RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,567
Posts: 5,402,444
Members: 24,865
Currently online: 624
Newest member: shyrim

TrekToday headlines

October-November 2014 Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

Cho Selfie TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

TPTB To Shatner: Shhh!
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

Mystery Mini Vinyl Figure Display Box
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

The Red Shirt Diaries Episode Five
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

Shatner In Trek 3? Well Maybe
By: T'Bonz on Sep 28

Retro Review: Shadows and Symbols
By: Michelle on Sep 27

Meyer: Revitalizing Star Trek
By: T'Bonz on Sep 26

Trek Costumes To Be Auctioned
By: T'Bonz on Sep 25

Hulu Snaps up Abrams-Produced Drama
By: T'Bonz on Sep 25


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Welcome to the Trek BBS! > General Trek Discussion

General Trek Discussion Trek TV and cinema subjects not related to any specific series or movie.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 2 2013, 03:32 AM   #376
horatio83
Commodore
 
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

Jake didn't seem to become a reporter because it payed so well. That kid wasted quite some years before he knew what kind of work to pursue and it didn't seem like his father urged him to earn a living. So yeah, the folks in DS9 still tick like Kirk and Picard.
__________________
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer. - former US Secretary of State and unconvicted war criminal Henry Kissinger
horatio83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2 2013, 04:08 AM   #377
Dr. Sevrin
Vice Admiral
 
Dr. Sevrin's Avatar
 
Location: Melakon's grave
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

And Joseph Sisko didn't run a restaurant due to needing the money, but because he enjoyed it. Though it does make me wonder if his customers somehow "paid" for their meals or left some sort of gratuity. How do you reward good service when there's no money?
__________________
Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard: For duty and humanity! --Men in Black, 1934
Dr. Sevrin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2 2013, 05:48 AM   #378
I am not Spock
Commodore
 
Location: Australia
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

DS9 always seemed to reject Roddenberry's idea of 'no money', thinking it was unrealistic, naive and/or stupid. Quite a few episodes mock the pomposity of Picard's 'we work to better ourselves' speech. Notably in 'In the Cards' (DS9)

The 'no conflict' idea of Roddenberry's, between crew members, is a dumb idea too. It removes all drama.
__________________
It's a FAAAAKKKEEE!
Senator Vreenak- In the Pale Moonlight
I am not Spock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2 2013, 06:21 AM   #379
robau
Lieutenant Commander
 
robau's Avatar
 
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

Melakon wrote: View Post
And Joseph Sisko didn't run a restaurant due to needing the money, but because he enjoyed it. Though it does make me wonder if his customers somehow "paid" for their meals or left some sort of gratuity. How do you reward good service when there's no money?
By going back.
robau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2 2013, 06:25 AM   #380
Mr_Homn
Captain
 
Mr_Homn's Avatar
 
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

I've met plenty of retirees who are rich enough to live off the earnings of a successful career, who find themselves re-entering the work force to out of boredom or to stay busy or out of passion for something. I don't think it's too far fetched at all that people who live on an idyllic earth in the 24th century work or start a "business" just for the sheer fulfillment of it. (do I think the 24th century will actually be that way? hell no, but if we accept star trek's premise that 24th century earth is a utopia, I totally buy it)

Now, would people become custodians for the heck of it? Doubtful, but that's what advanced technology is for. Chefs, singers, artists, architects, archaeologists, scientists, teachers, tour guides, tailors, carpenters, mechanics, engineers? I could definitely see people working in those careers (among others) just for the satisfaction if they already live on an ideal earth.

I buy into the idea that in the star trek universe, people on earth in the 24th century work to better themselves. That Earth in the 24th century is for the most part a self contained paradise where people don't have to work if they don't want to, but there are plenty of people who do for the satisfaction and self fulfillment. For all the jobs that people don't want to do, the dirty jobs, there are plenty of non sentient robots and other forms of non sentient AI.

Outside of Earth/core federation planets, it's a whole different story. Money is an important thing on the frontier.
__________________
"Thank you.. for the drinks."

Last edited by Mr_Homn; May 2 2013 at 06:37 AM.
Mr_Homn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2 2013, 06:21 PM   #381
MrArcas
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
MrArcas's Avatar
 
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

sonak wrote: View Post
his later ideas seemed to be worse-the whole "evolved, enlightened Humanity" thing, plus the wacky idea that Starfleet wasn't military.
Hm. Just felt like this one needed response. First, I don't think Roddenberry ever saw Starfleet as not being military. They are clearly burdened with the job of Federation defense/security when needed, they have ranks, the take their orders from a centralized fleet command. It's all pretty military. But what they aren't is an analog to most modern (say, U.S.) defense organizations. Defense is part of their role, but not necessarily their primary duty. That's summed up in the start of ever show: to explore strange new worlds, to see out new life and new civilizations.

So Starfleet is NASA combined with the Navy combined with the Merchant Marine... and maybe a few other things as well. But their primary job is not "blasting bad guys", though they'll do it if required.

As Roddenberry created Trek and Starfleet, it seems odd to say he's off base in defining its character? It's kinda like saying that Lucas was wrong in making Han Solo a smuggler, or something? It's his futuristic, aspirational vision so there's no real "right and wrong" to be had there.

I'm just sayin'
MrArcas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2 2013, 07:17 PM   #382
Nightdiamond
Fleet Captain
 
Nightdiamond's Avatar
 
Location: California
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

I noticed the first few seasons of TNG and TOS had a heavier dose of utopia descriptions.

I don't think these ideas are worse or bad ideas, but a question of how realistic or rational the ideas are.

According to TOS, future humans don't get angry at insults anymore at all. They don't fear words.

The Neutral Zone (TNG), claims 24th century humans don't fear death, they're much more evolved than that.

Then you have the no need or want in the 24th century--humans had 'grown out their infancy'.

That sounds like humans are living in a virtual Eden getting all their needs provided for free.

And Starfleet is not the military- it is an exploration vessel that carries families and children, but will take care of military duties if necessary--with the children on board.

Is it realistic or utopian, or both?
Nightdiamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2 2013, 08:15 PM   #383
EliyahuQeoni
Commodore
 
EliyahuQeoni's Avatar
 
Location: Redmond, Oregon, United States of America, North America, Earth, Sol System, Milky Way, Universe
View EliyahuQeoni's Twitter Profile
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

Nightdiamond wrote: View Post
According to TOS, future humans don't get angry at insults anymore at all. They don't fear words.
Are you sure about that? Scotty started a bar-room brawl over a Klingon insulting the Enterprise in Trouble With Tribbles...
__________________
"Canon is only important to certain people because they have to cling to their knowledge of the minutiae. Open your mind! Be a Star Trek fan and open your mind and say, 'Where does Star Trek want to take me now'." - Leonard Nimoy
EliyahuQeoni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2 2013, 08:29 PM   #384
Third Nacelle
Captain
 
Third Nacelle's Avatar
 
Location: The Denorios Belt
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

Nightdiamond wrote: View Post
I noticed the first few seasons of TNG and TOS had a heavier dose of utopia descriptions.

I don't think these ideas are worse or bad ideas, but a question of how realistic or rational the ideas are.

According to TOS, future humans don't get angry at insults anymore at all. They don't fear words.

The Neutral Zone (TNG), claims 24th century humans don't fear death, they're much more evolved than that.

Then you have the no need or want in the 24th century--humans had 'grown out their infancy'.

That sounds like humans are living in a virtual Eden getting all their needs provided for free.

And Starfleet is not the military- it is an exploration vessel that carries families and children, but will take care of military duties if necessary--with the children on board.

Is it realistic or utopian, or both?
I don't think of it as a utopia. A utopia by its very definition is stagnant and boring. I think Roddenberry's vision was of humanity working to constantly improving itself - striving toward perfection, even if perfection itself is unreachable.

And yes, the Federation does seem like an Eden by modern standards, but think of when it takes place. A lot of people seem to forget that Star Trek's setting is not 20 years in the future, not 50 years in the future, it's THREE CENTURIES in the future. A lot changes in 300 (or 400) years.

Most of our lives are like an Eden compared to life three hundred years ago. Our world is not perfect, but we have more freedoms and opportunities than ever, and we are (slowly) working toward equality. In many respects we in real life are living out Roddenberry's vision.
Third Nacelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2 2013, 10:22 PM   #385
foxhot
Fleet Captain
 
foxhot's Avatar
 
Location: BizarroStormy
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

EliyahuQeoni wrote: View Post
Nightdiamond wrote: View Post
According to TOS, future humans don't get angry at insults anymore at all. They don't fear words.
Are you sure about that? Scotty started a bar-room brawl over a Klingon insulting the Enterprise in Trouble With Tribbles...
Nightdiamond's likely thinking of that SAVAGE CURTAIN moment when Abraham Lincoln refers to Uhura as a charming Negress. Here's my slightly tweaked version below.

LINCOLN: Forgive me my dear. I realize my choice of words may be poor in these circumstances.

UHURA: But why should I be offended, sir? We've learned over time we have nothing to fear from words.....

KIRK: That's right. Mankind has evolved beyond such fear and ignorance. And that's why we have @#$%^&s on the bridge as well as &*$%#s.

UHURA and SULU: You son of a $$%^&*!!!!!
foxhot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2 2013, 11:51 PM   #386
Nightdiamond
Fleet Captain
 
Nightdiamond's Avatar
 
Location: California
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

EliyahuQeoni wrote: View Post
Are you sure about that? Scotty started a bar-room brawl over a Klingon insulting the Enterprise in Trouble With Tribbles...
Don't know about Scotty, but in one episode, after fake Lincoln unintentionally uses an offensive name for Uhura, she says she's not offended at all, and makes a statement that in their century, they've learned not to fear words.

It just seemed to suggest that the average 23d century human cant be offended by words and insults anymore.

Third Nacelle wrote: View Post

I don't think of it as a utopia. A utopia by its very definition is stagnant and boring. I think Roddenberry's vision was of humanity working to constantly improving itself - striving toward perfection, even if perfection itself is unreachable.

And yes, the Federation does seem like an Eden by modern standards, but think of when it takes place. A lot of people seem to forget that Star Trek's setting is not 20 years in the future, not 50 years in the future, it's THREE CENTURIES in the future. A lot changes in 300 (or 400) years.
I agree too, that people have improved over time and have dumped at least some self destructive behaviors.

According to Trek, all humans have no prejudices, are unselfish, pacifist, and accepting.

What I find fascinating is that Trek is basically saying that 100% of humanity acts and thinks this way.

What could realistically cause a change like that to happen?
Nightdiamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2013, 12:25 AM   #387
horatio83
Commodore
 
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

WWIII plus first contact. The former opens up the ideological space, people are hungry for a new kind of society after the old one collapsed. The latter implies an alien gaze on all of humankind. Humans see themselves reflected in this gaze and perceive themselves more than before as one species. They might also feel shame which makes them wanna improve.
__________________
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer. - former US Secretary of State and unconvicted war criminal Henry Kissinger
horatio83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2013, 01:08 AM   #388
Third Nacelle
Captain
 
Third Nacelle's Avatar
 
Location: The Denorios Belt
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

Nightdiamond wrote: View Post
EliyahuQeoni wrote: View Post
Are you sure about that? Scotty started a bar-room brawl over a Klingon insulting the Enterprise in Trouble With Tribbles...
Don't know about Scotty, but in one episode, after fake Lincoln unintentionally uses an offensive name for Uhura, she says she's not offended at all, and makes a statement that in their century, they've learned not to fear words.

It just seemed to suggest that the average 23d century human cant be offended by words and insults anymore.

Third Nacelle wrote: View Post

I don't think of it as a utopia. A utopia by its very definition is stagnant and boring. I think Roddenberry's vision was of humanity working to constantly improving itself - striving toward perfection, even if perfection itself is unreachable.

And yes, the Federation does seem like an Eden by modern standards, but think of when it takes place. A lot of people seem to forget that Star Trek's setting is not 20 years in the future, not 50 years in the future, it's THREE CENTURIES in the future. A lot changes in 300 (or 400) years.
I agree too, that people have improved over time and have dumped at least some self destructive behaviors.

According to Trek, all humans have no prejudices, are unselfish, pacifist, and accepting.

What I find fascinating is that Trek is basically saying that 100% of humanity acts and thinks this way.

What could realistically cause a change like that to happen?
According to Trek? Or according to the offhand remarks of a character in Trek?

I would say most, but not all characters in Star Trek do seem less selfish, more pacifist, and in general more accepting than most modern people, but the bad qualities haven't disappeared entirely. There's still prejudice around (just look at the attitudes toward the Ferengi), selfishness (Harcourt Mudd, Cyrano Jones, Vash), and plenty of people willing to go to war.
Third Nacelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2013, 02:26 AM   #389
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

Nightdiamond wrote: View Post
It just seemed to suggest that the average 23d century human cant be offended by words and insults anymore.
Likely they're not offended by three-hundred year old insults...
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2013, 02:27 AM   #390
yousirname
Commander
 
yousirname's Avatar
 
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

Nightdiamond wrote: View Post
Don't know about Scotty, but in one episode, after fake Lincoln unintentionally uses an offensive name for Uhura, she says she's not offended at all, and makes a statement that in their century, they've learned not to fear words.
Her statement can be interpreted to mean that she recognises Lincoln's intent was not to insult, and so she isn't offended by the mere word itself, since she knows the intent behind it wasn't hurtful.
yousirname is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.