Orson Scott Card on Star Trek (mentions Whedon) by Ferrel

OTHER SCIENCE FICTION SERIES

Orson Scott Card on Star Trek (mentions Whedon)

POSTED BY: FERREL
UPDATED: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 05:55
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2017
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, May 3, 2005 5:53 PM

Strange New World: No 'Star Trek'

By Orson Scott Card, Orson Scott Card is the author of "Ender's Shadow" (Tor
Books, 2000) and "Ender's Game" (Tor Books, 1994). His most recent book is
"Shadow of the Giant" (Tor Books, 2005).

So they've gone and killed "Star Trek." And it's about time.

They tried it before, remember. The network flushed William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy down into the great septic tank of broadcast waste, from which no traveler…. No, wait, let's get this right: from which rotting ideas and aging actors return with depressing regularity.

It was the fans who saved "Star Trek" from oblivion. They just wouldn't let go.

This was in the days before VCRs, and way before DVDs. You couldn't go out and buy the boxed set of all three seasons. When a show was canceled, the only way you could see it again was if some local station picked it up in syndication.

A few stations did just that. And the hungry fans called their friends and they
watched it faithfully. They memorized the episodes. I swear I've heard of people who quit their jobs and moved just so they could live in a city that had "Star Trek" running every day.

And then the madness really got underway.

They started making costumes and wearing pointy ears. They wrote messages in Klingon, they wrote their own stories about the characters, filling in what was left out — including, in one truly specialized subgenre, the "Kirk-Spock"
stories in which their relationship was not as platonic and emotionless as the
TV show depicted it.

Mostly, though, they wrote and wrote and wrote letters. To the networks. To the production company. To the stars and minor characters and guest stars and grips of the series, inviting them to attend conventions and speak about the events on the series as if they had really happened, instead of being filmed on a tatty little set with cheesy special effects.

So out of the ashes the series rose again. Here's the question: Why?

The original "Star Trek," created by Gene Roddenberry, was, with a few
exceptions, bad in every way that a science fiction television show could be
bad. Nimoy was the only charismatic actor in the cast and, ironically, he played the only character not allowed to register emotion.

This was in the days before series characters were allowed to grow and change, before episodic television was allowed to have a through line. So it didn't matter which episode you might be watching, from which year — the characters were exactly the same.

As science fiction, the series was trapped in the 1930s — a throwback to
spaceship adventure stories with little regard for science or deeper ideas. It
was sci-fi as seen by Hollywood: all spectacle, no substance.

Which was a shame, because science fiction writing was incredibly fertile at the time, with writers like Harlan Ellison and Ursula LeGuin, Robert Silverberg and Larry Niven, Brian W. Aldiss and Michael Moorcock, Ray Bradbury and Isaac Asimov, and Robert A. Heinlein and Arthur C. Clarke creating so many different kinds of excellent science fiction that no one reader could keep track of it all.

Little of this seeped into the original "Star Trek." The later spinoffs were
much better performed, but the content continued to be stuck in Roddenberry's rut. So why did the Trekkies throw themselves into this poorly imagined, weakly written, badly acted television series with such commitment and dedication? Why did it last so long?

Here's what I think: Most people weren't reading all that brilliant science
fiction. Most people weren't reading at all. So when they saw "Star Trek,"
primitive as it was, it was their first glimpse of science fiction. It was grade
school for those who had let the whole science fiction revolution pass them by.

Now we finally have first-rate science fiction film and television that are
every bit as good as anything going on in print.

Charlie Kaufman created the two finest science fiction films of all time so far:
"Being John Malkovich" and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind." Jeffrey
Lieber, J.J. Abrams and Damon Lindelof have created "Lost," the finest
television science fiction series of all time … so far.

Through-line series like Joss Whedon's "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and Alfred
Gough's and Miles Millar's "Smallville" have raised our expectations of what
episodic sci-fi and fantasy ought to be. Whedon's "Firefly" showed us that even 1930s sci-fi can be well acted and tell a compelling long-term story.

Screen sci-fi has finally caught up with written science fiction. We're in
college now. High school is over. There's just no need for "Star Trek" anymore.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 5, 2005 5:53 AM

BADGERSHAT

Well, I'm glad he liked JW's contribution to the world...

... but in all honesty, this guy sounds like a douchebag. He's got this high and mighty way of looking at his own niche in the world, and anything that doesn't conform to it doesn't measure up inhis eyes.

He simply doesn't "get it" about Star Trek, or sci-fi shows in general, I think.

Not entirely certain how "Being John Malkovich" falls into science fiction, really... but what do I know?

There's a phenomenon in the world, where people decide for themselves "I like this" or "I don't like this," and it seems like OSC either doesn't understand it, or resents it.

Like all the rest of us, he's entitled to his opinion about whatever shows he wants, but to say that the reason it succeeded is because people don't read... that's childish, and fairly close-minded, in MY opinion.

So, whatever, let him prattle on.

--Jefé The Hat

***************************
--Don't bother trying to predict, figure out, second guess, criticize, or suggest anything that comes from the mind of Joss Whedon, for you shall usually be wrong, and shall find out the Truth and Purpose in due time.
(This is the Truth of Whedoning)

"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 5, 2005 6:25 AM

FERREL

I use to really respect this guy. He was one of my favortie SciFi authors. Now, not so much. Ender's Game was and still is a SciFi classic, but his recent stuff is, how shall I say it, crap.

I must admit Star Trek is a little long in the tooth, but it helped pave the way for SciFi on TV and I still have a warm spot in my heart for it.

He's also seems to have a problem with fandoms. To me that's a personal insult. Everybody is entitled to his/her opinion, but I think he just alienated a whole group of fans that may just pass on Ender's Game when the movie gets made. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 5:55 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello.

I myself am glad that Star Trek is dead, but for different reasons than Mr. Card.

It's important to remember that no matter how bad and cheesy the original episodes were, they were better than anything else on TV at the time. Really. What else was going on? Time Tunnel? Land of the Giants? Lost in Space?

So, when it was cancelled, it was missed. Nothing as good really came along to replace it.

The first Trek movie was a recycled plot with a rather dragging script, but it was a return of something beloved, and the FX were good (if showcased wayyyy too much.)

The second, third, and fourth movies were something which Mr. Card was complaining about: They were non-episodic. They were, in fact, the first non-episodic tales in the series. They told a continuing story arc over which characters evolved.

With the exception of movie Six, I consider all of the subsequent films to be one flavor of bad or not good enough. Five was awful. Seven was awful. The Borg film was palatable, but... eh. Could have been better. The rest were drek, in my opinion. Attack of the Plastic Surgery People, I think one of them was called. And Star Trek: Collision was in there somewhere.

Anyhow, TNG had its moments, but it was largely episodic too. They had a few plot points carried from one episode to another, but they forgot more than they ever remembered. We are left to assume that they got the whole Warp 5 thing resolved, for instance, but are never told.

A lot of people will disagree with me, but I think DS9 had some of the best stories of the series. The characters changed. Knowledge was retained and used in future episodes. There was a story arc that became strong in seasons 3+.

Voyager was, to me, so utterly inconsequential and such a waste of money, that it really bothers me. I watched half the episodes, and my mantra started off as, "Maybe it will get better" and proceeded to, "Maybe Jayneway will die." And I recall that they actually promoted episodes based on the potential for dire peril involving the Captain. I sincerely believe those episodes caught the viewership not because they were concerned for Jayneway, but because they were excited about the dark turns the series might take with another Captain in the big seat. Though Chakotay wasn't a much better candidate. Even the Borg sex goddess showed better decisiveness and leadership than either of those two.

So then we get Enterprise, and well... I will simply say it was a disappointment on many levels. I will give them this: They had story arcs. One of the seasons was a giant story arc. Kudos for that.

But I think I knew Trek was dead when I saw Star Trek: Collision (or, The Search for More DNA, or, How to Breach the Prime Directive, or...)

Anyways... I'm ready for Star Trek to die. And you know what? I'm glad it's dying.

Now we get to see shows that fill the vacuum. Like Firefly and Battlestar and who knows what else will emerge to sate the palate of sci-fi fans.

Some of the new stuff is horrible, but some of it caters to a maturing Sci-Fi audience. And I do think, like Mr. Card, that some of the Sci-Fi audience is maturing. I think we're ready for more complex stories. More involved characters.

But I won't poo on what Trek was. It was the best thing we had in a very dark time of television.

I do think that we are now able to do better.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE