Star Trek is as out-of-date today as Buck Rogers was in 1980 (Take the hint!)

With all the talk about bringing back a Star Trek series for its 50th anniversary, I find myself regularly reminding people that—yo—Star Trek is 50 years old!  Why bring it back?

btskmcThis might not be a big deal for your average franchise, in which it’s nothing to simply modernize the cast and setting, and carry on.  But Star Trek is science fiction, its universe based strongly on the popular attitudes about science, technology and the future as envisioned in the 1960s. We’ve learned a lot about science and technology since then, which completely upends the universe envisioned by Star Trek.

Which makes Star Trek‘s impact on modern audiences the equivalent of Buck Rogers’ impact on the audiences of my age, back in 1980.

Buck Rogers 1928

Buck Rogers: This was sci-fi in 1928.

Buck Rogers was the hero of a comic strip written and drawn by Philip Francis Nowlan, back in 1928. It, too, was an embodiment of the popular attitudes toward science, technology and the future, and it was hugely popular in its day. It soon inspired movie serials starring ex-Olympiate athlete Larry “Buster” Crabbe, which ran for years in cinema.

In 1970, when television was growing in dominance and stations were looking for “filler content” to put on in non-prime-time slots, old movies and movie shorts became popular fodder for daytime television, especially on channels aimed at kids. Alongside movies like The Bowery Boys and shorts of The Three Stooges, the Buck Rogers serials would air on a regular basis.

r11

But America had already put a man on the Moon.  Star Trek, in fact, was already on television. And against the more modernStar Trek and the reality of the Apollo program, Buck Rogers in 1970 may have been a shot of nostalgia to our parents and grandparents… but to us kids, it was a kitschy bunch of hilarity.

The renewed interest in sci-fi nostalgia reared its ugly head in 1979, after a fairly popular movie called Star Wars had prompted every studio to search for sci-fi material to throw onto the bandwagon. Universal Studios had already developed Battlestar Galactica, and using many of the same production houses, brought back their old hero Buck for a new TV series.

cast-of-buck-rogers

But despite the just decent production work, Buck Rogers didn’t catch with audiences: The mix of cheesy characters, childish humor, aliens in name only, and the hackneyed mad-monarchy-taking-over-the-world zeitgeist, the show held no attraction to modern audiences. A series that had been invented fifty years previous had completely outlived its relevance, and it died a quiet death in two seasons.

Fast forward to 2017, when Paramount plans to release a new Star Trek series, which will take advantage of some of the things that made Star Trek such a phenom in the 1960s—don’t bet on any of the political or social controversy, or much time spent examining science and technology and its impact on our lives, that made Star Trek famous; modern audiences just aren’t interested in that.

What’s left, you ask? Klingons, phasers, transporters and primary-colored uniforms. Romantic notions like cruising through space as easily as a naval vessel cruises the Mediterranean Sea, showing our intelligence and superiority to lesser alien species that all seem to share our problems. These are notions that people could readily accept in the 1960s; but today, they are quaint concepts that have been outdistanced by present knowledge. Multitudes of humanoid aliens and sailing the vastness of space on matter-antimatter power are no longer the future we expect to be waiting for us.

And as Paramount will want to make the show even more palatable to modern audiences, they’ll mine all the popular TV tropes for their show, including YAs and romances, back-stabbing secrets, pointless rivalries, mysterious pasts, addictions, spies and hidden agendas. (You know: The stuff that makes today’s television so compelling.) The resulting mix would be a travesty of galactic proportions, making the new show look archaic and ridiculous, and prompting derision from modern audiences.

enterprise_crash_and_burn

As much as I loved the science fiction phenomenon that is Star Trek, I can see that it’s time to retire the Federation and its citizens once and for all. The last two movies have proven that attempting to update the franchise has taken the Star Trek right out of it, and left it a shadow of its former self, trying desperately to mine its past glory. After 50 years, any new Trek-based TV show will be Buck Rogers all over again: A show behind its own time, a disappointment to both audiences and Paramount.

Trek shouldn’t be forced to perform well past its prime, so someone else can sell toys and stuffed aliens. Better to create a brand new franchise for the 21st century, and let Star Trek retire (I would add “gracefully,” but it’s too late for that).


Article by Steven Lyle Jordan.

This article first appeared on Steven’s blog and is republished here with permission.

 

  • Guy Stewart

    Then extending the future from our present understanding of science and the issues we deal with: militarization of space with paramilitary police forces controlling various planets and moon systems; shattered religious theocracies everywhere and atheist aliens (because religions make no sense and are most likely only a “Human” thing); a few, intelligent, calm, logical, scientists who have ascended to trans-humanism and left the rest of Humanity to the above — probably thinking their way to alternate realities, hob-knobbing with the trans-alien intelligences who never went the way we did; alien societies that never abused their worlds and climate change was never an issue (or if it was, they scoff at it as evidence of infancy); then hob-knob with the trans-Humans who are the real heirs of Humanity…the show could focus on their discourse and commentary on the sudden death of the rest of Humanity and the ascension of the few, intelligent, calm, logical, scientists to the alternate realities — and how they manage to change the rest of Humanity into almost-as-good-Humans-as-themselves by convincing them of the error of their ways and the superiority of the first trans-Humans. Yeah. I think it could work…or some combination thereof (it would REALLY save on the special effects budget, because they wouldn’t have to warp space to go anywhere; wouldn’t have “phaser banks”; wouldn’t even really need make-up because…well, I suppose we’d have to talk SOME about what a trans-Human would look like. Maybe flickering lights like in “The Lights of Zetar”…or something…

  • Andrew Rawlings

    Yeah, bring back 50 year old sci fi series never works. I mean look at Doctor Who… oh wait…

    • What other shows should we bring back? There must be a few more deserving of a revamp.

      • firefly comes to mind, the movie wasn’t a very satisfying end for me, I think that all of the characters deserved a better ending (including the insane gun nut)

        • Have you read the Firefly comics? They weren’t amazing, but they did give the characters a more satisfying ending

          • I personally would like to see steampunk, I remember this show I used to watch when I was about ten, it was set on this zeppelin and it was pretty much steampunk, apart from the fact that the antagonists were basically the borg but without the hive mind, I love steampunk, the brass and copper colours, the leather jackets and goggles, the outrageously british characters, it can all be so absurd and amusing, I could easily imagine John Cleese playing a character in a steampunk tv series actually, a Basil Fawlty kind of character

            • valkerie

              Check out The Wild, Wild West, (the TV show, not the movie.) It was steampunk before the term existed, and is still a lot of fun to watch.

            • well steampunk has been around for quite a long time, I have a calendar full of steampunk stuff, some of the pictures date back all the way to the mid-late 1800’s, but yeah i’ll check it out

            • valkerie

              Yeah, you’re right there. I’ve seen some great pictures from the 1880’s on what life will be like in the 1980’s. If only…
              But I was referring to the term steampunk, which I don’t believe was coined until after the ’60’s. I could be wrong, of course. 🙂

            • i just looked it up, it was the year 1987, of course it was probably used before then by a handful of people, you can never know with this sort of thing

          • no, I’ve been a bit busy recently, (when i say busy, I mean procrastinating and putting off a story that I was so enthusiastic about only three months ago)

    • it was never brought back, it just continued

      • Andrew Rawlings

        After a ‘hiatus’ of almost 10 years (20 if you don’t count the movie). So by your logic Star Trek didn’t end either.

  • Nick Davis

    yea, warp drive isn’t possible-at least by humans. And how stupid we are to think we’re the most intelligent beings in the universe, and know everything!

  • Leonardo Faria

    I dont think scifi is a prediction or a speculation on future.
    I think scifi is fiction inspired by a particular concept of future, and whose literary (cinematic) output has to be esteemed on how that vision of future inspires and excites us NOW, TODAY, THIS MOMENT; not by its predictive accuracy.
    It’s art, not intellectual stock trading. You can play in the way you like it best with your ideal future.

  • Krazy Joe

    The guy who wrote this article is clearly an idiot and/or has no understanding of Star Trek.

  • Walter D Wormack

    Is it just me, or does anyone else wonder why, “HATERS JUST HAVE TO HATE”.

    • I’m with you on that point.

    • Kizarny

      Professional writers have to write. Otherwise they don’t get paid.
      I feel like this was written by one such person. Their opinions are just dripping with their own hatred for the things that made Trek what it was.
      The biggest was that Trek was not Politically Correct.

      So much so that they write about their own hopes and fears and call it real.
      The only ones who would take this seriously are people like the writer.
      So cynical about life and the things science has promised but not yet delivered. In other words, the current generation.
      You know the ones, the folks who think Political Correctness is the end all ambition. The ones who get “Offended” by the 1st amendment to the Constitution of the U(N)SA!

      These are the “De-Constructors” that just have to destroy all that others find good, just so they can feel better about their own lives.

      • manoza99

        Well said

      • Knowing the author, knowing that he’s a long-time star trek fan, and knowing his other work (some of it directly relating to or inspired by Star Trek), I can say with confidence that’s really not the case.
        Steven is being a bit contrary with this article. It’s not that he wants Star Trek to die – in fact I know he’s got some interesting ideas for a new show – he’s just suggesting that maybe it’s time to move on and create something new instead. Personally, I don’t see why we can’t have both.

        • Kizarny

          So, he is playing the Devils advocate. Ok. Now what?
          Do we just fall all over ourselves in his praise or do we actually have a conversation about why he suggested that Trek was out of date.

          In my opinion, a person who is a long time Trek fan does not deliberately screw with it unless there is another reason. Was he getting paid for what he wrote? Possibly. If he wasn’t getting paid, what other reasons are there for what he did? Maybe he did it to get his NAME seen. As the controversy ensues, his name and article gets mentioned quite a lot. That’s worth something. How much I couldn’t even begin to guess.

          So, I believe that he did it for the money. Anything else was secondary.
          Professional writers have to write. No writing = no rent paid and no food to eat.

          Oh, did he write this to get exposure so that they would take his ideas and use them for future Trek? That sounds more than a little self serving. Sorry, it still does not mean he was doing this for the good of Trek. Just his own pocket.
          A persons beliefs and a persons soul should never be for sale. Trek is about more than that.

          And that my dear moderator, means to me that he isn’t really a fan of Trek, just of seeing his own name on the project.

          Could this all be completely different? Sure. I don’t claim to know the future. I do however feel so strongly about this that I had to post.
          Of course your mileage may vary…

          • No, he didn’t get paid for the article. He wrote it for his personal blog. I saw it and asked if I could re-post it here because I thought it was an interesting (if controversial) viewpoint. And yeh, I figured it would get a lot of attention here, and it did!
            You’re right about the importance of writers getting their themselves and their work seen though. The primary reason Steven blogs is to try and sell more of his books, and there’s nothing wring with that. But it’s not that he doesn’t care about Star Trek, he cares enough to suggest that it be “allowed to retire gracefully”. As much as I hate to admit it, a small part of me thinks he might have a point.

            • Kizarny

              Allowed to retire Gracefully.
              Why now? With all the new independent Trek projects out there? It seems Trek is forming it’s own IDIC moment. Infinite Diversity with Infinite Combinations.
              That one theme(IDIC) is native to Trek.
              That one theme is what gives hope to so many people.

              Why now?
              There are people out there who pay money they can’t afford to help make more trek a reality? (Why? Love)
              They spend their own money to support special projects for filming new stories. Sometimes Kirk, Spock and McCoy, but sometimes it is a different ship with an un-known crew.
              And why would we want to let Trek die when so many new people are directly involved with creating new content? Again, there is that pesky IDIC moment.

              Trek gave rise to so much new technology. Have you ever thought that the TOS Tri-corder is just a smart phone from 25 or 30 years in the future?
              Why should it retire? For what reasons? Because there were scientists who were inspired at a young age by watching Trek. They helped create some of the most important tech innovations in decades. So letting Trek die gracefully seems to me that is just a tad short sighted and penny wise but dollar foolish. You and your friend the blogger have no idea what might come from the mind of a Trekker.

              Hell, there could be a person alive today that might invent anti-gravity and thank Trek for the inspiration.

            • My bad. I should have said something.
              Actually I thought I had.

        • Damien Trebor

          Long time Star Trek fans sure sound different to me.
          Steven has been contrary with every article he wrote – every one of them…except his own stuff

      • he is simply saying that we have to let go of star trek at some point, we should acknowledge that it’s time for something new to take it’s place, it was a good series, but it’s time that a new good series was allowed to shine brightly on the pedestal that was one star trek

    • Damien Trebor

      the same reason..LOVERS just have to love

  • Phillip Marritt

    hahahahaha what a dumbass. he thinks star trek is about the technology. sure the shows back in the 60s reflected the attitudes of the 60s. that because star trek is a morality play, its supposed to. i can see why hed not think much of star trek after seeing jjs “masterpieces” but theyre not really star trek just a poser failing badly. since when does hope for a better future become quaint?

  • Barb

    Star Trek ran into multitudes of superior aliens and cultures, not only inferior ones. Most of the human ‘superiority’ came after contact with superior alien cultures and being shamed by them. Many of those inferior alien cultures were our own human cultures portrayed against an idealize human future. Nor was Star Trek mainstream in its views in the 1960s… just how young are you? Do you even remember the Reagan administration (let alone LBJ)? Did you bother to watch even TOS before writing this article, or did you just think, “Here’s a quick few bucks,” watch two shows and jot down whatever negativity you could come up with?

    While I am not a fan of JJAbrams’ Star Trek, he never liked Star Trek and was up front about that. For him, Star Trek XI and XII were the most expensive demo films ever made so he could get his hands on his beloved Star Wars. I have high hopes he will do better by the films he loves than he did by Star Trek.

    I have no idea if the 2017 incarnation of Star Trek will be any good. Certainly, they will have to update the technology; much of what was ‘future tech’ in 1966 and 1986 is either known to be impossible or no longer in the future… it is current or obsolete. Fan films use giant flat screens as their sets view screens, because we really already have that tech.

    It will be hard to do a believable future without bioengineering, which was very absent in the earlier Trek. But I suspect that will wait for yet another incarnation. The central them of Star Trek is a future that is better than the present. If they stick with that, it is likely to be a compelling revisit.

  • Bill McEvoy

    The Star Trek universe is alive and well. This author doesn’t seem to get that. What made Star Trek compelling back then is the same thing that makes it compelling today: writing. Controversial topics, philosophical questions about our origins, complexities of war to name just a few.

  • Bill McCormick Jr.

    I LOVED Buck Rogers in the 1970’s and so did every single friend I had. You do NOT speak for an entire generation. What a completely ridiculous article.

    • Fly Free

      It was in the 80s, the one with Gil Gerard as Buck. Late November1979 to 1981.

  • perogi

    Clickbait – try again.

  • Tom Chaudoin

    OP probably doesn’t like Star Wars either. The idea that Star Trek is no longer relevant, or any sci-series, is rather two-dimensional. Look at what has been done with Dr. Who, and Battlestar Galactica in recent years. Plus, NASA is closing in on things like warp drive and even matter transportation is becoming a reality, albeit on the subatomic scale. Cel phones are like communicators. All of this can be updated. Dude, do you even watch Star Trek?

    • My thoughts exactly. Thanks.

    • Very true. But considering that we’re catching up with Star Trek in various aspects of technology, do you think Star Trek is futuristic enough?

      (Of course, we’re still a long way from the whole energy-to-matter thing)

      • RandyLee

        I think the more accurate question that should be asked in my opinion is; does it HAVE to be more Futuristic? I mean, I think we all kind of forget what Science Fiction and Speculative Fiction is about; stories that are told through making the improbable an actual possibility and telling stories with relevant to modern questions and the utilization of how to tell deeper meaning stories with modern situations through the lens of a sometimes futuristic or fantastic but grounded in science.

        Star Trek is a prime example of this sort of story telling, it has always tackled social issues and modern problems, I usually always say Star Trek is a representation of Core American Values or a re-iteration of how they should be at least. Because of this utilization of storytelling in Science Fiction; Star Trek has always managed to stay relevant and up to date; maybe at times not age well; but definitely relevant, and I think that if the world is always causing an issue; Star Trek will have always the means to create future storytelling ideas.

  • Trip Affleck

    o brother.this author has only the most superficial passing acquaintance with Star Trek. it’s embarrassing for him that this was even printed. Buck Rogers is more akin with Star Wars; a fantasy world with evil queens and space wizards. Star Trek portrayed [and still portrays] they human yearning to explore, speculating on what we might find, and how things might turn out when we find them. the series revolves around the human spirit. and that is worth keeping alive, 50 years or 150 years from now; even 2266 and beyond.

    • Brendan Smith

      Most casual fans don’t understand the difference between Space Fantasy and Science Fiction. I love both Star Wars and Star Trek, but for very different reasons. I constantly have to explain to friends that it’s like apples and oranges. Star Wars has much more in common with Lord of the Rings than it does Star Trek.

      • daniel pitti

        STAR TREK might be “cerebral”, but STAR WARS, like BUCK ROGERS, like FLASH GORDON, proved once and again that Space could be also our new “Middle Earth”, a place for great, and personal, epics: We have seen with films like THE FIFTH ELEMENT, the FIREFLY tv show, and now GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, pure Space Opera (and I have a crush toward that particular su genre of sci-fi)…Star Trek is not “hard” sci fi, but feels into the cathegory of “speculative fiction”, but even the most “nuts and bolts” type of hard science-fiction could be thrilling and adventurous, THE MARTIAN comes across my mind, as the most recent example

    • Knowing the author personally, and being familiar with his other work, I can tell you that’s really not the case here. One of his series of novels (The Kestrel Voyages) actually began life as Star Trek fanfic, but he realized that he could keep the ‘spirit’ of Trek while turning it into a new, original, and somewhat ‘updated’ franchise of his own.
      I think what Steven is really trying to intimate here (and in previous articles) is that we should have more shows similar to Star Trek, but that they don’t necessarily have to BE Star Trek. Maybe the best way to keep the spirit of Trek alive is to follow in its footsteps, rather than trying to breathe new life into it.
      (MAYBE – I’m not saying I think that’s the case)

      • Damien Trebor

        Steven is a self important hack. I actually read one of his stories. I can tell you there is a reason this guy is not selling books by the millions.
        This is not his first post ranting on Star Trek (see his Khan post).
        On his own site he has nothing good to say about anyone or anything,but his own crap.
        He did not comment a single time during Alien August, yet you nominated him to be the winner… Is there some story between you and that guy?

        • I understand that Steven winning Alien August was a little controversial since he’s a contributor to the site. But I spoke several other contributors and regular commenters and there seemed to be a general consensus.
          Next year I think I’ll be more organised and open it up to a popular vote.

          • Damien Trebor

            How about some transparency now? How did you come to the decision that Jordan’s entries were better than others? He didn use his own art work.. the winning entry was not even original but stolen/ copied from 2001 ( the obelisk life form theory was not Stevenś either) But from: Rob Ager’s film analysis videos. on the interpretation of the monolith in 2001: A Space Odyssey. He is a cheat taking credit for others. Yes what a deserving win.. In sports that be cheating or doping and in both cases grounds to recall the title. But I am sure you won’t that be something that would take guts and a commitment to fairness or at least honesty,..I am not holding my breath for a comment.

            • Steven’s monolith article wasn’t considered for the win because – as you’ve stated – it was derivative, and the rules forbid that. He knew that but decided to submit it anyway to give me something extra to post (in previous years we’ve shared more non-competition stuff during August, but we were light on articles this time due to poor forward planning on my part). So it was his ‘mindswarm’ article that won.

              Out of interest, who do you thik should have won?

            • Damien Trebor

              The original ones. one of the many entries where Geeks and SF fans drew pictures, thought about something alien and new..The last years entry by that John Reihner guy was original. Then there was this years entry with the psionic things that procreate that way. The being was a little on the uber kill side..but it was quite original. The Mind Swarm idea was not original either…do you want the source?

            • Yeh I loved the idea telepathic procreation, that was really interesting and original (as far as I know)! That one was in the final short list, and we talked about it on the podcast.

            • Damien Trebor

              Thatś exactly why I was suprised the Jordan entry won. Hearing your pod cast..I am not commenting usually but I am following this site almost from the start..

            • Hmm. Looking back on it that does seem like a better choice. I think it’s that I was looking for a more well-rounded article rather than a single idea, and as you said the Erebusian Nightstalkers were a bit on the “uber kill side”. Plus some people disapprove of telepathy in their SF.
              You can please some of the people some of the time…

            • Damien Trebor

              Some people?
              I am reading this stuff and I recall it was chiefly you who rejected Psionics and telepathy…
              No that Michael guy , is rude abrasive and generally obnoxious..but that entry was good..Maybe with a little edit help by the “pros” a great original entry.
              Also that chick had great entries and quite original if you ask me

            • Yeh, I’ll admit to being a bit of an anti-telepathist (is that a word? It is now).
              Vanessa has some excellent ideas. The only problem I have with her Alien August entries is that they’re directly copied and pasted from her wiki without thought, re-formatting, or even checking them for errors (of which there are many). It’s a shame. I think if she’d just spend some time checking them over or maybe redrafting she might have won the competition twice over.

            • Wow one mystery solved. You could have said something you to know.
              And whatever one might say. This active post shows one thing….Star Trek is alive and well, at least in the hearts and minds of SF fans….ad that where it will survive. No matter the content of the announced show or the rather crappy new movies. Each incarnation will have fans and haters…as long as they talk about it…it hasn’t jumped the shark.

            • Say something? And break the prime directive? 😀
              Well, next year it’s all to play for.

              “Has Star Trek jumped the shark?” might be a better question to ask, actually. Many people felt that way at the end of VOY/start of ENT, and I’d say it’s yet to prove otherwise (besides a few good episodes in ENT seasons 3 & 4).

            • Prime Directive? There was an entire year between AA 2014 and AA 2015 – I was never disappointed that I didn’t win btw. I think the ones that made it in both years deserved it.

              No, not Star Trek the concept, perhaps some of its incarnations. I never like ENT simply because it did not fit in the continuity and ignored everything “before” and “after”. Or pretty much the ST universe. The producers remembered that and tried to do amend in the last seasons…Too late as the prime fan base was never “in it” and the other audience (non fans / geeks) weren’t drawn in.

              I maintain my opinion that Trek was as much about tech, as it was about the chemistry and the vision of a better future. Dark Trek stories work about as good as dark Superman stories.That is why Christopher Reeve’s Superman is still the one, and ST TOS and STNG are still the ones everyone remembers (DS9 and VOY were never as popular with those audiences that are not geeks and Trekkers)
              (my opinion)

            • you didn’t even mention the god-awful theme song that ENT had, the one that had nothing to do with star trek (what the hell has faith got to do with it, star trek is not, never was, and never will be, about faith)

            • It’s the faith in human ability, the faith in a brighter future and that what the opening sequence and theme song was supposed to bring across..but yeah it wasn’t Star Trek (Me: TOS >> STNG >>> DS9 >>> TAS >>> VOY …..Anything else >>> ENT
              In exactly that order

            • I’m just gonna say this right now, I didn’t really like TOS, as much as William Shatner’s acting is beautifully hilarious, to me, the order of star trek goes

              STNG > DS9 > TOS > VOY > ENT > the new movies, but that really isn’t much of an achievement, the new star trek movies are great additions to the star wars series though…

            • I’m gonna be controversial and agree with you on this (kinda breaking the prime directive as a moderator, but what the hell.) I never really liked or appreciated TOS. It was only in TNG that progress was made.
              But I say this as a person of a certain generation. I entered a world in which the ethics of TOS were wrote. Perhaps you, Michael entered a world in which it seems like the morals of TNG are standard, I don’t know.
              Looking back at the world TOS entered into – a world, or at least US, of racial division – it’s difficult to imagine the importance the show had to people at the time. To those if us of younger generations, that series seems “out of date”. But that in no way diminishes the importance of the show.
              Perhaps Steven Jordan’s controversial statement that Star Trek may be out of date is merely a call for modern trek – and modern trekkies – to examine the injustices in modern society and to update our morals and expectations accordingly.
              Is it OK for us to mock people’s disabilities? Is it OK to mock mental illness? Are these the modern equivalent of racial inequality in the 1960’s?
              Perhaps this article is actually just a call for us to update our expectations, not only of a new Trek show, but of ourselves.

            • I personally feel that we should get Steven to be able to defend his views, also, I only really held preference over TNG because of its increase in quality across the board, in terms of production and acting, although the first two seasons were still a bit mediocre as the series was still finding the right chemistry between characters (also, who could possibly resist the deep, sultry voice of Patrick Stewart, the undisputed king of the twitters)

            • Damien Trebor

              He never defended or commented on anything. He posts his crap and lets his minions defend him…while 80+ posts agree with me..that clown is a fraud.

            • Damien Trebor

              “I never really liked or appreciated TOS” — thatś why you posted that article in the first place…

            • Whhhhaaattttt ???? The most iconic ship of all — the first SF series (TV) that had real “S” init ….albeit a little but more than any other to that date. I don care about Shatner, but his Kirk was the best damn TV captain of any ship. I rather be part of Kirk’s Enterprise than the sleek living room, councelor led, feeling based Picard tub

            • yeah, but Picard was pretty awesome, might I remind you of the famous interrogation scene, in which he refused to throw away his dignity, he refused to allow himself to become broken, at the risk of his own life, he defied his captors, because he would not give up on himself, and when he was rescued, he maintained his defiance, he turned to his captor, and he said “there are FOUR lights!” and, anyway, I would love to be on the ship that has Reg Barclay, who, BTW, was modeled after the “ultimate hardcore Trekkie” and then there’s Data, who I preferred to Spock , mainly because there was a feeling of unending arrogance to Spock, he seemed to despise his humanity (also, did you know that in the original pilot of Star trek, the Vulcan species were seen as always smiling?)

            • what is TAS?

            • Really? I actually like that song. Although I think the word “faith” is probably everything wrong with humanity.

            • I think hope would have been a better word

            • You
              do know there is a difference between faith and religion? The first
              is man made and nothing else but a club, a congregation, an
              organization around a leader or leaders.

              Faith
              is part of human nature.

              Even
              if you are an atheist, you believe in something. For example that
              there is no God, or no higher power or no intelligent design.

              People
              or man as a species has the unstillale urge to believe in something.
              Be it Wicca, witchcraft, Odin and the Aseir, Zeus and his unruly
              bunch, Allah and Mohammed, Yoga, Astrology etc.

              The
              reason for religion is that man is a herd animal, there are always
              the masses and there are always leaders. (97 % sheep, 3 % wolfs)

              It’s
              the leaders that make history: War, peace and discoveries that change
              the course of history and yes “Faith leaders” and founders of
              Religions.

              The
              reason for faith is the fear of death and facing mortality.

              Modern
              man is as helpless and as naive about death as the first cavemen,
              they may know more words but no one really knows what it is.(In terms
              of meta physics)

              As
              long as life moves along and bread and games are available death and
              thus faith are far from most, but enter death in the family, a
              terminal disease a large catastrophic, war and the churches swell
              with attendees and suddenly that nagging question about ones own
              mortality becomes apparent and man seeks answers.

              Since
              science can not give you that answer (At least not so far) you look
              elsewhere.

              In
              a airplane that is shaken by a storm, no one aboard is an atheist.

              I
              can even imagine situations when you Mark or you Michael are
              compelled to pray.

              Maybe
              not the classic folded hands and talk to God version, but strong
              thoughts about death and what lies beyond.

              Facing
              that threshold is an experience like none other.

            • let’s not start an argument here, but I do still agree that faith is still a rather unsavoury thing, to blindly follow can lead to some very unfortunate consequences, I would like to point out that the people of Nazi Germany blindly followed Hitler, and the people of Russia blindly followed Lenin

            • also, I used to go to a Christian private school, so I have a very personal connection with faith, but I’ve discarded faith, and come to terms with death, who, according to Terry Pratchett, speaks in all capitals

            • Damien Trebor

              You came to terms with death?

              Well there is the proof. A teenager with self diagnosed Asperger’s syndrome claiming THAT? Where the greatest philosophers struggle..he came to terms?

              Michael I don need to make fun of you…you doing a great job yoiurself…

            • philosophy is a steaming pile of grade A bullshit, I have simply gotten used to the idea that i will not exist forever and that I must live my life to the fullest while I can, coming to terms with death is simply the process of shedding the fear of death, a task that I have performed, now, as I wish to live life to the fullest, I will no longer waste my time on such a petty specimen as yourself Mr. Trebor

            • I hated voyager, but I did love DS9, which is weird considering that I am not a massive fan of star trek, but then again, I am a massive nerd

            • please. do not. talk to me about voyager. Janeway is one of the worst captains ever, and the only character with any personality was the EMH

            • sorry for defending my work…

            • Damien Trebor

              Sorry for not taking to you more, but I just despise to talk to a person that has more “disorders” than the psychiatric text book of disorders.
              So have a good day and carry on.

            • one disorder, Asperger’s syndrome, a socially debilitating disorder you ignorant worm, tell me, what does it feel like to be an idiot? is ignorance truly bliss?

            • Damien Trebor

              “Hey Mark I sent you the beginning of my story…where is it..”
              “Hey Mark I made a comment why is no one lauding me..”
              That sounds familiar?
              Well I say thatś obnoxious, self important, entitlement requesting behavior.
              Aspergers..yep and Egomania, bi polar ADSD and …and ..and… Look in the mirror and you get an answer to your last questions.

            • You know by your own argument, Michael has an excuse. Seems you don’t have one. So it’s all natural eh?

            • I would like to point out that I simply remind mark as he does in fact happen to take weeks to reply to emails, I suppose reminding someone is an incredibly rude act that should never be performed in public. on another note, I have a gesture that I would like to share with you good sir

              ……………………./´¯/)
              ………………….,/¯..//
              …………………/…./ /
              …………./´¯/’…’/´¯¯`·¸
              ………./’/…/…./……./¨¯
              ……..(‘(…´(..´……,~/’…’)
              ……………………../…./
              ……….”…………. _.·´
              ……………………..(
              ………………………

            • Damien Trebor

              You know a lot about that, right? The only action you ever going to see…

            • Damien Trebor

              Bohoo, please feel sorry for me, I picked socially debilitating as my excuse. I am actually sitting here in the basement of my mother’s house and get frustrated about my future…No real friends..but a lot of imaginary ones, no girl who would consider me anything other than an accident that happend. Yes I’d claim some disorder….a fancy one… so no worries. There is someone collecting donations for folks like you and feel real good to have helped the “Special One’s”

            • At least I know who get’s the grumpy pants this year. Boy you outperformed me and John by magnitudes…:-)

            • Damien Trebor

              You are a know it all – geek chick probably overweight and passed over by guys..right?

            • THAT IS IT! I up with shit heads like you for too long, you know, I was contacted by mark, he wanted to know if I would be okay with him blocking you, but I said no, I thought “this guy cant be that bad” but you, good sir, have persuaded me, congratulations Mr Damien “shithead” Trebor, I will not put up with you insulting the good people of this community, you are a disgusting little wretch and you do not deserve the privilege of this community

            • No worries Michael…You can only be insulted if you feel there is even an iota truth to it. Itś like one of these little mutts, you know the kind. Small fur balls with no substance and a loud and shrill bark, yet not really good for anything. to small to even get respect from the average rat.
              Would you feel insulted, if some unremarkable, lifeform displaying a catalog of rather unsavory traits; letś say a Regulan Bloodworm or in more down to Earth terms, a parasite, the ones you usually find in the colon area of invertebrates; utters something? I certainly don’t.

              So in conclusion, I thank you for standing up for me I appreciate it, but in this case hardly neccesary..

            • Ah yes the hallmark of a true debater. When argumentation and substance fails, resorts to insults.

              I certainly don’t know everything and yes I am a Geek Chick.

              I would invite you to discuss any scientific or let’s make it easy…any subject, but then seeing your skills in that department.. a waste of time.
              On a side note and speaking specifically as a woman, your choice of words dealing with females indicate you do have issues there. Did Mommy spank you a lot? Size or performance issues? I am just saying you analyzed Michael and issued conclusions about me, so you must be quite familiar with that sort of analytical conclusion?

            • Damien, please don’t make fun of people’s disabilities. Demeaning another person’s personal struggles is not big and it’s not clever, and it’s a sure fire way to make yourself look like an ass.
              (In a Star Trek comment thread too. Sheesh!)

            • Damien Trebor

              Fun? He invented that so he has an excuse.. the only disability he has is being stup… being Intellectually challenged…and has no concept of dicipline. If you are half as smart and educated as I think you are, you KNOW what egocentric behavior looks like. Michael has not posted a single comment that is not about him being right and know it all…and if ignored for five minutes screams for attention.. Classical symptoms but nor for Asbergerś. I know you won’t acknowledge this, but I also know you where thinking along these lines before…

            • wow, you know, it is said that the son of the devil would be called Damien, I don’t believe that you are that Damien for two reasons: I am an atheist and I believe that the son of the devil would have a little bit of charm about him.

            • Damien Trebor

              Concepts and ideas seem to confuse you a lt, don they?

              You don’t believe in the devil in the first sentence and then you believe he has certain atrributes. Are you sure it is Asberger’s syndrom? To me it looks like Rosa’s Law has the correct term there: Intellectual disability

            • I believe that, if the devil did exist, he would have charm, as that is how he is described, I imagine that if he did exist, he and his son would have charm, as the character of the devil is deceptive and manipulative

            • The most valuable and treasured helmsmen in my Universe are affected by Asperger’s syndrome. While controversial and ethically quite questionable. These individuals seem to have the ability to direct link with Computronics without going insane. ( http://galnet.wikia.com/wiki/Virtu_Helmsmen )

            • Oh that’s interesting. Reminds me of the autistic kid from The Martian Time Slip who can see through time, except that yours actually makes sense.

            • Now now, go easy. There’s no sense falling out over… whatever it is you guys are falling out over. The Erebusian Nighstalkers are the real enemy!

            • No, the intellectually vacuous and those that are intolerant of others are the true enemy, I may be socially inept, I may occasionally be over defensive, but I rarely speak with true malice, I cannot abide by a man that is so disgustingly rude, especially when his impoliteness is so brazenly intentional

            • Damien Trebor

              You haven been polite in a single post to anyone about anything.

            • Yes he has.
              Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle.

            • Nope that would be these “Aliens”

            • Yeh, all they do is download pirate content through their antennae and illegally screen in on their stomachs!

            • Damien Trebor

              Then there was this thing about those snails..it was last year but also quite unique. Much more than another swarm mind which is so overused it is a Trope.

            • it doesn’t matter that previously used concepts are available, it matters whether or not the previously used concepts are utilized in interesting ways

            • Damien Trebor

              Not if it is stipulated in the rules. But then even the simple concepts are hard to grasp if you are told that rules don matter when youŕe “special”

            • so, to apply previous concepts in new ways is against the rules? I was talking about hive minds btw, not monoliths, that was a guest article, something to provide inspiration, the mindswarm was well described and was different to other hive mind species, but I suppose you don’t really have a very good understanding of anything, do clearly have a case of selective fucktardism

    • Sheep O’Doom

      This guy couldn’t even get the year Star Wars came out right.

  • “We’ve learned a lot about science and technology since then”…which would explain why Google is working on a tap to operate communicator, i guess. Star Trek has been more relevant in terms of social issues and technology than any other series in TV history.

  • mjm

    I stopped reading when “yo” appeared in the very first sentence.

  • Jerry Buckley

    Sheesh… Run home to your basement and put on your Star Wars VHS… Mommy’s bringing some Milk and Fresh Baled Cookies… Won’t 5HATbe fun?

  • SteelRaptor

    Luckily the Millions of loyal Trekkies around the world get it, as well as the producers of such shows and movies, and are not forced to rely on the decisions of a few pessimists to decide the fate of a great positive series that portrays .humanity in a way we all dream it should be.

    • Do you think the producers of the new movies get it? There are a lot of Trekkies who think they don’t.

  • tindog

    Could not agree less. Human concepts of hope and cooperation are timeless, update the science and technology, sure, but not the ideas.

  • Stelios

    Star Trek is a popular think tank you smartass! Probably the most
    popular ever existed. And will be around and important looooong time
    after all of us. Sorry if you don’t like that. And sorry your opinion
    will not exist in 2K years…

  • dmappin

    There’s a difference here. Star Trek has embodied the best of mankind and presented a hopeful future. Buck Rogers, not all bad, was set in a time after man had arisen from the ashes of a nuclear holocaust. Yes, Star Trek did too, but another difference was that Star Trek was produced by people who understood science fiction. Buck Rogers was produced by Glen Larson (RiP), widely viewed as a hack.

    I think the author of this piece is waaay off.

  • Wayne H. Harke

    Some 2 bit writer seeking attention, nothing more.

  • LiberalVeteran

    Attention Steven Jordan, blow it out your ass. Star Trek is eternal.

  • Pete Arballo

    And you write for a sci fi website? You are as clueless as you are long winded opinionated tribble.

    • Damien Trebor

      No the guy that runs this site, is a basement nerd and thinks Steven is the god of sci fi because he uses big words

      • if you hate this website so much then why are you so obsessed with commenting on it?

        • Damien Trebor

          Because I love ST and hate self important clowns shh..ing all over it. Are you ceaning your nose with Toiletpaper? Itś afwul brown

          • why do you resort to ad hominems? in your arguments against the articles? is it because you’re feeble mind is too weak to formulate real arguments?

  • JimMcDade

    How can Star Trek be out of date when we humans haven’t caught up with it’s running story yet? Star Trek created a vision of a world where human beings have outgrown some of their worst tendencies- racism, gender inequality, nationalism, etc.

  • Earl C. Hedges Jr.

    Steven Lyle Jordan.this is your opinion and is not the opinion of me and my friends nor the fans of Star Trek, Star Trek showed us that we can 1 strive to better ourselves and that of mankind an obvious message you did not seem to grasp also all of the modern day science you talk about if it was not for star trek we would not have them today for instance the cell phone was created by the owner of motorola when he saw on Star Trek The communicator being used! I can top 10 things we have tech wise we use everyday and if not for star trek we would not have them today! So think about this next time you post your bs about Star Trek!

    • Damien Trebor

      This guy, Steven is just bitter that the best stories ever written, the pure literary gold he produced are not picked for the next series…
      He belittles and craps on anything other than his own s…t

  • Steve Nantz

    Oh man. You completely miss the point of Star Trek and other great science fiction, not to mention (insert any other genre here). It was not (is not) about technology. It was (and is) about characters… and the eternal issues and challenges they struggle with.

  • John Ostrander

    Journey to the Center of the Earth 1959 / 2008
    The Twilight Zone 1959/ 1983/ 2008
    Invisible Man 1933 / Hollow Man 2000
    War of the worlds 1953 / 2005
    Nutty Professor 1963/ 1996
    Godzilla 1954 / 1998/ 2004
    The Thing 1953/ 1982 /2011
    The Fly 1958 /1986
    I am Legend 2007/ Omega Man 1971/ Last Man on Earth 1964

    I could go on…….

    It’s sad when writers jump in and waste my time writing about something they know very little about, or in this case: nothing at all. Just prior to 2000, “Star Trek” was in the top five best seller book titles worldwide, of all time. No single title made the list mind you, but collectively “star trek” titles were up there.
    #1 King James Bible
    #4 Harry Potter
    #5 “Star Trek” books

    • Great fact about the books! I had no idea they were still giving Harry Potter a run for its money back then!
      I guess that means we never really needed Abram’s NuTrek to “renew interest in the franchise” as has been claimed.

      • John Ostrander

        I would like to re-verify that reference. I verified it at the time, the internet was less full of garbage then.

        It was a trivia question on the radio when I was in college…. interesting that the “Star Trek” title is in the top 10 of all time book titles, but no individual “star Trek” book has EVER been a best seller.

        Off topic, “Harry Potter” made the list after only 1 or 2 books, so it has Star Trek beat as ST has so many books published since the 1960’s…. literally a couple hundred or so I would imagine.

  • Yeah, I mean ships sailing through space and going from world to world as easily ships sail the seas going from country to country would never fly with modern audiences. Just look at how bad the first new Star Trek film bombed at the box office, how bad Guardians of the Galaxy tanked, and how few people have any interest in the upcoming Star Wars film.

  • Luigi Novi

    Steven, when you say, “What’s left, you ask? Klingons, phasers, transporters and
    primary-colored uniforms. Romantic notions like cruising through space
    as easily as a naval vessel cruises the Mediterranean Sea, showing our
    intelligence and superiority to lesser alien species that all seem to
    share our problems. These are notions that people could readily accept
    in the 1960s; but today, they are quaint concepts that have been
    outdistanced by present knowledge”, what precisely do you mean? Do you mean the setting/premise of an interracial group traveling through space, or do you mean that the “superiority” part would be seen as imperialistic and politically incorrect today?

  • MRD1037

    I
    don’t know if this guy is such a Star Trek purist that the idea of Star
    Trek being adapted to become more contemporary offends him, or if he
    just unable to imagine a good Star Trek that does not seem outdated.

  • James Tiberius Wallace

    So a self-published Sci-fi hack takes on Star Trek….
    lol.

  • Damien Trebor

    Having followed and read the many comments this self styled commentator creates, I came to the conclusion Steve is about as self important and arrogant as can be.
    He is neither a best selling author nor seems to have any credentials that would qualify him to comment on anything (other than perhaps how great and awesome his own crap is compared to everyone elses inferior crap)
    He has a serious ego problem.

  • stevedavidson

    The origin of Rogers is not accurate. He first appeared in a story in Amazing Stories titled Armageddon 2419 AD. In amazing stories oddly enough…
    Later it was adapted for the comics, radio, film serial, etc.
    Buck, Flash, etc., are the prototypes for super heroes (just as John Carter was the reverse proto for Superman). The concept is not dated, it continues with Star Wars and the re-do of Trek.
    Trek itself is a timeless vehicle that can be adapted well or poorly for contemporary audiences. the same is true for Buck Rogers.

  • splicernyc

    The only thing that the last two Star Trek movies proved was that writing crap stories provides crap results.

  • Damien Trebor

    As crap as the new movies where..they found a new Spock…which is a almost impossible task…And they had Nimoy..”validate”the new ..

  • Damien Trebor

    Would it not be smarter to critique and comment on a TV show AFTER it has beebn aired? Nothing has been released as what it will…only THAT it will be. Itś like commenting on the taste of NEXT weeks dinner, or commenting on the rainfall averages of 3012.
    This article was it just to bait Star Trek Fans to comment and read…seems almost the case after this long dry spell of no activity to speak off.

  • connie christenson

    The Star Trek series of the future could go further into the future or farther back into the past. There is no reason that the human imagination could not find story lines that would hold the interest of the fans and non fans of scifi. There is no end to the imagination. I agree that Star Wars is great, but entirely different from ST as it is more fantasy like. There is room for both and any new type….

  • TC0370

    “As much as I loved the science fiction phenomenon that is Star Trek, I can see that it’s time to retire the Federation and its citizens once and for all.”

    THAT tells me all I need to know about the author, “Oh, it’s old and no longer relevant.”

    Sure, because Michael Bay’s Transformers will be SO much a thing in 50 years.