would all of the sudden be all bi or gender changing each week just because they can. It means that as long as it does not violate any covenants (UU term for not slouching on promises you made or hurting folks.), no one cares.

Now, in TNG, Riker did have an affair with a male androgynous alien. I think it was about the best they could get away with. Still, even in future society, those that will choose homosexuality will still remain the same percentage. Changing your sex will still be a major procedure because you ARE teleporting organs around and having to match them up.

Polygamy is a totally separate matter. In UU, it is not judged but discouraged. This is why: it is not the best for society. While it is true, folks do not care in UUism about others relationships, there is still supply and demand. In ploygamy, you end up with a shortage of available partners. Imagine a world where the Admiral has 10 wives, the captains have 5, and maybe LTs. have 1. Quickly, you could end up with half of the population  single with no prospects! In past societies, you called these people slaves. Now, I hear you when you say that morals would be different. But still, even 300 years from now, human children still would require parents and folks responsible for raising them. Now, strong gay rights futurists would say which ever gender that is left behind in the minority would just turn gay is being ludicrous. Folks do not "turn" gay, they or either that way or not. It would still remain only 10 to 15 percent of society even 200 years in the future.

There IS one caveat to your polygamy/free love that could change my view above: Star Trek increased tech. In TOS, no. But, if you are talking Voyager on where you have sentient machines and holograms that have and can enter relationships just as humans and there is no social stigma with "not being cool enough to date a fellow human", that could change things. You could just manufacture folks to fill emotional/sexual needs.

[Doc Nebula]

Oh, holodecks would destroy society if they were as freely available as they seem to be in STAR TREK.  Few would have the strength of character to deal with the problems of the real world and real people if they could live in a programmed fantasy land all the time.

[Green1]

Oh, holodecks would destroy society if they were as freely available as they seem to be in STAR TREK.  Few would have the strength of character to deal with the problems of the real world and real people if they could live in a programmed fantasy land all the time.

depends. Remember, Star Trek is a UU work. In UU society, everyone is valuable and every one has a voice. It is a totally different society than today where one person is "better" than another. You do not have landlords or employers. Many soul draining, monotonous tasks are non existent. If you were depressed, a hypospray could get you undepressed. If you are sociopathic, like many CEOs are, they cure you. People do not treat others like they do in the real world in a perfect UU society.

Now, Holodeck time is something they limit in TNG/DS9/VOY era. You had it, but it was like a novel or a practice room. You still had to actually go to a place because at that tech level, it required too many resources and energy to be in everyone's house. Think the arcades of the 1970s-80s versus the XBOX. Just like folks addicted to MMOs, you do remember you still, even in a "perfect UU society" like Trek one guy who did have holodeck addiction.

My thing I wanted to see is the advancing tech past VOY. At the end of Voyager, from the defeat of the Borg, new borg tech, and HUGE advances in holograms and AIs the Federation would be going to REALLY interesting levels. Now, the holodeck walks amongst humans. It has feelings, an AI indistinguishable from any other sentient being, a real "person". Think of the stories! Much better than a JJ Abrahms reboot. I want to know what happens after VOY.

Far more cerebral than a "action" film recasting kirk. Better, too.

[Buster's Uncle]

Wasn't it the Dilbert guy who observed that the holodeck would be humanity's LAST invention?

[Doc Nebula]

Limiting holodeck access on board starships makes sense... everybody has a job to do, they can't spend all their time boinking holographic Troi and holographic Yar.  If they do, the ship won't function.

And if you want to presume that holodecks require so much energy that individuals on Earth, where nobody seems to need to work if they don't want to, can't have one in their closet... well, sure.  Make that assumption, that holodeck access must be rationed, and you can build a society around it.

But I find those presumptions doubtful.  The Federation's society is predicated on infinite free energy; otherwise, nothing that they do can possibly work.  The energy that would be involved in one use of one transporter is simply mind staggering. 

So they may well be limiting access to holodcks.... but if so, it's a conscious limitation imposed by an authoritarian regime on the citizenry.   I can't see how it would be necessary.  Not if they can do the other stuff they do, casually, constantly.

[Buster's Uncle]

On that note, I have a theory about artificial gravity and warp drive in that universe...