http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2016/10/14/why_does_star_trek_have_a_huge_following.html
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Star Trek
TMC-4 — 9 years ago(October 15, 2016 02:39 AM)
http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2016/10/14/why_does_star_trek_have_a_huge_following.html
The Star Trek franchise celebrated its 50th anniversary in September. During that 50 years, more than 700 episodes and 13 movies have been made. One could watch Star Trek for more than 500 hours without seeing anything twice.
Star Trek stories are humanistic; they are founded in Gene Roddenberrys belief in the perfectible human. They provide an optimistic vision of our future. Star Trek tells us that no matter how crazy the world may look today, it will get better. We will get better. There will be a time in which doing great things will be the norm.
Contrary to the common perception, Star Trek did not perform poorly when it aired on NBC between 1966 and 1969, but it didnt perform strongly enough to justify its very high cost. After airing its third season during a time period in which its core audience wouldnt be home, NBC canceled the series. Three seasons of a show used to be an important benchmark, because it made the show a valid candidate for syndication sales. During the mid-1970s, UHF stations all over America purchased the rights to re-air those three seasons. It began to air daily and found audiences that missed out the first time. The popularity of the show grew immensely, particularly amongst juveniles and young adults. Vietnam was over, and man had walked on the moon. There was a vast sea of young people who found the bright future of Star Trek inspirational.
Star Trek depicts a meritocracy. The characters were cool not because of looks, wealth, or social position, but because they were very good at their jobs. It is a rare television show that sends the message that it is cool to be smart.
Star Treks optimistic view of the future stands as a contrast to the bulk of science fiction. Most television and cinematic science fiction depicts varying dystopian futures. Dystopia provides writers with shortcuts to conflict; its easier. When just making it through the day provides conflict, writers dont have to generate as many new ideas. Star Trek thrives on those new ideas.
Star Treks Wagon Train to the stars construct meant that each episode found the crew in a new place. Each new world enabled the writers to imagine new scenarios to challenge the crew of the Enterprise. The veil of new species and new civilizations allowed the writers to tell issues stories and create moral plays that probed our contemporary views without overtly criticizing them.
The ridiculousness of racism could be exposed through the artifice of an alien white on one side of his body and black on the other in conflict with an alien black on one side and white on the other. The Vietnam War and the Cold War could be criticized by putting the Federation and the Klingons in the position of arming less developed planets in the buffer zone between them. The roles of technology and automation could be examined in an episode that depicted a computer replacing the captain of the ship. Our very humanity could be examined by telling stories about an outworlder from the planet Vulcan or a man-made android.
Star Trek excelled in its characters and casting. The original series focused on a trinity of characters. At the center was the classic hero, Captain Kirk, a dashing and passionate adventurer burdened with the responsibilities of command. Like angels and devils on his shoulder were his advisers, Spock, the logical Vulcan viewing the world through a cerebral lens, and McCoy, the ships physician and the very embodiment of heart, compassion, and morality. Surrounding them was a spectrum of diversity that showed us people of different backgrounds working together, seamlessly.
Star Trek showed blacks, Asians, and women in roles of respect in a time when that was not the norm. Whoopi Goldberg has talked about freaking out when, as a child, she tuned into Star Trek and saw that black women were part of the future. Nichelle Nichols has told the story of how when she was contemplating leaving the show, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. told her not to, because her character was a symbol of hope for equality.
I came to Star Trek long before I understood the concept of race. The fact that Uhuras skin was browner than Scottys or that Sulus eyes were different than Chekovs was shown as being no more significant than the fact that Scottys hair was a darker color than Captain Kirks hair.
Twenty-one years after Star Trek premiered on NBC, a new television series called Star Trek: The Next Generation began airing in syndication. It was a huge success and ran for seven seasons. It continued the formula of a bright future, a highly competent crew, and moral plays.
Three more television series followed, but the concept had been saturated. For 18 years, Star Trek appeared on television on a weekly basis. It lost its casual audience and was surviving off of only the die-hards. So, Star Trek took a four-year break.
The strengths of Star Trek make it best suited for television and -
timmytony80 — 9 years ago(October 17, 2016 07:09 PM)
A multitude of reasons.
- The acting! Trained, very good actors. Regs & guests.
- An intelligent approach to scifi.
3.Very well written scripts. Even by today's standards. - Well written screenplays. Again, even by today's standards.
- Set design.
- Music Score. Very mature. Sincere.
- They took the audience seriously!
Those are only a few!
-
Cuish — 9 years ago(October 18, 2016 05:47 AM)
I would add the chemistry among the cast and character interactions to your list. The show wouldn't be the same if the likes of Shatner and Nimoy didn't have that chemistry together. Or the banter between Spock and McCoy.
My DVD Collection:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls063878029/ -
grizzledgeezer — 9 years ago(October 19, 2016 08:35 AM)
When
TOS
premiered, I liked it because it told fairly intelligent stories not "space monster attacks" schlock. Generally, the best episodes are those that put a principal or guest in some significant life-changing situation. This is probably what Roddenberry had in mind when he conceived a science-fiction
Wagon Train
.
But I'd have to say that
Star Trek Continues
has better writing. One gets the feeling the writers studied McKee over and over, and pay close attention to all the little rules of good storytelling.
STC
has yet, however, to match
The Squire of Gothos
, and Spock's magnificent put-down of Trelaine. Though short, it's a speech and you aren't supposed to have your characters speechify. * But it perfectly "nails" Trelaine, in just 17 words, and it tells us a great deal about Spock.
As for the acting (ignoring BS) It's from good actors who were (mostly) already getting long in the tooth when the series started. This lends
gravitas
to their performances, which is probably the reason people are unhappy with the actors in the Abrams films they're too young to be believable.
As for the music The oft-repeated cues (especially the fight music) have become corny clichs that weren't very good in the first place.
The popularity of TOS, now as then, is built on a positive view of the future one that is highly unlikely ever to come to pass. That might be a good topic for another thread.- Paddy Chayefsky was a notorious speechifier, and his speeches rarely work. The only really good one is James Garners' rant about people dying in war in
The Americanization of Emily
.
- Paddy Chayefsky was a notorious speechifier, and his speeches rarely work. The only really good one is James Garners' rant about people dying in war in