Comments on: Orson Scott Card: Star Trek Was Bad Science Fiction

By: CD

CD — Thu, 05 May 2005 23:03:05 +0000

I find the author ill informed, condescending and elitist. Who is he to judge what is worthy science fiction? Disgusting.
Star Trek has inspired pilots, astronauts, engineers, physicists, on and on. They make a difference. They bring the future closer to us.
That is not bluster, Trek can prove it.
Sorry charlie. That IS good science fiction.
Star Trek has been popular for nearly 40 years. It is an American icon embraced world wide.
Other shows have made returns. Famliy Guy, Farscape, Firefly. Enterprise is in trouble more do to politics, and the fact that nielsens are not keeping up with the new ways people view shows. People are downloading episodes. Time for Viacom/Paramount to join the rest of us int he 21st century and provide suscription services to download and view. Visit http://www.trekunited.com if you want to put up a fight for Enterprise.

By: Rod Stanton

Rod Stanton — Wed, 04 May 2005 20:41:09 +0000

The Science part of the S/F was either missing or not there; but the acting was good. Bill did not go on to star in three other TV series bacause his acting was fair. I read Aldiss,Anderson, Assimov, Heinlien, van Vogt, et. al before I ever saw my first Star Treck. And I still liked Trek, not as SF but as fun.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Tue, 03 May 2005 23:45:18 +0000

I think Card has a good point about Star Trek's popularity deriving from its being the only SF its initial viewers had seen. But its survival and spinoffs suggests there's something else ... something that terrible writing cannot squelch.

By: Rommel

Rommel — Tue, 03 May 2005 22:51:06 +0000

I can buy "Lost" as sci-fi, its definitely one of my favorite shows on TV. Ever. Buffy and Angel as sci-fi? I'd definitely skew them more towards the fantasy/mystical. No science there. Firefly was definitely a fantastic show, if ever there was true successor to "wagon train to the stars", as Roddenberry called Trek (which, no surprise here, is why Trek was very 'westernly'), this was it. But he apparently didnt give much thought to Deep Space 9. It was less the utopian future as painted by Roddenberry, definitely darker, and had significantly more depth then any of the other series. Hell, it even had some of the best space battles put to screen. Some of the comparisons OSC makes definitely dimish his credibility in the matter. One thing he needs to remember is that there's plenty of room out there for various kinds of sci-fi, and to say that Star Trek, the stepping stone/gateway to more "serious" sci-fi as an anomalous success, well, that's just being closed minded.... Bah, brb, gonna go watch some Battlestar Galactica (the new version)...

By: bryan

bryan — Tue, 03 May 2005 20:36:22 +0000

Your headline should be "Orson Scott Card desperately wants readers" because this is nothing but shock value.

Next in the series: Why Star Wars had really bad special effects.

By: Kent

Kent — Tue, 03 May 2005 19:09:51 +0000

OSC overstates the case. But only a little. Certain first-season episodes, like The Devil in the Dark, were very good science fiction. Regrettably, they became fewer as Roddenberry chased away the best screenwriting talent. I have found the newer spinoffs increasingly polished and increasingly uninteresting. Deep Space Nine, with its film noir overtones, was probably the best. The Borg story line was the only really interesting feature of Next Generation. It's true that the series became markedly less puerile after Berman took over, but that's not a very high bar. Voyager had me ready to throttle Janeway by the end of most of the episodes, so I stopped watching. If I wanted practice at anger management, I would be watching the network news. I've never bothered with the latest Star Trek.

By: Laser Machete

Laser Machete — Tue, 03 May 2005 19:07:08 +0000

I certainly read deeply of Asimov, Bradbury, Dick, Clarke and Heinlien growing up. "Have Spacesuit Will Travel", etc.. In no way did this detract from my admiration for the quality of the science fiction writing in the original Star Trek. What about its imagining of videoconferencing, cell phones, stealth fighters, voice recognition, etc... I could go on.

Not only did Gene R. take care to make the incredible credible, but he did so in a funny, sexy and even outrageous (for the time) way. Sure Shatner over-acted and the sets were cheesy. But that only made Star Trek more of an exercise in suspending disbelief which when attained increased the level of devotion.

(By the way Vulcans on the show always made a big deal about their cold logic, but there are plenty of episodes where Spock showed emotion!)

By: SFSignal

SFSignal — Tue, 03 May 2005 18:59:04 +0000

Orson Scott Card Hates Star Trek
Not that I'm looking to throw another log on the fire of yesterday's post, but Orson Scott Card hates Star Trek. And wrote an LA Times article to prove it. Comments anyone? :) [Link via OutsideTheBeltway]...

By: Bithead

Bithead — Tue, 03 May 2005 18:01:30 +0000

"Star Trek" would have worked just as well, with rather minor changes, as a Western. Of course!!! What did you think Roddenberry MEANT by "The Final Frontier"? As for being bad science, well, again I answer... OF COURSE! Science fiction is by definition, fantastic and incredible. It is the offspring of the more fertile imagination... imagination, of course is of course where ideas come from. To try and limit Sci-Fi to reality is to remove it's soul. Card's off the mark on this one.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 03 May 2005 17:23:06 +0000

Card seems far of the mark here. Classic Star Trek may have been light on science, but it has been the gateway drug for multiple generations of SF fans. It deserves our respect, if not our admiration.
...and by the way, Lost is neither 'Best' or science fiction. Jeesh!

By: JW

JW — Tue, 03 May 2005 17:10:52 +0000

Dude.

You know, I know, we all know the appeal that Star Trek has to the scifi community--just read Scott Adams' Dilbert books if you're really confused and can't figure it out :)