Space: 1966

[Falconer]

Are you familiar with the RPG Space: 1889? The idea is more-or-less this: your characters are Victorian Englishmen of the late 19^th Century, flying spaceships as late 19^th Century science fiction imagined it, and competing against Germany, France, Russia and Belgium in colonization of Mars, Venus, the moon, etc.—again, as imagined in late 19^th Century fiction.

I think the concept is a lot of fun. It also is basically similar to how I view Star Trek. Star Trek is a lot of things to a lot of people. Obviously, 60s Trek showed space as imagined in the 60s; the movies and TNG updated it for the 80s; and last year we saw a yet again updated reimagining. So the 60s view of Star Trek is not, for all people, the One True Star Trek.

But, for me, I love the 60s Star Trek so much that I like to approach Star Trek as “Space: 1966”. The characters are essentially 1960s swell American boys and girls, with sometimes swell, sometimes “radical” morals and values. The Earth-Romulan War of their parents lurks in the back of their memory like World War II; today, they actively fight a Cold War against the Evil Klingon Empire. The ship is mechanical—not computerized (except that there is a computer on the ship)—run entirely by switches and knobs and levers.

Any thoughts or ideas on how to play up, rather than downplay, the 60s origins of Star Trek?

[Ronin84]

High moral values and standards are a must!

I will post more later need to say good-by to some friends!

[Falconer]

I meant to add, a positive self-image of America which translated into an optimistic view towards humanity. In many episodes, the alien ways are inferior to the (idealized) human ways, and the plot hinges on teaching the aliens to become more like humans. Nowadays, on the screen, it is usually the other way around. This can possibly be traced to the negative self-image that Americans now have.

[Ronin84]

Jan 18, 2010 20:04:40 GMT -5 Falconer said:

I meant to add, a positive self-image of America which translated into an optimistic view towards humanity. In many episodes, the alien ways are inferior to the (idealized) human ways, and the plot hinges on teaching the aliens to become more like humans. Nowadays, on the screen, it is usually the other way around. This can possibly be traced to the negative self-image that Americans now have.

Interesting could you give me examples where humans are being taught to be more like the aliens of the show? I have not seen District 9 but from what I have heard that is the case.

Not doubting just looking for the discussion.

[finarvyn]

Jan 18, 2010 19:21:40 GMT -5 Falconer said:

Obviously, 60s Trek showed space as imagined in the 60s

Any thoughts or ideas on how to play up, rather than downplay, the 60s origins of Star Trek?

You've got a great notion here, and I think it's hard to capture the feel of an era the way TOS did it. Here are a few thoughts:

1. Simple plot lines. TOS didn't spend a lot of time with tricky plot twists in general, but focused on getting the characters from start to finish in a somewhat straightforward manner. (None of the "I'm your father, Luke" stuff.)

2. Clear Good versus Evil conflicts. When you read King Arthur, Lord of the Rings, and similar stories, it's clear who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. Federation guys are good and Klingons are evil. (None of the deep, sappy angst of Drizzt from 2E AD&D where you get a drow (evil) who is somehow misunderstood and wants to be good.)

3. Unchanging characters. Not to say that there can't be any character growth at all, but thorughout the series the characters pretty much start and end the same. Kirk or McCoy or whoever may suffer a tragic loss in one episode (such as City on the Edge of Forever), but by the next one he's bounced back and is ready to go again.

4. Don't explain the tech. Kirk never said anything like "hey, I'm going to shoot you with a phaser, which is a phased energy bean and can be adjusted to any of three settings." He just picked up a phaser and shot something with it. Later Trek had this "technobabble" thing going where you could Reverse the polarity of the neutron flow* or some such and everyone would nod as if it means something. While there was an occasional need to do some hand-waving about tech, TOS characters didn't dwell on it much.

5. Characters in fights wear tear-away uniforms. (Well, Kirk did anyway.) Even though TOS was about rockets and rayguns, our heroes weren't above getting into fistfights with anybody who deserved it. And the unifrorms need to be red, gold, and blue.

6. K.I.F.P.S. :-) Keep it fast-paced, stupid! TOS stories had to be told in a hurry because they were one-shot stories. An adventure for TOS should keep moving in a hurry, and probably not depend a lot on a previous or future episode.

7. Guys in red shirts don't come back. Unless they are named "Scotty" or have both a first and last name. A guy called Ensign Jones is toast in a hurry on the planet. Another thing to remember here is that when you split the party, all of the main characters go in one group and Ensign Jones can lead a couple of other un-named guys in the other.

8. Story is more important than accuracy. TOS had some wild "Buck Rogers" kinds of stuff happening, and the authors didn't always worry about being consistent from one episode to the next. Maximum warp might vary a tad from episode to episode and folks didn't seem to mind. Later series felt a bit more restricted by the Star Trek Encyclopedia and trying to make everything fit exactly into a single timeline, but TOS was forging the timeline and didn't stress much over it.

I'm sure there are others, but that's my list off of the top of my head. ;D maybe someone will add a few more!


* Bonus points to anyone who knows where that quote comes from.

[Ronin84]

Jan 18, 2010 20:14:24 GMT -5 finarvyn said:

Jan 18, 2010 19:21:40 GMT -5 Falconer said:

Obviously, 60s Trek showed space as imagined in the 60s

Any thoughts or ideas on how to play up, rather than downplay, the 60s origins of Star Trek?

You've got a great notion here, and I think it's hard to capture the feel of an era the way TOS did it. Here are a few thoughts:

1. Simple plot lines. TOS didn't spend a lot of time with tricky plot twists in general, but focused on getting the characters from start to finish in a somewhat straightforward manner. (None of the "I'm your father, Luke" stuff.)

2. Clear Good versus Evil conflicts. When you read King Arthur, Lord of the Rings, and similar stories, it's clear who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. Federation guys are good and Klingons are evil. (None of the deep, sappy angst of Drizzt from 2E AD&D where you get a drow (evil) who is somehow misunderstood and wants to be good.)

3. Unchanging characters. Not to say that there can't be any character growth at all, but thorughout the series the characters pretty much start and end the same. Kirk or McCoy or whoever may suffer a tragic loss in one episode (such as City on the Edge of Forever), but by the next one he's bounced back and is ready to go again.

4. Don't explain the tech. Kirk never said anything like "hey, I'm going to shoot you with a phaser, which is a phased energy bean and can be adjusted to any of three settings." He just picked up a phaser and shot something with it. Later Trek had this "technobabble" thing going where you could Reverse the polarity of the neutron flow* or some such and everyone would nod as if it means something. While there was an occasional need to do some hand-waving about tech, TOS characters didn't dwell on it much.

5. Characters in fights wear tear-away uniforms. (Well, Kirk did anyway.) Even though TOS was about rockets and rayguns, our heroes weren't above getting into fistfights with anybody who deserved it. And the unifrorms need to be red, gold, and blue.

6. K.I.F.P.S. :-) Keep it fast-paced, stupid! TOS stories had to be told in a hurry because they were one-shot stories. An adventure for TOS should keep moving in a hurry, and probably not depend a lot on a previous or future episode.

7. Guys in red shirts don't come back. Unless they are named "Scotty" or have both a first and last name. A guy called Ensign Jones is toast in a hurry on the planet. Another thing to remember here is that when you split the party, all of the main characters go in one group and Ensign Jones can lead a couple of other un-named guys in the other.

8. Story is more important than accuracy. TOS had some wild "Buck Rogers" kinds of stuff happening, and the authors didn't always worry about being consistent from one episode to the next. Maximum warp might vary a tad from episode to episode and folks didn't seem to mind. Later series felt a bit more restricted by the Star Trek Encyclopedia and trying to make everything fit exactly into a single timeline, but TOS was forging the timeline and didn't stress much over it.

I'm sure there are others, but that's my list off of the top of my head. ;D maybe someone will add a few more!


* Bonus points to anyone who knows where that quote comes from.

Doctor Who?? Pertwee or Baker can't remember where it started though.

[Grendelwulf]

The phrase "reverse the polarity of the neutron flow" was mentioned as early as Outer Limits, Season 1 Episode 12: "The Borderland", which first aired on 16 December 1963.

Doctor Who's Third Doctor, played by Jon Pertwee, only said the full phrase "reverse the polarity of the neutron flow" once on screen during his tenure — in the 1972 episode "The Sea Devils".

Ciao!
Grendelwulf

[Falconer]

Finarvyn, that was an excellent post! Not exactly what I was going for, but certainly deserving of an exalt.

[Grendelwulf]

Hmm, I would imagine you could look to The Way to Eden for inspiration? Woodstock to the Stars! Yeah, brother.

60's represent cultural revolutions, so would you have a "men-in-black" group aboard the starship? Special Security...black shirts that do not get vaporized just for appearing onscreen.

The Captain would be "John F. Kennedy-esque". Camelot and its beautiful powerful family should not be left out. Space:1966 might also resonate abit with ST:TNG. FAMILIES! Why not have families on board? Rather than an Enterprise heavy cruiser, maybe Space:1966 should use a colony ship, heading to settle down somewhere. I know, it is so-o-o Lost in Space! But, if treated with abit of Trek-pinache...

Ciao!
Grendelwulf

[Falconer]

Well, that is interesting. Each time hippies are portrayed in Star Trek, they are portrayed negatively. Not just The Way to Eden but also This Side of Paradise and possibly The Apple. At least, Kirk fights them (ideologically), tooth and nail, every time.

After all, let’s see—Shatner was born in the 1930s; the 1940s and 1950s were his formative decades. In 1966 he is 35 years old. He really is a herbert, then. Too old to be a hippie. Add to that the fact that the military is always a stronghold of traditionalism.

[coffee]

Jan 18, 2010 20:14:24 GMT -5 finarvyn said:

4. Don't explain the tech. Kirk never said anything like "hey, I'm going to shoot you with a phaser, which is a phased energy bean and can be adjusted to any of three settings." He just picked up a phaser and shot something with it. Later Trek had this "technobabble" thing going where you could Reverse the polarity of the neutron flow* or some such and everyone would nod as if it means something. While there was an occasional need to do some hand-waving about tech, TOS characters didn't dwell on it much.

In one the nonfiction Star Trek books, there's a story of how one writer wrote two pages of dialog for a teaser in which Captain Kirk gives specific and precise orders to the helmsman which were all scientifically plausible and such, and which would have the effect of having the Enterprise turn around and go back the way it came.

Gene Roddenberry replaced the two pages with two words from Kirk: "Reverse course."

So, yeah, I'm totally with you on this one!

[Grendelwulf]

Jan 19, 2010 14:49:56 GMT -5 coffee said:

In one the nonfiction Star Trek books, there's a story of how one writer wrote two pages of dialog for a teaser in which Captain Kirk gives specific and precise orders to the helmsman which were all scientifically plausible and such, and which would have the effect of having the Enterprise turn around and go back the way it came.

Gene Roddenberry replaced the two pages with two words from Kirk: "Reverse course."

So, yeah, I'm totally with you on this one!

...and so the battle between theory and application continues...

Ciao!
Grendelwulf

[finarvyn]

Jan 18, 2010 23:39:01 GMT -5 Falconer said:

Finarvyn, that was an excellent post! Not exactly what I was going for, but certainly deserving of an exalt.

Well, thanks. My usual M.O. is to see something and then go off on a tangent, totally forgetting what it was that I was supposed to accomplish. By the end of a long and rambling post, often I forget entirely ... um ... whatever.

[apeloverage]

Jan 18, 2010 20:12:22 GMT -5 Ronin84 said:

Interesting could you give me examples where humans are being taught to be more like the aliens of the show? I have not seen District 9 but from what I have heard that is the case.

Avatar.

[aramis]

I'll chime in with a simplification of my own:

It's an action morality play.

Play it that way.

To elucidate morality play:
One or more protagonists are presented with a situation to explore right vs wrong. When they choose wrong, bad happens to them; when they choose right, things work out in the end. TOS seldom did the "wrong"... and never to a PC nee Main Character... but we see plenty of secondary characters to which bad ends come due to wrong choices. Historian Marla McGivers. Captain Tracey. The crew of the Valiant. Vina. Corridan.

Likewise, the moral choice always is rewarded in the end... see also Amok Time, and about 4 other episodes whose names escape me.

The Bad guys are BAAAD, the good guys are good.

The protagonists need the chance to choose evil... and need to not do so.... tho which version of "good" they choose is up to them.