Steamをインストール
ログイン
|
言語
简体中文（簡体字中国語）
繁體中文（繁体字中国語）
한국어 (韓国語)
ไทย (タイ語)
български (ブルガリア語)
Čeština（チェコ語）
Dansk (デンマーク語)
Deutsch (ドイツ語)
English (英語)
Español - España (スペイン語 - スペイン)
Español - Latinoamérica (スペイン語 - ラテンアメリカ)
Ελληνικά (ギリシャ語)
Français (フランス語)
Italiano (イタリア語)
Bahasa Indonesia（インドネシア語）
Magyar（ハンガリー語）
Nederlands (オランダ語)
Norsk (ノルウェー語)
Polski (ポーランド語)
Português（ポルトガル語－ポルトガル）
Português - Brasil (ポルトガル語 - ブラジル)
Română（ルーマニア語）
Русский (ロシア語)
Suomi (フィンランド語)
Svenska (スウェーデン語)
Türkçe (トルコ語)
Tiếng Việt (ベトナム語)
Українська (ウクライナ語)
翻訳の問題を報告
ルールとガイドライン
この投稿を報告する
Holy crap! That's LASZLO! How precious is that?
You've convinced yourself that you are right and everyone else is stupid, wrong and misunderstanding of the grand master plan. It's a waste of time talking to people as indoctrinated and single-minded as you, there's no conversation to be had.
I still love you though, even if you smell like bacon for some strange reason.
Orville is great in its own right. It's made by fans of ST, B5, FS and many other scifi shows. With a lot of thinking. Certainly it also has McFarlane sprinkled all over, for some its a nice extra, for others a ruin. I personally like it most of the time, and can forgive the few moments when it's over the top.
I had some fears about season 3, but it works fine, only one bad episode.
That "comedy" ST can be on par with actual ST is hardly new, Galaxy Quest is solid top3 ST movie for most real fans. For good reason. Too bad the show didn't happen.
Original Trek challenging the status quo and social orthodoxy of its time is a far cry from modern Trek's blatant and boringly trendy left-wing pandering.
This isn't true. All of the examples I gave show left-wing, progressive views. Peace, racial harmony, understanding and accepting others, anti-racism, anti-nuclear war, hippies are people too, anti-capitalism, anti-fascism, and on, and on.
....All the RECENT other 'Star Trek' series are terrible, Picard was just a pretentious nostalgia trip with lazy writing at best, whereas Discovery was literally just 'the message'. Neither deserved to have the Star Trek moniker associated with them.
The original Star Trek did exactly what classic Science-Fiction is supposed to do - It created relevant storylines that address societal issues when those people are presented with science-fiction... stuffs. Science-Fiction has always been the go-to genre to present social commentary in interesting, even fanciful, ways.
So, Star Trek wasn't "political" in the direct, purposeful, sense. It upheld a certain basic premise about idealized values being confronted with current day problems.
That show was able to do things that other television shows at the time could not easily do without eliciting a ton of blowback commentary. And, a ton of series back in those days were simple situation comedies, specific types of dramas, quite a few "Western" themed shows, etc.
(Mostly US shows, so some may not recognize them)
Giligan's Island
The Andy Griffith Show
The Beverly Hillbillies
The ♥♥♥♥ Van Dycke Show *Edit - It's the dude's name... wtf? OK - The "Richard" Van Dycke Show
I Dream of Jeanie
My Three Sons
Bewitched
The Flintstones
Get Smart
Green Acres
The Adam's Family
My Favorite Martian
Get Smart
Batman
Bonanza
Gomer Pyle USMC
The Munsters
Hogan's Heroes
Lost In Space
Etc...
If one is familiar with these shows, one knows that "Star Trek" is the only one that successfully handled very complex topical issues with relative ease and without seeming out of place or strange, since it could put these topics in a suitable, reasonable, context... surrounded in the comforting embrace of Science-Fiction. :)
"I want to tell a socially relevant story, but want to be able to go wildly extreme with it so I can push a narrative that shows how an idealized ethical or moral point of view can help solve these relevant problems" said the writer.
"I got you, fam..." said Science Fiction.
Many of these shows did focus on a "morality play" aspect at times. Even "Batman" had a relatively simple "do good" morality about it, but it most definitely didn't take itself too seriously.
"Star Trek" took itself seriously.
Some of Roddenberry's own political-think did seep through. That's natural, but it was never overbearing. It's also very easy to do in Science-Fiction.
Do you need to show how people can be at war with each other and have their own conflicting political ideologies, but can still be shown as normal people?
Well, you don't need a two hour movie about WWII with a US destroyer trying to destroy a German submarine and go all Captain Ahab about it to try to get the human element involved. You can just create some suitable aliens and do this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_Terror
(A wonderful, if sorta clumsy, episode. :))
Most of Star Trek's push was simple, understandable, normal "human" values. Yes, many episodes did have a "Western" twist and some did focus on the Cold War issue. But, "political?" Compared to today... not quite. Decidedly "American?" Yeah, pretty brutally.
Even though many would consider it "corny" these days, I think the original Star Trek was better written than most of what followed. While most people here probably grew up with and loved TNG, I think it was usually poorly written and the complexity it tried to push was usually fumbled with meaningless bits put into every show just to grab fans. In the age the ToS struck, that was not the production priority... For some reason, people were more concerned with using the story and its elements, backed up by the characters directly, to draw in the audience - They weren't as interested in fan-service gimmicks that later television shows, in what was likely a more competitive environment, focused on.
TNG just had too much it tried to do in every single episode. It's heavy focus on building up "character interest" to drive viewers episode-to-episode is why... there's a conference room and it's usually present in every darn episode, making Picard look like he can't open a can of peaches without getting advice from his crew. :)
Note: "Guest Stars" were the same sort of "extra gimmicks" that directly engaged with "fan service" in this period and slightly later.
I think you seem to be confusing modern 'left wing' views which are a combination of radical extremism, victim complexes, and screeching with the historical left wing which valued human rights and progressive views.
That was a very thoughtful comment. I don't mean to be rude and dismissive but it's still early here.
https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/the-politics-of-star-trek/
This excerpt says it better than I ever could.
The left has always been attacked by the right-wing. None of this is new.
From what I've seen, yes. All of the Captains have sexual relationships. There will never be another Captain Kirk, however. Attitudes about sex and sexuality have certainly changed since the days of the "Sexual Revolution".
For the OP, I've only seen maybe a couple of episodes of The Orville... it didn't appeal to me.
Both sides are attacking the heck out of each other right this very moment... That most certainly effects contemporary perceptions about what may have been going on back in the 60's.
One thing about the 60's and early 70's... All "activism" was seen as disruptive by the largely "socially conservative" taxpaying population. And, a bunch of it was pushed by a fringe-culture that desperately needed to feel as if they mattered and that they could be meaningful agents of positive change. (Not unlike today - It's a generational thing.)
There was certainly some interpretations that were "pushback" from certain storylines. BUT, the vast majority of them centered on very simple, non-political, morality plays that delt with socially relevant subjects, political or not. (I don't recall any directly conservative-vs-liberal political episodes. They all went down to a much more shared fundamental social "value" level when it came to "politics." But, some could certainly be focused on conservative-vs-liberal "social" topics.)
https://www.stltoday.com/entertainment/television/star-trek-interracial-kiss-50-years-ago-heralded-change/article_41e569ab-e243-55eb-8681-456a9d5e1605.html
A few things to note:
I think that sums up Star Trek pretty nicely. Roddenberry could throw whatever topical subject he wanted to at Star Trek and then push Utopian ideals at it. Most of that Utopia wouldn't have been considered political ideology. Some was, in a sense. But, even so, episodes were constructed in such a way that they'd get their message off without inflaming riots...
Kirk and Uhura kissed. But, they could do so without some huge riot taking place because the science-fiction elements "forced" them to kiss... It's a brilliant use of Science-Fiction to bring up social commentary.
The year before that, the US Supreme Court had just struck down laws that made it illegal for interracial couples to marry... It was something that needed to be addressed, like many other topics. So, Star Trek addressed it using Science-Fiction and, as a result, "The World Did Not Assplode All Over Itself." :)
I grew up on Star Trek. While I don't remember much about the 60's, since kids just didn't plain care what "year" it was, because they couldn't vote... Well, I didn't notice what era I was living in. But, I got to see the Vietnam War on TV in glorious Black&White. :) (IIRC, I didn't see a color television screen until my family went on vacation one year and there was one in our hotel room. Crazy, huh? :))
I wasn't old enough to understand "politics." But, I was old enough to understand what was "good" and what was "bad." I was also old enough to understand many of the syndicated episodes I saw in the 70's. That wasn't too far from it's original run and many of the same themes were still relevant.
Because of what Roddenberry based his future-society on, some hardliners either thought he went "too far" or "not far enough." But, political activism was not the same then as it is, today. It was much more... distasteful. Many people were socially conservative, that is true.
But, of what use is a weekly science-fiction television show that simply mimics contemporary life? (You know what that is? Disney++ et al.... :/)
"In this episode, Kirk does his taxes, McCoy gives Uhura an abortion, and Spock explores his sexuality while Scotty signs up for his first AA meeting..."
Uh.. Well, that might be kind of good. Anyway...
The point being that one doesn't get a lot of people interested in the story by making it... bland. It's gotta have some oomph about it and Roddenberry wanted to push his concept of a "utopian society" in many ways.
But, was that push "political?" No, not at its heart. There is "no way to get there from here" if one bases the mechanism of change on "political idealism." None.
Picard is a passionless cardboard cut-out...
Kirk's "relationships" were driven by passion. Heck, his character is very strongly motivated by his passions, tempered by his sense of duty.
Picard has very little of that. What does he do? He "recites" his passions... He does not "live" his passions. He doesn't "do the doing of" his passionate side. Kirk... wallows in it. :)
This is the most cringeworthy scene in the history of any TNG property and its cringeworthy exactly because Picard's character simply does not... do such a thing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3RNsZvdYZQ
Is his hatred justified? Who cares? The Borg touched him in his no-no spot, but... he's not the sort of character that's supposed to let such a thing crush the "principles" he's so righteously professed in every TV episode, right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiH1Bk6WmvI
Kirk... Well, that was a bit extreme even for him, but he was presented with having to give a peaceful gesture of aid and comfort in hopes of peace. And, for him to say, "No, bomb them twice" is perfectly within his wheelhouse.
Passion... Kirk was full of it. Picard was a homunculus amalgamation of a Kirk character very heavily moderated by a Spock character. (Data was never, ever, a Spock character.)
J.J. Abrams is the "ANTI-NERD" and has managed to ruin not only Star Trek but Star Wars as well. And anything that is made based on what they call "The J.J. Verse" comes out as pure garbage.
Also the main reason Orville feels so Trek like is because Brannon Braga is the main executive producer, and McFarlane is a MASSIVE Trek nerd.
Brannon Braga helped with everything from writing to directing to producing Star Trek TNG, DS9, and Voyager.
These are not klingons, their a bunch of dishonorable reptilian cannibals. I haven't seen a klingon anywhere during the entire show. Then there's the mushroom network, no words.