• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Too many dystopias - the world needs utopian Star Trek

Status
Not open for further replies.
With the possible exception of Picard, all Starfleet captains seem to have a hawkish side that comes into play when it's appropriate.
And even Picard, until he "evolved". ;)


The writers also specifically point out in Star Trek Eleven, through Christopher Pike, that the Federation is " a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada."
That was an odd turn of phrase on Pike's part. I assume it was a slip of the tongue and he meant to say "Starfleet" instead of "the Federation." It's like saying the United Nations is an "armada."

To be fair, Pike had a couple of drinks under his belt at the time!
Looking at the exact quote, it's fairly clear what he meant:
If you're half the man your father was Jim, Starfleet could use you. You could be an officer in four years. You could have your own ship in eight. You understand what the Federation is, don't you? It's important. It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada.
 
Pike's sobriety at the time aside, i think it's more than a little relevant to appreciate that the word, while having a military focus as its primary definition, can just as easily, and correctly, refer simply to a large group of ships, usually in motion, but a conglomeration that doesn't necessarily have a specific or defined purpose unless that is added subsequently as a qualifier.
 
In that movie they remind the audience what the federation is supposed to be, and it ends with the exploration mission.
It ends with the five year mission, and given the five year mission depicted in TOS only a portion of the mission is going to involve exploration, there will be other activities too.

Defense, diplomacy, cargo runs, anti-smuggling, obtaining natural resources, delivering medicines, passagers, etc.

With the possible exception of Picard, all Starfleet captains seem to have a hawkish side that comes into play when it's appropriate.
And even Picard, until he "evolved".
Picard (imo) is really the odd man out when it come to Starfleet captains, you can't point at him and say he's "typical."
 
Not going to happen. Just because there are not enough producers/writers who are able to write stories that promote empathy if it is so very much easier to write/produce stories about self-interests and violence, go home and collect the paycheck (see JJ-Trek) from the studio.

The next Trek show will be about self-interests, voilence and war, just because there is no one in Hollywood who has the patience, guts and the skills to do it otherwise. Its not going to be TNG, its going to be Dominion-War-DS9 on steroids.
 
Funnily enough, I actually think that the latest series is being made for the exact same reasons as TNG was. The success of the film revivals showed the brand can bring in (or 'not repel') a large audience, a studio man keen on Trek pushed for it, and they have a shiny new broadcasting model that could lessen the risks and costs involved.

Whilst TNG had many, many admirable aspirations, 'promoting empathy' (for those different from yourself) is one that Id argue they unintentionally failed to meet a lot. Besides most of S1, this was a show where we were meant to laugh at a group of adults using playground bully tactics on a subordinate they didn't like (as opposed to actually doing their jobs and dealing with the issue of his performance) and that's not touching on how they treated some of the aliens. Empathy had an ugly habit of not being so necassary if a characters 'differences' personally bugged the crew.

There's exceptions of course - 'Darmok' was basically TNG's 'Arena.'
 
Last edited:
The next Trek show will be about self-interests, [violence] and war
If the show is "all mission" then it might be just what you're describing. On the other hand if we plug in a measure of "soap opera," and also (separately) characters engaging in philosophical discussions and debate on the Humanities and long term goals of a given mission, then maybe not.

This is where I think having main characters who don't always see eye to eye with each other would accentuate the narrative of various episodes. One of my favorite scenes in TNG is during Pen Pals, when during a discussion of the Prime Directive we learn that the main characters have very different view on the directive, they're not in intellectual lock step.

Yes, a Star Trek series could be devoted to fist fights, ship to ship combat, death and injuries, running around, explosions and girls in their underwear, and there would be an audience for that. But while Trek has alway had all these things on occasions, they have never been the main stay of the shows and movies, at least until recently.

Should we ever see a main character exhibit self-interest? Sure we should, in all honesty it is a part of who and what we are as people, that doesn't mean that has to become a defining characteristic of that, or any, person on the show.

Should the show show Humanity living in a perfect utopia? I would rather see Humanity living in a realistic setting, diverse and cosmopolitan, a ongoing market place of ideas and concepts. Squabbling, competing and maybe a fist fight now and then.

Imperfect people, from a imperfect Earth, doing the best they can.
 
Funnily enough, I actually think that the latest series is being made for the exact same reasons as TNG was. The success of the film revivals showed the brand can bring in (or 'not repel') a large auidence

Right. Money, the bottom line and nothing else.
 
... and the next Trek is not going to be utopian because as a discussion like this shows: The audience gives a f*ck about utopian - they dont want that.

Writer/Producers dont want utopian, because its too difficult to write/produce. The audience doesnt want utopian, because they cannot relate to that/identify with that and they want a Star Trek show which tells them: "You are okay the way you are. Dont change. You are awesome."

Both parties behind and in front of the TV screen do not want utopian; it is not in their self-interest. Thus they are not going to get one. Cynical audiences deserve cynical TV shows to entertain them, their narcissism would not allow anything else.
 
Last edited:
Is it much easier to be an author of a Utopian/Evolved/Positive narrative, as opposed to writing/producing a Film carrying the same message? And, are we more willing to read about a Utopian/Evolved/Positive creation, and more willing to view a Darker/More Complicated/Conflict-Laden creation?
 
... and the next Trek is not going to be utopian because as a discussion like this shows: The audience gives a f*ck about utopian - they dont want that.

Writer/Producers dont want utopian, because its too difficult to write/produce. The audience doesnt want utopian, because they cannot relate to that/identify with that and they want a Star Trek show which tells them: "You are okay the way you are. Dont change. You are awesome."

Both parties behind and in front of the TV screen do not want utopian; it is not in their self-interest. Thus they are not going to get one. Cynical audiences deserve cynical TV shows to entertain them, their narcissism would not allow anything else.

So basically something closer to TOS.
 
Where everything is more or less exactly the same as it is now, only we've taken our nonsense into space instead of growing up at all?

And as for this:

Yeah, because a homemaker and a country singer would surely have contributed a whole hell of a lot to WWIII at all, let alone one that wouldn't even happen for 50 years after they were 'frozen'.
They'd still be seen, at first glance, as products of the society that caused the Eugenics Wars and the Bell Riots. Both of which probably led to WWIII. If not their occupations, then in their beliefs and attitudes.

Unfair, definitely. But believable, especially if the people of the 24th Century had been educated to think less of them (the way people are educated TODAY to probably think less of past humans). And they get over themselves a bit as time went on and sympathized more with them.

The Businessman however, rather deserved the attitude he got.

Hell, even Kirk acted similarly towards that Air Force Captain in "Tomorrow is Yesterday" with how he thought he'd never fit into their future and how he was obsolete.

Of course, if it had been Spock who thought the 20th Century people were all a bunch of disgusting primitives I doubt anyone would be complaining.
 
Last edited:
Funnily enough, I actually think that the latest series is being made for the exact same reasons as TNG was. The success of the film revivals showed the brand can bring in (or 'not repel') a large auidence

Right. Money, the bottom line and nothing else.

Probably not 'nothing else', but mostly. You can't make a show at all when you haven't got the money to pay for its production.

Re Hartzilla: I think a big reason people don't want 'utopian' is because that will ultimately mean 'no conflict' outside of a static 'Federation white hats vs alien black hats' scenario. It's hardly a sign of laziness (quiet the contrary) or cynicism when writers start poking such a simplistic and repetitive scenario with a sharp stick. The vaunted TNG writers themselves were happy to try and hide the utopian 'box' into a dark corner when they wanted to break out of the mould a little (For eg. Measure of a Man, Pegasus, Chains of Command etc), and Picard's frequent comments of 'we're striving to improve ourselves' suggests the Federation wasn't really intended to have reached utopian heights yet.

Also, 'Not utopia' =/= 'dystopian'.

Of course, if it had been Spock who thought the 20th Century people were all a bunch of disgusting primitives I doubt anyone would be complaining.

Again - except the other characters in the scene, and by extension the writers.

Anwar, why must you keep telling others what they think? Besides being presumptive, it doesn't actually serve any purpose to your actual argument. Even if you could prove you're right, at best you would have simply shown that some people liked Spock and some people didn't like early Picard. Which is not the same as proving that the Spock lovers and Picard critics are the same people.
 
Last edited:
]Again - except the other characters in the scene, and by extension the writers.

As usual, the most opposition Spock would get would be McCoy calling him an unfeeling goblin and no one else really poking serious holes in Spock's arguments aside from "Well, we're not logical people." which in no way negates anything Spock says.

Which is not the same as proving that the Spock lovers and Picard critics are the same people.

One is loved for his arrogance and the way he looks down at others, the other is not.
 
]Again - except the other characters in the scene, and by extension the writers.

As usual, the most opposition Spock would get would be McCoy calling him an unfeeling goblin and no one else really poking serious holes in Spock's arguments aside from "Well, we're not logical people." which in no way negates anything Spock says.

I gave you my examples to back up my POV, and what you paraphrased there was just one (from Uhura, pointing out how it was illogical for Spock to express condescending surprise at her acting like a human being). Maybe you could provided some examples of your own?

Just repeating opinionated statements as if their facts doesn't leave much room for discussion out sideof 'Yes it is! No it's not!'


One is loved for his arrogance and the way he looks down at others, the other is not.

Citation needed. From my personal experience, most people (outside of Sheldon Cooper) liked Spock because of his conflict over his duel nature. That, and nerds appreciate an outsider. If you want a condescending douche that people like for their douchiness, look at Q.

Somewhat related to the thread topic, 'Chaos on the Bridge' is finally on Netflix and I'm watching it right now. One of the first things we hear in the introduction regarding TNG? 'Genes ideas for the future were cukoo!' And 'Gene didn't want to do another Star Trek.' So far, Rick Berman (the corporate, money-grubbing antichrist!) has been the one who has stuck up for 'Gene's vision' the most. Maurice Hurley on the other hand, can't seem to decide whether he loved it or hated it.

Oh, and they just mentioned how the TOS crew tended to argue a lot and butt heads with each other. 'Tis deh canon.
 
Last edited:
They'd still be seen, at first glance, as products of the society that caused the Eugenics Wars and the Bell Riots. Both of which probably led to WWIII. If not their occupations, then in their beliefs and attitudes.
Or, in recognition of the fact that they seemed to be good and decent people, their attitudes and beliefs were a key part of any solution.

the way people are educated TODAY to probably think less of past humans
Who in the world Anwar is taught to think less of the people in the past? You bring this up a few times a year, where does it come from?

The Businessman however, rather deserved the attitude he got
That would be because he was able to discern what was actually going on with the Romulan in only a few seconds, while Picard sat clueless in his chair?

Hell, even Kirk acted similarly towards that Air Force Captain in "Tomorrow is Yesterday" ...
Hardly, Kirk treated Christopher with considerable respect, and seem to enjoy showing off his ship to the man. He never exhibited contempt, or attempted to shove Christopher off on subordinates.
 
The idea that utopias are less edgy or radical than dystopias, I think, we can safely say is wrong - utopian sci-fi is often far more politically radical and controversial in themes - dystopias often just extend the same system we have today into the future - utopias often deconstruct/destroy gender norms, economic systems, religion, nationality, etc. Things deeply worrying to any establishment - there is a reason governments still regularly infiltrate communist parties, deep green movements, etc.

The only thing that makes utopian sci-fi more difficult to write, is basically that many sci-fi writers can't speculate on the future anymore, and feel the need to extend the society of their own time far into the 24th century - they essentially ascribe to the idea that 1991 represented "the end of history".

4wFvTZW.jpg


GhlrQTe.jpg


gNozACK.jpg


It was perhaps much easier to think otherwise if you grew up in the 1930s and 1940s like Gene Roddenbury, and saw a three-way battle between ideologies - fascism, Leninism and liberalism - than it is for today's breed of writers who have only seen the victory of late capitalism. When there were actually radical breeding programmes like Germany's "lebensborn", radical economic programmes in the Soviet Union, or when Apollo took up 4.5% of the entire US Federal Budget (!), etc, it was easier to imagine the 23rd century might not be like our own time.

Also, just to clarify again, for those who missed earlier posts, when I say utopia, I do not mean 'surreal and perfect womb-like heaven-analogue', but rather something closer to the Federation of TNG - human conflict and corruption still exists, but social systems have decidedly evolved.
 
Anyone else having deja vu here? Pretty sure there was a "Starfleet is/is not military" thread a while back:confused:

Also, Section 31 is considered evil because it is outside of the law. There is no check upon its combat abilities, and the fact that they are trying to make a preemptive war and violate the law makes them villainous.

The military role is balanced with the exploration role and some times they do both. It can be a both/and scenario not an either/or situation.

But, there is a lot of on screen evidence for Starfleet being a military organization, even if it isn't militaristic or imperialistic in its approach (In TOS, the Klingons were often the opposite of that). Kirk even identifies as a "soldier" to Kor, and doesn't argue with Chang when he calls him a "warrior."

For every instance of Picard objecting to the "military" label there are examples of other captains doing differently. Also, despite his protestations, Starfleet has a ranks, weapons training and if their rules are violated, then there is a court martial-which means "military court." The Federation also has no other organization by which is can defend itself, or its allies, in times of war.

I'm not saying that Starfleet's primary job is war, but that it has a multifaceted mission, one that has similarities to the modern US Navy. It isn't dystopian to protect oneself and allies.

Yeah, I think people have a tendency to look for analogues of what Starfleet is, in our own time. This doesn't work (since the Federation is not our society). The closest thing that exists to it right now is NASA, and this comparison was made even more explicit in ENT, which deliberately referenced the NASA culture ("The Right Stuff", "From Earth to the Moon", "Apollo 13", etc). The next major influence, is the US Navy; with many starships even bearing the name of illustrious WW2 vessels - Enterprise, Essex, Intrepid, Yorktown, Lexington. Maybe a few elements of US Air Force test-pilot culture are thrown in too, but in ENT mainly.

kByNgW8.jpg
pE9AhuO.jpg


It is both a scientific/educational institution, and also as a secondary role, the defense force of the United Federation of Planets - an entirely voluntary union of alien societies, which exists to render mutual aid. Basically Pike's word's in the new movie "Peacekeeping and Humanitarian Armada", is more or less spot-on, as far as it's military role is concerned - it is not meant to be the interventionist military of an imperial democracy, but something closer to UN Peacekeepers. But, discounting it's military role, clearly, it has deep roots in civilian space agencies - ENT paints it as more or less a direct extension of them.

The writers also specifically point out in Star Trek Eleven, through Christopher Pike, that the Federation is " a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada." No mention of exploration there.

The misconception that Starfleet is 'primarily' anything, may come from people trying too hard to find an analogue for it today. Starfleet is both. We have seen enough to know that neither takes priority. They send entire front-line starships, such as the Constitution-class Enterprise, on deep space probes, incredibly long missions of scientific exploration - as if it's their primary design. They commission entire classes of starship as moving labs (the Intrepid class) just for deep space scientific observations (a direct analogue for Viking, Mariner, Apollo, Hubble, etc). If you want to see this in military terms - so did the 18th century British Royal Navy; because new navigational science, new botany, charts, new colonies and new trading partners were essential. But I don't think we can see Starfleet even in those expansionist terms; they literally are an extension of civilian scientific space agencies like NASA and the ESA. The missions these ships are sent on are explicitly talked about on screen as being for the same reasons that NASA sends out Galileo/Cassini/Magellan. They are pure exploration attempts.

HoLbySH.jpg


DXZrN2d.png


VfP6JND.png


0Rbsj8a.jpg


AyaGgpA.jpg


T4hOkwf.jpg


76DlohZ.jpg


abjT18r.jpg


Pq2McVq.jpg


VVkMR61.jpg


Clearly Starfleet trains it's crews both mentally and physically, for the unwelcome advent of war. But it also clearly functions as a NASA type space agency, investigating the fringes of science in the cosmos - for it's own sake, to further science, and to improve our understanding of the universe. Like the old wisdom literature of the ancient world, Star Trek argues for a society where the 'just king' lives in peace, but is always ready for war. Starfleet exists to render mutual aid and explore the cosmos, finding new science to benefit the people of the democratic Federation. But it is also ready for other eventualities, and even humanitarian missions may require fighting-fit crews, ready to climb cave systems, or run marathon distances. It is recognized that military personal, such as Commodore Decker, may turn rogue, but they are offered help and medical care if possible, not executed with prejudice.

qMqLQAz.jpg


KSOMcjd.jpg


0mRmgv9.jpg


If you want an analogue of the Federation, on-screen evidence seems to paint it as something more like the United Nations or European Union - not a close federal union like the United States - as the individual planets seem to almost exist as foreign societies from one another; the common aid they render and mutual front presented against the Klingons, etc, seems more like an alliance than a Nation-State. And Starfleet represents the NASA astronaut corps, trained at Starfleet Academy to be like the Mercury 7 astronauts, or the Apollo crews - but given the additional duties of a UN Peacekeeper, Rescue Worker, Aid Worker, and US Navy officers.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top