Uncle Orson, tell me about Laman and Lemuel again, please?

[theweaselking]

The definition of "irony": Orson Scott Card saying this about Star Trek.

"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."

"Little of this seeped into the original 'Star Trek.' The later spinoffs were much better performed, but the content continued to be stuck in Roddenberry's rut. So why did the Trekkies throw themselves into this poorly imagined, weakly written, badly acted television series with such commitment and dedication? Why did it last so long?"

"Screen sci-fi has finally caught up with written science fiction. We're in college now. High school is over. There's just no need for 'Star Trek' anymore."

Comments

[mrbankies.livejournal.com]

Some of his gripes are valid (especially the Roddenberry rut), but to say that there was no substance is to do the series short shrift.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I actually agree with a lot, not all, of what he said about "Star Trek". The complaint was more about Card's own personal choice of material to be an obsessed fanboy about.