I sense a Microaggression, Captain!
Nazi rocket man Werner Von Braun’s White Sands Missile Range, calling for Star Trek to be saved
Please don't bring SJWarriors down upon us all!
Forget Khan and Klingons, Star Trek's greatest trick was simply surviving
Thirteen films, TV spin-offs, millions of loyal fans and the ultimate of accolades for any work of science fiction – spoofs. Confirmation indeed of Star Trek's status as a cultural force. Fifty years ago this week, the genesis of that legacy played to unsuspecting and uninitiated US viewers. Star Trek the original TV series …
-
-
-
Thursday 8th September 2016 09:59 GMT Kiwi
Re: that really gave Star Trek muscle was, in a word: science.
science fiction with less "look it just does ok?". Of course it isn't real science but at least there was a stable surface and framwork for writers to work with.
I actually preferred Blake's 7's "We found this ship, don't really know how it works but can learn" over ST's (esp TNG and DS9) stuff. B7 focused on the plot (even with the rather crap SFX!) rather than ST's "Lets take a 45min episode, dump in 43 mins of technobabble and a couple of mins of story (with TNG it may've been 30 mins technobabble and another 10 of lame psychobabble from "DoYouWanna Try" (sorry, can only recall the name from, er, another "TNG")..
Even worse is the recent JJ "3 billion lens flares per frame" Abrams crap. Where the original network failed to kill ST, as did DS9, surely he will succeed.
-
-
Wednesday 7th September 2016 19:10 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: that really gave Star Trek muscle was, in a word: science.
With your meter, is Bradbury SciFi? Asimov? Dick? SciFi is part Science, part Fiction. The positronic brain by Asimov is really not more "scientific" than the warp drive or the teleporter. In "Martian Chronicles", there's very little of "modern science". ST made a bit attempt to try to imagine a future based on actual science (read "The Physics of Star Trek", if you don't believe me), although there are of course mistakes due to the needs of a TV/theater show. The farther is the future you imagine, the more difficult is to imagine that future science. "2001" used a much closer future, and it was much easier to imagine it somehow, and still uses a lot of pure "fantasy" tricks.
-
Wednesday 7th September 2016 20:38 GMT JEDIDIAH
Re: that really gave Star Trek muscle was, in a word: science.
Star Trek is a space western. The "physics" of the show serve the plot and the budget. It's nominally sci-fi because of the "tech getting us new places" angle but it's pretty thin really. Without a few good brawls and space battles Trek would have died a long time ago. If anything, the pretense gets in the way.
-
Wednesday 7th September 2016 21:28 GMT Mark 85
@JEDIDIAH -- Re: that really gave Star Trek muscle was, in a word: science.
Star Trek is a space western.
Indeed. Roddenberry sold the series on the concept of "Wagon Train in space." It wasn't supposed to be about space battles, etc. but characters and storytelling like the Wagon Train series.
-
Thursday 8th September 2016 01:06 GMT DortchOnIT
Re: that really gave Star Trek muscle was, in a word: science.
In the 1968 book "The Making of Star Trek," Gene Roddenberry was quoted as describing "Star Trek" as "Wagon Train to the stars," citing the western series "Wagon Train" as a primary influence. Both shows involved a large group of people traveling into unknown territories, which created opportunities for new stories every week.
According to that same book, Roddenberry spent four hours pitching "Star Trek" to CBS before NBC, only to be told by CBS execs that they already had a space-based series in the works. Of course, that series was "Lost in Space."
Now, if I could only find my first-edition paperback copy of "The Making of Star Trek..."
-
Thursday 8th September 2016 07:50 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: that really gave Star Trek muscle was, in a word: science.
Yes, and Daneel Olivaw and Elijah Baley stories are detective stories set in the future. The AI robots serve the plot. Same for most of Susan Calvin novels. Is Hari Seldon Psychohistory and telepathic powers of Second Federation members "science"?
"Martian Chronicles" is mostly about the settling of humans on Mars displacing the natives - very much alike the USA "building". There too, very little science.
Dick's "The Man in the High Castle"? Lots of true science there, in the plot...
" Without a few good brawls and space battles Trek would have died a long time ago"
Are you sure? That's exactly what people forget or often laugh about of ST (especially Kirk and his broken shirts). What people really like about ST is using an acceptable futuristic environment to discuss actual issues - which is was best SciFi always did.
-
-
-
Wednesday 7th September 2016 20:57 GMT fnj
Re: that really gave Star Trek muscle was, in a word: science.
@Mage:
ST TNG was even less scientific.
ST TOS was simple golly gee whiz kid's adventure with plenty of militarism. ST TNG was about social development, understanding, humility, and human (and non-human!) performance, leadership, and sacrifice. As such it stands up very well in the company of such towering works as Command Decision and Twelve O'Clock High (both the movie and the series).
-
Thursday 8th September 2016 07:52 GMT MrXavia
Re: that really gave Star Trek muscle was, in a word: science.
Sometimes science fiction doesn't have to make sense, just give the scientists and engineers something to dream about and they will find a way to make it happen (well matter transporters might be the one staple star trek tech that is practically impossible)
-
Friday 9th September 2016 05:51 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: that really gave Star Trek muscle was, in a word: science.
> "...matter transporters might be the one staple star trek tech that is practically impossible."
And in fact the original plan was to have only physical shuttlecraft to deorbit the crew, but it wasn't working out well for the show with the tight budget and all, so Gene whomped up the transporter to get stuff done on the cheap. Turned out to be the main plot device for the entire show, go figure.
Okay, they did keep the shuttlecraft and attempted to 'use' them in a couple of episodes. Came in handy too!
-
-
-
Wednesday 7th September 2016 11:03 GMT Anonymous Coward
So how do you rate this 'success'?
"The most successful Star Trek film of all time, JJ Abrams’ 2009 reboot, made less than the least successful entry from Star Wars – $299m versus $450m."
Most successful? Or did you mean to say "most grossing"? And even if you refer to that then I think you're comparing apples and oranges. For starters you should take inflation into account. Since most people have more to spend these days in comparison to last century I don't think it should come as a surprise that movies today make more money in comparison. But does that really mean being more successful?
I somewhat beg to differ, I think the most successful movie is still Wrath of Khan, whereas the most successful era being the original. Even the modern reboots couldn't stop referring back to the original era, including Khan.
And well, wouldn't you call it a success if people still talk about something 34 years later?
-
Wednesday 7th September 2016 11:41 GMT Prst. V.Jeltz
Re: So how do you rate this 'success'?
maybe true, i think Star Wars wins , both culturally and financially though. Its not clear which figures are being referred to there though - gross earnings from all films? or ones mentioned?
and have they been adjusted for inflation?
I seem to remember the first Trek film in Guinness book as "most expensive of all time" at some point. ( at 45m i think)
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Wednesday 7th September 2016 18:16 GMT Simon Harris
Re: So how do you rate this 'success'?
IMDB estimates a production budget of $35 million.
Just out of interest I made a time-line of some of the major series (or what turned out to be) and a few other notable movies to see how their budgets varied - inflation adjusted to 2016 in brackets:
2001 $12m 1968 ($83m)
Star Wars IV $11m 1977 ($44m)
Close Encounters $19.4m 1977 ($77m)
Star Trek TMP $35m 1979 ($116m)
Alien $11m 1979 ($36m)
Star Wars V $18m 1980 ($53m)
Star Trek II $11m 1982 ($27m)
Bladerunner $28m 1982 ($70m)
Star Wars VI $32.5m 1983 ($79m)
2010 $28m 1984 ($65m)
Terminator $6.4m 1984 ($15m)
Star Trek III $17m 1984 ($39m)
Aliens $18.5m 1986 ($41m)
Star Trek IV $25m 1986 ($55m)
Star Trek V $27.8m 1989 ($54m)
Star Trek VI $30m 1991 ($53m)
Terminator 2 $102m 1991 ($180m)
Alien3 $50m 1992 ($86m)
Star Trek VII $35m 1994 ($56m)
Star Trek VIII $45m 1996 ($69m)
Alien 4 $75m 1997 ($112m)
Star Trek IX $58m 1998 ($86m)
Star Wars I $115m 1999 ($166m)
Star Wars II $115m 2002 ($154m)
Star Trek X $60m 2002 ($80m)
Terminator 3 $200m 2003 ($262m)
SW III $113m 2005 ($139m)
Terminator 4 $200m 2009 ($224m)
Star Trek XI $150m 2009 ($168m)
Star Trek XII $190m 2013 ($196m)
Star Wars VII $245m 2015 ($249m)
Terminator 5 $115m 2015 ($117m)
Star Trek XIII $185m 2016 ($185m)
Star Trek The Motion Picture may well have been the most expensive film dollar wise at the time. However, mostly since then they seem to have had tighter budgets than their most contemporary Star Wars film. Having said that there are almost twice as many of them - adjusted for inflation Star Wars total budget $884m at 2016 prices, Star Trek total budget $1184m.
Most notable perhaps is the budget jump from The Terminator ($6.4m) to Terminator 2 ($102m). Also quite noticeable is the amount pumped into Terminators 3 to 5 and Alien 3 and 4 ($801m in total at 2016 prices) and they were all a bit pants.
-
-
-
Wednesday 7th September 2016 11:06 GMT Prst. V.Jeltz
"The original TV series lost the TV war, and nearly the battle, for the cultural consciousness 10 years later with the explosive début that was Star Wars."
maybe its me , but does that sentence make any grammatical sense? I suspect the key is the way "for" is used , but i just have no idea what the sentence means. (its a paragraph on its own in fact)
-
-
Wednesday 7th September 2016 15:46 GMT BillG
Re: proof read?
Sorry, but the entire article should have been proof-read. I lost track of all of the grammatical errors and typos. Even the very last sentence of the article is wrong.
If you really want the true story of the show, read "The Making of Star Trek" by Gene Roddenberry and Stephen Whitfield. It was published in 1970 so it is fresh and accurate.
As far as NBC claiming there were lots of letters complaining about the show, that is considered allegorical, widely seen as NBC attempting damage control for cancelling the original series.
-
Thursday 8th September 2016 01:18 GMT Myvekk
There is a comma missing that should be after "later".
It means that the "the explosive début that was Star Wars" "10 years later" caused TOS to lose both the TV war and also "nearly <lost> the battle", "for the cultural consciousness".
Or more simply, the release of SW 10 years after Trek's run, nearly killed ST altogether.
-
-
Wednesday 7th September 2016 11:13 GMT Anonymous Coward
Huh?
Having seen Star Trek from its early days and on the whole enjoyed it immensely, the thing that puzzles me is it being categorised as Science Fiction. As with the Skylark of Space (and Doc Smiths other great series, the Lensmen books), it isn't Science Fiction - it's Space Opera, same as Star Wars. And I'm truly astonished if ST is supposed to have aimed for scientific legitimacy given the enormous amount of dounle-talk gibberish that liberally littered many of the scripts.
Sorry, but Star Trek simply played too fast and loose far too often with science to be considered science fiction. I'd offer Larry Niven's Tales of Known Space as an example of actual science fiction in contrast. Niven played the 'what if?' game that is at the heart of true SF superbly. For instance, 'what if teleportation booths can be created?' - and then worked out the consequences*, both with regard to physical laws and social consequences, and showed them to us in a highly entertaining way.
ST is a hugely entertaining and generally thoughtful space opera, and that's a fine and worthy thing to be. So why do folk keep on mis-labelling it as something it isn't? Are folk ashamed of Space Opera, or something? If so, in god's name why?! It's a great genre, with a long and distinguished history. Better to be great Space Opera than third-rate (or even crap) Science Fiction, no?
*can't have too great a change in altitude or teleportee freezes or fries (conservation of energy); too far north or south and teleportee gets slammed against one wall (conservation of momentum); and as for flash mobs and how police forces would be likely to react , Niven is so convincing that I rather hope that teleportation booths aren't possible! 8-}
-
Wednesday 7th September 2016 11:45 GMT Prst. V.Jeltz
Re: Huh?
On IMDB in the sci fi forum , they have threads that go on for pages and pages about what is and isnt science fiction . on and on . endlessly . and on ...
and on...
and on...
on an on an on an on ... ad infinitum
most even say 'Mad Max' is sci fi
whereas you seems to have summed it up there . well done!
-
-
-
Wednesday 7th September 2016 21:10 GMT fnj
Re: Huh?
@Danny 14:
I would guess that the bulk of people who watched ST and TNG were at least some part nerdy and watched partly for the "science" of it.
Even in 1966 I knew there was no such thing as "warp drive", and it was patently obvious that there never would be. Yeah, I dug the gadgetry, but what made my heart fairly burst with deep identification was Jean-Luc Picard's humanity and professionalism, and Commander Data's curious spirit and thirst for knowledge.
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 7th September 2016 13:44 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Huh?
Well, there's at least two people who may be ashamed to admit they like Space Opera - but why? C'mon, claiming that Star Trek is Science Fiction is as silly as claiming that Black Adder is serious historical drama. Just because Black Adder isn't serious historical drama (because it doesn't abide by the rules of serious historical drama) doesn't prevent it being great at what it IS, which is fantastic historical comedy. So why get upset at Star Trek being regarded as great Space Opera rather than cack Science Fiction?. Do you downvoters genuinely not understand the concept of genre nor understand what the difference between SF and SO is? Or are you just embarassed that Hollywood and TV producers mis-sold you SO as SF (because they didn't understand or care about the difference) when you were young and so you didn;t realise the difference and don't like having it pointed out to you now? I'd genuinely be interested to know...
-
Wednesday 7th September 2016 15:43 GMT People's Poet
Re: Huh?
Very good points, However to write ST off as just a space opera is nonsense, albeit it is more SO than SF. It's easy to define what is SF, take Warp Speed, Transporters (Matter), Communicators, Phasers etc.
All of the above was based on SF when the programme was released, we now have working Communicators but we don't have the rest (yet). They're still based on scientific rationale but are purely fiction until mankind achieves them.
As an aside, the original series is still the best, Kirk's if you can't sh@g it kill it philosophy was brilliant, the show had a humorous side to it too. TNG was awful, with its "it wants to kill me, but lets hug it & talk about it" approach. The fact the new reboots are based on the original just proves the point.
-
Thursday 8th September 2016 10:28 GMT Kiwi
Re: Huh?
we now have working Communicators
I've always laughed at those who claim that "trek" invented cellphones etc. Portable radios were around before ST, I think even some models of portable TV's were around. All sorts of things were getting smaller and more portable. Some quick research suggests that the concept of mobile phones has been around since 1908 (see http://mobilephones.umwblogs.org/invention/) (WARNING: sites on internet do not necessarily contain reality!), and really they're just a form of radio and though the first cell phone call was in '73 you probably could've done the same with '50s tech using a portable radio, something at the other end to tie in to the phone line and something to generate dialing tones (IIRC tone dialing started in the '40s).
TL:DR, Cell phones were concieved long before Trek.
As an aside, the original series is still the best, Kirk's if you can't sh@g it kill it philosophy was brilliant, the show had a humorous side to it too. TNG was awful, with its "it wants to kill me, but lets hug it & talk about it" approach. The fact the new reboots are based on the original just proves the point.
Don't know that I agree that TOS was best, but I do agree with your point about TNG. DS9 was definitely worst. In any competition, by any metric. And I'm watching an episode of the last season of "A-Team" while I type that!
The re-boots prove that you don't need talent to make it in movies.
-
-
-
Wednesday 7th September 2016 14:58 GMT Robert Carnegie
Transporter of delight
I think there were sufficient Star Trek episodes where the story is something happened to the transporter machine (or later the hologram playroom). About one month in there's the Richard Matheson story where the Transporter pauses and then materialises your evil identical twin. Or you end up in a an entire universe or in an alien's version of Pokegym or in an exact copy of your spaceship with no crew or talking to President Lincoln. Okay, these are not all actually the transporter's fault.
-
Wednesday 7th September 2016 15:59 GMT BillG
Re: Huh?
Niven played the 'what if?' game that is at the heart of true SF superbly. For instance, 'what if teleportation booths can be created?' - and then worked out the consequences*
Some say that the phaser would be the last invention of a modern society.
The consequences are, once you create a device that could easily and conveniently kill someone without leaving any trace, co-workers would be disappearing every day!!!
-
Thursday 8th September 2016 11:20 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Huh?
For the matter, ST often investigated what impacts futuristic technology could have on a "civilization" - from wars fought by computers (and clean disintegration booths to avoid the designated victims corpses around), to use of holodecks to recreate actual people, and alienate from reality (and for not so "virtual" sex), exploitation of new artificial lifeforms, or if AI robots have "human" rights, and so on. And the very "how to deal with other civilizations that can't travel in Space yet.".
Some of these issues we are about to face them now - see the recent article on El Reg about "sex with robots", and the ethical implication of self-driving cars.
Sure, not all ST episodes are pure sci-fi - it could become even boring. Instead of doing a pure nerdy show it could appeal to a larger audience, is this a mistake? Should people need a PhD in Physics to follow a TV show?
What do you people expect from sci-fi? Actual blueprints to build your own spaceship using washing machines spare parts? How to build your partner android so you can have a girlfriend eventually? Sci-fi is still literature, not science.
-
Biting the hand that feeds IT
