Orson Scott Card Rips on Stat Trek

[Guest MikeSC]

Strange New World: No 'Star Trek

 

By Orson Scott Card, Orson Scott Card is the author of "Ender's Shadow" (Tor Books, 2000) and "Ender's Game" (Tor Books, 1994). His most recent book is "Shadow of the Giant" (Tor Books, 2005).

 

So they've gone and killed "Star Trek." And it's about time.

 

They tried it before, remember. The network flushed William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy down into the great septic tank of broadcast waste, from which no traveler…. No, wait, let's get this right: from which rotting ideas and aging actors return with depressing regularity.

 

It was the fans who saved "Star Trek" from oblivion. They just wouldn't let go.

 

This was in the days before VCRs, and way before DVDs. You couldn't go out and buy the boxed set of all three seasons. When a show was canceled, the only way you could see it again was if some local station picked it up in syndication.

 

A few stations did just that. And the hungry fans called their friends and they watched it faithfully. They memorized the episodes. I swear I've heard of people who quit their jobs and moved just so they could live in a city that had "Star Trek" running every day.

 

And then the madness really got underway.

 

They started making costumes and wearing pointy ears. They wrote messages in Klingon, they wrote their own stories about the characters, filling in what was left out — including, in one truly specialized subgenre, the "Kirk-Spock" stories in which their relationship was not as platonic and emotionless as the TV show depicted it.

 

Mostly, though, they wrote and wrote and wrote letters. To the networks. To the production company. To the stars and minor characters and guest stars and grips of the series, inviting them to attend conventions and speak about the events on the series as if they had really happened, instead of being filmed on a tatty little set with cheesy special effects.

 

So out of the ashes the series rose again. Here's the question: Why?

 

The original "Star Trek," created by Gene Roddenberry, was, with a few exceptions, bad in every way that a science fiction television show could be bad. Nimoy was the only charismatic actor in the cast and, ironically, he played the only character not allowed to register emotion.

 

This was in the days before series characters were allowed to grow and change, before episodic television was allowed to have a through line. So it didn't matter which episode you might be watching, from which year — the characters were exactly the same.

 

As science fiction, the series was trapped in the 1930s — a throwback to spaceship adventure stories with little regard for science or deeper ideas. It was sci-fi as seen by Hollywood: all spectacle, no substance.

 

Which was a shame, because science fiction writing was incredibly fertile at the time, with writers like Harlan Ellison and Ursula LeGuin, Robert Silverberg and Larry Niven, Brian W. Aldiss and Michael Moorcock, Ray Bradbury and Isaac Asimov, and Robert A. Heinlein and Arthur C. Clarke creating so many different kinds of excellent science fiction that no one reader could keep track of it all.

 

Little of this seeped into the original "Star Trek." The later spinoffs were much better performed, but the content continued to be stuck in Roddenberry's rut. So why did the Trekkies throw themselves into this poorly imagined, weakly written, badly acted television series with such commitment and dedication? Why did it last so long?

 

Here's what I think: Most people weren't reading all that brilliant science fiction. Most people weren't reading at all. So when they saw "Star Trek," primitive as it was, it was their first glimpse of science fiction. It was grade school for those who had let the whole science fiction revolution pass them by.

 

Now we finally have first-rate science fiction film and television that are every bit as good as anything going on in print.

 

Charlie Kaufman created the two finest science fiction films of all time so far: "Being John Malkovich" and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind." Jeffrey Lieber, J.J. Abrams and Damon Lindelof have created "Lost," the finest television science fiction series of all time … so far.

 

Through-line series like Joss Whedon's "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and Alfred Gough's and Miles Millar's "Smallville" have raised our expectations of what episodic sci-fi and fantasy ought to be. Whedon's "Firefly" showed us that even 1930s sci-fi can be well acted and tell a compelling long-term story.

 

Screen sci-fi has finally caught up with written science fiction. We're in college now. High school is over. There's just no need for "Star Trek" anymore.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...0,6007802.story

-=Mike

[bobobrazil1984 0]

well star trek has kind of sucked complete ass since DS9 ended. voy and ent and the last two movies have all blown serious ass.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

So who is this nobody again?

[bobobrazil1984 0]

he wrote "Ender's Game", which is sort of known as a sci-fi classic book (haven't read it yet).

On a more entertianing note, he's also a homophobic nutjob who advocates a position of criminalizing homosexuality (keep it on your permanant record) in order to scare gays back in the closet.

 

oh and i think he writes Ultimate Iron Man for marvel comics.

 

and whats with the praise for Smallville as some shining beacon of sci-fi quality TV? It's not bad, but its not particularly great either.

 

the general premise though, quality of other sci-fi has passed star trek by, is accurate though.

[Jingus 0]

Ender's Game is a damn good book. Too bad Card has lived in its shadow ever since then, always trying to recreate the magic he somehow hit the first time.

[Ripper 0]

He called Firefly 1930's sci-fi. which according to him is "a throwback to spaceship adventure stories with little regard for science or deeper ideas. It was sci-fi as seen by Hollywood: all spectacle, no substance". Well fuck him square in the ear for that.

 

 

And I don't watch Lost. Is it really a sci-fi show?

[Guest MikeSC]

He called Firefly 1930's sci-fi. which according to him is "a throwback to spaceship adventure stories with little regard for science or deeper ideas. It was sci-fi as seen by Hollywood: all spectacle, no substance". Well fuck him square in the ear for that.

 

 

And I don't watch Lost. Is it really a sci-fi show?

He actually said Firefly showed that 1930's-style sci-fi could be done well and be really, really good.

 

I just agree with him that Star Trek was pretty much the drizzling shits from the get-go. A horrible show with horrible movies attached to it.

-=Mike

[Jingus 0]

Horrible movies? Come on, parts II, IV, and VI were all worth watching. The Next Generation did some damn fine work of its own, too. Card is just a bitter old man.

[Guest MikeSC]

Star Trek was just not good. I did not like ANY of the Star Trek movies (and I've seen most of them) and the TV show was borderline unwatchable.

 

And IV? Wasn't that the shitty one where they were trying to save whales or some such inanity?

 

Sorry, but Shatner might be amongst the worst actors of recent generations and the plots and writing was hack-neyed.

 

I'm not a huge fan of Orson Scott Card's work, but he's pretty much dead-on in regards to Star Trek.

-=Mike

[starvenger 0]

oh and i think he writes Ultimate Iron Man for marvel comics.

He does indeed write Ultimate Iron Man.

 

I thought that it's kinda weird how he only talks about the original series in his essay. But I think his point there is that science fiction is not just about stories in space, and that is the Hollywood perception of it. Hence the mention of Firefly, since it is set in space.

 

And I don't watch Lost. Is it really a sci-fi show?

I'm sure that Abrams never pitched it as such, because if he did we'd be watching the series at 8pm Saturday. But Card probably sees all the elements of sci-fi in there, so I suppose it's in the eye of the beholder.

[Ripper 0]

Sorry, but Shatner might be amongst the worst actors of recent generations and the plots and writing was hack-neyed.

I am pretty sure that Shatner was hamming it up on purpose.

 

He is GOLD as Denny Craine. He couldn't have been trying in Star Trek.

[starvenger 0]

Sorry, but Shatner might be amongst the worst actors of recent generations and the plots and writing was hack-neyed.

I am pretty sure that Shatner was hamming it up on purpose.

 

He is GOLD as Denny Craine. He couldn't have been trying in Star Trek.

Well, someone will need to check out T.J. Hooker so that we know for sure.

 

You're probably right though - Shatner for the most part is playing a chariacture of himself these days.

[Black Lushus 0]

I vaguely remember a bit of ham from Shatner in that series as well...

[LessonInMachismo 0]

"Captain's Log: Half of the ship fell off and I can't leave my room."

[Mecha Mummy 0]

"Captain's Log: Half of the ship fell off and I can't leave my room."

"Captain's Log: Scotty got membership to AARP. Refuses to engage warp drive. Stuck at 35 miles per hour. Must take disciplinary action."

 

I thought Star Trek was okay, but I don't care for anything outside of the original series and MAYBE TNG, so meh.

[LaParkaMarka 0]

Ender's Game is a decent book, but everything else he has written is trash. I read a bit of Shadow of the Hegemon, and it was fairly retarded.

 

The Original Trek was a solid show for it's time. It wasn't about hard science fiction, it was about addressing contemporary issues via metaphor (racial issues with those half-black half-white aliens, class issues with the people who lived in the clouds, etc).

 

I thought DS9 was an excellent series (from about the introduction of the Dominion on), far better than anything Card has ever done. TNG had a fair amount of compelling episodes as well. Writing off the entire show is pretty unfortunate.

[LessonInMachismo 0]

And nothing Star Trek ever produced can match the awesomeness that is Babylon 5...

 

Greatest sci-fi (not just TV) ever!

[Slayer 0]

"Captain's Log: Half of the ship fell off and I can't leave my room."

You combined half of the two quotes

 

"Captain's Log: Pieces of my ship are falling off, and no one likes me."

 

"Captain's Log: I've lost my toupée and girdle and can't leave my room."

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

"Captains Log: I got herpes from some green bitch the other day."

[The Metal Maniac 0]

I think I was most surprised that he mentioned "Being John Malkovich" as a sci-fi movie. Isn't that the one where they walk through this door and they're suddenly John Malkovich? That's not very scientific.

 

Also, unless I'm mistaken, he's a Mormon, which may explain his gay views.

 

But as far as I'm concerned, Ender's Game is still the best book I've ever read, and I still don't like Star Trek. So there.

[Masked Man of Mystery 0]

I like both, but if I had to choose one or the other, I'd pick Trek. I wouldn't write either off as garbage(except for maybe Enterprise, but then I haven't read all the Ender sequels, so I can't really talk about them)

[Gary Floyd 0]

Eh, never was a "Star Trek" or "Star Wars" fan. Personally, "Blade Runner" is the be all end all Sci-Fi film in my universe.

[Hoff 0]

From the Dominion War on, I'd put forth that DS9 was the best sci-fi series ever, as a "serious" show anyway. Just a great war show, with the sci-fi twist, and it remained a Trek show as well.

[Art Sandusky 0]

And IV? Wasn't that the shitty one where they were trying to save whales or some such inanity?

It was pretty much an excuse to have the Star Trek characters in the contemporary world. I liked it.

[Guest BDC]

From the Dominion War on, I'd put forth that DS9 was the best sci-fi series ever, as a "serious" show anyway. Just a great war show, with the sci-fi twist, and it remained a Trek show as well.

I think there are other things that set DS9 above other shows.

 

First off, you had development. Every character was explored and developed. You didn't have every other damned episode about Data or something. Every character was not only explored, but kept around. Sisko, Nerys, Bashir, Odo. Even characters that were carried over from TNG like O'Brien and Worf were greatly expanded and made far more entertaining and interesting than their counterpart. Even characters like Dukat were developed, and his first officer, Danar, became a major character later on. It was actually compelling, and what the characters did and felt was explored.

 

The second thing is that the episodes actually built on each other. Episodes contributed to the series as a whole and played a role later on.

 

I'll agree that the original series wasn't that great. TNG started with a nostalgia trip to start with, then picked up thanks, IMHO, to the work that Patrick Stewart put in. But most weeks were skipping from here to there to find something else new, so it was a blank slate every week.

[Hoff 0]

I LOVE Damar's redemption. It's so great. A bit short, maybe, but so well done.

Edited May 6, 2005 by Hoff

[Guest JMA]

On a more entertianing note, he's also a homophobic nutjob who advocates a position of criminalizing homosexuality (keep it on your permanant record) in order to scare gays back in the closet..

I've actually read one of his articles about the subject. It was very Warrior-esque.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

the Wrath of Khan is such a kickass movie. though I am entertained by a few of the ST movies, WOK is the only one I really think is just an awesome movie.

 

KKHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNN!!!

[The Czech Republic 0]

Okay, that's the only line in the whole film that matters.

[Black Lushus 0]

First Contact was alright...