You can do the test here: http://www.buzzfeed.com/adambvary/star-trek-the-next-generation-recurring-character-quiz
Friday, March 28, 2014
I Did a Test
Oh cool, I got Guinan:
You can do the test here: http://www.buzzfeed.com/adambvary/star-trek-the-next-generation-recurring-character-quiz
You can do the test here: http://www.buzzfeed.com/adambvary/star-trek-the-next-generation-recurring-character-quiz
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Why the Widely Accepted Reason to Like Star Trek Doesn't Ring True
Disclaimer: This is a stream of consciencesnous while exploring why I tend to actually not like Star Trek. Beware of grammar- and spelling mistakes, irritations, returning irritations and general bile. Apologies for the absence of images. Google "Elim Garak" and you'll find out what my favourite character on DS9 looked like. Good luck!
When asked Trekkers often reply: “Because it shows a positive future; it gives hope.”
I could never agree with that reply. I always felt there was something distinctively wrong with it, but I couldn’t quite put my finger on it. I’ve been thinking about this since last summer, which, quite frankly, is probably an inordinate amount of time for this kind of subject. When I was trying to figure out why the Netherlands went from a republic to a kingdom it at least felt worthwhile.
The last couple of months I spent a lot of time watching TNG and DS9 (Trekkers know what I’m talking about) and rewatching. During most of that time I stuck to watching what I knew I enjoyed, but I did, initially, take the time to watch it all in the right order without skipping any episodes…almost (I skipped a few episodes from DS9 in which the grand nagus took a central role. No regrets.). I couldn’t shake the feeling of disagreement with that overall accepted reason for liking star trek. I suppose it also had a lot to do with me being rather bored during a lot of the episodes, especially a lot of the TNG stuff and the early DS9 stuff. Yet, it did not answer my question why I felt liking star trek had nothing to do with the naïve idea it is because it shows a bright and beautiful future.
The first cracks for me came with the realization the only reason I ever liked star trek, if ever, was because of sentimental reasons. I grew up watching star trek and TNG was what star trek looked like to me. Hell, TNG was what sci-fi looked like to me. I realized I didn’t actually remember any storylines from my initial viewing. However, at first rewatch I was delighted to find I did remember all the crewmembers (except for Tasha, but who cares about her?). To my mild surprise I also realized none of the stories looked familiar to me, which was weird since I watched enough TNG back in my teens to know what it was all about and who all the characters were. And to my great disappointment, rewatching TNG didn’t quite excite me as much as I hoped, but I persevered and watched it all (some listened while cleaning the house).
Since I had set my heart on watching all star trek that is available I set out to watch all of DS9. The first three seasons were a familiar borefest I wrestled my way through, but to my relief it contained more good episodes than TNG and it encouraged me to keep going. I didn’t watch eight episodes in one day like I had with TNG (How did I survive that!?!? How did I do that at all!?!?), but managed to fit in four episodes every evening (This had also to do with more spare time when watching TNG and it reduced to evenings and weekends for DS9). To my delight and relief I found the Dominion war and the accompanying characters rather interesting, so much so I actually looked forward to watching the next episode. Unfortunately, that usually only lasted for a max of six episodes, then it would always and reliably return to the borefest I had come to expect and accept.
So I pointed out I was actually quite bored during a lot of the episodes (unfortunately most). Here come all my complaints about star trek:
1) Characters who always get along with each other are boring to watch. It’s conflict that makes stories interesting;
2) The villains are mainly rather one dimensional since in one episode you can’t quite explore characters. After the one episode they often disappear forever. Though recurring villains are not explored either;
3) Moral dillemma’s are discussed, but never get any breathing space (one episode is really not much) which means most subjects are only superficially explored which sometimes makes for interesting television, but usually just doesn’t quite cut the cake);
4) Since everyone in Starfleet gets along, the Federation citizens have become morons in dealing with people who aren’t quite like them (Quick to judge, talk with relish, ambitious, federation social, skilled in everything but social awareness, with a holier than thou attitude. I hate every episode with Barclay in it, not because of Barclay, but because of the compassionately dead Enterprise crew. To me it only shows human kind has learned nothing in the future….except for Data….which is ironic, because he isn’t even close to being humanoid…which goes to show, because the only thing they know is technology and that is what Data is.);
5) Most of the characters don’t get a real chance to develop and remain one dimensional. Characters hardly every learn anything, which keeps them going on the same level in the same way which makes a character and the stories they’re in predictable and therefore often boring.
It slowly became clearer to me when I read something someone else said when asked what he prefered, star trek or Doctor Who. His reply was Doctor Who, because it was written better. Where Star Trek focused more on the development of technology (as opposed to human kind), Doctor Who focusses more on the dramatic aspect of the franchise. Where Star Trek adopts a holier-than-thou attitude, Doctor Who just wants to entertain.
That’s what I love about Doctor Who: “It knows it’s silly, and it doesn’t do anything to redeem it. Yet, it manages to make sense in moral issues and sometimes even in character development.”
That’s what I dislike about Star Trek: “They adopt a holier-than-thou attitude, but don’t quite have the chops to support nor justify that attitude.”
Doctor Who doesn’t have an attitude and therefore doesn’t need to live up to one. Star Trek has an attitude and often fails to live up to it. That’s very annoying.
Also, I believe sci-fi should say something about us; that’s where it’s added value lies. The technological development is just a display of what human kind wishes for and what might be possible in the future. However, when I come back home from work and turn the tv on, I’m not interested in reading the technology catalogue and accompanying manuals. History also shows the best loved stories are the ones where a character goes on a (mental) journey and all the technology caters to the story of the character. Technology itself, unless it’s about Data (generalized, obviously), is not what’s interesting, it’s what human kind does or doesn’t do with it. Technology doesn’t make stories, people do. Inanimate objects, which a replicator is no matter how much it chats, aren’t interesting. However, computers that come to life might be interesting. But there it is again, animation, life, but I digress.
Though having spouted this (without spell- nor grammar check), I have to admit I really enjoyed DS9. Ironically, it was never the Starfleet people, or “the good guys” as captain Sisko would call them and himself, that made DS9 interesting. It were the Cardassians, it were the founders, it was that weasel Weyoun. I believe it’s because they were more human than all the humans on that station (Though the only Cardassian on the station was Garak). It was because the Cardassians had all kind of colours; they weren’t just black and white, they had all kind of interesting shades of grey. And the most beautiful thing about it was, secretly we understood so well why they choose to do certain things (or I did anyway). Which brings me back to the Federation: For a people “so advanced”, they’re so moronic in their social behaviour and empathy, it not only makes me want to throw things at my tv, but worse, it undermines the whole idea of Star Trek. Plus, the quality of too many stories was piss poor.
That’s why I hate Star Trek.
When asked Trekkers often reply: “Because it shows a positive future; it gives hope.”
I could never agree with that reply. I always felt there was something distinctively wrong with it, but I couldn’t quite put my finger on it. I’ve been thinking about this since last summer, which, quite frankly, is probably an inordinate amount of time for this kind of subject. When I was trying to figure out why the Netherlands went from a republic to a kingdom it at least felt worthwhile.
The last couple of months I spent a lot of time watching TNG and DS9 (Trekkers know what I’m talking about) and rewatching. During most of that time I stuck to watching what I knew I enjoyed, but I did, initially, take the time to watch it all in the right order without skipping any episodes…almost (I skipped a few episodes from DS9 in which the grand nagus took a central role. No regrets.). I couldn’t shake the feeling of disagreement with that overall accepted reason for liking star trek. I suppose it also had a lot to do with me being rather bored during a lot of the episodes, especially a lot of the TNG stuff and the early DS9 stuff. Yet, it did not answer my question why I felt liking star trek had nothing to do with the naïve idea it is because it shows a bright and beautiful future.
The first cracks for me came with the realization the only reason I ever liked star trek, if ever, was because of sentimental reasons. I grew up watching star trek and TNG was what star trek looked like to me. Hell, TNG was what sci-fi looked like to me. I realized I didn’t actually remember any storylines from my initial viewing. However, at first rewatch I was delighted to find I did remember all the crewmembers (except for Tasha, but who cares about her?). To my mild surprise I also realized none of the stories looked familiar to me, which was weird since I watched enough TNG back in my teens to know what it was all about and who all the characters were. And to my great disappointment, rewatching TNG didn’t quite excite me as much as I hoped, but I persevered and watched it all (some listened while cleaning the house).
Since I had set my heart on watching all star trek that is available I set out to watch all of DS9. The first three seasons were a familiar borefest I wrestled my way through, but to my relief it contained more good episodes than TNG and it encouraged me to keep going. I didn’t watch eight episodes in one day like I had with TNG (How did I survive that!?!? How did I do that at all!?!?), but managed to fit in four episodes every evening (This had also to do with more spare time when watching TNG and it reduced to evenings and weekends for DS9). To my delight and relief I found the Dominion war and the accompanying characters rather interesting, so much so I actually looked forward to watching the next episode. Unfortunately, that usually only lasted for a max of six episodes, then it would always and reliably return to the borefest I had come to expect and accept.
So I pointed out I was actually quite bored during a lot of the episodes (unfortunately most). Here come all my complaints about star trek:
1) Characters who always get along with each other are boring to watch. It’s conflict that makes stories interesting;
2) The villains are mainly rather one dimensional since in one episode you can’t quite explore characters. After the one episode they often disappear forever. Though recurring villains are not explored either;
3) Moral dillemma’s are discussed, but never get any breathing space (one episode is really not much) which means most subjects are only superficially explored which sometimes makes for interesting television, but usually just doesn’t quite cut the cake);
4) Since everyone in Starfleet gets along, the Federation citizens have become morons in dealing with people who aren’t quite like them (Quick to judge, talk with relish, ambitious, federation social, skilled in everything but social awareness, with a holier than thou attitude. I hate every episode with Barclay in it, not because of Barclay, but because of the compassionately dead Enterprise crew. To me it only shows human kind has learned nothing in the future….except for Data….which is ironic, because he isn’t even close to being humanoid…which goes to show, because the only thing they know is technology and that is what Data is.);
5) Most of the characters don’t get a real chance to develop and remain one dimensional. Characters hardly every learn anything, which keeps them going on the same level in the same way which makes a character and the stories they’re in predictable and therefore often boring.
It slowly became clearer to me when I read something someone else said when asked what he prefered, star trek or Doctor Who. His reply was Doctor Who, because it was written better. Where Star Trek focused more on the development of technology (as opposed to human kind), Doctor Who focusses more on the dramatic aspect of the franchise. Where Star Trek adopts a holier-than-thou attitude, Doctor Who just wants to entertain.
That’s what I love about Doctor Who: “It knows it’s silly, and it doesn’t do anything to redeem it. Yet, it manages to make sense in moral issues and sometimes even in character development.”
That’s what I dislike about Star Trek: “They adopt a holier-than-thou attitude, but don’t quite have the chops to support nor justify that attitude.”
Doctor Who doesn’t have an attitude and therefore doesn’t need to live up to one. Star Trek has an attitude and often fails to live up to it. That’s very annoying.
Also, I believe sci-fi should say something about us; that’s where it’s added value lies. The technological development is just a display of what human kind wishes for and what might be possible in the future. However, when I come back home from work and turn the tv on, I’m not interested in reading the technology catalogue and accompanying manuals. History also shows the best loved stories are the ones where a character goes on a (mental) journey and all the technology caters to the story of the character. Technology itself, unless it’s about Data (generalized, obviously), is not what’s interesting, it’s what human kind does or doesn’t do with it. Technology doesn’t make stories, people do. Inanimate objects, which a replicator is no matter how much it chats, aren’t interesting. However, computers that come to life might be interesting. But there it is again, animation, life, but I digress.
Though having spouted this (without spell- nor grammar check), I have to admit I really enjoyed DS9. Ironically, it was never the Starfleet people, or “the good guys” as captain Sisko would call them and himself, that made DS9 interesting. It were the Cardassians, it were the founders, it was that weasel Weyoun. I believe it’s because they were more human than all the humans on that station (Though the only Cardassian on the station was Garak). It was because the Cardassians had all kind of colours; they weren’t just black and white, they had all kind of interesting shades of grey. And the most beautiful thing about it was, secretly we understood so well why they choose to do certain things (or I did anyway). Which brings me back to the Federation: For a people “so advanced”, they’re so moronic in their social behaviour and empathy, it not only makes me want to throw things at my tv, but worse, it undermines the whole idea of Star Trek. Plus, the quality of too many stories was piss poor.
That’s why I hate Star Trek.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)