Finally watched Nemesis for the first time tonight

[RThurmont]

Well I think from about midway through TNG on, Star Trek became increasingly, how to put it, scientifically pretentious. It took on a "hard sci fi" image, even though it wasn't. The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, probably the most monumental work of criticism in the genre (it dates from 1992 and weighs about 15 pounds) in its review of TNG stated that in many respects, TNG wasn't science fiction at all, but a moral drama using a science-fictional backdrop. However, this attitude clearly wasn't assumed by Star Trek's creators, as I don't think TNG as a moral drama would have spawned two spin offs at about the same time.

I think to some extent, Roddenberry had envision TOS as light SF and TNG as a moral drama, but basically, in the hands of the writers, both were commercialized into "hard SF". The fact remains, that they were both way to inaccurate to fit into that genre, and the foundations that were build to support the storylines weren't equipped with that. When you combine these effects with the Brain Bug phenomenon that Darth Wong wrote about in the main site, and with a desire to squeeze every last cent out of the franchise in the short run, it's easy to see why Star Trek has basically failed.

So basically, Bounty, what I'm saying is this: Star Trek clearly isn't hard SF, and wasn't originally created to be hard SF, but has been marketed as hard SF, and has a loyal contingent of fans who think it is the "hardest SF". It's easy to see how the problems began.

Star Wars on the other hand has consistently avoided those trappings, and is perceived for what it is: science fantasy. Good science fantasy, at that.

[Bounty]

what I'm saying is this: (1) Star Trek clearly isn't hard SF, and (2) wasn't originally created to be hard SF, but has been (3) marketed as hard SF, and has (4) a loyal contingent of fans who think it is the "hardest SF".

(numbered for clarity)

(1) agreed
(2) obviously
(3) again I ask you, where was it marketed as such ?
(4) a rather large generalisation. I can't speak for all fans, but judging from the ones I do know, it's only a fringe minority who consider it to be hard sci-fi.

However, this attitude clearly wasn't assumed by Star Trek's creators, as I don't think TNG as a moral drama would have spawned two spin offs at about the same time.

Would you care to provide your reasoning for this ? I'm honestly having some trouble following our train of thought in that sentence.

[RThurmont]

Sorry, it's pretty early here and I'm clearly being way too verbose in writing these replies...

Basically, a lot of Trekkies (yourself excluded) worship the series to a fanatic degree, believing it to be completely scientifically accurate, and so forth. I'm not saying they are the majority of fans, but that they comprise a large, loyal segment. These are the guys who would happily sit through a Star Trek Voyager marathon.

I think, to some extent, there exists a lot of confusion in official corridors what Star Trek is supposed to be. The absolute suckiness of recent Star Trek spin offs seems to reflect this confusion. They attempt to be moral dramas, hard SF and soft SF at the same time, and the result is terrible. If Star Trek TNG was positioned purely as one of these things, however, I don't think it would have been able to secure the viewership base required to support spin offs of it for this long. I think from day one there existed a lot of confusion about what Star Trek: TNG was supposed to be, and over time, this confusion, like the "Brain Bug" problems, has festered, and resulted in such horrors as Nemesis.

Hopefully, that's a bit more clear, and again, I'm sorry I'm being so vague...in the future I should exercise greater caution when I post at 5 AM.

[brianeyci]

(3) again I ask you, where was it marketed as such ?

Live long and prosper.

05.11.2000
Dispatch: The Science Behind the Fiction



One aspect of the Star Trek universe that fans take pride in is its close adherence to the nomenclature of actual science. This commitment to realism and accuracy falls on the shoulders of Star Trek: Voyager Science Consultant Andre Bormanis.

"We try to keep up with what's going on at the cutting edge of physics, astronomy, biology, chemistry and so on, and work those ideas into our stories," Bormanis said last night in a news segment on UPN affiliate KCOP in Los Angeles. "The real challenge for us, I think, is trying to keep ahead of real science."

In fact, every now and then Bormanis, in order to serve the storyline, has to go outside "real" science and create fictional concepts that "sound" realistic. "What I think I'm most proud of is the 'duonetic field,'" Bormanis said, referring to a term he invented for the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode "Paradise." The plot required that no Starfleet equipment could work on the surface of a planet, but there needed to be a believable reason why. More realistic terminology would require too much "techno-babble," so Bormanis coined the term "duonetic," a variation on language used in the original Star Trek series.

Rick Berman, currently Executive Producer of Star Trek: Voyager, acknowledged that the show's creative staff learned early on that a science consultant is critical to the show's success. This is because the fans demand not only a solid scientific foundation, but also a universe that remains consistent unto itself. Berman noted that in one show, "We had a phaser come out of a photon torpedo port as opposed to a phaser port--and we didn't know the difference--and we got 600 letters in three days." As consultant, Bormanis helps keep the producers and writers on track in this respect as well.

Bormanis -- who has a bachelor's degree in physics and a master's degree in science, technology and public policy -- expressed how satisfying it is to work on the show that inspired him and many others to enter the field of science. "What better tribute to the power of that show to inspire people" than to contribute to the show itself, he said.

I wonder where Bormanis was when Janeway turned into a lizard and fucked Paris, or when they modelled the Voth's evolution with a computer program, or when they used time travel.

More realistic technology would require technobabble? You mean more realistic technology wouldn't blow up in your face, like consoles blowing up, transporters/weapons being disabled purely for the plot... if you can't work within the technology without nerfing it every episode, be creative somehow.

Brian

[Bounty]

B&B-era self-delusion. How I'll miss it...

Still, this marketing fluff only talks about the show having a "solid scientific foundation", which is still several steps from claiming it's "hard sci-fi" (in fact, the admission that a term was made up to further the plot points straight at soft sci-fi).

EDIT : I think the "Trek is scientifically sound" idea may be a brainbug on it's own - and idea that grew, over time, without a solid foundation. As such, while I acknowledge that this idea exists and has become accepted by those involved in the franchise, I refuse to believe Trek was intentionally presented as having above-average accuracy.

[Uraniun235]

I think where the "omg this is science fiction we are scientifically accurate" delusion comes from is probably the dumbass TNG producers thinking "well, gee, we've got a technical adviser, and he points out mistakes, so obviously we must be accurate!"

Ignoring, of course, the fact that said adviser was ignored over half the time.

[Darth Wong]

B&B-era self-delusion. How I'll miss it...

Still, this marketing fluff only talks about the show having a "solid scientific foundation", which is still several steps from claiming it's "hard sci-fi" (in fact, the admission that a term was made up to further the plot points straight at soft sci-fi).

EDIT : I think the "Trek is scientifically sound" idea may be a brainbug on it's own - and idea that grew, over time, without a solid foundation. As such, while I acknowledge that this idea exists and has become accepted by those involved in the franchise, I refuse to believe Trek was intentionally presented as having above-average accuracy.

Not in the beginning, but by the time of Voyager this conceit had reached epidemic levels, both among the fanbase and among the producers. Need I remind you of startrek.com bragging that American high school students were surveyed and said that they learned more science from Star Trek than from school?

[Bounty]

Need I remind you of startrek.com bragging that American high school students were surveyed and said that they learned more science from Star Trek than from school?

You would, because I'd never heard that one before. Damn.

[Dakarne]

Need I remind you of startrek.com bragging that American high school students were surveyed and said that they learned more science from Star Trek than from school?

With current High School Teachings I'd say that sounds about right actually.

Hmm... We should write an "Ultimate Star Trek" in the same vein as the Marvel Comics' "Ultimate X-Men" or "Ultimate Spider-Man" series. However, Scientific, Engineering and even Computing principles shall be followed. (I can only really do computing) Of course, we shall not commit any Treknobabble atrocities.

And of course: make the aliens more alien

[brianeyci]

Honestly, I don't understand how someone can brag about inventing "duotronic" and say he is advancing society in the name of science. Only in a delusional mind would inventing technobabble be called science. Science is the scientific method, and if they had concentrated on that rather than inventing psuedoscience, that would be a great achievement. For example, the Vulcans are supposed to be great scientific minds. Why not have them use words like "Hypothesis", "Experimental Error", "Data Collection", and so on, used regularly. Hell, the most useful thing would have been to have an episode where Tuvok pisses on someone for saying something like "just a theory". More important than these slice of life moments would be the general direction of the show, if they had given more attention to the process of the scientific method. The greatest benefit would have been 14 year olds watching the show, and then going to school to ask their science teacher for more detail.

Star Trek shouldn't have kid itself by trying to present itself as hard science fiction, but should have been a spark for the scientific method, rather than a whole bunch of psuedoscience that might be engrained and difficult to root out later. The true power of mass media is inspiration. A one-hour medium is never going to be able to replace a science textbook with actual equations (not the wordy kind), so Star Trek, particularly Voyager, should have focused on inspiration rather than trying to invent new words to confuse kids and make adults laugh or turn off the television in disgust.

Brian

[RThurmont]

I agree wholeheartedly with Brianeyci's sentiments. That would really make for a wonderful franchise.

I think TOS aimed for that to some extent, but never really reached that level of sophistication. The idea of a television show dedicated to space travel, and the Planet of the Week format, were both so novel, it was more than enough of a platform in and of itself to drive the show. Since TOS was cancelled after three seasons, the show never really reached a high level of advancement, whereby those themes could have been matured. Instead, the show developed a cult following during the years it was off the air, resulting in a stupid spin off (the animated series), and then movies that didn't really have to add anything at all to the franchise in order to succeed. By the time the films started, all they had to do was have Star Trek in the name, and success was guaranteed. By the 1980s, the franchise had momentum.

TNG was a supposed advance, but wasn't really, and so over time it's lapsed into its current state. However, argueing about the "ongoing problems" is moot, because, at the moment, Star Trek really is dead. WIth no further spin offs or TV series or films planned, there really isn't any reason to lament about the franchise continually going in this awful direction. What we can hope for, is that if ever Star Trek does come back, it comes back in the kind of concept that Brian just mentioned- a logical, scientifically plausible continuation of the best parts of Star Trek as a franchise, with no more lame ass aliens with stupid facial features, no more treknobabble, et cetera, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. So there you have it...

[Darth Wong]

Honestly, I don't understand how someone can brag about inventing "duotronic" and say he is advancing society in the name of science. Only in a delusional mind would inventing technobabble be called science. Science is the scientific method, and if they had concentrated on that rather than inventing psuedoscience, that would be a great achievement. For example, the Vulcans are supposed to be great scientific minds. Why not have them use words like "Hypothesis", "Experimental Error", "Data Collection", and so on, used regularly. Hell, the most useful thing would have been to have an episode where Tuvok pisses on someone for saying something like "just a theory". More important than these slice of life moments would be the general direction of the show, if they had given more attention to the process of the scientific method. The greatest benefit would have been 14 year olds watching the show, and then going to school to ask their science teacher for more detail.

Star Trek shouldn't have kid itself by trying to present itself as hard science fiction, but should have been a spark for the scientific method, rather than a whole bunch of psuedoscience that might be engrained and difficult to root out later. The true power of mass media is inspiration. A one-hour medium is never going to be able to replace a science textbook with actual equations (not the wordy kind), so Star Trek, particularly Voyager, should have focused on inspiration rather than trying to invent new words to confuse kids and make adults laugh or turn off the television in disgust.

Brian

Damn. That may well be the most intelligent thing you've ever posted on this board, and I mean that in the best possible way.

[brianeyci]

TNG was a supposed advance, but wasn't really, and so over time it's lapsed into its current state. However, argueing about the "ongoing problems" is moot, because, at the moment, Star Trek really is dead. WIth no further spin offs or TV series or films planned, there really isn't any reason to lament about the franchise continually going in this awful direction.

No, there isn't, I was just saying what Star Trek could have been.

What we can hope for, is that if ever Star Trek does come back, it comes back in the kind of concept that Brian just mentioned- a logical, scientifically plausible continuation of the best parts of Star Trek as a franchise, with no more lame ass aliens with stupid facial features, no more treknobabble, et cetera, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. So there you have it...

I don't mind the stupid facial features, as long as they change the attitude of the show in general to represent that they are trying to accomplish. If they want a show to inspire science, then they should try and communicate the basic concept of the scientific method better to the general public. The Star Trek universe is perfect for this, and so was Voyager -- they had to describe with new phenomenon every single week.

Damn. That may well be the most intelligent thing you've ever posted on this board, and I mean that in the best possible way.

What, you mean you've missed my go to levels 1 - 7 in Guild Wars in one hour, how to unclog a stuck toilet, and my greatest contribution, how to save thousands of dollars on university tuition? Seesh . That reminds me time to get off my ass and go to school to return my books... and buy them again, the 14 days for refunds is over tomorrow.

Brian

[Edward Yee]

Is it just me, or was Star Trek intended (up until the start of DS9) to be all capital ships?

[Jack Bauer]

Is it just me, or was Star Trek intended (up until the start of DS9) to be all capital ships?

Star Trek, since its debut, has focused primarily on the naval tradition of exploration and (more recently) combat in space. The names, registries, protocols, and traditions all date back to human naval tactics of yesteryear.

Old naval ships were frigates, galleons, cutters, etc. ST adopted this tradition and had naval or "capital" ships like the original Enterprise. All subsequent shows have followed this pattern (of a ship of exploration modeled after naval vessels of old). Only in recent incarnations have fighter craft and even carriers (the non-canon Star Trek: Invasion comes to mind) been introduced.