Star Trek's Most Important Message (TOS edition)
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 05. 2024
- While Star Trek as a franchise has a number of consistent themes, every Star Trek series has its own unique view of the world. In this video, I'm going to investigate the ideas behind Star Trek: The Original Series.
CREDITS:
Brought to you by an amazing community of supporters on Patreon!
/ echenry - Zábava
It's always nice to hear someone talk about Kirk in a way that isn't referencing the boorish Zapp Brannigan caricature that public perception has painted him as.
I'll say.
Absolutely correct!
Despite only really having watched the TOS movies, and not knowing where Zapp Brannigan is from (Futurama?), I always regarded Kirk as somewhat of a dumb and impulsive macho idiot, with no redeeming features, compared to Picard.
The reboot movies made me see Kirk in a much more favourable light. Picard is still the best captain, obviously, but I'm no longer aggressively wanting a testosterone-fuelled idiot to be relieved of command and replaced with someone who can actually think.
@@peterknutsen3070 Give TOS a try. If you like Kelvin Kirk you will likely enjoy TOS Kirk. Kirk is quite the intellectual. Picard overthinks. Kirk doesn’t have that luxury in TOS which leads him to intuitively grasp situations and adapt to them a lot faster than Picard would have.
@@Shapes_Quality_Control keep in mind that Picard and Riker are essentially Kirk split in half: the intellectual diplomat and the charismatic, womanizing rogue who can think on his feet.
The example of McCoy and Spock are what the world so desperately needs to internalize. We have two people who rarely agree on anything, but at a very deep level they would die for each other without regret.
So true - the best thing we can learn from those two is how to disagree with others without losing our respect for them as individuals; respecting their personhood and rights. It takes a lot of maturity.
Keep in mind, they're both highly intelligent. That's often the basis for mutual respect.
Which is actually quite true considering the events of Star Trek II-III they both risk their own lives and save each other’s in the process.
What they don't agree on is usually a solution to a problem. There's not one episode in TOS where one of them just flat out denies that the problem exists or needs solving. They also do share a lot of values and ethics. It's not like they are in alternate realities and deny the reality of the other person, or only pay lip service to their shared values while doing the opposite of what they were saying before.
Amen, Jim.
After watching every minute of Star Trek available in the franchise, you've touched on why Kirk is still my favorite character. He embodies the gamut of humanity. Intelligent, measured, and charismatic. Also a brilliant diplomat, tactician, strategist, and is highly respected by his crew. But he's not afraid to make threats, throw down, or be the first guy in the line of fire if it's what the situation calls for. For me, he still sets the bar for what a good leader and a good captain should be. Kind of a tangent there. Sorry.
As someone who likewise has watched every minute of Star Trek available int he franchise (except Discovery), I very much grew up a Picard man. But what you've described here is exactly why, in the last few years, as I've been introducing my kids to Star Trek, Kirk has absolutely become my favorite.
I always think of the scene in Balance of Terror, where he is agonizing over the correct decision in his quarters, as epitomizing what leadership should be- not a dictatorial ability to boss other around or have your whims enacted; but rather, the absolute and continual care for those entrusted to your leadership- a constant awareness of responsibility to put them first. Kirk embodies caring about his crew so wonderfully (something the Kelvin version picked up on nicely, I thought, even as other aspects of Kirk were changed), and it's a portrayal that I really appreciate.
Kirk is faceted- clever, a diplomat, a fighter, quick on his feet and able to spin a bluff at a moment's notice... but above all, he's there to serve his crew, not to be served by them; his position as captain is to ensure the best for them.
what you said is not a tangent, but a truth that needs to be repeated again and again. This is because many people, including fans of the later shows, haven't watched TOS in depth and just repeat caricatures about Kirk that are false. It's lazy thinking, and this video and your comment are thoughtful commentary, which needs to be stated.
Agreed! He's always in landing parties and often gets into scuffles everywhere he goes, yet figures out solutions to the situation. Being the captain never stopped him from taking the lead when it was time to beam down.
"Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them."
-Frank Herbert, Dune
I think something that newer fans forget, when they turn their nose up at TOS, is the actual history of Trek, TV broadcasting, sci-fi, and what was going on in the country at the time.
Yes, the show is very much of it's late 60's era (set design, costuming, lighting, cameras, punch-line endings, etc.), but it also was ahead of it's time (for reasons that carpet the Internet), and THAT'S why it landed with people when it wound up in syndication, and then got turned into movies, novels, comics, conventions, K/S fanfic, etc. It wasn't like sci-fi that people had gotten before, and the nerds who groked it, groked it, and spread it to other people.
Yes, it became a punchline to laugh at the Trek nerds...until people realized you could make major latinum off them (like those Star Wars nerds), and then capitalism jumped it. Granted, you got good people to create the movies and series' that came after, but without the grandparent of the series, you wouldn't have the parents, kids, cousins, etc. Just because grandpa dresses funny and farts every time he manages to get up out of a chair doesn't mean you shouldn't care about him as a person.
Need more analysis videos like these. Debunking and deconstructing the public perception of the franchise. Great points
I very much recommend Filmjoy’s “The Story of Star Trek” for exactly what you are looking for.
Great analysis. It's striking to me what Star Trek actually said is rather different from what Roddenberry SAID Star Trek said in the '70s. (Long story short, I think he started believing his own press.)
Incidentally, the Star Trek Bible, excerpted in the 1967? Making of Star Trek paperback book, specifically said the series would NOT deal with life on Earth to any great degree. IIRC it was expressed as mostly a budget thing (showing a believable future Earth would cost too much) and that they didn't want to commit to specifics about future life.
On a recent binge-watch of the entire TOS, the fear of technology was a surprisingly reoccurring theme that I'd never noticed when I watched it as a kid. Interesting to consider how the technology of the time of production would have intertwined with the advent of modern computing and how that would have seeped into the ideology of the show.
It's almost like the Battlestar Galactica picked up on this decades later. It seems that the Federation & Starfleet specifically "dumbed down" their tech to where it wasn't solely controlled by computers, using robots/droids, or leveraging hard core tech utopia planning. It forced people to be engaged with it, running it, and keeping an eye on it.
Yes, this was likely do to the budget and 60's era tech, but you get the feeling that at least Starfleet or the UFP realized their societies had been burned by advanced tech in the past, and they weren't going to let it get out of control. Thus to get Kirk the Tech Destroyer running around taking AIs offline, wrecking androids, and blowing up any of them that didn't do what he wanted.
This changed 100 or so years later in TNG when you had the USS Marriott Convention Center with warp nacelles bolted onto it...but that's for another vid.
@@Corbomite_Meatballs The disconnect - oe reconnect of humanity and technology was a fairly common theme when TOS was written. For example Damon Knight would use what we would consider the cyberpunk staple of 'jacking in' to a computer, not for speed or efficiency, but so the operator of an automated factory could 'feel' the labor and be morally connected with the machinery instead of just sitting in a remote office, pushing buttons and having nothing to do with the 'work'.
@@Corbomite_Meatballs 'USS Marriott Convention Center'. That's brilliant. I'm using that one!
@@Corbomite_Meatballs Guys like you make me so happy because for years I thought I was the crazy one with this wack understanding of Star Trek only today to find out that apparently this is an entire school of thought. :)
Wow, a great vid. It's a solid & brief analysis of the show. I like it!
I always thought TOS was all about a group of professional people working together to overcome the obstacles & threats they encounter in the execution of their duties.
This is what the 2009 film captured so perfectly, professional, highly trained people doing their jobs well in the name of the greater good.
@@jjmcook I’d say even more so in Star Trek Beyond in which every member of the crew contributes their own unique skill and perspective to develop a single effective means of beating Krall.
"Risk is our business." James Kirk said this, and what it meant was that humanity needs to be pushing its boundaries and expanding itself. One thing our technology is supposed to do is liberate us from unnecessary work. We create tools to perform tasks more efficiently. Eventually we understand a task so well we can create a tool that performs that task as though we had directly done that work ourselves. But this isn't removing work from a person. This is enabling a person to do different work. One of the things that surprises a lot of people is my stance on compensation and labor. That a person should be paid more than sufficiently to live a good life for any work they do. "But aren't you afraid they won't want to work?" No. Absolutely not. I have never met in my 50 years of life a person who flat out did not want to work. They may not have wanted to do the work someone *else* wanted them to do, but I've never met a person who would do nothing at all 24/7 by choice. As our technology advances it will remove work from people that is no longer capable to compensate that person appropriately to live in our society. Our technology should be advanced enough that nobody need wonder where their next meal will come from, whether they will have shelter and warmth, whether they will receive training and education, or whether their health will be maintained. The relief of such concerns is not something that creates "laziness" or encourages people to not work - in fact quite the opposite. When people are empowered and freed by removing unnecessary burdens that person contributes to the whole many times what they would if forced to labor for basic necessities that every human being should possess. We are enriched as a society when we enable people to act without artificial burden. We are impoverished as a society when we unnecessarily burden people with debt and fear. You may not understand this easily, but it is true and it is the kind of world star trek exists in. It is not perfect, but then again, nothing is.
Great video.
Can't wait to hear your opinions on the other series.
Personally I always loved Star Trek's utopia isn't treated as an easy way out that can be achieved by doing nothing and will stay strong out of it's own moral superiority.
Utopia is something that needs to be fought for every day be it literally by Force or figuratively through words and actions.
The problem is, different people have different ideas of Utopia. Killing someone for a different idea is ridiculous.
@@Canbilly2 Section 31: Casually genocide the founders👌.
“Discords with you, as ever, is highly informative of human standards of intelligence.”
Hats off to this infomative video, very good sum up of the TOS Series, the goal of TOS was to create a moral based future that learnt from its mistakes over centuries, this is the outcome.
I think Star Trek is very individualistic in general-that’s one of the things I love about the franchise-but you’re right that it’s nowhere more prominent than in TOS. It seems like just about every guest actor they got on this show was determined to make you like and remember them; characters like Dr. Daystrom, Samuel Cogley, Matt Decker, both Romulan Commanders, Harry Mudd-the world of TOS is filled with all kinds of interesting and entertaining people.
I would argue that most of the virtues of TOS result from a phenomenal writing and editing staff, arguably more so than any of the other series. TOS has more great scripts in three seasons than Voyager had in seven. I think the importance of DC Fontana alone to Star Trek as a franchise is hard to overstate.
And because I can’t help myself but mention it, I’d just like to point out how great a character James Kirk is. This guy is written as a real hero: educated, cultured, highly intelligent and inventive, a brilliant tactician and inspiring leader-and at the same time sensitive to his own emotional needs and those of others, remarkably self-aware, a passionate romantic, physically coordinated and capable, and willing to do what he believes is right at tremendous personal and professional risk. The caricature of James Kirk that has taken over culturally does a real disservice to the actual character.
Fantastic analysis - this helps assuage the common notion in Star Trek fandom (especially TNG era) that the “utopia” of the Federation is only possible due a specific technology: replicators, warp drive, transporters.
However, this is a cop-out. It’s a way of saying “we can never have that, because we don’t have that magical technology”, which is against everything TOS stood for as you mentioned - that said technologies were simply tools, and it was humanity itself that elevated them to the stars.
It's something the modern socialists should take a really hard look at. The future, kind of utopian world, built out of _different people_ with different values. With humans being human, and conflict and disagreement being just as common as today - just resolved in a more civilised manner, if possible. With peaceful solutions preferred, but no Chamberlainish appeasement of clearly hostile enemies. Can you imagine a modern "woke" accepting Chekov as part of a global world, with all his stereotypical "everything was invented in Russia"? Of course not; these are misinformation that must be eliminated to give us the amazing world of the future. But TOS characters are pretty much exactly as bothered by this as people really should be - always countering with arguments, even if being clearly annoyed by that "quirk".
TNG shows a more dystopian socialist world. A lot of the human individuality seems to have been eliminated; the characters find it almost unfathomable that anyone might want to own stuff or take a little private spaceship for a spin over the asteroids. As clear as the theme of assimilation is with the Borg, it's really a (somewhat darker) reflection of the Federation itself. Other cultures are no longer just present - they are patronisingly "protected".
That's not to say that individualism was utterly devastated in the TNG era. But the characters are simplified and shallow, and more "appropriate" overall. And the worst thing is, it's clear we're supposed to _agree_ with their poor decisions and motivations, no matter how stupid or immoral they are. Differences are not "just there" anymore - they're something to be "celebrated", no matter what the results of those differences are. The "heroic racism" is palpable. Of course, all of these concerns heavily depend on the writer of a particular episode.
Back in Rodenberry's days, the socialist utopia was thought to be just behind the next corner. This wasn't an anticipation of a magical technology like the replicator; it was just a simple observation of how the worker productivity kept improving. Unfortunately, most socialist thinkers weren't particularly good at understanding capital and its role in the improvements. They just assumed the extra productivity was turned into pointless profit for the "capitalists" (and thus by removing the capitalist, or taking his profits, we'd finally have a world of leisure and "personal advancement"). Nevertheless, we _are_ much richer than before; many services and goods are extremely cheap. If you want, in most of the developed world, you actually _can_ live doing very little actual work. But it still comes at a cost that the vast majority isn't willing to pay. Consumerism is partially to blame, sure; but it's just something human that was exploited a bit more, not something that was created out of the blue. And the real productivity would drop of course if the scale of production was decreased. That's not saying the current situation is optimal, of course. And plenty of people are stuck in the worst scenario - perpetually rushing to fulfil someone _else's_ idea of what they should want or have. Which brings us back to the true individuality of TOS, where people understand very well that their civilisation is built on a lot of individual people doing the best they can - not sacrificing themselves for some "greater good".
Even the technology aspect plays into this. There is a lot of technology and semi-automated tools in the TOS; it's the future, after all. But there's no magic bullets that suddenly solved world hunger. There's no total automation that eliminates humans. Because it's obvious enough that when humans are no longer needed _at all_ ... the power those humans have is essentially nil. If your work is no longer desired or required... you're only worth what someone else says you're worth. Tools that humans wield are encouraged; tools that replace humans are frowned upon. This still allows essentially arbitrary increase in human productivity and prosperity, but without falling into the trap of making humans redundant and just a burden on society.
I'm really interested what's going to come in the video about TNG :D
Yes, but without an explanation of how it was achieved, it is assumed that technological evolution made certain things practical.
If you think about it, something like the replicator (seemingly magical as it is) WOULD make a LOT of things possible. With that specific technology, we could entirely eliminate landfills, and the pollution that comes from trash, in general....because everything is atomized, and recycled by the machine. It would eliminate scarcity of virtually anything you could imagine. It would also free people from the current "rat race". People would work because they WANT to, not because they must, in order to survive. It would pretty much eliminate the need for currency.. It would elevate the standard of living for everyone. Nobody would go hungry, or without clothing, because they can't afford it. This would allow humanity to re-focus it's ambitions toward things like making sure NOBODY lives on the street, and taking humanity to the stars in a meaningful way.
That one technology would change everything, don't you think?
@@numberyellow You're making one giant assumption to support that, though - that the replicator would be cheap to make and use.
After all, we have the ability to recycle pretty much everything we throw at the landfills (as neatly evidenced by how much more is recycled in, say, Europe, compared to places like the US or India). We can make plastics from carbon dioxide and water feedstock. But that's very, very far from saying the problem is solved, and nobody needs to work anymore. The methods we have now are expensive and inefficient.
Replicators are interesting in their versatility. But we've seen them on starships; not really in general usage for manufacturing (not even orbital manufacturing!). On starships, energy supply is plentiful, and the ability to use mass efficiently to produce a variety of goods is extremely valuable. After all, that's why Federation's starships use antimatter as their fuel - it's a massive net energy loss to produce, but it's worth it for a spaceship.
Remember Encounter at Farpoint? There were a couple of scenes where the station "magically" produced whatever the people wanted - differently patterned cloth, apples. Things that are _easily_ made with a replicator - yet the crew of the Enterprise was _surprised_ and astonished at this, even though it should be entirely too easy to do if replicators were plentiful and routinely used.
Star Trek replicators are a specialised tool with various specialised uses. But the society we see does _not_ support the idea that they replaced conventional manufacturing. They can't make stuff out of nothing - they need refined raw feedstock. They are presumably very costly to operate. They're probably costly to make, and present a rather clear danger.
We have no evidence AFAIK that they have been used in industrial processes in the Federation - indeed, there were quite a few episodes that pointed at the mining and transportation infrastructures of the Federation and its friends; something that would not be used if replicators were ubiquitous.
@@LuaanTi There are multiple references to industrial replicators in DS9, which tells us that they ARE used for manufacturing (both heavy and light). In addition to that, there have been examples of them being used for the manufacture of a whole host of items... from weapons, machine components, and clothing, to medicine, coins, musical instruments, and everything in between.
nowhere is it said that refined feed stock is necessary... they literally break down to the atomic level whatever is given to them, and use it as raw material to create whatever is requested.....so long as a pattern for it is programmed into the unit. This includes things like refuse, debris, and even human waste products, and medical waste.
While they do use a lot of power, clearly, the existence of the portable replicator unit would suggest that a simple unit that makes food and clothing, does not require nearly as much power as the more general purpose units you might see on a starship. We know that in the future Star Trek presents, we've figured out fusion....so that's probably where all the power is coming from on a planetary basis. So no worries.
There are a lot of things that aren't explained in Trek.. admittedly, at least as far as i'm aware, the manufacturing process for matter replicators is one of those things.... however, given other things we KNOW about them, it can be safely assumed that they are either assembled by people, from parts created by industrial replicators....or they are outright made by industrial replicators, as whole units.
Replicators ARE ubiquitous....however, they have limitations...there are some items, materials, and substances they can't make....which is where you have a need for more conventional means of procurement.
In any event, i don't have stats on recycling, but i know that a lot less is actually recycled than most people believe. We can also make biodegradable plant-based plastics....and they're pretty good, but they're not perfect, so they haven't really taken off for everything. I do think they're a good idea, though.
EDIT: I forgot to address your point about Farpoint...
Yes, what was seen would be fairly easy with a replicator, however, they'd seen no indication of that technology being present there, much less being used... there was nothing to indicate WHAT had caused the fabric to change.
This seems like an original idea for a review of all the series. I eager await the next installment.
I really apreciate how human tos is compared to the more haughty ideals of the later series
I love how your list of Star Trek series ends with Enterprise.
Just like mine.
Don’t take that too literally. EC Henry is a very big Kelvin Trilogy fan.
@@Shapes_Quality_Control the Kelvin trilogy is alright but I wouldn't really call it Star Trek in the Roddenberry sense, to me it feels it deviates too far from the original message
however the new series are abhorrent abominations written by political hacks, trying to shove down propaganda down the throat of the viewer and tarnishing the core values conveyed by original
Same here. Let's face it, there's no real message in NuTrek other than "blood and gore is good", "all men are expendable" and "the future is grim".
@@LordTyrion In what was does Kelvin deviate from the original message?
@@Shapes_Quality_Control I can't really put my finger on it, I would have to rewatch to formulate a proper argument, that's why I wrote "it feels to me" that way.
Btw, in the OP I wrote series, and the Kelvin universe was never serialized thus my point still stands, the last proper Star Trek series was Enterprise.
Lotta folks sleep on the TOS for one reason or another, which is a shame, aside from the dated 1960's sets and effects, the show tackles a lot of heavy shit and shows a form of humanity worth aspiring for.
It remains my favorite show particularly because how how relevant it’s stories still are to our modern world. TNG, DS9 and even Voyager to an extent are very much products of the time they were spawned from. TOS has some enduring and seemingly timeless lessons that are endlessly applicable.
I would love it if you took some of the sketches for Federation ships that didn't even make it to detailed sketch level and run wild with it. Like you do with mystery background Star Wars ships.Especially the sketches for TNG-DS9-Voyager and post-TNG eras.
I wish people didn't fear words in our century. And I wish people valued our autonomy even at the expense of computer-powered convenience, as well. Anyway, great analysis. :)
It's finally great to see someone analysing what the show actually portrays and says about itself as opposed to people deconstructing and subverting what the show is because they believe they know better. Not pointing anyone out in particular but I know a few YTbers who do this and I'm so tired of it.
Good on you EC Henry.
Check out Vic Mignona's "Star Trek Continues" . Vic does an EXCELLENT job of carrying these themes on, in what he was able to create as a REASONABLE "4th Season" of ST-TOS ! His attention to detail AND the FAITHFUL characterizations of EACT of the MAIN THREE _AND_ the supporting ensemble4, are nothing less than amazing ! NOTHING is _perfect_ but his effort is STRONG and well worth the effort to check them out. LL of the themes discussed in THIS vid are well and faithfully preserved.
_I_ think you'll _enjoy_ !
aw good for him, was wondering what he's been up to.
@@KairuHakubi He actually did the series years from 2013-2017. They are a good watch for fans of TOS.
Well, as long as he isn't sexually harassing anime fans
@@Shinntoku keep believing accusations, they'll accuse you sooner or later. and nobody will be there to defend you.
@@KairuHakubi just say you like r*pists
I was just thinking of how we never saw what contemporary-Earth was like during the series.
I love how star trek shows how the future could be in an ideal sci-fi setting, as opposed to the endless heaths of sci-fi franchisees that depict the polar opposites of society. It frames the universe as something that shouldn't be some dystopian/Utopian, anti-human place. It is actually a great representation of how humans could be in the future, as opposed to eternal civil conflicts among our species.
"Computers make excellent servants, but I have no wish to serve one." Spock said something like this in the M-5 episode and it has always stuck with me. . . now excuse me my cell phone is demanding my attention, I must see what is up.
I love your channel and it's content. I have my 5 month old son watching on my lap
Great video!
I hope you do similar videos for the other shows as well!
A video exploring the humanity of Data would also be pretty cool, as it’s a topic that the show deals with in a very thought out and beautiful way.
So essentially, Captain Kirk is like the living equivalent to dilithium crystals in the warp core.
Thinks back to Into Darkness and develops a whole new meta reasoning for why that scene is so underrated.
Now this is more reason for me to try and catch up on the ST storylines pre-Kelvinverse.
The alienation of A.I.s does irk me a bit, though. Blame my love of droids, pity of the geth, and the influences of people like Bender.
We have yet to get any true Star Trek since Star Trek: Enterprise. If you notice, EC Henry didn't humor any JJ Trek in his introduction.
Igerback34 ...I stand by my original reply.
There are a few story arks in The next Generation and in Voyager that explore what being human means for an AI and how humans view an AI that appears human-like.
I think you might enjoy these story arks quite a lot
@@BigGator5 EC Henry’s earliest videos are in depth analyses of the Kelvin Trilogy, it’s philosophies, and how it reinforces the idealism of TOS. This is a topic that has essentially been done and dusted by him. Check them out. You might find his perspective a bit enlightening.
An interesting analysis.
Star Trek, particularly with TOS, is one of those shows that has so many layers of hidden meaning that you could spend hours dissecting. Different episodes had different messages, some more philosophical, some more emotional, some political. It's one of those things that you've got to watch yourself, you can't get the full meaning from an analysis video, you've got to watch it and work it out for yourself.
Kirk is a surprisingly complex character. The Enemy Within shows how his character has 2 halves that can, more or less, be split apart. That is a very interesting episode on how the mind works.
The other episode that I think has a lot of deeper meaning is Day of the Dove. There's a lot in that episode in particular.
Balance and hope...my take on the key themes. Looking forward to your next one!
Gene Roddenberry had some very novel ideas which were expounded upon, but not limited to, in the Star Trek Motion picture novelization where he described the New humans, people who devoted themselves to issues of the mind and transcendence and who looked upon people such as Kirk as odd for wanting to explore the universe but it was implicit in being approaching a utopia. I always assumed from the myriad of sources that I had read that most of the social issues on earth had been licked as well as environmental but it was incremental and by the TNG era it was even more comfortable
Think about how someone in Starfleet looks to a civvie living on Earth in the 23rd/24th century: everything material you could ever want is provided to you, you don't have to worry about losing your home due to a medical condition (most of which can be cured) or being unemployed, you'll never starve, world wars don't happen anymore, etc. It essentially becomes paradise where you work to "better yourself".
Then you have all these people running around wanting to fling themselves into space and possibly get killed by warp core breaches, transporter accidents, other space powers, weird anomalies, a hull breach, a disease no one ever heard of, etc. You might think they were out of their minds - you let them do their thing, but when they brought their "work" home with them (no ships defending Sector 001?!?), you might get a bit upset with them.
@@Corbomite_Meatballs If there are no ships defending Sector 001 then it's time for new management. That's the capital of space civilization!
I love this sort of examination. I look forward in particular to the DS9 episode. That should be a wild one. 😁
Yeah that one is going to be something. I’ve been a critic of DS9 for some time and am hoping that Henry’s analysis can help me square these circles.
Great analysis. As much as I love TNG and the later series, I still keep coming back to TOS as I feel it's the most "human" of the shows, and oddly enough, though obviously with some exceptions, the one that I feel as has aged best in relation to showing humans overcoming adversity. I think the absence of earth in the series really helps with this as its up to each individual to image what a perfect-ish earth is like. The moment the filmmakers were forced to actually show us a canonical earth in the movies and the spin-off shows, we were left with *their* idea of a perfect earth, which was always bound to fail since none of us have obviously figured this out yet.
ENT came back to some of TOS, and when it worked, it was pretty good. It captured the adversity, the conflict, the "think on your toes" of going out there and trying to find a way in an existing inhabited universe. Earth is clearly developed, but also clearly very different from anything out there, and still pretty technologically backwards for the most part. But it's also very _human_ (mostly), as are many of the other sentients out there. TNG is something entirely different, and as fun as some of the stories are, the universe itself leaves a sour aftertaste in the mouth, especially with all the preaching :D
Thanks for your video ! In this matter I can recommend the book "Set phasers to teach" that is a compendium of short descriptions how professors of different sciences used their understanding of Star Trek to understand and teach certain aspects of their profession. It touches on the mentioned symbolism of Spock McCoy and Kirk , seeing them as a metaphorical representation of actually one human mind , rationality, emotions, empathy, and the balancing experienced judgment .
Excellent take , WELL done - _and_ presented .
You NAILED it! Perfect!
I wish they made Star Trek. I miss it.
A recent Orville episode was a cautionary tale about how advanced technology doesn't solve human problems. Humans solve human problems, and the technological advancements come afterwards, when people have the wisdom to use them well.
Orville did what the modern “Star Treks” couldn’t.
@@NCRVeteranRanger Orville is mostly just going where Trek already went. It’s a cheep knock off.
This made me completely rethink the original series. *sigh* guess I'm gonna have to watch it... again! 😉
Thank you!
Can't wait for the other shows :)
This really highlights how the more contemporary mindset of viewing an individual as an avatar for a given group feels more regressive than a show from 60 years ago. I hate that our culture and our storytelling doesn't seem to see people so much as symbols any more.
indeed. but that's how fear and insecurity make us think. and as long as fear is the primary motivator in our discourse with others, and the primary method by which things are carried out and power is consolidated in the public at large, that's not going to change.
(Fear also makes us really bad at economy, which I think is even more important.)
Discovery is plays a huge part in the degradation of Trek’s staunch individualism. The expansionism of the Federation and capitulation of sovereign worlds to it is rather terrifying instead of inspiring.
@@Shapes_Quality_Control TOS and TNG-era were also expansionist, each in their own way. TOS was about carving a space to exist in a universe already inhabited by other civilisations. It often explored the morality of such actions, and the problems of living in a universe with hostiles that _will_ exploit your weakness.
TNG was outright imperialist, bringing Federation "culture" to random planets, and pushing how those primitives should be _glad_ the Federation brought them civilisation and their superior way of life. Heck, it's clearly shown that the Federation considers planets part of their territory (with no representation) even when they didn't even do the barest survey, much less met the people and convinced them to join.
Discovery is as if you removed all of TOS from TNG, and were left with just the blandest, pointless communist propaganda. It had its moments, but oh boy. The second season went all in in a way that would probably make even Rodenberry throw up :D
The series were all very different so I think this is a great approach. I really think you nailed the themes for TOS
very interesting assessment. I'm often reminded of the story where the planet has neutered war until it's just computers carrying it out, and then people voluntarily go die so that there are still real consequences.. but as a result, the war has gone on for ages and ages, and been much bloodier than a regular war would have been. The computer is running the war so that their *buildings* remain intact, no need to rebuild afterward. whereas in real life, peace is achieved after defeating an enemy and helping them back on their feet.
Ok so my fiancé and I have been arguing whether this episode in particular was a prime directive violation or not. Can I pick your brain a bit on this topic? 😅
@@Shapes_Quality_Control This was before the prime directive was introduced in Starfleet, out of universe and probably in universe too (it's tricky to say with the weird usage of stardates). It was the various experiences Kirk and others had that led to its development. Funnily enough, the first one to violate the spirit was not Kirk, but the ambassador on board, who rejected the planet's message that they shouldn't attempt contact and shouldn't approach the planet.
Simply the fact of defending his own crew would be against the directive in the TNG era, but it's unclear if that was the same in TOS too (even after the directive was introduced). The subsequent escalation would presumably be something pretty hard for Kirk to defend in the admiralty, especially if he wasn't successful.
However, it should be noted that the prime directive was intended to protect _primitive_ societies. Once you're ready for the big galactic table, it no longer applies. Since ambassador Fox was there to discuss the world's joining of the Federation, it's safe to assume they _didn't_ consider the planet primitive enough to warrant that protection regardless. The point of the prime directive has been _not to play god_ (explored many times in TOS) - interacting with other advanced civilizations was of course fair game.
Even the Vulcan precursor of the prime directive only covered worlds that didn't discover the warp drive yet. As we see in TFC (and ENT), as soon as humans had their first warp engine in operation, Vulcans made official contact and started helping humans onward.
Trekkie time!!!
This was beautiful
We need more thoughts like this out there, all of your videos are great, but this is the greatest I've seen. Please do more. Please.
Yes finaly good video about real ST (pre 2009)! Iam so tired of hearing about new would be shows.
I like the episodes the most where Spock has to solve a non-technical problem. That’s what’s makes him superior to Data.
Those episodes show how a technocrat can have a humane side,too.
Fantastic video well done!
I agree fantastic video
Yay! New video!
Back in the sixties, a problem that had appeared in the 1950s was addressed.
Named for a movie title, 'The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit' problem was the perception that people were becoming obedient and robotic, with plans for everything, including how the home and family must be and act.
Tranquilisers existed for all those niggling doubts and worries, and a new car every year was the aspiration.
The film 2001: A Space Odyssey recognised that problem and couched the answer in a conflict between mankind and it's tools for the destiny of mankind.
The end of the sixties brought the next generation (see what I did there?) that rejected their parent's ideas, as they had never personally risked anything in a war, for example. Vietnam came along.
We are now two generations past that time, and people now spend much of their time bent over a small electronic device (as I am now), paying money giving up much of their free time and much of their thought to provide data to a computer and it's algorithms so that it can sell the information and then provide us with mind-reinforcement routines that teach us not to think, not to act and not to own our work and decisions.
Yes, I DID notice there was no JJ Trek in the introduction. 😁
Check out Henry’s early work.
Excellent video mate. You covered all the vital aspects that make the original series unique as a TV show even when compared to other Star Trek shows. The final point is the beating heart of the show (the Kirk, Spock, McCoy dynamic) and why subsequent shows failed to match up. Spock does what's rational and logical, McCoy does what's irrational and emotional and Kirk does what's right. Spock and McCoy also serve as counter weights if Kirk finds himself drawn toward either extreme. My favourite TV show and the best vid I've seen about it on CZcams by someone who clearly got it.
Absolutely brilliant summation of Star Trek. The writers knew what they were doing and it shows. I can only assume that Star Trek will remain relevant for a very long time, and I would love to know what future generations think of it if humanity were to ever exist in a galaxy like the one in the series, full of other beings and fantastical technology. Additionally, this video shows why one can't actually come to a definitive conclusion on whether Star Wars or Trek is better, they do different things very well.
Great video. I look forward to your take on the other series. 👏🙏
This is a very well thought out video. The differences in how machines/robots were viewed between TOS and TNG are very interesting. I would agree that the theme of maintaining one’s self control is presented as the main conflict in many of the TOS episodes.
Bravo! An excellent and thoughtful presentation.
It's a welcome point that Star Trek was anti-Utopian and its future humans not notably different. When later series from DS9 to Picard show a Federation or Starfleet that is imperfect or makes mistakes people complain that it's a betrayal of the show's vision of humanity's future. But it was always a bright future we created and maintained as humans solving problems together, not because we had found a way to completely change our natures into perfect beings immune to conflict.
Well said. Love your work BTW
Beautifully well put! This is why TOS is my favorite.
I love this, can't wait for more!
I hope to see this with the other shows sooner than later!
Great insight. Well done.
always q good day when you post
Well done!
I would love to see a short trek or two following some random non starfleet guy or gal (probably a relative of starfleet to connect it) just to see what life is actually like on Earth during TNG or whenever. I’m too curious
You can basically see that in DS9 and parts of Voyager. Life on Earth was essentially paradise during that time. That's presumably why they chose to shake things up with the threat of the Founders.
excellent analysis 👏 👍 👌
i cant wait to see where this goes
Very much looking forward to more of these. Can't wait for the Discovery and Strange New Worlds read!
Wow, so based. Loved the video!
This is a wonderful distillation of so much of the Star Trek philosophy
Too bad that people who were capable of such great writing as in star trek have, quite literally, died out.
Hmm. Good point in some. I see that
One shouldn't forget, the primary driver why Earth isn't often brought up or visited was budgetary. And while the stories were shaped by this constraint, it was done out of economic reality, not creative design. Much like the transporters being a cost saving measure instead of using shuttlecraft in every episode.
To be sure, TOS has a humanist philosophy, and is wary of how unchecked technology can control peoples lives. But all the same, it is a scifi show that shrouds itself in the trappings of technology. The enterprise is very much a character unto herself. To the point where technical details were speculated and manuals written about. And while there are episodes where AI is presented in a negative light, a more common through-line is showing a society the potential to transcend artificial limitations.
TOS is ultimately more than just the trifecta of emotion, logic, and balance. Those are merely the means by which the stories are told, not necessarily what they're about. It's more a statement on the potential for overcoming adversity. The power of human exceptionalism when your worldview is shaken. And by--extension or allegory--that we can move beyond the seemingly intractable limitations of our own present day.
The thing is, even if it was for budgetary reasons, you HAD Earth right on the ship...with the exception of Spock (again, budgetary reasons), Earth had a wide swath of representation of men and women of all shapes and colors working together.
Even though they were in "the service" (people can argue whether Starfleet is a military or not, even in Kirk's time), they'd come from a planet and people that had settled their differences and were going to go out and explore to see what was going on everywhere else.
Their tech was powerful, useful, and also could break and not work when they needed it to...it didn't save the day every time, and also wasn't spitting out pure Treknobabble...they still had to rely on themselves to get things done with the tech working FOR them, not IN PLACE of them.
I hope you continue this series. I am really looking forward to the DS9 one.
I can't wait for you to cover DS9.
I always interpretted it that Earth was Utopic, but the idea was that you have to earn Utopia through learning the lessons required to make it work. It wasn't Utopia itself that was being punished, it was taking shortcuts to get their without the enlightenment needed to maintain it.
Its always been my belief that Star Trek has one thing we don’t. People who attempt to accumulate too much power, often get it ripped from their hands and cast into the gutter. I believe that the federation practices the truest form of federalism, the lowest, most local governing parties have the greatest authority within their limited territory.
The exact opposite of the folly that has taken hold in the world today.
This isn’t too far fetched to suggest. We don’t see a lot of the Federation council and when we do it’s usually via some ineffectual and obstructive diplomat or attaché. Now when strong and principled men backed up the primacy of the individual like in TOS, Voyager, or Kelvin times turned out pretty good (ok maybe after 7 years or so for Voyager). But when you don’t have that careful balance of principle and strength you have problems. Picard was very principled but at times a pushover and patsy for Federation overreach into individual sovereignty. Sisko on the other hand was very strong but didn’t bother too much with ethical considerations which also led to a whole slew of atrocious decisions.
@@Shapes_Quality_Control Captain Edward Jellico is in my opinion the best Starfleet had to offer, yet somehow he was only captain of the Flag ship of the UFP for 3 episodes.
themes, or in this case more specifically thematic patterning is connect the dots for adults, pattern recognition. You can have fun with it and it may enrich your story tiny bit but overall are not important to the narrative.
And you can distinguish good storytellers and directors from bad ones by comparing how much of the logical consistency of their stories are sacrificed just so the story can be wrapped around a theme. *TLJ slams the door open*
Great video.
So many of the things you pointed out about the philosophy behind TOS will be completely contradicted in STD.
I like the shots where Kirk literally stands between the two.
My favorite trekisode is City on the Edge of Forever, written by Harlan Ellison. It is the best Trekisode of any Trek series ever in the history of the universe and will never be surpassed. There are oh, I guess another dozen or more really excellent trekisodes in TOS, but City is on a level all its own.
City is maybe the single greatest episode of a show ever made. It’s actually a stroke of genius flipping the script on the “would you kill baby Hitler” question. The question of whether or not to save an innocent, a person you’ve come to care about, knowing full well the damage that could be done by this act in the future is much more perilous a moral quandary then it’s previous incarnation.
I love the bit about learning not to be afraid of words given that my entire country is afraid of pronouns, something that literally can't hurt you
Humanity is the sum of all people. The individual must be supreme, so that if the value of every individual is equal and priceless, so all of humanity is priceless.
An absolutely spot on summary! I have always loved Roddenberry's dream of avoiding utopianism by gradually evolving a society that is close enough. Sadly Roddenberry's philosophical ideas, especially the hope to advance through gradual, measured progress that respects human nature seems to be almost wholly replaced by fUlLy AuToMaTeD lUxUrY gAy SpAcE cOmMuNiSm memes recently.
What about the advantages of humanism and how we should be moving towards a post-scarcity society that lift everyone?
Without those, we’re just watching fun space adventures.
How about a video on musical instrument appearances in Trek?
I did very much enjoy it!
Great analysis. So many of today’s fans started with TNG and you get a lot of “Star Trek was a socialist utopia” blather. It was true that by the mid-1970s Gene was starting to believe his own groovy rhetoric a little too much. But TOS showed rugged people exploring a frontier, and it didn’t pull punches. People died en masse. Miners lived crappy lives eking out a meager existence. Con men like Harry Mudd and Cyrano Jones could flourish. Klingons or Romulans might just obliterate your world for the hell of it. The Federation wasn’t this all-encompassing Safe Space that it was in TNG. DS9 did a better job of getting back to the final frontier. Enterprise had to pull back so often so that the little NX-01 wouldn’t get crushed like a tin can. TOS had the right balance, where Starfleet’s defenses could go up against the best of their enemies, but occasionally it wasn’t enough.
I think Voyager, Enterprise, and Kelvin so far have done the best job of stress testing the virtues of Star Trek in a more TOS manner. TNG was too complacent and DS9 was too pragmatic to the point of almost condoning outright evil. Discovery unfortunately seems to have jettisoned these concepts all together.
The irony or paradox is that real Individualism as individualism that emphasizes human flourishing is realized through a certain synthesis with collectivism, where it becomes a false dichotomy.
The promised psuedo individualism of capitalism is more akin to borg collectivization, where an individuals merit and worth is based on its utility (market value) to the collective.
Market utility and infinite growth destroy and hollow out individuality in service of a bigger machine
Indeed, the individualism that capitalism offers is also one that divides us, tells us that everyone else is competition and we need to only succeed on our own personal merits without any help. To me, collectivism isn't about removing your individuality, it's acknowledging that we are not solitary islands, and we can only truly succeed when we work together as a community.
Lol the Borg represent communism
Automation is a HUGE component of the post scarcity capabilities of the federation, although not visually present in TOS we can assume that automation plays a substantial part in every day life within the federation. There are no I-Phone factories in TOS where people are hand building products, who's making all the tools they use for example? Probably not some guy whos only job is manufacturing wrenches by hand, we can assume robots do that work in TOS and then eventually replicators take over.
In fact, both Replicators and Transporters effectvily eliminate the barriers of logistics to their society allowing people to invest their time in maintaining and creating complex machines without worrying about getting their hands dirty. This is a hand waved way to create a world of abundance though technology, our real world implantation of this process instead involves information technology and automation in production sectors. Were talking tractors that drive them selves and robots that assemble cars, or C&C machines that manufacturer parts. The labour is done automatically but has to supervised and directed by humans.
My god man, that was brilliant. It's so refreshing to hear someone cover the essence of that show. Makes me sad that some people think it's a show about exploring space. I will always be grateful that show was my introduction to philosophy, ethics, diplomacy, etc. Live long and prosper.
Nice
2:11 Your Said lose the things that make us unique as people. This made me think that may be in Star Trek on earth some languages disappeared and no longer used since the world came together maybe that's something unique lost?
One example:
"TNG: Code Of Honour:
DATA: For example, what Lutan did is similar to what certain American Indians once did called counting coup. That's from an obscure language called French. Counting coup.
PICARD: Mister Data, the French language for centuries on Earth represented civilisation.
DATA: Indeed? But surely, sir
RIKER: I suggest you drop it, Mister Data.
DATA: Yes, sir. Counting coup could be as simple as touching an enemy with a stick in battle, or taking something from him and escaping. It was considered extremely heroic." I understand some languages can be lost due to time. There may have been other mentions.
I like your videos
Kirk, surrounded by his two best friend blue shirts. #TeamBlueShirts
Kirk is a real study in how to be a complete man. A warrior and a poet.