A key figure behind Star Trek's classic era has likened the shortened seasons of modern TV to the equivalent of a Tinder relationship, and said he hoped the sci-fi franchise would return to 22-episode seasons.
I never said trek didn’t have any drama, only that modern star trek is nothing but egocentric soap opera, and pays lip service to the science and engineering part of the science fiction.
Previous trek iterations included both object science stories and subjective egoism in a very different ratio. How TNG, tos, voyager or Enterprise dealt with technology and exploration challenges is worlds apart from discovery, or even strange new worlds. The amount of screen time each show devotes to character development and the amount it focuses on the objective challenges of the world is very different. There is a clear direction to make politics, personal drama and interpersonal conflict both more dramatic and the center of the storylines in the modern star trek catalogue. These shows no longer being mostly episodic stories but season long, prolonged character development vehicles, is also part of the subjective egoism that now dominates the franchise. It’s almost all about character journeys, relationship conflicts and political posturing. The object oriented stories of science, engineering, exploration, discovery, philosophy or even technologies as a setting for character stories is largely absent now. It’s more reality tv show drama and less exploration and adventure, and even when they do have those object focused stories, they have little meaningful impact on the story or the audience.
pays lip service to the science and engineering part of the science fiction.
Star Trek has never been a properly science heavy franchise. You don’t get The Expanse style of gritty space survivalism (pilots dealing with g-force strain, Spacers having to mine their water reserves, politicians negotiating across an 8 minute transmission delay between Earth and Mars). Every common engineering problem is solved with tech so futuristic it might as well be magic, while the serious problems are more ethical or philosophical (can we morally turn off a sentient computer? should we give these primitive people access to our warp drive technology? how do we negotiate with Space Wizards?)
The object oriented stories of science, engineering, exploration, discovery, philosophy or even technologies as a setting for character stories is largely absent now.
They never really existed in the Rodenberry universe. He was far more interested in the politics and the social consequences of interstellar travel than the nuts and bolts of getting around space.
When it came to practical applications, even Heinlein and Asimov (themselves chronic abusers of the SciFi tech hand wave) did a better job in books like The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Foundation.
they have little meaningful impact on the story or the audience.
Early Trek was really bad about continuity, generally speaking. It wasn’t until late TNG and DS9 that you got real multi-episode arcs.
Later Trek was - if anything - too worried about continuity. They had to try and explain everything within the context of prior series, rather than just telling some interesting stories of a deep space exploration vessel chartered out of Earth.
You’re just bouncing to extremes to argue against things I didn’t argue for. The current star trek is less space exploration adventure with science and tech and more melodrama with interpersonal conflict than it has been, overall. That’s my observations and I’m not interested in trying to convince you if you’d prefer to be wrong.
The current star trek is less space exploration adventure with science and tech and more melodrama with interpersonal conflict than it has been, overall.
Go back to the original first episode of Star Trek, “The Cage” and tell me that’s not a melodrama with interpersonal conflict.
I never said trek didn’t have any drama, only that modern star trek is nothing but egocentric soap opera, and pays lip service to the science and engineering part of the science fiction.
Previous trek iterations included both object science stories and subjective egoism in a very different ratio. How TNG, tos, voyager or Enterprise dealt with technology and exploration challenges is worlds apart from discovery, or even strange new worlds. The amount of screen time each show devotes to character development and the amount it focuses on the objective challenges of the world is very different. There is a clear direction to make politics, personal drama and interpersonal conflict both more dramatic and the center of the storylines in the modern star trek catalogue. These shows no longer being mostly episodic stories but season long, prolonged character development vehicles, is also part of the subjective egoism that now dominates the franchise. It’s almost all about character journeys, relationship conflicts and political posturing. The object oriented stories of science, engineering, exploration, discovery, philosophy or even technologies as a setting for character stories is largely absent now. It’s more reality tv show drama and less exploration and adventure, and even when they do have those object focused stories, they have little meaningful impact on the story or the audience.
Star Trek has never been a properly science heavy franchise. You don’t get The Expanse style of gritty space survivalism (pilots dealing with g-force strain, Spacers having to mine their water reserves, politicians negotiating across an 8 minute transmission delay between Earth and Mars). Every common engineering problem is solved with tech so futuristic it might as well be magic, while the serious problems are more ethical or philosophical (can we morally turn off a sentient computer? should we give these primitive people access to our warp drive technology? how do we negotiate with Space Wizards?)
They never really existed in the Rodenberry universe. He was far more interested in the politics and the social consequences of interstellar travel than the nuts and bolts of getting around space.
When it came to practical applications, even Heinlein and Asimov (themselves chronic abusers of the SciFi tech hand wave) did a better job in books like The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Foundation.
Early Trek was really bad about continuity, generally speaking. It wasn’t until late TNG and DS9 that you got real multi-episode arcs.
Later Trek was - if anything - too worried about continuity. They had to try and explain everything within the context of prior series, rather than just telling some interesting stories of a deep space exploration vessel chartered out of Earth.
You’re just bouncing to extremes to argue against things I didn’t argue for. The current star trek is less space exploration adventure with science and tech and more melodrama with interpersonal conflict than it has been, overall. That’s my observations and I’m not interested in trying to convince you if you’d prefer to be wrong.
Go back to the original first episode of Star Trek, “The Cage” and tell me that’s not a melodrama with interpersonal conflict.