January 22 2019
What is real/true Star Trek?
Time to time you see Axanar being called real Star Trek or true Star Trek and so here I am wondering what the definition of real and true Star Trek is.
So what is real or true Star Trek and more importantly why do you think it is that definition?
I’m quite certain that there will be a million different answers to the question as everyone has their own vision of what is perfect Star Trek.
From the looks of Klingons to episode pacing, there will be plenty of definition variation going around and it can make your head spin.
Prelude to Axanar is a 20 minute video, could Axanar really stand up to people’s true or real test at 30 minutes? would it have stood up at 42 minutes if it was full length episode or ten or twelve episodes a season in the old free for all days?
How is Discovery not considered by fans to be Star Trek? apart from some changes it has everything Star Trek, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT had in them, so what is so bad?
It’s an interesting question, drop a line if you got an answer.
Until next time, be good to each other.
4 thoughts on “What is Real/True Star Trek?”
I think the answer to the headline question goes beyond just Trek and into how technology has enabled peoples sense of ownership and entitlement over things they really have no ownership and even less entitlement beyond their role as a customer.
As far as DSC goes, well, we’ve all read the complaints about TNG from back in the day, the complaints Gene had about the TOS movies, and this current wave is no different in content only in scale due to the internet.
Personally, I like DSC. The production values for each episode are markedly higher than any previous series (as you would expect) and whilst I don’t think it’s really hit its stride yet it’s starting point is in line or even greater with the other much loved series’ that took some time develop into the fondly remembered shows they are now.
But I do feel bad for the people who disagree with my view on DSC and believe giving money to Axanar will somehow give them back something they’ve lost.
Note, awful syntax due to technology, lol.
one of the three myths about star trek is that it is cerebral fare, aimed at a more intelligent audience. people tend to believe this myth, and then somehow conflate ‘intelligent’ with ‘best’.
so whenever a new iteration comes along that changes things, it is as if they are saying the ‘best’ wasn’t good enough, or else why bother to change it?
and if what came before wasn’t ‘good enough’, the faulty syllogism flows in reverse to mean that the audience–the fans of older iterations–are not smart enough.
this is why, over the decades, folks tended to take new, different star trek as a personal attack on them, and they declare it as ‘not real trek’ in some kind of face saving gesture….or they still apply the initial faulty reasoning: their preferred version was the ‘best’ so anything different must automatically be ‘substandard’.
There was this show called Young Talent Time in Australia between 1971-88, think the last version of MMC only on TV earlier.
In 2012 they made a new version of the show with a new lineup (of course) etc, more live than mimed and original fans hated it.
It looked different, it sounded different, was made for a new generation and it lasted about 13 episodes compared to the original having some 700 or so.
It was like the original fans were expecting it to be 1989 and nothing changed and if they didn’t watch the show and had ratings boxes it was all over.