How did Trek Become Such a Phenomenon?

[sabrinathecat]

I found the BSG reboot to be... boring. Couldn't give a damn about what happened to any of the characters, and the pan-and-search camera swing to lock onto the vipers made me motion-sick. Gave it a fair chance, then quit. Maybe it got better eventually. Just like maybe DS9 got better during season 4. Don't know. Don't care.
Someone was reviewing DS9 episode by episode on another board I was watching. Made it 1/2 way through season 4 last I looked. Was keeping a running log on what DS9 and B5 had in common.
Why 24 is successful baffles me. Too many people being unbelievably stupid (and only 1 was actually punished for it), and too many coincidences. Managed 4 episodes before giving up on that.
I think the worst reboot I've seen in an effort to be topical was Hawaii 5-0. That show was practically screaming for the institution of a fascist state while trampling on civil liberties.
It seems to me that what most people call "Dramas" or "Soap-operas" are voyeuristic attempts to swim in social or society's sewage. Maybe it is just a sign of how out-of-touch I am, but I do not find those shows interesting or entertaining.

 

[Jhaelen]

I found the BSG reboot to be... boring.

Why am I not surprised?

 

[Ahnehnois]

For all the DS9/B5 stuff, I think on a broader level the latter is one of many shows is derivative of Star Trek as a whole. It copied tropes popularized by Trek about spaceships and quasi-magical technology and conveniently useful "space anomalies" and rubber-headed aliens that act like caricatures of human races. There are a number of sci-fi shows that have a similar baseline, some of which are interesting riffs on it that have their own merits.

It would be nice to see sci-fi get out of that box more often though.

 

[Janx]

Maybe it is just a sign of how out-of-touch I am, but I do not find those shows interesting or entertaining.

you don't tend to like anything the rest of us do. And you constantly jump in to add you four cents to why you don't like what the rest of us do.

And sadly, the one show you do like, is just as guilty of doing dumb and bad things.

Please stop being a Debbie Downer.

 

[Umbran]

you don't tend to like anything the rest of us do. And you constantly jump in to add you four cents to why you don't like what the rest of us do.

Yes, Janx. It is called "having an opinion". It's considered okay around here, and also okay to express opinions, so long as you're within the rules. It is a discussion board, and you don't get a whole lot of discussion if things are reduced to, "Yeah, I think that's great too!" If everyone liked the same things, the world would be a very boring place.

However, there's a lot to be said for talking about the things you *like*, rather than the things you dislike.

 

[Umbran]

For all the DS9/B5 stuff, I think on a broader level the latter is one of many shows is derivative of Star Trek as a whole. It copied tropes popularized by Trek about spaceships and quasi-magical technology and conveniently useful "space anomalies" and rubber-headed aliens that act like caricatures of human races. There are a number of sci-fi shows that have a similar baseline, some of which are interesting riffs on it that have their own merits.

It would be nice to see sci-fi get out of that box more often though.

Well, it is difficult to get out of that box. Let's look at some of those...

Rubber-headed aliens: Even today, we are still limited by what can be portrayed by human actors. CGI is good, and getting better, but is still too expensive to use for recurring characters on a TV show.

Spaceships: Well, yeah. How do you get humans an aliens mixing without them?

Aliens that act like humans: There are two issues behind this trope. 1) You need characters to be accessible/understandable to human viewers. 2) We don't actually have any examples of alien mindsets that we can communicate with to use as examples. Even the better hard sci-fi writers are rather limited in what they can usefully put forth in books, and that's to an audience that is more willing to explore such.

Pseudo-magical technology: Real technology is boring, dirty, expensive, and inconvenient. It doesn't generally do what viewers want to see in a science-fiction show - like, get you to interact with aliens, rubber-headed pseudo-humans or otherwise. Sufficiently advanced technology, and all that. To be honest, I'd rather see pseudo-magical technology than see them get real technology wrong.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Rubber-headed aliens: Even today, we are still limited by what can be portrayed by human actors. CGI is good, and getting better, but is still too expensive to use for recurring characters on a TV show.

Science Fiction does not have to have aliens at all.

Spaceships: Well, yeah. How do you get humans an aliens mixing without them?

Or spaceships (let alone faster than light travel).

Pseudo-magical technology: Real technology is boring, dirty, expensive, and inconvenient. It doesn't generally do what viewers want to see in a science-fiction show - like, get you to interact with aliens, rubber-headed pseudo-humans or otherwise. Sufficiently advanced technology, and all that. To be honest, I'd rather see pseudo-magical technology than see them get real technology wrong.

I don't agree that realistic technology is boring. We live in the information age. Innovations are happening rapidly. Reasonable extrapolations are entirely possible.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

Rubber-headed aliens: Even today, we are still limited by what can be portrayed by human actors. CGI is good, and getting better, but is still too expensive to use for recurring characters on a TV show.

Although it had its share of rubber-headed/body-painted aliens, Farscape also had alien main characters that were much less human -- Pilot and Rigel were puppets.

It can be done, but there are costs involved both in basic operating cost and opportunity cost of restricting what actions the characters can take on screen.

 

[Umbran]

Science Fiction does not have to have aliens at all.

Or spaceships (let alone faster than light travel).

Quite true. You can turn to Cyberpunk, or to some of the less dystopian works by Bruce Sterling as examples. But note that even in those worlds, there's tech that's indistinguishable from magic.

So, I do have to ask a question - is it "pseudo-magical technology" you mind, or is it specific kinds of pseudo-magical technology? The rest of this assumes that it is *any* pseudo-magic that annoys you.

I don't agree that realistic technology is boring. We live in the information age. Innovations are happening rapidly. Reasonable extrapolations are entirely possible.

Oh, on that basis, I'd argue that the shows you're looking for already exist - the modern police procedural is a good example of a show that uses extrapolated access to information and analysis. Leverage (which I find to be a fun, if somewhat campy show) also fits that bill. And those are only a couple of examples. Do you find the technology in those shows to be one of the interesting bits? I don't.

And therein lies the key. While in books, we may have pieces that are written for purposes of exploring an intellectual curiosity, for economic reasons modern TV and movies must also satisfy the viewer's need for escapism. Real technology does not provide escape from the real world, because it is too real. We recognize it too easily, and it does not make us think much. While you can have a show with such technology in it, it will not be known for its tech. It will instead be known for that which provides the escape - basically, it will seem to the viewer like it is in another genre. Which is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, but it won't look like science fiction. It'll look like a mystery, or a thriller, or a drama, or what have you, with slightly advanced technology.

 

[Umbran]

Although it had its share of rubber-headed/body-painted aliens, Farscape also had alien main characters that were much less human -- Pilot and Rigel were puppets.

It can be done, but there are costs involved both in basic operating cost and opportunity cost of restricting what actions the characters can take on screen.

Yep - as I said, we are still limited by what can be done by human actors. Puppeteers included.