How to tell if you’re a geek
| October 23rd, 2003It all comes down to one question:
In your opinion, which is the best Star Trek show?
Your answer to that determines if you’re a geek or not. So think about it, get your answer in mind, and to see how you scored click below.
SCORING: If you answered “I have no idea,” then you’re not a geek.
If you were able to answer the question, then you’re a geek. If you weren’t able to answer the question at all, but had a sophisticated answer regarding why you couldn’t (”For acting, I’d have to favor TNG; the set-up was better developed on DS9; the original had a certain charm, blah blah blah”) then you’re a geek. Even if you don’t like any of them very much at all, if you could pick one out as somehow better than the others, that’s geekiness.
Just thought I’d mention this, in light of Jacob Levy’s and Randy Barnett’s disagreement at Volokh over Star Trek shows.
Me? I agree with Jacob - Deep Space Nine is by far the best of the Trek shows.
October 23rd, 2003 at 8:28 pm
I can name exactly one Star Trek episode, so that is my favorite. It is “The Trouble with Tribbles.” I remember one scene, when they open the overhead bulkhead and the tribbles pour out. I must have seen that in 1973.
This comment was written by John Isbell.Report this comment to the moderators
October 23rd, 2003 at 8:29 pm
Voyager.
(Then again, if you named ANY ST series as your favorite, then you’d probably end up being a geek anyway.)
This comment was written by Assamite.Report this comment to the moderators
October 23rd, 2003 at 9:22 pm
“Go Fuck Yourself”
Now, i’m not actually directing that statement at anyone at all, it was just my first response to the question. I guess that means I’m an asshole. Interesting how that question is so revealing, even for those who don;t give even the slightest shit about any televised science fiction that has ever existed.
This comment was written by larry forney.Report this comment to the moderators
October 24th, 2003 at 12:54 am
DS9 was great once the war with the Dominion started, but TNG was overall a much better show.
Yes, I’m a geek. But I’m already planning a career in mathematics, so I think that was already pretty much known.
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
October 24th, 2003 at 5:23 am
CSI made fun of this sort of thing once. I think it was Greg (the lab tech guy) who wanted to work on a particular case and another guy with less experience just across the hall was picked instead. Greg wanted to know why the other guy was deemed more appropriate and he wasn’t. Nick Stokes (I think it was Nick) turned and yelled to the other guy, “What’s the best “Star Trek” episode?” He immediately replied (paraphrased), “In which series? Classic? DS9? Voyager? Enterprise?” Greg then turned to Nick and said, “I see your point.”
This comment was written by Trish Wilson.Report this comment to the moderators
October 24th, 2003 at 6:35 am
I have complicated reasons why I can’t answer which is the worst Star Trek. Can I be a geek anyway?
This comment was written by Vincent Baker.Report this comment to the moderators
October 24th, 2003 at 6:52 am
Enterprise.
Kidding, kidding!
TNG.
This comment was written by Paul.Report this comment to the moderators
October 24th, 2003 at 8:35 am
Geekiness hardly precludes cultural sophistication. I dabble unapologetically in both: I love “TNG,” and I’m in grad school for poetry. I’m so subversive.
I wish I could go back in time and annihilate the person who thought up “Enterprise.” That “show” inspired me to get rid of my TV. Did they ever change the theme “song”?
This comment was written by Hestia.Report this comment to the moderators
October 24th, 2003 at 8:57 am
I find it appalling that there can even be any *question* that the original series was the best, for reasons I could rant at length about if I wanted to.
Sure, it had cheap production values and some weak acting, but the only reason *any* of the other series were successful was because they rode on the coattails of the potent cultural myth created by the original. If TNG had been the first one to come out, it would’ve been cancelled by the end of the first season for lack of viewership.
So I guess this makes me not only a geek, but an *old* geek. Feh. Get off my lawn.
This comment was written by Evan.Report this comment to the moderators
October 24th, 2003 at 9:10 am
Blake’s 7 kicks ass.
This comment was written by Kerim Friedman.Report this comment to the moderators
October 24th, 2003 at 9:19 am
Like John Isbell, I was going to respond by naming an episode, but then I noticed the question said “show” which would really mean a series, right? Fine, my favorite episode would be the one where the crew gets attacked by psychedelic spores that turn Spock into a hippie. (Notice also that John and I automatically assumed “Star Trek” meant the original series, which suggests perhaps another level of geekiness. If you don’t say TNG or DS9 or something, then “Star Trek” has just gotta refer to the O.G., yuhknowwhatimesayin’?)
My favorite series, however, is TNG. Never got into DS9, although I recognized its virtues. Just too claustrophobic to watch.
Enterprise sounded like such a good idea before it actually got aired. And, oy, that theme song. Even Bon Jovi would think it too shmaltzy.
This comment was written by Kevin Moore.Report this comment to the moderators
October 24th, 2003 at 9:36 am
There’s a potent kick to raw myth, but I’ll take thoughtful execution, wit, and style any old day. How there can be any argument that DS9 isn’t the best is beyond me.
This comment was written by --k..Report this comment to the moderators
October 24th, 2003 at 10:48 am
As a hopeless romanticist, I would in general have to say TNG, which had a passionate intellectual in the captain’s chair and a love for the amassing of knowledge for knowledge’s own sake. I LIKE the fantasy of a future where humans are so obsessed with intellectual pursuits that poverty, crime, war, prejudice, and the yucky parts of government are eliminated; and where, when corruption of some kind is discovered in, say, the upper echelons of Starfleet, it would reflect only on the corrupt persons, and not be typical of the organization, or people in general, as a whole.
DS9’s war with the Dominion, therefore, was depressing as hell to me, because it removed what had been, to me (and as stated by Gene Roddenberry in an interview or two, but then, authors are inveterate liars, and no one should listen to anything they say), the point of *Star Trek* from the very beginning. I couldn’t watch DS9; it was too painful for me. Also, TNG had Q.
But then, OS had that fabulous, angstful UST between Nurse Chapel and Spock…
And Voyager, in my opinion, was just *90210* with more makeup. No, wait…
*sighs* Okay, so I’m a geek. But I’m… no, forget it. I’m a geek.
I have a question, though: why is it that *Star Trek* is so shameful to like? It seems that people look at you differently in all ways if you say you’ve enjoyed it at all, kind of in the same way people look at you differently about everything if you say, “Yeah, I’ve kissed a couple of girls,” when you are one yourself.
This comment was written by Morphienne.Report this comment to the moderators
October 24th, 2003 at 11:35 am
“Logic is a boquet of pretty flowers that smells bad.”
Yeah, baby, I’m a geek. And I’m introducing my daughter to ST:TOS so she’ll know what the heck mom and dad are going on about. ;)
This comment was written by Ab_Normal.Report this comment to the moderators
October 24th, 2003 at 11:51 am
I am NOT a geek!!! :D
I have seen that Trouble with Tribbles episode — but that’s just cuz my mom bought my dad that episode on tape once — long time ago.
But honestly, I’d have no idea which one is the best or worst — I’m not even sure I could tell the difference between the series is one came on TV (except the original one — that would be obvious).
This comment was written by bean.Report this comment to the moderators
October 24th, 2003 at 2:12 pm
I liked TNG best as well. Good stories, decent acting, some excellent thought pieces. It worked best as a just-plain-well-done TV show rather than a typical “genre show.” And it brought us Wil every week, and he’s turned into every blogger’s inspiration!!
This comment was written by Elayne Riggs.Report this comment to the moderators
October 24th, 2003 at 2:57 pm
Yay! I was waiting to see if somebody would mention http://www.wilwheaton.net. I didn’t want to admit being a Wesley addict all by myself.
This comment was written by Hestia.Report this comment to the moderators
October 24th, 2003 at 4:25 pm
I have to say I did like Q.
This comment was written by John Isbell.Report this comment to the moderators
October 24th, 2003 at 6:14 pm
DS9 was great once the war with the Dominion started, but TNG was overall a much better show.
I have to agree with this overall judgement. But I still have a soft spot for TOS. I grew up watching the reruns every sunday afternoon with my dad. That’s good parenting, right there.
Voyoger was disapointing. Such potential, wasted on Barbie in a catsuit.
And I had high hopes for Enterprise. I really did. Great concept. I like Scot Bakula. But Archer’s a prick and after the third episode I wanted to just smack Tripp every time he walked on deck. I made it through the first season, hoping that they were just working the kinks out. But Alas, no. The second season was worse. So very disapointed.
When I first heard they were doing a Prequal series, I was hoping for something like the Greatest DS9 episode ever, when they go back in time to the Trouble With Tribbles Episode of TOs and interacted with Kirk and the gang. I wanted to see the first enterprise, done in that same style as TOS because the adventures of the first Captain of the Enterprise (what’s his name? The guy who’s in the hovering wheel chair in Cages?) That would have rocked! Instead we got Enterprise. Blech.
This comment was written by Jorge.Report this comment to the moderators
October 24th, 2003 at 8:37 pm
A question such as this needs subsections and detours. Otherwise, what’s the point ? Here, I’ll help you:
Who’s the more entertaining and adorable couple: McCoy and Spock or O’Brien and Bashir ?
Now you ! :p
This comment was written by Amy S..Report this comment to the moderators
October 24th, 2003 at 9:10 pm
That was Captain Pike in the special wheelchair. But if you’ve read the books (indicating, I’m sure, a whole ‘nother level of geekhood), there was a captain before him, too - Captain April. I don’t think he was ever mentioned on the TV series, so it’s probably not canon.
Spock and McCoy were more fun to watch, even if Bashir is so much cuter than either of them.
This comment was written by Matt.Report this comment to the moderators
October 24th, 2003 at 10:01 pm
I dunno, I’m really partial to the exchange between O’Brien and Bashir that ends with “You wish your wife was a man?”
This comment was written by VASpider.Report this comment to the moderators
October 25th, 2003 at 7:09 am
Oh, please. Bashir and Garak were much cuter.
This comment was written by --k..Report this comment to the moderators
October 25th, 2003 at 8:03 am
Captain April appeared in one episode of the animated series… which is technically non-canon, for reasons I’m not sure about…
This comment was written by David Newgreen.And I’m putting in another vote for the Next Generation.
And I agree with Morphienne completly; Ds9 may have been a good show, but it wasn’t good *Star Trek*.
Report this comment to the moderators
October 25th, 2003 at 8:22 am
“Can you save him, Bones?”
This comment was written by John Isbell.“It’s no good, Jim, he’s dead.”
“But Bones -”
“Look, Jim, I’m a doctor, not a miracle worker!”
I rest my case. Also, it must be the dilithium crystals.
Report this comment to the moderators
October 25th, 2003 at 8:23 am
“Make it so” is pretty good though.
This comment was written by John Isbell.Report this comment to the moderators
October 25th, 2003 at 2:44 pm
I would “make it so” for Patrick Stewart. Just something about that guy….
:-O
This comment was written by bhw.Report this comment to the moderators
October 25th, 2003 at 2:53 pm
Does it open up whole new levels of geekiness if you have a tendency to get into long debates about whether Babylon 5 was better than Star Trek?
For the record: TNG is the best Star Trek series; Babylon 5 is better than all the Trek series except for TNG; and some day I’ll have to watch DS9 from the beginning but I always hated it whenever I turned it on.
And McCoy/Spock is definitely the best couple.
This comment was written by PinkDreamPoppies.Report this comment to the moderators
October 25th, 2003 at 7:18 pm
DS9. But Bab 5 was even better.
This comment was written by language hat.Report this comment to the moderators
October 25th, 2003 at 8:25 pm
Actually, on second thought, I’d have to say that DS9 surpassed TNG when Worf entered the cast and the Klingons renewed their conflict with the federation. And, possibly before that, when Sisko became the Bajoran emmissary. I’m a sucker for mythology.
By the way, does our geekiness rise at all for referring to all the shows by initials?
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
October 25th, 2003 at 11:06 pm
Geek props should go to David Newgreen for identifying an animated series episode featuring a Star Trek character otherwise known only through through the novels. That feat deserves a crown. :)
This comment was written by Kevin Moore.Report this comment to the moderators
October 26th, 2003 at 12:10 am
More to the point, which is the greatest Star Trek movie? I mean, do we go old school with Wrath of Khan, or new school with First Contact? It’s been forever since I’ve seen Wrath of Khan so I have to step aside on this one.
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
October 26th, 2003 at 8:30 am
If knowledge of Star Trek is the basic criterium to define any level of geekiness, I am definitely out, though I’d expect an ultimate geek to answer directly in Klingon, as this fine sympatriótis of mine would probably be able to do (as I assume by seeing his dedicated page, full of various translations; I particularly recommend the Hamlet audio file). [Disclaimer: I'm not fond of artificial languages, but I appreciate that he can speak a bunch of natural ones as well.]
正名 — 賀氏之部落格
This comment was written by Jimmy Ho.Report this comment to the moderators
October 26th, 2003 at 9:23 am
An afterthought: does the fact that I played the Call of Cthulhu RPG when I was 13 give me any point? Off topic, I guess.
This comment was written by Jimmy Ho.Report this comment to the moderators
October 26th, 2003 at 11:11 am
Oh, McCoy and Spock, definitely. Kirk/Spock slash may have been what started the whole slash fanfiction culture, but McCoy and Spock made the better couple. Kirk and Spock were the popular-but-marginally-nice-jock and the nerdboy friend he allowed to tag along. Spock’s relief at having a friend who wouldn’t push him too far into Personality Overload was at times physically evident; but Kirk and Spock never had the snapfire intellectual debates or the rancorless old-couple bickering, and McCoy was good for Spock precisely because he *would* try to goad him into betraying the exterior Spock thought of as the self he should be (but knew he wasn’t). They were *great,* an older, more dignified and realistic predecessor to Harry/Draco.
This comment was written by Morphienne.Report this comment to the moderators
October 26th, 2003 at 11:21 am
“And I agree with Morphienne completly; Ds9 may have been a good show, but it wasn’t good *Star Trek*.”
That must be why it’s the only one I really like. I never bought Roddenberry’s belief that something like the Federation could ever exist: A sort of benevolent-but-take-no-guff galactic Peace Corps only with big teeth.
Now, colonial invasions, racially motivated backstabbings disguised as patriotic duty to save the Emp– er, Federation (ie– What happened to the Changelings when they got caught between the Dominion and the Federation), religious wars and assasinations as an inevitable aftermath of a post-colonial power vacuum (the various Bajoran subplots), and so on…
THAT, I don’t have a hard time believing could exist.
The two things that mainly got on my nerves about the show were that Sisco’s love interests were always cardboard cut-outs, and that horrific notion that studying 1950’s American Rat Pack culture was a great way to learn how to romance women. Ack.
Oh, well. Nothing’s perfect.
This comment was written by Amy S..Report this comment to the moderators
October 26th, 2003 at 12:50 pm
You know you’re a geek if you refer to different parts of the Star Trek franchise as canon or non-canon.
This comment was written by Corvus.Report this comment to the moderators
October 26th, 2003 at 2:19 pm
McCoy/Spock. No doubt. Morphienne is on the money.
This comment was written by John Isbell.Report this comment to the moderators
October 26th, 2003 at 3:33 pm
A quick correction: Nick Nicholas, the Greek-Australian linguist I previously linked to, did not “translate” Shakespeare, as I mistakenly wrote. He actually “restored” his work from the “Crude Terran Forgery” to the “original Klingon“, as part of a big project of the Klingon Language Institute (”Hamlet is now available in paperback, from Pocket Books“; indeed).
Apparently, there is a cue from Star Trek VI, but you knew it.
taH pagh taHbe’. DaH mu’tlheghvam vIqelnIS… This time, I’m really off.
This comment was written by Jimmy Ho.Report this comment to the moderators
October 26th, 2003 at 5:08 pm
I’m almost afraid to ask: Do I get points for having a photo on my fridge of a birthday cake with Counselor Troi painted on it in frosting? Even if it was taken almost 15 years ago?
This comment was written by alphabitch.Report this comment to the moderators
October 26th, 2003 at 6:07 pm
That scores so many points, alphabitch. No worry, though. It’s entirely possible to be a geek and still kick ass and be majorly sexy. Like me for instance. [*pose*]
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
October 26th, 2003 at 7:24 pm
I’m reminded of a News Radio episode where Jimmy asks the Dave Foley character, “This is like that Star Trek episode where Kirk and Spock…” something and when Dave responds, Jimmy says, “Geek check! You passed.”
This comment was written by nate-dogg.Report this comment to the moderators
October 27th, 2003 at 10:11 pm
How good was DS9? So good it survived seven whole years of Avery Brooks (who, as an actor, is a hell of a mannequin) and almost nobody cared. Plus they really brought out Worf’s comic side, and had a great, planned-out storyline, and didn’t flinch away from doing real social commentary. What’s more, Michael Westmore brought a real artistry to the alien makeups that Voyager never approached, and… oh, huh, my doctoral dissertation proposal is due tomorrow.
Anyway, the great thing about DS9 was that it knew how to make use of an ensemble cast. In the first few seasons the episodes were more set pieces but as time wore on….
This comment was written by Matt.Report this comment to the moderators
October 28th, 2003 at 7:26 am
A) An undefined utopia that is never tested in any meaningful fashion is dull. Roddenberry’s dream is a nice dream, but I’d rather see believable people working towards it and fighting for it in a way that I can believe, against odds I recognize, than just have someone wave their hands off-stage and make it so and then hey, let’s go off and have some adventures now, pip pip.
B) This critic does recognize that those two ambassadors were played by excellent actors and got some fucking amazing scenes here and there, now and then. This critic even appreciated Walter Koenig’s delightfully creepy turn as Bester, and this critic even gets the Bester joke. This critic also greatly appreciates long-form, episodic, serial storytelling, the King of all Media, which is one of the many reasons DS9 is vastly superior to the other Treks, and why Farscape kicks the ass of every other SF show mentioned so far on this thread. But: this critic could not get past (otherwise) atrociously wooden acting and embarrasingly lame riffs on Tolkien and Arthur that were ripped from somebody’s junior high school epic. (This critic also has a problem with I Am The Chosen One stories. –Yes, DS9 manages to survive one of those. Farscape too, but much less so. Just be quiet.) –For these reasons, he summarily rejects Babylon 5 from consideration, despite the unreserved kudos of friends and acquaintances of unquestionable taste and intelligence. –You’re all batty on this one, folks. I just don’t get it.
C) The best Star Trek movie ever made was Galaxy Quest: at once a distillation of all the good stuff everyone remembers from the old show, without all the corn everyone manages to sugarcoat with nostalgia, while lovingly commenting on the corn and on the fandom phenomenon that is an important part of Trek, period. If you haven’t seen it, what’s your problem?
The second best Star Trek movie ever was The Hunt for Red October. No, there is no Enterprise; yes, the Romulans are more important in the story than the Federation; and yes, it all takes place underwater. So what?
The third best Star Trek movie ever made was The Wrath of Khan. The apotheosis of the old show–that flick (and, heck, the beautifully touching SNL skit) make those 72 hours of mostly bad television with an admittedly potent myth and, yes, some truly memorable moments all very much worthwhile.
But movie-wise, it’s all terribly downhill from there.
This comment was written by --k..Report this comment to the moderators
October 28th, 2003 at 8:12 am
Roddenberry’s dream is a nice dream, but I’d rather see believable people working towards it and fighting for it in a way that I can believe, against odds I recognize, than just have someone wave their hands off-stage and make it so and then hey, let’s go off and have some adventures now, pip pip.
I think that dream got tested often enough post-pip pip, what with The Federation playing strange politics even in TNG. Still, your main point here underscores what was so disappointing about Enterprise. I mean, you know, aside from the bad plots, annoying characters and nauseating theme song. An origins series should show a lot more struggle and a lot more failure and the long-term consequences of such. Bakula’s cowboyish attitude should have generated much more backlash than it did—or if not backlash, then “blowback.” Anyone reading current events into such an assessment gets a gold star.
This comment was written by Kevin Moore.Report this comment to the moderators
October 28th, 2003 at 8:39 am
I mean, you know, aside from the bad plots, annoying characters and nauseating theme song.
Don’t forget the excessive greasing-up and shirt-losing on the part of the whole two female crew members. I was mightily irritated by the way “Enterprise” treated women. Perhaps I wasn’t their target audience, not being a horny teenage boy and all, but for Christ’s sake, some of T’Pol’s scenes bordered on porn.
And I gotta put in a vote for the “Star Trek” movie about the whales, which was…OK, dumb, but we’ve all wondered what would happen if Spock visited the 1980s. Haven’t we?
This comment was written by Hestia.Report this comment to the moderators
October 28th, 2003 at 11:13 am
That was Star Trek IV, I think the subtitle was something like The Voyage Home, or something, but I forget.
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
October 28th, 2003 at 12:37 pm
Hmm… K brings up some good points about Trek and B5, but… Farscape? You’re kidding me, right? That’s one of the worst sci-fi shows made in years. Okay, so it’s not as awful as Andromeda, but it’s certainly not the best sci-fi show made in years.
But who am I kidding… Has there been another sci-fi show as great as the first series of the Twilight Zone?
This comment was written by PinkDreamPoppies.Report this comment to the moderators
October 28th, 2003 at 1:18 pm
PinkDream, if you didn’t make it past the first season–which can at times be a trial–you missed It. The Best. Top of the Heap. A friggin’ amazing roller coaster ride. Operatic. Up there with Buffy, by God. Astounding character interaction, terrific stories, great acting–the muppets could teach Boxleitner a thing or seven, let me tell you–a keen appreciation of their fans, genre blenders set on frappe, excellently complicated takes on sex and sexuality, a deviantly impish sense of humor, a melodramatic sense of tragedy whose every audience-torturing inch was honestly earned–when they finally opened up the throttle and went for it, once they knew they’d be on the air for a bit, it rocked the fuckin’ house. Hie thee to some DVDs, my friend. Post-haste.
This comment was written by --k..Report this comment to the moderators
October 28th, 2003 at 2:04 pm
Dunno, the cosmos-spanning use of English and the biped-centric views of the universe… just not my thing. Couldn’t they have found some actors with more appendages than that? Maybe someone gelatinous or who moves using cilia? I mean, christ, give me something to chew on, y’know?
This comment was written by Dan J.Report this comment to the moderators
October 28th, 2003 at 2:30 pm
They had Babel fish-analogs. They mention them every now and then and otherwise let them get out of the way of the story. –It’s a perennial problem: star-spanning adventures must of necessity span languages, but problems in translation get dull fast if it’s the bulk of every friggin’ episode. Some kind of UT or Babel fish is an acceptable hedgehog for this sort of thing.
And with the muppets and the CGI work, Farscape has a vastly more populous non-bipdel universe than any other live-action SF show ever; the bipeds in turn had makeup, prosthetics, and aesthetics that lick Trek (as a for instance) all hollow. Hard to fault them on this score…
This comment was written by --k..Report this comment to the moderators
October 28th, 2003 at 4:11 pm
“Roddenberry’s dream is a nice dream, but I’d rather see believable people working towards it and fighting for it in a way that I can believe, against odds I recognize, than just have someone wave their hands off-stage and make it so and then hey, let’s go off and have some adventures now, pip pip.”
When I see believable people working towards it and fighting for it in a way I can believe, against odds I recognize, I see them losing.
Tragedy has its place, as do works of art and literature about social and political entropy and chaos, but as far as pseudoliterary science-fictional escapism goes, I’d much rather see something where the good guys, you know… win sometimes. And where the bad guys are, say, all-powerful but immature aliens who have a crush on the human race, and not just greedy opportunists or those who want to avenge the oppression their particular cultural/racial/special/religious group has suffered for thousands of years. I want science *fiction,* not science six-o’clock-news. If I’m going to watch someone else’s dream, then I want to to be just what you say it is: “a nice dream.” I have more than all the reality I can handle just trying not to get run over by the SUV’s on my way to work in the mornings.
And why shouldn’t something elevate the spirits at the same time it edifies them? I respect fictions that addresses social and political problems as they really come, but I must insist that fictions that do no such thing are no less worthy of regard, and no less literature or art. Pip pip.
This comment was written by Morphienne.Report this comment to the moderators
October 28th, 2003 at 5:01 pm
Who on earth said something about not elevating spirits? Of course you can elevate spirits. –Nor did I say that only socially and politically realistic fictions were worthy: just that, given what these shows are doing and trying to do, I find DS9 superior to TOS or TNG in large part because it deals with (in not at all realistic ways, but at least it attempts to deal with) the socio-political reality of this future world. There’s a there there, in DS9, one that is respected on its own terms, and not so much for what lessons it can teach us through thinly veiled allegory. Less so in TNG and Voyager. Much less so in TOS.
The problem is this: if you just “make it so,” you take the dream for granted. You make it harder to believe in. You cheapen it. The old show is only incidentally about that dream: in very important ways, to be sure, but still, it’s incidental. I can’t take it seriously as utopian fiction because I can’t take its utopia seriously. No real thought is put into how we got there, or how it works, or what it means to the person on the street. That’s ultimately unnecessary for what the old show was trying to do–but it’s vital to anything that wants to deal with utopia, or, heck, fiction that wants to deal with the larger world, period. I want a place I’d want to visit, something whose corners I have fun imagining. Not just a pretty backdrop for Wagon Train in space.
This comment was written by --k..Report this comment to the moderators
October 28th, 2003 at 6:11 pm
Since when was the six o’clock news “reality” ? :p
This comment was written by alsis37 (fka Amy S.).Report this comment to the moderators
October 28th, 2003 at 7:10 pm
Speaking of which, ever seen that one DS9 where Sisco and Garak get the Romulans involved in the war with the Dominion through lies, deception and murder? I dunno, I appreciate that sort of darkness. It’s bolder to have your main characters not be paragons of virtue.
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
October 28th, 2003 at 7:29 pm
“If you were able to answer the question, then you’re a geek.”
I was right! :D
This comment was written by Assamite.Report this comment to the moderators
October 28th, 2003 at 7:35 pm
I’d say that the six o’clock news qualifies as “reality” in the sense that it’s ugly in the same ways as reality is. It may show a filtered reality, but it still shows enough of the world’s ugliness. In fact, it tends to filter out the uglier parts of reality.
And hey… Perhaps the thrill of watching something like the original series of Star Trek lies in the fact that it does just “make it so.” It’s good to watch precisely because it doesn’t care about how the utopia was constructed or how it works or whatever. It’s good because it shows us how much fun we’d have once we got there. It doesn’t degrade or cheapen a utopic society (and I believe that going into the details of said society would cheapen and degrade it) but rather paints a picture of an idea of the ultimate goal.
This comment was written by PinkDreamPoppies.Report this comment to the moderators
October 28th, 2003 at 9:04 pm
The first year that “Star Trek” was on TV I was teaching junior high in Tullahoma, Tennesse and couldn’t get a video signal from either Nashville or Knoxville, but got a strong audio signal - SO, I experienced the show as radio. And it was much more impressive as a radio show than as TV! The next year when I could actually see it was such a disappointment. The production values were so cheap and the special effects were so “fakey”, but what worked, the writing, was undercut by the cheapness of the visuals. Too bad. I loved that first season that I had to “see” in my own imagination.
This comment was written by SOB.Report this comment to the moderators
October 28th, 2003 at 10:23 pm
…some of T’Pol’s scenes bordered on porn.
So does the six o’clock news. With puppies and house fires thrown in.
The old show is only incidentally about that dream: in very important ways, to be sure, but still, it’s incidental. I can’t take it seriously as utopian fiction because I can’t take its utopia seriously.
Different time and place. TOS is in many way The Twilight Zone meets Buck Rogers. That it offered up a Utopia in the late 60s that viewed war, poverty and suchlike as problems that should and even could be resolved says a lot about its share in that era’s idealism, while also serving as, I dunno, a goal? A gentle rebuke on the Times, maaaan? Besides, now that all the messy stuff is out of the way, we can focus on the real trippy stuff, dude, like the vastness of space and gettin’ it on with scantily clad aliens.
And yes, I know you said “That’s ultimately unnecessary for what the old show was trying to do….” It’s important, however to recognize the limitations imposed by the genre’s particular point of historical development when the show was aired. Stuff like Dune had yet to make itself felt. Shit, stuff like Philip K Dick had yet to make itself felt. TOS laid the groundwork upon which the later shows could build more interesting and more satisfying shows.
Oh, and: I wholeheartedly second Kip’s recommendation of watching the entire run of Farscape. Yes, it was the best. I was really pissed when the Sci Fi Channel nixed it. Like there’s anything good on there now?!?! Stargate?! Agh! (Well, MST3K, but that doesn’t count for original programming.)
Now, if you’re a real geek, you will chat with Terry Pratchett on Tues, 11/11. Yes, you will.
This comment was written by Kevin Moore.Report this comment to the moderators
October 29th, 2003 at 11:17 am
Hmm… I may give Farscape another try but I was underwhelmed with it whenever I saw it. I saw some stuff in the first season, caught a few episodes in the second, and saw the season premiere of whichever one started with [spoiler] Erin (is that her name?) having been killed (or frozen, or something… Does it matter?).
I guess I just didn’t like the look of the show. The puppets always looked absurdly ridiculous to me, the acting seemed flat, and the stories were unimpressive.
May just be a taste thing. Or maybe I caught all the wrong episodes.
This comment was written by PinkDreamPoppies.Report this comment to the moderators
October 29th, 2003 at 4:26 pm
Hmm Late to the party. Hands down DS9 is the best Trek IMO. Farscape is the best SF series in recent memory. Babylon 5 was better than most of the Treks (wooden acting not withstanding). I personally think DS-9 was better and is frustratingly underrated. Yes, I am a geek why do you ask?
This comment was written by Moebetta.Report this comment to the moderators
October 29th, 2003 at 6:15 pm
Voyager
But I like Farscape even more.
This comment was written by Kija.Report this comment to the moderators
October 29th, 2003 at 10:20 pm
I detect a stream of anti-geek prejudice.
and I must say I’m thuroughly offended.
just because I have plans for world domination that are endlessly complicated (step 16.3: domesticate manatees) doesn’t mean I’m crazy!
I’ve got my constitution all planned and everything!
and then, at step 64, the orbital elevator is completed, and contruction of the Enterprise begins, but it’s a perfectly acceptible starship design, and could handle light speed travel quite well!
the fact is, I may be a geek, but that makes me a better person than you! I’m working for the betterment of mankind, dammit!
and just because I wear an iron mask, a green cape, and talk about myself in the third person does NOT make me evil…
much
but that’s beside the point! Next Generation is the best trek, and I and my team of mad grad students will soon bring my vision of mankind to fruition!
This comment was written by karpad.Report this comment to the moderators
October 30th, 2003 at 2:58 am
Ab_Normal writes:
“Logic is a boquet of pretty flowers that smells bad.”
Well, the actual quote is:
“Logic is a little bird tweeting in the meadow.
Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad.
Are your circuits registering correctly? Your ears are green!”
I am a computer geek. I bite the heads off virtual chickens.
This comment was written by Keith Thompson.Report this comment to the moderators
October 30th, 2003 at 7:29 am
1. Classic
This comment was written by Lars Holst.2. Voyager
9. TNG
10. DS9
Report this comment to the moderators
October 30th, 2003 at 8:27 am
I confess, I am geek. I can’t even decide between the original, TNG, and DS9. I like all three. Here are my random thoughts
The original (or “classic”) Star Trek had the best characters. It’s cheesy, but I love Roddenberry’s optimistic view of the future. Most of the episodes have a nice little morale.
However, the individual epsiodes of TNG have much better plots and production values. The continous plot of DS9 is the best storyline of all.
The best movie is Wrath of Kahn.
This comment was written by kevin g.Report this comment to the moderators
October 30th, 2003 at 9:14 am
In your opinion, which is the best Star Trek show?
It’s a trick question: having any answer at all to that question reveals that you are a geek.
This comment was written by Daryl McCullough.Report this comment to the moderators
October 30th, 2003 at 4:25 pm
“Nor did I say that only socially and politically realistic fictions were worthy: just that, given what these shows are doing and trying to do, I find DS9 superior to TOS or TNG. . . . ”
I think we may be experiencing a miscommunication here, k. What, in your opinion, *are* these shows trying to do? I don’t think I stated this clearly in my last post, but I feel that TNG’s main goal was to provide its audience with an engaging not-entirely-unintellgent adventure story. One that lacked, at least on the part of the “good guys,” the typical elements of racism and sexism that so plague science-fiction as a whole; and one that, as science-ficion is wont to do, gets the viewer to perhaps examine her own life and prejudices, or perhaps just instills a feeling that every day is an adventure out of which something good can come and that knowledge for its own sake is more important than material advantage or domination of others. It’s obvious my take on it is a little different from yours, but I don’t clearly understand what yours is.
Your placement of the phrase “at least,” as in, “At least it attempts to deal with… the socio-political reality of this future world” implies that you DO think that only socially and politically realistic fictions are worthy, or at least hold a higher worth than those that don’t, and I profoundly disagree.
“There’s a *there* there, in DS9, one that is respected on its own terms, and not so much for what lessons it can teach us through thinly veiled allegory.”
And is thinly veiled allegory, too, somehow an inferior form of storytelling? I would submit that ALL storytelling is allegory of some kind or another– what else is a story that paralells real-life socio-political events?– and, further, I would argue that TNG never used thinly veiled allegory. It’s allegory was blatant and artless.
And there’s a *there* there in TNG, too. That’s a universe I’d like to inhabit, even if I would run the risk of being killed by a giant three-dimensional snowflake. Credibility is in the eye of the beholder, and while I can easily imagine myself as a member of a neo-Scottish colony, or a specialist in the field of Weird Alien Bacteria aboard a starship, I have difficulty wrapping my mind around being a slave or killing people on a daily basis because they’re on the wrong “side.” The latter two options may be much more likely to happen to me in my lifetime, but that doesn’t necessarily make them more real to me, or the fantasies that involve them more high-minded.
Karpad:
This comment was written by Morphienne.Manatees?
Report this comment to the moderators
October 30th, 2003 at 5:46 pm
yes. manatees.
we eat cows. except grazing land for cattle is relatively scarce, and bovines produce (to put it delicately) tons of methane and associated bullshit.
manatees do not. at least, not in a way that can’t be easily disposed of.
more importantly, manatee grazing land is more or less anywhere I want to build an artifical island cluster and surround it with fast growing seaweed (which is so easy to engineer it isn’t even funny.)
I’ve done the math. the artifical island cluster built to my size and location specifications could easily feed 4 billion people with minimal enviromental impact.
there are many, many MANY fringe benefits of the cluster which I won’t go into full detail on, but suffice to say, hydrogen would be a viable energy source AND I could built an orbital elevator, a personal quest of mine.
the HARDEST part of this plan is getting people to actually not mind a diet consisting of rice, corn, lentils, synthetic derivitives of the three, and manatee meat. I intend to get past the “bland and gross” factor by offering it at prices that would qualify as humanitarian aid.
plus, I think “manatee and rice” would be pretty well accepted in China, and that’s a pretty big economy.
and, for the record, while I like TNG, I’m much more a fan of Mechwarrior.
This comment was written by karpad.I like the Clans. they’re nifty.
and Anna Kerinsky is arguably the best feminist figure EVER to appear in scifi. (Capt. Janeway doesn’t hold a candle to Anna Kerinsky.)
Report this comment to the moderators
October 30th, 2003 at 6:26 pm
Interesting, karpad. Although I think the manatees comment is funnier sans explanation.
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
October 31st, 2003 at 8:05 am
Morphienne: I’m interested in continuing the conversation, but I’m slammed at work and then I’m going to be incommunicado for the weekend. In a nutshell: smart adventure is fine, and can work quite well against a disposable SF backdrop. No qualms about it. But SF (and fantasy) are to a large extent fictions of setting: it’s the strange new worlds they open up and let us explore that are (among the) primary raisons d’etre for the genre. By staying in one place, and exploring the consequences to that place of the main characters’ actions over time, DS9 did a better job of presenting a strange new world than Voyager or TOS. TNG, of course, was something of a hybrid: they had thinly-veiled-allegory-of-the-week, but they also had politically driven, consequence laden arcs. –Most of my criticisms above were comparing DS9 to TOS; TNG is somewhere on this particular contiuum between the two.
(It wouldn’t matter if it were socio-political realities or some other corner of the future world that DS9 dealt with–but because the Treks have always been about political actors on a grand scale, it’s necessary to put some thought into the politics of the place, and the ramifications of Neutral Zones and Tholian Webs and stealing cloaking devices–or Klingon dynastic politics, or invasions through a wormhole. It’s not that social or political fictions are of necessity better than escapist fluff; Pirates of the Caribbean was maybe the most fun I had at the movies this year. It’s that if you’re going to be playing in that sandbox anyway, well: better to give it some thought and some attention to detail and, in a long-form narrative like episodic, serial(ish) television, some long-term consequences and continuity to your social scheme and your politics. The show that does that better is going to be the better show.
(And certainly, I’d never make the blanket statement that all thinly veiled allegories are necessarily inferior forms of storytelling. –But for myself: you’d better give me a damn good thinly veiled allegory, or I’m going to be grumpy in the morning; I’m a lot less forgiving of action-adventure attempting to tart itself up with Meaning than I am of action-adventure just getting funky with its bad self.)
So.
This comment was written by --k..Report this comment to the moderators
October 31st, 2003 at 8:37 am
I’m pretty sure the “thinly vieled allegory” is one of those things that we should just skip.
since it really just comes down to the quality of the storytelling, rather than “if the story has a deeper meaning.”
Starship troopers (the book, not the movie) is about as thinly veiled as you can get, but it’s still a good story, so people don’t regard the thin allegory as a problem.
it’s when the only attempt to make a story “great” is a thinly veiled allegory, rather than interesting characters or plot, that it gets annoying, and we actually notice. take Wesley Snipes “The Art of War” (all 3 of you that saw it.) it’s only attempt a depth was quoting Sun Tsu and making in readily apparent that it’s “supposed” to be a microcosm of the scisms between China and the west (boy of boy is it ever not.) but because it lacks anything ELSE redeeming about it, all we see is the lousy allegory.
and Raz, it’s not really supposed to be funny. I’m dead serious about domesticating manatees and feeding the world with them.
This comment was written by karpad.give me Presidency of Peru and a 2 trillion dollar loan from the IMF and I can get started right away
Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2003 at 9:46 pm
Contrary to the assertion in this post, it’s perfectly possible to not give a crap about Star Trek and be a big geeky geek anyway. Trust me on this.
This comment was written by Patrick Nielsen Hayden.Report this comment to the moderators
November 28th, 2003 at 10:31 am
For your information, the comment above (posted on November 28, 2003 07:27 AM) is spam (that’s obvious from the URL).
This comment was written by Jimmy Ho.Report this comment to the moderators
November 28th, 2003 at 10:56 am
Yup. Spam deleted.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2004 at 9:35 pm
Whats the deal with that question?????
Watching Star Trek doesn’t make you a geek, hell the show isn’t even that geeky - half the technical shit is completely made up. I mean geez, its only tv.
What is geeky tho are the peeps who don their best security guard outfit and head on down to the annual convention. Anyone here agree????
This comment was written by Mincher.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2004 at 10:00 pm
half the technical shit is completely made up
spoken like a true science geek.
Come on, be proud of your geeky ways. One of us. One of us.
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
June 20th, 2005 at 11:24 am
TNG, V’ger, ENT, feh.
Two of my favorite episodes are “Yesteryear” and “The Survivor”.
On the *animated* series.
Let’s talk about deep O.G., shall we?
This comment was written by cgeye.Report this comment to the moderators
June 20th, 2005 at 11:53 am
Woot! Cheesy thread resurrection!
ST:TNG was astonishingly different from ST:TOS. There were elements of TNG that were very distinctive from any other TV show I can recall. Particularly, it had a way of talking about issues of leadership, authority, and meritocracy in surprisingly direct and vivid ways. This is not to say I agreed with the ideas about leadership and so forth, or that I liked the show — just that I can refer to it as an expression of certain ideas the way I can refer to Shakespeare.
The thing I most disliked about TNG was how formulaic it became. I think there was an entire season of “the ship is trapped in some sort of bizarre trap, and only the crew members who happened to be off the ship in a shuttlecraft can save the Enterprise.” And the technobabble, with incomprehensible solutions to incomprehensible problems — ugh.
I wanted to like DS9 more than I ever actually could. One of the things that was frustrating about TNG was its portrayal of the Federation as a utopia, beyond criticism. Even TOS allowed that the Federation had flaws. In DS9, the Federation was no longer a utopia: it was a very good society, very appealing, but it had weaknesses and shortcomings as a result of its history. This made for a potentially richer show. And there were episodes of DS9 that really engaged issues in an impressive way. There was, for instance, an episode of DS9, shortly after Clinton succeeded in demolishing AFDC, that had Sisko & Co. travel back in time to San Francisco, with the Mission District set as a dumping ground for the indigent after the abolition of welfare. Not linked to the series proper in any clear way, but a great episode nevertheless.
I remember with glee once when Babylon 5 had an episode about dockworkers going on strike, and overcoming a hostile government’s opposition to win. This was followed, a week or so later, with an episode of DS9 in which Quark’s brother learned about Earth’s labor history and organized a union. At one point, he quoted the Communist Manifesto — with approval. I remember some excited phone calls between my friends about that.
I couldn’t stomach Voyager, which raised technobabble to new levels and was positively arrogant about it, and had ludicrous plot holes. If they’re travelling in a nearly straight line at their best speed, in a ship that’s faster than anything in the region, why do they keep meeting the same characters? Why’s their guide any use after a week or two? Why’s a person with a lifespan of three years planning to go to medical school? With the other ST shows, there were points of interest to overcome the weirdness, but I just couldn’t find any on Voyager.
I gave up on Enterprise after a week or two.
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
June 21st, 2005 at 8:42 am
Definitely DS9 is the best so far. But I have special affection for Voyager’s opening credits, because the solar flare is real footage of a real solar flare, even though they touched it up for TV. I guess that makes me a geek, huh?
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
November 28th, 2005 at 10:02 pm
Geeky? How about someone who created his internet nom de plume from the weapon from the movie Krull?
This comment was written by Glaivester.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 8:45 pm
A better question to determine who is a geek.
Which is better, Babylon 5 or Crusade?
Anyone who does not say “What is Crusade?” is a geek.
This comment was written by Glaivester.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 4:45 pm
Anyone who isn’t thirtyfive plus years old who has seen the original must qualify for geek status. As a small child I watched Shatner and co and marvelled at every second; revisiting is of course tinged with nostalgia so I make a bad critic. Through my adult eyes, all the other shows reek of bad acting, worse plots, and increasingly, communist-backed politically correct social engineering that the American media is currently infected with. This contibutes to later Star Trek episodes failure to sustain consistent suspension of disbelief in the viewer and therefore lack the level of sub-creation required for true excellence. Shatner was and still is a superb actor.
This comment was written by nick keesing.Report this comment to the moderators