• 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!

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

I was into the whole "Roddenberry's Vision" as a teenager. Later on, though, I spotted the flaws in it, and decided to like the good parts and dismiss the bad parts.

That's why I'm in the position of really liking Patrick Stewart as an actor, but I really don't like Jean-Luc Picard that much.

Janeway's another "we're such an enlightened Starfleet" hypocrite. I think she's much more like Kirk than she'd ever willingly admit.
 
Last edited:
Which vision is that? If you take a roomful of 50 assorted fans and ask them to describe "Star Trek's Vision," you'll get several dozen different answers.
Which is the fantastic thing about Star Trek, different people get from it what they get from it. Some a utopian fantasy universe, or the adventure of living and traveling through space and visiting new worlds, or the excitement of interstellar combat.

It's not a case of "if you don't embrace 'THIS' then you're not a fan."

Maybe the main thing for a fan is doing Trek cosplay.
That's why I'm in the position of really liking Patrick Stewart as an actor, but I really don't Jean-Luc Picard that much.
Since becoming a fan of Sir Patrick, I come to realize that Captain Picard wasn't even his best work. Still my second favorite captain.
You're wilfully misinterpreting a symbol of compassion and understanding to turn it into the exact opposite of its intended purpose
The term IDIC twice uses the word infinite, not once the words limited or restricted.
To make racists feel included.
Not racists (well not specifically racists) but everyone, everything, every motivation, every possibility, every reality, every alternative, every concept.

IDIC is all comprehensive.
 
When Gene Roddenberry was given The Next Generation to do with as he willed, a lot of bad blood had distanced him from TOS, particularly in movie form. Of all the TREK movie directors, Leonard Nimoy, perhaps, gave him the most respect, but GR was disrespected by the moviemakers and wisely, perhaps, chose to give STAR TREK a soft reboot, to further distance it from what was happening on the Classic Series side of town. So doing, unfortunately, meant that the very cool idea in TOS that Man reached for the stars of his own accord, simply because it was in his nature to do so was given a reboot, as well. I love TNG with a zealot's passion, but the theme that it brings to the table of Man needing a hand-hold by Outer Space Aliens to know how to start behaving himself and becoming a productive member of a broader Galactic Culture is risible.

I never cared for it, never asked for it, but it was part of the package with STAR TREK's new direction. It wasn't so heavily featured that it was, you know, in your face, all the time, but when it reared its ugly head, I have to say ... I found it to be most unwelcome! Are there aliens out there, in the Universe? I don't know ... Life is out there, certainly, but beyond that, I wouldn't care to hazard a guess. And if we are to encounter it, I'd rather we found it, rather than it finding us. But whichever theme you prefer, it still sets the same table, where STAR TREK continues to be allowed to entertain with stories and adventures that are memorable and even, on occasion, meaningful. So, this alteration is not that big of a deal, in itself. It just makes The Human Adventure's beginning look a little more passive and a lot more submissive than, maybe, it might've seemed, before.
 
Last edited:
Of all the TREK movie directors, Leonard Nimoy, perhaps, gave him the most respect, but GR was disrespected by the moviemakers and wisely, perhaps, chose to give STAR TREK a soft reboot, to further distance it from what was happening on the Classic Series side of town. So doing, unfortunately, meant that the very cool idea in TOS that Man reached for the stars of his own accord, simply because it was in his nature to do so was given a reboot, as well.
Not by Gene. The Vulcan role in the first warp flight / first contact was established years after he died.
 
You have completely missed the point but there is no sense going back and forth about it. You're wilfully misinterpreting a symbol of compassion and understanding to turn it into the exact opposite of its intended purpose. And for what? To make racists feel included. You do you.
Can I ask, as an intellectual exercise and out of morbid curiosity, what isn't included in IDIC?
 
Can I ask, as an intellectual exercise and out of morbid curiosity, what isn't included in IDIC?
Ideologies which oppose the concept. Which is to say, beliefs which deny people's basic humanity and dignity. IDIC isn't about holding hands with racists and singing kumbaya. It's about opposing racism and other forms of bigotry, exposing them as illogical, so that we can hold hands and sing kumbaya.

And anyone who basically makes the argument that IDIC means you have to accept racists is making the "you're intolerant if you don't put up with racists" argument which is a crock of shit.
 
If everybody believed in IDIC, then nobody would be racist or homophobic or sexist. So what does that tell you about IDIC?
 
If everybody believed in IDIC, then nobody would be racist or homophobic or sexist. So what does that tell you about IDIC?
That everyone has to start somewhere.

Had a great conversation with someone at work who described how magical it was when he first started tabletop gaming. The teacher who sponsored the club said "There was room enough at the table for everyone, even if they needed to add a second table." And there was, since there was a white supremacist and a Jew who participated in the game and eventually became best friends.

I would like to think that IDIC allows people to come with an understanding that everyone is accepted, and that acceptance would lead to greater change. And, since I've witnessed that change first, second and third hand, I would say that is the optimism at the core of Star Trek.
 
You have completely missed the point but there is no sense going back and forth about it. You're wilfully misinterpreting a symbol of compassion and understanding to turn it into the exact opposite of its intended purpose. And for what? To make racists feel included. You do you.
"That would presuppose a feeling, Commander: Compassion."

If everybody believed in IDIC, then nobody would be racist or homophobic or sexist. So what does that tell you about IDIC?
Why? That would be some diversity in some combinations.

We know that even Vulcans do not value all diversity or all combinations. Spock was rejected by both his peers in general and his father in specific for being who he was. (And yet Amanda still considered this a "better way".) Sarek rejected the very notion of an armed Starfleet. (Which obviously Spock, McCoy, and Picard, for example, did not)

On the other hand I think Sarek DID sum up IDIC when he said " It is not a question of approval. The fact exists." Or to turn it into a bumper sticker "It doesn't take all kinds, we just HAVE all kinds." That includes the racists, the terrorists, and the fools. IDIC is not a human philosophy and many or most humans would find it distasteful or distressing.

It might not be what Lincoln Enterprises intended when they devised IDIC, but IDIC isn't "Hey, man, everybody's groovy." Because as noted, not everybody is "groovy". As the totally logical Data once said (in a script from when Roddenberry was at the height of his influence) "You are capable of great sadism and cruelty. Interesting. No redeeming qualities. ... I think you should be destroyed. "
 
Not by Gene. The Vulcan role in the first warp flight / first contact was established years after he died.
16332418070_b50e79b486_o.jpg
 
Which is the fantastic thing about Star Trek, different people get from it what they get from it. Some a utopian fantasy universe, or the adventure of living and traveling through space and visiting new worlds, or the excitement of interstellar combat.

It's not a case of "if you don't embrace 'THIS' then you're not a fan."

Maybe the main thing for a fan is doing Trek cosplay.Since becoming a fan of Sir Patrick, I come to realize that Captain Picard wasn't even his best work. Still my second favorite captain.The term IDIC twice uses the word infinite, not once the words limited or restricted.Not racists (well not specifically racists) but everyone, everything, every motivation, every possibility, every reality, every alternative, every concept.

IDIC is all comprehensive.
I tried to explain this to my educational psychology instructor in college. His response? "It sounds chaotic."

I didn't realize until later that he was fairly high up in Mormon circles, would later (as my sociology instructor) become so "concerned" at the lack of religion in my daily life that he called me into his office to proselytize, and btw was a relative of Orson Scott Card (a fact he told me when asking if I intended to go to the upcoming convention where OSC was the GoH).

I guess I made some progress over the years; this "IDIC is chaotic" instructor unbent enough to suggest I write my sociology term paper about science fiction, and later on I loaned him my books on 2001: A Space Odyssey. He'd mentioned he wanted to read it but couldn't find a copy anywhere, and could I suggest somewhere he could buy it. So I said, "I've got a copy, you can borrow that."

IDIC takes patience.


As for Patrick Stewart, there are individual episodes where his acting and the writing for Jean-Luc Picard mesh beautifully. There are others where I just want to summon Q to remind him to get off his smug high horse.

My favorite Patrick Stewart role will always be Lucius Aelius Sejanus in I, Claudius.
 
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.
Nothing really to add, other than I am astonished at how many Star Trek fans defend the second version, but not the first.
 
Nothing really to add, other than I am astonished at how many Star Trek fans defend the second version, but not the first.

Because the first is hard. And it's acknowledging that we're never going to be perfect, and we're going to have to work like hell to get better and overcome our thousands (millions?) of years of issues.

The second is easy-- pure fantasy. YAY! One day we'll all be awesome and love each other.

Unfortunately, the first is far more dramatic and far more interesting to someone like me. The struggle is what makes life interesting and worth living.

In other words- the guy in "The Neutral Zone" (Offenhouse? whatever) was right when he asked Picard "then where is the challenge?" and Picard was the one (as he so often was when talking about this kind of stuff) who was full of bull scoot.
 
Because the first is hard. And it's acknowledging that we're never going to be perfect, and we're going to have to work like hell to get better and overcome our thousands (millions?) of years of issues.

The second is easy-- pure fantasy. YAY! One day we'll all be awesome and love each other.

Unfortunately, the first is far more dramatic and far more interesting to someone like me. The struggle is what makes life interesting and worth living.

In other words- the guy in "The Neutral Zone" (Offenhouse? whatever) was right when he asked Picard "then where is the challenge?" and Picard was the one (as he so often was when talking about this kind of stuff) who was full of bull scoot.

Early TNG Picard was annoying when he was defending the Revised Ideal.
 
Ask me someday about my theory that Picard and all his ramblings about humanity and the superiority of the Federation are just his own inaccurate world-view and rhetoric, and not truly a reflection of the state of the galaxy or humanity at that point.
Or perhaps the remnants of Gene's last vestiges of influence on Trek and Trek dialogue? ;)
 
I suddenly want to see a debate between first season Picard and Ian Malcolm! Blatant Author Stand Ins! Roddenberry vs. Crichton!
Then Jamie Lannister can wander by and defend George R. R. Martin's bizarre views on inter-family relationships.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top