Card says that Trek not needed anymore

[Owen E Oulton]

Personally, I think ther's no need for Orson Scott Card any more - no, I take that back. Ther never was a need for this pompous no-talent hack ever. I've tried reading his stuff, and it's unremittingly unreadable.

[Rayaru]

Amen Owen.

[black campbellq]

Meh. After this, I don't think I can be convinced to read any of his works.

That seems reasonable. I was never interested in his stuff more from the blurbs on the back. I wouldn't not read him because he "dissed my show."

templar, you can make a good case that "science-fiction" -- or at least fantastic fiction -- started with the Homeric epics. "Science" fiction has it's roots in the speculation of More and others...Utopia and the like.

[BouncyCaitian]

I thinka major reason that Trek has proved to be so popular over the years is that it's a hopeful future. too much sci-fi these days is dystopian post-modern garbage that assumes man is a) too venal & greedy to settle his differences, b) too intolerant of one another to even try getting along, and c) too unworthy of existence.

This is why I like Star Trek, Traveller and other classic sci-fi style settings. They give hope that things will work out fo the better. Even GURPS Transhuman Space, which is Sci-fi and Cyberpunk whipped into a blender and given large doses of LSD is still hopeful.

Dystopianism and Post-Modern Sci-fi, while interesting, has gotten rather old hat at this point. Not to mention dull.

Enterprise 4th season was showing the crawl out of a rather rickety future into a much better one. will all the foibles along the way. I call that good sci-fi

[Ergi]

I wouldn't condemn all dystopian sci-fi, since, at least some of it, seems to be intended rather as a warning than as an accusation.

I have an excellent example from one of the Arthur C. Clarke short stories I am currently reading. IIRC the story is called "Rescue Party" and tells the story of an alien federation rescue ship that arrives in our solar system to save as many humans as possible, only hours before the sun goes nova (the story is from the 1940s). The whole planet is deserted, however, and the aliens manage to escape just in time. Later, by following one unexplained clue, they find out what happened to mankind - they have left Earth in generation ships. The story ends shortly before the aliens make contact with the human fleet, going something like this:
... said:" Better be polite to them. After all we only outnumber them by 1,000,000 to 1." ... everybody laughs...
20 Years later that comment didn't seem that funny anymore.

Clarke has a wonderful talent for slapping mankind in the face with his last sentences.

[black campbellq]

Dystopianism and Post-Modern Sci-fi, while interesting, has gotten rather old hat at this point. Not to mention dull.

Postmodernism, in general is old hat. I can't stand people pissing about how bad modernity is; go back to, say 1705, and see how great things were. Modernism has its own problems, sure, but in general you're not dying of minor infections, starving to death, and even the poorest people in the modern world seem to have TVs, if not cable. Even the term 'postmodern' is bull$%^t; all of their arguments are couched in terms of modernity -- either pro or anti-tech, pro or anti-captial, pro or anti-government, pro or anti-blah blah blah... Postmodernity is pretty anti in character: capitalism sucks, government sucks (unless their running it,) colonization sucks, white males who are straight suck...

The dystopian sci-fi of the '80s was particularly anti-capitalism (everything is own and run by evil corporations! ,) anti-technology (while there was plenty of cool tech, there was always some kind of Luddite sensibility to how it was employed,) and anti-people (as BC said, "pepul is too stoopid to work togeder." Okay...I paraphrase...)

Trek is generally modern in character, much like the speculative ficiton of the 19th Century: hopeful, a bit naive, utopian (and technology is often the key to that utopia.) Nothing wrong with that, but I like my unvierse a bit more muddy than that. One of the reasons I liked B5 -- the universe was more realistic, but the sensibility was hopeful and modern.

[AslanC]

Buffy was amusing but it was based on a movie with Kristie Swanson, Luke Perry, and Paul Rubens.

Meaning?

Cause as it stands it looks like you have issue with the above mentioned actors, which seems a tad subjective to me as a qualifier for wether the movie was quality or not, since everyone has different tastes. My parents hate Jack Nicolson and Michael J. Fox, can't stand them. Me I like them just fine.

Or if oyu are referrring to the movie coming first, yes it did and Joss wrote it. He made the series so he could undo the forced changes the studio made him do to make the movie "better" in their opinion.

If it is neither of these, then I am most curious as to what you meant.

As for the Buffy movie, I for one think the movie is just fine and when it came out there weren't a lot of mainstream genre spoofs, other than the really over the top ones along the lines of Hot Shots and the Naked Gun series of movies.

Sorry for the thread hi-jack, but that line just jumped out at me.

Back on topic, this editorial is an opinion that has some merrit. Star Trek was low brow sci-fi at the time, strong writers (Asimov, Heinlein and others) had already blazed the trails of sci-fi by the point Star Trek first aired.

The difference wasn't the audience it found then, it was the audience it found later in college dorms and parent's basements in reruns at all times of the clock.

In fact it is more a testament to the success of syndication than sci-fi, IMHO.

[Owen E Oulton]

Even the term 'postmodern' is bull$%^t; all of their arguments are couched in terms of modernity

I'm not keen about Postmodernism, but your argument belies an underlying misunderstanding of what the term means. Modernism was a specific artistic movement, and while it co-opted the term "modern," it is not synonymous with the vocabulary word. In fact Modernism is now a hopelessly outdated concept, no longer modern at all. Postmodernism refers to the artistic movement which superceded Modernism, and any discussion of it outside that context is utterly meaningless.

[templartiger]

Meaning?

Cause as it stands it looks like you have issue with the above mentioned actors, which seems a tad subjective to me as a qualifier for wether the movie was quality or not, since everyone has different tastes. My parents hate Jack Nicolson and Michael J. Fox, can't stand them. Me I like them just fine.

Although I do not have issues with the acting, or the choice of the players, I have issues with the movie. I am not a fan of the movie nor the series and therefore have little knowledge in the background of the development of the series. I do realise that the series and movie did not take itself seriously, but unlike Hot Shots and Naked Gun series, BTVS did not go overboard with slapstick. What I have seen of it shows me that Joss Whedon was celbrating American Pop Culture. Just my opinion on BTVS.

Or if oyu are referrring to the movie coming first, yes it did and Joss wrote it. He made the series so he could undo the forced changes the studio made him do to make the movie "better" in their opinion.

See above.

If it is neither of these, then I am most curious as to what you meant.

What I mean is that OSC fails to make clear his arguements against Star Trek, the classic series, versus some of the current Sci-fi Programming. He fails to give credit where credit is due for the differences in the 60's and then contemporary tastes.

As for the Buffy movie, I for one think the movie is just fine and when it came out there weren't a lot of mainstream genre spoofs, other than the really over the top ones along the lines of Hot Shots and the Naked Gun series of movies.

Sorry for the thread hi-jack, but that line just jumped out at me.

Understandable.

Back on topic, this editorial is an opinion that has some merrit. Star Trek was low brow sci-fi at the time, strong writers (Asimov, Heinlein and others) had already blazed the trails of sci-fi by the point Star Trek first aired.

And Jules Verne didn't?? What about H.G. Wells? What about Homer? OSC fails to mention these three so they had nothing to contribute to Sci-Fi? Either way you look at it OSC fails to mention these people which tells me he is making comparisons to writers of the 40's and 50's rather than to the whole genre itself.

The difference wasn't the audience it found then, it was the audience it found later in college dorms and parent's basements in reruns at all times of the clock.

In fact it is more a testament to the success of syndication than sci-fi, IMHO.

True.

Let me suggest this: Is the story telling style implemented by the original Star Trek series is no longer needed? Yes. An episode by episode series with little to no continuity does not suit what has become a form of drama. Sci-fi has evolved into Sci-fi Drama.

OSC fails to brings those arguements to light and therefore creates an opinion peace that should be entitled "I hate Star Trek." He does a good job bringing his prejudice against the series by attempting to argue that much better science fiction was available. He is comparing apples to oranges.

The apples of today, mass media conglomerates, to oranges of television still in its infancy.

[black campbellq]

Even the term 'postmodern' is bull$%^t; all of their arguments are couched in terms of modernity

I'm not keen about Postmodernism, but your argument belies an underlying misunderstanding of what the term means. Modernism was a specific artistic movement, and while it co-opted the term "modern," it is not synonymous with the vocabulary word. In fact Modernism is now a hopelessly outdated concept, no longer modern at all. Postmodernism refers to the artistic movement which superceded Modernism, and any discussion of it outside that context is utterly meaningless.

Funny that just about every discipline of the humanities is still using it...there's plenty of meaning outside of the artistic for a lot of academics. As for a misunderstanding on my part, didn't seem to be any when they awarded my doctoral recently. But that and $3 might get you a cup of coffee.

In fact it is more a testament to the success of syndication than sci-fi, IMHO...What about Homer?

I agree...and I think I mentioned that earlier.

Man, I'm snippy tonight...sorry, guys.

[Mac417]

I'm only reading his Ultimate Iron Man out of a sense of being a completist collector.

[Karg]

Ugh, No Class.

And my local newspaper just reprinted this tripe

[C5]

A friend of mine, who doesn't like Star Trek and knows I do (and likes to tease me about it) already linked me to that article. I'd never heard about this author BTW (but anyway I'm not an expert when it comes to modern science fiction writers.

I'd be the first to admit that Trek has its flaws. However, here, the main arguments from this guy are :
- TOS sucked because its FX are cheesy
- Trek fans are geeks who like to dress like the characters
- Better Sci-Fi series have been done since.

And these arguments are hammered and hammered again. Well, that's great. Such reasoning is only slightly better constructed than "I don't like the main actor" or "Star Wars is better anyway".

And I've never watched Smallville and only a handful episodes of Buffy, but from what friends who watched both series and Trek said, the fact that they're better than ST is not quite evident. For one thing anyway, comparing Trek to Buffy seems to me like comparing apples and oranges, as someone said above.

To wrap up, this is so an ill-constructed piece of... whatever, that I even wondered whether this was not a belated April's Fools or a parody of an anti-Trek rant.

[black campbellq]

"Star Wars is better anyway"...

Well, it is... [ducking and weaving!]

[Ergi]

Well, it is... [ducking and weaving!]

Good look trying to evade my photon torpedoes, lightsaber-boy!