Do you think that believing in the Roddenberry vision of the future is required to be a fan?

[nagyvezír]

I enjoy the show, but I recently started looking at this forum and r/StarTrek and it seems that many English speaking fans think that to enjoy the show, one must be in agreement with the Roddenberry vision of the future.


What's your opinion?

I think it's pointless to argue about, because we will all be dead in the future, but from a cultural perspective (as a non-American/Western European) I see Star Trek as far from an ideal, and from a demographic perspective (world getting less western, more Asian and African, less Christian, less atheist, more Muslim) I find it increasingly unlikely. However I am curious whether or not you think that being a fan means subscribing to the ideology of the creator

 

[USS Triumphant]

I don't believe that, no.

HOWEVER, it *was* his vision, Trek was his creation, and he had a direct hand in all of TOS. All of the rest of Trek is playing in his sandbox. So for Trek to be good, or even good Trek, I'd still say no. But whether or not a particular episode/series/etc *is* true to what he thought he should be is still a valid conversation to have. And, we have to have *something* to talk about here, right?

(I don't know if Sir Arthur Conan Doyle would have approved of everything in the BBC's "Sherlock" or CBS's "Elementary" either. But I like the former and don't care for the latter, and the reasons have very little to do with concern about his approval.)

 

[KirkusOveractus]

I've been a fan since 1979 (jeez, I'm old!) from the age of 7. At that point, it was the visuals, the adventure and some of the humor. There wasn't really the maturity there for me to grasp "Roddenberry's vision".

As time went on, I would figure out some parts having messages or showing a broader outlook on how the future will be in that universe, and realizing that Roddenberry wanted to show all races, colors, creeds, beliefs, all working together to solve problems.

As I read about Star Trek and its history of the creation, I realized that Roddenberry's vision was to tell a good story within an adventure set in the future. It wasn't until later, with people who latched onto him, that his vision became more than that and became something people followed almost (if not more than) religiously.

In fact, to me, following his vision to the letter will lead to a lot of disappointment if you watch a good amount of Trek. It doesn't really line up much, IMO.

And @USS Triumphant : I think Doyle would have liked the BBC "Sherlock" because the writing and style is very much a following of his, whereas "Elementary" just used his characters and dropped them into a stock mystery series.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

I don't think anything is necessarily required to be a fan of anything. If you like a thing, on whatever level you want to like it, then you're a fan. I think in some ways, if you don't at least appreciate the "Roddenberry Vision," then you are probably missing the point in many ways, but then people debate the meaning of the Roddenberry Vision so it's kind of a hopeless endeavor. Ideas like hope and optimism that are ascribed to Trek can mean wildly different things depending on who you ask.I think every Trek has promoted open-mindedness, equality, diversity, diplomacy, and inclusion. But there are bigots who like Star Trek, so.... whaddya gonna do, right?

 

[2takesfrakes]

STAR TREK is all make-believe, folks! That's all you need to know, going into it. No matter how "believable" a character might be, or a situation, or an outcome ... it's all just Hollywood faerie dust. So, don't think too much about it, just enjoy the show and bring plenty of popcorn.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

STAR TREK is all make-believe, folks! That's all you need to know, going into it. No matter how "believable" a character might be, or a situation, or an outcome ... it's all just Hollywood faerie dust. So, don't think too much about it, just enjoy the show and bring plenty of popcorn.

One the one hand, I agree. Entertainment should be entertaining first and foremost. But Star Trek has made me think very deeply and critically about my life, my point of view, and the world around me. And I think that's what makes Trek stand out. But yeah, if people want to watch it just for the ride, there's probably nothing wrong with that. It is fun!

 

[KirkusOveractus]

STAR TREK is all make-believe, folks! That's all you need to know, going into it. No matter how "believable" a character might be, or a situation, or an outcome ... it's all just Hollywood faerie dust. So, don't think too much about it, just enjoy the show and bring plenty of popcorn.

Look, I put faerie dust ON my popcorn! Whaddarya gonna do about it?

 

[USS Triumphant]

It wasn't until later, with people who latched onto him, that his vision became more than that and became something people followed almost (if not more than) religiously.

To be fair, I think some of that started when *Roddenberry* started trying to push IDIC medallions and a "Vulcan philosophy" and some other ideas he himself expressed later that he tied back into Trek. (Disclaimer: I'm actually a fan of some of that "Vulcan philosophy" and have found it personally useful in my own life. Especially stuff from the novels. But part of c'thia is acknowledging that those ideas did not, in fact, come from Vulcans in the real world. )

 

[Long Syntax]

No. I think expecting someone to agree with everything a show creator envisions or believes is too much. I never agreed with Roddenberry on everything - actually as I think about it, I agreed with very little of the Utopia vision, but that certainly didn't stop me from watching. A good story is hard to pass up and ST has been a great vehicle for that over the years.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

I'm actually a fan of some of that "Vulcan philosophy" and have found it personally useful in my own life. Especially stuff from the novels.

This is slightly off topic but could you recommend a few of these books? I'm looking for some Vulcan culture/philosophy heavy books.

 

[USS Triumphant]

This is slightly off topic but could you recommend a few of these books? I'm looking for some Vulcan culture/philosophy heavy books.

For me, it was mainly "Spock's World" by Diane Duane, of course - and then "Dwellers In The Crucible" by Margaret Wander Bonanno. (Particularly the concept of Mastery of the Unavoidable.) There were some interesting bits in "The Romulan Way" by Diane Duane - and really all of Duane's Vulcan/Romulan books - but I'm not sure how much I would say goes to Vulcan philosophy, and how much to their history. I consider the two interconnected.

 

[Vger23]

No, of course not.

But- to points made earlier...there was a huge difference between

The Original Vision- "Earth has survived the chaos and base instincts of humanity and learned hard lessons about how to work together despite cultural / racial / religious / ideological differences and our natural flaws...and in doing so have realized and achieved great things, including moving out into the great unknown of space to explore."

and

The Revised Vision- "Earth is a paradise and a virtual utopia as humanity has evolved into a species devoid of flaws, violent instincts, prejudices, etc. This shining beacon of humanity is now the measuring stick other cultures and our own backward present cultures should aspire to."

The first vision is meaningful, dramatic, and inspiring. The second is dull, plodding, and pretentious.

I am a believer in the first "vision" even though I don't think it's necessary to be a fan.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

The Revised Vision- "Earth is a paradise and a virtual utopia as humanity has evolved into a species devoid of flaws, violent instincts, prejudices, etc. This shining beacon of humanity is now the measuring stick other cultures and our own backward present cultures should aspire to."

DS9 complicates this narrative though. Sisko's whole "It's easy to be a saint in paradise" thing. That's post-Roddenberry though.

For me, it was mainly "Spock's World" by Diane Duane, of course - and then "Dwellers In The Crucible" by Margaret Wander Bonanno. (Particularly the concept of Mastery of the Unavoidable.) There were some interesting bits in "The Romulan Way" by Diane Duane - and really all of Duane's Vulcan/Romulan books - but I'm not sure how much I would say goes to Vulcan philosophy, and how much to their history. I consider the two interconnected.

Thank you!

 

[USS Triumphant]

Thank you!

Well, I'd be careful about that "thank you". If you're like me, I've just given you a reason to be disgruntled, as you discover how rich and deep and satisfying the Vulcan and Romulan ("Rihannsu") cultures depicted there are - and realize how thoroughly contradicted by screen canon they were later, mainly by "Enterprise".

 

[KirkusOveractus]

No, of course not.

But- to points made earlier...there was a huge difference between

The Original Vision- "Earth has survived the chaos and base instincts of humanity and learned hard lessons about how to work together despite cultural / racial / religious / ideological differences and our natural flaws...and in doing so have realized and achieved great things, including moving out into the great unknown of space to explore."

and

The Revised Vision- "Earth is a paradise and a virtual utopia as humanity has evolved into a species devoid of flaws, violent instincts, prejudices, etc. This shining beacon of humanity is now the measuring stick other cultures and our own backward present cultures should aspire to."

The first vision is meaningful, dramatic, and inspiring. The second is dull, plodding, and pretentious.

I am a believer in the first "vision" even though I don't think it's necessary to be a fan.

I think you hit it right on the head here! Wait, hitting someone on the head isn't part of the vision, lol!

But seriously, you don't need to subscribe to these at all to be a fan, but The Original Vision is something realistic and can be achieved! As time went on and The Revised one came to eclipse The Original one, I started to get tired of it being forced on everyone as a way to measure every incarnation of Trek. It's unrealistic.

 

[2takesfrakes]

Look, I put faerie dust ON my popcorn! Whaddarya gonna do about it?

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

 

[CRM-114]

My essential issue with the "Roddenberry Vision", especially as it relates to the notion of Federation as utopia, is that we don't really know how it works, we're just shown (but largely told) that it does. Even then, it's largely through the prism of Starfleet, an organization that by its' nature functions as a semi-military hierarchy.

Also, I've long felt that a lot of Star Trek's values (the preeminence of science and the essential abandonment of religion in particular) as belying a very Western mindset as opposed to a global one.

 

[Mage]

DS9 complicates this narrative though. Sisko's whole "It's easy to be a saint in paradise" thing. That's post-Roddenberry though.

Not completely, since the team behind DS9 has stated they were more inspired by TOS and felt connected to that show than they did DS9. Several injokes in shipping labels for example mentioned locations featured in TOS. They wanted to get away from the 'perfect' human from TNG. Hence, Sisko's speach. Voyager ofcourse, went straight back to the Godlike human from TNG, unless the writers felt one of the characters needed a character flaw, and forgot about it.

As for the question stated by the OP....

No, it isn't required. But, it does amaze me often, how sexist, racist or narrowminded Star Trek fans sometimes are, considering they love a show where humanity has learned to let those things go.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Not completely, since the team behind DS9 has stated they were more inspired by TOS and felt connected to that show than they did DS9. Several injokes in shipping labels for example mentioned locations featured in TOS. They wanted to get away from the 'perfect' human from TNG. Hence, Sisko's speach. Voyager ofcourse, went straight back to the Godlike human from TNG, unless the writers felt one of the characters needed a character flaw, and forgot about it.

I mean in terms of story content, tone, and perspective, DS9 is quite different than TOS and TNG. It's in many ways a deconstruction of that vision.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

No.