Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Star Trek (1964) [pdf]

leethomson.myzen.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 132 posts

Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]

#61

Post by hnlmorg »

neilv wrote: post #27
cwillu wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cylons did not, in fact, have a plan.

Sounds like they were Lost . ("Lost" was an extremely promising SF show that claimed to have a plan, but was revealed not to. Which is unforgivable when the attraction of the show was figuring out the mystery. My own theory is that the wildly successful first season led to the writers purchasing too much celebratory cocaine, and subsequently just phoning it in, while the business people were happy to milk it like a s…

It’s down to JJ Abrams style of writing. He’s frequently talked about his love for a “mystery box” where he believes a good mystery is better than fact. The problem with his writing is, unlike most other writers who use mystery boxes, Abrams doesn’t even know himself what is inside that box. And you see this across all of his work.

Frankly, I find him to be the most overrated writer and director in Hollywood because of this. I find everything he does to be borderline unwatchable. Though with his recent criticisms for Star Wars and Star Trek, it does feel like his audiences are starting to lose their love for him too.

Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]

#62

Post by hnlmorg »

djbusby wrote: post #29
neilv wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like they were Lost . ("Lost" was an extremely promising SF show that claimed to have a plan, but was revealed not to. Which is unforgivable when the attraction of the show was figuring out the mystery. My own theory is that the wildly successful first season led to the writers purchasing too much celebratory cocaine, and subsequently just phoning it in, while the business people were happy to milk it like a s…

Lost had a plan. Then management wanted to drag out the phenomenon. So the story had to expand, it's how all those arcs that never resolved started. Then suddenly, the fad was over and it needed a quick close. Kinda like how GoT fell off in the last season.

Game of Thrones suffered from overtaking the novels. It was less about being dragged out (in my opinion) and more about not having George RR Martin at the helm with a thousand pages material already written and waiting adaption.

Martin is famously slow at writing the books, but that lead to some really deep and complex storylines. However when you try to compress that process into < 1 year and with different writers at the helm as well, then you’re inevitably going to end up with something that feels rushed and stripped of any substance.

Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]

#63

Post by flomo »

WalterBright wrote: post #55

"eliminating the need to encumber our stories with tiresome scientific explanations" Sigh.

Maybe you are assuming it would be actually "scientific". IMO, TNG Technobabble was one of the worst elements of the later shows and inspired a legion of lukewarm nerd bullshit.

Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]

#64

Post by flomo »

firecall wrote: post #7

Even if you are not a fan, the PDF is a very enlightening read! "...blonde with a shape even a uniform could not hide" It's shockingly misogynistic!

Eh, the bigger issue was Roddenberry was a Weinstein-type producer who hired women who he was sleeping with. "Free Love" guy who signed the checks. He's describing a particular actress who has been open with the star trek community about her issues. He is almost bragging that he could put her into a major role. (Even back in 1960s, this point in the proposal was creepy and barely appeared in the tv show.)

Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]

#65

Post by ilaksh »

In some ways I really love Star Trek. But you can see (like many things these days) that the initial paradigm has been carried through over the decades and it shows it's age and limitations.

For example, stereotyping (each "alien race" has its own predominant substantive characteristics) and glorification of the military are core parts of the structure.

Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]

#66

Post by WalterBright »

flomo wrote: post #63
WalterBright wrote: post #55

"eliminating the need to encumber our stories with tiresome scientific explanations" Sigh.

Maybe you are assuming it would be actually "scientific". IMO, TNG Technobabble was one of the worst elements of the later shows and inspired a legion of lukewarm nerd bullshit.

I agree with you about the technobabble in TNG and how awful it was. But I've read enough scifi that did have reasonable scientific explanations for things like a warp drive, they just didn't want to make the effort. I'm also annoyed by characterizing it as "tiresome", I don't find reasonable explanations tiresome at all.

Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]

#67

Post by midasuni »

DonHopkins wrote: post #36
cheschire wrote: post #4

Ronald D Moores “series bible” for battlestar galactica is also quite a fun read for fans. A copy is available from the same site, so clearly this person enjoys their sci fi. http://leethomson.myzen.co.uk/Battlestar_Galactica/Battlesta...

>“series bible” for battlestar galactica You mean the Book of Mormon? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolob#Kolob_as_the_inspiration... https://www.beliefnet.com/entertainment/movies/2005/05/born-... https://www.deseret.com/2014/11/22/20553208/mormon-creator-o... https://www.millennialstar.org/battlestar-galactica-and-morm... http://www.mormonthink.com/glossary/battlestargalactica.htm https://www.quora.com/What-are-som…

That came out after the BSG reboot

Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]

#68

Post by fuzzfactor »

techdragon wrote: post #23

I'm surprised at how jarring the math and background on page 2 feels. It really feels reflective of a different era, coming from a modern perspective Id never dare include something like that, with a big "scary looking formula" that needed explanation text, in the first half dozen pages. I wouldn't trust the reader to care enough to keep reading one word past the formula if I didn't already have them reasonably inves…

>surprised at how jarring the math and background on page 2 feels.

>there is an endless firehose of pitches in-front of people with the money

>living in the hyper-optimised pitch environment

This does seem to be a pitch that worked wonders in such an environment.

On page 1 it says what they want to do, and page 2 its almost like exaggerating the upside of their market to seem mathematically infinite during a startup pitch.

Everyone involved already knew the finite (but huge) size of their (highly lucrative) market at the time, no need to elaborate about it.

Let science turn fiction into reality instead.

Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]

#69

Post by todorus »

xwkd wrote: post #30
firecall wrote: post #7

Even if you are not a fan, the PDF is a very enlightening read! "...blonde with a shape even a uniform could not hide" It's shockingly misogynistic!

Is it misogynistic to revel in the female form?

If it exists for males to revel in?

Yes, the male gaze is misogynist. I don't think that still requires explaining, it has been written about a lot.

Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]

#70

Post by TeMPOraL »

Auracle wrote: post #51
firecall wrote: post #7

Even if you are not a fan, the PDF is a very enlightening read! "...blonde with a shape even a uniform could not hide" It's shockingly misogynistic!

Heh, if you are a fan then you’ll realize women being sexy is integral to a good portion of the original Star Trek’s plots…of of course, Kirk being Kirk.

Then you actually watch TOS and start to wonder where did people get the idea wrt. Kirk from. He wasn't anywhere near the womanizer people accuse him of being - this seems to be one of those commonly widespread misconceptions about the show, up there with "beam me up, Scotty" (never actually said on the show), or "redshirts" being the ones to always die (someone did the math of casualties by uniform color, and red wasn't first).

If you want to find a womanizer in Star Trek, try commander Riker from TNG.

Post reply on HN