But I think you missed that there’s more than a shared theme between Akiva Goldsman the scriptwriter for LIS and O/K. Checkout the credits for FRINGE.

Goldsman’s alive and sort of physically present but definitely absent father really struck a chord with me in his LIS. ST09’s exploration of that theme didn’t have nearly the impact on me as the earlier exploration of it by Goldsman.

And yet, I can’t deny that you have sparked an interest in me to compare and contrast the two. In fact as I run it by in my mind as a quick mental exercise I think (in spite of how blasphemous it may sound) the two movies go together as a set because they each focus on two different phases of such a young man’s life.

Weird that after all these years for me, that those two properties still maintain a connection of sorts.

A truly touching story (not to mention one of my favorites), one of a hero having to willfully sacrifice one he loves for the greater good.

“I’m not sure if this is evidence of deep thought but it is definitely evidence a lot of thought went into that episode…”

I would say that TCOTEOF, at the very least, comes the closest to it….And that is no doubt why it is certainly the most acclaimed of the 79 episodes aired in the original run. It does tend to leave the viewer with questions to be asked of himself/herself: “How would I handle that dilemma? Would I make the same choice—-or take the selfish and easy way out, living out my days with the one I love so dearly?” Good stuff, and it is a credit to a very talented writer in Harlan Ellison.

“You made me realize that those supposedly “original” ST09 ideas were first explored on screen in the LOST IN SPACE movie of a decade ago complete with time travel, alternate universes, and bad behavior. ”

I didn’t bother to see that movie, but it’s certainly not the first instance of recycling concepts explored in the past. For example, literary history (and oral history, for that matter) is ripe with examples of stories that—-like Ellison’s TCOTEOF—-require its hero to lose much (if not everything) in order to triumph for the greater good. That wasn’t a new concept in the 1960’s either.

ST09’s commentary on paternal relationships doesn’t have to be original. It just has to be relevant.

Interesting response. But you totally missed why I specifically choose to mention Nichelle and narrowly concentrated on the casting as opposed to the concepts introduced and thoughts provoked having the character and others like her in actual stories.

The US military might have been desegregated racially but it most definitely wasn’t with regard to the sexes.

But to return to that with which you focused your concentration. It was one thing to get the laws passed and quite another thing to break down the entrenched thinking with which the Networks were more than willing to cater. It is a fact that Roddenberry could not tell the stories that he wanted on episodic television and he struck on science-fiction as a way around the executive suites’ rigid fixed entrenched old-school thinking.

I was only trying to disprove your contention by citing one way that ST was thought provoking and exposing the television audience to deeper thoughts than had been previously allowed in the pool.

Apparently, you want more? Well, the show definitely inspired SF authors who were provoking deep thoughts in my mind in print to try to get their ideas out on TV, Harlan Ellison, Theodore Sturgeon, Robert Bloch, Norman Spinrad.

In Ellison’s story the notion that a senseless death of a good person – a death that traditional deep thinkers would simply use as an argument that there could be no God and leave it at that – could be pivotal in defeating monumental evil, just blew my mind. And the question, one with God-like import for the hero: “The life of your true love versus the death that allows all the ones you have loved to be?” I found profound.

I’m not sure if this is evidence of deep thought but it is definitely evidence a lot of thought went into that episode: it was the first time that the phrase “Let’s get the hell out of here.” was allowed by the censors on network television. At the time there was some protest that the word “hell” was allowed in that fashion over the censor approved “heck”.

You can blame it on Ellison if you want, but I have always contended that when Trek introduces time travel in a story after that it also raises the bar on the writing – it has to be that much better.

This also causes me to recall that ST also suffered the indignity of having a few of it episodes banned (as in: unaired) in areas of the nation because it was indeed challenging to accepted conventional thought.

Thanks for mentioning the absent father concept. You made me realize that those supposedly “original” ST09 ideas were first explored on screen in the LOST IN SPACE movie of a decade ago complete with time travel, alternate universes, and bad behavior.

And it is nice to see there’s another supporter of TMP around.

“….I just disagree that [Star Trek] was anything particularly deep or thought-provoking to a reasonably educated adult.”

I wish that we were all “reasonably educated”, not to mention well adjusted “adult”s. Sadly, that is not the case. Look outside of your self.

Thankfully, Star Trek appeals to a wider audience; wide segments of which wouldn’t be hurt by some “thought provocation” IMHO. Kids in particular.

I am VERY glad to hear that you “allow” your children to watch Sesame St! It shows exactly the same humanistic morality that Star Trek does!

“…a fictional universe that, for the most part, shares my own values…”

the part that doesn’t “share your values” might tend to confirm my theory…

None of which would have been grammatically correct in place of the term I used.

30 years of “fan” (or enthusiast, supporter, or geek)? In retrospect, I could have said “30 years of fanhood”—–but I didn’t. That’s not what flowed from my fingers on the keyboard. For whatever reason, the term “fandom” sounded nicer at the time. So shoot me—-just make sure that your phaser is not set to kill….

“Peace be with you, Closet. I don’t mean to mix it up with you.”

Well, Brett, if my response in #46 sounded combative, it’s because I don’t expect to be called, nor do I appreciate being called shallow or immature simply because I called into question the actual level of thought provoked by Star Trek’s social commentary in the average reasonably educated adult.

But by all means, peace be with you as well. I’ve never been one for holding grudges. And yes—-life is too short to get worked up over disagreements on the internet.

“….at its roots Trek is merely an entertainment franchise. Yet it is something more, isn’t it?”

Well, it certainly is much more intellectual than “Three’s Company” or “Pigs In Space”—–and I never felt that Star Trek was without substance.

What I disagree with is the notion that ST09 was somehow less intelligent than TMP, TWOK, TSFS, TVH, TFF, or TUC, for example.

For instance, I find no less value in ST09’s look at the impact of paternal relationships (whether the father is present or not) upon the development of a young man than I do in TWOK’s commentary on aging, or TMP’s foray into dealing with inevitable human questions like, “Is this all that I am? Is there nothing more?”.

I love all three of those films (and, as an adult fan, love TMP probably more than most do) in very different ways, yet I am not provoked into altering my stance on or even putting anymore thought into any of those aspects of the human condition by watching those films. Not only that, but I didn’t have to piece anything together in order to extrapolate those messages. It’s all spelled out for me within the dialogue. Now I readily concede that you make a fair point in contending that a “classic” hardly requires that what the artist is trying to say be more embedded in how the story plays out than within the direct dialogue of the work (quite the contrary, it just needs to be a timeless story)—-but IMO, the former method does provoke more actual thought, and in turn can ultimately be more impactful to the reader/listener/viewer.

The subtleness of Shakespeare was mentioned earlier, and I think that’s a good example. The message itself is never necessarily a revelation, yet the point he makes is left for the audience to extract from the story—-thus tending to provoke more thought about the subject matter.

At least on the big screen, I don’t think Star Trek has ever been subtle at all….

…but CHOOSES to deny them…”

I don’t deny that Star Trek was a 1960’s television show in which some of its episodes/storylines were akin to “morality plays”, but I can hardly agree that those individual stories were particularly deep.

What I will say is that Star Trek (in all its forms) to me is a vision of one possible future for Humanity in which human beings have united to conquer many of the social ills which plague us today, and to explore the “final frontier”…and that vision is quite admirable.

“…due to his polarized, entrenched point of view.”

Lol. Is a polarized and entrenched point of view not a common characteristic in a Star Trek fan?

“I.E. he does not want to accept or acknowledge the point of the morals, so he attempts to trivialize / marginalize / deny them.”

First, I both accept and acknowledge the point of the social commentary that Star Trek presented….I just disagree that it was anything particularly deep or thought-provoking to a reasonably educated adult. That’s hardly the same thing as a denial of the point.

Second, for my point of view to qualify as “trivializing” or “marginalizing” the point of the “morals”, as you say, that would require that I either do not share those morals or don’t put much stock in them. Quite the contrary…
I most certainly do share them and feel that they are important. One of the reasons I like it is that it tends to display many of the values which I feel are important.

But I could say the same thing about “Sesame Street”, which is why I have been happy to allow all of my children to watch it while they are within the appropriate age span…..Not that I would relate the two (Star Trek and Sesame Street) any more than that—-but the point is that I can share the vision and the “morality” of the universe that Star Trek presents to me as an audience member, without feeling that its message is particularly intellectual, thought-provoking, “deep”, or even much more than elementary at best.

If I want “thought-provoking”, I’ll read a book by a writer in whose point of view on a particular subject I am interested, and if I deem that point of view to have merit, perhaps integrate it into my own.

If I want to be entertained by a fictional universe that, for the most part, shares my own values—–I’ll watch some Star Trek!

“Closet” actually CAN see the deeper meaning and humanistic morality in Star Trek…

…but CHOOSES to deny them due to his polarized, entrenched point of view.
I.E. he does not want to accept or acknowledge the point of the morals, so he attempts to trivialize / marginalize / deny them.

“…life is too short…” FULL AGREEMENT

But does the casting of Nichelle as a member of (at least what was later established as) a 23rd Century starship’s regular bridge crew reflect “thought provocation” or just an unusual adherence to realism? Nichelle’s first appearance as Uhura on Star Trek occurred a couple of years after the passing of the Civil Rights Acts and a dozen or so years after the United States military was actually and officially integrated. Given those facts, particularly the latter, depicting an all-white officer corps so far in the future (which, even in segregated America, was already long since extinct) would have been nothing short of absurd. The only thing groundbreaking about it was the fact that it was done on a fictional television show in the mid-late 60’s….It was already common practice in reality.

Don’t get me wrong. I do not dismiss the practical social implications of the casting…I simply disagree that it equates to “thought-provocation” as applied here. That’s like saying that depicting one of the Enterprise crew in ST09 as being a crossdresser would somehow make it a more intelligent or thought-provoking film.

“Nicholas Meyer’s script was too well crafted to fit in the B movie genre that incorporates my dirty pleasure of ZOMBIES FROM THE STRATOSHPERE…”

As was Orci and Kurtzman’s, but Meyer’s TWOK script is no less of a guilty pleasure to me. Neither would fall into the category of classic 1950’s drive-in science fiction (although I did once see TWOK at an old West Texas drive-in!), anymore than either would be worthy of a Best Screenplay nomination from the American Academy Of Motion Picture Arts And Sciences.

“That’s because you totally ignored that I wrote that I was advocating over the years that the writing should have been evolving, i.e. getting better.”

So, in other words, you’re grading on a curve, and Meyer’s 1982 film plays with a script-quality handicap? :)