Slashdot Mirror
No Need For Trek Anymore
dcsmith writes "In an article at the LA Times, Orson Scott Card says 'So they've gone and killed Star Trek. And it's about time.' SciFi blasphemy? Not really. Card makes several good observations about the growth of SciFi over the past 30+ years. The article also comments on several other genre gems, including Joss Whedon's Firefly." From the article: "...the hungry fans called their friends and they watched it faithfully. They memorized the episodes. I swear I've heard of people who quit their jobs and moved just so they could live in a city that had Star Trek running every day."
Live long and prosper ...
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
Star Trek was a good franchise, but the powers that be decided to put too many sequels on, without worrying about plot and character development. Insert comment about Wesley Crusher here.
Enraged Trekkie __________ attacked Orson Scott Card today and beat him senseless with a 1960s-vintage officially licensed Star Trek (tm) phaser. Other trekkies soon arrived in mass and quickly stoned the defenseless Card to death with their DVD box sets of TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise.
Card had made the mistake of making comments in a Los Angles Times op-ed piece about the Star Trek franchise that did not deify all people ever involved in the series, including bit-part actors who barely had speaking parts. He even went so far as to suggest that perhaps Star Trek was not the best TV series of all time.
"He made some good points in the article," said a fellow sci-fi writer who feared for his life and did not want to be identified. "Too bad he had to make them about Star Trek. I'll miss him."
I wasn't sure if it was OK for me to not like Star Trek anymore. If it wasn't for Card telling me what to think I would probably never make up my mind.
If anyone knows the state of science fiction, its OSC. He's a genius. There is only so much that can be explored through the Star Trek constraints. Why give the chance to other (more cutting edge) sci-fi ideas that are currently out there.
-For immediate release-
"McNikerosoft is one cool cat" said everyone after his last post.
-30-
In summary, he states that Trek has always sucked, Roddenberry was a hack, and the Klingon language is stupid. I've got some tar over here, anyone else got some feathers?
:-/
Honestly, it's great that he doesn't like Star Trek. I'm happy for him. Really. But not everyone is looking to have their heads messed with when they watch Science Fiction. They don't necessary need to find the "deeper connection", "reveal the hidden truths", or "find another plain of existence". Sometimes people are happy addressing issues that are relevant today rather than issues from some dysotopian future. Star Trek did that. It used allegories (e.g. Klingons == Russians) and analogous situations (e.g. A Private Little War) to help put current issues into perspective. In addition, Roddenberry made Star Trek nothing more than a canvas for far more experienced writers to make their points.
In short, people loved Star Trek because it was both thought provoking and accessable to people who aren't interested in "hardcore sci-fi" visions of the future.
Side Note: Has anyone ever noticed that when Star Trek addresses a topic that some find to be a repulsive trait of hardcore Sci-Fi (e.g. telepaths), the blow is somehow softened to where the concept is easy to accept? Perhaps there's even more missing than Mr. Card realizes.
"I wonder sometimes if the motivation for writers ought to be contempt, not admiration." -Orson Scott Card
Well, that explains everything.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I use to have a crush on Wesley Crusher.
Star Trek gave many people a vision of a future much more peaceful and prosperous than the present day, and awakened who knows how many minds to the potential and wonder of the universe and science. I'm in the sciences today because of it.
The hope that tomorrow can be better than today is what keeps all people going. Star Trek really connected with people on a level I've rarely seen.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
Everythings become so staid or stupid in StarTrek. They need to get name authors to pen plotlines if they ever want to do Trek again. Perhaps if they set everything in the Mirror Universe, it would be good. Afterall, how many TV series set out to be evil all the time?
... people love discussing it's demise! Two "trek dead" stories in two days on /.
I still say they should do a trek reality series that follows Romulan assassins weeding their way into Romulan culture and the Federation. 24 in space type thing...
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Am I the only one who immediately thinks about cycling when a slashdot title includes "Trek" sans "Star"? And does that mean I have to turn in my membership punchcard?
IWARS.
People, in general, disappoint me. Politicians even more so.
We already killed it before.
Had to be said.
Can anybody find a link to the 1975 Saturday Night Live Star Trek skit with Chevy Chase and John Belushi where they were taking down the set?
"They memorized the episodes. I swear I've heard of people who quit their jobs and moved just so they could live in a city that had Star Trek running every day.""
As opposed to the hoops gamers jump through.
The entire crux of his argument is that people liked Star Trek because they had never read any sci-fi and they just didn't know there was better. What a load of crap.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Who would have thought Star Trek would outlive Star Wars?
By now we should have enough episodes of this story to warrant syndication, don't we ..
Through-line series like Joss Whedon's "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and Alfred Gough's and Miles Millar's "Smallville" have raised our expectations of what episodic sci-fi and fantasy ought to be.
Fantasy, yes... science fiction, no.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
It has been long dimissed in my book! :-D
- nYx
Dude, take that back, or I'm gonna do my Spock pinch on you!!!!!
Oh, c'mon. Orson is not so very subtly saying:
My sci-fi show wouldn't suck, so hire me.
Enraged Slashdotter __________ attacked Wayne Goode today and beat him senseless with a 1960s-vintage officially licensed Star Trek (tm) phaser. Other trekkies soon arrived in mass and quickly stoned the defenseless Goodeto death with their DVD box sets of TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise.
Goode had made the mistake of making comments in Slashdot post that mocked Trekkies and devotion to Star Trek.
"He made some good points in the comment," said a fellow Slashdotter who feared for his life and did not want to be identified. "Too bad he had to make them about Trekkies. I'll miss him."
Orson Scott Card is a gifted writer. Nobody denies this. Well, maybe a few.
But let's be serious here. As far as "Sci Fi" goes, he's off the deep end. He's the sci-fi world's equivalent of some british royalty gimboid sipping tea from a saucer with their little finger sticking out, mumbling on about how the "unwashed commoners" don't truly appreciate horse racing, or polo, and how ghastly sports like soccer are.
So he champions the hardcore sci-fi shows. That's fine. I've watched them. Some of them, I've actually enjoyed.
I doubt if Orson Scott Card has seriously watched a Trek series, ever.
I doubly doubt if he's paid attention to some of the absolutely amazing episodes Enterprise has had this year.
And I really don't understand why anyone gives a shit what this ivory-tower sci-fi snob has to say on the subject.
This guy is an an idiot. He has no idea what he talks about, but it is not suprising since he is writing for the Los Angeles Times -- the paper that forgets that does not understand the illegal part of illegal alien.
The problem though comes from a friend who doesn't have the money for cable or Satelite. Unless NBC starts carrying BattleStar Galactica, Enterprise is the ONLY current BROADCAST space-opera style sci-fi. When you consider that there will always be a younger generation of kids discovering science fiction for the first time, space opera still has a place. Maybe not Star Trek- which is particularily bad space opera- but space opera all the same.
With Firefly and Enterprise canceled- and fewer stations than ever before carrying the syndicated version of Stargate and Andromeda (the second of which I'm sure Mr. Card would say suffers from the Roddenberry curse) what can step up to take the hole?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
The worst stuff just drags on and on, rehashing the same tired prejudices and routines with regularity until it's mercifully cancelled. You're not normally supposed to hate the protagonists and root for the end of humanity by raging alien hordes, but each Star Trek has gotten better at inspiring this kind of "hope".
I never vote for anyone. I always vote against.
-- W.C. Fields
Star Trek had some excellent, intelligent episodes as well as its flops. It inspired many people to seek careers in science and engineering, and helped make science seem cool to the general public, not just the comparatively small community of SF fandom. And it may have inspired people to pick up SF books and learn about those authors Card likes so well. If only they'd stopped after the second series.
Card's article seems rather lacking in substance. It is very short and doesn't have nearly the depth of Brin's attacks on Star Wars. I found it rather disappointing.
In the 1960's, Star Trek presented a vastly different culture than our own, with ideas that clashed with the popular world view, such as human equality and tolerance, fused with America's nascent desire to pioneer space.
Today, the civil rights movement has come and gone, there's equal rights and opportunity for almost everyone, and no one gives a crap about a mars base, much less colonizing space. The core themes of Star Trek have lost relevance with today's generation.
Now it's just another whiz-bang space opera. Might as well be watching Lost in Space.
Um, Battlestar Galactica and Lost it most certainly ain't.
Comic Pull List.
Guess Iron Man is off my list now, Mr. Card. Didn't really like what you did to the origin anyhow.
Why people think the mere existance of Star Trek somehow stifles thier ability to put other SF out there is beyond me.
As far as going to the pot to many times, I think that was proven with the Enders Game books (re-telling an entire book from a diffent character's perspective? *), so I guess in a way he knows whereof he speaks...
* of course the Card fans out there will deny that being in any way derivitive or limiting or "more of the same" and crow about how "innovative" it was. Meh.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
that these days OSC is just short for OSCar the Grouch?
Moo.
From the article:
I don't want to admit it, but Card is right. Star Trek was wonderful in large part because it was the first of its kind on TV. Now SF is not a gamble TV and is all over the place. That's a good thing since we can now concentrate on good story, characters and so on.
This is perhaps a natural step in the development of a genre. Even Homer was great mostly because he was the first (have you every actually read the Illiad (even in translation?) It's not that good!)
I still have a warm place in my heart for Star Trek that will never go away, but it must seem mysterious to those young whippersnappers who have never lived in a universe without Star Trek.
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Orson Scott Card is quite dismissive of Star Trek as "baby" Sci-Fi but it did expose people to the world of sci-fi for the first time. So should it be dismissed as being primitive? Or heralded as paving the path for future sci fi series? I don't believe that we would have as much sci fi on tv today if it wasn't for shows such as Star Trek and Star Wars showing a vision of the future (and the bankability of sci fi shows).
However, I think calling "Lost" a sci fi series (?!?!?) is pushing the boundaries a bit. Have new technologies, aliens or space travel appeared in Lost yet? I haven't been watching.
By Grapthar's Hammer they shall be avenged!
... now if we can just do something about those endless "Ender" stories!
Why didn't somebody say something?
Faith: n. -- That human impulse that drives them to steal appliances when the power goes out
Ender's Game was great. Every book after it sucked progressively worse. You have no taste, Mister I-Wrote-The-Novelization-of-The-Abyss-Movie.
Take your own advice.
Let's face it. These are far more realistic than Star Trek, and present a much clearer understanding of politics.
Maybe someone should get the rights to produce a prequel of "The Prisoner" (set in The Village, but not with No. 6), or something based on the Quatermass series (where the only way to succeed is to perish in a horrible, ghastly manner).
Science Fiction has plenty of utopias AND plenty of dystopias. I would agree with the idea that having only one of these is not truly representitive of Science Fiction as a whole, but I would NOT agree that a series is "bad" merely because it happens to be on one side of said fence.
IMHO, we need the extremes and even some examples of Universes between those extremes. Science Fiction ceases to be interesting the moment it stagnates on a single formula. Stagnation is the problem, not the brand.
It would be good if American TV were more adventurous, looking at possibilities on where to go next, rather than trying to live on past dreams. The past fades, no matter now good it was back then. It's good to KEEP the past (NOTE TO THE BBC: This applies to you!!!) but it is not good to assume that you can live in it all the time, forever and a day.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
and I never will. I could never forgive them for the death of my show.
Yes, Sci-Fi has grown up over the last 30 years. I love Firefly and Stargate. But that doesn't mean old ideas are inherently worse; the new Battlestar Galactica series is fantastic. The problem is that since Star Trek: The Next Generation made it OK for shows like Quantum Leap to take to the air, Star Trek itself has had closed-in ideas and stagnant leadership. Deep Space Nine was alright, Voyager was decent, but Enterprise just got worse as it went along. They didn't realize it until it was too late. Manny Coto might have done a lot for Star Trek. He may yet have the opportunity. What's needed is a new vision. When legends like J. Michael Straczynski are lining up to reboot Star Trek, something is up. Maybe something great. If only Paramount would shake off the stranglehold Rick Berman has on the franchise, they could really make progress.
(It's never too late to join the Renaissance)
It's such a shame that a good author has become so close-minded and opinionated.
I have not been able to watch Trek since Babylon 5 aired. Once I saw B5, Trek was so damn tired and silly I could not stand it anymore. It is hard to believe I used to enjoy Trek but I guess I was such a kid.
Suggesting that Star Trek the franchise is better off dead because some (although he argues all) of its incarnations are of inferior quality when compared to currently available television programming is foolish. Just because a program is tagged with the Star Trek moniker doesn't mean that it can't be good television too. The problems with current Trek programming (i.e. Enterprise) are not specifically related to the franchise's past and they can't necessarily be attributed to the "Star Trek" title. It's the specifics that people are tired of, not the underlying concept.
At least Card didn't throw a Jesus pitch in there somewhere.
~Someday, I hope to be an aspiring author.
An Orson Scott Card editorial in the LA Times? Get real: there's no nudity, no scandal, and the intersection of folks that have ever heard of OSC and folks who read the LA Times is probably nil. For many readers of the LA Times, this will be the first time they've ever heard Card's names, and that's exactly the point.
Ender's Game is coming out eventually, and the studio wants it to be a hit. The book is literally a masterpiece (one of several by Card) and should be required reading for everyone serious about life, before they enter kindergarten. It was inevitable that someone who had read the book would eventually get the word to a moron at one of the big movie studios, and via blackmail or drug haze, a studio would pick it up. We're not far away from the release.
This story is the introduction of Orson Scott Card to the moviegoing world. There's no telling how much planning went into what story should go and when it should go out, but the fact of the matter is that you're all being played. The world of dumbasses doesn't touch the world of genius without reason, and money is a good enough reason.
Signed,
Orson
I was agreeing with him all the way up until he started extolling "Smallville". He's saying Star Trek was sci-fi in which the characters were not allowed to develop, and then mentions SMALLVILLE as an alternative?!
Smallville is basically "The OC". Or Gilmore Girls, or 7th Heaven. Except they happen to have some kryptonite and a kid with super powers in this particular show. So it's sci-fi. Right?
My wife and I used to watch it until we realized that we were able to predict which teen was next going to turn into an angst-ridden (or sex-crazed) temporary supervillain about half an hour before the first preview. At this point, we quietly stopped watching.
I loved Ender's Game (yeah, I know that's a real controversial thing to say to Slashdotters), and I liked some of the authors and shows he mentioned in his article...but Smallville was worse than Enterprise ever was.
There's no sig like this sig anywhere near this sig, so this must be the sig.
It's puzzling, to me, that Card (a writer whom I respect greatly, BTW) spends his entire column arguing that the "Star Trek" series(es) should be cancelled because ST:TOS was a bad show.
Why should that even matter? ST:TNG was (by the third season, anyway) a far better series, and DS9 was better still, despite stealing ideas left and right from "Babylon 5". It's the last twenty years of Trek that's being cancelled, not the first three.
Postscript: Now we finally have first-rate science fiction film and television that are every bit as good as anything going on in print. If only....
is that they made all the aliens (except the romulans) make peace with each other! The romulans are pretty boring compared to klingons.
For example, he's a Sci-Fi writer. That doesn't affect his insane Christian homophobia, but it does impugn his judgment about "society"...
That's mean. I don't agree with this column, but he's a good writer and entitled to make a living.
Similiar reasons for me AND I like the look and the technology.*
*I'm a geek. What do you expect?
Both shows sucked. The ratings prove it.
Are you sure it doesn't effect his writing? It's been too long for me to remember much about his Ender books (the first 2 I read, anyway), but are there any positive examples (or any examples at all) of homosexual or bisexual people in them? I'd be surprised that someone that whacky would be able to keep that kind of thing out of their writing.
In general, I've found it's best to not know too much about one's favourite authors.
I hold Mr. Cards books in high regard, but not necessarily his role as film critic. He makes some points, but not all of them are well founded. I would concede that TOS is like short fiction and later TV Sci-Fi like novels. Short stories are not by definition worse or more lowbrow than books. I would argue the same for this comparison of these two art forms (episodic versus non-episodic).
Production values are much higher these days, but that can sometimes be a detriment to story telling. Try viewing TOS and viewing it as a Play rather than a Movie and you might find its exaggerated acting holds up better.
Most off track is Card's indicating TOS could have benefited from the great writing talents of its day. It did. Several episode were penned by guests writers, well known Sci-Fi novelists of the day -- not so coincidently some of the best episodes. (I'm sure some other post will list the episodes and authors).
I wouldn't deny that TOS had some clinkers, but come on, compare it to "Lost in Space" or the hardly known "Star Lost" I'd say it took TV Sci-Fi twenty to thirty years to catch up where Star Trek had boldly gone.
Card, why you gotta be hatin'?
P.S. I have never been to a ST convention or worn vulcan rubber ears.
Letter To Iran
... It's dead, Jim!
How ya like dat?
...shouldn't throw stones.
I guess that Mr. Card is pissed that his books have not sold so well recently. He has to resort to such things in order to try and trump up ANY attention for himself. I guess that the television medium has taken away some of his readership (all ten of them), and now he has a chance to rant and rave now that Trek is off the air for a few years. And trashing a great piece of SciFi to promote your own (ala JMS & B5) is shameful.
I found the "Any" key.
Okay, but you have to bring back Jonathan Frakes as host.
Signed,
Orson
Charlie Kaufman created the two finest science fiction films of all time so far: "Being John Malkovich" and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind."
WTF? Yes, I realize technically these are both sci-fi movies, but they are not at all what the vast majority of people identify with when they think of sci-fi.
Saying they are the best sci-fi movies of all time reminds me of the year that Jethro Tull won a grammy for best heavy metal album. Those of you who consider Jethro Tull heavy metal may as well stop reading now...
Through-line series like Joss Whedon's "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and Alfred Gough's and Miles Millar's "Smallville" have raised our expectations of what episodic sci-fi and fantasy ought to be. Whedon's "Firefly" showed us that even 1930s sci-fi can be well acted and tell a compelling long-term story.
I like all of those shows, but not everyone always wants to watch compelling long-term stories. I actually liked the fact that I could watch whatever TNG episode that was on at the time and (usually) not be worried about what happened last week... There is something quite different about shows that tell a completely different story each episode, and it isnt necessarily bad. It requires much less investment on the viewers part, which if you lead a busy life is a good thing.
Anyway, I for one am somewhat sad to see Enterprise go. It did mostly suck for the first 3 seasons but there have honestly been quite a few really engaging episodes this season, good enough to make me ignore the fact that the cast mostly sucks. Wish they would have gotten to this point sooner, I think the show might have caught on if they had
- Sigs are Stupid
- sigs are stupid
who stops reading the minute someone writes the word "franchise" when talking about something that is supposed to have artistic merit?
"Your Agonizer, please"
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Mr. Stacked Deck puts a lot of responsibility on star trek be the Jackie Robinson of sci-fi. I watch it to be entertained. It fits in the ecological niche of all entertainment. There's room for it in my ecosystem.
In short, people loved Star Trek because it WAS both thought provoking and accessable to people who aren't interested in "hardcore sci-fi" visions of the future.
Emphasis on the WAS.
The problem here is too many people view Trek as one big, indivisible thing. It's not. You can't have a rational conversation about "Trek is Good" or "Trek is Bad". Some Trek was good. The current state of Trek is bad.
The worst thing that can happen to a piece of Sci Fi is for it to become commercially successful. The more commercially successful something is, the greater the temptation to extend the franchise just for the sake of profit. The more money a franchise is worth, the lower you can set your creative standards and still justify releasing a product.
Why do half of the Star Trek movies suck? Because PAramount wanted to make a Star Trek movie, regardless of whether the script was any good. Sometimes they got good scripts, sometimes they didn't. But the people who get to decide whether a Star Trek movie should get made don't make that decision on whether the script is going to produce a good movie. They make that decision based on whether money in will be greater than money out.
The Original Series was a ground-breaking series that only happened because Roddenbery believed in it and made it happen. Next Generation only happened because Roddenbery believed in it and made it happen. Star Trek XXXVJWII, Voyager, and Enterprise was made because if Paramount didn't churn out new Trek they'd be wasting this huge, profitable sci fi franchise they'd built.
That can't go on forever though - eventually you produce so much crap just for the sake of making a buck that your franchise becomes worthless.
Unprofitable or New Sci Fi will only happen if it's good. Profitable Sci Fi will happen REGARDLESS of whether it's good.
If Star Trek hadn't been successful, it would have died after DS9 or earlier, and we'd all still think Trek is Good. But it didn't. But new trek being bad doesn't make old trek any less good.
paintball
They started making costumes and wearing pointy ears. They wrote messages in Klingon, they wrote their own stories about the characters, filling in what was left out including, in one truly specialized subgenre, the "Kirk-Spock" stories in which their relationship was not as platonic and emotionless as the TV show depicted it.
Yo, any of you hypheners out there want to point this slasher to the goods?
OS X:*nix for the real world.
I find the assertion that TV science fiction is now as good as golden-age stories by Asimov and Bradbury to be absurd.
As to Card's motivations, he's spent a lot of his career refuting the objectivist ideas in science fiction (roughly, that American society in the 1950's was the "natural" state of human life) by depicting viable cultures with different moralities and structures -- indeed, this is arguably the core of his work, from "Unaccompanied Sonata" to "Enders Game" to his historical novels about the early days of the Mormon religion. Star Trek is probably a bit too "here and now" for his tastes.
I used to read Caltizzle. I was a lot cooler than you.
He sounds like an neo-con. Sounds like outlawing divorce is next on his list. 3 more republican administrations and the USA should be ready for that.
"Marriage Is Everybody's Business.
And it isn't just the damage that divorce and out-of-wedlock births do to the children in those broken families: Your divorce hurts my kids, too. "
So what are we waiting for?
...because "hacker" sounds way sexier than "code drone."
I swear I've heard of people who quit their jobs and moved just so they could live in a city that had Star Trek running every day
Orson Scott Card knows someone who must know me! I feel so much closer to him now! I just have to know one thing before I can take my new friendship with OSC (I can call you OSC, right?) to the next level...
Kirk or Picard?
Arr! The laws of physics be a harsh mistress!
they don't give him a free pass to go and dictate what people shall call "good". Its all a matter of taste, you know. Mr. Card, however, says that Trek is bad, and that everyone who likes Star Trek is an idiot. Talk about arrogance.
And the part about deeper ideas! Oh my, why can't a sci-fi series be just entertaining? No, of course every series has to be an incredibly deep analysis of about 5 million ideas, with incredibly profound science. Oh come on. This is hard SF. *NEVER* attack soft SF from a hard-SF point of view. This is what Card doesn't realize.
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
That's the exact opposite of what the article was claiming. He says that Star Trek sucked from the beginning, but it was the only sci-fi most people knew for generations (because they didn't read). Now that decent sci-fi is starting to come into its own (ex: Firefly), Star Trek can actually die.
... an in-office orgasm in today's strip... ;-)
d ilbert2073243050503.gif
No, check for yourself:
http://dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/
Paul B.
Card ... Card .. hmmm...
Is he the guy that wrote the one good book 11 years ago and has lived off it ever since?
Incompetent scriptwriters, producers and directors are the guilty parties. And the network executives who selected them and allowed them to entrench themselves.
OMFG!! I can't believe you played the Orson Scott Card!!!
Can I bum a sig? I left mine at the office.
Long live Galaxy Quest!
...they could have bought the whole DVD sets and watch them everyday without commercial breaks.
The reruns, the movies, the DVD box sets... Still the biggest money making SciFi operation in History.
Star Trek is Loved by its fans because they WANT it to be real. The optimistic federation, the military structure with liberal social beliefs, the technology, the Hope.
cell phones, PDAs, computers, and about every type of engineering profession owe a huge thank you to the vision that was, is, and always will be star trek.
Star Trek is more than a religion, more than a show, it is a belief in the way things Ought to be.
I look forward to warp drive and transporters !!!
And actually, I am suprised the human species has only come this far...
Live Long and Prosper, and when you've had too much star trek, rent Galaxy Quest!
Last Trek: May 13
Last Star Wars: May 19
I loved those movies, never thought of them as Sci Fi though. Do you?
San Francisco Photographers
Read my latest journal entry and Make a fucking Foe!! http://slashdot.org/~Wyrmw00d/journal
The idea of Star trek did not go stale, but the producers did. Nearly four of the series and most of the movies were from Rick Berman.
Actually, Buffy started to suck when they abandoned the episodic track and went whole hog on the continuity. So did X-Files. For both of these shows there was a medium point between grinding continuity and one-shot episodic format that was pure genius. But both descended into rather shitty soap operas. And Buffy in particular had a VERY bad problem - they saved the world EVERY year. Basically this meant that everything after the first time they saved world was a long drawn out anticlimax. X-Files? Ho-humm... all tease and no resolution on any story line. The problem with both? Writers trying to make a soap opera and forgetting that they have to play by soap opera rules. They should have been watching Coronation Street to find out how to mix up storylines, intro new characters, phase out old ones. You have to have some side storylines running alongside your major arc; you have to wrap up every storyline eventually; and you CAN'T have a great big world-changing event every single frigging season.
And we all know the course this thing will follow. Anyone who opposes this edict will be branded a bigot; any schoolchild who questions the legitimacy of homosexual marriage will be expelled for "hate speech." The fanatical Left will insist that anyone who upholds the fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation, is a "homophobe" and therefore mentally ill.
Which is the modern Jacobin equivalent of crying, "Off with their heads!
Looks to me like he has you pegged!
As geeks, we LOVED Card because he wrote about Ender Wiggin; a very bright young boy who could not get along with his peers because of his intellectual capacity. C'mon, this is Slashdot. If you read Slashdot, and you've read Ender's Game, you identified with Ender to some extent.
We all like to believe that we are special. Geeks like to believe they are smarter than the average person. Is it so crazy to believe that maybe it wasn't Card's extraordinary writing and plot that made Ender's Game so popular -- perhaps it was because Ender's Game was the ultimate braniac dream? To be smart enough to save the world, and get the accolades that go along with it.
His blatant religious proselytizing in his other books, most notably the Alvin Maker series, choked me with its sickly-sweet taint. I enjoyed the series at first because it was well written and fun, but it soon turned into a carousel of reptition. Alvin did and said the same things over and over, Card using him as a hand-puppet to express his Love Thy Neighbor and Turn the Other Cheek platitudes until I was racing through to the end of the novel not out of enjoyment and eagerness to see what happened, but just to be able to put the book down and go wash the veneer of his homophobic Christianity from my hands.
Card is not a saint. He wrote something that we all very much wanted to read; that we were alienated from our peers as children for a reason. There's a destiny waiting for us so we can use these big brains. We were humiliated on the playgrounds in grade school, but we'll show them! Someday!
Card gave us this pipe dream. But it's time to let go of the security blanket, Linus. You're smart, but you don't need a writer to give you a raison d'etre in a science fiction fairy tale.
first thing: do I have to know Orson Scott Card?
I have been a trekkie in my younger days and I still enjoy to watch re-runs:
one thing is for sure:
there is not going to be an "uber-show" like Star Trek in the forseeable future. maybe some smaller shows with a couple of seasons before the authors run out of ideas - not a whole "universe" of shows with spin-offs which run for decades.
Okay I don't want to seem like a troll but the parent is right. Name a sci fi series that in the past 20 years has lasted more than two seasons on network (NETWORK) TV.
To further this point, think about the ones that have. I can name "quantum leap" as one of these series, but how sci-fi was it really? It had a sci fi premise, but the theme wasn't steeped very deep in sci-fi. It was a great show don't get me wrong, but in order to be successful with sci-fi and the american viewing public you have got to either mask it a bit, use an established name like star trek, or go onto the sci-fi channel.
Bab5 was an exception, and even then, in the height of its popularity, it wasn't pulling enough of a ratings share and the time slot moved a hell of a lot until TNT finally said enough, we'll air the last season and shut the networks up.
Sci-fi still is a big risk and it will be until general fan base for sci fi grows. It hasn't for years and won't for a long time.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Ender's Game is in silverscreen production, dude.
Don't think TV is more glamour. In any case, expect spin-offs.
At least Star Trek's writers managed to be entertaining 100% of the time, and had the discipline to edit out the dreck.
I always think it's really sad when gifted writers like Card or Neil Stephenson (what the hell, I'm already going to get a troll mod for insulting the Mighty Creator of Ender) let their fans' praise go to their heads. The pattern is always the same: their early work rocks, but as their egos inflate, they stop listening to their editors. Their early work is tight, it's only their best work, and anything not meeting the highest standards is edited out. Then in later work, they go on and on in mind-numbing histories that fail to move the story forward or create any new dramatic tension. Anything flowing from their pens must be holy writ, I guess.
Flamers: Please do not assume I am referring to your favorite Card or Stephenson work. I acknowledge that both these guys are excellent writers. I'm just sayin' they have also been very self-indulgent writers at times. If you want another example of self-indulgence, look no farther than Anne Rice. Anyone read The Witching Hour? Jeebus that sucked.
include $sig;
1;
I've written that media SF has often been a good few decades behind written SF, especially movies. They quote Richard Morgan in the NYTimes article ("That's the past of science fiction you're talking about, . .
The literature is filled with writing by Greg Benford, the 'how to empathize with ordinary deathless people' writer Greg Egan, Ken Macleod, Richard Morgan, Ian Banks, Cory Doctorow , or Charlie Stross. Movies haven't made it past the 70's (Bladerunner, the Matrix) other than perhaps 'Eternal Sunshine' (similar to a few 80's stories), and T.V. shows have only tentatively reached the 80's or early 90's (some Outer Limits and Twighlight Zone episodes). With Star Wars and Star Trek out of the way perhaps there'll be more room for the average media SF to catch up to at least the 80's.
Star Trek never explored shows based upon:
Life on the federation planets, how about a struggling new colony - all the joy of soap operas with creatures and sci fi added for fun.
Federation from the top perspective (always out and about in space, what about a West Wing version of Star Trek.)
Something about the Acadamy. A 90120 type show, going into the lives of young teenagers. Starship Troopers came close to this concept, but school for space would be cool. Something Military dependents could really relate to.
A show set in the star trek universe, but not in the federation. How about a planet or small 'empire' system that is planning to join the federation while other plot against it.
Hell, anyone try a star trek comedy - Office Space in space, go for it.
Any angle you can think of, any story you could think of, could be recast into the Star Trek Universe.
Star trek families, star trek technicians, how about a show that is All taken from the view of star trek civilians (Space Truckers!)
I think our Real world governments could learn a thing or two from Star Trek, as long as George Bush doesn't get all the green skinned ladies!
"Today, the civil rights movement has come and gone, there's equal rights and opportunity for almost everyone, and no one gives a crap about a mars base, much less colonizing space. The core themes of Star Trek have lost relevance with today's generation."
Equal rights and opportunity for almost everyone? Really? You honestly believe that? I mean, that's not even entirely true for the U.S. anymore, much less the rest of the world.
No one gives a crap about a Mars base or colonizing space? Really? You honestly believe that? Maybe it's just politicspeak but Junior says he believes in it, and that's something. Then of course there are the Mars hotbutton folks that frequent this site. I doubt they're all nom de plumes for Junior.
The core themes of Star Trek (freedom, equality, exploration, hope, optimism about the future, exploring the human condition, etc.) are core themes for humanity, probably for as long as there will be humanity. That those things are not relevant (according to you) to "today's generation" says more about "today's generation" than it does about Star Trek. And in case you were wondering, what it says isn't good. That people like you and Card can't get past the styrofoam boulders and green alien chicks to see this indicates a lack of insight on your parts.
While I'm ranting, there was nothing soap (space) operaish about TOS. There was one multipart episode, and that done for budget constraint reasons. There were no ciffhangers, no see what happens next week, no dead people coming back from the dead a year later, no ongoing romances, so on and so forth.
These are far more realistic than Star Trek, and present a much clearer understanding of politics. Maybe someone should get the rights to produce a prequel of "The Prisoner" (set in The Village, but not with No. 6)
Of course, some people have argued that the character in "The Prisoner" is supposed to be the same character that was in Danger Man (Series 2 link; note that there were apparently plot differences between the two series).
OTOH, McGoohan denies this, but having recently seen the final episode of "The Prisoner" again, I don't think he knows more than anyone else.
I mean, have you *seen* the damn thing? The Prisoner had, at its best, some damn good stuff in it.
And at its worst, it's very datedly eccentric in a 'swinging' 1960s kind of way that veers on occasion towards 'Austin Powers' territory (although there is no 'Austin Powers' figure per se; certainly not McGoohan's character).
Supposedly, the series was cut short because it wasn't getting the viewing figures needed, and McGoohan had to write the final episode at short notice.
Which begs the question, did he have *any* idea what the final episode would have been had they been given their full run? At any rate, what you get is nonsense masquerading as something slightly deeper.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Messa say youda HATE da trekkies,
De photon torpedos ara Nooooo Macha for da Force!
No?
And characters like Yoda and Chewie inspire people to do what, exactly?
Nimoy was the only charismatic actor in the cast and, ironically, he played the only character not allowed to register emotion.
... Scotty, Sulu, Uhura. These are among the most recognizable faces and voices in the movie industry as a whole, not just sci-fi. It isn't fair to dismiss it as campy crap with cardboard actors the way Card does.
Is this supposed to be flamebait? Come on. Shatner has no charisma? The cast of the original Star Trek was assembled in an era when there was more to an actor than good looks. Just listen to their voices and you'll begin to see the range of talent involved. Shatner, Nimoy, DeForest Kelley,
... there was a similar story in this morning's Seattle Times:
i nment/2002260546_startrek03.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/artsenterta
Both taste like malted battery acid. Or were you trying to be ironic instead of bigoted?
Considering the less-than-stellar nature of Card's own writing (he's had one good novel), this is pretty funny. By and by I tend to agree with him to some degree, but I think that the original series had some damn fine episodes that were never matched later, and there was the chemistry between the main characters that kept things going on the duller and dumber episodes. Card's clearly just being ultra-negative to toot his own horn.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"I swear I've heard of people who quit their jobs and moved just so they could live in a city that wasn't full of Homophobic Mor(m)ons like Orson Scott Card running the place."
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
As much as I like his books (at least ones that are not trying to turn me into a drooling mormon) he is a dispicable human and an outrageous bigot:d /index.html l
See
http://dir.salon.com/books/feature/2000/02/03/car
and his actual views
http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.htm
Those articles will turn you off on that guy.. or at least stop purchasing his books.
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
And then the madness really got underway. They started making costumes and wearing pointy ears. They wrote messages in Klingon, they wrote their own stories about the characters, filling in what was left out -- including, in one truly specialized subgenre, the "Kirk-Spock" stories in which their relationship was not as platonic and emotionless as the TV show depicted it.
... [grin]
As I recall, it didn't happen in that order. For one thing, I recall K-S fan fiction being written WAY before a friend of mine did that Klingon dictionary everyone was into, and the stories preceded the costumes.
But heck, it's not like I was Solei the Usurper back in the SEV days or anything
Regardless, part of the problem has been when and where they showed the ST series - the time slots chosen aren't in weekday prime time - they're on weekends - yes, Friday night is part of the weekend - and unless you're late Friday night with a Monday night rebroadcast like BG is on SciFi, you miss all the people who actually have a life.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Star Trek, at least the newer series, isn't (usually) about big SF ideas. It's about the interplay of various types of characters in interesting scenarios that simply can't exist outside of science fiction. In particular, the most interesting interactions are between the human and the not-quite-human. That's why he admits to finding Spock 'charismatic'. That's why Data, 7 of 9 and T'Pol have been such important characters over the years. Look at the structure of a Trek episode: usually you rapidly figure out that this is a Data episode, or a 7-of-9 and Doctor episode, or a Spock and McCoy episode. They are structured around personality combinations, not the latest idea out of Nature. However poor you might think these characterizations actually are, they are actually a lot better than anything penned by Asimov, Clarke or Niven, who between them knew how to build a fun story out of a few interesting SF ideas, but are/were literarily inept.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Because Stargate is the pinicle of Science Fiction? I would also point out that Firefly was cancelled.
The point is that there's this threshold of how *deep* TV SciFi can be before people tune out. If it doesn't appeal to the masses, it won't hold up under it's special effects budget and it will ultimately fail.
This is the face of TV SciFi.
At least Star Trek tried injecting a little depth in subtle sneaky ways. Stargate and the like are just more vapid and hollow.
They should have moved production and screenplay writing to Australia - that would have changed a lot of things.
...
Or even Mexico
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
As much as I like his books (at least ones that are not trying to turn me into a drooling mormon) he is a dispicable human and an outrageous bigot:d /index.html l
See
http://dir.salon.com/books/feature/2000/02/03/car
and his actual views
http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.htm
Those articles will turn you off on that guy.. or at least stop purchasing his books.
(this was originally buried in another thread, but reposting here as OSC is really not a nice guy, so does not surprise me that he would turn on a large segment of his fans.)
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
Someone admits that Shit Trek should not only be canceled permanently, shouldn't have been fucking made at ALL. Personally, NBC shouldn't have given that fucktard Gene RottenBerry any consideration for his creation Shit Trek just as Fux shouldn't have given to another fuctard George Fucking Lucas for his Shit Wars.
G0 FUCKING AHEAD, FLAME AWAY, IF I'VE UPSET ANY0NE, I MUST BE FUCKING RIGHT!
Parent is pretending to link to google, but really it's goatse
Having seen about half of Firefly, I don't understand how people think it is anywhere near good. It fits with other Whedon Teenie trash(Buffy, Angel) but doesn't deserve to be mentioned with the likes of Star Trek, BSG, Farscape, Stargate...
I think not -- at least as far as Trek shows. Not that there's anything wrong with secular humanism -- it's more or less my viewpoint -- but consider the Trek evidence (no, I don't know episode names or exact wording -- I'm not *that* much of a Trek fan):
1) The episode where Kirk meets an alien who was the god Apollo in Greek times -- Apollo wants people to worship him but Kirk says "Humanity doesn't need gods -- we find the one sufficient" -- implying that some sort of monotheism is still there in the Trek universe
2) The "20th century Roman Empire" episode the rebels fighting the empire are thought to be "sun worshippers" and the Enterprise crew is surprised to find how noble they are (pagans are evil, ya know) but then Uhurua figures out that they are "son worshippers" -- that is christians, and it all supposedly makes sense.
For an indepth view of the Authors personality and thoughts take a look at http://www.hatrack.com/ The Official OSC website
Its true, the internet hates everything. If TOS, TNG, DS9 , or Voyager would have had to start up in the shadow of the internet, none of them wouldve stood a chance.
Think about it, how often do you see/play/read a movie/game/book, that you liked, and then after seeing it torn to shreds by a million critics on the internet you dont like it near as much as you used to.
Things that existed before the internet seem to be immune to this curse due to the rose-tinted glasses that we view the past in, but everything that comes out nowadays has loads and loads of critics picking apart every last detail. And it seems to me that the person who hates or hates it most will be the most persistant in promoting their opinion.
Enterprise as a TV show was no better or worse than TOS, TNG, Voyager, or DS9... but those shows only had to deal with a few select critics, not the whole bloomin world
Idiots who want to decide my tastes for me can go to hell. Firefly sucks! Go watch it if you want, but don't try to tell me I have to watch it too. This notion of "only things I deem worthwhile are worthwhile" loses its charm after sixth grade. Take your swill and enjoy it, but don't force it on me.
Card is using a strawman argument. Star Trek was not a tremendous sucess because it was perfect but because it better than any Science Fiction at the time on TV. Star Trek was a reasonably hard and reasonably consistent science fiction show when the bulk of contemporary shows were on the level of "Lost in Space". Card argues that we could have had LeGuin, Ellison or Asimov instead of Star Trek. In a perfect world yes, we could have, but in the world we have we were lucky to get Ellison's "City at the Edge of Forever" via Trek however mangled. As for Asimov, two words, "I Robot" staring Will Smith.
Television even more than politics is the art of the possible. In order to make even a halfway decent show actually happen takes a very determined and practical individual to guide a show past the idiots in charge of the networks. There are very few individuals capable of pushing a good idea all the way to a reasonably good show Roddenbery was one, only Whedon and JMS have shown the capability to pull off comparable feats and neither presently has a show on TV.
Trek demonstrated that serious, hard science fiction could make it on television. Star trek also served as the "gateway drug" familarizing a generation with the basic elements of true science fiction.
After Roddenbery's passing Paramount handed his achievement over to B&B who have debased it to the point in which it is no longer relevant. Yes Babylon 5 and Firefly easily outclass Star Trek but they would have not existed without the original Trek series.
When I see an Orson Scott Card inspired TV series which he approves of on TV I'll take his arguements seriously.
Though I hesitate to call Ender's Game art.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Firefly? Please! I tried to watch it. ON 2 different occasions, (because I believe in giving second chances), and it was the most awful thing I ever saw. Westerns are dead, and good riddance, but at least a western has a theme. Wanting us to kind of accept that Far West dress and garb as well as culture would become something in the space age, when it was restricted to a tiny part of the world and to about 50 years of duration, totally incoherent. I did like Buffy. But Firefly was shameful.
Well, having read TFA, I can say I have no interest in reading anything by Mr. Card, ever. It's rare that I see such pure arrogance. The last time I saw it was in my high school short story lit book, which talked about "mature readers" wanting deep, moving stories and only "immature readers" cared about actually enjoying the story.
Mr. Card, perhaps you were not aware that Trek, when it's good (meaning not when Berman is running things), offers some of the best and most insightful social commentary and discussion you'll see on film. There is a group where I live that gets together monthly at a Unitarian Church to watch an episode or two and then discuss the social, ethical, and moral implications thereof. It's been meeting for about 6 years, I think. Are there any groups that do that with Firefly? Or Smallville? I didn't think so.
Just because more people like Star Trek than like your books is no reason to declare them all immature grade schoolers. That's very grade school of you.
--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?
o just mod me down in to oblivion already
firefly was a piece of crap
i do not understand those who seem to enjoy it
firefly was a few bits and pieces from good movies and nice series trow in a book or 2
held together by weak actors and a poor story line
sory acting/producing crew if you happen to read this point me to something better you guys did i might change my mind.
trek died long live trek
last season was ok, sure nothing beats tng and ds9
towards the seasons enterprise is not going to get
so we have a nice and detailed universe and time line a lot of people like.
and now we are suposed to dump them it's only what 30 40 years old? dunno not that great in trivia
soaps have been the same since atleast during the greek rule of the mediteranian.
tales about cuning foxes and dumb but brave lions since atleast the early middel ages.
jezes make them dump dmca, and abolish IP for cultural icons like trek and disney films that have been around for ages.
perhaps that way a few other produces can make their own shows in that universe
that the best show wins
That being said, schlock space opera like original series created the critical mass necessary for ST:TNG first season to come about, which, speaking personally, contained some of the most riveting and fascinating tv I've ever seen or ever expect to see. The fact that there will most likely never be another episode as fascinating as Encounter at Farpoint or DataLore saddens me. Again, IMHO, these episodes could stand up to OSC, Bradbury, Simmons, Asimov. If the original series had to happen for them to ever be created -- well, good!
Ultimately, the point of the article -- aside from good old iconoclasm -- appeared to be that we don't need perpetual sequels in the Star Trek universe.
Duh.
Regards, Moiche
He's a Latter-day Saint!
Gotta admit, I love how he's not afraid to voice his opinions on the Left. Then again, the Left have all but beaten the Right into submission, but still play the role of martyrs.
I'm coming to the end of the Firefly DVD set. Seems little different to Star Trek to me. Yes, it's a bit grittier, but that's just the simple transformation you get from applying dirt to the set and throwing a few expletives into the dialog. It has exactly the same format as Star Trek: The Morality Play. Each episode some of the characters lectures some of the others on how their ethics need improving.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
This is something else i didn't mention earlier but..
Smallville is good?
I've seen enough episodes to know that it relies on the "technobabble particle of the week" formula that plagued Star Trek.
Smallville isn't a good series. It's a Fantasy Soap Opera for teens.
Buffy on the other hand, while for all first appearances as a Fantasy Soap Opera for teens turnes out to be a most cleverly written show.
The point wasn't that a rabid fanbse was bad. The point was that commercial success was bad. Obviously, TNG wouldn't have happened if Star Trek was a money pit, and thus the success of TOS and the movies definitely enabled TNG (as if the movies lost millions of dollars each, there wouldn't have been TNG.)
... Don't we already have three star trek series? Do we really need another one?
But RABID COMMERCIAL SUCCESS will kill Sci-Fi. And that's what happened - eventually Paramount made what is now referred to as the Lucas Observation - it doesn't matter if the product is any good, it'll make you millions regardless as long as it's part of The Franchise.
Think about it - Paramount spit out *FOUR* new star trek TV series in about a decade. *FOUR*.
Which of the following scenarios is more likely:
Exec #1: I got this GREAT new concept for a series pitched to me today. We should really do it.
Exec #2: Really? What's it about?
Exec #1: "t takes place in the Star Trek universe...
Exec #2
Exec #1: Yes, but this new concept is SO INCREDIBLY GOOD and SO REMARKABLY DIFFERENT from the three series we already have we should do it anyway.
*OR*
Exec #1: Doesn't look like we're going to meet our revenue targets this year.
Exec #2: Damn, what can we do to get more revenue next year?
Exec #1: How about a Star Trek series or movie? Those are always good for a few bucks.
And THAT'S the difference. Sci-Fi that is created because someone wants to create Sci-Fi and manags to convince someone else that it's worth spending money on is far more likely to be GOOD than Sci-Fi that is created because someone knows they will make money off it as long as something gets produced.
paintball
"We care about moral issues, nobility, decency, happiness, goodness--the issues that matter in the real world, but which can only be addressed, in their purity, in fiction."
Bad acting and campy dialogue aside, I'm surprised that he can't see, or chooses not to recognize in his op-ed piece, the relentless (and at times ground-breaking) treatment of those same issues in the Trek universe.
Insert witty comment *here*. I'm fresh out of wit...
StA trUCK iz FoR LOOZAZ AHHAHAHhahahahah
wonder if he is trying to get some attention for the video game he wrote the plot for "advent rising" a trilogy of games, with the first being released next month?
Now, I despise Card. He may be a great writer of Science Fiction, but his bigoted attitudes makes it impossible for this SF lover to read his works anymore.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
August 1996 Press Release WASHINGTON -- Psychoanalytic theory holds that trekphobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly sciencefictional people hold for Star Trek -- is the result of repressed Trekkie urges that the person is either unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Star Trek Association (ASTA), provides new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory.
Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment involving 35 trekphobic men and 29 nontrekphobic men as measured by the Index of Trekphobia scale. All the participants selected for the study described themselves as exclusively sciencefictional both in terms of sexual arousal and experience. Each participant was exposed to trekually explicit episodic stimuli consisting of Sciencefictional, male Treksexual, Next Generational, Klingon S&M, Vulcan Tantra, and Star Wars Oriented videotapes (but not necessarily in that order). Their degree of Trekual arousal was measured by penile plethysmography, which precisely measures and records male tumescence.
Men in both groups were aroused by about the same degree by the video depicting Next Generational sexual behavior and by the video showing two Klingons engaged in sexual behavior. The only significant difference in degree of arousal between the two groups occurred when they viewed the video depicting Kirk/Spock treksexual sex: 'The Trekphobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the Kirk/Spock treksexual video, but the control [nontrekphobic] men did not.'
Broken down further, the measurements showed that while 66% of the nontrekphobic group showed no significant tumescence while watching the Kirk/Spock treksexual video, only 20% of the trekphobic men showed little or no evidence of arousal. Similarly, while 24% of the nontrekphobic men showed definite tumescence while watching the Klingon S&M video, 54% of the trekphobic men did.
When asked to give their own subjective assessment of the degree to which they were aroused by watching each of the three videos, men in both groups gave answers that tracked fairly closely with the results of the objective physiological measurement, with one exception: the trekphobic men significantly underestimated their degree of arousal by the Kirk/Spock treksexual video.
Do these findings mean, then, that trekphobia in men is a reaction to repressed treksexual urges, as psychoanalysis theorizes? While their findings are consistent with that theory, the authors note that there is another, competing theoretical explanation: cancelation anxiety. According to this theory, viewing the Kirk/Spock treksexual videotape may have caused negative emotions (such as cancelation anxiety) in the trekphobic men, but not in the nontrekphobic men. As the authors note, 'anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and erection,' and so it is also possible that 'a response to treksexual stimuli [in these men] is a function of the threat condition rather than sexual arousal per se. These competing notions can and should be evaluated by future research.'
Article: 'Is Trekphobia Associated With Trekkie Arousal?' by Henry E. Adams, Ph.D., Lester W. Wright, Jr., Ph.D. and Bethany A. Lohr, University of Georgia, in Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 105, No. 3, pp 440-445.
The American Star Trek Association (ASTA), in Washington,DC, is the largest scientific and professional organization representing trekkies in the United States and is the world's largest association of geeks. ASTA's membership includes more than 142,000 virgins, dweebs, mama's boys, pear shaped fans, Klingon speakers and costumers. Through its divisions in 49 subfields of Trekology and affiliations with 58 state and Canadian provincial associations, ASTA works to advance Star Trek as a science, as a profession and as a means of promoting human welfare, splitting infinitives, and bravely going where no man has gone before.
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
Orson Scott Card is the man. :-)
So instead of Star Trek, we get Ender. Never ends.
They incorporated AI ideas, Virtual Reality, all manner of genetic stuff - modernish scifi concepts. As for the original series, well, maybe...
Buffy and the like are not what I would call scifi. They are pure fantasy. Firefly is probably maybe real scifi, the Treks are, let's face it, sci-fantasy - we know that aliens won't look just a tad like humans and have slightly different faces - they also knew this in the 1930s [1] Firefly escapes this because they don't have aliens...
As for real scifi - 90% of it would never make it on tv, especially hard SF. When 2001 came out, many people didn't get it, and most today would find it extremely boring - similar would never make it on tv.
Farscape was wonderful because it took the soap of the space-soap-opera to a new level and it was made for "grown ups", with real adult drama, not the sugar-coated drama of the Treks. It's definetely sci-fantasy, however...
Battle Star Galactica is great, and a bit closer to scifi, but is still sci-fantasy. Or, a military drama set in a weak-scifi-fantasy setting.
Hate to burst anyone's bubble, folks, but most scifi just ain't all that popular, certainly not enough for hollywood to make money...
[1] How do we know aliens won't look mostly like us? Common ancestry, DNA and evolution - each alien planet would have to have nearly identical flora and fauna to our own, and, no, "DNA seeding" of some sort doesn't solve the problem - could seeding have helped or hindered the obliteration of the dinosaurs, for example? No. Aliens may have recognizable features, eyes and hair, for example, and appendages, but could they be roughly the same size, weight, shape as humans with similar body-layouts? The chances are so remote that it's more fantasy than science...
dahlek (will you squirm when you are pecked
People slag Star Trek for having every alien be humanoid, but that is deliberate. Roddenberry wanted people to see the humanity in every character.
Personally, I don't watch much Sci Fi because most of it shows a future which sucks. Star Trek shows a future that I want to believe in.
Star Trek needs to die because it displaces better, more deserving shows. If not for Enterprise, Firefly might still have a home. If not for DS9, Babylon 5 wouldn't have had the struggle it did.
It's the same reason it was so much worse to make a cheesy action flick from "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" than it would have been to make a cheesy action flick from whole cloth.
If they could make and keep their bad or even marginally good work without it displacing better work, it wouldn't matter so much. But so long as they've got hot and cold running Roddenberry (well, Berman now), I'll drink a beer for the art I'll never see, and piss the results on Star Trek's long-overdue grave.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
"officially licensed Star Trek (tm) phaser."
Should have read "officially licensed Star Trek (tm) phaser in mint condition."
"their DVD box sets of TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise"
Should have read "their collectible DVD box sets of TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise in pristine wrappings"
The Times regrets the omissions.
Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
Interestingly, that article also pointed out a favorable alternative. Instead of Firefly, though, it was Blade Runner:
"And even now, 20 years later, it still looks like the future... That's a neat trick."
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
This is widely known:
"I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort to take away the power of rational decision, to drain people of their free will--and a hell of a lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all. For most people, religion is nothing more than a substitute for a malfunctioning brain." -Gene Roddenberry
I confess that I'm a Geek, I Read Authority, I Play D&D, I've read my fist Scifi book at 12 (2069 if a I remenber coretly) but I NEVER liked Star Trek.. that fuking optimistic "the americans tooks over the earth, everything is fine now" is soo boring.. the movies were boring etc... I realy never understood why the geek comunity likes this shit... to tell the truth the only scifi tv series I liked was Babylon 5...
THE spot. Farscape. TV's smartest and sexiest sci-fi show (Entertainment Weekly), the genre's brightest beacon (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) and I could go way on and on.
luckily cashiering at soft-serve ice cream joints is a portable skill.
who is she? leave a comment!
...as I came to realize at about age 14, but I love it anyway (the original, the movies, and TNG, anyhow). Must be due to some kind of early conditioning, or something, but I will ALWAYS watch it if its available.
One thing Mr. Card fails to note when he puts Harlan Ellison (rightfully, imho) at the top of his list of kickass writers of the 60's, is that Mr. Ellison actually wrote the teleplay for 'The City at the Edge of Forever' episode....one of the few that didn't have a COMPLETELY moronic plot.
I think it's a great loss that the people producing television at that time were too feeble to do justice to any of the great stuff that was being written back then. Then again, maybe they weren't moronic...maybe they just knew their audience.
But then she went and got all touchy feely on us when all we wanted was a slice of pie.
For someone so supposedly well-versed in SF, I'm surprised that Card wrote "Kirk-Spock" instead of "Kirk/Spock" or more accurately but more opaquely, "K/S" to denote homoerotic Trek fanfic.
For cryin' out loud, Wikipedia has decent articles on both slasdh fiction and Kirk/Spock , even.
Bah. It's just a nitpick.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I enjoy Star Trek immensely, but I agree strongly that Trek is not the ultimate in Science Fiction. Personally I would rather see more contemporary and less formulaic Sci-Fi (such as Trek).
To my mind, the problem with Enterprise was symbolic of the problem with Trek in general - it has too much Hollywood froth and not enough thought put into it.Essentially, Enterprise was the Star Trek that the fanatics deserved.
Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.
geeze though....smallville? i mean, seriously....smallville?
I have to say I don't know much about Card, and I've only ever read Ender's Game.
I'm also not a big fan of Star Trek, but that's for my own reasons.
However, just what is Card's definition of sci-fi? He throws in fantasy shows as examples of good sci-fi. Card lost all credibility with me when he said 'Lost' is the best that sci-fi has ever been.
Considering it's not sci-fi, maybe he's making a more subtle dig at sci-fi writing. Or maybe he's just a gimp.
Although I don't watch Star Trek, I can understand what everyone is going through. I was just as pissed off when I found out Firefly was getting canned, and that hadn't built up decades of love in me..
All this article has really shown me is that I needn't buy any more of Card's books.
The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
Insane - hell, okay, you've got to be somewhat insane to write science fiction, it comes with the territory.
Christian - Oh my God, he's a Mormon. How dare he.
Homophobe - Here's the problem. See, that little article you quote says that he's against the federal courts more or less making laws. I would agree with that, even though homosexual marriages don't bother me. If he was homophobic as you claim, I seriously doubt that he'd treat homosexual characters as benevolently and well as he does (Earthfall comes to mind).
So, uh--smile! You're wrong!
The Slashdot article suggests Card makes some good points about the development of SciFi over the last 30+ years. I'm not entirely sure, because based on what Card holds up as paragons of good SciFi, it's pretty clear to me that his definition of SciFi doesn't match mine. (Another poster echoed this sentiment, stating that many "examples" were more Fantasy than SciFi.)
To be clear: Science Fiction is fiction in which, when you remove the science element, it no longer makes sense. Science is integral somehow. Mary Shelly's Frankenstein is SciFi; without the premise of reanimation with electricity, it just wouldn't be the same story. (I can just hear the Fantasy apologists chiming in with the "Fantasy is indistinguishable from SciFi" argument, by claiming that magic is indistinguishable from technology. I don't want to get mired in this debate, however. Good fantasy requires some kind of self-consistency on some level, just like good SciFi, but fantasy doesn't have to square with conventional reality in any way. Even "far out" SciFi concepts are usually extrapolations of current ideas or trends or technologies.)
By this definition, most space opera is not SciFi. Star Wars, minus the SciFi trappings of spaceships and futuristic weaponry and droids, would be a Western with some metaphysical overtones. Now, it's true that Star Trek was sold to NBC as a "wagon train to the stars." This was because Westerns were the popular milieu of the day; most of the successful TV shows at the time were Westerns. But there were still stories being told against that backdrop that had real science fiction in them.
Orson Scott Card's LA Times article does a lot of name dropping. He mentions Larry Niven and Robert Silverberg and Harlan Ellison. And yet, many of these writers wrote episodes for Star Trek. (Ellison's script won an award, even though Roddenberry rewrote it for the screen. The episode was "City on the Edge of Forever," and won a Hugo. Ellison's original script won a Writers Guild of America award. Niven wrote for the animated series.) Some young SciFi authors got their start because of Star Trek -- remember David Gerrold? He wrote "The Trouble with Tribbles," and is now a respected SF author in his own right.
What is Card's problem with 1930's SciFi? Not all of it was episodic pulp crap or low-budget moviehouse serials. Some of the best SciFi I've read has come from the 1930's and 1940's.
He's right that later incarnations of Star Trek were better acted, and wrong that the content stagnated. At least with ST:TNG, many thought provoking stories were told, and would actually qualify as "real" SciFi by my test above, providing you're willing to forgive Star Trek physics and some of its consistent inconsistencies with real physics. Even the mundane backdrop trappings of the Star Trek universe were the subject of fascinating books.
I will grant that Card's right about one thing: Star Trek popularized Science Fiction. Some would say Trek diluted the pool of good stuff by filling the airwaves with mediocre material. This is an opinion I do not share.
I would also argue that Card's wrong about the quality of modern SciFi on television and film; I disagree that it's every bit as good as what's in print, if only because there are many things that can only be approximated with special effects, things that the human imagination is much more adept at rendering. (But then, I have long believed that Card simply doesn't "get it," and wouldn't recognize truly good SciFi if it bit him on the ass.)
While the recent incarnations of Trek have been painful to watch (with season 4 of Enterprise being what the show should have been all along, but too little, too late), I don't think the "need" for Trek has diminished. Trek was more than just a vehicle for telling stories in a SciFi milieu. Trek was more
Doctor Who!
He was forced to leave because otherwise they would have had to deal with the corruption issue.
Gay, straight, married, single, don't put you illicit lover on the state payroll, especially for a job that they are LEGALLY unqualified for (didn't have the clearance for the position).
The only one talking about the gay thing was him who wanted to be a martyr while coming out of the closet with his wife standing next to him.
The Governor of New Jersey wasn't ousted for his sexual orientation, but rather for behavior related to his sexual choices.
With respect to the presidents issue, etc.
We have relative equality at this point, but things take time.
To have a non-White, non-Christian male president, you need to have someone who was born in the post-Civil Rights, era, who had "relative" equality their whole life.... or all those people are at a disadvantage. To really have a chance, you need two generations of that, because the most significant indicators for success in life are thing like your intelligence, your education, and your parents education.
Once you clean up the legal system, it takes time to flow throughout society.
I'm so with you there. That's why it's so funny to see Card bashing on Trek, for having outlived its usefulness. "Ender: The Infant Years" anyone?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I finally got around to reading Ender's Game a few months ago, and I have to say I wasn't too impressed. This ubiquitous book had numerous spelling and grammatical errors and at least one obvious plot hole (Ender gets transferred because you can't be promoted to leader of your own team, but that rule doesn't appear to apply to another character a few pages later).
Taken as pulpy chewing gum sci-fi, it was pretty good. The characters and dialogue were unrealistic, but the descriptions of zero-g manuvering were entertaining.
Delve a little deeper, and the book gets very disturbing- mostly in the pervasiveness of underage homoeroticism and the cynical view of child manipulation.
When I found out Card was a homophobic right-winger with an agenda, I can't say I was surprised.
I voted for Keyes in the 2000 primary, not 2004. Just in case the point was mistaken.
Are these movies really generally regarded as science fiction? "Imaginative fiction", yes, I would say. But this is not the same as science fiction, is it? Perhaps the definition of SF has expanded so far as to include all forms of imaginative fiction of any kind. If so, why not include Citizen Kane and Shakes the Clown as well?
After reading OSC's book How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy (1990), it is clear he believes SF to be the most general form of literature possible (a point with which I disagree). This may partly explain why he includes Being John Malkovich as SF and categorically dismisses Star Trek as absolute tripe.
Measured on such a vast literary scale, Star Trek simply cannot compete. To compare it that way is a slippery slope. The work has to be put in context. It is a space opera exploration TV show done in the spirit of old school science fiction like Forbidden Planet. People like it. It is popular. It had some great moments -- and some not so great moments. Such is the nature of entertainment.
But next he'll explain how brilliant new SF like The Office or Arrested Development should be embraced in place of SF trash like The Matrix. A slippery slope indeed.
i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
random alien shows up, strange problem happens, strange problem stems from a problem with random alien, who is outwardly scary but inwardly kind and vastly misunderstood, enterprise makes friends, credits
One other crucial element: Tea. Earl Grey. Hot.
Orson Scott Card said that?
Star Trek has been soul food for people with open minds. It's always been a story of moral questions, even if it was under the guise of scientific mumbo-jumbo. Unlike Star Wars, where the adolescent view of evil dark side and the good light side fight, Star Trek always probed the grey areas where good/evil don't really make sense. It was always about how to be human when faced with radically new circumstances. Holographic doctors treated with dignity, just like the rest of the crew, fighting the Borg collective that thinks it's perfect, and it only gets anywhere by assimilating, never creating something from scratch. You name it .. if that's not food for thought, than I don't know what is. The new scifi series, like Andromeda or Stargate fall back to the adolescent posturing, and zero challenge to your moral views. I guess the establishment had enough of free thinkers, now it's time to make everybody dumb and controllable by peer pressure - welcome Apprentice, Survivor, Americal Idol, Fear Factor.
khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnn !!!
He said "Lost" is the best Sci-Fi currently running??!!
... Good?
Are you Americans watching a different Lost than what we get out here? Because I've watched about 12 episodes of some drama/survivor series and *still* we don't know what killed the bloke in the first hour.
I'm trying to keep this post above the level of the average troll, but could someone *PLEASE* explain how Lost is a Sci-Fi, or
I skipped class for a week to Watch Deep Space Nine. I have a problem.
Holy hell on a hiking trip...
Card's idea of good SciFi is "Being John Malkovich" and "Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind" (!?).
I always knew Card was a little screwy in the head, but I do love his Ender series... but man, if this guy thinks those two movies are the finest example of Scifi for the screen, my opinion of his opinion just took the biggest crap in the largest toilet in the world.
Malkovich was ok, and while I could see how it might be classified as SF, I'd move it closer to fantasy. And Eternal Sunshine was one of the crappiest movies I've seen. It wasn't nearly as bad as AI, which stands alone at the pinnacle of how bad a SciFi movie can ever be, but I did want my two hours of life back after watching Eternal Sunshine.
Neither of these movies are even close to what good SciFi is about; Neither were executed well, neither were written all that well. Malkovich was entertaining, at least... but come on, to hold them up as an example of good SF? That's just a travesty of justice and an insult to SF. It's no wonder Card writes mostly fantasy, and only occasionally dips into the SF arena. He's not exactly clear on the concept of what good SF truely is.
I grew up on classic Trek and all good things must come to an end. All I can say about Enteprise to paraphrase Korax "I didn't mean to say that Enterprise should be showing garbage. I meant to say that it should be hauled away AS garbage."
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
My thoughts exactly. The Federation truly believes in equality among the races...Kirk will beat you up, regardless of species.
I know of one guy who's day & night job is running a Star Trek Club. :)
Let's not forget that the Romans took a page from the Greeks, and often did better. Homer was the bridge from oral history to written, not an intrinsically great writer. I think it's meaningful that the Aeneid was a better story. The craft of writing had evolved.
::shrug:: Let's see how awful the Star Wars TV show is before we decide.
Homer created the epic, much the same way that hack writers created the mystery before it evolved under Doyle, Christie, and Hammett. It's important to know where these things come from - useful in winnowing out the chaff. But first almost never means best.
Star Trek is that way - the original series is hard to compare to TNG because TNG benefited by not needing exposition to cover conceptual things like phasers and warp drives. Was TNG better? I think it was. Was everything after it awful?
Because alot of the themes in Ender's Game reminded me of stuff that came up in episodes of ST:TOS. Read the parts in the book about why Valentine and Peter wern't selected for the school, then watch the TOS episode "The Enemy Within."
I have gas, but my car uses petrol.
The quote-of-the-day at the bottom of this story just issued forth:
If a man had a child who'd gone anti-social, killed perhaps, he'd still tend to protect that child. -- McCoy, "The Ultimate Computer", stardate 4731.3
ERROR 144 - REBOOT ?
Harlan Ellison was the writer of "City On the Edge of Forever" one of the best episodes of the original series...it also won a hugo in 1968.
Star Trek was being written by talented SF writers and was a draw for them. OK, in the third season, when impending cancellation was upon them, not so much. But, there were fine examples of strong SF writing/writers in there.
The main point of his entire rant seemed to be that episodic programming with larger character development arcs provides more compelling fiction than programs that start and end at the same place. When Xander is scared for his life and reaches for Willow's hand, it's a lot more compelling if they've gotten near to a relationship, he burned her badly by going with someone else, then they spent the last 3 episodes working their way to the point where they are speaking again. When Bones takes a jab at Spock, it's meaningless because their relationship never changes.
Being John Malkovich was a popular, excellent movie, and while I'd put it more in the category of fantasy than Sci Fi, if you read Card's books the distinction is academic. Plus the characters to go through an immense arc throughout the film, falling in love, falling out of love, changing... evolving as characters in exactly the way that Homer Simpson doesn't. Again, the focus, as in all good Sci Fi, is on the character evolutions.
Smallville isn't the best series ever by a long shot. But like Buffy it is a popular show that opened people's eyes to what can happen when characters evolve across episodes.
Trek did and does follow an antiquated model, and he's right in thinking that it would only continue to do so. Probably the best bit of Trek, the last few seasons of DS9, took place when Paramount's main people were focused on Voyager and allowed a smaller group of people to create a broader story focused more on large story arcs and developments. The best season of Enterprise has been this last one, when multi episode story arcs were plentiful.
Orson's books reflect this thinking, of course. His most popular work, the Ender's series, follows one character along his evolution from a weak abused nobody kid to a reclusive man hiding from unwanted fame from his past, to an old man accepting of his place in the world. And the latest Ender's book takes place in the same time frame as the original, exploring another character who isn't the hero, but who evolves from a lone troubled genius striking out at anyone or anything that might subjugate him, to being a mature, willing second, giving himself over to a man he believes deserves it.
Oddly enough, I've always felt Asimov was at his best in short stories, but even then his characters were undergoing tremendous evolution within the span of several pages.
The ______ Agenda
I think what he's saying is that good sci fi isn't about formulaic writing. You can't write a good sci fi book twice. Fantasy, on the other hand, can be written over and over again, eddinglessly.
Star Trek, in every incarnation, never went anywhere. Even Voyageur, a ship in perpetual linear motion, seemed to encounter the same obstacles and came up with the same solutions every episode.
Great sci fi is "battlestar galactica", where characters have motives which evolve with each episode. Great sci fi is Lost as the mystery is revealed bit by bit. It progresses. Trek... stagnated. Exploration and discovery should be as much an inward mission as a galactical one.
RIP Trek. Long live Sci-Fi.
You guys are hilarious. Card is mentioned on Slashdot quite often. I would say ALL of this exposure is based on his position as the author of Ender's Game.
Whether he acts like it or not, he's not your "Mommy" telling you what's good or bad. However, everytime Card is mentioned, you can be sure there are many many (highly moderated even...which is even more insane) posts about how "Card is a bad man because he doesn't agree with me."
When someone is speaking in their station as a Sci-Fi author, it doesn't matter what they think of morality in the current day.
If this was a story about an article about homosexuality, then gripe all you want. As it stands, you sound like insecure idiots.
--Welcome to the Realm of the Hawke--
Seriously, writing good fiction must be hard and having to know science stuff ontop of that, but it can get insane sometimes. For example, in Card's book Xenocide he spends many pages explaining how anything can happen and how pseudo-Christian mythology is actually built into the structure of the universe. *BLECH* "You know all that sub-atomic stuff? It's actually really simple, there are really only two particles, here I go blah blah blah" [this was just raw exposition] "and thus we see that with dits and dos thats why everything happens, thus superceding all other laws of physics and letting me do whatever the fuck I want for the rest of the book." Sundiver by David Brin, there is this space elevator that works like this: there is this really huge sealed cylinder that goes up into space, and since its sealed around the sides the air can't leak out and it stays at sea level pressure the whole way up. James P Hogan seems to think modern physics is some kind of conspiracy. Literally, he has puppet characters do things like explain in two sentances how relativity is bullshit, but they are suppressed by the eeeeevvvvvviiiillll powerful physics establishment. The question is why does this kind of thing get published? It seems there is a huge market for scifi that makes the reader feel smart. The premise is that the way we think everything is is wrong, it's actually much much simpler.
Sorry, but OSC wore out his welcome a long time ago, but religious zealots like him have a certain affinity/audience, so I see why he's working to build his uber-geek cred by bashing on "Star Trek"? The King is Dead! Long Live the King!
Slavery was a much larger and more intense conflict. It's asinine to suggest we shouldn't read Thomas Jefferson because he owned (and apparently bedded) slaves.
Another way of looking at it: just because someone is "evil" doesn't mean they can't speak truth.
-Stu
...it's over...go outside and breath some fresh air...there's a whole undiscovered world for you people here on this planet...
Whilst I'm a big fan of all five series of Trek, it's not remotely what I'd call great science fiction.
Here is a case in point:
They find a Dyson sphere!!! Wow!!! SciFi addicts are drooling. Against all odds, they find an easy way inside!!! We're on the edges of our seats!
But oh - wait - we spent too much time on the interpersonal stuff between Scotty and LeForge - so now all we can do is to invent some reason why they have to immediately escape from the sphere and leave all of the interesting stuff to someone else.
Bah! I wanted to know how the Sphere designers solved the problem of needing day/night cycles - how the poles are structurally abilised - about how the land area inside is so vastly huge that many civilisations must be spread across it's internal structure. How the population of the sphere probably exceeds that of the enture galaxy outside.
Now go read RingWorld to see how a Science Fiction plot line *should* be done.
Now, I have to say, I enjoyed that episode - but it just didn't have very much to do with SciFi.
Most Trek episodes do something like this - they usually end with the ships' deflector dish being redesigned with three keystrokes to emit wibble-rays which remodulate the theta band babbleometer and thereby save the day in the last 2 minutes. This only works because it's not being treated as a SciFi program.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing - and it certainly made the series popular amongst people who wouldn't know a SciFi plotline if it bit them in the leg.
www.sjbaker.org
Assuming you believe SciFi/Fantasy is the same genre (I do), then he makes a very unique point that rings true to me: Malkovich and Spotless Mind *were* some of the greatest Sci Fi movies in recent memory.
....
And contrary to what many people say here, Smallville really is quite good SciFi, relatively speaking, at least from Season 3 onwards. I don't watch it regularly, but it's certainly a lot better than Trek has been in years. You've got to enjoy Teen Angst, of course (I do), though thankfully they don't overdo it.
Battlestar Galactica was a notable omission, I guess we'll have to see how Season 2 does
-Stu
While true, it doesn't mean that you ought to support them.
So he knows that denying liberty to people because they're gay is "bigotry". He has *me* pegged? He doesn't merely oppose the new laws (which he casts, in his medieval mindset, as an "edict") - he opposes the people themselves, though they affect his life not at all. He's a bigot. Who ignores all the instances of gay "marriages", including among early Christians, branding those of us who can cope without insecurity of our own sexuality as "mentally ill". He's projecting the "off with their heads": only bigots like Card are calling for such a murderous retaliation to their opponents. He's got himself pegged - homophobia is fundamentally hypocritical; that hypocrisy of course bursts out elsewhere in irony and projection, as the repression finds its escape elsewhere.
--
make install -not war
I wonder what O.S.C. thinks of Star Wars?
In my book it never was science fiction to begin with.
I really liked Ender's Game, but you lost me when you started retelling Mormon fables as science fiction.
That must have taken some real creativity on your part. And you are critiquing someone else's work?
Glad you didn't include yourself in the list of good science fiction writers...
(Just to note: I have nothing against Mormon stories, but just something against passing them off as science fiction...can't remember which book it was, but when he wrote in an intro: I started writing the Mormon stories in a science fiction setting and people didn't seem to notice/care....well, that's when I put the book down and haven't touched one since...
Canonical Anonymous Coward
What I do take offense at is the insinuation that I don't believe in Jesus Christ as the Savior of the World, the literal Son of God, born of Mary in Bethlehem. You know, the guy who atoned for mankind's sins, died on the cross, was resurrected 3 days later, and then ascended into heaven to reign at the right hand of God? Isn't that Christ where "Christianity" takes its name? I suppose not -- instead the definition that you quote comes from the 4th century AD, from a council that was set up precisely because Christians couldn't agree on the nature of the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Mormons claim that council got it wrong. You say that means that Mormons aren't Christian. Works for me.
TNG the series and used console explosions and 5up3r |{0o1 battle effects sparingly, while Voyager and Enterprise seem to have (had) them every episode. TNG eps were also much deeper and (in my opinion anyway) generaly much better written than Voyager and Enterprise eps were. I think after "Generations", they wanted to attract a more "mainstream" crowd, and unfortunately, by focusing on gee wiz bang action and special effects, they let the quality of the stories slide, well, except maybe for DS9, which got very good 4th season-on.
I really pine for the days of "Next Generation" (the series). Even though the sets were much lower tech (they didn't even use real computer monitors in the bridge terminals, except for a couple episodes in the series), the way they presented the enviroment, the acting of the characters, and the stories made the enviroment feel realistic, and *convincing*.
just wait until some klingons kick his ass for a while until the new episodes/series will start coming :)
....
:)
i love the show, because it's different, and it has a good attitude
and never mind the people on the net that there's a planet called earth and that it's lifeforms can be found just out of your door
I'd tell you the chances of this story being a dupe, but you wouldn't like it.
Ok, so I didn't RTFA and to be honest I have no intention to. If he is claiming Star Trek sucked to begin with it is obviously must be because it is succesful. I mean heaven for bid anything sci-fi become "popular". The only other franchise in the genre to make loads of money, and probably make the most money, is Star Wars.
Sure more Sci-Fi is available now, but I watch the sci-fi channel and read novels. Is it really that much better then it was 10, 20 or 30 yrs ago? Nope. There are still a lot of "B" movies in the sci-fi world, and a lot of "A" movies that should never have been made.
I watched Firefly. It was Ok. But like most sci-fi shows it is over-hyped by its fanboys (and girls). Was it time for Star Trek to die? Yes. Was it because it sucked from the start? No. The franchise was merely over-exposed. The last two TNG films were only so-so at best and horrific at worst. The last series only even started to get remotely good this season. It did not always suck, TNG and DS9 were VERY good series and fierce arguments can be had as to which is the better. TOS is somewhat campy, but it is nearly 40 yr old sci-fi.
I just think it is hilarious we are getting this information from a novelist. Not an author, or a literary legend but a novelist. The sad thing isn't TV and/or movie sci-fi. I think it is sadder we have a series of authors (ie Card, Crichton, Clancy, Grisham) who produce books to sell en masse to make money. There is a joke in Family Guy about Stephen King doing this. Forget if the book is good, we'll get it out with name recognition then force feed a crappy movie to the public.
I honestly think I'd appreciate Card going after the total absence of GREAT work in the literary field then going into movies and tv shows where he really has no clue what he is talking about. Yes it is sci-fi, but I still would rather here someone else complain about sci-fi and Star Trek.
The reality is so long as studios make sci-fi and fantasy movies that are good, the availability of sci-fi to the masses (and particularly to the geeks will be good). I mean the Lord of the Rings movies got tons of people, myself included, to read the original books. I actually think I've read more because of movies. I mean I would never have understood 2001 without reading it. My DVD collection is full of good and bad sci-fi, but I enjoy it all (sometimes because it is campy). So now that I have gone way off topic I will just stop here and reflect...
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
I'm still pissed about what he's done with the Ender/Bean series....
I have to disagree with the article...
I come not to Praise Star Trek, but to Bury it.
Star trek is a classic of the "Short Story" tradition of Sci-Fi. Each episode was meant to be a self contained story in itself and it is in no small part to this concept that it has been such a success, outlasting every single other kind of tv show in history.
Fans of the original and TNG knew the characters were flat and 2 dimensional (The heroic captain, the caring ethical doctor, the logical vulcan etc...) but they were secondary to the story itself. What little character development there was was not integral to the stories themselves.
ST and TNG allowed us to tell ludicrous tales and place ourselves in bizzare scenarios all the while emerging triumphant and/or more learned in the cheeseiest of ways. It didnt matter when you became a fan or which episode was your first, you knew what was going on and could automatically engage with the wider audience.
Follow on sieries, Voyager & DS9 tended to follow the same lines of self contained episodes but added the character develpment dimension. This was both a blessing and a curse as it allowed the casual fan thier allocation of sci-fi cheese but also groomed the hardcore trekker and allowed him/her/it to become one with the ST universe and boast of in depth knowlege and experience. Harmless stuff but already the concentration on character developemnt was taking its toll on the casual fan who could simply watch the dross offered up by more character driven TV for thier daily fix of soap opera antics sans sci-fi element.
Enterprise was the final nail in the ST coffin however. A laaaaarge over arching plotline (the salvation of earth no less), the abandoning of cheese and the adoption of 'serious' plotlines and character developemnt without any over the top bizzareness meant that even the hardcore fans were pressed to swallow some of the plotlines and dialogue and nothing pisses people off more that another bloody "Continued..." sieries of episodes.
I mean I wastch ST if its on and i stumble across it on a channel surf, I dont want to have in depth knowlegde of every character in order to make sense of whats going on!
As for new(er) examples of the genre - I hardly think that Lost (another "Continued next episode" pile of Sh1t)can be considered "Sci-Fi" any more than ST can be considered "Drama".
Battlestar Galactica is the new (or old?!?) example of TV Sci-fi... SG-1, Firefly, hell even Andromeda or Farscape are better examples of where Sci-Fi actually is.
But show some respect as we bury ST. Were it not for Eugene Wesley "Gene" Roddenberry and his dedicated fans we might all be holding up "Buck Rogers" as the best example of early TV Sci-Fi!!!
Just my 2 dime's worth!
C.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
Some ill-informed idiot wrote this.See, how can u believe a word of anyone who likes "buffy the vampire slayer" and admits it.A total weirdo , bet he loves mud-wrestling too , he's got issues dude.Star trek is "the" original cult sci-fi series not the like the crappy "star-wars" which fits the bill of cheesy special effects and bad characters.This loser shud've paid attention to in junior high science classes instead of jackin off o cheer-leader chicks and then as a grown up venting his pent-up anger on non-losers
.
Oh, come on! I watched some episodes, they were probably OK, but Science Fiction??? How old is he? I agree that there is some 'scenic need' that prevent TV SF to be like books SF, and I can live with that. But Trek is unique in its viewpoint, NO other SF depicts the future like Trek does. And I enjoy both Trek and some darker kind of SF, so I'm sure I'm not biased.
Pumbaa! I don't wonder; I know.
I didn't care much for the interviewer in the Salon interview, who seemed more interested in her world of hurt than anything else, and I didn't care much for Card's Christian Crusader mentality of thinking it ok to slaughter the heathens.
The second link, where Card rabbits on about his fucking church (yet another American crap shit sect that makes OBL look progressive) and his fucking lopsided view of homos, which he defends entirely with his being a mormon moron, instead of trying to fucking think and realise that there is more to life than fucking cristianity.
Stupid fuckwad bastard.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
just for a little truth in advertising-- I exagerated the exclusivity part there a bit-- not intentionally. I have 3 friends with every possible dot thing - unless there is a fifth relationship of which I am unaware.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Bigot or not the Salon article was written by someone with a chip on her shoulder. She had her agenda and came into the interview with the expressed purpose of finding anything wrong with Card she could. Anything they didn't agree on was because he was ignorant or a bigot. How easy is it to classify people who don't agree with you! Far easier than actually having to refute them, just label them!
Card is not UNREASONABLY INTOLERANT of gays. However he is portrayed as such because it he will not agree with the agenda that was put forth. Faith isn't something that you take little parts of here and there. His faith teaches him that certain activities are not proper and can be controlled. The brand of intolerance comes from people who want to force others to accept their own lack of control. Card expressly stated that people of different beliefs are fine, its when they cross the line and want others to change their beliefs is when it is getting out of hand.
Bigot he is not. Branded he is as is anyone who disagrees with radicals (self proclaimed) like Donna is. Radicals don't want to discuss anything, your either with them or your against them. If your the latter then you are subject to all sorts of emotion based name calling because that is far easier to put deragotory labels on someone than to actively discuss the issue.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
And so the Trekkies were executed in the manner most befitting virgins.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Never have I felt such a momment of wonder and expectation from a book, as when I turned the page and read a chapter title, and it was "deadline"
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Breast milk.
I can do more with computers *(mostly windows systems)* than anyone I know in person..
.com' billion, and it ain't gonna happen.
They all blather-- family/coworkers/whoever can sucker me in---
[I]oh, you could be making XXXXXXXXX$ in computers...[/I] I know it ain't gonna happen, and the fact that I'm ahead of 99% of my local area does not make me qualified to 'boom out the next
(could someone please show this post to my mother)
because although I'm at the top of the computer chain in my loose social/work/family network, there are A LOT MORE WHO KNOW A LOT MORE than me out there.. and identify with Ender wiggen I did, for about a month... then I realized, no-- I was deluding myself,, I may have been issued/worn a monitor on the back of my neck, but I was never gonna make that shuttle.. and that's what depresses me about the story, and slashdot....
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
You know, a friend of mine once took a great deal of offense at Terry Pratchett. pTerry apparently said in his presence that Fantasy 'isn't just about travelling 1000 miles to throw a ring into a volcano any more.'
My friend was a Tolkien fan (like any sane person). The thing is, IMO he was wrong, Pratchett was right.
However good the lotr was/is - Fantasy isn't JUST about that anymore. Don't JUST stick with a winning formula.
That's Hollywood's real problem - they're not prepared to challenge a winning formula - especially when they believe it appeals to the lowest common denominator.
Psychology shows that we will often confuse the familiar with the pleasant. But Sci-Fi / Fantasy isn't JUST about that - it's about ideas and 'what ifs'.
and I for one hail the coming of something more than time space anomalies causing us to shoot ourselves in the ass - saved only by doing something clever with the deflector dish.
+ the borg were boring.
So... interesting article. He has a few good points, especially about the level of the SciFi in Trek. However, considering that Ender's Game was about the only good book his written (admittedly IMHO), he might want to watch where he's throwing stones.
Personally, if I had to lay blame, it would be with the idiot TV execs who insist on screwing over and cancelling shows that are actually good (can you say Firefly? Farscape?)
BTW, I loved Star Trek and have read many of the books from authors he listed. I've also read a fair number of the Star Trek books -- some of which were excellent SciFi (well, some of the earlier ones, anyway). So that stereo type might not be too accurate either.
Since it was Card, I figured the comment needed a literary component . Also, since it was Card, I thought I would make it a Biblical reference since I don't know much about the Book of Mormon.
I only mention it because the entire genre is named after the punctuation mark. It's slash fiction, not dash fiction.
I don't think it makes me seem ill, just dorky. And hey, who around here isn't?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
"including, in one truly specialized subgenre, the "Kirk-Spock" stories in which their relationship was not as platonic and emotionless as the TV show depicted it." Having read about Card's rampant homophobia, i hope this isnt really the source of his textual outrage either that or star trek was on in the background when his brother used to give him sub-nazi rated beatings......
There is a bunch of people that like Space opera more than Science fiction. We don't really care how life have evolved in a certain planet X, neither we care about how realistic space combat can be. What we care about is about strong characters, good drama, good space battles, non-cheesy acting, stories that unfold over long periods, characters that are developed throughout the series etc etc. Star Trek provided some of that. Now what?
Though I must confess he writes excellent SF-books, it is also true Orson is, in real life, not as progressively minded as one would expect when reading his books. which is doubly strange, because, if I remember correctly, he's an anthropologist: someone you would expect to have respect for other views and cultures.
But no, his views are the right ones, and they AREN'T very progressive, I can tell you that. Others have already mentionned his outdated and strange ideas about homosexuality, and he is rather fixated in his opinions of mores and tolerance towards others that do not live according to his conception of what is 'right'.
If I didn't know any better, I would say he fits right in with the ultra-right 'reborn' christian dogmatists in the bible-belt. (Well, actually, I don't know for sure: is he one of those Xians?)
It's really a mystery to me, how someone who writes so beautiful SF, can be so rigid and biased in reallife. While (apart from some true masterpieces) Robert Heinlein wrote a bit less compelling SF, at least he WAS progressive, certainly seen in his time.
Which is one of the main reasons I think Card is BS in this article. He compares the original startrek in the light of current mores, culture, and technology. Back THEN, starttrek was very progressive, the actors weren't any worse then in most TV-series, and the technolgy wasn't advanced enough to get all those fancy special effects we take for granted today.
Maybe it's difficult in our current time to imagine this, but the broadcast company almost refused to let Spock in the series, because *he was to controversial with his pointy ears*. Unbelievable nowadays, but THAT was the times in which starttrek had to operate. So, seen in THEIR timeframe and culture, it was a heck of a progressive series.
And another thing (which I know some here will strongly disagree with too); I don't understand his enthousiasm for firefly. I have watched several episodes in the past, and I thought it was utter crap. Seen with in current times, it HAS a weak cast and storyline, the special effects suck, and basically, all the things he complains about about startrek are present in Firefly...with the difference that it is made now, making the shortcommings unforgivable.
Well, I know some are crazy of firefly, but why is completely beyond me. Meh...guess there is little to discuss regarding tastes. If anything, while startrek was more eclectic (still liked it though; it was that kind of genre, after all), if you want something more in the genre of firefly, but which is GOOD, I would suggest Farscape.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
For all the limitations with how Trek uses Character and Plot to communicate ideas, it has been vastly more effective at engaging the public imagination than Card has been. It would be nice if the public would appreciate good art like the writers he mentions and maybe also the classics even, but they do not. Ordinary people watch television, and that is about it. As such Trek has brought the idea of exuberant exploration of space treated as mankind's new home to a broad audience. In so doing it has inspired large numbers of physicists, astronomers, astronauts, and engineers. While Trek and other offerings (Farscape comes to mind) should be made as well as possible, the most important thing is that this material be available as an alternative to the mind numbing and uninspired crap that dominates popular media.
Who needs intergalactic political correctness?
That's what Star Trek is, right? Each episode shows a P.C. issue and how it's solved by the wonderful crew of Enterprise or Voyager...
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
... but Trek is not about stories itself! It is about the Trek world - better world of tomorrow in which characters are more civilized and human than we are today!
And evolution of characters? They do evolve, but subtly! While at the same time they remain what they are - defined persons not subject to complete changes of their personalities because of some minor event or argument with each other.
And it is not only ok - it is *the* point of the Trek!
How often have you seen the struggle of characters against their human nature and instincts (which are not right!) in their attempts to become better people? That is the purpose of characters such as Spock/Data/Seven!
Trek will live forever!
p.s.
And Buffy? Buffy is a joke, while OSC should definitely be 'taped' with dvd boxes for making such a statement.
I totally agree, but before Firefly started we had Babylon 5 which - IMHO - is the best Sci-Fi series I have ever seen.
It's too bad they butchered the the quality of the video when they transferred it to DVD.
It's not the destination that matters, but rather the journey.
He's currently Chancellor of Star Fleet Academy.
"His corpse was later found sealed in a mylar bag so he'd always be in 'near mint' condition."
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Ah, but should I buy the autobiography ($40.21 on amazon) of the terrorist Dominique Prieur? I might find her side of the story interesting, but I don't want to send her money...
I have many issues with what OSC wrote. Most of them are subjective (for example, my experience is that Star Trek fans read more books than the average person, and read more SF books than the average TV SF spectator), but at least one point is very clear.
OSC says that "science fiction writing was incredibly fertile at the time, with writers like Harlan Ellison and Ursula LeGuin, Robert Silverberg and Larry Niven, Brian W. Aldiss and Michael Moorcock, Ray Bradbury and Isaac Asimov, and Robert A. Heinlein and Arthur C. Clarke creating so many different kinds of excellent science fiction that no one reader could keep track of it all." (this is the time of the early series, obviously)
Good point.
This was so fertile a period, that at least two of these authors (Harlan Ellison and Larry Niven) were involved in Star Trek!
This was so fertile a period, that the same jury who awarded those authors lots of Hugo Awards felt compelled to give one to Star Trek, too...
So, I'd say that the original Star Trek was much more in sync with good written Science Fiction than OSC gives it credift for.
Well, to me, it's not that simple -- it depends on what it is they're doing. If it's just rehetoric, I can disagree with one's political beliefs and still support them because I get value from other things they do. If it's action, then the stakes are higher .
-Stu
It's all good that Star Trek will be cancelled. Blasphemy, you say? I say, no. Doctor Who ran 26 seasons from 1963 to 1989, and by 1989, with an tired crew and tired scripts, it was way past its prime. It NEEDED to be put to sleep for awhile.
Result: The 2005 revival, with a new, modern look and feel, modern, smart, current-generation writers, and the inherent license to grow and change the franchise has reinvigorated it and Doctor Who is said to be in another hayday of production and popularity not seen since Tom Baker portrayed the role in the late 1970's.
Star Trek has needed this sort of break since the second season of Voyager, if you ask me; perhaps before, as Brandon Braga and Rick Berman became the aged and tired producers running out of ideas.
The good news: Star Trek will be back, after its rested, time has passed to gain perspective and for both the fans and the show itself to mature into a more modern and relevant incaration.
Such are growing pains in the sci-fi universe.
I would go so far as to say that the next incaration of Star Trek should show up in about 20 years, when the next generation can make it relevant again.
Don't worry folks. Just be patient, and you'll have a chance to fall in love all over again, with your children or grandchildren.
"It would be hard to convince me I should be anywhere but in the holodeck, getting my oil massage from Cindy Crawford and her simulated twin sister."
Yeah, that's a future I can believe in, too.
Public use of any portable music system is a virtually guaranteed indicator of sociopathic tendencies. -- Zoso
I named my kid Wesley.
Seriously, I enjoyed some of his early works like Ender's Game and Song Bird, but this guy does not know when enough is enough. When will the Ender's Game series end? It was supposed to end with Children of the Mind, but then Card realized he had run out of ideas. Oh what to do what to do? I know! I will write even more books in the Ender series, I know I can rape some more money off of the fans this way. I'll just write one more book for it, no let's make that 2, 3, 4... When this gets old he will probably just revisit Alvin Maker and the Crystal City. Who cares that they already found the Crystal City he can write another 5 books with contrived conflict on trying to build the crystal buildings.
How exactly did you write a post on ongoing plotlines in a TV series, and fail to mention Babylon 5 ? Especially given the SciFi context ! B5 unquestionably led the way with the concept of one gigantic story arc, to the point where its creator was repeatedly told that it just wouldn't work.
--LordPixie
Perhaps Card is still pissed that he's only written one good novel. Or perhaps that he had to tack on the end of Ender's Game.
New Voyages
Star Trek Hidden Frontier
Starship Exeter
Tales of the Seventh Fleet
Star Trek: Intrepid
USS Hathaway
Audio:
Star Trek: Pioneers
Star Trek: The Section 31 Files
Some of these are quite enjoyable
See the Pictures of the Flood of '08
My first thought after reading this article was: "What an idiot!" But he has a point about some aspects of the series. On the other hand ST was allways a mirror of the global situation on earth from a more or less liberal (but western) viewpoint. TNG discussed hundreds of social and philosophical themes and ideas. Also it refelcted some bad human habbits. DS9 for instance developed the Ferengi as a raw model of capitalists. But even so they pointed out, that humans were even worse in the past (which is our today more or less). OSC claims, that one of ST's drawbacks is, that there is no real story line through all episodes. 1. This is correct in most parts. 2. This is one of ST's advantages. It allows to watch the show even when missed some episodes. the next point is, that the charactes do not develop. They do at least in TNG. And there are feature episodes in the show to develop some characters even more. For example "Data's day" or a lot of "Picard"-episodes.
By and large, good SF *sucks* when it's moved to the screen.
The only times that it's ever been done well has been when a completely new story was written for TV/movies, and most of those stories would be hopeless hacks in the world of literature.
We've all seen The Terminator, Alien, and many others moved to book form. They suck just as bad as the other way around.
Star Trek was good as a visual form of SF *for its time*. It dealt with issues that other dramas of the time were avoiding. The characters may have been wooden and the acting bad, but no one should make the mistake of thinking that it wasn't ground breaking.
Most of the followons have suffered from sequel disease: Regression to the Mean. Fair enough. Has it had it's day? Probably. Does it make sense to kill it off now? Probably. But none of that even begins to touch on why people were fanatics about the original series, nor why they continue to flock to the sequels (nostalgia, mostly).
I don't care if Star Trek is considered real Sci-Fi or not, it was entertaining and imaginative. I wonder why he reads books, or watches TV or movies for? Informational purposes, only? No wonder when I think of Ender the scent of hospitals always lingers in my imagination.
Lane Myer: I have great fear of tools. I once made a birdhouse in woodshop and the fair housing committee condemned it.
I think it's the other way around (speaking as someone who was there at the beginning). Star Trek was about taking moral grey areas, and forcing them to be black or white, where only one outcome was 'correct'. Star Trek has a very idealised view of the universe (which it came by honestly, since Roddenberry was pretty damned narrow-minded, I say having spoken to the man myself).
:)
Whereas Star Wars started with an apparently black-or-white, good-or-evil premise, and gradually blurred the lines by showing just how grey life really is.
Stargate (like most character-driven SF) is much more akin to Star Wars, in that outcomes are frequently uncertain or even negative, and the moral stance that you thought was so black-or-white is in fact grey with pulsating purple stripes, or even no valid colour at all. The challenge isn't to find a black or white moral view, but to find one that works at all in the context of situations that don't fit any preconceived pattern.
I've noticed over the decades that very consistently, ST appeals more to people who like the universe to be neatly pigeonholed, whereas SW and its kin appeal more to folk who prefer a flexible or unpredictable universe. (The ST exception is DS9, which falls into the grey camp.)
BTW, I write SF (character-driven space opera), and mine is both rainbow-grey and smells funny.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Good thing the Gorn was a male!
But I was wondering...if Kirk met a female computer, would he sleep with it, or try to blow it up? Or would he do both? And in which order? The mind boggles.
This man has no taste in sci-fi. While, the quality of t.o.s., voyager, and enterprise are questionable, the next generation and ds9 are highly detailed and intelligent shows(perhaps t.o.s. should be included with ds9 and tng, but it has a certain camp factor which makes it not quite as good in my book). They go beyond mere space adventures and have significant ammounts of character development as well as philosophical insight. When you say that Buffy the Vampire Slayer is the first t.v. series to bring sci-fi t.v. to the level novels, or that eternal sunshine of the spotless mind is one of the two best sci-fi movies of all time, you really have no place writing sci-fi reviews.
So he's a dispicable human, because his moral values are different from yours? He's not entitled to an opinion?
I'm not saying I agree with him, but I defend his right to speak his mind.
I'm always surprised by how intolerant minority groups can be!
http://www.hatrack.com/osc/about.shtml
Uncle Orson knows a lot about science fiction, and Mormon Orson knows nothing about gay people.
So they're the same person. So what? There are different sides to the same person. I can like Uncle Orson, and not need to care what Mormon Orson has to say about gay people.
Besides, duality of character is a theme of his in Uncle Orson's books.