# "No Need for Star Trek" **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [May 6, 2005, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-need-for-star-trek/302726 "2005-05-06T18:23:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2005, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-need-for-star-trek/302726/41 "2005-05-08T04:05:56Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > I am told that were were cassette tapes and writing in some version of Klingon at the first conventions. I do not know if they are related to the language developed for the films. The early attempts at “Klingonaase” were disjointed attempts that were nowhere close to Klingon as introduced in the films, which eventually involved the full development of a language with its own grammar. Movie/TNG Klingon really picked up steam with ST-VI and TNG, when they finally had Klingons as real characters with real lives. > [@Leaper](#): > > Did anyone else take a look at the thread title and think, “Star Trek Muyo!”? And imagine the adventures of the starship Ryo-oh-ki? Actually, to me it sounded more like the title of a filler episode of Tenchi Universe. Then I realized that this means I am a bigger geek than it’s safe to be. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2005, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-need-for-star-trek/302726/42 "2005-05-08T04:17:43Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > The early attempts at “Klingonaase” were disjointed attempts that were nowhere close to Klingon as introduced in the films Thanks. Nonetheless, validity is given to his statement “they wrote in Klingon”. Gee, I feel as though I’m in _Great Debates_. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2005, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-need-for-star-trek/302726/43 "2005-05-08T04:21:40Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > “Klingonaase” That’s a sauce used for live foods, right? ^ :dubious: ^ ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Blue\_Sky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d26b3c/32.png) [@Mr.Blue\_Sky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Blue_Sky)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2005, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-need-for-star-trek/302726/44 "2005-05-08T11:59:43Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > That’s a sauce used for live foods, right? > ^ :dubious: ^ Nope. It’s a nasal decongestant. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2005, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-need-for-star-trek/302726/45 "2005-05-08T13:54:57Z")
😃 Some fans adopted the term from one of those licensed Trek-novels. I want to say that in “Trouble with Tribbles” it’s referred to as either “Klingoni” or “Klingonese”, but I don’t have a reliable reference at hand… ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2005, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-need-for-star-trek/302726/46 "2005-05-08T14:31:48Z")
> [@Mr. Blue Sky](#): > > Nope. It’s a nasal decongestant. Thanks! One likes to keep one’s table manners straight. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2005, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-need-for-star-trek/302726/47 "2005-05-08T15:01:08Z")
> [@Hypno-Toad](#): > > Gene’s first choice of captain, Pike, was turned down by the network execs who wanted a “Two-fisted fightin’ man” running the ship (a la Kirk). Not so. Desilu Productions tried repeatedly in the the spring of 1965 to get actor Jeffrey Hunter (Captain Pike) to film the second pilot that NBC requested, but he turned them down every time. When Hunter’s contract option on the role expired in June, Desilu recast the captain’s part with William Shatner. > [@Hypno-Toad](#): > > Likewise, the groundbreaking step of having a female first officer (Majel Barret) was quashed by the execs who couldn’t wrap their minds around it in those pre-feminism days. A myth promoted by Gene Roddenberry in defense of Majel Barrett, who was his mistress at the time the first pilot was made. Herbert F. Solow, Roddenberry’s boss and Desilu’s production chief, recalls the meeting with the NBC executives Mort Werner, Grant Tinker, and Jerry Stanley in March 1965 to green light a second pilot: > [@](#): > > Then came their wants and desires; after all, there’s no such thing as a free lunch or a free pilot order. > > “In varying degrees, we’re not too happy with some of the cast. We support the concept of a woman in a strong leading role, but we have serious doubts as to Majel Barrett’s abilities to ‘carry’ the show as its costar. . . We applaud the attempt at a racial mix; it’s exactly what we want. Hopefully, there’ll be more experienced minority actors available next year. Jeffrey Hunter was okay, and if you want to use him again, that’s fine with us.” If you have any lingering throughts of Roddenberry as a proto-feminist, here’s his description of Yeoman J. M. Colt in the series description: > [@](#): > > With a strip queen figure even a uniform cannot hide, Colt serves as captain’s secretary, recorder, bookkeeper, and with surprising efficiency. She undoubtedly dreams of serving Robert April with equal efficiency in more personal departments. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2005, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-need-for-star-trek/302726/48 "2005-05-08T16:42:06Z")
> [@](#): > > Did anyone else take a look at the thread title and think, “Star Trek Muyo!”? And imagine the adventures of the starship Ryo-oh-ki No comment… ---
**Author:** ![Ephemera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Ephemera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ephemera)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2005, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-need-for-star-trek/302726/49 "2005-05-08T23:26:39Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > 😃 Some fans adopted the term from one of those licensed Trek-novels. I want to say that in “Trouble with Tribbles” it’s referred to as either “Klingoni” or “Klingonese”, but I don’t have a reliable reference at hand… The book was _The Final Reflection_ by John M. Ford. It’s one of only about a dozen Trek novels I couldn’t finish and I’ve read almost all of them. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-need-for-star-trek/302726/50 "2005-05-09T00:38:55Z")
From Card’s article: > [@](#): > > Now we finally have first-rate science fiction film and television that are every bit as good as anything going on in print. > > Charlie Kaufman created the two finest science fiction films of all time so far: “Being John Malkovich” and “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.” :rolleyes: Why should we pay any attention to this guy’s critical judgments? I like _Being John Malkovich,_ but whatever you call it, it ain’t SF. And _Eternal Sunshine_ bored the ass off me. ---
**Author:** ![Hypno-Toad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b2d939/32.png) [@Hypno-Toad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypno-Toad)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-need-for-star-trek/302726/51 "2005-05-09T03:58:00Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > Not so. Desilu Productions tried repeatedly in the the spring of 1965 to get actor Jeffrey Hunter (Captain Pike) to film the second pilot that NBC requested, but he turned them down every time. When Hunter’s contract option on the role expired in June, Desilu recast the captain’s part with William Shatner. > A myth promoted by Gene Roddenberry in defense of Majel Barrett, who was his mistress at the time the first pilot was made. Herbert F. Solow, Roddenberry’s boss and Desilu’s production chief, recalls the meeting with the NBC executives Mort Werner, Grant Tinker, and Jerry Stanley in March 1965 to green light a second pilot:If you have any lingering throughts of Roddenberry as a proto-feminist, here’s his description of Yeoman J. M. Colt in the series description: Yeah, mini-skirts in space weren’t exactly ERA material. I had always heard that it was the networks who had final say in the look of the series. Perhaps I’ve been hearing some revisionism in action. Or selective memories on the part of the cast and crew. But I _have_ heard that Majel had an inside line on getting good parts in the various series. ---
**Author:** ![AncientHumanoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ancienthumanoid/32/278_2.png) [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-need-for-star-trek/302726/52 "2005-05-09T05:35:12Z")
It’s been 40 years. There’s been revisionism and memory arguments from all sides. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-need-for-star-trek/302726/53 "2005-05-09T10:28:03Z")
In my opinion Card ranks high among the science fiction writers least deserving of their fame and success. He is as stylistically bland as it is possible to be and he is almost entirely unoriginal. His awards were earned through I don’t know what obscure method or mentally challenged judging process. The _Ender_ series, his best known and probably most appreciated (or should I say “gushed over”) work, is at best light summer reading. Let’s not even visit such abysmal crap as _Seventh Son_, let us remember Card for his better efforts. I wouldn’t say that he sucks, but he is a mediocre writer of mediocre skill and mediocre imagination. And here he is making an effort to attack a groundbreaking TV series with idiocy such as this passage: > [@](#): > > _Written by Orson Scott Card_ > As science fiction, the series was trapped in the 1930s — a throwback to spaceship adventure stories with little regard for science or deeper ideas. It was sci-fi as seen by Hollywood: all spectacle, no substance. Well, Mr. Card, When you say “the series was trapped in the 1930s” did you at any point pause to consider that the 1930s was the bleeding Golden Age of science fiction?? Heck, the Lensman series was thoroughly stuck and rooted in the 1930s, in spite of being from a later decade, but that didn’t stop it from being one of the best space operas ever put together. And how is Star Trek a series “with little regard for … deeper ideas” considering that when it was made – often with strenuous opposition from its very own studio, on everything from interracial intimcacy to the inclusion among the ranks of a being with a high dose of “otherness”-- the Cold War was raging and communism was an unspeakable evil? For 45 minutes viewers were shown men and women of different ethnicities, nationalities, and language working together in a future when peace and cooperation are global standards. The Russians weren’t the bad guys and they weren’t spying on anyone, they were in fact at the helm of the Flagship of the planet Earth! As for the charge that Star Trek was “all spectacle and no substance”, that is downright idiotic. A simple viewing of such episodes as “The Devil in the Dark” or “The City At The Edge of Forever” would dispel such puerile notions (our heroes start out hunting down the devil in the dark to do unto it the senseless violence it deserves, but gradually come to understand it and protect it! A theme, Mr. Card, that you were to recycle in your “Ender” series, which itself was heavily inspired by Haldeman’s _Forever War_). What is true, however, is that TV is and certainly was dumbed down for the audience and in order to fit into convenient air-time slots and appeal to as many people as possible. You are correct, this is not _2001: A Space Odyssey_ by any means – but it’s not supposed to be, even though the series and the epic are both temporally adjacent. Now, Mr. Card, would you care to consider other TV shows of that era and compare them to Star Trek? And how many other science fiction shows actually used material written by talented (notice that word, Mr. Card) science fiction writers? (If only that had remained the case, instead of putting everything in the hands of Brannon and Braga). I thought the crappiest piece of writing I’d seen from Card was his feeble “argument” in favour of the Book of Mormon being a genuine revelation instead of the output of Jospeh Smith, but this essay easily beats even that rank and bankrupt apology. Stick to producing fiction for a long day at the beach, Mr. Card. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-need-for-star-trek/302726/54 "2005-05-09T13:39:19Z")
> [@Orson Scott Card](#): > > Charlie Kaufman created the two finest science fiction films of all time so far: “Being John Malkovich” and “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.” WTF? The former is pretty good, but not SF in any meaningful sense of the term. The latter is a distillation of everything I can’t stand about modern the-universe-revolves-around-my-neuroses “serious” fiction, and simply uses on SF-ish MacGuffin to tell its thoroughly mundane story. ---
**Author:** ![Knowed\_Out](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/knowed_out/32/7380_2.png) [@Knowed\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knowed_Out)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-need-for-star-trek/302726/55 "2005-05-09T14:02:04Z")
I wonder if Card got turned down for a ST script? ---
**Author:** ![Spatial\_Rift\_47](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a8b319/32.png) [@Spatial\_Rift\_47](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spatial_Rift_47)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-need-for-star-trek/302726/56 "2005-05-09T14:24:11Z")
:: looks up :: This thread is still going on? Very well. I’ll finish it off. Let’s start by answering the challenge of Card: Is there a need for Star Trek? Abso-smegging-lutely. To see why, we just have to realize Star Trek for what it really is: entertainment. People watch, read, discuss, and geek out over Star Trek because _we like it_. We enjoy watching, reading, discusssing, and geeking out over it. We enjoy it because it offers us a chance to escape into not just any world, but into our own world, remade and rebuilt by a grand New Renaissance of humanity that finally gets things right. “All spectacle, no substance” - you’ve got to be kidding me. What issues does Star Trek address? Only ALL OF THEM. Star Trek, and yes, even Enterprise, is still doing what the original series allowed Roddenberry to do: address contemporary issues under a thin and intentionally transparent veil of whiz-bang technology. Take a look around you, Mr. Card. Star Trek is huge. Six television series (with over 700 hours of episodes between them), ten movies, dozens of comic book series and reference books, hundreds upon hundreds of published novels, and literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of websites all over the internet. Not to mention the fact that Star Trek: The Experience is the longstanding main at the Las Vegas Hilton. Is there a need for Star Trek? Of course there is. We as a society need a way to visualize what our society can and should be like. ---
**Author:** ![av8rmike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/edb3f5/32.png) [@av8rmike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/av8rmike)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-need-for-star-trek/302726/57 "2005-05-09T14:55:06Z")
While not directly related to Card’s essay, [this piece by Frank Ahrens](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/06/AR2005050600731.html) ran in Sunday’s Washington Post Arts section (registration may be required). He talks about the impending series finale of _Enterprise_ this Friday and how Paramount execs have realized that after 18 years, the well has pretty much dried up. _ST:Nemesis_ was basically a box office bomb, and I’d be surprised if the “untitled prequel” sees the light of day within the next 5 years. Sorry, **Spatial Rift** , you might see a need for Star Trek, but the guys who sign the checks don’t see a market. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-need-for-star-trek/302726/58 "2005-05-09T15:31:24Z")
> [@av8rmike](#): > > Sorry, **Spatial Rift** , you might see a need for Star Trek, but the guys who sign the checks don’t see a market. Actually, there is a fair number of people who love Trek, and see a need for it, who think it’s time for a rest. Enterprise was rushed into production too soon, in my opinion. They should have given the franchise at least a year’s hiatus at _that_ time. We’d had three Trek series one right after another (with several-season overlaps, for that matter). The general public, enthusiastic about the franchise as they were once TNG found its feet, was burning out on Trek. _ST: Generations_ was fairly weak, and _ST: Insurrection_ was a total bomb (I swear, even as a middle-core Trekkie, I hadn’t even known it was made until it was out on video!). They needed breathing room. Instead, they handed the keys of the already overheated Pinto to Berman and Braga. :eek: I think they need to at LEAST give B&B time to go get involved in other projects so the studio can sneak a new production of Star Trek in before those two realize it’s happening… ---
**Author:** ![Spatial\_Rift\_47](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a8b319/32.png) [@Spatial\_Rift\_47](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spatial_Rift_47)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-need-for-star-trek/302726/59 "2005-05-09T15:50:09Z")
> [@av8rmike](#): > > Sorry, **Spatial Rift** , you might see a need for Star Trek, but the guys who sign the checks don’t see a market. Sorry, **av8rmike** , you might see the importance of the guys who write the checks, but the fans don’t care. Who made sure the original series had a third season? The fans. Who brought the show’s popularity to unprecedented levels during syndication in the early 70s? The fans. Who invented and sustained the Star Trek convention? The fans. Who maintained their enjoyment of Star Trek for _ **ten years** _ (1969-1979) without any indication that any more Star Trek would ever be produced? You guessed it: the fans. A 5 year hiatus? I can deal with that. Star Trek will move on, and it will reinvent itself once again. ---
**Author:** ![av8rmike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/edb3f5/32.png) [@av8rmike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/av8rmike)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-need-for-star-trek/302726/60 "2005-05-09T16:58:01Z")
> [@Spatial Rift 47](#): > > Sorry, **av8rmike** , you might see the importance of the guys who write the checks, but the fans don’t care. Yes, we all know how beloved the franchise is by the fans. You don’t need to point out to me how much they’ve done to support the show. Also, you forgot one: “Who successfully lobbied NASA to name the first Space Shuttle Orbiter _Enterprise_, even though it would never actually fly in space?” 😉 I’ll amend my statement: “The fans might see a need for Star Trek, but the guys who sign the checks don’t see a market _right now_.” The diminishing box office returns for the last three movies would seem to bear that out. There was no massive public outcry to save “Enterprise”; in fact, there was almost as big a movement to _cancel_ the show. Hell, I’d love to see the Star Trek franchise continue as much as the next Trekker, but I, like **jayjay** , recognize the need to take a breather. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-need-for-star-trek/302726.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-need-for-star-trek/302726.md?page=4)