FYI, former Executive Producer Harve Bennett (movies II-V) and Wrath of Khan/Undiscovered Country director Nicholas Meyer are also on record saying they aren't fans of Star Trek.
What Is Star Trek Really About?
- Thread starter Taylirious
- Start date
I don't think Rick Berman would qualify as a fan either.
lol. So how do you claim to "not see it", if you have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about, or what I'm referencing talks about?
Think of this as a suggestion then. Go read Thus Spoke Zarathustra, The Gay Science, On The Genealogy of Morals, and Beyond Good and Evil and tell me those themes are not prevalent in every show Roddenberry conceived.
Now, I'm not saying Final Conflict and Andromeda stayed true to his vision. They were all Gene's concepts, and the groundwork is there, no matter how badly his son son allowed them to get butchered.
The only aspect of that analysis that I will disagree is the emphasis on the individual. While I may not be as familiar with the work of Nietzsche, the Federation had a lot of social planning, and contributions to society by the individual.
I'm not really how to articulate it, or familiar enough with Nietzsche to see how the individual works in society, so I apologize for any misunderstanding. But, I do agree that Star Trek became more and more about the ideal human, and evolving past where humanity is at the moment.
As for the OP, most people have articulated it well, but the action-adventure in space with social commentary idea is what has always been clear to me. It means a lot of different things to different people, though
From TNG and DS9 ya we did see a lot of home, and reality. But I just mean the ideals Star Trek was preaching, and how it was preaching individualism. And what I mean by that is essentially self actualization and striving to be the best version of yourself. Which is the opposite of conformism. That you are not influenced by your environment, but your drive to better yourself.
It is really hard to articulate though in a few sentences. I'll just say I agree with what you said, but that's not what I intended to say by individualism.
You got me there, I know little of Nietzschean philosophy. From a quick review I see some ideas that are compatible with Star Trek and some that aren't. So I'm not quite convinced Star Trek embodies Nietzsche's Ubermensch. Sometimes you see what you want to see in the entertainment you enjoy.
"Gene's Vision" isn't a singular thing. More people than him contributed to what Star Trek is and was. There may be parallels with some of Nietzsche's ideas, but I don't know if they're intentional or coincidences. Or if they are from Roddenberry or other writers. Roddenberry was pretty much all over the map, that and the collaborative nature of TV leads me to believe that no singular philosophy is present in Star Trek.
I'm not sure about Final Conflict, but I'm pretty sure Andromeda has only the barest of Roddenberry actual input. As I said its origins are in two failed pilots from the 1970s. Other people borrowed a few names and concepts from those and combined them with their own ideas to create Andromeda. (Heck,neither pilot were in space!) So it is in no way a representative of Roddenberry's philosophy or ideology. The Questor Tapes, Specter, The Lieutenant and the aforementioned Planet Earth and Genesis II are actual Roddenberry products and might give a better idea of what he thought believed. I guess you could add the film Pretty Maids All In A Row to that as well. So how familiar are you with the works of Eugene Wesley Roddenberry outside of Star Trek? The man was a study in contrasts. A Cop who was the son of cop, a pilot and WWII veteran who embraced the hippie hedonism of the Hollywood of the 60s and 70s.
I would agree with that assessment, but Berman felt a greater sense of responsibility for caring forward Roddenberry's ideal.
Well, I get the idea, and I appreciate it the explanation.The only aspect of that analysis that I will disagree is the emphasis on the individual. While I may not be as familiar with the work of Nietzsche, the Federation had a lot of social planning, and contributions to society by the individual.
I'm not really how to articulate it, or familiar enough with Nietzsche to see how the individual works in society, so I apologize for any misunderstanding. But, I do agree that Star Trek became more and more about the ideal human, and evolving past where humanity is at the moment.
As for the OP, most people have articulated it well, but the action-adventure in space with social commentary idea is what has always been clear to me. It means a lot of different things to different people, though
From TNG and DS9 ya we did see a lot of home, and reality. But I just mean the ideals Star Trek was preaching, and how it was preaching individualism. And what I mean by that is essentially self actualization and striving to be the best version of yourself. Which is the opposite of conformism. That you are not influenced by your environment, but your drive to better yourself.
It is really hard to articulate though in a few sentences. I'll just say I agree with what you said, but that's not what I intended to say by individualism.
The idea of self-actualization and bettering yourself is definitely present throughout Trek. One of the aspects of Trek 09 that I enjoy is that idea that Kirk isn't living up to ideal or moving towards bettering himself.
Again, I appreciate the distinction of individualism from that context and explanation
Lavar Burton says that he wasn't OK with the new Trek movies and thinks it has nothing of Gene's vision of an optimistic future.
True, I do see the space travel and action adventure part, but not as much of the 'we all get along', solved poverty etc. part.
But at the same time TNG itself was kind bland on the tongue.
It's like two extremes.
TNG has been described as bland, because there was no conflict among st the crew and it always played everything safe.
The 2009 Movies have a lot of conflict and bickering, which can be a turn off.
I'm in the middle of the two extremes-- I'm not a fan of the hyperactivity, but i like the attempt to be more modern and different--like showing Kirk in bed having a weird threesome.
Or getting into a fight Starfleet police officers, or just cursing--sounds more contemporary to me.
True, I do see the space travel and action adventure part, but not as much of the 'we all get along', solved poverty etc. part.
But at the same time TNG itself was kind bland on the tongue.
It's like two extremes.
TNG has been described as bland, because there was no conflict among st the crew and it always played everything safe.
The 2009 Movies have a lot of conflict and bickering, which can be a turn off.
I'm in the middle of the two extremes-- I'm not a fan of the hyperactivity, but i like the attempt to be more modern and different--like showing Kirk in bed having a weird threesome.
Or getting into a fight Starfleet police officers, or just cursing--sounds more contemporary to me.
Of course Burton doesn't like it. It took away part of his income and once it was a success, TNG was put to bed.
The "we all get along" is from TNG, I don't much care if they solved poverty or not, since it has no bearing on the stories being told. When Spock beat the piss out of Kirk in the first film, I knew I was home.
Well done! Although I'd say TNG is closer to "Middle Management Trek" at times with all the board room scenes and whatnot.
I don't know that "we all get along" and "we solved poverty" was ever all that important to the actual stories beyond "hey look how much better than you we are". And they always managed to find other people not to get along with and people in poverty or other dire straights.
We saw more of Earth in Into Darkness than any Trek before. I didn't see a single sign of poverty or anything to suggest Earth is anything but happily unified (and ethnically diverse) in 2259. They didn't make big speeches about it, they just showed it.
I always found Spock and Kirk's exchange in "Way to Eden" to be a very interesting perspective on Federation society:
I think the idea of Federation society, even in that throwaway line, is actually pretty interesting.
But, as mentioned, it usually was plot dressing.
Yup, it still seems to be quite the utopia.
I always thought something like this...
TOS: Real Trek except to those who don't like it.
TNG: Real Trek except to those who don't like it.
DS9: Real Trek except to those who don't like it.
VOY: Real Trek except to those who don't like it.
ENT: Real Trek except to those who don't like it.
JJTrek: Real Trek except to those who don't like it.
Except to those who don't like her.
read the books, not wikipedia.
I'll consider it. Are you going to watch the rest of Roddenberry's work to see if the "Ubermench" is a reoccurring theme?
HansVerhaaden
Lieutenant
Mindless entertainment? Space exploration; seeking out new life & new civilizations? Foretelling future technology? Possibility? Exploring humanity in a futuristic setting? or Exploring humanity?
I am confused.
It is obvious that it is about friendship, decency and loyalty to our own species.
The science fiction is secondary.
Similar threads
