Star Trek Turns 60 (abcnews.com) 206
"Star Trek" marks its 60th anniversary today, September 8, six decades after the original series premiered in 1966 and went on to become one of the most successful science-fiction franchises in television history. Outlets across the web are commemorating the milestone with full health reports, hot takes, behind-the-scenes retrospectives, and reflections on the franchise's influence and what may lie ahead. The New York Times reports: As of 2026, the 60-year-old science fiction franchise boasts a fandom of carbon units -- sorry, humans -- that spans at least three generations. What began, in 1966, as a five-year space mission on the U.S.S. Enterprise to "boldly go where no man has gone before" now represents an anthology of space travel across more than 25 series and films in parts of two centuries. Where once it was James T. Kirk or bust, it's not unusual to find fans who prefer other captains, like Picard, Janeway or Sisko. There are so many series to keep track of that fans often communicate using country code-like abbreviations for each installment: TOS (the original series), TNG ("The Next Generation"), DS9 ("Deep Space Nine"), ENT ("Enterprise") and so on.
Outside the Trekiverse, disparities in generational slang, politics and social mores are practically a foregone conclusion. But "Star Trek" functions as connective tissue between fans past and present. Some of that tissue is just shared references: There will always be captain's logs, timelines by stardate, warp factors one through 10, phasers and photon torpedoes and, every now and then, a doctor who insists, "I'm a doctor, not a ____!" The Vulcan salute has become a general symbol of geek-recognize-geek, but real Trekkies (or Trekkers, as some prefer) know that "Live long and prosper" is only half the message; the recipient is meant to say "Peace and long life" in response. But the series' staying power, and the ease with which each generation finds its way into them, is an indication that fans of all ages share not only language, but values, in common. Here are some of our favorite Slashdot stories from the early days. The 2004 "Should Star Trek Die?" is an especially good callback today because it features LeVar Burton (Geordi La Forge in Star Trek: The Next Generation) arguing that Trek needs to disappear for several years to become special again...
Star Trek Lawsuit (1998)
Salon Writes on The Troubles with "Trek" (1999)
Star Trek's Next Series (2001)
Should Star Trek Die? (2004)
UPN Officially Cancels 'Star Trek: Enterprise' (2005)
Outside the Trekiverse, disparities in generational slang, politics and social mores are practically a foregone conclusion. But "Star Trek" functions as connective tissue between fans past and present. Some of that tissue is just shared references: There will always be captain's logs, timelines by stardate, warp factors one through 10, phasers and photon torpedoes and, every now and then, a doctor who insists, "I'm a doctor, not a ____!" The Vulcan salute has become a general symbol of geek-recognize-geek, but real Trekkies (or Trekkers, as some prefer) know that "Live long and prosper" is only half the message; the recipient is meant to say "Peace and long life" in response. But the series' staying power, and the ease with which each generation finds its way into them, is an indication that fans of all ages share not only language, but values, in common. Here are some of our favorite Slashdot stories from the early days. The 2004 "Should Star Trek Die?" is an especially good callback today because it features LeVar Burton (Geordi La Forge in Star Trek: The Next Generation) arguing that Trek needs to disappear for several years to become special again...
Star Trek Lawsuit (1998)
Salon Writes on The Troubles with "Trek" (1999)
Star Trek's Next Series (2001)
Should Star Trek Die? (2004)
UPN Officially Cancels 'Star Trek: Enterprise' (2005)
I remember watching the first one (Score:2)
...on the first night it was shown
I knew nothing about it, it was totally new.
I only had one question
Why wasn't Spock captain?
Kirk seemed inferior.
Re:I remember watching the first one (Score:4, Insightful)
Why wasn't Spock captain? Kirk seemed inferior.
Because, as the show repeatedly shows. Being a successful captain is not about being physically stronger or doing more advanced math in your head. That out-of-the-box thinking often is superior to pure logic. And spock was a more junior officer that needed more time to develop command potential.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, Spock was more content in a scientific-advisory role than a purely command-centered role. That changed (somewhat) as his career in Star Fleet progressed.
Ironically I was quite a trekkie until this year (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Ironically I was quite a trekkie until this ye (Score:2)
Re:Ironically I was quite a trekkie until this yea (Score:5, Insightful)
Buddy...when the original Star Trek ran, it was a different world, especially in the case of what was allowed on television. The bedrooms of married couples showed twin beds. The first interracial kiss in US television history occurred on Star Trek, and that episode was banned across much of the South. Women were not considered worthy of positions of authority, especially if it included having authority over men. It was literally a different world. Until the advent of Star Trek, "science fiction" on television consisted of simple-minded fantasy series like Lost In Space, Time Tunnel, Land of the Giants, etc. Tropes such as faster-than-light travel and interstellar conflict, which Babylon 5 relied upon, barely existed before Star Trek. Even sub-plots that carried on for whole seasons were rare. Episodes were expected to stand alone.
Let me put it this way: The original Star Trek swam in very different waters than Babylon 5, and it changed the rules in ways that allowed Babylon 5 to be what it was (which was excellent, by the way).
Re: (Score:2)
Look, I agree on the politics of TOS being plenty woke. TOS was causing outrages regularly. Sadly, I also find TOS borderline unwatchable as television these days; to my mind, TNG is the first era of startrek vaguely watchable in completeness and having an okay time as far as acting, pacing and storytelling goes. But also, by late TNG, it feels like it already really lags behind the progress of the times, compared to TOS.
I've watched https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] a few days ago, sober, and it was one of
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Buddy...when the original Star Trek ran that allowed Babylon 5 to be what it was (which was excellent, by the way).
I'll see your TOS and B5 and raise you Blake's 7 - which also created the long story arc to tackle ideas like a powerfully dystopian society.
Which ironically fit's into Star Trek Cannon so perfectly it should be a part of star trek, or star trek should be part of Blake's 7.
Re: (Score:3)
I was restricting my comment to the North American market, which was as I described. I agree 100% about Blake's 7. British television was far in advance of what we had over here. All in the Family and Sanford & Son, for example, were less edgy adaptations of English TV comedies.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact women in command was so out there that the studio demanded the can the character of Number One and make a man the second in command.
Re: (Score:3)
That was certainly true of the TNG era, with the exception of DS9. TOS didn't always get it right, but it at least tried to take a woke stance and preach it to the audience when it could. TNG rolled that back a lot.
Now the new shows get attacked for being too woke again, but they really aren't pushing it that much. Some viewers just want comfortable confirmation of what they consider to be their own progressive views, which is what TNG did. That and some young women in catsuits.
Re: (Score:3)
So many of the plotlines are just neoliberal both-side bullshit refusing to take an actual moral stance on anything.
To be fair, Babylon 5 did that once in a while too. JMS said that his job wasn't to answer questions, it was to start bar fights. Believers is the prime example, though it's probably one of the least liked episodes of the entire show.
It's dead, Jim. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes things have had their run, and their death is ugly and uncomfortable. Remember the good times, try to forget the bad, but above all, let them rest in peace.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a lot of life left in Trek. Prodigy could easily have done another season, and seemed to be setting up for one before it was cancelled. SNW seems to have plenty of steam left, and Academy apparently had plans for more. Discovery was looking towards 7 seasons as well, and despite budget issues was putting in some good seasons at the end.
There is plenty more to explore there, especially on Prodigy.
Re: (Score:3)
You really should watch Strange New Worlds. It's the best of any of the new series and the show doesn't take itself too seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only watch the last season of Picard. It's mostly fan service but seeing the old crew together was nice.
written by ai (Score:2)
How delightful that the celebratory article was written by ai.
A garbage heap (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
SNW was great the first two seasons. Third, which we're only partway through, just hit "this is garbage; the plot makes *zero* sense" (the one with zombies).
Re: (Score:2)
Too many silly episodes this season. Except for the one very reminiscent of Event Horizon.
Huh? "One of the most"? (Score:3)
"...went on to become one of the most successful science-fiction franchises in television history"
After 60 years, what are the other science-fiction television franchises that are even in the running?
Dr. Who and...?
Re:After Going To The Woke Galaxy (Score:5, Insightful)
When was Star Trek ever not woke? IMHO it has had a progressive slant ever since TOS.
1960s 'woke' was not 2020s 'woke' (Score:3, Insightful)
When was Star Trek ever not woke? IMHO it has had a progressive slant ever since TOS.
1960s 'woke' addressed real issues. 2020s 'woke' was mostly "crazy" to quote Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Re:1960s 'woke' was not 2020s 'woke' (Score:5, Informative)
Re: 1960s 'woke' was not 2020s 'woke' (Score:5, Insightful)
Being anti-woke now means being opposed to using race or sex in college admissions or hiring.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Sometimes a doctor has to re-break a bone in order to make it heal properly. DEI is kind of like that. Both appear to be counterintuitive if you focus only on the initial action, rather than the outcome (which in the case of DEI, is to address systemic racial inequalities).
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Sometimes a doctor has to re-break a bone in order to make it heal properly. DEI is kind of like that. Both appear to be counterintuitive if you focus only on the initial action, rather than the outcome (which in the case of DEI, is to address systemic racial inequalities).
Wrong. A DEI/quota based system does not address systemic racial inequities. It substitutes one form of racial bigotry for another, as we saw with Harvard discriminating against Asians.
Systemic inequity is addressed by fixing those specific issues. Like banning red lining. Like leaving some schools underperforming. Etc. That is the path to equal opportunity, not DEI./quotas.
Re: (Score:2)
If fixing the root causes of systemic inequalities was so easy, we wouldn't have people still complaining today that there's minorities starring in their entertainment programs.
DEI isn't ideal, but you'd probably like the actions necessary to truly rectify systemic inequalities even less.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with fixing specific issues of discrimination is that at best it takes a very long time (multiple generations) to work, and it can't fix a lot of things.
Some Black parents may face no discrimination, but unlike the white parents on the other side of town they didn't inherit wealth, they didn't get a good education. You mention redlining, that practice put very large amounts of wealth into white households, which was passed down through inheritance. Black households were excluded and that has a l
Re: 1960s 'woke' was not 2020s 'woke' (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Disagree, personal experiences aside, you just have to open the catalog of some legal group that persues dicriminatory cases to see how often they occur. We shouldn't deny our massive anti-discrimination accomplishments of the last 50 years by being blind to new incidents.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Or are facts not a part of your summation that systemic race inequality doesnt exist?
Re: 1960s 'woke' was not 2020s 'woke' (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is there are no more "systemic racial inequalities."
How do you know this? Did you do research on the subject? Could you show that research?
Or is your knowledge of this fact basically "I personally don't see or experience systemic racial inequalities, therefore, it doesn't exist."
Re: (Score:2)
How to say you only watch Faux Noise without saying it.
Almost all schools in neighborhoods that are primarily black or hispanic are in worse condition, have worse results than schools in better-off neighborhoods (which are overwhelmingly white). The entire regime right now has forced blacks and women out of the upper military.
But sure, there's no more inequality./s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So surprise, surprise: Sexist, racist "DEI hires" were sexist, racist DEI hires and sexist, racist "DEI college admissions" were sexist, racist DEI college admissions.
https://buildremote.co/companies/universities-cutting-dei/
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
The current administration is made up of nearly all DEI hires. None of them were hired based on merit. We can go down the list if you'd like.
Re: 1960s 'woke' was not 2020s 'woke' (Score:4, Funny)
Being woke
Being trapped in a binary star system while telepathic beings project their requests for hydrogen so they too can escape isn't woke. It's interference with the brainwave modes required for sleep.
Being awake all the time is bad sometimes you need to be asleep so you don't go mad.
Even AOC acknowledges 2020 woke 'crazy' (Score:2)
What do you think people opposed to changes in the 1960s sounded like? They were identical to today's anti-woke.
Wrong. Again, even far left Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) publicly admits 2020s woke went to a "crazy" level. Her word, "crazy".
1960s 'woke' was basically Martin Luther King and the Civl Rights movement of the tine where the idea was not to judge people on their race, gender, or religion; but rather to judge them on their actions. 2020s 'woke' replaces such equality with equity, a merit based system with a DEI (quota) based system, open debate with shouting down and/or silencing opposition, etc. And tha
Re: (Score:2)
MLK jr knew how to make a speech. He sought forgiveness, integration, and mutual understanding, framing racial injustice as a moral failing that could be overcome together.
Modern-day identity "woke" politics is doing the opposite: pushing peopel apart by emphasising differences, moral righteousness, tribal suspicions, and ideological conflict.
King succeeded by advocating fairness and liberty. - ideals common to all.
Now activism often relies on call-out culture, tribal outrage, and ideological enforcement,
Re: (Score:2)
You're admitting that the country hasn't changed and is still racist as ever. I agree.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Modern-day identity "woke" politics is doing the opposite: pushing peopel apart by emphasising differences, moral righteousness, tribal suspicions, and ideological conflict.
More accurate, the right-wing accuses "woke" politics of pushing people apart by emphasizing differences, etc. Actual left-wing politics does not in fact do that. It emphasizes accepting people for what they are.
But it does also embrace things like not erasing the uncomfortable parts of history to make American look better than it was. The right wing thinks that allowing any mention of lynching or Jim Crow laws or internment camps in their American history class is "pushing people apart".
Re: (Score:2)
Modern-day identity "woke" politics is doing the opposite: pushing peopel apart by emphasising differences, moral righteousness, tribal suspicions, and ideological conflict.
More accurate, the right-wing accuses "woke" politics of pushing people apart by emphasizing differences, etc. Actual left-wing politics does not in fact do that. It emphasizes accepting people for what they are.
Which left? mainstream centre-left or woke identity-politics far-left?
But it does also embrace things like not erasing the uncomfortable parts of history to make American look better than it was. The right wing thinks that allowing any mention of lynching or Jim Crow laws or internment camps in their American history class is "pushing people apart".
Thats good, we need to honestly acknowledge the past. And the present - how does your part of politics deal with the "uncomfortable parts" of diversity? ie group differences. Does it persist in a oppressor/victim dichotomy narrative to explain all differences in outcomes?
Re: (Score:3)
What do you think people opposed to changes in the 1960s sounded like?
Ugly bags of mostly water.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:1960s 'woke' was not 2020s 'woke' (Score:5, Informative)
TOS was woke for the time, but TNG was relatively conservative. By the late 80s most of what TOS was pitching wasn't particularly woke anymore, it was fairly mainstream to consider racism to be morally wrong, or women to be as capable in command as men.
When TNG did try to do something a bit more woke, it tended to fall flat. The Outcast, the episode with non-binary aliens where one of them realizes she is a woman, is the standard example. It ends with her getting conversion therapy and Riker is upset but doesn't really do anything to help the victim of what today we consider to be a form of torture and a human rights violation.
The modern shows have been called "crazy" because they have gay and non-binary characters, and a transgender man playing one guest role. A friend told me he thought that stuff shouldn't be on a "kid's show", while noting that his exposure to TOS as a kid made him understand how racism and sexism were wrong. I pointed out that this "kid's show" had gore and death from the start, and it's interesting how being non-binary is apparently unsuitable for children, but a skin-tight catsuit is completely fine.
The new shows don't even preach like TOS did, they just show those things existing. The only reason people think they are too woke is because their own ideas are in line with TOS and TNG, but Trek and much of society in general has now moved past them.
Re: (Score:2)
The modern shows The only reason people think they are too woke is because their own ideas are in line with TOS and TNG, but Trek and much of society in general has now moved past them.
Most people don't read hard sci fi where sexuality is an also ran to much bigger ideas. Discovery made it about sexuality in an in your face way which kind of obliterated some of the really good sci-fi that was in it. SNW seems to have left that behind which is in line with what you're saying probably because it's boring and slightly annoying.
Re: (Score:2)
Star Trek is no hard sci-fi. Most of the science in it is either hand wavy "Heisenberg Compensators" type stuff, or entirely made up like subspace.
I don't know what you mean about making it "about sexuality" and "in your face". There was a gay couple seen on screen, talking in bed, and a character who decides they are non binary. That doesn't strike me as "in your face", although I suppose if you considered having a Black woman on the bridge to be "in your face" back in the 60s then maybe it is. It's 2026,
Re: (Score:2)
Star Trek is no hard sci-fi.
For sure. BTW - I've never seen someone type with a Scottish accent.
It's 2026, surely gay people on TV doing normal family stuff isn't controversial now?
Not at all, more that when sexuality is used as an instrument in hard sci fi, for example in Greg Bear's "Anvil of Stars" it's used in such a way that makes Discovery look tame. Otherwise it's simply irrelevant.
Re: (Score:3)
But you can't give a specific example?
Re: (Score:3)
1960s "woke" was a word which was only used in black culture. I think it meant something along the lines of watching out for people who profess to support black liberation but are actually working to undermine it, but I'm not a black person so I may be a little bit off there. 2020s 'woke' is a word which has been thoroughly misappropriated from them, as part of a campaign which has amongst its goals, putting those uppity black people back in their proper place i.e. not on television.
If you see a show which
Re: (Score:2)
When was Star Trek ever not woke? IMHO it has had a progressive slant ever since TOS.
You can be progressive without "wokeness", even dealing with present day identity, race, sex politics. ... No saints, no villains without possible redemption. .. Ok, aside from Vee .
Check out "Orange is the New Black" - deals with American marginalised minorities, but zero heavy-handed preaching.
Lesbians, trans-gender, every race, inter-racial adoption, neurodiversity, religion , rednecks,
Maybe OG Star Trek was a bit "woke", but TV was so often moralistic back then that it didn't stand out. And it was a b
Re: (Score:2)
Check out "Orange is the New Black"
Isn't that the show with Captain Janeway in it?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That probably depends on your definition of "woke"
Yes, it was always addressing controversial subjects, was progressive and diverse and inclusive. From a black woman on bridge to low-gravity wheelchair-Arielle in DS9. If that was "woke", it was an inspired wokeness that the viewer had to grapple with, challenge his own prejudices.(*)
What happend to that? Today's "wokeness" feels like a producer mandated LHGBT-Quota, a checkbox to fill during casting, or a right-in-your-face lecture. Again, not because anyon
Re: (Score:2)
That probably depends on your definition of "woke"
It's what happens when you stop sleeping.
Re: After Going To The Woke Galaxy (Score:2)
There's nothing quite as woke as forcibly kissing a woman and then blasting her in the face with your fist.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What is the opposite of "woke"?
Not giving a shit about people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It means you're against having a pack of arrogant, affluent white liberals calling you racist so they can feel like they're saving people who don't need their patronizing "help".
Possibly better than having a pack of arrogant, affluent white billionaire calling themselves anti-woke so they can spend billions supporting right-wing candidates so they can feel like they're on the right side of history by not helping people who do need help.
Re: (Score:2)
The opposite of woke is "opposed to favoring one group over another solely because of their sex, race, sexual preferences ...
This [x.com] seems an awful lot like favoring heterosexual couples for adoption.
Also, "sexual preferences" is an incorrect term, which I will gladly demonstrate by asking: When was it that you decided to be heterosexual?
Re: (Score:2)
Also, "sexual preferences" is an incorrect term, which I will gladly demonstrate by asking: When was it that you decided to be heterosexual?
While 'sexual orientation' is usually the preferred term, that argument is not up to your usual detail-oriented posting.
A preference is an internal orientation or predisposition. A choice is the external action taken based on those orientations.
Our preferences determine (in part) our choices.
Does anyone choose to be gay? or male? Or good or greedy? Can I choose to believe in free will?
I can choose what to do, but not necessarily what to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Preference doesn't necessarily imply a decision. I never decided to be a straight guy, but sexually, I still prefer women.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree... White heterosexual men have it so bad
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some people do well by their own efforts, not because they got a job because of their genitalia.
I have to say, from years spent working, I've seen a lot of do-nothing white men who have risen into management ranks based on, as far as I can tell, nothing other than the fact that they looked good in a suit. And their skin was white.
But this is so commonplace that nobody even notices it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google "trans suicide rates" to find out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why do republicans think about trans people so much?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, America and the rest of humanity have a past of racism. We had slaves. Then we fought the most brutal and bloody war in our history to purge that sin.
Now, "woke" just preserves racism instead of letting it die. It's a conceit for dissafected upper class youths and used to manipulate them. It cannot
What is woke? [Re: After Going To The Woke Galaxy] (Score:2)
No, woke is bigoted. Calling people racist because they belong to some ethnic or national group is bigotry.
This is a right-wing stereotype of what woke people do. It is a stereotype, not a reality.
Making negaitve assumptions about people on the basis of what the dead did is bigoted.
This is a right-wing stereotype of what woke people do. It is a stereotype, not a reality.
Yeah, America and the rest of humanity have a past of racism. We had slaves. Then we fought the most brutal and bloody war in our history to purge that sin.
But now the right-wing wants to erase that from our history books, because they are afraid it will make white people feel bad. Telling students about real history is "woke".
Re:After Going To The Woke Galaxy (Score:5, Informative)
Right, whites and blacks kissing on TV! Heavy handed messages about race - like, one race is white on the left half, the other race is white on the right half, and they think it's so important! Women as bridge officers, Jews actors playing the biggest roles, constant anti-war themes, capitalism depicted as a primitive relic of Earth's past...the list goes on. Just disgusting.
Re: (Score:2)
Heavy handed messages about race - like, one race is white on the left half, the other race is white on the right half,
Actually, that particular episode, "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield", was cringingly preachy, especially Kirk's sermon.
Most of Star Trek was better.
Re: (Score:2)
capitalism depicted as a primitive relic of Earth's past...
That was the part that always broke my suspension of disbelief. There's always going to be something somebody wants simply because somebody else has it, and if that something happens to be a prime piece of California real estate - you're not getting that out of a replicator.
At least by DS9 they kind of started retconning the idea that sometimes "money" is still necessary.
Re: (Score:3)
Star Trek has always been a socialist utopia. Money is no longer needed because technology has taken care of everyone's needs. The federation is all about inclusivity and embracing differences between species. Pretty woke stuff if you ask me.
Re: After Going To The Woke Galaxy (Score:2)
Re:After Going To The Woke Galaxy (Score:4, Insightful)
The entire symbiont concept in DS9 was a very thinly veiled metaphor for transgenderism. There even was an episode where Dax falls in love with another woman. Trek did that a lot - they took real-world issues and made them about aliens in space, with the underlying message being, “What if we took this thing that seems strange or threatening to people and viewed it through the lens of sci-fi entertainment?"
Really, what Discovery did wrong was that they forgot to make it entertaining. Trek has always been woke.
Re: (Score:2)
I still think that, for all its flaws, Discovery is a good show. Season 1 is a real roller coaster ride, and I enjoyed it a lot.
When evaluating Trek I think you need to remember that most of it has had its ups and downs. TNG's first season was rough. Code of Honour is outright racist. Later, Galaxy's Child makes Geordi out to be a real creep. TNG and Voyager had no idea what to do with many of the women in their shows, leading to them either leaving or in Troi's case almost every major plot being that she g
Re: (Score:2)
Discovery's biggest problem was that it felt like the writers initially assumed the fan base was going to love their reimagining of the Trek canon, and then when the fans revolted the writers went into full-on damage control mode. It seemed like most of their creative energy subsequently went into trying to outsmart the internet peanut gallery rather than just writing a good story.
Now, I'm not sure if it would've been better had the writers ignored the angry tweets and Reddit rants, but we'd probably have
Re: (Score:2)
What re-imagining of canon? It fit within the existing canon.
Okay, Burnham being Spock's sister had never been mentioned before, but neither had his brother until TOS did it in a STV. Beyond that it's all stuff that has been established before. Even stuff like the Spore Drive fits, e.g. with TNG and The Pegasus having that phased cloak that was buried and never mentioned again. In fact TNG is full of amazing technologies that would spark a revolution, but get buried for no apparent reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Was it?
To me it sounds like another idea how to come up with an interesting alien race without a high makeup/FX budget. Trek often did that. Introduce a flat character defined by one single trait and alien race background, and develop it from there.
I wouldn't be surprised if that metaphor was developed after the concept resonated with transgender fans. And then develop it naturally. And entertaining.
Yes, at one point Trek forgot to make it entertaining. And we need a word for that. And if we go with the "Tr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. As i wrote in another rant\b\b\b\b post in this thread, they used to be story first. (mostly) good stories that just happen to be about "woke" subjects. Now it feels like the other way
Re: (Score:2)
The entire symbiont concept in DS9 was a very thinly veiled metaphor for transgenderism. There even was an episode where Dax falls in love with another woman. Trek did that a lot - they took real-world issues and made them about aliens in space, with the underlying message being, “What if we took this thing that seems strange or threatening to people and viewed it through the lens of sci-fi entertainment?"
Really, what Discovery did wrong was that they forgot to make it entertaining. Trek has always been woke.
Yep, however I'll expand on the last point.
It's not that Trek isn't "woke" (or whatever word bigots use for "something I don't like" in the future) it's that Discovery tried to draw too much attention to it. Trek was always about presenting a world where being different or having a disability didn't matter, not that it didn't exist. TOS was aired in the 1960s where some states still acted like Jim Crow was the law, there was a black woman on the bridge of a military starship, out ranking two of the male
Re: (Score:2)
TNG had men in skants. DS9 was the first Black lead. Voyager was the first woman as captain of the hero ship.
In comparison Discovery didn't really do anything. There was a gay couple, but them being gay was never made an issue of, or showcased.
Re: (Score:2)
Bro, the word "woke" has been misused so badly that I feel an aversion to you using that word in relation to Star Trek.
To me, Star Trek removed all of the bullshit human reactions and worked directly with raw reality. An example: Two people kissed and it was a HUGE deal to a lot of people back then. Why? I was not sure as a child why. It was a boy and a girl kissing. Who cares? Wait what? The skin color of the woman mattered? Why? Why didn't the skin color of the man matter?
To me, it was just two people ki
Why does it have to be political (Score:3, Insightful)
And what's with the DEI casting?
A black comms officer, Asian helm officer, and very Russian foreigner as a navigator? Seems totally unnecessary when there are so many American actors that would have loved a job.
And why is punk rock suddenly so political? I don't get it!
*shakes fist at clouds* (but careful not to make a leftist or Black power gesture)
P.S. how does it feel to have your mind trapped in a sociopolitical cage of your own making? Does it make you feel smart, superior, or happy? I sure hope it doe
Re:Why does it have to be political (Score:5, Interesting)
The ironic thing is, you can dig through old Usenet archives from the DS9 era and read people whining about how Sisko was black. This really isn't a new thing, and the writers even went meta about it with the "Far Beyond the Stars" episode.
Re: (Score:2)
And TNG's head of security being a puny woman, when there was a Klingon *right there*! In the end they treated the actor so badly that she left in the first season anyway, so Worf got a promotion to that role.
He was mostly terrible at it too. It's become a bit of a joke that Worf must have had a cold that day, because often the writers have that week's big bad beat him up just to demonstrate the threat to everyone else. He was the Red Shirt of his day, only he was such a wuss that even Ferengi kicked his ar
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Me fucking me. Can't anyone here talk about Star Trek without mentioning the W word?
"Humans do have an amazing capacity for believing what they choose and excluding that which is painful." -- Spock
Re:Fact check error. (Score:4)
"Where once it was James T. Kirk or bust, it's not unusual to find fans who prefer other captains, like Picard, Janeway or Sisko"
Untrue. I have never encountered a human that prefers Sisko.
*Waves*
Not that I think he was the superior captain, but his character was richer than most. Kirk was well-intentioned, but a bit of a lucky bumbler. Picard was almost too perfect, except for the rare episode where he went bumpkin playing to try to humanize him, but you could tell they were *TRYING* to humanize him, and it didn't always take. Janeway was a bit flawed, but the flaws didn't always seem to line up in consistent ways. Her show had a lot of odd flux in it that made watching episodes incongruently feel really weird, and TV was terrible on re-runs about showing them out of order. Sisko had depths, and we got to see a lot of those depths. I think my favorite episode in all of Trek was the one where he wrote a story and his mind was breaking into believing the story was reality one moment, and just a story the next. "I created it, and it's real" still rings in my head during his breakdown.
I'll pay tribute to the others, and wouldn't turn away from any of the older Trek shows, but DS9 juts hits me in a different way.
1966 was a big year for TV. Trek & Adam West Batman both. That's some lasting youth impressing stuff there.