Why has Star Trek ruined Science Fiction?

[Wirraway]

I admit that I do not watch much modern television, as my tastes delve into the older stuff. I have seen recent films which blew me away. Even though you could argue that the central story in Avatar was borrowed from other films, at least in that movie there was a serious attempt to relate elements of humanity to teach us something about ourselves.

avatar is more derivative than most sci fi. a man called horse, little big man, dances with wolves, Pocahantas ...

 

[LaymanPreacher]

avatar is more derivative than most sci fi. a man called horse, little big man, dances with wolves, Pocahantas ...

My sentiments exactly. But at least there was an attempt to accomplish what good science fiction wants to accomplish, unlike many modern films. Even though it may be derivative, it's a start.

Again, just my opinion.

 

[Wirraway]

writers for the star trek franchise put over 700 TV episodes and 11 films, some of which necessarily was substandard, but roddenbury's vision of a humane, cooperative, racially integrated and reasonably peaceful society was set during the cold war and civil rights movement. so, as futurism, it was pretty good.

 

[LaymanPreacher]

writers for the star trek franchise put over 700 TV episodes and 11 films, some of which necessarily was substandard, but roddenbury's vision of a humane, cooperative, racially integrated and reasonably peaceful society was set during the cold war and civil rights movement. so, as futurism, it was pretty good.

Well surely from the beginning there was a good idea, as in with much of the multi-media work being done at this point. I mean, Stan Lee created The X-Men to talk about anti-semitism and make a metaphor regarding the Holocaust. However, much like with The X-Men and other likened comic book stories, as it became more popular and financially solvent, the quality went down. I guess my whole problem is one of a thing being too populr for its own good.

 

[Isambard]

Well surely from the beginning there was a good idea, as in with much of the multi-media work being done at this point. I mean, Stan Lee created The X-Men to talk about anti-semitism and make a metaphor regarding the Holocaust. However, much like with The X-Men and other likened comic book stories, as it became more popular and financially solvent, the quality went down. I guess my whole problem is one of a thing being too populr for its own good.

I think that has more to do with the seemingly inevitable from original story-telling to shameless fan-serving self-reference most long running franchises tend to go through.

You're example of Star Trek (contrasting earlier series to newer ones + movies) is a good example of this, as is Star Wars.

 

[Wirraway]

I think that has more to do with the seemingly inevitable from original story-telling to shameless fan-serving self-reference most long running franchises tend to go through.

You're example of Star Trek (contrasting earlier series to newer ones + movies) is a good example of this, as is Star Wars.

but that's inevitable as the franchise moves from a sci fi audience to a broader base.

star wars is a great example.

did you know that lucas has recently hinted about a third trilogy?

 

[LaymanPreacher]

I think that has more to do with the seemingly inevitable from original story-telling to shameless fan-serving self-reference most long running franchises tend to go through.

You're example of Star Trek (contrasting earlier series to newer ones + movies) is a good example of this, as is Star Wars.

I just think we have gone a long way from the days of classic Bradbury, Ellison, and Vonnegut. And in some ways, for the worse.

 

[LaymanPreacher]

but that's inevitable as the franchise moves from a sci fi audience to a broader base.

star wars is a great example.

did you know that lucas has recently hinted about a third trilogy?

Actually the anecdote that I heard was that he had a total of nine stories/scripts to work with, produced six of them, and has a remainder of three that he has said will never see a camera crew and cast as long as he lives. I have no clue how true this is or not, but after the last three they made, I grew sick with it. And that animated Clone Wars series? Give me a break here!

 

[Wirraway]

Actually the anecdote that I heard was that he had a total of nine stories/scripts to work with, produced six of them, and has a remainder of three that he has said will never see a camera crew and cast as long as he lives. I have no clue how true this is or not, but after the last three they made, I grew sick with it. And that animated Clone Wars series? Give me a break here!

a third trilogy was reported last week on several sites. here's one and here's another we're looking at 5 or 6 years downstream.

 

[LaymanPreacher]

a third trilogy was reported last week on several sites. here's one and here's another we're looking at 5 or 6 years downstream.

Well, I'm not sure whether or not I want to watch them. The first three were good, but the new ones they made were crap.

 

[Wirraway]

Well, I'm not sure whether or not I want to watch them. The first three were good, but the new ones they made were crap.

just don't let lucas direct or write the dialog.

 

[LaymanPreacher]

just don't let lucas direct or write the dialog.

Heh heh. I am not touching that one. LOL

 

[MoonlessNight]

Sure science fiction has it bad, but it's not exactly alone in this department. Here's a list of genres off the top of my head which are probably not going to win critical praise anytime soon:

Science Fiction
Fantasy
Horror
Romance
Pulp Adventure/Two Fisted Tales
Mystery, especially "Whodunnit" style mysteries
Westerns of an action vein
Religious Fiction
Military Fiction
and so on.

There are exceptions. If a work is great enough, it may be eventually recognized. Serious writers are also often allowed one into forays into forbidden areas (for instance, you can write one sci-fi novel about a future dystopia, but more than that and you are going to be called a "genre writer.")

Here's some stories that wouldn't be taken seriously, except that they are old enough that people remember them fondly anyway:

Any of the Sherlock Holmes stories.
Ditto for Hercule Poirot.
The Three Musketeers and subsequent stories (too much swordplay!)
Dracula
Frankenstein
Much of the output of Edgar Allan Poe
Treasure Island
The Iliad and the Odyssey (come on, it's just a bunch of people fighting it out and messing around with magical mythological creatures and so forth)
...and more

The world of proper literature is a bunch of pointless experiments that are only remembered because they have been deemed worthy by intellectuals. It's a world that praises Ulysses but overlooks Dune and The Lord of the Rings.

It's also a world that doesn't intersect much with the public. Treasure Island in fact isn't a book that is well liked by intellectuals, but it's not going out of print anytime soon simply because it's a good story and so people naturally want to read it. But remove the official seal of approval and Finnegan's Wake would be impossible to find within five years.

I think that the public disdain for science fiction mainly comes from lack of exposure to science fiction together with the stigma from on high. It's also weird enough that most people won't have any inclination to seek it out on their own. And many of them probably wouldn't like science fiction very much in general, even if they came to it without bias. And that's fine.

 

[LaymanPreacher]

Sure science fiction has it bad, but it's not exactly alone in this department. Here's a list of genres off the top of my head which are probably not going to win critical praise anytime soon:

Science Fiction
Fantasy
Horror
Romance
Pulp Adventure/Two Fisted Tales
Mystery, especially "Whodunnit" style mysteries
Westerns of an action vein
Religious Fiction
Military Fiction
and so on.

There are exceptions. If a work is great enough, it may be eventually recognized. Serious writers are also often allowed one into forays into forbidden areas (for instance, you can write one sci-fi novel about a future dystopia, but more than that and you are going to be called a "genre writer.")

Here's some stories that wouldn't be taken seriously, except that they are old enough that people remember them fondly anyway:

Any of the Sherlock Holmes stories.
Ditto for Hercule Poirot.
The Three Musketeers and subsequent stories (too much swordplay!)
Dracula
Frankenstein
Much of the output of Edgar Allan Poe
Treasure Island
The Iliad and the Odyssey (come on, it's just a bunch of people fighting it out and messing around with magical mythological creatures and so forth)
...and more

The world of proper literature is a bunch of pointless experiments that are only remembered because they have been deemed worthy by intellectuals. It's a world that praises Ulysses but overlooks Dune and The Lord of the Rings.

It's also a world that doesn't intersect much with the public. Treasure Island in fact isn't a book that is well liked by intellectuals, but it's not going out of print anytime soon simply because it's a good story and so people naturally want to read it. But remove the official seal of approval and Finnegan's Wake would be impossible to find within five years.

I think that the public disdain for science fiction mainly comes from lack of exposure to science fiction together with the stigma from on high. It's also weird enough that most people won't have any inclination to seek it out on their own. And many of them probably wouldn't like science fiction very much in general, even if they came to it without bias. And that's fine.

Excellent point. I do, however, disagree about Lord of the Rings. Sure, it took a while to gain an acceptance even in genre-specific circles, but once it did, it gained a reputation that has kept it taught in many schools and colleges. But otherwise, I agree with you.

 

[Gawron]

I rather like Poe's writing. The bells...THE BELLS!!

 

[LaymanPreacher]

I rather like Poe's writing. The bells...THE BELLS!!

Well, Poe lies more in the Gothic/Horror vein, rather than Science Fiction, but I see what you're saying.

 

[Cabal]

I wouldn't say Star Trek has ruined sci-fi. In any genre there's going to be a certain amount that uses the genre in a cerebral way to make a interesting point, but there are also going to be those works that just tell stories within the genre because the genre permits them to do that and they're fun.

I've known die-hard Star Wars fans who hate all further explorations of the universe beyond the original trilogy. Now, some of it I can understand, but in my experience, Star Wars is a fun universe to spend time enjoying - and actually, the expanded universe, because it is not under the direct control of Lucas and his insistence on storytelling for children, have some much darker and more interesting stories.

So often, the simple storytelling can yield more complex storytelling. It's not always the other way around.

 

[keith99]

....
Here's some stories that wouldn't be taken seriously, except that they are old enough that people remember them fondly anyway:

Any of the Sherlock Holmes stories.
Ditto for Hercule Poirot.
The Three Musketeers and subsequent stories (too much swordplay!)
Dracula
Frankenstein
Much of the output of Edgar Allan Poe
Treasure Island
The Iliad and the Odyssey (come on, it's just a bunch of people fighting it out and messing around with magical mythological creatures and so forth)
...and more

The world of proper literature is a bunch of pointless experiments that are only remembered because they have been deemed worthy by intellectuals. It's a world that praises Ulysses but overlooks Dune and The Lord of the Rings.

It's also a world that doesn't intersect much with the public. Treasure Island in fact isn't a book that is well liked by intellectuals, but it's not going out of print anytime soon simply because it's a good story and so people naturally want to read it. But remove the official seal of approval and Finnegan's Wake would be impossible to find within five years.

I think that the public disdain for science fiction mainly comes from lack of exposure to science fiction together with the stigma from on high. It's also weird enough that most people won't have any inclination to seek it out on their own. And many of them probably wouldn't like science fiction very much in general, even if they came to it without bias. And that's fine.

I disagree about both Frankenstein and The Three Musketeers. If one is thinking about the films yes of course, but the books are far different.

Frankenstein is noteworthy if just for who is telling the reader the story. The Three Musketeers is interesting in that by and large all the characters are for France first, they just disagree on what is best for France. One need only look the opening scene to see how different film is from book (In film Richelieu's men are buffons, in the book they are skilled swordsmen, one the match of any of the 3). 'Do with it as you please, but remember I give it to you' has never made it into film as far as I know. While the differences at beginning and end may be the most clear there are plenty of significance inbetween.

 

[Gracchus]

"I repeat Sturgeon’s Revelation, which was wrung out of me after twenty years of wearying defense of science fiction against attacks of people who used the worst examples of the field for ammunition, and whose conclusion was that ninety percent of SF is crud.
Using the same standards that categorize 90% of science fiction as trash, crud, or crap, it can be argued that 90% of film, literature, consumer goods, etc. are crap. In other words, the claim (or fact) that 90% of science fiction is crap is ultimately uninformative, because science fiction conforms to the same trends of quality as all other artforms." --- Theodore Sturgeon

 

[Blackmarch]

I am a big fan of good, literary science fiction. Of course I am thinking of the work of such writers as Harlan Ellison, Ray Bradbury, H.P. Lovecraft, among others. if you reach back to such writers as Jules Verne and H.G. Wells, you will begin to see that good fiction with those keys scientific elements can truly bring out a study and/or critique of humanity and its advancement. Other genres can study the human condition, but not like this.

Of course I have read cross sections of the entire history of the genre, from Verne and Wells, throughout the pulp and early digest magazines, through the "New Wave" Movement spurred by Ellison's Dangerous Visions anthology of tremendously awesome, never-before-published stories, to the work of such great authors today as L. E. Modessitte, jr. I am sure you have of isaac Asimov and Robert Jordan, but have you read any of John Jakes' early writing? this historical novelist started writing science fiction, and it was tremendous stuff, even if it wasn't as groundbreaking as his North & South trilogy.

In my reading, I have come across several authors whine about how they are not taken seriously by mainstream critics, who call them "hacks" and "near-illiterates". this pains me, because to me some of the greatest novels and stories fall under the speculative fiction category (I lump alternate history and fantasy in with this, as well as horror and dystopian literature, because they get lumped together with the negative comments anyway). Have you read "Flowers for Algernon" by Daniel Keyes? Did it make you want to cry? Can you remember anything else this man has written? I believe I have made my point. If not, look to The Hobbit. If you have a problem with that example, then apparently we will not get anywhere in our argument, because we will have no common ground to begin with.

Why is this so? May I draw your attention to the film industry? What with some of the most dreadful schlep put on the screen to try and bring the emotional impact of our beloved words, how can we not want to be blinded so as to not witness it again? I must admit that some of Star Trek was watchable (Harlan Ellison, who is among my favorite authors, wrote one of the show's most memorable episodes, so I have to give reference to the good points about it), but on the whole it was glorified explosions and sex and violence. And not that good science fiction doesn't have any of that, but there's more to the literature than just getting her into bed. There's that address to humanity, getting her to realize where she has steered off-course, and making changes. We are losing that in the film industry.

Take a look at Alien, Independence Day, and the later Roger Corman productions. Note how that no philosophy is discuss in any way besides the superficial. I believe I have made my point. The days of Fahrenheit 451 are over, or maybe what the book predicted was true, and we end up losing something special along the way.

It makes me sad to see it happen. I try to get it to stop, but I am one voice. Those of you who agree with me, we must stand up and fight this, so we do not lose the words that have moved us so many times. Join me, and let's keep the words that God has graced us with through the minds of his writers. Join me, and let's keep good science fiction alive.

star trek hasn't ruined anything but itself, however as a whole it does a much better job than many others.
I suggest watching the old series, next generation, and deep space nine.