When Star Trek remains relevant

[alpha_leonis]

I'm currently rewatching all of Star Trek with my family -- TOS with my wife, and we're also including my eight-year-old daughter in a watch-through of Voyager. (Voyager's not my favorite of the series, but we thought we'd use it as a female-empowerment example. Many of the strongest characters on Voyager are women, after all, especially Janeway and Torres. Daughter's favorite character is currently Kes.)

This week happened to fall as a World War II theme. We watched Voyager's "Jetrel" followed by the original's "Patterns of Force". We didn't plan that, but that's the way it fell out.

Human nature, it seems, never changes. We all found immediate relevance to today's political situations around the world. I'm finding it hard to have hope for the future, but that's why Star Trek's idealism remains so necessary.

 

[Voth commando1]

Science fiction is increasingly cynical and dystopian. I think Trek's idealism is what makes it special.

I love Voyager and Voyager does have quite a few strong female characters.

 

[Kor]

As Khan said in Space Seed, "How little man himself has changed."
But as Khan also said in the same episode, "Nothing ever changes, except man."



Kor

 

[Spot261]

As Khan said in Space Seed, "How little man himself has changed."
But as Khan also said in the same episode, "Nothing ever changes, except man."



Kor

Humans individually grow and learn, but the collective whole goes on repeating the same mistakes for each generation to learn from?

 

[Desert Kris]

As Khan said in Space Seed, "How little man himself has changed."
But as Khan also said in the same episode, "Nothing ever changes, except man."

Says the genetically engineered to be perfect superman who always seems to get tired or "grow fatigued." Seriously, where's the stamina and energy with this guy, always complaining how exhausted he is (especially when awkward questions come up).

 

[2takesfrakes]

The "optimism" in STAR TREK has certainly played down, as the franchise progressed. Even ENTERPRISE, which had such an idealistic, "aw shucks" kind of Captain, ended up quite jaded, by the end, because, "Oh! Being jaded and cynical and not looking for the good in other people brings with it such realism!" Once DS9 spoilt STAR TREK's own message with that hateful Section 31 horseshit, optimism has been downplayed to such an extent that it's presence has lost the importance it had in, say, TNG. In fact, the optimism of STAR TREK is so overhyped by the fans, and the franchise itself, for having very little substance to it ...

 

[Voth commando1]

The "optimism" in STAR TREK has certainly played down, as the franchise progressed. Even ENTERPRISE, which had such an idealistic, "aw shucks" kind of Captain, ended up quite jaded, by the end, because, "Oh! Being jaded and cynical and not looking for the good in other people brings with it such realism!" Once DS9 spoilt STAR TREK's own message with that hateful Section 31 horseshit, optimism has been downplayed to such an extent that it's presence has lost the importance it had in, say, TNG. In fact, the optimism of STAR TREK is so overhyped by the fans, and the franchise itself, for having very little substance to it ...

You still have Darmok, Devil in the Dark, the Khitomer Treaty, the last scene of first contact, and the Gift if you want optimism but I agree with you.

 

[a thousand-yard stare]

The "optimism" in STAR TREK has certainly played down, as the franchise progressed. Even ENTERPRISE, which had such an idealistic, "aw shucks" kind of Captain, ended up quite jaded, by the end, because, "Oh! Being jaded and cynical and not looking for the good in other people brings with it such realism!" Once DS9 spoilt STAR TREK's own message with that hateful Section 31 horseshit, optimism has been downplayed to such an extent that it's presence has lost the importance it had in, say, TNG. In fact, the optimism of STAR TREK is so overhyped by the fans, and the franchise itself, for having very little substance to it ...

I offer (as a reason) a discussion on this very site:
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/captain-archer-did-he-need-to-be-the-shows-punching-bag.285792/

After four seasons of that I'd be feeling a little jaded and a mite cynical...

 

[velour]

Human nature, it seems, never changes. We all found immediate relevance to today's political situations around the world. I'm finding it hard to have hope for the future, but that's why Star Trek's idealism remains so necessary.

There is one DS9 episode, that comes to mind, that is very relevant today. It's "Sanctuary". You might want to give it a viewing if you haven't already.

The episode deals with the matter of refugees and immigration in general, which are hot topics today.

The Bajorans apparently saw themselves as a progressive people -- at least they said all the right things in the ep -- may have, in the final analysis, let xenophobia override their progressive attitude about refugees. That seemed to be the message that the Skrreeann leader conveyed at the end of the ep.

Science fiction is increasingly cynical and dystopian. I think Trek's idealism is what makes it special.

I love Voyager and Voyager does have quite a few strong female characters.

I agree that scifi has increasingly been cynical and dystopian. 9/11 and the violence and instability around the world since then may have had something to do with that.

 

[Galileo7]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

This.
A fictional close to utopian future for all of us to explore as viewers...

 

[Tenacity]

I'm finding it hard to have hope for the future, but that's why Star Trek's idealism remains so necessary.

Because it isn't happening fast enough for some people, people don't alway realized that the world is getting better over time. Sure sometimes it's one step back followed by two steps forward, but it is happening.

Once DS9 spoilt STAR TREK's own message with that hateful Section 31 horseshit, optimism has been downplayed

Section 31 protects optimism and hope, while not practicing it. Sure the Federation's fairy godmother has blood on her hands, but little child get to sleep peaceful at night.

 

[velour]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

This.
A fictional close to utopian future for all of us to explore as viewers...

Take Kirk's "risk is our business" monologue and add that sentiment to something else that Kirk said in "This Side of Paradise".

MCCOY: Well, that's the second time man's been thrown out of paradise.
KIRK: No, no, Bones. This time we walked out on our own. Maybe we weren't meant for paradise. Maybe we were meant to fight our way through. Struggle, claw our way up, scratch for every inch of the way. Maybe we can't stroll to the music of the lute. We must march to the sound of drums.

I think the two sentiments that Kirk expressed are complementary. I love the line that Kirk spoke in "This Side of Paradise" because it's about taking action. For me, Star Trek's idealism is not that paradise is inevitable.

The road of history will not inevitably lead us to the promise land, if we just sit back and watch. It is not inevitable that we are headed for utopia. Civilizations rise and civilizations fall.

To advance steps, you have to actively take steps forward. There is no Apollo or Val ("The Apple") that is going to hand you "paradise" without a heavy price. Also, I think what Kirk meant was that you can never be complacent and rest on your laurels, or you will lose whatever progress you have made.

Star Trek, at least TOS, had the right blend of idealism with a good dose of realism.

 

[gamer1]

I also have to question the "idealism" of Star Trek when it basically says that the whole idea of idealism is horsecrock and it's really shadow organisations and foul play that holds the paradise together

 

[matthunter]

I also have to question the "idealism" of Star Trek when it basically says that the whole idea of idealism is horsecrock and it's really shadow organisations and foul play that holds the paradise together

Except it doesn't say that. In the end, the thing that stopped the Dominion War was an act of mercy and trust - Odo giving the Founders the cure. He might have just empowered them to come back and restart the war in the future, but committing genocide to decapitate the Dominion is NOT what Trek sends as a message.

 

[2takesfrakes]

Section 31 protects optimism and hope, while not practicing it. Sure the Federation's fairy godmother has blood on her hands, but little child get to sleep peaceful at night.

Thank Providence that TNG did not receive the taint of Section 31, even in movie form. That's all I've got to say on that particular organisation. But the general idea, at least to hear Gene Roddenberry tell it, was that by TOS, Humanity has outgrown the need for such agencies. Look, if I want Reality, I'll just go out my front door - it leads directly to it. That's one thing I never understood about Trekkies, their stubbornness, over the course of this franchise, to make these characters more "Real." I like my Heroes to be mythological, in that sense: Larger Than Life, defending that bright future we all hope for and $aving the Day.

This bit with these sleezy, underworld government organisations being "depended" upon and credited with the success of all that derring-do only deflates the balloon. Does that deprive a series from having "relevant" stories? In my view, all of that make-believe only invites it. Like a painting of George Washington, can it ever look exactly as he did, in Life? Can it ever truly "represent" his Life? We do get a sense from it, of how he was, but the medium sort of gives his character a storybook quality. Yet, here he was, a very relevant Man, in his day, who saw -- up close -- what it cost to build this nation. Then, there's this medium he's painted in, showing him in a sort of mythological light. When STAR TREK's done that with its stories and characters ... I just love that shite.

 

[The Old Mixer]

But the general idea, at least to hear Gene Roddenberry tell it, was that by TOS, Humanity has outgrown the need for such agencies.

And the idea of Section 31 is that however enlightened humanity may have become, it still needs to defend itself from less enlightened interstellar powers.

My main issue with Section 31 was that I'd assumed that Starfleet Intelligence was already doing the sorts of things that Section 31 was credited for. The fact that Section 31 has to operate completely off the books makes 24th-century humanity look too naive.

 

[jaime]

The "optimism" in STAR TREK has certainly played down, as the franchise progressed. Even ENTERPRISE, which had such an idealistic, "aw shucks" kind of Captain, ended up quite jaded, by the end, because, "Oh! Being jaded and cynical and not looking for the good in other people brings with it such realism!" Once DS9 spoilt STAR TREK's own message with that hateful Section 31 horseshit, optimism has been downplayed to such an extent that it's presence has lost the importance it had in, say, TNG. In fact, the optimism of STAR TREK is so overhyped by the fans, and the franchise itself, for having very little substance to it ...

People, Star Trek fans, both for and against S31 (militaristic space tech fans versus genes dreamer fans, though obviously it's a spectrum) always miss the point in the S31 stories on DS9. It's that the federation doesn't want or need them, and Bashir and O'Brien prove that every time. It highlights that such shady behaviour is always morally wrong that it really cannot be justified that is the message. But some people read that as 'sometimes the ends justifies the means' and are ok with that, like it even. That and 'grimdark makes it so much better and realistic' often with limited experience of actual grimdark, and without realising why sometimes our fictions need a moral core somewhere, in some way. (I would argue losing sight of that is a big problem in society. I would also argue that every story needs that somewhere...otherwise it becomes base gratification of humans darker side, and something is lost. That we no longer need to throw actual people to lions and gladiators fighting to the death for entertainment, does not make appealing to the same instincts a good thing, our culture should aspire to be more. )

 

[Voth commando1]

Except it doesn't say that. In the end, the thing that stopped the Dominion War was an act of mercy and trust - Odo giving the Founders the cure. He might have just empowered them to come back and restart the war in the future, but committing genocide to decapitate the Dominion is NOT what Trek sends as a message.

Sloan said something to Bashir I think that was more interesting and I interpreted at as such than "we keep you safe at night" what I interpreted the dialogue in the episode where they betray the Romulan ambassador basically Bashir's idealism complements Sloan's cynicism in protecting and advancing the federation's interests.

 

[matthunter]

That's what Sloan tell himself to justify his crimes. None of the main characters ever agree with it, nor are the audience meant to.

 

[BillJ]

That's what Sloan tell himself to justify his crimes. None of the main characters ever agree with it, nor are the audience meant to.

Unfortunately, for the Star Trek spinoffs, audiences are a bit more sophisticated than that. That most realize very few things in life are black and white on the morality scale.

In TOS, we watch Kirk actually struggle with what is right and wrong. We see him make rash decisions and learn that sometimes all isn't as it seems. Probably why it is the series that I continue to revisit from Star Trek.