The Excalibur scenes were actually from an earlier version of the video in which I went into the origins of each legend's name. I left them in the final version since they seemed to still fit. Thanks for the comment!
Great collection and summary. I will never not love how TOS adds "space" to a variety of terms in order to emphasise the futuristic setting See also "space work" and "space madness" 😉
Gene Roddenberry was obsessed with all-powerful aliens or robots that have godlike powers. He kept returning to that theme over and over again. We see it somewhat in V'Ger (which was a reworking of Nomad from "The Changeling") and especially in Q, whom he introduced in the pilot episode of TNG. Q was, I believe, the only one of these that wasn't destroyed, brought under control, or explained away into harmlessness.
@@MrWhipple42 lol, that sounds about right. Coincidentally, I recently did an edit of "Encounter at Farpoint" which I called "The Q-Less Edition." I completely removed Q and made it a 1-hr episode. Those who've watched it all say that it plays better than the full version. Don't get me wrong, I love Q! But shoehorning him into a story isn't necessarily the best.
Kirk takes them down. Gary Mitchell, Charlie X, Apollo, Plato's step children, Gorgon, the friendly angel....and "God" at the center of the galaxy. " Gods" tremble before Kirk.
Yes I think D. C. Fontana wrote an hour pilot that was only about tha mystery of Farpoint with no Q involved. Rodenberry added the extra time by adding Q to the story which Fontana was not thrilled about.
I am a huge fan of Trek, especially TOS. I am also a huge fan of superhero comic books, especially Marvel. People have been saying comics are the modern mythology for many years. In this video, you ask if Trek is a mythology. The answer is neither comics nor Trek is a mythology, but both provide fabulous sandboxes in which to retell older mythologies. In other words, neither is so much creating something new as retelling something already told many times, but with a franchise spin. Trek does bring a nearly original creation to the mix with its positive vision of humanity's future. Older mythologies don't have this. For instance, Greek mythology projects the future as exactly the same as the past, full of the brutal truths of existence with little hope and tragedy is the name of the game. Comic books exist eternally in the present with the past and future being used almost exclusively as plot points. Trek says we will be better people in the future.
@@thecaptain6730 I do my best! It rewarding to know their appreciated. Unfortunately it takes about a month to completer each video. My community tab is now functional, so I'll be more active there between videos. I'll be posting tomorrow about Star Trek and mythology, so check that out!
You could also include "Wolf In The Fold" to this list. Even today, we're still not certain who Jack The Ripper was or if even one person was responsible for the murders. Redjac is revealed as an alien entity behind the killings on Earth as well as other planets under different names.
I re-watched "The Way to Eden" recently (yes, the final lazy daze of summer). And I surprised myself in that I think "Eden" is not a half-bad episode at all--despite the lack of the more sci-fi elements that most TOS episodes have. I'm still deciding if it was out-of-character for Spock to be able "to reach" with the...er...space hippies...or not. Some critics have insisted that Spock should have been the least understanding and sympathetic to the group. But, ultimately, I think it does make sense for Spock to understand what they were doing by seeking "Eden" as a quest for perfection. After all, isn't that what Spock himself is attempting to do at the beginning of TMP. Spock's line about a hunger for Eden is beautifully stated, and Kirk's somewhat mystical response that "that cave is deep in our memory" is provoking indeed. Speaking of deep, mystical caves: I'm curious of your interpretation of the Dragon-Monster statue (that seems to be alight) in Spock's quarters...deep caves indeed. Spock's fascination with Eden appears again in ST: VI as well as demonstrated by the painting he had in his quarters. LLAP!!!
It’s great to hear your thoughts on “The Way to Eden.” I’ve never understood why people hate on that episode so much. I find it a fun episode to watch, and on a deeper level, it’s Star Trek’s response to the youth movement of the day. As to whether or not Spock acted out of character, Spock was a counter-culture figure in his own right, just like the hippies of the day, both in-universe (not attending the Vulcan Science Academy as he was expected to, but instead leaving Vulcan to join Star Fleet) and out (as a symbol of the outsider), so I think that he would connect to the space hippies quest for something outside their society. Even if he was acting out of character, that’s something that we as autonomous human being do all the time. For example, if someone normally appeases a bully, and then one time they beat the hell out of the bully instead, we could say that person was acting out of character, but that’s just the way people are. I feel it is just as acceptable for our fictional characters to act out of character from time to time, as it makes them more human. I like your connection to the Dragon-Monster statue in Spock’s quarters, it’s a fascinating symbol, and I’ll have to think more on that. It’s intriguing that this theme of Eden resonates with Spock across different points in the series and films, reflecting his continuous journey toward self-perfection. It also seems to run in his family!
Qetzecoatl is mentioned again in the AWESOME video game Star Trek 25th Anniversary! These video games were the closest thing I ever got to seeing a Season 4 and 5.
Some people may or may not know the actor Michael Forrest who appeared in guest-starring roles in westerns and science fiction shows such as the Outer Limits or comedies like The Dick Van Dyke Show portraying a priest who was an ex High School boyfriend of Laura's but his best in that role was Apollo the mythical GOD Apolo that was brought down by technology Michael Forrest was outstanding and even to this very day they still talk about him doing that role and I was told that he was brought back in Star Trek The Next Generation to redo the role of Apollo an episode that I never seen.
I would imagine the Prophets and the Celestial Temple/Wormhole from DS9 would fall into the same category. I'm struggling to think of good examples from TNG, though.
@@sureshmukhi2316 Wouldn't those be the opposite, though? In both cases, neither Picard nor Ardra was the source of the myth. They were associated with it after the fact.
I can easily imagine that the Q Continuum have been seen as gods by some of the various cultures they've interacted with, though annoyingly meddlesome ones perhaps. 😀
@@GreyhawkGrognard I'm with you on that! As soon as I found out about the Q Continuum my first thought was of Trelaine!😀 It just makes so much sense! And, by the way, as an old school Greyhawk fan, I like your moniker. 😀
It bugs me that the movies (aside from Space Seed) do not acknowledge or reference TOS when they can. Two glaring examples are : Why no mention of Nomad during TMP? It's as if the V'Ger vessel and Illia probe are new ideas to the crew. Or as you brought up here not even a casual mention of Dr. Sevrin in TFF. I really would have liked for Gary Mitchell to have been the entity they encountered on the Eden planet in TFF somehow.
It has always bothered me in TFF when Kirk says "I lost a brother once . . ." Every time I hear him say that I think of his brother Sam, although he wasn't, as he finishes by saying, "I was lucky, I got him back." So he was referring to Spock instead. Nice sentiment, but a bit awkward knowing he had a *real* brother whom he also lost in TOS. Again, there's no recognition of the events or characters from the series outside the regular cast members.
Overall I agree with you that the films could have referenced the series more, but there are some references: the tribbles the bar and the self-destruct code from Star Trek III. The slingshot around the sun time travel possibility as a reference to “Tomorrow Is Yesterday.” For me personally I did not like the episode “Changling” very much. Although I love the motion picture. Nomad and V’ger always seems so different to me. Plus it wasn’t until close to the end of the movie that they realized that V’ger was a ship that did not have a crew, and not until the very end of the movie that they realized it had been an Earth probe, so probably no time to reference nomad- I think the biggest difference between the two probes was size and scope. Nomad is it smaller than a refrigerator, while V’ger seemingly contained endless universes within it. I would however have loved it if in STIV Kirk I have referenced Edith Keeler or visited her grave (as I think he does in the novelization ) @Metatrek I wholeheartedly agree about the brother line in STV. That always bothers me, and I remember being confused about that when I sought for the first time in theaters.
@@thecaptain6730 those are all great examples of the movies referencing the series. I felt that Kirk missing his "old chair" in ST:V was a nice nod to TOS too. And I think you're right about the sling shot effect referencing "Tomorrow is Yesterday," as well as "Assignment: Earth." You got me concerned about my next video. It's another comparison video, this time I'm comparing, of all things, _TMP_ and "The Changeling!" A part of it will be contrasting the two as well. That would have been awesome to see Kirk paying his respects to Edith Keeler in ST:IV, one of the most tragic figures in all of Trek.
@Metatrek, (apologies for voice typing while in the car here) no need to be concerned! :) It will be awesome to see TMP and “The Changeling” compared. TMP is my all time favorite film-of all time-White Christmas comes in second though ;). I think the problem might be the order in which I first watched Star Trek. I think I was around eight when my grandfather (a WWII and Korea vet-Who showed me movies that-more often than not I should not of seen at the age when he showed me-although ST was fine, of course.) showed me Star Trek II. After watching STIi I naturally wanted to see the origin story of Khan, so he showed me Star Trek the motion picture a few weeks later. Needless to say I was thoroughly confused that there was no khan in TMP. :) but my point is that I always wondered what I would’ve thought of “Space Seed” as an episode if I had seen it before Star Trek II. I think it’s the same thing with “The Changeling”. Since I saw the motion picture first-several times in fact- before I saw “The Changeling ” when I was 13. It’s hard for me too think of the changeling as just an episode without viewing it in the light of TMP…esp. since so many people compare the two. Have to go now since I’m traveling, but I look forward to your next video. Incidentally, two of my teen and almost teen sons just told me that they love “the Changeling” so no worries! I am in the odd man out here 😀
TMP is my favorite ST movie too, partly because it's the longest trek of them all. It's cool to be in that universe longer while enjoying the same story. It also has a sense of mystery to it that is hard to explain. It's more than the mystery presented in the story--who or what is heading towards Earth--it's the movie itself that seems mysterious. It's also the only live action ST from the '70s, so that makes it something of a curiosity in and of itself. It's a peek at what could have been. I envy you that you can remember the first time you saw TOS episodes. I was so young when I first saw them, 5 or 6 at the oldest, and likely even younger than that, that it seems like they've just always been there. I don't remember the first time seeing any of them! The movies are different of course. It sounds like you had a pretty cool grandfather. So he introduced you to ST? You've got me wondering what I might have thought of TOS had I seen the movies first. Oh, and tell your sons that I think they're right about "The Changeling." My wife and I just rewatched it as part of my "research" for the video. While a few things were over exaggerated, like Nomad's ridiculously powerful photon torpedoes and the whole Uhura issue (which they had the perfect solution to had they only thought of it! I'll explain in the video . . .), I really enjoyed the episode. I love the voice of Nomad, it's got a pure science fiction sound to it that I love. And it was cool having a robot as a guest star! You're right about how different the two films are, so I will be contrasting TMP and "The Changeling" as well. I look forward to your feedback on the video!
Never thought of it that way, but modern myth.. at least, the first show. Never liked the Next Generation. My husband called it "Ambassadors in Space" and "Westley saves the Enterprise, again."
I looked at Vaal, but he ultimately didn't fit into any of the three categories. All the entries I discussed had to be known to the Enterprise crew as a legend or myth prior to contact being made. Thanks for commenting!
The original script did not include the line "we find the one quite sufficient." NBC's network censors required the producers to add it so as not to offend the large number of religious viewers in 1967. The cast and crew resented that addition, which is why Shatner rolled his eyes when he delivered the line.
Since you say that Star Trek's world view is non-theistic, what is your response to the last scene of the TOS episode "Bread and Circuses" which goes as follows: MCCOY: Captain, I see on your report Flavius was killed. I am sorry. I liked that huge sun worshiper. SPOCK: I wish we could have examined that belief of his more closely. It seems illogical for a sun worshiper to develop a philosophy of total brotherhood. Sun worship is usually a primitive superstition religion. UHURA: I'm afraid you have it all wrong, Mister Spock, all of you. I've been monitoring some of their old-style radio waves, the empire spokesman trying to ridicule their religion. But he couldn't. Don't you understand? It's not the sun up in the sky. It's the Son of God. KIRK: Caesar and Christ. They had them both. And the word is spreading only now. MCCOY: A philosophy of total love and total brotherhood. SPOCK: It will replace their imperial Rome, but it will happen in their twentieth century. KIRK: Wouldn't it be something to watch, to be a part of? To see it happen all over again? Mister Chekov, take us out of orbit. Ahead warp factor one. CHEKOV: Aye, sir.
Thank you for your question. It’s commonly held that Star Trek’s worldview is based on Secular Humanism. Having thoroughly researched the matter, including doing an exhaustive tenet by tenet comparison of the Secular Humanist Manifesto to what we saw in TOS, I concur with this. Star Trek does deviate from this worldview in a couple of ways, mainly regarding the more metaphysical tenets. The point I was making in the video, however, was how, despite it’s secular (and therefore non-theistic) foundation, there are still a lot of divine beings popping up in Star Trek , which tells me there’s something more going on here than meets the eye. I believe this “something” is mythological in nature. As I stated in the video, I believe that Star Trek is an emergent, secular mythology. Now, more to your point, Star Trek did, at times, delve into theistic topics. One of the best case-in-points is the passage that you’ve quoted, which is quite an interesting anomaly. I know how this passage made it into the episode, and how it caused a great deal of strife between Star Trek’s two Genes (Roddenberry and Coon), hastening the departure of one from the show (Coon). While I would view this passage in comparison to Star Trek’s overall worldview as being more like the difference between weather and climate, it also provides a link back to the broader (Western) culture’s founding worldview, that of Christianity. In my research I’ve discovered that connecting back to earlier religions/mythologies is a common practice in all emerging religions/mythologies. Here Kirk’s line, “Caesar and Christ. They had them both. And the word is spreading only now,” feels more like Kirk musing over Uhura’s statement that a Christian-like belief has taken root on this planet, rather than a firm statement that Caesar and Christ have somehow been reborn on 892-IV. In closing I’d say that Star Trek built an even stronger connection to Greek mythology, as it ratified the Greek pantheon in “Who Mourns for Adonais.” This is a deeply complex topic, and I hope that my response has helped to clarify what I was getting at in the video.
@@MetaTrek Thank you for your detailed and well-reasoned reply. In the Star Trek episodes that you cited in the video and in other similar episodes (e.g., the TAS episode "Sharper Than A Serpent's Tooth"), visits by the more highly evolved and/or technologically superior aliens to planet earth or other planets in ancient times are speculated to be the origin of some of the mythologies and religions of those planets - essentially what is called the ancient aliens hypothesis nowadays. However, "Bread and Circuses" does not, nor does any other episode of Star Trek of which I am aware, make such an assertion, nor even implication, for the origin of the Judeo-Christian religions. This is probably due to the desire by all involved on the business end of the productions to avoid the enormous backlash that such an assertion would engender, but it is nevertheless the case that Star Trek does not make such an assertion. By the way, I think your phrase "there are still a lot of divine beings popping up in Star Trek" is poorly worded in that these beings are shown invariably in Star Trek not to be divine beings, which they may have been mistaken for in the past, but instead are shown to be non-divine, but powerful and highly advanced aliens. In other words, they are shown to be false gods if they had portrayed themselves to be or had been thought to be gods in the past.
You're quite welcome. I enjoy engaging on topics like this. "Bread and Circuses" is an rather peculiar episode to ponder. Roddenberry initially wrote it as a satire of NBC/network television, and then Coon came around and added the religious aspect to it. I've watched some of Coon's earlier television work, and he seemed fond of working Biblical texts into his stories. So I don't think those parts of the episode were intended as satire, but instead were played straight. I know that Roddenberry wanted to do an episode where the Enterprise meets the Judaeo-Christian God, but could never make it work. And I'm sure you're right, that the network would never have allowed it anyway. The closest Roddenberry got to meeting God was in the _TAS_ episode, "The Magicks of Megus-Tu" where Kirk and company meet Lucifer instead. Perhaps "metaphysical beings popping up" might have been more accurate. I hopefully will get a chance to revisit this subject in a broader context, as in this video I purposefully only discussed legends that were mentioned as such in the episode, and how they always turned out to be real in universe.
@@MetaTrek I would like to add, while mostly secular humanist in its philosophy, Star Trek is not consistently so since there are some notable lapses from strict materialism in it. In "Science and Religion, Methodology and Humanism" Eugenie C. Scott, National Centre for Science and Education, states "science must be limited to using just natural forces in its explanations. This is sometimes referred to as the principle of methodological materialism in science ... Scientists use only methodological materialism because it is logical, but primarily because it works. We don't need to use supernatural forces to explain nature, and we get farther in our understanding of nature by relying on natural causes." The humans of Star Trek accept paranormal powers such as telepathy, telekinesis, and soul/mind transference without having a methodological materialism based scientific explanation of how these operate. They sometimes find a cause for the awakening of these abilities in humanoids such as interaction with the galactic barrier or a substance in the food and water on a planet, but they never provide a scientific explanation for how these powers actually work. The soul transference that occurs in the transference of Spock's katra to Dr. McCoy and then to Spock's newly regenerated body is just wrapped in Vulcan mysticism. Other mind transferences occur in Star Trek such as between aliens and humans, or from humans to android bodies, but how this is possible is never explained scientifically. Star Trek definitely shows a belief that the mind/soul is something different from the body which can exist without the body in not only the soul/mind transferences that occur throughout Star Trek, but also by the plethora of incorporeal beings that exist in the Star Trek universe. How a consciousness, mind, soul, personality, or whatever you want to call it, exists and functions independently of a body is never explained scientifically in Star Trek. Such dualism is definitely not allowed in secular humanism. Secular humanists believe that the mind (also referred to as consciousness, personality, or soul) is simply a manifestation of the brain. The mind is an extension of the natural world, explainable in purely material terms. This stance arises from the Secular Humanist epistemological belief that matter (including energy) is all that exists and that the mind is, therefore, a strictly material phenomenon. The belief that the mind is no more than a conglomeration of matter is called monism. The opposing view, that the mind differs from matter, is called dualism.
It seems that you’ve reached the same basic conclusions that I have, and you cite many of the same examples that helped me to reach those conclusions. What you’ve articulated so well is exactly what I was referring to when I stated: “Star Trek does deviate from this worldview in a couple of ways, mainly regarding the more metaphysical tenets.” I’ve personally had to conclude that Star Trek has developed its own, independent worldview that is based on SH, but is not exactly the same. It seems that Star Trek adheres to SH’s _social tenets,_ but not its _metaphysical_ tenets.
Glad you're enjoying the content. Not sure where the whine could be coming from. Maybe it's the background music I used? Oh, and please check your subscription status, I didn't see any new subs from a couple days ago . . . thanks!
@@mikemullenmusic I hope to someday get a "real" mic. Right now I'm using the mic on my Cannon Powershot camera! Glad you enjoyed the video, be sure to check out some more of them!
Your conclusion is entirely wrong. Star Trek treats one vital theological statement as essential true, in the vital episode, Bread and Circuses. As Historian Tom Holland unpacks in his work, Dominion, and Jordan Peterson has converted in many of his lectures and conversations, it is this vital framework that truly makes the manner of civilisation expressed in the West and in Trek possible.
Doc Sevrin later became Johnny Carson’s bandleader on The Tonight Show.
ok , I chuckled.
Btw: I love the scenes from Excalibur as you discussed the Excalbians: very clever. Carmina Burana plays in the background….. :)
The Excalibur scenes were actually from an earlier version of the video in which I went into the origins of each legend's name. I left them in the final version since they seemed to still fit. Thanks for the comment!
Great collection and summary.
I will never not love how TOS adds "space" to a variety of terms in order to emphasise the futuristic setting
See also "space work" and "space madness" 😉
TOS was clever in sooo many ways! Glad to hear from you again!
I love hearing Space Legends myths are true in Star Trek.
Gene Roddenberry was obsessed with all-powerful aliens or robots that have godlike powers. He kept returning to that theme over and over again. We see it somewhat in V'Ger (which was a reworking of Nomad from "The Changeling") and especially in Q, whom he introduced in the pilot episode of TNG. Q was, I believe, the only one of these that wasn't destroyed, brought under control, or explained away into harmlessness.
Good point about Q. I wonder if we would still have gotten Q if the studio didn't demand a two-hour TNG pilot?
@@MetaTrek Given Roddenberry's track record, I suspect he would have stuck with Q and cut back on "the mystery of Farpoint Station." 😁
@@MrWhipple42 lol, that sounds about right. Coincidentally, I recently did an edit of "Encounter at Farpoint" which I called "The Q-Less Edition." I completely removed Q and made it a 1-hr episode. Those who've watched it all say that it plays better than the full version. Don't get me wrong, I love Q! But shoehorning him into a story isn't necessarily the best.
Kirk takes them down. Gary Mitchell, Charlie X, Apollo, Plato's step children, Gorgon, the friendly angel....and "God" at the center of the galaxy. " Gods" tremble before Kirk.
Yes I think D. C. Fontana wrote an hour pilot that was only about tha mystery of Farpoint with no Q involved. Rodenberry added the extra time by adding Q to the story which Fontana was not thrilled about.
I am a huge fan of Trek, especially TOS. I am also a huge fan of superhero comic books, especially Marvel. People have been saying comics are the modern mythology for many years. In this video, you ask if Trek is a mythology. The answer is neither comics nor Trek is a mythology, but both provide fabulous sandboxes in which to retell older mythologies. In other words, neither is so much creating something new as retelling something already told many times, but with a franchise spin. Trek does bring a nearly original creation to the mix with its positive vision of humanity's future. Older mythologies don't have this. For instance, Greek mythology projects the future as exactly the same as the past, full of the brutal truths of existence with little hope and tragedy is the name of the game. Comic books exist eternally in the present with the past and future being used almost exclusively as plot points. Trek says we will be better people in the future.
In upcoming videos I'll dive much deeper into the topic and explain why I believe that Star Trek is a fully-functioning mythology. Thanks for posting!
Kirk, Spock, & McCoy........MYTH BUSTERS !!!.
That will be an awesome video to watch! Thanks so much for making such high quality videos. They are really enjoyable.
@@thecaptain6730 I do my best! It rewarding to know their appreciated. Unfortunately it takes about a month to completer each video. My community tab is now functional, so I'll be more active there between videos. I'll be posting tomorrow about Star Trek and mythology, so check that out!
You could also include "Wolf In The Fold" to this list. Even today, we're still not certain who Jack The Ripper was or if even one person was responsible for the murders. Redjac is revealed as an alien entity behind the killings on Earth as well as other planets under different names.
Good point. I had considered adding this, but it didn't quite fit the criteria I was going for.
Your vids are great mate. Unique insights into TOS stories. Much better than basement dwellers debating technobabble.
Much appreciated! Glad you're enjoying them!
My favourite tos episode was Where No Man Has Gone Before with , Gary Lockwood, and Sally Kellerman, who turn into gods.
It's one of my favorites too.
I love hearing about the 9 Star Trek Space Legends that were true.
What about the episode "Bread And Circuses" when Uhura mentions the son of God!!! Not mythology IMHO.🙂
Back when Star Trek was great. Sigh.
Now we have to deal with an emotionally unstable, whispering, passive-aggressive “Captain”.
@@ArmyJames Sad little boy. Hope you're able to grow up someday.
I re-watched "The Way to Eden" recently (yes, the final lazy daze of summer). And I surprised myself in that I think "Eden" is not a half-bad episode at all--despite the lack of the more sci-fi elements that most TOS episodes have. I'm still deciding if it was out-of-character for Spock to be able "to reach" with the...er...space hippies...or not. Some critics have insisted that Spock should have been the least understanding and sympathetic to the group. But, ultimately, I think it does make sense for Spock to understand what they were doing by seeking "Eden" as a quest for perfection. After all, isn't that what Spock himself is attempting to do at the beginning of TMP.
Spock's line about a hunger for Eden is beautifully stated, and Kirk's somewhat mystical response that "that cave is deep in our memory" is provoking indeed. Speaking of deep, mystical caves: I'm curious of your interpretation of the Dragon-Monster statue (that seems to be alight) in Spock's quarters...deep caves indeed.
Spock's fascination with Eden appears again in ST: VI as well as demonstrated by the painting he had in his quarters.
LLAP!!!
It’s great to hear your thoughts on “The Way to Eden.” I’ve never understood why people hate on that episode so much. I find it a fun episode to watch, and on a deeper level, it’s Star Trek’s response to the youth movement of the day. As to whether or not Spock acted out of character, Spock was a counter-culture figure in his own right, just like the hippies of the day, both in-universe (not attending the Vulcan Science Academy as he was expected to, but instead leaving Vulcan to join Star Fleet) and out (as a symbol of the outsider), so I think that he would connect to the space hippies quest for something outside their society. Even if he was acting out of character, that’s something that we as autonomous human being do all the time. For example, if someone normally appeases a bully, and then one time they beat the hell out of the bully instead, we could say that person was acting out of character, but that’s just the way people are. I feel it is just as acceptable for our fictional characters to act out of character from time to time, as it makes them more human.
I like your connection to the Dragon-Monster statue in Spock’s quarters, it’s a fascinating symbol, and I’ll have to think more on that. It’s intriguing that this theme of Eden resonates with Spock across different points in the series and films, reflecting his continuous journey toward self-perfection. It also seems to run in his family!
“Runs in his family!” ROFLOL!!! Indeed!!! :) 🖖🖖🖖
Qetzecoatl is mentioned again in the AWESOME video game Star Trek 25th Anniversary!
These video games were the closest thing I ever got to seeing a Season 4 and 5.
I remember when that game came out, despite the simple graphics, it was such a cool experience feeling like you're actually in Star Trek.
Some people may or may not know the actor Michael Forrest who appeared in guest-starring roles in westerns and science fiction shows such as the Outer Limits or comedies like The Dick Van Dyke Show portraying a priest who was an ex High School boyfriend of Laura's but his best in that role was Apollo the mythical GOD Apolo that was brought down by technology Michael Forrest was outstanding and even to this very day they still talk about him doing that role and I was told that he was brought back in Star Trek The Next Generation to redo the role of Apollo an episode that I never seen.
Michael Forrest appeared in an episode of the fan film series Star Trek Continues, not TNG. Worth checking out.
@@MetaTrek Thank You
You're welcome! That fan film series is available on youtube btw.
Excellent overview.
this is amazing work!! thank you
You're welcome, glad you enjoyed it!
I would imagine the Prophets and the Celestial Temple/Wormhole from DS9 would fall into the same category.
I'm struggling to think of good examples from TNG, though.
Who Watches The Watchers where Picard is mistaken for a god. Devil's Due also.
@@sureshmukhi2316 Wouldn't those be the opposite, though? In both cases, neither Picard nor Ardra was the source of the myth. They were associated with it after the fact.
I can easily imagine that the Q Continuum have been seen as gods by some of the various cultures they've interacted with, though annoyingly meddlesome ones perhaps. 😀
@@thatpatrickguy3446 Doubtless! There are all sorts of beings in Trek that could be a member of the Q Continuum, starting with Trelaine.
@@GreyhawkGrognard I'm with you on that! As soon as I found out about the Q Continuum my first thought was of Trelaine!😀 It just makes so much sense!
And, by the way, as an old school Greyhawk fan, I like your moniker. 😀
enjoyed the video.
you sound kinda like Andreeson.
Super job!
My salute to you.
Very interesting video! 👍
Thank you! Cheers!
@@MetaTrek keep up the good work!
Just became a Patreon supporter!
@@jhallam2011 thank you, that is totally awesome! Welcome aboard!
@@MetaTrek happy to be here! Keep up the great content!
You earned a subscribe simply using clips from Excalibur..
It bugs me that the movies (aside from Space Seed) do not acknowledge or reference TOS when they can. Two glaring examples are : Why no mention of Nomad during TMP? It's as if the V'Ger vessel and Illia probe are new ideas to the crew. Or as you brought up here not even a casual mention of Dr. Sevrin in TFF. I really would have liked for Gary Mitchell to have been the entity they encountered on the Eden planet in TFF somehow.
It has always bothered me in TFF when Kirk says "I lost a brother once . . ." Every time I hear him say that I think of his brother Sam, although he wasn't, as he finishes by saying, "I was lucky, I got him back." So he was referring to Spock instead. Nice sentiment, but a bit awkward knowing he had a *real* brother whom he also lost in TOS. Again, there's no recognition of the events or characters from the series outside the regular cast members.
Overall I agree with you that the films could have referenced the series more, but there are some references: the tribbles the bar and the self-destruct code from Star Trek III. The slingshot around the sun time travel possibility as a reference to “Tomorrow Is Yesterday.”
For me personally I did not like the episode “Changling” very much. Although I love the motion picture. Nomad and V’ger always seems so different to me. Plus it wasn’t until close to the end of the movie that they realized that V’ger was a ship that did not have a crew, and not until the very end of the movie that they realized it had been an Earth probe, so probably no time to reference nomad- I think the biggest difference between the two probes was size and scope. Nomad is it smaller than a refrigerator, while V’ger seemingly contained endless universes within it.
I would however have loved it if in STIV Kirk I have referenced Edith Keeler or visited her grave (as I think he does in the novelization )
@Metatrek I wholeheartedly agree about the brother line in STV. That always bothers me, and I remember being confused about that when I sought for the first time in theaters.
@@thecaptain6730 those are all great examples of the movies referencing the series. I felt that Kirk missing his "old chair" in ST:V was a nice nod to TOS too. And I think you're right about the sling shot effect referencing "Tomorrow is Yesterday," as well as "Assignment: Earth."
You got me concerned about my next video. It's another comparison video, this time I'm comparing, of all things, _TMP_ and "The Changeling!" A part of it will be contrasting the two as well.
That would have been awesome to see Kirk paying his respects to Edith Keeler in ST:IV, one of the most tragic figures in all of Trek.
@Metatrek, (apologies for voice typing while in the car here) no need to be concerned! :) It will be awesome to see TMP and “The Changeling” compared. TMP is my all time favorite film-of all time-White Christmas comes in second though ;).
I think the problem might be the order in which I first watched Star Trek. I think I was around eight when my grandfather (a WWII and Korea vet-Who showed me movies that-more often than not I should not of seen at the age when he showed me-although ST was fine, of course.) showed me Star Trek II. After watching STIi I naturally wanted to see the origin story of Khan, so he showed me Star Trek the motion picture a few weeks later. Needless to say I was thoroughly confused that there was no khan in TMP. :) but my point is that I always wondered what I would’ve thought of “Space Seed” as an episode if I had seen it before Star Trek II.
I think it’s the same thing with “The Changeling”. Since I saw the motion picture first-several times in fact- before I saw “The Changeling ” when I was 13. It’s hard for me too think of the changeling as just an episode without viewing it in the light of TMP…esp. since so many people compare the two. Have to go now since I’m traveling, but I look forward to your next video. Incidentally, two of my teen and almost teen sons just told me that they love “the Changeling” so no worries! I am in the odd man out here 😀
TMP is my favorite ST movie too, partly because it's the longest trek of them all. It's cool to be in that universe longer while enjoying the same story. It also has a sense of mystery to it that is hard to explain. It's more than the mystery presented in the story--who or what is heading towards Earth--it's the movie itself that seems mysterious. It's also the only live action ST from the '70s, so that makes it something of a curiosity in and of itself. It's a peek at what could have been.
I envy you that you can remember the first time you saw TOS episodes. I was so young when I first saw them, 5 or 6 at the oldest, and likely even younger than that, that it seems like they've just always been there. I don't remember the first time seeing any of them! The movies are different of course. It sounds like you had a pretty cool grandfather. So he introduced you to ST? You've got me wondering what I might have thought of TOS had I seen the movies first.
Oh, and tell your sons that I think they're right about "The Changeling." My wife and I just rewatched it as part of my "research" for the video. While a few things were over exaggerated, like Nomad's ridiculously powerful photon torpedoes and the whole Uhura issue (which they had the perfect solution to had they only thought of it! I'll explain in the video . . .), I really enjoyed the episode. I love the voice of Nomad, it's got a pure science fiction sound to it that I love. And it was cool having a robot as a guest star! You're right about how different the two films are, so I will be contrasting TMP and "The Changeling" as well. I look forward to your feedback on the video!
Never thought of it that way, but modern myth.. at least, the first show. Never liked the Next Generation. My husband called it "Ambassadors in Space" and "Westley saves the Enterprise, again."
I'm glad to hear that this video may have helped you to think of TOS in a new way!
🤔 🧐 blew my mind 🤯
Then my work is done! haha
I think you have forgotten Vall...
I looked at Vaal, but he ultimately didn't fit into any of the three categories. All the entries I discussed had to be known to the Enterprise crew as a legend or myth prior to contact being made. Thanks for commenting!
Just saying Vall was trying to play God....
And the NAZIS
Interesting.
I think that Leslie Parrish is still one incredibly beautiful woman! She is still very beautiful! Tim
Did you deliberately edit Kirk's line "We have no need for gods.....EXCEPT FOR THE ONE." Very misleading.
The line is "...we find the one quite sufficient." Could still be referring to a cultural "soft Christianity" rather than a firm theological position.
@@GreyhawkGrognard My point is that in the video the line is edited out, making it seem like Kirk was an athiest which I don't believe he was.
The original script did not include the line "we find the one quite sufficient." NBC's network censors required the producers to add it so as not to offend the large number of religious viewers in 1967. The cast and crew resented that addition, which is why Shatner rolled his eyes when he delivered the line.
The line wasn't relevant to the point I was making, which was that humanity had outgrown the need for Apollo. Thank you for posting your thoughts!
Star Trek is mythology? Then will Kirk become a god in 1,000 years.
I think it'll happen by the 23rd century.
Count me as First Acolyte🎉.
I'm like Mr. Adventure: " IT'S ADMIRAL KIRK MY GOD❤😮!!!!!"
50
Since you say that Star Trek's world view is non-theistic, what is your response to the last scene of the TOS episode "Bread and Circuses" which goes as follows:
MCCOY: Captain, I see on your report Flavius was killed. I am sorry. I liked that huge sun worshiper.
SPOCK: I wish we could have examined that belief of his more closely. It seems illogical for a sun worshiper to develop a philosophy of total brotherhood. Sun worship is usually a primitive superstition religion.
UHURA: I'm afraid you have it all wrong, Mister Spock, all of you. I've been monitoring some of their old-style radio waves, the empire spokesman trying to ridicule their religion. But he couldn't. Don't you understand? It's not the sun up in the sky. It's the Son of God.
KIRK: Caesar and Christ. They had them both. And the word is spreading only now.
MCCOY: A philosophy of total love and total brotherhood.
SPOCK: It will replace their imperial Rome, but it will happen in their twentieth century.
KIRK: Wouldn't it be something to watch, to be a part of? To see it happen all over again? Mister Chekov, take us out of orbit. Ahead warp factor one.
CHEKOV: Aye, sir.
Thank you for your question. It’s commonly held that Star Trek’s worldview is based on Secular Humanism. Having thoroughly researched the matter, including doing an exhaustive tenet by tenet comparison of the Secular Humanist Manifesto to what we saw in TOS, I concur with this. Star Trek does deviate from this worldview in a couple of ways, mainly regarding the more metaphysical tenets. The point I was making in the video, however, was how, despite it’s secular (and therefore non-theistic) foundation, there are still a lot of divine beings popping up in Star Trek , which tells me there’s something more going on here than meets the eye. I believe this “something” is mythological in nature. As I stated in the video, I believe that Star Trek is an emergent, secular mythology.
Now, more to your point, Star Trek did, at times, delve into theistic topics. One of the best case-in-points is the passage that you’ve quoted, which is quite an interesting anomaly. I know how this passage made it into the episode, and how it caused a great deal of strife between Star Trek’s two Genes (Roddenberry and Coon), hastening the departure of one from the show (Coon). While I would view this passage in comparison to Star Trek’s overall worldview as being more like the difference between weather and climate, it also provides a link back to the broader (Western) culture’s founding worldview, that of Christianity. In my research I’ve discovered that connecting back to earlier religions/mythologies is a common practice in all emerging religions/mythologies. Here Kirk’s line, “Caesar and Christ. They had them both. And the word is spreading only now,” feels more like Kirk musing over Uhura’s statement that a Christian-like belief has taken root on this planet, rather than a firm statement that Caesar and Christ have somehow been reborn on 892-IV.
In closing I’d say that Star Trek built an even stronger connection to Greek mythology, as it ratified the Greek pantheon in “Who Mourns for Adonais.” This is a deeply complex topic, and I hope that my response has helped to clarify what I was getting at in the video.
@@MetaTrek Thank you for your detailed and well-reasoned reply.
In the Star Trek episodes that you cited in the video and in other similar episodes (e.g., the TAS episode "Sharper Than A Serpent's Tooth"), visits by the more highly evolved and/or technologically superior aliens to planet earth or other planets in ancient times are speculated to be the origin of some of the mythologies and religions of those planets - essentially what is called the ancient aliens hypothesis nowadays.
However, "Bread and Circuses" does not, nor does any other episode of Star Trek of which I am aware, make such an assertion, nor even implication, for the origin of the Judeo-Christian religions. This is probably due to the desire by all involved on the business end of the productions to avoid the enormous backlash that such an assertion would engender, but it is nevertheless the case that Star Trek does not make such an assertion.
By the way, I think your phrase "there are still a lot of divine beings popping up in Star Trek" is poorly worded in that these beings are shown invariably in Star Trek not to be divine beings, which they may have been mistaken for in the past, but instead are shown to be non-divine, but powerful and highly advanced aliens. In other words, they are shown to be false gods if they had portrayed themselves to be or had been thought to be gods in the past.
You're quite welcome. I enjoy engaging on topics like this. "Bread and Circuses" is an rather peculiar episode to ponder. Roddenberry initially wrote it as a satire of NBC/network television, and then Coon came around and added the religious aspect to it. I've watched some of Coon's earlier television work, and he seemed fond of working Biblical texts into his stories. So I don't think those parts of the episode were intended as satire, but instead were played straight.
I know that Roddenberry wanted to do an episode where the Enterprise meets the Judaeo-Christian God, but could never make it work. And I'm sure you're right, that the network would never have allowed it anyway. The closest Roddenberry got to meeting God was in the _TAS_ episode, "The Magicks of Megus-Tu" where Kirk and company meet Lucifer instead.
Perhaps "metaphysical beings popping up" might have been more accurate. I hopefully will get a chance to revisit this subject in a broader context, as in this video I purposefully only discussed legends that were mentioned as such in the episode, and how they always turned out to be real in universe.
@@MetaTrek I would like to add, while mostly secular humanist in its philosophy, Star Trek is not consistently so since there are some notable lapses from strict materialism in it.
In "Science and Religion, Methodology and Humanism" Eugenie C. Scott, National Centre for Science and Education, states "science must be limited to using just natural forces in its explanations. This is sometimes referred to as the principle of methodological materialism in science ... Scientists use only methodological materialism because it is logical, but primarily because it works. We don't need to use supernatural forces to explain nature, and we get farther in our understanding of nature by relying on natural causes."
The humans of Star Trek accept paranormal powers such as telepathy, telekinesis, and soul/mind transference without having a methodological materialism based scientific explanation of how these operate. They sometimes find a cause for the awakening of these abilities in humanoids such as interaction with the galactic barrier or a substance in the food and water on a planet, but they never provide a scientific explanation for how these powers actually work.
The soul transference that occurs in the transference of Spock's katra to Dr. McCoy and then to Spock's newly regenerated body is just wrapped in Vulcan mysticism.
Other mind transferences occur in Star Trek such as between aliens and humans, or from humans to android bodies, but how this is possible is never explained scientifically.
Star Trek definitely shows a belief that the mind/soul is something different from the body which can exist without the body in not only the soul/mind transferences that occur throughout Star Trek, but also by the plethora of incorporeal beings that exist in the Star Trek universe.
How a consciousness, mind, soul, personality, or whatever you want to call it, exists and functions independently of a body is never explained scientifically in Star Trek. Such dualism is definitely not allowed in secular humanism.
Secular humanists believe that the mind (also referred to as consciousness, personality, or soul) is simply a manifestation of the brain. The mind is an extension of the natural world, explainable in purely material terms. This stance arises from the Secular Humanist epistemological belief that matter (including energy) is all that exists and that the mind is, therefore, a strictly material phenomenon. The belief that the mind is no more than a conglomeration of matter is called monism. The opposing view, that the mind differs from matter, is called dualism.
It seems that you’ve reached the same basic conclusions that I have, and you cite many of the same examples that helped me to reach those conclusions. What you’ve articulated so well is exactly what I was referring to when I stated: “Star Trek does deviate from this worldview in a couple of ways, mainly regarding the more metaphysical tenets.” I’ve personally had to conclude that Star Trek has developed its own, independent worldview that is based on SH, but is not exactly the same. It seems that Star Trek adheres to SH’s _social tenets,_ but not its _metaphysical_ tenets.
You make good content, I subscribed, but please get a proper microphone, that high pitch whine is horrible
Glad you're enjoying the content. Not sure where the whine could be coming from. Maybe it's the background music I used? Oh, and please check your subscription status, I didn't see any new subs from a couple days ago . . . thanks!
@@MetaTrek I think he means that the mic is a little sibilant, but it's not bad. Great show!
@@mikemullenmusic I hope to someday get a "real" mic. Right now I'm using the mic on my Cannon Powershot camera! Glad you enjoyed the video, be sure to check out some more of them!
True in what way? There are no such things as gods.
Turned out to be true "in universe".
@@MetaTrek "What does a "god" need with a Star Ship?"
@@sagnhill Bring the ship closer and I'll tell you . . .
@@MetaTrek 😄
God believes in you.
Your conclusion is entirely wrong. Star Trek treats one vital theological statement as essential true, in the vital episode, Bread and Circuses. As Historian Tom Holland unpacks in his work, Dominion, and Jordan Peterson has converted in many of his lectures and conversations, it is this vital framework that truly makes the manner of civilisation expressed in the West and in Trek possible.