What I see as Star Trek's problem is that they (the show's caretakers) continue to move further and further away from what made the Star Trek appealing. Although many of you may have grown up on TNG and shunned TOS for its low production value, Star Trek got its start by Gene Roddenberry's "Wagon Train to the Stars" and a future where humanity had evolved a higher sense of sensibilities and a future worth working for.
The problem, as I see it, is not that Star Trek doesn't have something left to offer, it's that it hasn't been offering what it's good at. I mean, if we want amazing CGI battle sequences and bad acting, we'll crank out another Star Wars. If we want drama and a bleak future, we'll tune into Battle Star Galactica. But if we want a positive message about the future where we're (still) learning to overcome adversity and exploring the galaxy - that's Star Trek.
If you think about some of the best episodes of ST (either TOS or TNG), they either played on our levity or on the realities of the human experience. Kirk's choice to let Edith Keeler die on the "The City on the Edge of Forever" or the Picard's proud declaration, "There are four lights!" in "Chain of Command" examine us for who and what we are. The answer is as much about the viewer as it is about the characters we revere.
If Paramount's idea is that we need more fighting, more ship combat, and more negativity, they're going to drive what's left of this franchise into a permanent grave. At that point, it becomes just like every other series out there. It'll have no long lasting impact on our culture because it'll be just a snapshot in time. It won't be a goal worth working towards, it'll just be a picture of where we used to be.
Slashdot Mirror
What I see as Star Trek's problem is that they (the show's caretakers) continue to move further and further away from what made the Star Trek appealing. Although many of you may have grown up on TNG and shunned TOS for its low production value, Star Trek got its start by Gene Roddenberry's "Wagon Train to the Stars" and a future where humanity had evolved a higher sense of sensibilities and a future worth working for.
The problem, as I see it, is not that Star Trek doesn't have something left to offer, it's that it hasn't been offering what it's good at. I mean, if we want amazing CGI battle sequences and bad acting, we'll crank out another Star Wars. If we want drama and a bleak future, we'll tune into Battle Star Galactica. But if we want a positive message about the future where we're (still) learning to overcome adversity and exploring the galaxy - that's Star Trek.
If you think about some of the best episodes of ST (either TOS or TNG), they either played on our levity or on the realities of the human experience. Kirk's choice to let Edith Keeler die on the "The City on the Edge of Forever" or the Picard's proud declaration, "There are four lights!" in "Chain of Command" examine us for who and what we are. The answer is as much about the viewer as it is about the characters we revere.
If Paramount's idea is that we need more fighting, more ship combat, and more negativity, they're going to drive what's left of this franchise into a permanent grave. At that point, it becomes just like every other series out there. It'll have no long lasting impact on our culture because it'll be just a snapshot in time. It won't be a goal worth working towards, it'll just be a picture of where we used to be.