logo Sign In

All Things Star Trek — Page 121

Author
Time
 (Edited)

SilverWook said:

I find it amusing that Doctor Who almost did a story about a female dominated society during Patrick Troughton’s tenure in the late '60’s. Can’t recall why they never went into production with that script, but they probably dodged a bullet in any case.

Big Finish actually adapted that story into an audio adventure. It’s pretty hilarious. =P

Forum Moderator
Author
Time

Tobar said:

SilverWook said:

I find it amusing that Doctor Who almost did a story about a female dominated society during Patrick Troughton’s tenure in the late '60’s. Can’t recall why they never went into production with that script, but they probably dodged a bullet in any case.

Big Finish actually adapted that story into an audio adventure. It’s pretty hilarious. =P

Oh my! I might have to check that out. 😉

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

Star Trek certainly had moments back in its day that’d be considered politically incorrect now. But I’m talking about at the time.

Political correctness is about being sensitives to the attitudes and cultures of underrepresented populations. People can put whatever bs interpretation of it if they want, but that’s what it is - treating people with respect. And that’s what Star Trek has always strived for, even if it didn’t always hit the mark.

Ex. They put a Russian on the Enterprise during the height of the Cold War. Now, the execution wasn’t perfect (pretty stereotypical portrayal, looking back), but the mere fact of the matter was a ballsy move to promote inclusion.

Author
Time

Handman said:

Female/black leads and diverse casts have been considered politically correct for decades. The only difference is political correctness is more controversial than it was in the 90s, probably because some shows (Voyager included) neglected quality stories and the only thing going for them was being politically correct. So now the idea is if a show is overtly-politically-correct, the storytelling will suffer for it. Problem is, a lot of the time, it’s true.

Shit’s just lazy writing. You see it everywhere. Any time themes are too heavy handed/on the nose without much else of substance the storytelling suffers for it. But what the themes are shouldn’t matter. Blame the writers, not political correctness.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DominicCobb said:

Star Trek certainly had moments back in its day that’d be considered politically incorrect now. But I’m talking about at the time.

Political correctness is about being sensitives to the attitudes and cultures of underrepresented populations. People can put whatever bs interpretation of it if they want, but that’s what it is - treating people with respect. And that’s what Star Trek has always strived for, even if it didn’t always hit the mark.

Ex. They put a Russian on the Enterprise during the height of the Cold War. Now, the execution wasn’t perfect (pretty stereotypical portrayal, looking back), but the mere fact of the matter was a ballsy move to promote inclusion.

The other reason being the popularity of The Monkees, in adding a Davy Jones type to the Enterprise crew. Which is why Walter Koenig had to wear that wig for a while until his hair grew out. 😉

Been ages since I’ve seen the original Man From U.N.C.L.E. (Which began two years before TOS.) Was agent Illya Kuryakin being Russian a big deal at the time?

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

Star Trek certainly had moments back in its day that’d be considered politically incorrect now. But I’m talking about at the time.

“Matter of Honor” was ridiculous, but I never understood what the problem was with “Angel One”, other than that it was dull as dirt and not well written.

Political correctness is about being sensitives to the attitudes and cultures of underrepresented populations. People can put whatever bs interpretation of it if they want, but that’s what it is - treating people with respect. And that’s what Star Trek has always strived for, even if it didn’t always hit the mark.

Political correctness is not just treating people with respect. You had it mostly right with your first sentence, it’s the avoidance of topics and expressions that supposedly marginalize other people or underrepresented populations. The problem is that it assumes that all attitudes and cultures are worth being sensitive to, and it puts the onus on the person speaking to censor himself, even if he’s being completely reasonable, for the sake of possibly offending somebody that might not even be the person that the information is directed at. Star Trek was never politically correct like that. For example, there’s an episode of TNG where Worf kills that asshole Klingon that framed his father and murdered his girlfriend. Picard reprimands him and responds to Worf’s defense (that it was in line with his culture) by saying that he respects all of the different ways of life of his crew, but he does not tolerate deviations from Starfleet regulations, or Picard’s orders, for the sake of cultures. That is not politically correct by today’s standards because Picard expected Worf to essentially put aside his traditional way of life. That’s the difference between respect and political correctness.

Ex. They put a Russian on the Enterprise during the height of the Cold War. Now, the execution wasn’t perfect (pretty stereotypical portrayal, looking back), but the mere fact of the matter was a ballsy move to promote inclusion.

That was actually quite politically incorrect at the time and it was a ballsy move to promote inclusion.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DominicCobb said:

Star Trek certainly had moments back in its day that’d be considered politically incorrect now. But I’m talking about at the time.

It’s not really fair to call anything Star Trek did in the name of political correctness when that ideology wouldn’t exist for the next 20 years. Progressive, sure, but there’s a difference.

Political correctness is about being sensitives to the attitudes and cultures of underrepresented populations. People can put whatever bs interpretation of it if they want, but that’s what it is - treating people with respect. And that’s what Star Trek has always strived for, even if it didn’t always hit the mark.

That may have been the original intent, but that is not how it has been implemented. If you’re so sure, and going to call all opposing viewpoints bs, there’s no use arguing. In fact it proves my interpretation of what it’s caused. Star Trek has not always strived for the ideals of political correctness, I could point to pretty much any episode, as mfm did. Then you’ll say as you did that it was going for what was politically correct at the time, to which I’ll say political correctness didn’t even exist until the late 1980s, and we’ll just repeat the same damn thing over again.

Ex. They put a Russian on the Enterprise during the height of the Cold War. Now, the execution wasn’t perfect (pretty stereotypical portrayal, looking back), but the mere fact of the matter was a ballsy move to promote inclusion.

That was not to “promote inclusion”. The mindset was to paint a hopeful picture for the audience that the conflict they now found themselves in, one that could very well destroy the earth, would be solved. Not only that, that humanity would find a way to bring these former enemies together. It wasn’t “Let’s put a Russian in there for diversity”, it was “Let’s bring Russia onto Spaceship Earth”. Criticizing the character for being a stereotype is what political correctness has brought us now, and lost sight of the bigger picture.

Author
Time

I pretty much agree with everything that Handman said. Progressive ideologies do not equate to political correctness.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

Well I guess the idea of “political correctness” is a rather nebulous topic. I think when most advocate for it, it’s in an effort to promote inclusion (and everything that comes with that - including doing away with disparaging stereotypes).

There are certainly a select few who take it to the extremes, and are sensitive about everything for the sake of it, but that’s not really what’s at the heart of it and it’s an aspect of the issue that the outrage against has blown out of proportion. Most people advocating for political correctness aren’t advocating censorship, more like advocating thoughtful consideration about how we conduct ourselves in regards to underrepresented peoples. It’s more nuanced than people make it out to be.

While the term is certainly new, I think the mindset behind it is not. I don’t care to get into semantics here or the negative connotations people have placed on the term. What’s important is the general idea at stake.

Saying Chekov wasn’t to promote inclusion is neglecting the point. The idea of promoting inclusion and showing peace on Earth aren’t mutually exclusive, in fact I think they are very much part and parcel. Everyone is welcome in Starfleet. Everyone gets along. That’s kind of the whole idea.

Whether or not the portrayal is stereotypical is just the next step in the same line of thinking. The goal is to show we’re all the same and in this all together. First step is showing the Russians aren’t the enemy. Next step would then be to not portray them as a simple caricature, but as a real person, just like everyone else.

If you can’t see how the ideas aren’t related, I really don’t know what to say.

Author
Time

I didn’t say that Star Trek didn’t promote inclusiveness because I think that it does and always has.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

Well in my mind that’s what political correctness is all about.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Well that’s a distortion of its goals. That’s not what’s it’s striving for. That is what some dumb shits advocate, but as I said, it’s more nuanced than that.

It’s not like you can’t talk about testy topics, it’s more about treating testy topics with thoughtfulness and sensitivity.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:
It’s not like you can’t talk about testy topics, it’s more about treating testy topics with thoughtfulness and sensitivity.

So, not like this:

Lol! I get what you’re saying now, we should probably continue this in the politics thread.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

Easy to forget now, (or if you’re a bit younger) but the sight of a Klingon in a Starfleet uniform, and a bridge officer, was a bit of a shock back in 1987. The Cold War was still on, and the Klingons as symbolizing the Russians was long noted even outside the fandom.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

Just finished season 1 of TOS as a complete newbie.
Loved every damn minute.
Every one…except for “The Alternative Factor”. What the heck happened with the writing on that one?

Sure it may not be perfect as a series, and there are times it is obvious the running time is padded to 50 mins but this is largely old fashioned S/F which is actually about IDEAS. I’m a complete sucker for this stuff. What in the world took me so long. This is NOTHING like I always thought Trek was. I realized very quickly my childhood and early experiences seeing Trek was simply bits of TNG reruns which had all kinds of people and aliens talking on a bridge leaving me extremely confused as to what was going on.

The BD is very well done, despite some minor things where very rarely the mono may be a fold of the multichannel. The restoration is clearly not as new as the one done for Batman '66, but it looks stunning on my HDCRT screen and I was surprised at just how colorful a series this was-right down to the Enterprise set. And gosh the old transfers look horribly washed out in comparison.

I LOVED the mostly untouched SFX ship shots that are repeated ad nauseum. I loved the score, the camaraderie on screen, the spirit of the production which correct me if I’m wrong was on the low budget side of things.

I’ve watched in airing order as the discs are made that way, but it somehow seems to work in some strange fashion. My favorite episode so far is probably “Corbomite Maneuver”.

Again, what took me so long? ARGH! I already loved doing bad Shatner impressions without even knowing Trek-this has increased indefinitely.

When I get through S2 and3 I’ll tun the films on LD before plowing into the animated series and TNG. I have the BD set for the latter and the purist in me is already saying “couldn’t they have branched the effects there as well despite being native NTSC? I wouldn’t mind the old ones!”

I will ask though: Is TOS S3 as bad as the indicators would have me expect? (Roddenberry leaving due to time slot change etc.)

VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader

Author
Time

As a huge fan of TOS I can tell you there are 3 episodes from season 3, which I like - Spectre of the Gun, The Tholian Web and All Our Yesterdays.

Author
Time

captainsolo said:

Just finished season 1 of TOS as a complete newbie.
Loved every damn minute.
Every one…except for “The Alternative Factor”. What the heck happened with the writing on that one?

The original actor set to play Lazarus, (John Barrymore) bailed at the last minute, as in he didn’t even show up the day shooting was to begin. Robert Brown was quickly brought in to replace him with no prep time. Things only continued to go downhill behind the scenes from there.
A romantic subplot between Lazarus and Lt. Masters was scrapped at the 11th hour. (A romance the “evil” Lazarus abuses to get his hands on Dilithium crystals.) The old Star Trek Compendium book from the 80’s alleges the subplot was cut because an interracial romance might have been a bridge too far for even TOS to cross in 1967.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

captainsolo said:

When I get through S2 and3 I’ll tun the films on LD before plowing into the animated series and TNG. I have the BD set for the latter and the purist in me is already saying “couldn’t they have branched the effects there as well despite being native NTSC? I wouldn’t mind the old ones!”

In TOS, the original effects were all done on film, so it was easy to stay true to them during the remaster. I’m glad they included them because that’s how I choose to watch the BDs.

The HD effects in TNG are for the most part very tasteful representations of the original effects and integrate nicely with the remastered live action; they didn’t set out to “improve” them, just make them look like they got a detail upgrade so they blended well. Many of the effects were done on film, so they technically are the originals. I never felt while watching that I was missing out by not seeing the NTSC effects.

The NTSC transfers were horrendous and the tests they did with upscaled effects looked truly awful. Had every 480i effects shot been deinterlaced to 480p, upscaled to 1080p, and spliced in with the new film transfers, they would’ve stuck out like a sore thumb and taken the viewer out of the experience many times per episode. Even though it only happens in a few episodes, I know instantly when they switch to an upscaled shot because they couldn’t find the original film. Takes me out of it every time.

Forum Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time

captainsolo said:

I will ask though: Is TOS S3 as bad as the indicators would have me expect? (Roddenberry leaving due to time slot change etc.)

IMO, S3 is a noticable step down from the quality of the first few seasons, but it’s not terrible despite a few episodes being so. The only episode that was truly painful for me to watch was “And the Children Shall Lead”.

My favorite S3 episodes:
•“The Empath” (which might be an unpopular opinion)
•“Spectre of the Gun”
•“The Tholian Web”

.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

My favorite S3 episodes:
•“The Empath” (which might be an unpopular opinion)

I used to hate “The Empath” but it grew on me during the years

Author
Time

Jay said:
The HD effects in TNG are for the most part very tasteful representations of the original effects and integrate nicely with the remastered live action; they didn’t set out to “improve” them, just make them look like they got a detail upgrade so they blended well. Many of the effects were done on film, so they technically are the originals. I never felt while watching that I was missing out by not seeing the NTSC effects.

The NTSC transfers were horrendous and the tests they did with upscaled effects looked truly awful. Had every 480i effects shot been deinterlaced to 480p, upscaled to 1080p, and spliced in with the new film transfers, they would’ve stuck out like a sore thumb and taken the viewer out of the experience many times per episode. Even though it only happens in a few episodes, I know instantly when they switch to an upscaled shot because they couldn’t find the original film. Takes me out of it every time.

Thanks for the explanation, that makes a lot more sense.

Wonder why all the old transfers are so bad for both series? They’re contrasty and in comparison almost colorless.

VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader

Author
Time

Well for starters I believe TNG was mastered to betavhs so even on the dvds you’re basically watching a vhs transfer.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

The show was not mastered to VHS or Beta, those are not broadcast formats. Digital formats simply show the limitations of 80’s/90’s NTSC analog master video tapes, and the 35mm telecine technology of the era. And we’re not watching them on lower resolution analog tv’s anymore. People in countries that didn’t have the NTSC broadcast standard had to contend with conversions of TNG episodes that probably looked even worse on their tellys.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

I don’t remember why I thought that, but either way I don’t remember it ever looking very good even on my old tube tvs.