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

91–100 of 132 posts

Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]

#91

Post by squarefoot »

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.

They also had to drag Lost production a lot, if memory serves during season 3, due to the writers strike back then that essentially left the production with no material for some time. Personally I loved Lost first seasons, then it rapidly went downhill, and recall the disappointment after watching the series finale. The series however in my opinion established a turning point in how drama is shown in TV series; I see a clear pattern in "before Lost" and "after Lost" series, so kudos to the creators.

Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]

#92

Post by brd529 »

gernb wrote: post #87
hnlmorg wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

loved Super 8. Have watched it several times. It's his best movie IMO.

Super 8 has a coherent reveal of the mystery box. Lost did not and disappointed at the end.

The kelvin timeline from when he rebooted Star Trek is sort of mystery box but then we learn who Nero is in a coherent way early on as well. I did not like that JJ destroyed Vulcan and frankly made a confusing alternate, darker timeline at all. The reboots are good movies but they were not good Star Trek movies. Missed opportunities to explore the Roddenberry style themes of humanity and deep moral questions under a backdrop of optimism.

Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]

#94

Post by pjc50 »

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!

As others have said, while this looks exploitative to modern eyes it was in the context where having a women serve in the quasi-military context of Trek was almost absurdly progressive. At the time, NASA refused to contemplate putting women in space, despite the efforts of a shadow training programme (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_13) - far more misogynistic.

Trek also featured an interracial kiss (not quite the first, but nearly) at a time when interracial marriage was still illegal in several states. It was very much the SJW show of its time.

Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]

#95

Post by todorus »

concordDance wrote: post #89
todorus wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it considered by others to be a bad thing, to see women as lesser and to keep them down, just because they're women? Let me give you an easy out here, and tell you my assumptions. I am assuming it also only took you a minute to look up the definition. And after reading it, then couldn't come up for a reason for others to judge that kind of behavior. I am kind of stumped of how to actually reply to this, to me…

> Why is it considered by others to be a bad thing, to see women as lesser and to keep them down, just because they're women? Eh? I thought you were using some obscure definition? What does any of that have to do with appreciating and making note of the female form? Btw: this is kinda interesting: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncen...

As stated, the male gaze is a form of misogyny.

Since you keep asking the same, here's some reading for you as well. It's not worth my energy to reply if your just going to ignore that and repeat your question. Best of luck.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_gaze

Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]

#96

Post by mcv »

hnlmorg wrote: post #61
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…

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…

Yeah, I'd rather not see JJ Abrams touch any of my favourite things anymore. So of course it turns out two of his writers became the Rings of Power showrunners. Fortunately they seem to at least know what's in their mystery boxes, but personally I could do without them.

The Star Wars sequels definitely suffered from the fact that Abrams just threw a lot of shit at the wall to see what stuck, then Johnson saw it was all shit and took the story into a different direction, and then Abrams lost his shit in the final installment.

Can we please just get back to writing proper stories again?

Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]

#97

Post by concordDance »

todorus wrote: post #95
concordDance wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is it considered by others to be a bad thing, to see women as lesser and to keep them down, just because they're women? Eh? I thought you were using some obscure definition? What does any of that have to do with appreciating and making note of the female form? Btw: this is kinda interesting: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncen...

As stated, the male gaze is a form of misogyny. Since you keep asking the same, here's some reading for you as well. It's not worth my energy to reply if your just going to ignore that and repeat your question. Best of luck. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_gaze

A useful link for yourself: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

And a more complete list: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-th...

Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]

#98

Post by bryanrasmussen »

dottrap wrote: post #41
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…

Not only that, they wrote part of this math into a monologue for Dr. McCoy, where McCoy was advising Kirk. In this galaxy, there's a mathematical probability of three million Earth-type planets. And in all of the universe, three million million galaxies like this. And in all of that... and perhaps more, only one of each of us. Don't destroy the one named Kirk. From the episode Balance of Terror: https://youtu.be/2237…

should have countered with Level 1: An extension of our Universe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Level_I:_An_extensi... there's an infinity of Kirk

Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]

#99

Post by ArtWomb »

omnibrain wrote: post #54
shadowgovt wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The D&D "Deities and Demigods" supplement was published in 1980; first ep of He-Man was '83. I can't help but wonder if that phrasing was an instance of simple alliterative coincidence or if the He-Man showrunners were tabletop nerds.

You could ask @straczynski on twitter. He might know an he is usually quite happy to answer questions about past productions.

HN grok'd the reference in 7h.

I legit consult (D&D)^2 once a full moon.

And not just for my hostname Sumerian naming convention!

https://okaq.github.io/dieties.webp

Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]

#100

Post by Maursault »

WalterBright wrote: post #53
Maursault wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Though I doubt the document was typeset (because it appears typed by a typewriter), before desktop publishing, and before typesetting computer systems, there was phototypesetting.[1] Because this is only a minor element on one page, I doubt it was phototypeset and instead merely pasted up with type tape... literally rolls of clear tape for every font with one letter on it repeated over and over in all point sizes. Lo…

The main text surely was typed on a typewriter. Computer printed letters didn't really start happening until 1980 or so. Around then I bought a Diablo 630 daisywheel printer. That would produce beautiful typed pages, but monospaced. The printer paper had sprocket holes which were torn off after printing, but if you ran your finger over the edges you could tell. Proportional computer fonts weren't printed much until l…

I doubt anyone had a laser printer at home until Apple's LaserWriter first sold in 1985 (for $6995!), but laser printing was first developed between 1968 and 1972 at Xerox Parc, with IBM selling the first commercial laser printers in 1976.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_3800#3800_Model_001

Post reply on HN