No Need For Trek Anymore 790
dcsmith writes "In an article at the LA Times, Orson Scott Card says 'So they've gone and killed Star Trek. And it's about time.' SciFi blasphemy? Not really. Card makes several good observations about the growth of SciFi over the past 30+ years. The article also comments on several other genre gems, including Joss Whedon's Firefly." From the article: "...the hungry fans called their friends and they watched it faithfully. They memorized the episodes. I swear I've heard of people who quit their jobs and moved just so they could live in a city that had Star Trek running every day."
SUMMARY: Star Trek should NOT (Score:3, Funny)
OSC is not known for judgement... (Score:4, Informative)
See
http://dir.salon.com/books/feature/2000/02/03/car
and his actual views
http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.htm
Those articles will turn you off on that guy.. or at least stop purchasing his books.
Re:Did anyone RTFA??? (Score:4, Interesting)
As far as being good. That is your own taste. I think it is VERY well written. The fact that each character was pretty much defined by a different person has made the show pretty interesting. The way their paths crossed before the island is interesting. And just overall what is going on is fascinating. I think it is one of the best shows on TV (regardless if you think it is Sci-Fi or not).
RonB
PS - We are up to episode 20, and we still don't know what the thing in the jungle is.
So They Have Gone and Killed ... (Score:5, Funny)
Enraged Trekkie __________ attacked Orson Scott Card today and beat him senseless with a 1960s-vintage officially licensed Star Trek (tm) phaser. Other trekkies soon arrived in mass and quickly stoned the defenseless Card to death with their DVD box sets of TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise.
Card had made the mistake of making comments in a Los Angles Times op-ed piece about the Star Trek franchise that did not deify all people ever involved in the series, including bit-part actors who barely had speaking parts. He even went so far as to suggest that perhaps Star Trek was not the best TV series of all time.
"He made some good points in the article," said a fellow sci-fi writer who feared for his life and did not want to be identified. "Too bad he had to make them about Star Trek. I'll miss him."
Re:So They Have Gone and Killed ... (Score:5, Funny)
The DVD Box sets, that's another story.
Re:So They Have Gone and Killed ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So They Have Gone and Killed ... (Score:3, Funny)
"He's dead, Jim."
"*ahh!*"
"He's dead, Jim."
"*ahh!*"
"He's dead, Jim."
, etc.
Best...Futurama...episode...EVAR!
"Yes, front row!"
- Jonathan Frakes
Re:So They Have Gone and Killed ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I was just re-reading his comments when I noticed these gems:
Charlie Kaufman created the two finest science fiction films of all time so far: "Being John Malkovich" and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind."
Through-line series like Joss Whedon's "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and Alfred Gough's and Miles Millar's "Smallville" have raised our expectations of what episodic sci-fi and fantasy ought to be.
Malkovich? Smallville? *These* are what he thinks are the paramount of Sci-Fi? This guy needs his head checked!
Whedon's "Firefly" showed us that even 1930s sci-fi can be well acted and tell a compelling long-term story.
Well, at least he got one right.
Re:So They Have Gone and Killed ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So They Have Gone and Killed ... (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, I don't understand how he
Re:So They Have Gone and Killed ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Frankly you are right, some of the great "sci-fi" Card was talking about is fantasy, not sci-fi. More than Galactica, I'm surprised he didn't mention
Re:So They Have Gone and Killed ... (Score:4, Insightful)
However, I think for a lot of science fiction writers and "high brow" literary types who get into science fiction, the boundaries of the genre are much softer. In this case, any literature which uses some piece of unusual or advanced technology as a plot element through which some human theme can be explored counts as science fiction. Apparently for Card, the technology itself doesn't even have to be given much stage time, if he considers Being John Malkovich (which I think is deep in a gray area) to be sci-fi.
Personally, I prefer this final definition. While I frequently enjoy "rocket" science fiction and used to watch TNG and DS9 almost religiously, I tend to think of the period when all sci-fi was oozing with gadgets to be pretty typical for any genre in its infancy/childhood. Sort of like in early animation where EVERYTHING was moving CONSTANTLY, even many inanimate objects.
Re:So They Have Gone and Killed ... (Score:3, Informative)
The point of literature is to help the reader/viewer answer "What does it mean to be human?" Convetional fiction does it by showing us what it means to be some other human, in some other circumstance. Historical fiction does it by showing us what it was to be human in some other time. Science fiction does it by showing us things that are not humans or by showing us humans in situations we've never been in before. By that measure, it doesn't really need ubertec
Episodic programming vs sitdramas (Score:5, Insightful)
Being John Malkovich was a popular, excellent movie, and while I'd put it more in the category of fantasy than Sci Fi, if you read Card's books the distinction is academic. Plus the characters to go through an immense arc throughout the film, falling in love, falling out of love, changing... evolving as characters in exactly the way that Homer Simpson doesn't. Again, the focus, as in all good Sci Fi, is on the character evolutions.
Smallville isn't the best series ever by a long shot. But like Buffy it is a popular show that opened people's eyes to what can happen when characters evolve across episodes.
Trek did and does follow an antiquated model, and he's right in thinking that it would only continue to do so. Probably the best bit of Trek, the last few seasons of DS9, took place when Paramount's main people were focused on Voyager and allowed a smaller group of people to create a broader story focused more on large story arcs and developments. The best season of Enterprise has been this last one, when multi episode story arcs were plentiful.
Orson's books reflect this thinking, of course. His most popular work, the Ender's series, follows one character along his evolution from a weak abused nobody kid to a reclusive man hiding from unwanted fame from his past, to an old man accepting of his place in the world. And the latest Ender's book takes place in the same time frame as the original, exploring another character who isn't the hero, but who evolves from a lone troubled genius striking out at anyone or anything that might subjugate him, to being a mature, willing second, giving himself over to a man he believes deserves it.
Oddly enough, I've always felt Asimov was at his best in short stories, but even then his characters were undergoing tremendous evolution within the span of several pages.
Re:So They Have Gone and Killed ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So They Have Gone and Killed ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So They Have Gone and Killed ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Ellison is getting more mainstream as he gets older, but "Repent Harlequin Said the Ticktockman" is probably one of the top ten Sci-Fi stories ever written.
Zelazney's short fiction is quite good. Some of it is campy, but Lord of Light is something many people haven't read but enjoy quite a bit on their first read
Re:So They Have Gone and Killed ... (Score:3, Informative)
Thank god for Card (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The REAL tragady of P2P (Score:3, Interesting)
He thinks trek always sucked (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly, it's great that he doesn't like Star Trek. I'm happy for him. Really. But not everyone is looking to have their heads messed with when they watch Science Fiction. They don't necessary need to find the "deeper connection", "reveal the hidden truths", or "find another plain of existence". Sometimes people are happy addressing issues that are relevant today rather than issues from some dysotopian future. Star Trek did that. It used allegories (e.g. Klingons == Russians) and analogous situations (e.g. A Private Little War) to help put current issues into perspective. In addition, Roddenberry made Star Trek nothing more than a canvas for far more experienced writers to make their points.
In short, people loved Star Trek because it was both thought provoking and accessable to people who aren't interested in "hardcore sci-fi" visions of the future.
Side Note: Has anyone ever noticed that when Star Trek addresses a topic that some find to be a repulsive trait of hardcore Sci-Fi (e.g. telepaths), the blow is somehow softened to where the concept is easy to accept? Perhaps there's even more missing than Mr. Card realizes.
"I wonder sometimes if the motivation for writers ought to be contempt, not admiration." -Orson Scott Card
Well, that explains everything.
Re:He thinks trek always sucked (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, I mean, star trek was a "Wagon train to the stars", as far as I knew. It wasn't supposed to be deep. Think about the next generation - random alien shows up, strange problem happens, strange problem stems from a problem with random alien, who is outwardly scary but inwardly kind and vastly misunderstood, enterprise makes friends, credits. But, you know what? It was good.
If you enjoyed watching it, it was good. I'm not putting on ears and going to conventions, but come on - it's not cool to hate everything. Just like what you like, for your own reasons.
~Will
Re:He thinks trek always sucked (Score:3, Insightful)
It was also made at a time when Scifi was virtually non-existent on TV. Roddenberry had a real difficult time getting Paramount to do it. For example: The rule about most aliens being basically humanoid with bumpy heads was a pitch to prove that the budget wouldn't need to be astronomical.
Star Trek TMP almost didnt' get made because of Star Wars. It was felt back then that the market could only
It's not a fair evaluation. (Score:5, Insightful)
Emphasis on the WAS.
The problem here is too many people view Trek as one big, indivisible thing. It's not. You can't have a rational conversation about "Trek is Good" or "Trek is Bad". Some Trek was good. The current state of Trek is bad.
The worst thing that can happen to a piece of Sci Fi is for it to become commercially successful. The more commercially successful something is, the greater the temptation to extend the franchise just for the sake of profit. The more money a franchise is worth, the lower you can set your creative standards and still justify releasing a product.
Why do half of the Star Trek movies suck? Because PAramount wanted to make a Star Trek movie, regardless of whether the script was any good. Sometimes they got good scripts, sometimes they didn't. But the people who get to decide whether a Star Trek movie should get made don't make that decision on whether the script is going to produce a good movie. They make that decision based on whether money in will be greater than money out.
The Original Series was a ground-breaking series that only happened because Roddenbery believed in it and made it happen. Next Generation only happened because Roddenbery believed in it and made it happen. Star Trek XXXVJWII, Voyager, and Enterprise was made because if Paramount didn't churn out new Trek they'd be wasting this huge, profitable sci fi franchise they'd built.
That can't go on forever though - eventually you produce so much crap just for the sake of making a buck that your franchise becomes worthless.
Unprofitable or New Sci Fi will only happen if it's good. Profitable Sci Fi will happen REGARDLESS of whether it's good.
If Star Trek hadn't been successful, it would have died after DS9 or earlier, and we'd all still think Trek is Good. But it didn't. But new trek being bad doesn't make old trek any less good.
Re:It's not a fair evaluation. (Score:4, Informative)
If Star Trek hadn't been successful, there would have been no TNG or movies. It would have been something different that milked the nerd-urge of the seventies and eighties. Trek had decent grounding and so got quite a bit more popular, but TNG was what made Paramount their real cash on TV, and the movies made a killing.
Without its rabid fanbase that created success, Trek would have died an earlier death. A much earlier death...
Re:He thinks trek always sucked (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't want to watch Sci-fi to put current events into perspective. That is what The Daily Show [comedycentral.com] is for. I want series long plot development, not episode long one offs. When Enterprise started out I thought it kinda sucked. The season long story about the Xindi was good because it was continuous. This is why Babylon 5 was really good. Firefly looked like they were heading in this direction too, just
Re:He thinks trek always sucked (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, ST might have lasted longer if they had fired
Re:He thinks trek always sucked (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:He thinks trek always sucked (Score:5, Insightful)
Good point regarding the allegories...the technique is classic, and Star Trek (has been at times) one of the finest examples in popular fiction.
Take issue A. Not everyone really wants to deal with issue A in a serious context all the time. And if issue A is something so divisive or ugly that people don't even want to consider it, you may be in danger of offending people in any discussion or scenario in a realistic setting. So take issue A and set it on another planet, (or in another country--Shakespeare was always lifting recent English politics into Rome/Italy/Denmark) where you can explore the bejeazus out of it without naming names or identifying your readers or viewers as villains.
I'd have to say that science fiction used to be a prime place for this, particularly on highly-censored media like television. Frankly, though, television doesn't need to worry as much about offending anymore...can anybody find me a social issue that isn't dealt with in documentary or mainstream fiction these days? (Within a script-cycle on Law and Order, for one.)
Also, with that breed of social sci-fi/fantasy has always been at risk--see Utopia, Erewhon, Planet of the Apes (the book, folks)--of becoming a preachy polemic on the author's ideals. Roddenberry and the original writers rode the edge well, for the most part, for their time, and they really made "ripping good yarns" out of some of the episodes. (Anyone wants to argue "all" is kindly asked to watch "Spock's Brain before posting).
But I think that long-term interest--both the kind that makes the whole dorm show up for each new episode AND the kind that makes every succeeding generation turn to their kids and say, "Hey, you're old enough, read/watch this," have been lacking for a -long- time in too many of the shows.
Anyway, returning to my main point...there are other shows out there visiting an allegory a week, and there have been for a while. Original Trek had to compete with Lost in Space--no contest. STNG owned the dial at our place (Dr.Who came on late Saturdays only). Since then, though, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise have had to endure comparisons with B5, Stargate, Farscape, Firefly, Battlestar Galactica, and Atlantis...none of which are or were saddled with as much backstory...and all of which were free (see parent sidenote) to look at the grimy side of the future and present in ways that Trek was not.
Star Trek gave us hope (Score:5, Insightful)
The hope that tomorrow can be better than today is what keeps all people going. Star Trek really connected with people on a level I've rarely seen.
Re:Star Trek gave us hope (Score:3, Interesting)
And it did it while dealing with the social and political issues of the day. It was that element which I think resonated so strongly with the people. Rodenberry used it as a means of social commentary, and it is that element which seems to be lacking in the most recent incarnations of Trek (for which I blame
Re:Star Trek gave us hope (Score:4, Interesting)
The vision of the future in Star Trek is called ideal socialism: no currency (because everything is so well managed that no one needs to pay for anything, since it's essentially free), no personal possessions apart from the few toys and artworks found in rooms onboard the enterprise, a very flattened organization in terms of social ranks, despite the actual ranks onboard (i.e. Wesley Crusher can address the captain more or less freely despite being just a little brat)
Not that there's anything wrong with socialism, aside from being a complete utopia
I'm in the sciences today because of it.
I'm sure there are a lot of people at Nokia who got inspired by the communicator thing. And I'm quite sure there are a lot of people who went into the toupet-making business and the gay fashion industry after watching late ST1 episodes with Shattner.
Re:Star Trek gave us hope (Score:4, Funny)
One student in the class, who grew up in North America to an english speaking family, asked "I've heard a number of reference to Patrick Stewart in your class - who is he?"
The room went dead silent. Another student goes "You're in fourth year physics and you dont know who Patrick Stewart is?", agast.
And thats the end of my story.
Re:Star Trek gave us hope (Score:5, Insightful)
Except, of course, when the federation is blowing up, or being blown up by, Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians, Ferrengi, etc.
One of the things I thought made DS9 really good, especially in the later seasons, was precisely that even though the Federation was supposed to be this nice happy place, DS9 showed that the only reason everything was hunky-dory on Earth was that there were people at the edge of the federation holding back the things that wern't so hunky-dory.
Even in the Star Trek future, peace and prosperity are only guaranteed by phasers and photon torpedoes. Star Trek just pushed the line between peace and conflict further away from home.
Re:Star Trek gave us hope (Score:4, Insightful)
Even in the Star Trek future, peace and prosperity are only guaranteed by phasers and photon torpedoes. Star Trek just pushed the line between peace and conflict further away from home.
That strikes me as a recofnition of an unfortunate reality. Of course, without that reality, the whole show would be a lot less believable.
There's nothing to be done about that reality n ow or in a more developed society. The hopeful part is quite interesting to compare to today's reality. It is thought provoking if (like anything thought provoking) the viewer allows the thoughts to happen.
Notice that nobody frets about being downsized and how they will pay their bills? Nobody's concerned about being wiped out by unexpected medical bills?
Career focus is on achievement and fulfillment rather than on pay.
That all sounds rather idyllic compared to today's society. It's too easy to dismiss that entire aspect as fiction and focus on the action.
Instead, what we should really be asking is why does that seem so unrealistic? Why is it that anyone can't afford food in a country that pays farmers to NOT produce? Why do people work such long hours in an economy that doesn't have as many jobs as there are people to fill them? Why do we have human beings doing the job of a robot? Any of that would be repugnant to the people of the Star Trek universe. Even a failed Ferengi (Oa society clearly modeled as a natural extension of ours today) has better prospects than a laid off factory worker.
Those are the questions implied by the shows. The background of the show offers an alternative to the idea that if such conditions were made true, everyone would become a couch potato and society would collapse.
Given the number of people in our society who are still inclined to screech about the evils of communism (promptly drawing examples from states that were communist in name only) the only way to even ask those questions and make those suggestions in mass media is under the cloak of science fiction.
Re:Star Trek gave us hope (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't say it was a vision of utopia, but a vision of a future that was further along that road, but still facing many of the same challenges that we face today. Nothing wrong in that.
Overall, I thought Card's article rather unfair. To say that Firefly is a far superior 1930's-style serial than Star Trek is to basically just give credit to the advances made in television
New focus needed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:New focus needed (Score:3, Interesting)
The last two episodes of Enterprise [imdb.com], "In a Mirror, Darkly", did just that! They even changed the show's theme (at both the beginning and end of the show) and the title sequence. I thought it was very well done, but then I'm also a Trek fan and hated to see the series end.
Re:New focus needed (Score:4, Funny)
And it was entertaining!
Prime directive, my ass!Spin that off as the next series: Star Trek Empire
Every episode full of busty women and wanton violence!
Your franchise is dead when... (Score:3, Funny)
I still say they should do a trek reality series that follows Romulan assassins weeding their way into Romulan culture and the Federation. 24 in space type thing...
Wow (Score:4, Funny)
six days off (Score:4, Interesting)
Last Star Wars: May 19
Re:six days off (Score:4, Funny)
Ummm.... yea (Score:5, Insightful)
Fantasy, yes... science fiction, no.
Re:Ummm.... yea (Score:3, Insightful)
I haven't read the article and don't intend to (I stay clear of Card's writings)
Why is that? Because you ran across one of his articles on ornery.org [ornery.org] and decided he was a Christian asshole?* Like most authors, some of his work is dreck and some is good. Card has produced some truly excellent fiction (the first two books in the Ender series and the Homecoming novels). He focuses on characterization, sometimes to the detriment of plot, but his best work is definitely worth reading. If you like science f
Card's a moron. What's your point? (Score:4, Insightful)
But let's be serious here. As far as "Sci Fi" goes, he's off the deep end. He's the sci-fi world's equivalent of some british royalty gimboid sipping tea from a saucer with their little finger sticking out, mumbling on about how the "unwashed commoners" don't truly appreciate horse racing, or polo, and how ghastly sports like soccer are.
So he champions the hardcore sci-fi shows. That's fine. I've watched them. Some of them, I've actually enjoyed.
I doubt if Orson Scott Card has seriously watched a Trek series, ever.
I doubly doubt if he's paid attention to some of the absolutely amazing episodes Enterprise has had this year.
And I really don't understand why anyone gives a shit what this ivory-tower sci-fi snob has to say on the subject.
I agree with the basic premise (Score:5, Insightful)
With Firefly and Enterprise canceled- and fewer stations than ever before carrying the syndicated version of Stargate and Andromeda (the second of which I'm sure Mr. Card would say suffers from the Roddenberry curse) what can step up to take the hole?
The best Sci-Fi is short. (Score:5, Interesting)
The worst stuff just drags on and on, rehashing the same tired prejudices and routines with regularity until it's mercifully cancelled. You're not normally supposed to hate the protagonists and root for the end of humanity by raging alien hordes, but each Star Trek has gotten better at inspiring this kind of "hope".
I Don't Want To Admit It ... But It's True (Score:4, Insightful)
From the article:
I don't want to admit it, but Card is right. Star Trek was wonderful in large part because it was the first of its kind on TV. Now SF is not a gamble TV and is all over the place. That's a good thing since we can now concentrate on good story, characters and so on.
This is perhaps a natural step in the development of a genre. Even Homer was great mostly because he was the first (have you every actually read the Illiad (even in translation?) It's not that good!)
I still have a warm place in my heart for Star Trek that will never go away, but it must seem mysterious to those young whippersnappers who have never lived in a universe without Star Trek.
Re:I Don't Want To Admit It ... But It's True (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? I can't name a single space-opera style show OTHER than Trek that has made it more than two seasons on broadcast network TV since Babylon 5 ended. Not everybody knows enough about sci-fi to spend money subscribing to a cable or sattelite service just to watch BattleStar Galactica on Friday nights.
For entry-level kid sci-fi, there is nothing on broadcast OTHER than Enterprise right now- and while I agree with the Bring Back Firefly or at least
MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Insightful)
To further this point, think about the ones that have. I can name "quantum leap" as one of these series, but how sci-fi was it really? It had a sci fi premise, but the theme wasn't steeped very deep in sci-fi. It was a great show don't get me wrong, but in order to be successful with sci-fi and the american viewing public you have got to
Re:I Don't Want To Admit It ... But It's True (Score:5, Interesting)
Homer is great because he captured Greek culture and managed to pass down to posterity a story that express the goals, hopes and dreams of that culture. The Illiad is the closest the Greeks have to a Bible, and it is brilliant.
Perhaps you read a bad translation. Try Lattimore [amazon.com]. You might also want to try a good commentary [amazon.com] (although, I haven't used this particular one). For other suggestions on what else you might read to really appreciate Homer, try The New Lifetime Reading Plan [amazon.com] which suggests good translations and sources for literary criticism, historical background, and other information.The New Lifetime Reading Plan is - without question - the most important book I have ever owned. It can help you to appreciate Homer just at it helped me to read what I thought was unreadable - James Joyces' Ulysses. The key tip is that Ulysses should be read with the help of Stuart Gilbert [amazon.com].
Re:I Don't Want To Admit It ... But It's True (Score:5, Insightful)
And don't forget the Odyssey. Have you ever seen a "military guy gets revenge on his enemies and slays them all single-handedly" scene in a movie that came anywhere near the one at the end of The Odyssey? Man, when he strings that bow and those jackass suitors realize it's him and then find out all the doors are locked? Fantastic!
I agree. (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's face it. These are far more realistic than Star Trek, and present a much clearer understanding of politics.
Maybe someone should get the rights to produce a prequel of "The Prisoner" (set in The Village, but not with No. 6), or something based on the Quatermass series (where the only way to succeed is to perish in a horrible, ghastly manner).
Science Fiction has plenty of utopias AND plenty of dystopias. I would agree with the idea that having only one of these is not truly representitive of Science Fiction as a whole, but I would NOT agree that a series is "bad" merely because it happens to be on one side of said fence.
IMHO, we need the extremes and even some examples of Universes between those extremes. Science Fiction ceases to be interesting the moment it stagnates on a single formula. Stagnation is the problem, not the brand.
It would be good if American TV were more adventurous, looking at possibilities on where to go next, rather than trying to live on past dreams. The past fades, no matter now good it was back then. It's good to KEEP the past (NOTE TO THE BBC: This applies to you!!!) but it is not good to assume that you can live in it all the time, forever and a day.
If it were only that simple (Score:3, Insightful)
Make that "No need for Star Trek:TOS" (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should that even matter? ST:TNG was (by the third season, anyway) a far better series, and DS9 was better still, despite stealing ideas left and right from "Babylon 5". It's the last twenty years of Trek that's being cancelled, not the first three.
Postscript: Now we finally have first-rate science fiction film and television that are every bit as good as anything going on in print. If only....
Re:Make that "No need for Star Trek:TOS" (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't attack, for example, DS9 on the same grounds as ST:TOS.
The only conclusion I can reach is that OSC is speaking out of bitterness...maybe he has been burned one too many times by television or something. Really, his article is simply a statement of his inability to understand why TOS became such a cult hit and inspired such extreme fan loyalty. I've read better assessments of ST shortcomings on fan sites.
And then he really goes overboard by calling Being John Malcovich one of the greatest
Respectfully Disagree (Score:3, Interesting)
I hold Mr. Cards books in high regard, but not necessarily his role as film critic. He makes some points, but not all of them are well founded. I would concede that TOS is like short fiction and later TV Sci-Fi like novels. Short stories are not by definition worse or more lowbrow than books. I would argue the same for this comparison of these two art forms (episodic versus non-episodic).
Production values are much higher these days, but that can sometimes be a detriment to story telling. Try viewing TOS and viewing it as a Play rather than a Movie and you might find its exaggerated acting holds up better.
Most off track is Card's indicating TOS could have benefited from the great writing talents of its day. It did. Several episode were penned by guests writers, well known Sci-Fi novelists of the day -- not so coincidently some of the best episodes. (I'm sure some other post will list the episodes and authors).
I wouldn't deny that TOS had some clinkers, but come on, compare it to "Lost in Space" or the hardly known "Star Lost" I'd say it took TV Sci-Fi twenty to thirty years to catch up where Star Trek had boldly gone.
Card, why you gotta be hatin'?
P.S. I have never been to a ST convention or worn vulcan rubber ears.
Mr Card... (Score:3, Funny)
"Your Agonizer, please"
Card is not a saint, people. (Score:5, Insightful)
We all like to believe that we are special. Geeks like to believe they are smarter than the average person. Is it so crazy to believe that maybe it wasn't Card's extraordinary writing and plot that made Ender's Game so popular -- perhaps it was because Ender's Game was the ultimate braniac dream? To be smart enough to save the world, and get the accolades that go along with it.
His blatant religious proselytizing in his other books, most notably the Alvin Maker series, choked me with its sickly-sweet taint. I enjoyed the series at first because it was well written and fun, but it soon turned into a carousel of reptition. Alvin did and said the same things over and over, Card using him as a hand-puppet to express his Love Thy Neighbor and Turn the Other Cheek platitudes until I was racing through to the end of the novel not out of enjoyment and eagerness to see what happened, but just to be able to put the book down and go wash the veneer of his homophobic Christianity from my hands.
Card is not a saint. He wrote something that we all very much wanted to read; that we were alienated from our peers as children for a reason. There's a destiny waiting for us so we can use these big brains. We were humiliated on the playgrounds in grade school, but we'll show them! Someday!
Card gave us this pipe dream. But it's time to let go of the security blanket, Linus. You're smart, but you don't need a writer to give you a raison d'etre in a science fiction fairy tale.
Re:Card is not a saint, people. (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of us would contend that it's not even really Christianity. Card is, after all, a conservative Mormon apologist. This is the guy who wrote a now infamous article when I was an undergrad, in which he opined that it was a good thing for government to retain laws which proscribe homosexuality. Even though I wasn't as cravenly PC as my classmates, I found Card's thesis objectionable.
The man does not believe in the separation of Church and State. (My ex-Mormon friends assure me this is endemic to Mormonism, though that is entirely another topic.) He mixes religious themes freely into his Science Fiction, which in my humble opinion brings it closer to the realm of Fantasy than SciFi.
Mr. Card has a very specific view of what constitutes Science Fiction, and it doesn't mesh with mine. His opinions of SciFi are therefore suspect. It's not just that he chose to slay a sacred cow (Star Trek); his arguments are specious and slanted. Maybe he's suffering from Hemingway syndrome (i.e., wrote all his best material first). Part of me thinks his Ender series is just a cynical exploitation of empowerment fantasies shared by most geeks. But I never felt that Card was legit; I always felt that he was a poseur, that he never really "got" the genre he was writing in. I'd say this LA Times article is proof.
Re:Card is not a saint, people. (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, "Ender's Game" reminded me of Heinlein's juveniles. And his idea of military strategy is a joke.
Armchair generals talk strategy. Real generals talk logistics. Read "Moving Mountains", by Gen. Gus Pagonis, the head logistician for Desert Storm. If you can get most of the right stuff to the right place at the right time before th
Re:I beg to differ! (Score:3, Insightful)
If that's true, why is it that the Right is firmly in control of the United States, the only remaining Western superpower? I call Troll. (Or Flamebait, take your pick.)
Yeah, we can see how badly beaten the political Right is. Please, spare me.
SF writers can't wait for Star Wars to end, too (Score:5, Insightful)
I've written that media SF has often been a good few decades behind written SF, especially movies [slashdot.org]. They quote Richard Morgan in the NYTimes article ("That's the past of science fiction you're talking about, . .
The literature is filled with writing by Greg Benford [authorcafe.com], the 'how to empathize with ordinary deathless people' [netspace.net.au] writer Greg Egan [netspace.net.au], Ken Macleod [blogspot.com], Richard Morgan [infinityplus.co.uk], Ian Banks, Cory Doctorow [craphound.com] , or Charlie Stross [antipope.org]. Movies haven't made it past the 70's (Bladerunner, the Matrix) other than perhaps 'Eternal Sunshine' (similar to a few 80's stories), and T.V. shows have only tentatively reached the 80's or early 90's (some Outer Limits and Twighlight Zone episodes). With Star Wars and Star Trek out of the way perhaps there'll be more room for the average media SF to catch up to at least the 80's.
Homophobic Mor(m)ons (Score:4, Funny)
OSC is known for bad judgement... (Score:5, Informative)
See
http://dir.salon.com/books/feature/2000/02/03/car
and his actual views
http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.htm
Those articles will turn you off on that guy.. or at least stop purchasing his books.
(this was originally buried in another thread, but reposting here as OSC is really not a nice guy, so does not surprise me that he would turn on a large segment of his fans.)
What a jerk (Score:4, Insightful)
Mr. Card, perhaps you were not aware that Trek, when it's good (meaning not when Berman is running things), offers some of the best and most insightful social commentary and discussion you'll see on film. There is a group where I live that gets together monthly at a Unitarian Church to watch an episode or two and then discuss the social, ethical, and moral implications thereof. It's been meeting for about 6 years, I think. Are there any groups that do that with Firefly? Or Smallville? I didn't think so.
Just because more people like Star Trek than like your books is no reason to declare them all immature grade schoolers. That's very grade school of you.
It's the optimism, stupid! (Score:5, Insightful)
People slag Star Trek for having every alien be humanoid, but that is deliberate. Roddenberry wanted people to see the humanity in every character.
Personally, I don't watch much Sci Fi because most of it shows a future which sucks. Star Trek shows a future that I want to believe in.
Are they REALLY good points? Are they valid? (Score:4, Interesting)
To be clear: Science Fiction is fiction in which, when you remove the science element, it no longer makes sense. Science is integral somehow. Mary Shelly's Frankenstein is SciFi; without the premise of reanimation with electricity, it just wouldn't be the same story. (I can just hear the Fantasy apologists chiming in with the "Fantasy is indistinguishable from SciFi" argument, by claiming that magic is indistinguishable from technology. I don't want to get mired in this debate, however. Good fantasy requires some kind of self-consistency on some level, just like good SciFi, but fantasy doesn't have to square with conventional reality in any way. Even "far out" SciFi concepts are usually extrapolations of current ideas or trends or technologies.)
By this definition, most space opera is not SciFi. Star Wars, minus the SciFi trappings of spaceships and futuristic weaponry and droids, would be a Western with some metaphysical overtones. Now, it's true that Star Trek was sold to NBC as a "wagon train to the stars." This was because Westerns were the popular milieu of the day; most of the successful TV shows at the time were Westerns. But there were still stories being told against that backdrop that had real science fiction in them.
Orson Scott Card's LA Times article does a lot of name dropping. He mentions Larry Niven and Robert Silverberg and Harlan Ellison. And yet, many of these writers wrote episodes for Star Trek. (Ellison's script won an award, even though Roddenberry rewrote it for the screen. The episode was "City on the Edge of Forever," and won a Hugo. Ellison's original script won a Writers Guild of America award. Niven wrote for the animated series.) Some young SciFi authors got their start because of Star Trek -- remember David Gerrold? He wrote "The Trouble with Tribbles," and is now a respected SF author in his own right.
What is Card's problem with 1930's SciFi? Not all of it was episodic pulp crap or low-budget moviehouse serials. Some of the best SciFi I've read has come from the 1930's and 1940's.
He's right that later incarnations of Star Trek were better acted, and wrong that the content stagnated. At least with ST:TNG, many thought provoking stories were told, and would actually qualify as "real" SciFi by my test above, providing you're willing to forgive Star Trek physics and some of its consistent inconsistencies with real physics. Even the mundane backdrop trappings of the Star Trek universe were the subject of fascinating books [amazon.com].
I will grant that Card's right about one thing: Star Trek popularized Science Fiction. Some would say Trek diluted the pool of good stuff by filling the airwaves with mediocre material. This is an opinion I do not share.
I would also argue that Card's wrong about the quality of modern SciFi on television and film; I disagree that it's every bit as good as what's in print, if only because there are many things that can only be approximated with special effects, things that the human imagination is much more adept at rendering. (But then, I have long believed that Card simply doesn't "get it," and wouldn't recognize truly good SciFi if it bit him on the ass.)
While the recent incarnations of Trek have been painful to watch (with season 4 of Enterprise being what the show should have been all along, but too little, too late), I don't think the "need" for Trek has diminished. Trek was more than just a vehicle for telling stories in a SciFi milieu. Trek was more
Insert comment about Wesley Crusher here. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Insert comment about Wesley Crusher here. (Score:5, Funny)
So, does this account replace your old one, or are you still posting as 'CleverNickname'?
Re:It's true... (Score:3, Informative)
Surprisingly... (Score:3, Interesting)
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/artsenterta
RTFA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:RTFA (Score:3, Interesting)
Firefly is also a great show, of course. I'm just saying that its greatness does not stem from it doing SciFi better than Star Trek, or at all[2].
----------
[1]Seriously. Firefly is not SciFi. Replace any piece of technology in the story with current technology or no technolo
Decent Sci-Fi (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, anybody who disapproves of sodomy is really just scared of it. Don't dignify their positions by saying that they disagree or that they don't approve. Instead, accuse 'em of having a phobia. That way was can totally ignore their point of v
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, anybody who disapproves of Blacks is really just scared of them. Don't dignify their positions by saying that they disagree or that they don't approve. Instead, accuse 'em of having a phobia. That way was can totally ignore their point of view withou
Re:You've gone and done it now.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right, that's much better!
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:5, Interesting)
Part of what makes this country great is the (unfortunately declining) encouragement to tolerate people that are wrong. The alternative is worse.
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:3, Funny)
I agree, that is indeed part of what makes the UK great.
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:5, Insightful)
And, there's the whole I don't want to support his bullshit views (by helping to make him rich).
I'll admit, this might not be a problem for everyone, but it is for me.
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:4, Funny)
So that's who's to blame for Vanilla Sky!
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:3, Insightful)
What's funny is, you've just proven him absolutely correct. About the above quote, not the rest of his article.
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:3, Insightful)
1. He is a member of the fanatical Left (a loaded term to say the least)
2. There *is* a "fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation".
3. Grandparent thinks Card and all other "fundamentalists" are not only a homophobes, but also mentally ill (are the two synonymous? I wasn't aware of this).
4. All others in the "fanatical Left" agree with grandparent.
Yeah, I don't think he's proven much of anything, ex
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:3, Interesting)
Some people seem to me like they're just living in a different world from everyone else. This isn't a good or a bad thing; they're very remarkable people, but they just don't share the same existen
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:4, Insightful)
But then after reading his marriage essay, you quickly realize, progressive and social change are things that OSC is not comfortable with, so then it makes more sense that he was not a fan.
Roddenberry a secular humanist? (Score:3, Insightful)
1) The episode where Kirk meets an alien who was the god Apollo in Greek times -- Apollo wants people to worship him but Kirk says "Humanity doesn't need gods -- we find the one sufficient" -- implying that some sort of monotheism is still there in the Tre
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:4, Insightful)
Interestingly enough it bothers many mormons when someone challenges their attempt to redefine the term Christian-- it also bothers them if you call the polygamist mormons, mormons. Go figure.
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:4, Insightful)
The ramifications of the trinity are huge. They show up in the places where the mormonism and Christianity don't meet. God being spirit. The incarnation. Humankinds destiny in regards to after this life. The list is long.
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:4, Informative)
Good point. Let's check the Oxford English Dictionary.
The official name for the Mormon church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [lds.org]. The subtitle of the Book of Mormon is Another Testament of Jesus Christ [wikipedia.org] (the first being the Bible). Articles of Faith 1, 3, and 4 [wikipedia.org] (which they basically brainwash their children with via ritualized repetition) all claim belief in Jesus Christ as a member of the Godhead and their personal savior.
Ergo, Mormons fit the definition of "Christian".
As you said "There is no need for this to be an issue of opinion. Words have definitions."
(For the record. I'm an ex-Mormon. I was raised one, but left once I actually started thinking about what I was told rather than just accepting things.)
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not trying to troll. I would think that this is apparent in the fact that I have done my best to carry on the discussion that I started. (I had no idea it would be like this though)
Mormonism does not add a layer to Christianity-- adding but not subtracting. I would posit that it alters the very core of Christianity and this is why I object to the lack of a distinction between the two. Here is why I think so.
I think this goes beyond just adding. But I truly am not trolling. I am taken aback by the number of vehement responses I've generated. I am searching for the why in this. Why my saying mormonism and what has been called Christianity for the last couple thousand years are different is such a big deal.
Re:Finest of all time... so far? (Score:4, Interesting)
Occasionally you see some good SF come around and an attempt to make it into a movie, but it is a difficult task. Most good SF authors have some section of their book where a narrator of some sort (sometimes written into the dialog of the characters, but often simply described by a narrator or an entry in "Encyclopedia Galactica") where the hard science is explained. To a reader this is good background material, but in a movie this is either very boring or slows down the flow of the movie to the point that it has to be cut out and removed.
The only person I've seen to successfully put in a "galactic guide" entry into film was Douglas Adams... in part because HHGG is humorous and these entries had a life of their own as another character on screen. Even then, it only worked because the guide was the focus of the entire production. (I'm speaking about the TV series BTW... as I have yet to see the movie. I hope they've captured at least some of the guide in the movie in a somewhat similar fashion).
The other problem with producing SF into film is that the people who make movies in Hollywood (or Baliwood) simply are not SF fans to start with. You get some people like George Lucas or Robert Rodriguez that are familar with SciFi movies done in the past, but aren't exactly fans of classic SF books like Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, or Bradbury. The movie "I, Robot" starring Will Smith is a good example of SciFi taking over done by SciFi fans and not the hard SF fans... particularly where the shortcuts were made to make the movie flow.