MovieChat Forums > Politics > What about Star Trek?

What about Star Trek?

posted 4 years ago by brux (14840)
14 replies | jump to latest

One thing that always seemed quirky about the Star Trek universe is how the people of that time, 2300 or more, still have the same cultural divisions we have today. Like for example 3 or 4 hundred years in the future does anyone think there will still be accents? It seems more likely to me that everyone would be speaking in a bland new mix of the way people talk today, but there would be a kind of global uniformity ... or even new accents from groups that isolate such as colonists on out of the way planets.

Would there still be competition or animosity between Americans and Russians such that Ensign Checkov would have to remind everyone about everything that was invented by the Russians?

The people in the Star Trek universe are always listening to or watch songs or media from the "old Earth" and so conversant with its history. Even the Klingons know Shakespeare. That part may well be right since real music seems to have ending somewhere before the year 2000. Surely though there would be some form of popular music in the 2400's wouldn't there be?

I wonder what would science fiction that freed itself from this need to pander to readers into the 20th and 21st century?

[–] kspkap (13629) 4 years ago

By then there will be only one human race. The way we are mixing races today almost guarantees it. Maybe language & dialect will be different, but there won’t be any “pure” races, no Black, no White, no Asian, no Middle Eastern, No Jews,etc. Where we were once a gigantic mixed salad we will have been put into a blender. One race with all the same features. Betty Crocker was blended years ago.

[–] Oblivioid (1558) 4 years ago

The Matrix probably predicted the future accurately. Zion of the film is populated by a single mulatto race, all with black hair and brown skin.

[–] brux (14840) 4 years ago

I don't think human scientists or science fiction writers know enough to predict the path of human evolution; especially when it comes to sexual selection. The main thing human scientists do is to perceive a numeric trend, and then extrapolate that linearly into the future the way they want to spin it. I believe that people in general, or some people, will always want to different looking mate, or to have sex with the different looking partner leading to offspring, so that tendency alone will keep alternate genes going forever pretty much.

[–] Satan2016 (26216) 4 years ago

Nobody watches Netflix and Disney+? They must have extra-super-ultra HD 3D, but nobody watches TV. What was the series were they watch old B&W movies on a small screen?

[–] brodee (467) 4 years ago

The original purpose of SciFi was to place our present day problems into a fictional universe to make it easier to talk about them. Star Trek wasn't trying to imagine the future, it was trying to talk about the present and for lessons to hold there needs to be some familiarity between the two. Read something like iRobot from the perspective that these are moral lessons being taught here, not a series of shorts designed to entertain.

More action adventure oriented scifi doesn't care at all about the moral dilemma and just wants to entertain.

[–] brux (14840) 4 years ago

> Star Trek wasn't trying to imagine the future

First of all, that is a declarative sentence, implying that you have a clue about what you are talking about enough to demand everyone accept it. That just undercuts the credibility of anything you say, not just that silly comment.

That comment is silly because to make Star Trek they had to imagine a future, and portray it, that was the whole point.

The fact that they put it out there in a mainstream TV packaged way that could reach Americans, symbolically and subliminally, made it politically subversive.

The great thing about the original Star Trek was that it almost demanded stories that were subversive, and the censors and big-shots at the studio were always refusing or modifying the best scripts and accepting a lot of silly almost Flash Gordon-y stuff, and even then they took it off against popular demand. That did bring all kinds of attention to it and discussion about it - however all of that was sidetracked in every single new season - they brought back Star Trek superficially, but they neutered it to the point where it was meaningless and air headed - the same thing they have done with virtually all, but a very few, science-fiction movies.

I don't know what you are talking about with I-Robot, since there is a lot of I-Robot stuff, and stories by Asimov, you need to be more specific and make an actual point with actual examples.

[–] brodee (467) 4 years ago

i get that as someone who doesn't read scifi and clearly prefers the Abrams version of Trek vs the Roddenbery, facts upset you. Fact is, Star Trek is commentary on our current sociopolitical situations and if you actually liked Trek you'd know this.

[–] brux (14840) 4 years ago

If you do happen to be the actual miserable human being you seem to be and not a troll-bot program, you are training your brain to make people hate you online, and that will transfer over to whatever pathetic real life you may have. I predict that means very bad things for your life.

[–] brodee (467) 4 years ago

You're the miserable one here, insisting that StarTrek is all shooty shooty instead of a sociopolitical outlook on humanity. You've missed the entire purpose of classic SciFi because you just want the action-adventure.

It's much easier to talk about racism when you're in a fictional universe and you can make fun of the racists in a way that isn't directly making fun of racists. Take the classic Let That Be Your Last Battlefield, "But they're white an the right side, I'm white on the left." The entire episode is about racism, and it makes fun of how we, as a society, are racist.

[–] Keelai (36161) 4 years ago

Star Trek's purpose was to give us a utopian view of the future especially at a time when other sci-fi was negative with stories about nuclear wars and hostile space invasions. The 1960s were also turbulent so the positive message was that we made it. In the future, we have ended racism, the Cold War, hunger and disease. BTW, Roddenberry consulted with scientists to find out what new upcoming inventions were on the horizon. Many of the futuristic items used were no coincidence.

Star Trek's second purpose was social commentary. Addressing contemporary social issues (1960s) by incorporating them into the storylines.

[–] brodee (467) 4 years ago

I think you'd find that the die hard lovers of star trek and the haters of Abram's Trek share one thing in common... that they loved the philosophical and sociopolitical exploration that TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager went into. No one watched Trek for the images of the future, that's what the Jetson's were for. People watched Trek because they wanted hope that things would change.

Trek has always been a very progressive show, addressing issues Humanity faces with ourselves and how others view us. The Cardayssians are an excellent example of some of the worst humanity has to offer, they're based on OUR governments not just some imaginary alien government. It's a reflection into the human soul.

[–] Keelai (36161) 4 years ago

"No one watched Trek for the images of the future"

I'm a Trekkie and I know many Trekkies. Not a homogeneous group since we watch for different reasons and prefer different Trek shows/movies. You also have to take age into account. I began watching when I was a kid.

I originally watched because of the positive utopian future presented with a diversified cast and radically innovative, futuristic inventions (no PCs, CAT scans, stun guns, robots, cloning, etc. existed) and interesting concepts (no money, Vulcan culture, Federation of Planets, etc.). It was basically a "feel good" show for me.

I didn't even pick up on the social commentary aspect of the show until many years later when I read about it. I prefer it now, but it wasn't on my radar when I began watching.

I wouldn't lump all the shows together vs Abrams. I know Trekkies who only watch classic Trek. Others hate classic and watch only TNG. I watch classic, TNG, and Abrams(not 3), but barely tolerate the darker dystopian DS9, Voyager and Enterprise.

And there are Trekkies who love Trek science so much that they became scientists. Personally, I never met an IT person who wasn't a Trekkie, too.

[–] brodee (467) 4 years ago

You're not a trekie, you're an action movie lover who hates TOS. Stop lying, what made Trek so great was how philosophical it was, was how it examined the human species... but people like you ruined Trek as you only wanted guns and sex.

[–] plusplus (467) 4 years ago

Looking at TNG, Kirk must have been one of a few sexually hyperactive space tourists.
He really took "where no man has gone before" to a personal level.

There should have been much more melting in place, if he was the average of his times.