607
Dear Lemmy, why Star Trek??
(programming.dev)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2023
607 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43939 readers
384 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I liked the stories and setting more back in the day. At the very least because I was a kid back then. I can not watch TNG now, so I have different standards now, which other variants also do not reach.
the thing is, most of the themes/story lines in star trek are about as timeless as the series. there are no 'dated' story lines (tropes, definitely) ... in fact many of the moral dilemmas discussed are absolutely still relevant today
200 years of evolution and we're still learning the same lesson ๐ค
[deleted]
Dundun dun dun dun dun dun dundun DUN DUN
I want to disagree, but the reality is that most TV shows from the 90s and before have aged pretty poorly (certainly way worse than movies of the same age have). There are a few reasons for this, but I think the big three are: TV used to be lower budget and lower prestige (going from being a movie actor to a TV actor was shameful), TV had to be episodic due to the nature of broadcast (this improved once TiVo entered the scene, but it was streaming that really made multi-episode storytelling possible), TV episodes were extremely exact in their length (had to stick to the broadcast schedule, which sometimes caused major pacing problems).
Sci-fi TV especially seems to have aged terribly. Part of that is it used to be a niche genre that did not get the resources it needed to not come off at least a little campy, but I suspect the biggest issue is that of audience: shows like Star Trek or X-Files tried to have mass appeal in a way that TV nowadays doesn't need to. I think Firefly's (eventual) success really helped the genre turn a corner, and subsequent hits like BSG showed that "serious" sci-fi was feasible on the TV model. These two series also really ratcheted up viewer expectations for what "good" sci-fi TV should be.
I appreciate the classics like TNG for keeping certain franchises alive and the genre as a whole stumbling along until it could really hit its stride in the '00s, and I do think the shows have some watch value even today, but honestly most of it is rooted in nostalgia and historic importance.
90s was the breakout time for TV. Before that was sketchy. Go watch Cheers knowing that was the most popular show on TV.
Agreed, the 90s marked a major improvement (and expansion, thanks to cable) in television compared to prior decades. Children's television in particular flourished, especially educational programs. I'd consider it a stepping-stone era, however, as like I said things improved substantially again in the following decade.
Well everything improves over time, but the 90s is when TV turned into something good. You were discussing about aging poorly, but it was the 80s that aged poorly because of everything you said about budget, not attracting the top actors, writers, etc. That all changed in the 90s.