Looking for something/What is that Ira Steven Behr quote/Majority of fans, not for liberals?

[Captain Crimson]

As far as I can tell, that is a modern problem with ST, even though it has its highlights and seems to actually be expanding its scope at a breakneck pace. It's written in the same way you'd expect from the magic wand-waving of the HP movies, to the point that is where no doubt a few older fandom holdouts feel disconnected from it. And I know VOY set the trend in motion, but honestly, it should try to stay as closely grounded to realism and science as it is possible.

Finding good SF that adheres to the values of classical liberalism while not being like a fantasy show and still maintaining internal meta consistency is a very hard sell nowadays because as I've said before, the studio suits consider that too "right wing" and they've already got a new customer base willing to swallow up whatever they do. Why should they have to put in that effort? I mean, I still cringe from the "That's the power of math, people!" and "I like science" lines. And coming away from STP, I was left with the baffling realization, that... I don't think the writers for a major-brand science-fiction franchise... know what subatomic particles are. It's no wonder they don't want the older fans, 'cause many of 'em aren't that dumb.

Being an post-Abrahamic fandom is inherently the problem when the time came to return to the PT, so give 'em credit for finally realizing that was a bad move, and so STD moves a millennium ahead and STP is set 20 years later, which is more breathing room than STD had had. That's finally gave the writers their definition, but it's far from the glory days. NuST is most definitely an industry success, but they don't want the older fans anymore since they can make money without them. ST isn't dead as loud and blaring YouTubers insist, but perhaps it should be if it can't be written intelligently. Move on, if it bothers you.

I mean, jeezaloo. I've stated before I do charity with the TSF, and whenever I go to a dollar tree or into schools and libraries, all you find is fantasy crap, Harry Potter, Narnia, LOTR... and it is sad. One of my earliest posts had been wondering if the age of heroes was dead. It probably should be because we want to be topical and comment on the dystopian trends emerging in modern-day America. Because we don't believe in the best of ourselves anymore, we don't think our bitter enemies have any redeeming qualities, we don't hope it will get better, and we want to call attention to that, which means being more heavy-handed - and IMO, ST was never the best when it went that route. Add to that the decline of science-fiction and the rise of fantasy as an easy-to-write-and-access medium that's infected everything, and that's where you get so much cynicism in visual SF circles.

[Draco Dracul]

I don't know why you'd look to star trek for classic liberalism, because classic liberalism is a name for unrestricted capitalism.

[Captain Crimson]

Did I bring up economic systems at all? And let's not forget Mr. Roddenberry was a notorious admirer of Chinese communism. What do you want as the alternative to classical liberalism? Some weird, inexplicably gender-fluid, non-binary, trans, proper-pronouned, nudist-inspired world of perfect conformity?

To me, ST was never very good when it was lecturing and preachy. That worked to TOS because it was the era of cornball cheese and outright hokey goofiness, but they also had plenty of competent writers, and it was for a niche crowd. When the boomers became yuppies in the nineties, that changes. TNG's The Outcast was terrible, to name one example. The paradigm has changed. 1960s brand of liberalism wouldn't carry it anymore.

The irony is ST seems to have gone full circle now. It's being made for a niche crowd, but the greedy Hollywood echo chamber doesn't seem aware of that, they continue writing for that niche crowd despite the way they try to aim high for broad appeal, because they really just want to make giant short-term financial gains, and in that, it is an industry success, but it's been murder on artistic expression and good and relevant, timeless social commentary. And it's just been abusive to the older fans.

[Riedquat]

I think a humanity without flaw, is no longer part of the human race.

It's impossible anyway. What's a flaw and what isn't is subjective; you can find some where the subjective opinion is very commonly held, almost to the extent of being universal, but there are plenty more that are inevitably divisive.

[Thebestoftherest]

I think a humanity without flaw, is no longer part of the human race.

It's impossible anyway. What's a flaw and what isn't is subjective; you can find some where the subjective opinion is very commonly held, almost to the extent of being universal, but there are plenty more that are inevitably divisive.

I mean to chuck piccard willingness to surrender or apathy is a flaw.

[Beastro]

I think the worst thing about Trek is assuming it is Roddenberry's baby as everyone sees it and ignoring the influence of Coon and everyone else in laying the groundwork.

Trek doesn't have a divisive fanbase as far as I can tell. It's much more Abrahamic by this point, and is already at heart a modernist show attempting to show a good faith post-religious take on society.

The classic Trek fans don't exhibit any kind of iron grip on the series as far as I've seen. It's like comparing The Hobbit to Lord of the Rings, where the former is specifically less grand and epic.

The issue I have is everyone assuming Star Trek is Roddenberry's baby (alongside Star Wars being Lucas') when there were more than just him at play. About the best I can think of of a Sci-Fi TV or movie that is really one person's above all else's is Babylon 5 being JMS' given his vision and what he had to deal with to make the show work.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I think the worst thing about Trek is assuming it is Roddenberry's baby as everyone sees it and ignoring the influence of Coon and everyone else in laying the groundwork.

Trek doesn't have a divisive fanbase as far as I can tell. It's much more Abrahamic by this point, and is already at heart a modernist show attempting to show a good faith post-religious take on society.

The classic Trek fans don't exhibit any kind of iron grip on the series as far as I've seen. It's like comparing The Hobbit to Lord of the Rings, where the former is specifically less grand and epic.

The issue I have is everyone assuming Star Trek is Roddenberry's baby (alongside Star Wars being Lucas') when there were more than just him at play. About the best I can think of of a Sci-Fi TV or movie that is really one person's above all else's is Babylon 5 being JMS' given his vision and what he had to deal with to make the show work.

I think it's impressive enough that he still had a hand in things by the time TNG rolled around. Really you can blame Nicolas Meyer for ruining things as he gave everybody military uniforms and started on this dastardly subtheme of war vs discovery.

[Beastro]

Really you can blame Nicolas Meyer for ruining things as he gave everybody military uniforms and started on this dastardly subtheme of war vs discovery.

...blame?

That has its elements in TOS in many episodes and is why WoK captured the essence of Trek far better than TMP did. This is the issue here, that people look upon Trek solely through the lens Roddenberry wanted that you're touching on. There was more there, and so long as it neither was excluded, things were ok.

It's no coincidence that Trek took dips when solely under the helm of Roddenberry with TMP and early TNG. Both times people came along to reassert a balance and stop him from pushing his obsessions that had a knack for ruining drama.

[TGLS]

Really you can blame Nicolas Meyer for ruining things as he gave everybody military uniforms and started on this dastardly subtheme of war vs discovery.

...blame?

I'm pretty sure BCM is being semi-facetious here.

[Beastro]

Really you can blame Nicolas Meyer for ruining things as he gave everybody military uniforms and started on this dastardly subtheme of war vs discovery.

...blame?

I'm pretty sure BCM is being semi-facetious here.

I know him enough to have found that throwing, but I also know enough of Trek to know a good amount of the fans do long for Roddenberry's wish-fulfillment again (RLM comes to mind).