Thread started: Mar 17 2008, 10:36 PM EDT
Watch
I don't want to start a [b]Babylon 5[/b] versus [b]Star Trek[/b] debate because I am not concerned with the coolest looking space ships or the best space battles, but is there any meaningful social value to good sci-fi shows?
Just to state my position to begin with I think [b]Babylon 5[/b] is somewhat better than the best [b]Star Trek[/b], which is Deep Space 9, though there are areas in which Trek is superior.
Some people accuse Star Trek of being socialist propaganda and other people like it for that:
[quote]So, what, specifically, do I mean by "Star Trek socialism"?
Nothing.
I mean nothing specific. I mean it as an invitation to imagine, not as a definition to impose. Such is the nature of utopia--it is, above all, an exercise of the imagination, which is a core part of what makes us human. By using the term "Star Trek socialism" I want to indicate and help re-establish an alternative viewpoint that is not just valuable in itself, but also for the sorts of discussions it can generate. The viewpoint is that which we can see embodied in the United Federation of Planets, and how we can imagine ways to "Make it so," as Captain Picard would say.[/quote]
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=354
I don't know what to call the Star Trek economy since it apparently works by magic but I think the important thing is that it portrays a future society that is significantly differnt from today's. That is what is [b]wrong[/b] with Babylon 5 as a portrayal of the future. Star Trek probably is not correct but I hardly think society will be so little changed in 250 years as is shown in B5.
to be continued
1
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Do you?
Show Last Reply
|
|
Last Reply:
Sci-Fi Perspective
By: ,
Mar 30 2008, 2:29 AM EDT
Maybe I should point out that I started reading sci-fi before the original Star Trek came on the air. I'm a fossil.
I tend to look at a particular work of SF from 3 different perspectives. First there is the turn off your brain and enjoy to ride mode. This works fine by itself for shallow stuff like Star Wars which I don't really regard as science fiction. Then there is studying the depth and imagination of the story. Like "Amok Time" and "Doomsday Machine" were both written by REAL SF writers, Theodore Sturgeon and Norman Spinrad respectively but though they are both good episodes "Amok Time" definitely wins in the imagination and depth category. "Doomsday Machine" is another Enterprise saves the day with subplot variations. "Amok Time" fleshed out Vulcan culture which influenced episodes of Voyager and Enterprise.
The third aspect is the culture and marketplace for the work. The writer is trying to make a living and may be producing what sells rather than what is good. This affected Star Trek with the original pilot, "The Cage" not being aired but another made and that one wasn't shown first. The executives gave us the Salt Monster first. Ad in Voyager got replaced by 7 of 9 and it shouldn't be hard to figure out what market segment she was aimed at. That 3rd level of evaluation is more important for movies and TV than books because they are so expensive to produce and need to attract large markets. but I think sci-fi books have suffered from a Star Wars effect since the early 80's.
Since I taught myself science because of SF books that is another component that interests my though it doesn't seem to matter to a lot of SF enthusiasts.
psik
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
Share this
