I myself am not an avid fan, but do accept the impact of the show on pop culture, and it's value of diversity and it's ability to inspire people to value science. But where I draw the line is when people treat that show or Roddenberry as a real scientist or religious oracle who had predictive powers. No, Roddenberry was an artist, a storyteller and drew off of prior si fi himself. He did NOT invent hand held communicators, nor was his show the first to depict "teleportation". 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleportation_in_fiction

http://startrekfactcheck.blogspot.com/20...ences.html

In a very real sense human's false perceptions lead them to falsely conclude that popularity is a predictor, not just with si fi fans. You also have Star Wars fans and Back To The Future fans claiming those franchises are more than just entertainment, more than just inspiration. Religious people pull this too. There is not one religion with individuals who point to modern technology and say "that is a result of my club". If anyone has seen the COSMOS series with Neil in it's entirety they'd know that it shows that humans have always evolved to be curious and make discoveries. COSMOS demonstrated that completely independent groups of humans who had no contact ever, came up with similar ideas, like constellations depicting the local deities of their time. 

The only thing that can be said about Star Trek is that is was popular and influential, but it was not a lab. Roddenberry was a story teller, and like any artist, they draw from prior and surrounding motifs.  I am fine with being a fan of si fi, and it is a great franchise most certainly, like Star Wars too, but please do not treat it like a religion and don't treat Roddenberry like a prophet.

I'm not a fan, I just like the series.

But to say Roddenberry was just a story teller leaves out all the controversial themes he introduced to his series. He could have told the story without them and would have been, probably, more successful. The original Star Trek wasn't that big of a success when it first aired in the second half of the 60ies.

It's not religion. But it sure shined a light on one of the braver producers and idea givers of the time.

(August 14, 2016 at 10:33 am)abaris Wrote: I'm not a fan, I just like the series.

But to say Roddenberry was just a story teller leaves out all the controversial themes he introduced to his series. He could have told the story without them and would have been, probably, more successful. The original Star Trek wasn't that big of a success when it first aired in the second half of the 60ies.

It's not religion. But it sure shined a light on one of the braver producers and idea givers of the time.

I am not trying to downplay or negate his awesome contribution, especially to the attitude of diversity. I simply don't like hero worship and some of that show's fans do just that. He was no scientist nor was the show a real lab. Si fi fans are certainly far less likely, and almost slim to no chance of starting riots like sports fans, but still, I do get some, who act like you murdered their family for pointing out it is still a show. A very important show but a show none the less.

I love the fact the show forced society to deal with race issues. I also love the fact Roddenberry refused to have a Christian Chaplin as a character because his idea was valuing pluralism. But on the science end, he was inspired by prior movies and shows and certainly real science, but again, he still was not a predictor. Not even real scientists of his time had any way of knowing we could get to the point of things like our modern cell phone. We did sure, and we also have flat screen tvs, too, but even the Wizard of Oz depicted a giant screen TV, all be it tube, still a flat front. 

The series got wrong too, like e books, in the newer series, Next Generation, had multiple  book sized electronic tablets like encyclopedias being carried around,  which we know now is absurd and superfluous. 

But again, Star Wars fans and Back To The Future fans do this too. Si fi is still just that and while imagination is required to invent new things, the real testing that ends up going somewhere is always proven in a lab.

If the show had no heroes, few would watch it. If it had heroes and was popular, there would be hero worship. You manage the pros and the cons. You don't have magical powers to conjure up one without the other.

(August 14, 2016 at 10:33 am)abaris Wrote: I'm not a fan, I just like the series.

But to say Roddenberry was just a story teller leaves out all the controversial themes he introduced to his series. He could have told the story without them and would have been, probably, more successful. The original Star Trek wasn't that big of a success when it first aired in the second half of the 60ies.

It's not religion. But it sure shined a light on one of the braver producers and idea givers of the time.

It also showed the world what it could be.

It was optimistic and the Prime Directive was to not interfere, although they seemed to ignore that one every week. There was the episode where Jim crossed into a mirror universe and it was all evil with torture and conquest being the drivers for the federation. I cant help but think that that's the universe we are in.

Most folks are surprised to find out during the original runs of Star Trek and Lost in Space, Star Trek never had a higher viewership than the lowest rated episode of Lost in Space.

Roddenberry was driven by the social issues of the '60s. He was also a bit ham-handed about addressing them.

(August 14, 2016 at 2:42 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Roddenberry was driven by the social issues of the '60s. He was also a bit ham-handed about addressing them.

Was he? Putting a female black communications officer on the bridge isn't ham handed. It's rather subtile.

People can obsess over anything, I suppose. I know a girl who is convinced that 'Dracula' is a prescient metaphor for the struggles of the LGBTQ community, and one of the clerks in my wife's shop believes, with full-throated sincerity, that John Lennon is alive and is writing most of the charting pop songs of the present day. *shrug* These delusions, along with those of the science fiction crowd, seem harmless enough.

Now if you'll excuse me, a 'Gilligan's Island' marathon is about to start, and I have to light the candles and draw the pentacle.

Boru

(August 14, 2016 at 3:54 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: These delusions, along with those of the science fiction crowd, seem harmless enough.

What are you on about now? Fiction? Pah, that shit's real.