Had Picard confined his comments to the Mintakan situation and to the Federation's role in abrogating a free choice made by the Mintakans--instead of extending it to ALL believers in ALL religions--I wouldn't have had a problem. But the generalization I found offensive and quite frankly, what it suggests about what happened to humanity as they moved into their "utopia" is scary. I just hope it was exile, and not something worse.
^ I agree Nerys, it is worrysome. However, what strikes me as odd is that there are some Humans who continue to hold on to their religious/spiritual beliefs into the 24th century - look no farther than Chakotay for that. Also, we know that the major Western religions, at least Christianity, survived until the time of ENT - as Phlox at one point says he attended a mass at St. Peter's in Rome and familiarized himself with other Earth religions. What I'll like to know is what happened to the major religions of the world between the 22nd and 24th centuries that caused them all to virtually disappear, but left other, less widespread ones, in place. As a side-note, from a production point-of-view, I find it highly disturbing that TPTB are essentially saying that some religions, like Chakotay's, are okay, but others, like Christianity, are not. You can't have it both ways. Either Humans have no religions at all anymore, or it's okay for them all to still exist.
Picard is not that bad, he's just written that way. When I watch it now, TNG is often unbearable, particularly in its early seasons, mostly for these kind of speeches. Fortunately, they stopped (for the most part) doing that as Roddenberry's influence lowered and as a bunch of new and better [than those who worked in season 1 and 2] writers (Piller, Moore, Braga, Echevarria, Behr, Fields...) scripts were good for the most part while she was on TNG) came aboard. Not that we still didn't occasionally get an "Earth society is perfect" speech (Troi in Time's Arrow,pt 2) or an absurd and infuriating interpretation of the Prime Directive (Homeward)... But there are quite a few episodes that feel like proto-DS9, so it would be really difficult for a Niner to dislike all of TNG. My in-universe explanation is that we shouldn't take everything that Picard says as a literal truth. When a foreign diplomat (which Picard is in a way, among other things) starts telling you how wonderful his country is, it's normal to take it with a grain of salt, as there's always propaganda involved.I'm sure he believes in what he says, but it seems like he tends to generalize and exaggerate a lot, and that he's often talking about the Human race as he would like them to be, rather than what they are. He says that there is no money in the Federation and that Humans are not driven by profit, yet his brother is a landowner and small-time businessman. I wonder if he even has a clue about how things really are back on Earth, since he spends most of the time in space, meeting aliens and contrasting their cultures and societies to the idealized Earth society. If he talks in a way that suggests that Humans are not religious anymore, I take it in the meaning that the percentage of religious people has gone down compared to the previous centuries, and they're not a majority anymore, and that the role of religion in society is diminished - not that there aren't still many religious people. After all, we know that traditional religious holidays still exist and haven't been renamed or re-interpreted to fit an atheist mindset (Hindu Festival of Lights, Christmas), and yeah, there's also Chakotay or the native American colonists from "Journey's End". I didn't know that. Now I feel really good thinking about that time when she unsuccessfully campaigned for getting a guest starring role in BSG. I remember when those interview/interviews appeared before season 4 and were discussed on Skiffy BSG forum, pretty much everyone was either appalled or laughing at her and saying "hell no, Ron is not crazy". The news that Nana Visitor would appear in season 4, OTOH, was greeted enthusiastically by posters familiar with Trek.
Marina's impression of the show may be a bit biased by behind-the-scenes stuff rather than what happened onscreen. For example, Michael Dorn has said in interviews that he had much more fun on the set of TNG than on DS9, and since Dorn and Marina are friends she probably took that to mean that the show itself was boring. Also, Marina was friends with Terry Farrell from before Farrell got the job on DS9, so the somewhat acrimonious departure of Farrell from the show might also have caused Marina to side against it. That's my guess at any rate, but that's because I can't see how anyone could consider DS9 boring. I don't know, I think he's fun. He sits at his desk most of the day reading stuff on his computer while drinking tea. He acts aloof, smug and sanctimonious. He complains about young people. He's like me, but with a Yorkshire accent.
Star Trek as a franchise is based on the "humanity is different and evolved" ideal. I don't see that as a criticism of TNG as such. In fairness, it's a criticism of DS9, since whilst an excellent show, it was not in sync with Trek values. Is the Roddenberry vision realistic? I don't think it is personally. But it is art. Art by definition is abstract, or a representation of a given thing. It doesn't have to be a wholly accurate representation, since it is abstract. I think season 1 of TNG (bar the neutral zone and maybe DataLore) sucked. Season 2 was so-so, but it did kick off in quality terms from season 3 to 7.
Well, I can see you never read MY post. And I'm calling bullshit on your 'DS9 is not in sync with Trek values'. TNG is not in sync with TOS's 'values'. And Roddenberry created both of them. Roddenberry and his 'values' changed horses mid-stream and got all 80's PC on us, which was precisely his downfall. The TOS universe was NOT the story of a perfectly 'evolved' crew jetting around the universe spreading the Federation Gospel via arrogant speeches pointing out the flaws of everyone but them. It was the story of a flawed hero and his crew being a group of pioneers of exploration and adventure in the great unknown. But like I said...you didn't read my post.
And besides, most of the guys they encountered in TNG whenever they did the "We're superior" stuff WERE inferior to the Feds one way or another and ended up putting the TNG crew through nastiness that merited at least some snideness on their behalf TO the jerks who caused the situation in the first place. And hell, it's rather ironic that whenever the TNG crew DO act "human" by wanting to get away from an obviously annoying fellow or somesuch they get slammed for being "jerks" by the VERY SAME PEOPLE who wanted them to be more "human" in the first place! Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I'm starting to think the only thing they could've done is just have the crew collectively say "We're the worst people in the world and even a serial rapist is better than us, morally!", is that "human" enough for you?
For the record, I don't usually see those two complaints from the same people. And I'm someone who was irritated by their high and mighty-ness in the first season, and I LIKE things like the crew being annoyed by Hutch or having to deal with negative emotions. But anyway! Since you're here now, I have to ask, do you concede that all Niners aren't TNG haters now, since there are numbers? I mean, over 90% of nearly 70 people here (which is a small number in general, but a decent one for a single subforum) thought TNG was at least "okay" and most of them thought it was good or excellent.
Exactly. This is why the movies are one of the few redeeming features of the series (well, except Insurrection)--we get to really see some of that emotional growth. At least in Picard and Data...
How so? How are humans in DS9 "less evolved" than those in TNG? The humans in TNG were flawed; Geordi was reserved, Picard was arrogant, Riker famously had stink-nuts, and admiral after admiral was shown to be corrupt. As far as I'm concerned, the notion that humanity is evolved is little more than propaganda that Federation diplomats, including Picard, are forced to spread around the galaxy, there's almost no evidence for it in the show itself.
The characters on TNG were flawed, perhaps not flawed enough, but once Michael Piller took over there is enough there to balance out the sci-fi adventure and give the show a second dimension. There's a lot of crap in the early seasons I just feel I have to ignore. At some point Doctor Crusher expresses astonishment and a certain patronizing contempt that humans in the past actually feared death, the implication being that the characters on TNG don't anymore. I'm not sure what that even means or how one would build a sci-fi adventure show on the principal that these characters have no fear of death and are therefore indifferent to the dangers they are facing. There's much less of this obnoxious type of declaration in the later seasons (thankfully), though it does resurface from time to time, such as in Time's Arrow.
I personally don't get all the hate-on over TNG, Picard and the philosophy being presented in TNG. My wife and I just finished our DS9 watching and last night we watched the very first episode of TNG. I never once saw any notion that Humanity/Federation was superior or perfect in such a way that everybody should adopt their ways. Q challenged them that humanity was still something like a primitive child race or whatever and was going to punish all humanity for its past history and actions. Picard never once claimed humanity was perfect, but he did argue that humanity grew beyond the petty things Q was charging them for and claiming humanity was still the same. The entire moral of TNG from start to finish, in my view, was that yes, compared to today's society and way of life, things are a hell of a lot better and humanity did strive beyond all the petty crap our countries, governments & societies are currently stuck in..... but at the same time, Q throughout the entire series, even in the very first episode, continually showed Picard humility and also showed that Humanity still has a looooonnnggg way to go. I never once saw the TNG characters as all perfect and Uber 733t..... every one of them had flaws and issues to over come. Picard right from the start was a tight ass, didn't know how to turn off the professionalism button, couldn't stand children, was continually challenging the abilities of his crew and ship and tried his best to stick to the Prime Directive as best as possible (It was the Flag Ship afterall.... not just some obscure space station on the "frontier.") Over the span of the series, Picard softened up, learned to be more personal with his crew, made mistakes, learned from those mistakes, showed how much he was affected by his actions as Locutus during the episode "Family".... learned to get passed his hangups with children by interacting more with Wes Crusher, the Captain Picard Day where all the kids made little figures and such of him...... he grew into a relationship with Beverly and in the very final episode, he finally sits down to play some poker with the crew he kept trying to distance himself from and says he should have done this a long time ago. There were many points in the series where they showed Picard wasn't at all perfect, in fact because of himself constantly trying to give off this "Perfect" persona, it exposed his flaws in his life from being this way and being so detached. Data with all his perfections, was also not perfect and allowed his adventures of trying to understand humanity more to occasionally put the crew at risk, or even himself. Riker wasn't perfect, because even with all the sharship command offers given to him over the years, he continually chose to be the 1st officer of the Enterprise, claiming that there is no other ship like the Enterprise, but that was a cover for his problems of not thinking he's really that good and had to face his problems of self confidence during "Best of Both Worlds" where he not only had to take command of the Enterprise, but also out smart Picard/Locutus. I never once saw TNG giving the impression that humanity was perfect and flawless, but they did continually give the impression that there's a lot more work we have to do to better ourselves far beyond the petty crap that grips our current lives in today's society. Some here seem to give the impression that they think Gene's version of the future is way beyond reality, shows a perfect Utopia way of life and that we'll never see such a future..... some also comment that it makes them sick or ill to even see episodes where they boast of such a way of life. That's their opinion.... an opinion I don't agree with and find flawed. Then again, I suppose it depends on where you live in the world and what your current society is like. Do I think Gene's concept of the future could be possible, or close to? I believe it is possible. Is that blind or wishful thinking? Hardly. I see the potential in many people I see every day, people I know, people I just met walking down the street. There's a lot of problems in our lives right now.... or at least in most of our lives. When I got into TNG, I was in Jr. High School.... life was already a pile of crap at that time, I was never really a popular kid and at home, like at school, there wasn't much that made my life good, there wasn't much that gave me joy in life and at times, I wondered what the point of it all was and contemplated suicide on a number of occasions. Then one day out of the blue, nothing was on TV and I decided to watch TNG and for some reason, it stuck with me, I was interested in this show I always thought was boring and was about nothing.... like Star Wars (which I hate) I am not about to say that TNG saved my life or whatever, but it did help me realize that there was more to life, more beyond the trivial crap I was going through and that there is a possibility that life can be better..... I'm certainly in a much better place in my life then I was back then and I will admit that growing up on TNG helped me change how I look at the world. If people want a better way of life, then one has to work towards it. People scoff at the idea of a "Utopia" way of life that's shown on TNG...... and believe it'd never happen because it's just ridiculous...... But if people have that frame of mind and feel something will never happen, then it never will because they'll never try. Things don't get handed to you upon command, each of us has to work towards accomplishing something. What's the alternative? Keep living the way we currently are? Corrupt governments, politicians who never listen to us and stab us in the back once they get power? Various religions finger pointing at one another for one fault or another? Wars? Racism? Capitalism? We've seen how all this improves our way of life. *sarcasm* ^ That's not exactly an alternative, because that way of living will never last.... no matter what your personal beliefs are, the above way of living has only one logical conclusion. About 10 years ago, I written up a detailed new form of government that revolves around not just Digital/Direct Democracy, but also on much of the principles given in Star Trek (TNG in particular) I took the time to incorporate some of the concepts expressed in TNG and used them in an approach that could realistically work in today's way of life. I spread it around the internet over the years to get feedback and suggestions on improvement, because one person can't suggest what is best for everybody. I've had mixed responses.... many people like the theory with some of their own suggestions, some loved it..... and then there's the people like some in here I see, who read the first two lines and then toss it aside and claim it's impossible and would never work. That's their opinion, but an uneducated one (especially when they never read what it all entails) Their reasons when asked, is that they claim it'll never work because the corrupt people in power would never allow it to happen in the first place..... or they claim society is too beaten to bother to care for such change..... or people are simply too greedy and selfish to give a damn. If that was really the case, then the American Revolution would have never happened, people would have let Nazi Germany steam roll over the entire planet, woman wouldn't be able to vote today, minorities would still be working in crap jobs, black people would still be sitting in the back of the bus and using separate public washrooms..... It takes people to believe in something that doesn't currently exist and it requires those people taking action to make it exist.... usually at risk of their own safety.... that's how change really occurs.... sacrifice. It's not easy, but anything worthwhile never is. The question isn't if something is easy or hard, the question is "Is it possible & do you want it to happen?" Gene was ahead of his time.... he's still ahead of the current times.... some people think his views were entertaining.... some people think they're ridiculous and a waste of time..... and others believe in it just as he did. For those who think the ideas Gene gave us are junk, you're entitled to your opinion..... Speaking for myself, I don't think they're junk, I think they're logical and very possible, even in today's society. I am not a pessimist or an optimist.... I've been continually been identified by those who know me as a Realist.... and through my own works and studies over the years, I believe Gene's future (more or less) is indeed realistic and possible..... but it all depends on what you want, not just what I want..... and that's the key. This is all just what makes sense to me, I'm not trying to claim I'm some expert, it's just my opinion and I'm just expressing myself just as others are in here.... but from what I've read in the last couple of pages, I felt that I needed to say something as a differing point of view.
Praxius, I really liked reading that. TNG had a similar influence on me when I was growing up - and it continues to help me now. I was dismayed when I read some of the comments that were made about TNG, earlier in this thread. I'm glad that you have addressed them. It was an excellent post.
I have no problem with the idea that Earth is a paradise of sorts, and even if a group of people don't like living on what pretty much amounts to a socialist Earth, there's hundreds of habitable planets in Federation that those people can settle on to get away from Earth. The near-utopian Earth isn't a problem for me, Earth is but one planet, we hardly ever see it in the shows. So long as the frontier of deep space has interesting things going on then Earth can be the most boring planet in the universe for all I care. What's a problem for me is that Gene took his ideals to crazy extremes. For example, I've heard that in the original script for BOBW Picard was going to have his arm lopped off and replaced with a Borg arm, and once he was rescued he would get a replacement arm that would be indistinguishable from his real arm. Gene shot it down on the basis that in the future people's limbs wont be amputated. What the hell?! Because Earth is a paradise that means that accidents can't happen? People can't lose their limbs in combat? The Borg, a soulless entity determined to assimilate the galaxy, would adhere to Roddenberry's utopian principles as well? That makes absolutely no sense. It's idealism gone mad. It's also one of the reasons why Ira Behr had to fight Berman for Nog to lose his leg, because Berman was trying to protect Gene's vision and Ira Behr was trying to tell a good story. How did DS9 contradict this? There's still no poverty or war on Earth in DS9.
Are you sure about that? I mean, Gene was okay with Geordi being blind instead of getting new eyes or whatever.