Star Trek: Strange New Worlds

I thought the latest episode of SNW was actually thought provoking and worthy of the name Star Trek... and then I found out that the storyline was lifted from a novel by yet another author they didn't credit.



This should really be no surprise, given Bad Reboot/Secret Hideout's history of plagiarism.

Between that, their blatant disrespect for the lore/characters/history of the franchise, and using the properties they acquire (and most certainly have not earned) as a Trojan Horse for identity politics and social division (which are antithetical to the real STAR TREK), I continue to be amazed by the people who defend this trash.

Of course, when your biggest supporters are immature and uneducated brats and ideologues who use Twitter and emojis and strawman arguments, I guess that makes sense. Garbage in, garbage out. You reap what you sow.
 
Also, speaking of the Prime Directive, since it's mentioned in the review, TOS presented it as an obstacle for Kirk to overcome so he could do the right/moral thing (thus adding to the drama), whereas TNG used it as an excuse for Picard to throw up his hands and end the episode.

I don't want to know how SNW uses it. Probably for the sake of cynicism and/or nihilism.
 
I'm very glad that Pike wasn't able to save the boy as would have happened in most other versions of Trek, you can bet they would have saved him in STD or Picard. They don't belong to the Federation so Federation laws mean nothing and you can't always put your spin on everything.
 
Well, I don’t usually slow down to gawk at highway auto accidents, but I couldn’t resist craning my neck at this week’s iteration of the slow-motion train wreck that has been Strange New Hair, despite my having resolved to stop watching it.

At first I was quite seduced by it, and very pleasantly surprised at the starkness of the moral dilemma this week’s episode presents. I was ready to sing its praises.

Then I got here, saw the above posted article, read it, and despaired. The reviewer is bang-on. I’d never heard of Le Guin’s story, though certainly I know of her and I’ve seen the old adaptation of The Lathe of Heaven.

So here I was ready to give the writer’s room some rare praise, only to discover I’d been duped by an ugly ripoff that does exactly what I’ve been persistently complaining about—present all of the TOS trappings, with none of the substance. “Like Trelane’s food,” as Rob put it.

“It is similar to how Voyager and the first two seasons of Enterprise told these stories, treating Star Trek as an aesthetic rather than as an actual object.”

Indeed.

I disagree with the article, though, in hanging the whole thing on Pike. He does try to stop events at the crucial moment when he discovers, too late, just what is being done. Unfortunately, though, the ending leaves him deprived of agency, which is just the sort of hero-emasculation that modern writers seem to really love to do, and something Kirk would never have sat still for.

The article is right—this isn’t just weak writing. It’s a shocking descent into immorality, on a par with the obscenity that was the Tuvix episode of Voyager.

Well, at least The Offer was great.
 
I thought the latest episode of SNW was actually thought provoking and worthy of the name Star Trek... and then I found out that the storyline was lifted from a novel by yet another author they didn't credit.


A. it's a short story, not a novel

B. Kurtzman and Paradise have talked about Omelas being the inspiration for the episode in interviews.

C. There are strict rules about what shows up in credits and what qualifies for "based on" or "inspired by"

D. Le Guin got the idea for Omelas from philosopher William James, and the idea shows up in Brothers Karamazov as well.

E. "Powered by a Forsaken Child" has an entire page on TV Tropes.

and bonus fun fact, the USS Le Guin gets a mention in Discovery
 
A. it's a short story, not a novel

B. Kurtzman and Paradise have talked about Omelas being the inspiration for the episode in interviews.

C. There are strict rules about what shows up in credits and what qualifies for "based on" or "inspired by"

D. Le Guin got the idea for Omelas from philosopher William James, and the idea shows up in Brothers Karamazov as well.

E. "Powered by a Forsaken Child" has an entire page on TV Tropes.

and bonus fun fact, the USS Le Guin gets a mention in Discovery

And all this makes depriving Le Guin a story credit, which in turn deprives her estate some monetary compensation, justifiable to you? If that's the case, Kurtzman and co should continue plagiarizing deceased authors' works and calling it their own just by using these "loop holes".
 
And all this makes depriving Le Guin a story credit, which in turn deprives her estate some monetary compensation, justifiable to you? If that's the case, Kurtzman and co should continue plagiarizing deceased authors' works and calling it their own just by using these "loop holes".

I think we have different thresholds for what counts as plagiarism. The basic idea is the same, the plot is not. Is The Orville plagiarism?
 
Well, I don’t usually slow down to gawk at highway auto accidents, but I couldn’t resist craning my neck at this week’s iteration of the slow-motion train wreck that has been Strange New Hair, despite my having resolved to stop watching it.

At first I was quite seduced by it, and very pleasantly surprised at the starkness of the moral dilemma this week’s episode presents. I was ready to sing its praises.

Then I got here, saw the above posted article, read it, and despaired. The reviewer is bang-on. I’d never heard of Le Guin’s story, though certainly I know of her and I’ve seen the old adaptation of The Lathe of Heaven.

So here I was ready to give the writer’s room some rare praise, only to discover I’d been duped by an ugly ripoff that does exactly what I’ve been persistently complaining about—present all of the TOS trappings, with none of the substance. “Like Trelane’s food,” as Rob put it.

“It is similar to how Voyager and the first two seasons of Enterprise told these stories, treating Star Trek as an aesthetic rather than as an actual object.”

Indeed.

I disagree with the article, though, in hanging the whole thing on Pike. He does try to stop events at the crucial moment when he discovers, too late, just what is being done. Unfortunately, though, the ending leaves him deprived of agency, which is just the sort of hero-emasculation that modern writers seem to really love to do, and something Kirk would never have sat still for.

The article is right—this isn’t just weak writing. It’s a shocking descent into immorality, on a par with the obscenity that was the Tuvix episode of Voyager.

Well, at least The Offer was great.

Y'know, I don't I've seen "Tuvix" since first run, but I do recall some fait bit of controversy in fan circles.

On a somewhat-related note, while TOS is my bread and butter, I've been meaning to give the other shows a rewatch. I gave TNG a rewatch, a few years back, along with a first-time (in its entirety, at least, as opposed to my piecemeal watch during first-run) watch of ENTERPRISE.

Now, though, I feel obliged to pick up all of the pre-2009 shows and movies on DVD/Blu-Ray, because I simply don't trust streaming platforms to abstain from censoring or suppressing "offensive" content. I would much rather have all of pre-Abrams TREK on sweet, sweet physical media.
 
Just finished watching Tarkovsky’s Solaris (1972) on the TCM streaming app…reminds me a bit of a few of The Expanse plot elements, but a story is a story after all…as long as your character doesn’t have horns and is called Maleficent, most likely there aren’t any imperial entanglements to deal with.

Oh I forgot to mention….yes I enjoyed ”Lift Us Where Suffering Cannot Reach”…the dilemma of one suffering for the benefit of others, I think this is far from over based on what such knowledge can do from here.

carry on campers
 
I think we have different thresholds for what counts as plagiarism. The basic idea is the same, the plot is not. Is The Orville plagiarism?
That is a very good point. But I still think the article is correct in casting this one as an immoral treatment of the subject and bad Trek.

As for plagiarism, Picasso did a fair amount of that himself…

Famously, he redid Las Meninas by Diego de Velasquez, and not just once—he did a whole series of these.
B926D1DC-9ED7-4A8C-9F4F-63F9A36CE828.jpeg

6A5DD2A0-953A-46A8-8FF3-881F4BB386D8.jpeg


And of course, I shouldn’t have to explain to this group who Quentin Tarantino is—apart from pointing out that he has famously said, “I don’t do ‘homage.’ I steal.”

This is why US Copyright law protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. Derivative works are an important fount of creativity.

To tell a family secret, though, most of the time that the authors of the originals aren’t credited with “inspired by” or similar wording is precisely to avoid paying them (or their estates) anything.
 
Y'know, I don't I've seen "Tuvix" since first run, but I do recall some fait bit of controversy in fan circles.

On a somewhat-related note, while TOS is my bread and butter, I've been meaning to give the other shows a rewatch. I gave TNG a rewatch, a few years back, along with a first-time (in its entirety, at least, as opposed to my piecemeal watch during first-run) watch of ENTERPRISE.

Now, though, I feel obliged to pick up all of the pre-2009 shows and movies on DVD/Blu-Ray, because I simply don't trust streaming platforms to abstain from censoring or suppressing "offensive" content. I would much rather have all of pre-Abrams TREK on sweet, sweet physical media.
OMG, do not get me started on Tuvix. I have a whole thing I get into about how that episode defecates on everything Starfleet and the Federation are supposed to stand for…
 
Unfortunately, though, the ending leaves him deprived of agency, which is just the sort of hero-emasculation that modern writers seem to really love to do, and something Kirk would never have sat still for.
Guess he should have took a flying kick at them, that would have saved the day and not been contrived at all.
 
Maybe I’ll go back to deciding not to watch…

Nonsense! I’m sure this character will be a three-dimensional, well-written, complex, interesting addition to the episode, and in no way a shallow virtue signal that the producers will scream about from the rooftops, or use as a human shield if the quality of the writing is criticized.

Because that would just be downright nutty.
 
In a strange way, I think that the past few years’ worth of cultural and financial turmoil will be the key to burning out this infection. When the rubber hits the road, making money and survival always trump agenda and other such nonessentials. We can already see the early effects of this, as Disney stock plummets and cuts are made. Same with Netflix.

These hijacked properties can only go on so long hemorrhaging money and viewers. The shill media can only do so much bending over backwards to defend them and to tear down the legitimate audience that is critical of it all.

Tick-tock, tick-tock.


The price will be high, but we’ll win in the end. History has a way of setting things right. The zombie-corpse of STAR TREK will eventually be left to rest in peace, and the past decade-plus of pure, unadulterated suck will fade into the mists of history.

In the back of my mind, I often think that maybe all of this HAD to happen. Sometimes you need a negative to truly understand and appreciate a positive. George Lucas was ridiculously excoriated for his prequel films, but now his legacy is assured, thanks to having Disney’s utterly disastrous stewardship of STAR WARS as a yardstick to compare it to. RedLetterMedia got exactly what they wanted—Abrams directing a STAR WARS film—and the result ended up being a disaster that destroyed the franchise. And it almost feels like their beloved TNG being trashed by PICARD is karma for their ruthless criticisms of Lucas.

And so it is with STAR TREK. The Berman era has its problems, but the people in charge were still trying to stay true to the ideals and the storytelling quality of the franchise. Maybe we all needed to see what happens when untalented hacks with massive budgets get their hands on these things, in order to appreciate what we had. Both TREK and WARS has their false euphoria/fool’s gold moments, initially, when it seemed like a new beginning where anything was possible (THE FARCE AWAKENS, and NUTREK ‘09). And then it all quickly fell apart for both franchises, and proved to have no legs to stand on.

The past few years have opened up a huge can of worms in regards to film theory and criticism, and just what good storytelling is all about. TOS has has endured for nearly 60 years because of the strength of its stories and characters, and nothing produced in the past decade comes close. Certainly not the cheap xerox show that is the subject of this thread. You can slap expensive effects on a show up, down, and sideways, but the underlying foundation—story and characters—has to be solid for the endeavor to succeed. People want honesty in their entertainment, not lies, agenda, or style over substance. The real STAR TREK promoted universal values and truths which brought people from all walks of life together, just as the real STAR WARS did. That is a testament to the power of great storytelling. And, as has been said, with great power, there must also come great responsibility.


As an aside, I’m finally getting around to reading BOLDLY WRITING, a book which examines the history of STAR TREK fanzines from the 1960s-1980s. It’s been very illuminating in that it shows how fandom and fandom psychology has never really changed, over the decades. It’s also fascinating to see it confirmed that the overwhelming majority of fanzines and fanfiction were written and published by women.
 
In a strange way, I think that the past few years’ worth of cultural and financial turmoil will be the key to burning out this infection. When the rubber hits the road, making money and survival always trump agenda and other such nonessentials. We can already see the early effects of this, as Disney stock plummets and cuts are made. Same with Netflix.

These hijacked properties can only go on so long hemorrhaging money and viewers. The shill media can only do so much bending over backwards to defend them and to tear down the legitimate audience that is critical of it all.

Tick-tock, tick-tock.


The price will be high, but we’ll win in the end. History has a way of setting things right. The zombie-corpse of STAR TREK will eventually be left to rest in peace, and the past decade-plus of pure, unadulterated suck will fade into the mists of history.

In the back of my mind, I often think that maybe all of this HAD to happen. Sometimes you need a negative to truly understand and appreciate a positive. George Lucas was ridiculously excoriated for his prequel films, but now his legacy is assured, thanks to having Disney’s utterly disastrous stewardship of STAR WARS as a yardstick to compare it to. RedLetterMedia got exactly what they wanted—Abrams directing a STAR WARS film—and the result ended up being a disaster that destroyed the franchise. And it almost feels like their beloved TNG being trashed by PICARD is karma for their ruthless criticisms of Lucas.

And so it is with STAR TREK. The Berman era has its problems, but the people in charge were still trying to stay true to the ideals and the storytelling quality of the franchise. Maybe we all needed to see what happens when untalented hacks with massive budgets get their hands on these things, in order to appreciate what we had. Both TREK and WARS has their false euphoria/fool’s gold moments, initially, when it seemed like a new beginning where anything was possible (THE FARCE AWAKENS, and NUTREK ‘09). And then it all quickly fell apart for both franchises, and proved to have no legs to stand on.

The past few years have opened up a huge can of worms in regards to film theory and criticism, and just what good storytelling is all about. TOS has has endured for nearly 60 years because of the strength of its stories and characters, and nothing produced in the past decade comes close. Certainly not the cheap xerox show that is the subject of this thread. You can slap expensive effects on a show up, down, and sideways, but the underlying foundation—story and characters—has to be solid for the endeavor to succeed. People want honesty in their entertainment, not lies, agenda, or style over substance. The real STAR TREK promoted universal values and truths which brought people from all walks of life together, just as the real STAR WARS did. That is a testament to the power of great storytelling. And, as has been said, with great power, there must also come great responsibility.


As an aside, I’m finally getting around to reading BOLDLY WRITING, a book which examines the history of STAR TREK fanzines from the 1960s-1980s. It’s been very illuminating in that it shows how fandom and fandom psychology has never really changed, over the decades. It’s also fascinating to see it confirmed that the overwhelming majority of fanzines and fanfiction were written and published by women.
Well said. I never read the fanzines, except for one issue of one I bought at a con in the 70’s. It had Spock on the cover hoisting a lirpa from Amok Time, but I don’t remember the title. And slash fic never held any appeal for me.

I do think fan films offer a lot of hope. I’ve seen several excellent Star Wars films (and a few bad ones), but unfortunately the Trek fan films lag behind. With the notable exception of ST Continues, they’re almost universally unwatchable. (I find that, as a rule of thumb, long fan films shouldn’t be, and the most common problem with even short fan films is they don’t seem to know how to write good endings.) But I do still hold out hope for more good ones. We’ll see.
 
Back
Top