Why does Star Trek appeal to you?

[qerlin]

Originally posted by Dan Stack
TNG characters don't have flaws... I can't relate to TNG ones...they just don't seem real to me.

I concur.

[Joe Dizzy]

I've never felt that any of the characters in Star Trek were "real".

Mostly because I can't relate to any of the things they experience. I've never been forced to enter a cult where I lose my identity, nor have I had to explain to a primitive people that I am not God or had an entire people's existence depend on my decision or had to chose between tricking people into participating in an on-going war or risk losing it.

To me Sci-Fi cannot by definition use "real" characters.

What I can and did relate to in TNG was the struggle of the crew to do what's right. I liked that despite over-whelming odds and situations that are way too big for you, trying to be rational and doing what you feel is right is the best thing to do in this trek-universe.

DS9 might have said that "it's easy to be a saint in paradise" but what it sounded like was "you can't be a saint and it's foolish to try". And I don't believe in that.

I'd like to believe that you can be better a person if you try hard enough and that self-improvement is a viable goal. And that's what TNGs characters were about to me. People who strived to improve themselves. (That's why the Borg were so scary to me. They had the same goal in mind, but were completely unscrupulous in doing so.)

Yes, Picard was convinced he was right. But that's because he believed that there are things that are right and things that are wrong, no matter the circumstances.

And I agree. I don't believe in relativist ethics, I don't believe in compromise and I don't believe in realpolitik. And I can't relate to a series that does.

Scary Joe, riding off on his high horse

[Dan Stack]

Well, I don't want to get political so I'll be brief. And I want to focus on what I like, not dislike. So just to clarify what I like about DS9 is that I think the characters did try to be "saints". It was just a heck of a lot harder to do on DS9.

I don't really see DS9 as espousing moral relativism. Rather, I see it showing that sometimes it is hard to do the right thing and sometimes your choices all suck. And sometimes you make the wrong choice.

DS9 did have conflict between the main characters. They yelled at each other, got ticked off, but at the end of the day they pulled together and did what was right. Even for their enemies, when they could. (i.e. Bashir/Odo and the Changeling virus). I loved the fact that they had differences, real differences, but worked through them whenever they could. And that has a real appeal to me.

[Edit - grammar fix and added moral relativism comments]

[Warduke]

Originally I didn't like ST very much, it all seemed very dull to me (compared to thet other big scifi franchise). But when I was in the states the family I rented a room at used to watch the various series on UPN so I quickly realized it wasn't all dull, just DS9 (, I'm kidding).

What appealed to me was a large established setting which at its best showed strange new worlds, and the premise of the shows allow for so many different stories.

When I got home from the States, Voyager started running (it ended yesterday here in Sweden), and I've followed it since then.

And overall, everything I've seen from the 5 live action series, is appealing, the characters, the stories, the effects, and make up. Sure there is the occasional episode that's sort of blah, but when it's good it's good enough to make up for every blah episode.

Currently I'm waiting for Enterprise to start here, twice a week starting in 2 months (although the 1st season tapes are already out).

But since I've started on my own ST campaign (set after Voy and Nemesis) my interest has risen, now I'm watching the entire Voy run for the 5-6 th time, pen and paper in hand, taking notes.

[REG]

I have to agree with Dan Stack. While TNG allow us to aspire to be a better person, DS9 relate the difficulty of achieving that goal. To show their struggle kinda put them in our shoes.

I think the fact they DS9 shows a different side of the Trek universe makes it interesting to watch. Both TOS and TNG shows the good side, while DS9 shows the flip side. That and the fact they know how to air a story without having to rush the ending part of the episode.

[Dan Stack]

Hey Reg, you put it better than I did.

[C5]

Now why do I love Trek ? Many reasons.
First, as has already been stated, Trek is an optimistic view of the future. It's based on the hope that the human race may one day be able to overcome its prejudices and limitations, and open a new era of hope and research.

Second, well, I'm a tech-geek, so I tend to love Trek's übertech. What can I say, I'm just one of those people who think that, the more technology, the better (one reason why I disliked Insurrection BTW).

Third, beyond being optimistic, Star Trek's utopia is one I just love. Of course, now we may have trouble seeing how such an utopia could work, but then again, we haven't been born there. I suppose someone from the early 17th century would be as sceptical when told about our present day ("You mean paper is more worth than land ??? What a crazy time is that??")

Fourth, and no, this is not a bashing of some sort, but I love that Star Trek is international. The characters aren't constantly reminding the viewers that they come from a certain country and that here they do things that way (ok, minus Chekov's accent, Picard in TNG's first season, Kirk and the horrible The Omega Glory, etc). This ties to their utopia.

Fifth, well, Star Trek's stories are usually good SF, and often carry a message I agree with. No more to say here.

I could go on for some time, but these are the main reasons.
BTW, I actually have a hard time chosing between TNG and DS9 as my favorite series : I love DS9 for the way they managed to create a coherent story spanning over the whole series (unique in Trek, so far, AFAIK), but overall I prefer the lighter tone of TNG. And for instance, I hated the Maquis.

[REG]

Originally posted by C5

And for instance, I hated the Maquis.

The Maquis did what they had to do, when the Cardassian who were supposed to govern them, gave the Cardassian colonists weapons to chase the Federation colonists that remained on planet within Cardassian space when the Federation-Cardassian Treaty changed the physical borders between the two powers.

You did remember that TNG episode regarding a Native American colony that refused to move, while there is a sidestory about Wes leaving the Academy to follow his path (alongside the Traveler's)?

[C5]

Ok, I was unclear - what I hated in the Maquis was more the main concept of the Maquis - people who had to be sacrified by the government to higher concerns. This is not something that fits well in my vision of Trek, or that should have been handled differently.
And yeah, I'm aware that they were introduced in TNG, but they appeared only in two episodes IIRC.

All the above being only my opinion, of course.

[REG]

I don't know if they were sacrificed. Most Federation colonies like the Native Americans in that TNG episode ("Journey's End") simply refused to be relocated. That's what the Cardassians wanted when they agreed to the border change: to remove all Federation colonists inside their "newly changed" space.

I don't know about the Cardassian colonists that now resides in Federation space but they are probably enjoying the rights and privilege of being in the Federation.