I mean, don't get me wrong, what you describe as the good in Trek is something I also appreciate. The trouble is that, TOS aside, I don't see it where you do.
The reason I called out TNG S1 earlier was because it lacked absolutely nothing in terms of space-opera absurdity by comparison with Discovery, and so it's odd to me that you should abhor the one and disregard the other. But I'd also mention it in this connection because the Roddenberry-driven performances of its characters don't read as "members of a healthy family", as you describe, but rather mostly as just flat and lifeless in affect. The interpersonal stuff just reads off, like a stage play put on by disinterested actors not directed very well. As we see later in the same series, that's certainly not the fault of any lack on the part of the main cast, whose relationships become more believable, rather than less, as the show goes on. The major change is the one you cite: Roddenberry no longer exercising creative control. I think it's reasonable to consider that that change lay behind the improvement of character and relationship portrayals that I describe - especially considering that, as you also note, many of the people who made the show have said exactly the same.
Consider, too, that while the idea for TOS was his and a lot of the development was as well, he did not exercise anything like the same degree of absolute authority over that show as he did over S1 of TNG. I agree with you that TOS's characters were lively and that their friendships were obviously close, deep, and warm, and I think it's interesting that they were so in an environment much more similar to TNG's later seasons than to its early ones.
(As a side note, if you haven't read Diane Duane's The Wounded Sky, from the Pocket Books TOS novel series, I can strongly recommend it. Of all the portrayals I've seen of the relationships among the TOS main characters, in and out of canon, this is the only one I find myself always coming back to specifically for the sake of that portrayal. I'm told that "Where No Man has Gone Before" from TNG S1 was meant to be an adaptation, but God alone knows how; they're nothing alike, especially in that that episode's characters are exceptionally flat even in comparison with the standard set by that season.)
With regard to your comments on the supposed superficiality of Discovery, I feel it necessary to note that this is a judgment you've formed, and which you apparently hold quite firmly, on the basis of about four minutes of what I gather to be trailers and promos, and not on the basis of any true engagement, however adversarial, with the show itself. I find it difficult to understand how any judgment so formed could be anything other than superficial in its own right, considering that you have by your own account barely scratched the surface. It may be worth considering whether a more sustained investigation is worth your while. If nothing else, it can only enable you to better substantiate your arguments for why the show is bad!
And, sure, I wouldn't let my kids watch Game of Thrones, either, if I had any. But that doesn't make it a bad show. To be sure, there's a vast sufficiency of traits which do make it a bad show! But it being inappropriate for children is not among them.
> The reason I called out TNG S1 earlier was because it lacked absolutely nothing in terms of space-opera absurdity by comparison with Discovery, and so it's odd to me that you should abhor the one and disregard the other.
Oh there is a lot of silliness in TNG (Data can't get the hang of contractions!?) but, and this is entirely subjective, to me it seemed in line with the rules or framework that TOS established. What I mean is, other than the holodeck, most of the technology was the same. Of course, the TOS tech is "magical" already: there are no teleporters, warp drives, etc., and we can't diagnose disease by waving rotating salt shakers over people. But somehow the rolling effect preceding "spore drive" offended me in a way that "going to warp" doesn't.
When I say "offended" I don't mean "oh my opinion is different". I mean that scene broke me. I was gibbering in the corner.
Ah, here's the exact clip that triggered a kernel panic in my brain: 'Discovery Spore Jumps to the Second Red Signal | Star Trek Discovery "New Eden"' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-3WKobwcxQ
Oh God. I forgot about the rotating dongle on the ship...
Anyway, it starts off bad, hard to take, and then just keeps getting worse and worse, and the the jump... https://youtu.be/7-3WKobwcxQ?t=232
Whaaaaaat?
It's like watching "Team America" but with real people playing the parts of the puppets, in space, with goofy special effects and way too much production value.
(But it's not space. Just as the ship arrives the background is illuminated as if there is atmosphere (it's not the background nebulas like I thought, just open space. Whew! That's something.))
Sorry, sorry...
(Like I said, maybe I'm just too old...)
> But I'd also mention it in this connection because the Roddenberry-driven performances of its characters don't read as "members of a healthy family", as you describe, but rather mostly as just flat and lifeless in affect. The interpersonal stuff just reads off, like a stage play put on by disinterested actors not directed very well. As we see later in the same series, that's certainly not the fault of any lack on the part of the main cast, whose relationships become more believable, rather than less, as the show goes on. The major change is the one you cite: Roddenberry no longer exercising creative control. I think it's reasonable to consider that that change lay behind the improvement of character and relationship portrayals that I describe - especially considering that, as you also note, many of the people who made the show have said exactly the same.
Granted, but they (the characters) don't really get into interpersonal conflicts, eh? Consider Lt. Barclay and how he is treated as his character develops. Off the top of my head, that's about as close as you get to drama. Or when Riker meets his duplicate, or his father. There is some drama. (I'm reminded that Spock and his father are also at odds in TOS.)
So I seem to have convinced myself that you're right: already in TNG the cracks in the utopian "healthy family" milieu are showing.
It's not that I don't enjoy TNG, or DS9 or the others, despite the drift from utopia. FWIW, it's the utopia I miss.
In re: The Wounded Sky I'll pick one up. Thanks for the advice!
> With regard to your comments on the supposed superficiality of Discovery, I feel it necessary to note that this is a judgment you've formed, and which you apparently hold quite firmly, on the basis of about four minutes of what I gather to be trailers and promos, and not on the basis of any true engagement, however adversarial, with the show itself.
You're right. Some trailers, a few minutes of the beginning of s1e1, and the clip I linked above. I wouldn't call it a judgment, more like a visceral reaction. But as you read above, it's pretty firm and consistent.
> I find it difficult to understand how any judgment so formed could be anything other than superficial in its own right
Oh it is, I didn't dig too deep, although it does come from my core. Part of it is that I take sci-fi way too seriously. I identify as a sci-fi fan.
But you're right! Without "a more sustained investigation" I can, at best, only be projecting my own BS onto it, eh? And like I said, it's obvious that a lot of work and talent went into it. It's kind of crass to dismiss it like I've been doing. I'll try to watch that clip again and get over myself. Cheers!
> And, sure, I wouldn't let my kids watch Game of Thrones, either, if I had any. But that doesn't make it a bad show. To be sure, there's a vast sufficiency of traits which do make it a bad show! But it being inappropriate for children is not among them.
Ha! Well met.
G.R.R.M. once said that he thought LotR would be better if Gandalf didn't come back, but I think he was just trolling. ;-)
Oh, I don't know; I think I can see what he means. The change would give additional point to the major theme of mortals taking on the burden of looking after themselves - of deciding their own course among the wonders, terrors, and banalities of the ever-unfolding future, instead of any longer relying on gods, demigods, and immortals to do so.
(If that's a theme you appreciate in LotR, then you may be interested to know it is also the theme closest to the heart of Babylon 5, and around which its story entirely revolves...)
Thanks for this response! And for what it's worth, I miss utopia, too - or utopianism, anyway. Blame the postmodernist insistence on engaging in dialogue with a work, if you like, or the wide contrarian streak in my nature; when I see something presented as if without cracks, I insist on looking for them all the harder, and always end up finding them, too.
Sometimes I wish I didn't; life would seem simpler that way, for sure. But Leonard Cohen was right: there is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in.
> Oh, I don't know; I think I can see what he means. The change would give additional point to the major theme of mortals taking on the burden of looking after themselves - of deciding their own course among the wonders, terrors, and banalities of the ever-unfolding future, instead of any longer relying on gods, demigods, and immortals to do so.
Also, is that a theme of LotR? It's been a while since I read them but I thought the theme was pretty clearly just "stick it Sauron", no? Am I a philistine?
The reason I called out TNG S1 earlier was because it lacked absolutely nothing in terms of space-opera absurdity by comparison with Discovery, and so it's odd to me that you should abhor the one and disregard the other. But I'd also mention it in this connection because the Roddenberry-driven performances of its characters don't read as "members of a healthy family", as you describe, but rather mostly as just flat and lifeless in affect. The interpersonal stuff just reads off, like a stage play put on by disinterested actors not directed very well. As we see later in the same series, that's certainly not the fault of any lack on the part of the main cast, whose relationships become more believable, rather than less, as the show goes on. The major change is the one you cite: Roddenberry no longer exercising creative control. I think it's reasonable to consider that that change lay behind the improvement of character and relationship portrayals that I describe - especially considering that, as you also note, many of the people who made the show have said exactly the same.
Consider, too, that while the idea for TOS was his and a lot of the development was as well, he did not exercise anything like the same degree of absolute authority over that show as he did over S1 of TNG. I agree with you that TOS's characters were lively and that their friendships were obviously close, deep, and warm, and I think it's interesting that they were so in an environment much more similar to TNG's later seasons than to its early ones.
(As a side note, if you haven't read Diane Duane's The Wounded Sky, from the Pocket Books TOS novel series, I can strongly recommend it. Of all the portrayals I've seen of the relationships among the TOS main characters, in and out of canon, this is the only one I find myself always coming back to specifically for the sake of that portrayal. I'm told that "Where No Man has Gone Before" from TNG S1 was meant to be an adaptation, but God alone knows how; they're nothing alike, especially in that that episode's characters are exceptionally flat even in comparison with the standard set by that season.)
With regard to your comments on the supposed superficiality of Discovery, I feel it necessary to note that this is a judgment you've formed, and which you apparently hold quite firmly, on the basis of about four minutes of what I gather to be trailers and promos, and not on the basis of any true engagement, however adversarial, with the show itself. I find it difficult to understand how any judgment so formed could be anything other than superficial in its own right, considering that you have by your own account barely scratched the surface. It may be worth considering whether a more sustained investigation is worth your while. If nothing else, it can only enable you to better substantiate your arguments for why the show is bad!
And, sure, I wouldn't let my kids watch Game of Thrones, either, if I had any. But that doesn't make it a bad show. To be sure, there's a vast sufficiency of traits which do make it a bad show! But it being inappropriate for children is not among them.