Tue Sorensen wrote:
> What do you mean, illogical humans? The vast majority of the dialog is
> mind-blowingly rational! And in a way that includes human ideals and
> values, rather than just being "pure logic" (which isn't truly
> applicable to human beings, anyway). But let me point out that I am
> talking about the new Trek shows, not TOS. TOS had its virtues, but
> its scientific attitudes as well as human ideals were much messier and
> undefined than they became with TNG.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. The original series had
its faults, but mostly steered away from technobabble, and was often
written by actual science fiction writers. The later series had
laughable science, laughable consistency, laughable common sense, and
laughable politics.
If "science" means technobabble and "rational" means further ridiculous
nonsense to make a plot point -- and, hey, throw in deus ex machina
every few episodes for good measure -- then yeah, the later Star Trek
series were paragons of rationality and good science fiction.
Don't get me wrong, the later series had their moments, and some were
better than others (Deep Space Nine had its problems, but at least there
were story arcs, though they started getting out of hand), but ... I
really don't know what to say after a comment like that.
--
Erik Max Francis && max@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
&& http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot live in a cradle
forever. -- Konstantin Eduardovich Tsiolkovsky, 1857-1935
|
