|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Jun 13, 2011 9:37:41 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Jun 15, 2011 20:37:31 GMT -8
www.somethingpositive.net/sp04182011.shtmlSo, I'm thinking about this, and why people hate Barclay, who I think is an alright and even interesting character because of his flaws. But then I realize that because he's hated because he HAS flaws. In TNG, where the characters were not flawed at all. I'm sure there's a TVtropes term for it (and I'm sure that either Kirk or Jens will post what it is) for a character created by the show meant as a slam/critique of the fanbase, because that's what Reginald is. After all, he creates a holodeck simulation that' is LITERALLY SELF-INSERT FANFIC. It doesn't get much less subtle than that. And while he's shown as smart, resourceful, even imaginative on occassion, his petty failings and hobbies and fears and insecurities are meant as a reflection of the fanbase as the showrunners saw it. He falls far short of the near-perfection of the TNG crew, and as a glaring reminder that even in the future, we might still be prisoner to all these same failings. Still, I find him interesting for exactly that reason - yes, humanity can go far, and in the TNG universe, it's far indeed, but it's good to be humble and acknowledge that space exploration would not only be supremely terrifying, but it would also attract not-necessarily stable personalities. You know, flawed humans like the rest of us. More on a similar topic in the next post.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Jun 15, 2011 20:43:56 GMT -8
Speaking of Star Trek,
For all the episodes that focused on the Holodeck (too many), the transporter (a few, but not not that bad all said and told), or time travel (WAY TOO DAMN MANY), you know what never got its due? The Replicator.
Here's the one piece of technology that would literally change humanity in every way conceivable - what happens to manufacturing? How do you perserve the knowledge of how to make things when it's so easy to simply replicate whatever the hell you want? How much effort is put into educating a populace and would they even bother? But what would happen once that technology is lost or something bad happens? is there a contigency plan?
I mean, the obvious effects are already there in the show - that level of technology would eradicate a lot of the divide between rich and poor and change the socio-economic structure of the planet. Not that it would necessarily result in the paradise of TNG-era Earth, but such a technology would be necessariy for such a utopia in the first place. But the unintended consequences - for human labor, education, for preserving skills and trades that have existed since time immemorial - there's a lot of stories there that were never told. And that's a damn shame.
|
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on Jun 15, 2011 20:45:41 GMT -8
www.somethingpositive.net/sp04182011.shtmlSo, I'm thinking about this, and why people hate Barclay, who I think is an alright and even interesting character because of his flaws. But then I realize that because he's hated because he HAS flaws. In TNG, where the characters were not flawed at all. I'm sure there's a TVtropes term for it (and I'm sure that either Kirk or Jens will post what it is) for a character created by the show meant as a slam/critique of the fanbase, because that's what Reginald is. After all, he creates a holodeck simulation that' is LITERALLY SELF-INSERT FANFIC. It doesn't get much less subtle than that. And while he's shown as smart, resourceful, even imaginative on occassion, his petty failings and hobbies and fears and insecurities are meant as a reflection of the fanbase as the showrunners saw it. He falls far short of the near-perfection of the TNG crew, and as a glaring reminder that even in the future, we might still be prisoner to all these same failings. Still, I find him interesting for exactly that reason - yes, humanity can go far, and in the TNG universe, it's far indeed, but it's good to be humble and acknowledge that space exploration would not only be supremely terrifying, but it would also attract not-necessarily stable personalities. You know, flawed humans like the rest of us. More on a similar topic in the next post. I liked Reg, not in the least because he was played by H.M. Murdock, but a little of him went a long way, not in the least because most of his plots tied in rather heavily into the holodeck, which actually rivaled the transporter for a while as the single most overused deus ex machina in Star Trek history. Quite seriously, if I was ever made Starfleet Admiral, literally my VERY FIRST ORDER would be to gut every single starship in the fleet of its goddamned holodeck, because say what you will about any other recreation or entertainment program enjoyed by the military in the real world, but none of them has ever become "The Veldt" by Ray Bradbury. |
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Jun 15, 2011 20:47:07 GMT -8
Final thought of tonight - Peter David.
My theory: what made Peter David successful as a writer 20 years ago was that he was writing kid and young adult fiction, but that as the genres he was immersed in skewed older and he aged, he lost touch with that specific skillset because it wasn't what kept him employed. Thus, the Peter David stories I liked were because he was a good YA author. The fact that I no longer like Peter David's stories anymore is because he's not writing that kind of fiction anymore.
Discuss.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Jun 15, 2011 20:50:53 GMT -8
Quite seriously, if I was ever made Starfleet Admiral, literally my VERY FIRST ORDER would be to gut every single starship in the fleet of its goddamned holodeck, because say what you will about any other recreation or entertainment program enjoyed by the military in the real world, but none of them has ever become "The Veldt" by Ray Bradbury. Well, I think it would have to be severely constrained - I mean, I can see where it would have some very positive uses, but yes, the fact that Reginald used it to live out self-insert fanfic was telling about some of the obvious problems. |
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on Jun 15, 2011 21:04:33 GMT -8
That cocksucking holodeck screwed the pooch goddamned near every time the writers weren't able to come up with any drama that actually derived from the characters' personalities, which was quite a lot in a future that was supposed to be as perfect as Roddenberry wanted it to be. On a scale of One to Ten, with One being Hannibal Smith's ability to make a plan come together, and Ten being Col. Klink's miserable administration of Stalag 13, the holodeck's average fuckup level hovered around a rating of Fredo Corleone.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Jun 15, 2011 21:07:31 GMT -8
Yeah - that was definitely an issue. Apparently in the future no one thought of this obvious problem of safety. And yet, as you'll see, the holodeck isn't the technology that I would think is the most dangerous - that still goes to the Replicator.
|
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on Jun 15, 2011 22:34:16 GMT -8
Of all things, Voyager actually touched upon how valuable replicators are, in its pilot episode.
|
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Jun 15, 2011 23:36:08 GMT -8
That cocksucking holodeck screwed the pooch goddamned near every time the writers weren't able to come up with any drama that actually derived from the characters' personalities, which was quite a lot in a future that was supposed to be as perfect as Roddenberry wanted it to be. On a scale of One to Ten, with One being Hannibal Smith's ability to make a plan come together, and Ten being Col. Klink's miserable administration of Stalag 13, the holodeck's average fuckup level hovered around a rating of Fredo Corleone. That's exactly the problem with Roddenberry's idea of utopia, where everyone gets along and there is no conflict between people. Not only is it totally unrealistic, because so long as there are people, they will have different personalities and different goals, which will always cause friction... ... it also makes for very boring storytelling. Because if everyone's perfect, if there is no conflict at all between characters (not even the tea or coffee for breakfast question), then there is no drama to drive the story. |
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Jun 16, 2011 0:51:57 GMT -8
Here's the one piece of technology that would literally change humanity in every way conceivable - what happens to manufacturing? How do you perserve the knowledge of how to make things when it's so easy to simply replicate whatever the hell you want? How much effort is put into educating a populace and would they even bother? But what would happen once that technology is lost or something bad happens? is there a contigency plan? I mean, the obvious effects are already there in the show - that level of technology would eradicate a lot of the divide between rich and poor and change the socio-economic structure of the planet. Not that it would necessarily result in the paradise of TNG-era Earth, but such a technology would be necessariy for such a utopia in the first place. But the unintended consequences - for human labor, education, for preserving skills and trades that have existed since time immemorial - there's a lot of stories there that were never told. And that's a damn shame. There would probably be some people who would maintain the old arts and crafts and knowledge as a hobby. But other than that -- How many people today remember how to make things the 1800s way? I could probably McGyver something if I had to, but I wouldn't know what I'm doing. After all, how many of us would be able to survive without an electrician or a plumber or a farmer or a shoemaker or a clothes factory to provide for our daily needs? I know people who admire me because I'm able to mend my worn-out socks, for Crom's sake. It's already gotten that bad. Other than the hobbyists, I'd say all knowledge on how to make things would be lost within a generation. In theory, it would free up peoples's time to pursue activities like science or art. In the ST universe, we know that people still engage in scientific pursuits, because of our supposedly unquenchable curiosity. But art? Somehow, I can't help but think that such an utopean society would stagnate. Now, I'm not one to glorify adversity -- personally, I could do very well without it -- but there is the factor that art is born not only of observation and processing, but of conflict. Even if it's just the conflict of rain and sunshine, which produces rainbows. Roddenberry made it quite clear that his idea of a perfect society eliminates all conflict. (Apparently, even the one based on "tea or coffee for breakfast.") The only thing that would keep people occupied would be boredom. There is nothing at all you need to do all day long but push buttons on a replicator. But that would bring us full circle, because out of that boredom, people might look for something to do. ... Okay, in the world of Star Trek, that would mean playing videogames (Holodeck). |
|
|
|
Post by Mario Di Giacomo on Jun 16, 2011 5:01:27 GMT -8
There are a lot of hobbyists, though. Imagine a 24th century SCA (after the schism when Corpora decided the cutoff was 2000, not 2012)
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Jun 16, 2011 5:53:12 GMT -8
Like I said - there's some interesting stuff to think about that was never addressed there.
|
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on Jun 16, 2011 21:36:47 GMT -8
I think there's a happy medium to be struck between Roddenberry, who wanted no conflict at all, and Nicholas Meyer, who wanted the Enterprise crew to be overtly racist toward the Klingons in The Undiscovered Country (IE. "They look ugly and smell bad," that level of prejudice).
I think that intelligent, principled and well-intentioned people can have seriously snarling conflicts with one another (see also: at least one of the currently active threads on this very forum), and I don't think it compromises the idea of a better future to show people having passionate, occasionally even angry debates on those grounds, WITHOUT having the characters be racist or sexist or whatever-ist.
|
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on Jun 16, 2011 21:43:06 GMT -8
There are a lot of hobbyists, though. Imagine a 24th century SCA (after the schism when Corpora decided the cutoff was 2000, not 2012) This reminds me of an idea I'm pretty sure I stole from someone else: In the Medieval fantasy-themed world of Faerie, which still exists parallel to our own, actual paladins and barbarians and rogues relax by playing a tabletop role-playing game about a world that seems just as fantastical and unusual to them as Lord of the Rings does to us. It's called Cubicles & Computers, and it treats 9-to-5 office jobs the same way that Dungeons & Dragons treats swords and sorcery: "You failed your saving throw against getting called in to work the weekend shift! Roll to see how much damage this does to the time you'd spend watching the big game on Saturday!" |
|
