HN Explorer

Star Trek is the richest and most positively impactful franchise of all time

13 points by bjones ↗ HN
Star Trek is a franchise that has continually provided me a richer and more impactful experience as I’ve matured and ripened as a person.

As I learn more about the science, I realize the writers cared enough to incorporate it from the start. As I learn more about history, I realize Star Trek has always told humanity's stories, and built a rich tapestry of our future to use as its past. As I learn more about geopolitics, race relations, sexualtiy, morality, economics, religion, etc. etc. etc., I realize Star Trek was already there, exploring the depths of the underlying philosophies, and presenting perspectives for its fans to apply to their own mental models of the world.

I can’t think of another series, show, or movie, that has so often presented the failure of main characters in complex and difficult situations, as opportunities for improvement and growth. The Kobayashi Maru could be held as the ultimate manifestation.

Star Trek never stops trying to make the world a better place through example. I hear a lot of complaints about Gene Roddenberry’s insistence on the franchise maintaining his optimistic imagining of humanity's future (especially around Star Trek, Discovery), but I can’t help but think that his persistence is instrumental in the lessons Star Trek has bestowed upon us for decades.

I'd love to hear what each of you think about my bold claim, and how Star Trek has impacted your life. I'd love to do some episodes on my podcast about specific aspects of Star Trek's impact on the world. Comment or PM me with any thoughts.

Live Long & Prosper,

T. Brian Jones

PS... I shared some of my love in a recent episode of a podcast I co-host, Zengineering Podcast. The episode is an exploration of what we love about Star Trek contrasted with what we love about Star Wars -- https://goo.gl/bjiHPW

8 comments

[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 31.4 ms ] thread
bjones
More Praise for STAR TREK!!

- NASA on the Science of Star Trek (https://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/features/star_trek.ht...) (NASA Solar System, NASA Glenn Research)

- The Final Frontier: The Science of Star Trek (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/star-trek-movie-s...) (Scientific American)

- The Cultural Influence of Star Trek (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_influence_of_Star_Tre...) (Wikipedia)

- The Impact and Influence of Star Trek (https://www.wired.com/2012/09/impact-influence-star-trek/) (WIRED)

- Pragmatism and Meaning: Assessing the Message of Star Trek: The Original Series (http://www.participations.org/Volume%208/Issue%202/1d%20Smit...) (PDF)

- Star Trek and The Kiss That Changed TV (http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20160707-star-trek-turns-50...) (BBC)

- The Physics of Star Trek (http://amzn.to/2k4hU8i), by Lawrence M. Krauss

bjones
I've gotten so much from my experiences with Star Trek, and I've adamantly tried to consume every piece of media produced (a lifelong pursuit). I shared some of my love in a recent episode of a podcast I co-host, Zengineering Podcast. The episode is an exploration of what we love about Star Trek contrasted with what we love about Star Wars. This is perhaps my favorite episode of our podcast for many reasons, and I hope you enjoy it!!

https://zengineeringpodcast.com/episode-040-on-star-wars-vs-...

angersock
Star Trek was full of just-so stories of cleverness and technobabble. It was good TV for a kid, and was almost always optimistic. The good guys didn't really lose, all-told. Good chunks of worldbuilding just kinda didn't work for me.

The show that actually explored the themes you want to mention (ignoring Lexx and Red Dwarf and Doctor Who, because they were rather silly) would be Babylon 5.

Characters lose and stay lost, characters keep fighting against all odds, sometimes even staying the hand of fate. Bad things happen to good people for no reason, and bad people have good fortune and sometimes redemption. Hell, the show had one of the first blatant explorations of lesbian relationships in broadcast television.

Go watch that.

ajeet_dhaliwal
I would agree, this largely applies to me. However I think this was most true of TOS, TNG, and DS9. These series made me think, they were about exploration, possible futures, thinking about humanity, the universe and existence. The recent movies and the trailer for the Netflix series (I've only seen the trailer) are sadly just mindless battles in space, which is a real shame.
nuna
I love everything Star Trek, I watched it with my sister as a child and I remember thinking, this is the future when I grow up. As an adult I have to say I am disappointed we haven't advanced much in space travel and mostly that people still don't get along (Earth citizens vs country). Theres still hope for the future! Live Long and Prosper
krapp
The first problem I have with Star Trek is that Gene Roddenberry insisted that the human characters have no real conflicts or emotional flaws - because they were meant to represent some evolved ideal - as a result, it's impossible to empathize or really even relate to them unless they deviate from the template. Captain Kirk was the antithesis of everything Gene believed in, because Roddenberry was forced to sell the show as "Wagon Train to the Stars" - Kirk was a hard-drinking space cowboy who wasn't afraid to lie, kiss or punch his way out of a bad situation. Wesley Crusher, meanwhile, was Gene's ideal. He was an insufferable boy genius and nobody liked him.

Which is the better character? Whose conflicts are more human, and therefore more inspiring to viewers?

My second problem with Star Trek is that it's "post-scarcity" Utopia is a vaguely realized nonsensical fantasy based on the existence of magitech which conveniently handwaves away anything which might provide legitimate or compelling conflict at a societal level. The only real challenge the Federation can face is space wedgies and phaser fire. But no one starves, no one is homeless, no one lacks for any creative, cultural or intellectual need --- but there's no good reason why.

It's not even good science fiction. Subspace and particles of the week and assorted technobabble. A parallel universe where everyone is evil. Transporters and holograms which appear to randomly create sentient life. The Enterprise once got knocked up and gave birth to a negative space wedgie. Sometimes it comes close to interesting ideas, but because the show was intended for drama, and not scientific rigor, none of the really interesting stuff ever wound up on screen.

So how to we achieve the Trek Utopia in the real world? We need replicators? Sorry - not in this universe, a little thing called the Second Law of Thermodynamics guarantees anything remotely like that will be vastly less efficient than what we have now. Warp drive? Nope - FTL travel is impossible. Free energy? Nope, 2nd Law again. Transporters? Nope - no Heisenberg Compensators in this universe. It doesn't work. It can't work. It can't ever work.

This comment makes it seem like I hate the show, but I don't - I grew up with it and I adore it, but I think its cultural relevance is vastly overrated. Star Trek, at least its later incarnations, gives the world an impossible Utopia to look forward to with impossible people to aspire to be. That's not inspiring to me.

Give me someone like Spike Spiegel from Cowboy Bebop to look up to. Imperfect, flawed heroes doing their best to make sense of a violent and capricious universe which doesn't give you any easy answers and won't keep you from starving to death in the void if you can't find a way to live for another week. Optimism and resolve mean something in a setting like that. In Star Trek, all the problems have already been solved and the characters are just looking for ways to pass the time.