Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!
Star Trek is both. It was billed as action/adventure to the studio but used the SF framing for social commentary. So, I welcome both. Action is fine by me. So is quiet contemplation.
Each has its place. Star Trek is vastly uneven. Every great show has a real stinker to match it. And there is a lot of Officially Endorsed Trek Entertainment Product to choose from. I stick to I like it or I don't. My opinion does not require justification. It is my opinion.
The suits poohpoohed it as being "too cerebral", so that's when the wagon train in space format really took off - and to be fair they had a good point. "Cage" was ahead of its time and not every week could be that "dry" either.
Even though the NBC Suits complained about The Cage, you could still see the emphasis on action. After all, one of the scenarios the Talosians subject Pike to is a recreation of a fight on an alien world. Another is him being a pimp and owner of a club specializing in scantily clad green women dancing, which I'm sure is considered intellectual AF.
That was primarily Patrick Stewart's doing, who had been making requests since the third season to have Picard more directly involved in the action. When the movies came around, Stewart had more input into the content, particularly with Insurrection and Nemesis where he actually was a producer. Which was why Picard became an Action Hero.
That was primarily Patrick Stewart's doing, who had been making requests since the third season to have Picard more directly involved in the action. When the movies came around, Stewart had more input into the content, particularly with Insurrection and Nemesis where he actually was a producer. Which was why Picard became an Action Hero.
The way i understand it, the only reason why older Star Trek didn't have more/better action sequences is because they would have been too expensive.
There is no other reason for that
The way i understand it, the only reason why older Star Trek didn't have more/better action sequences is because they would have been too expensive.
There is no other reason for that
Yup. And if you look at DS9 and VOY, the space battles increase and become more elaborate as the seasons progress, because they could finally start to pull it off more often. So the Delta Quadrant was more hostile. War and the build-up to war started happening on DS9.
Even in TNG, you couldn't have something like the Dominion War. Not just because of Gene's Vision, but because the budget and production values would never have allowed for it.
Ignoring varying story quality and the fact that it's multiple series, it's interesting from a technical standpoint to see how production values evolved from 1987 to 2005, bit-by-bit, over a period of 18 years.
In TOS, violence is treated as sometimes unavoidable but best avoided, and “action” scenes are often halted in favor of compassion or diplomacy. (Kirk refuses to kill the Gorn; Kirk and Kang must laugh instead of fight; Kirk won’t take vengeance on Morgan Earp. In TSFS, Kirk even tries to save the Klingon who killed his son, cost him the Enterprise and is actively trying to kill him.) Alternately, violence is often shown to be foolish and self-perpetuating. (Kirk and the Romulan Commander are reluctant enemies; Eminiar and Vendikar have become numb to the cost of war; Bele and Lokai can’t give up their grudge even though they are the last of their kind; Lazarus is locked in eternal combat.)
That, to me, is very Star Trek, and a big part of the appeal of Star Trek. I much prefer that approach to the mass killing of video game “baddies” we got from Discovery this season.
I think we see both sides of violence and it depends on the situation. Kirk is more than willing to engage in revenge in "Friday's Child" and declares himself a soldier with regards to the Klingons in Errand of Mercy.
I think Star Trek uses action in a variety of ways and depending on the story will determine my response to the use of violence.
I think we see both sides of violence and it depends on the situation. Kirk is more than willing to engage in revenge in "Friday's Child" and declares himself a soldier with regards to the Klingons in Errand of Mercy.
I think Star Trek uses action in a variety of ways and depending on the story will determine my response to the use of violence.
It’s possibly my least favorite ep of TOS, with its cultural imperialism and its bizarre and possibly unintentional endorsement of a certain land war in Asia. But even it contrasts the brutish violence of the conquering Klingons with the peaceful diplomacy and humanitarian aid offered by the Federation. There’s an attempted thoughtfulness there — even if hamfisted — that I didn’t get from Burnham and Book murdering all those people.
It’s possibly my least favorite ep of TOS, with its cultural imperialism and its bizarre and possibly unintentional endorsement of a certain land war in Asia. But even it contrasts the brutish violence of the conquering Klingons with the peaceful diplomacy and humanitarian aid offered by the Federation. There’s an attempted thoughtfulness there — even if hamfisted — that I didn’t get from Burnham and Book murdering all those people.
Reflecting further about that action topic within ST, the following thought came to my mind:
In a recent comment (not here) on DSC I read the criticism that DSC is too focused on action and that there's, unlike the old ST shows, not enough negotiation and discussion to solve problems. It wasn't the first time I read something like this. Lots of people tend to point out what they think DSC has not while the good old shows had it, and despite being someone who digs DSC a lot, I'm perfectly fine with people not liking it and I also see that there are plenty of good reasons to not like it.
However, each time I read a statement like the one I described, I seriously wonder if the person who made the statement has actually seen the show entirely or at least most of its episodes. While DSC on one hand does heavily focus on action (which is also for my taste sometimes over the top and could be more modest), there are on the other hand also episodes that actively contradict the "in DSC problems are solved through action rather than discussion" point of view. Just take the pilot two-parter from season 1, thus the very beginning of the show. Of course, there's a space battle eventually, but this starts somewhere at the middle of the second episode or something. Up to then, the whole plot of the two-parter is literally a discussion about whether it would be appropriate in that case to shoot first - and thus betraying Starfleet values - or not.
And there are more examples: Most episodes of the first half of season 2 don't feature real action sequences (at least in terms of shooting and combat sequences) and rather centre around classic ST issues and moments. The encounter with the sphere (I think it was episode 4 or something) would be a perfect example. And then in season 3 we have an episode like the third one where
the escalation of a conflict into violence is prevented by the DSC crew intervening and moderating between the enemies, which I found very ST-like.
Those are just a few examples, there are still more that could be brought up. And don't get me wrong, I absolutely don't want to deny that action is a vital and prominently featured part of DSC, perhaps also more than in the older shows. But with those examples in mind, I just find stating that DSC doesn't show solving problems the "old" ST way doesn't hold up at all. I'm interested, what are your thoughts on that?
