Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
Star Trek
Byrne Robotics > Star Trek
Topic: Misconceptions About Star Trek Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8429
Posted: 25 October 2017 at 11:59am | IP Logged | 1 post reply

Here's a list:


Some of those do make me smile.

Oh, and not really a misconception as such, but I'll never forget something a family member (not a Trekkie or STAR WARS fan) said: Leonard Nimoy was doing an ad for TIME computers. My family member said, "Oh, it's him who played Dr. Spock in Star Wars!" :/


Edited by Robbie Parry on 25 October 2017 at 12:00pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 108732
Posted: 25 October 2017 at 12:57pm | IP Logged | 2 post reply

Curious that the writer should think Lucy kissing Desi qualifies as "interracial". A different race does not suddenly manifest halfway down the Iberian Peninsula!

I can't comment on the post-TOS stuff, except to agree the NuTrek crap gets just about everything wrong.

As for whether or not TOS was "progressive," in 1966 it sure was!

Back to Top profile | search
 
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8429
Posted: 25 October 2017 at 3:09pm | IP Logged | 3 post reply

One misconception I came across when I was young was that Kirk was 100% action, no diplomacy/tact. I remember a UK TNG magazine interviewing a sci-fi writer (I can't recall who) - and this person talked about how Picard was diplomatic whilst Kirk was "all phasers and torpedoes". 

And yet when I managed to see every episode (the 2004 DVD releases) for the first time in years, I saw a Kirk who was very much a diplomat when it counted. It was a mixture of diplomacy and action that resolved a conflict in "By Any Other Name".
Back to Top profile | search
 
Steve De Young
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 April 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 2738
Posted: 25 October 2017 at 8:53pm | IP Logged | 4 post reply

Curious that the writer should think Lucy kissing Desi qualifies as "interracial".
-----------------------------------------------------------
It shows how much our concept of 'race' changed over the course of the 20th century.  At that point in television, I never detected that Desi or Danny Thomas, for example, were anything but 'white'.  Nowadays, they'd market the Danny Thomas Show or That Girl as diversity minded programming with Arab-American leads.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 14262
Posted: 25 October 2017 at 9:20pm | IP Logged | 5 post reply

Thanks to the major success of STAR TREK: DISCOVERY, the STAR TREK franchise is hotter than ever.


...is this the first misconception on the list?
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Marten van Wier
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 August 2015
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 427
Posted: 25 October 2017 at 10:26pm | IP Logged | 6 post reply

Pretty much.

I can't speak about the original series but I think the Star Trek franchise was at its strongest or definitely the most in public awareness during the 90s.
People may have liked it or disliked it but they knew about it.

As a result there was a lot of spin off media such as games, books, comics etc including multiple series.

Now Star Trek is considered to be rather a Star Wars clone and how many of the people who watched the Abrams movies also decided to check out the five Star Trek series or read the books and comics?

I think Discovery is mostly in the news on how it tries to play on identity politics and how parts of the show are suppose to be a reflection on the Trump administration and American international politics.
But has it grown any interest or awareness in social or scientific progress or pushed the medium of science fiction story telling forwards?
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 108732
Posted: 26 October 2017 at 5:32am | IP Logged | 7 post reply

Curious that the writer should think Lucy kissing Desi qualifies as "interracial".

-----------------------------------------------------------

It shows how much our concept of 'race' changed over the course of the 20th century. At that point in television, I never detected that Desi or Danny Thomas, for example, were anything but 'white'. Nowadays, they'd market the Danny Thomas Show or That Girl as diversity minded programming with Arab-American leads.

When I was a kid in Canada, possibly the most hyper-liberal nation on Earth, we were taught that there are THREE races: Negroid, Mongoloid, and Caucasian. (I used to wonder why I was an -ian while others where -oids. As a sci-fi fan, "oid" sounded cooler.)

In other words, we were taught, Caucasian was a spectrum that ranged from pale to dark skin. Same with Negroid. Same with Mongoloid. Some of each group had distinctive facial features, distinctive hair. But a man from Spain was as much a Caucasian as I was, as was a man from the Asian sub-continent. The Inuit peoples of northern Canada were Mongoloid. Sub-Saharan Africa had mostly Negroid peoples.

I began to worry when we started slicing these up into smaller and smaller units. When Hispanic people began referring to themselves as a separate "race", for instance. As I said upthread, a different race does not manifest halfway down the Iberian Peninsula. They are predominantly dark of skin, eyes and hair -- but so was my father. He was basically a Celt. My pale skin, pale hair and pale eyes come from my mother's side, which is Welsh. But these are not different races.

As I have said many times, too often "cultural diversity" leads to cultural divisiveness. There's really only one race we need to worry about -- the Human Race.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Doug Centers
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 February 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 2627
Posted: 26 October 2017 at 5:52am | IP Logged | 8 post reply

"...we were taught that there are THREE races: Negroid, Mongoloid, and Caucasian. ..."

...

That's the same I was taught in Michigan.
Though I distinctly remember using Caucasoid.
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 108732
Posted: 26 October 2017 at 6:14am | IP Logged | 9 post reply

Though I distinctly remember using Caucasoid.

I learned Caucasoid as a subset of Caucasian.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8429
Posted: 26 October 2017 at 12:53pm | IP Logged | 10 post reply

As I have said many times, too often "cultural diversity" leads to cultural divisiveness. There's really only one race we need to worry about -- the Human Race.

***

Very true.

I feel the same about sexuality. We covered that in the acronym topic a while back. I've often witnessed feuds on social media between different groups who have subdivided themselves further and further. More conflict is never good.
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 108732
Posted: 26 October 2017 at 5:50pm | IP Logged | 11 post reply

I call it people arguing over which side God parts his hair. If all the combatants could step back for a moment and shake off their prejudices and brain washing, well, like the song says, what a wonderful world that would be.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 14262
Posted: 26 October 2017 at 8:19pm | IP Logged | 12 post reply

This is one of the reasons that classic TREK works so well, and is something that's now been lost, in modern TREK: people of different races/genders/species all working together to solve problems for the greater good. It's a simple-yet-important message, and surely a big reason why TREK has lasted so long.


At least we have THE ORVILLE to keep that spirit alive...
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Rob Ocelot
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 December 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 794
Posted: 28 October 2017 at 7:10am | IP Logged | 13 post reply

One misconception I came across when I was young was that Kirk was 100% action, no diplomacy/tact. I remember a UK TNG magazine interviewing a sci-fi writer (I can't recall who) - and this person talked about how Picard was diplomatic whilst Kirk was "all phasers and torpedoes". 

Sadly, STAR TREK has scored an own goal with this misconception -- they literally did it to themselves.   It was the TNG-era writers who characterized Kirk as a 'Cowboy Diplomat' in an attempt to prop up their current characters like Picard and Janeway.   Most of them probably never watched TOS since they were kids (or ever!).
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8429
Posted: 28 October 2017 at 2:42pm | IP Logged | 14 post reply

It's the misconception that I detest the most. I could name at least five occasions in TOS where Kirk used diplomacy to win the day.

But the misconception has taken on a life of its own.
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 108732
Posted: 28 October 2017 at 3:58pm | IP Logged | 15 post reply

It's the misconception that I detest the most. I could name at least five occasions in TOS where Kirk used diplomacy to win the day.

But the misconception has taken on a life of its own.

Like those who call Captain Marvel "Shazam", or talk about "speech bubbles".

Back to Top profile | search
 
Eric Sofer
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 31 January 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 1578
Posted: 28 October 2017 at 7:45pm | IP Logged | 16 post reply

JB: Like those who call Captain Marvel "Shazam"

Unfortunately, this includes DC Comics currently, as I understand it. Another hero who can't speak his own name... but what I've read of the character, he's not even as good a guy as Billy Batson and Captain Marvel used to be.

And I'm quite certain that you're aware, and that this is a case of your biting irony...
Back to Top profile | search
 
Warren Scott
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 09 July 2016
Posts: 160
Posted: 04 November 2017 at 1:12pm | IP Logged | 17 post reply

The misconception about Shazam being Captain Marvel's name is a result of a couple of things: the DC comic of the 70s was titled "Shazam!" because Marvel was printing a Captain Marvel comic and the 70s television series, "Shazam!," which was watched by many children (including myself)who probably tended to use Shazam! as shorthand for Captain Marvel. But they weren't the only ones: you will find ads for Captain Marvel merchandise in comics from that era that refer to him as Shazam (even the box for the Mego figure).
A similar phenomenon is the Frankenstein monster. Of course, that doesn't make it right.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Steve Coates
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 November 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 279
Posted: 04 November 2017 at 2:16pm | IP Logged | 18 post reply

Marvel registered "Captain Marvel" as a trademark and as such, DC can not use the words "Captain Marvel" as a title or in any advertising.

The character can still be referred to as Captain Marvel within the pages of the story.
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 108732
Posted: 04 November 2017 at 2:54pm | IP Logged | 19 post reply

A similar phenomenon is the Frankenstein monster. Of course, that doesn't make it right.

Altho there are fans who seem to derive a great deal of satisfaction from pointing out that it is the man, not his creation, who is called Frankenstein, there's no need to be too stern about it. The point can be made -- and I've made it! -- that the creature is Victor Frankenstein's "son", and as such it's not altogether inappropriate to call him by his "father's " name.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8429
Posted: 04 November 2017 at 6:37pm | IP Logged | 20 post reply

A similar phenomenon is the Frankenstein monster. Of course, that doesn't make it right.

***

I will just state, Warren, that THE SON OF FRANKENSTEIN (1939) mentions the fact that the name "Frankenstein" has become the name for the creature. So it's canonical.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Warren Scott
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 09 July 2016
Posts: 160
Posted: 04 November 2017 at 6:46pm | IP Logged | 21 post reply

It personally never bothered me much, and I agree with the point JB made.
Back to Top profile | search
 

If you wish to post a reply to this topic you must first login
If you are not already registered you must first register

  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login