Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
In regards to Star Trek's effect on thinking, well I would say that Gene Roddenbury was a secular humanist, and Star Trek was his way to preach secular humanism. I believe he stated this in an interview that was either in The Futurist or Humanist magazine (I wish I remember which one). The original Star Trek went heavily into that, combined with a dose of techno-optimism which believed that progress would save everyone. It was very much in keeping with the idealism of the 1960s which gave birth to it. Of course, you see later Star Treks and they moved away from it. I would say Star Trek is more a reflection of modern thinking and philosophy than the vehicle that powers it.
|
I know that was his intent... and it was a POWERFUL vehicle.
There is a certain branch of people who end up without fail being fans of Star Trek. Though usually through "The Next Generation" lense.
Hoenstly I don't think any of the Star Trek's moved away from it outside DS9 though. Which actually is my favorite because it seemed the most "realistic". With vibrant changing characters and situations that didn't have a perfect solution.
|
Next Generation still had Gene Roddenbury involved with the project, so it still held on some. It did ended up having less of the happily ever after in the original though. Everything past Next Generation is after Roddenbury passed on. And with the reboot of the series, no idea what will happen. It is possible the original will be done away with, as Star Trek becomes an action focused sci-fi series that is fun summer popcorn fun, rather than a piece to preach values.
Star Trek helped to be a rallying point for these values Gene had. I would say it had some depth to it, because like the older Twilight Zones, someone was trying to preach something through them. I find that any sci-fi that has any depth is trying to convey a message of some sort. The Twilight Zones from post 2000 they did, actually didn't hold up, because they really didn't preach well at all. Could be that society doesn't know what it can preach to it, and it is lame. After all, everyone is supposed to have their own values on what matters, and it isn't politically correct to tell people what is right and wrong... well, outside of telling people it is wrong to tell others what is right and wrong.
|
I don't know. I felt like the Next Generation focused more on their utopinism. (Outside of the movies.) I mean, look a the difference between Picard and Kirk for example.
What's funny is, when i watch and read sc-fi i tend to ignore the messages they try and convey and just enjoy the settings for what they are.
I mean, honestly, advocacy through viewpoints via fiction I find largely unconvincing, because it's just that... fiction. I mean, it's pretty easy to make your point when you are responsible for the counterpoint as well.
|
Done right, it works better than no message. Sci-fi is prophetic in nature, based on projecting what can be, and the consequences of such. There is a moralizing angle to it. It doesn't just try to create a fictional world, but one linked to current technology. Of course, there are exceptions though, as you get sci-fi/fantasy, but ones that are deeper connect to the human condition in some way, so they are credibile. As with a lot of things, they can be done poorly and be ineffective. And I do know that art attempting to serve as propaganda is usually horrid (I am looking at you Ayn Rand). I see this as a reason why there are almost no good religious based games. People creating them end up not doing good designs at all. But I do believe an artist with conviction can create good art because it is compelled by something they are trying to say.
