One of the things I liked about First Contact. Lily called him on his bullshit.
Do you think that believing in the Roddenberry vision of the future is required to be a fan?
- Thread starter nagyvezír
- Start date
One of the things I liked about First Contact. Lily called him on his bullshit.
DS9 is also my favorite, its how I view humanity, after First Contact why hate on the brown or pink people when you can hate on funny looking aliens with butt heads, blue skin and piglike faces. Humans need their prejudices and when we learn to like each other, we just find someone else to pick on. That is how I see Star Trek humans, explains the in universe reason why TOS had only one alien on the ship. As said in STUC the Federation is a humans only club.
A 23rd century Spencer Tracey would still fail a Guess who is coming to dinner test.
A 23rd century Spencer Tracey would still fail a Guess who is coming to dinner test.
And of course Chekov quoted that very title. He really didn't sound enthused at the idea of sharing a meal with the Klingons.
TUC was an odd duck when it came to the Starfleet characters' attitudes toward the Klingons.
Sure, they had always been an adversarial political power. But never before had our heroes shown such ugly racial prejudice.
It's one of the reasons this movie falls apart on closer analysis.
Kor
Sure, they had always been an adversarial political power. But never before had our heroes shown such ugly racial prejudice.
It's one of the reasons this movie falls apart on closer analysis.
Kor
I wonder if the setting of TNG (historically) contributed to the development of an all-wise and all-powerful Federation. The US had just "won" the Cold War, and was the bastion of Freedom or what have you, with an ascendant political philosophy, and a clear superiority over the alternates (dictatorships and communism) and it would be easy for an American writing staff to make a leap and create an analogous body/political power for Star Trek.
Well, TNG (especially Roddenberry TNG) was at the end of the cold war when the outcome was far from certain. TNG (Farpoint specifically) adopts the stance that fighting over economic models is silly (because GR thought that that was all that was different between the USA and the USSR apparently). Whatever their opinion of the Soviets I think many (most?) writers rooms had a definite suspicion of US power and philosophy. Hell, there's a reason that THE bad guys of TNG's first season are "Yankee traders".
Truth.
My favorite scene in the entire TNG movie franchise is that conflict in the Enterprise observation room. No special effects, no action, no rousing music...just two great actors going at it...debating the situation with energy and intelligence!
"infinite dollar signs in infinite combinations"
TOS seemed to say humanity had done well for itself but by early TNG, it was saying 24th century humans were different all together. Humans don't need or want things anymore. Humans don't fear death, Humans don't settle disputes with violence anymore, it's outdated.
It looks like later on they backtracked on a lot of it, because otherwise they couldn't make any interesting shows. We see people do crazy @### to keep living. Humans are members of intergalactic organized crime.
When discussing earth's history, Picard muses how fighting over economic systems seems very strange--
Later on, he and the Fed are dealing with the Maquis situation--not unlike some situations in 20th century earth.
Judging someone by physical appearance is one of the last human prejudices, Data says--later Beverly Crusher rejects an advance from her old lover because HE is now a SHE. Then she claims it was a human failing.
They seemed to subtly backtrack on a lot of things.
However, TOS had its problems Utopia too though.
Last edited:
I'm not holding TOS up as perfect, but when was it Utopian? One of my biggest objections to retconning TOS is that I don't think it ever was. A Private Little War (for example) is anything but.
Interesting storytelling went against everything Roddenberry had in mind.
It's not necessary to believe in a fictional world to be a fan of it, or even think it's all that likely.
But the Federation has lofty ideals, just as America does, but it doesn't mean it, or we, are perfect or always live up to our ideals. That's realistic, too, and often portrayed quite well in Trek. So they suggest they have eliminated some bad elements completely, but I'd just assume they are often overstating the case or talking about an ideal, but it's far better than before, even if still not perfect, and with minimal needs met in society, one isn't forced to do harm just to live. But live well? Live better? That still takes work. To live with purpose? That, too, takes effort. But the goal isn't to simply feed and clothe yourself so much as to improve yourself. Not to become better than others, but simply better than you are now.
Even there, I do not think most members of humanity would wish to become members of Starfleet. Their ideals are perhaps higher, harder to conform to, and would tend to require you to work hard, leave many things behind, like your prejudices, or even belief systems that insisted other beliefs must be wrong. They are a more idealistic bunch dedicated to tolerance and pluralism and equality. But striving for it never means they have achieved it or that they are perfect. I believe in that.
But the Federation has lofty ideals, just as America does, but it doesn't mean it, or we, are perfect or always live up to our ideals. That's realistic, too, and often portrayed quite well in Trek. So they suggest they have eliminated some bad elements completely, but I'd just assume they are often overstating the case or talking about an ideal, but it's far better than before, even if still not perfect, and with minimal needs met in society, one isn't forced to do harm just to live. But live well? Live better? That still takes work. To live with purpose? That, too, takes effort. But the goal isn't to simply feed and clothe yourself so much as to improve yourself. Not to become better than others, but simply better than you are now.
Even there, I do not think most members of humanity would wish to become members of Starfleet. Their ideals are perhaps higher, harder to conform to, and would tend to require you to work hard, leave many things behind, like your prejudices, or even belief systems that insisted other beliefs must be wrong. They are a more idealistic bunch dedicated to tolerance and pluralism and equality. But striving for it never means they have achieved it or that they are perfect. I believe in that.
No, why should that be required? Wouldn't just enjoying the shows for entertainment (without having to actually 'believe in the Rodenberry vision')be enough to call oneself a fan?
Also, what does 'believing in the Rodenberry vision' actually mean? If it means thinking this would make the future a better place than today, yeah, I'm a believer. If it means, do I think the future will unfold that way/ can we make it happen, then no.
Also, what does 'believing in the Rodenberry vision' actually mean? If it means thinking this would make the future a better place than today, yeah, I'm a believer. If it means, do I think the future will unfold that way/ can we make it happen, then no.
Fantasies involving lots of money, nice looking women on tropical beaches, and "love instructors."
This. It continues to amaze me the number of trek fans who think you have to be a certain ideology to enjoy a make believe T.V show
I'm trying to remember where I read about someone getting GR's first draft of one of the movie attempts (Planet of the Titans, The God Thing, one of those) and they said it was GR working out every kink in his book.
I can see the point. I can even see that it's not exclusion (although lately it feels like it) but bafflement. "This show appeals to all or most of my world view. Your world view does not. How can we enjoy the same thing?" I fear that Discovery will be this turned up to 11. I'm really hoping I'm wrong.
What turns my Cranky Old Man Index to warp factor 15 is the insistence that this world view applies to TOS. Or even TMP. Maybe this is only because of the limitations of television and culture of the 1960's. Maybe GR was being held back and we should have gotten something much closer in world view and philosophy to TNG. But we didn't.
I think this is why "Is Starfleet a military?" and "Did they have money?" keeps coming up. TNG rejected both of these explicitly. If TOS did not then TOS is not like TNG. If I need those notions to enjoy Star Trek then I need those to apply to TOS or I can't enjoy it. And Star Trek keeps talking about that Kirk fellow.
If the vision is that we can and should achieve unity and get to space without changing our values, attitudes or practices, especially toning down our aggression, that seems unbelievable as well as unappealing.
The makers of DS9 came pretty close to declaring that was the case, making a lot of the characters, including the more popular character, more in the "just like us today" style of the original series.
Having said what I had to on this aspect of fandom, one thing is for certain: It really is too easy to go "...GET A LIFE!!!" though, I do believe Trekkies continue to need to be reminded that it's not curing cancer, or anything. Especially, when they're told things like Bones is a big. stinking. drunk. to where his insides are pickled -- no matter how heartfelt and sincere that observation is. They will begin to burn down the house and cannibalise eachother, if one criticizes too harshly that which they hold so dear.
In any case, I did revisit the question originally posted, because it is an interesting one to investigate. Some aspects of STAR TREK really CAN be offputting to an audience, to the point where they don't want to watch anymore of it. Like with The Classic Series, it can seem very dated, even with the jolting George Lucas-styled FX drop-ins and redo's ... the acting, the dialogue, the costumes ... they can easily be a deal-breaker. So, this question of "how did Humanity find itself amongst the stars in this series," does have a certain merit, with regards to the appeal it might have in feeding the imagination ... or not, as the case may be. For myself, as an example, TNG is The Bee's Knees, and yet? I read Trekkies dissing the series all the time for being too cerebral ... and bland.
... WHAT??? This show's incredibly satisfying!
It was certainly a interesting addition.
Similar threads
- Locked
