Federation as the Patriarchy,Romulans as Refuges and Picard having White Privledge.

[Rahul]

The chance to deconstruct "Roddenberry's Vision" actually makes the politics angle kind of interesting if they go this way.

This part right here. This is the problem. Because it's not an interesting angle for a show - it's the failure to "get" Star Trek. And sadly, this is the direction the franchise has taken as a whole in the last decade.

Sure, GR's vision was anything but perfect. But that was kinda' the point: A lot of it was left blank to leave room for interpretation or actual real-life developments to be included.

And yes, refining that vision is perfectly fine! As is the one or other episode trying to find the edges and holes of said vision (greetings from DS9). But at it's core - the franchise simply can't be in a constant conflict with GR's original vision! That simply destroys what makes this IP unique.

Imagine if every MARVEL-movie since 2008 was mainly interested in subverting or deconstructing Stan Lee's original ideas about superheroism?
That would have destroyed the superhero genre!

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

I think it's relatively unlikely that there would be significant Romulan population within any refugee population, but I could definately see them using Reman deserters, and new alien species identified as Romulan subjects being used in this role*, due to (temporary) weaknesses of the central military and political leadership (and the subsequent backstabbing that would result within the survivours).

* The only existing subject species other than Remans are the book-only Eloh and Kevratas.

 

[The Habs Fan]

This part right here. This is the problem. Because it's not an interesting angle for a show - it's the failure to "get" Star Trek. And sadly, this is the direction the franchise has taken as a whole in the last decade.

Sure, GR's vision was anything but perfect. But that was kinda' the point: A lot of it was left blank to leave room for interpretation or actual real-life developments to be included.

And yes, refining that vision is perfectly fine! As is the one or other episode trying to find the edges and holes of said vision (greetings from DS9). But at it's core - the franchise simply can't be in a constant conflict with GR's original vision! That simply destroys what makes this IP unique.

Imagine if every MARVEL-movie since 2008 was mainly interested in subverting or deconstructing Stan Lee's original ideas about superheroism?
That would have destroyed the superhero genre!

If you argue that GR's original vision is the best form of Trek, you also have to accept the fact that he hated The Wrath of Khan and wanted fans to boycott the movie because "it was not Star Trek". Also, it seems the only show going forward that is going to subvert GR's vision is the Georgiou show, not "every" show.

 

[Rahul]

If you argue that GR's original vision is the best form of Trek, you also have to accept the fact that he hated The Wrath of Khan and wanted fans to boycott the movie because "it was not Star Trek". Also, it seems the only show going forward that is going to subvert GR's vision is the Georgiou show, not "every" show.

No. Just no.
Because GR's vision is crucial for what makes Star Trek Star Trek. GR the man... not so much. And this vision can (and must!) both be adapted, updated etc....
Yes, I think TWOK is overrated. But no, I think it doesn't clash with GR's "vision", as it clashed with GR "the man". Taking away control of him, for example.

Trek's original "vision" was of an equal, advanced society for all people. Yet the show TOS didn't really do well with including women. That needs to be updated: A newer show should include women in important roles (say, Janeway or Burnham).

The absolutey wrong way would be to try to "deconstruct" the original vision, and make it clear TOS was a hypocritical, patriarchal society that despised women. That would be a disservice to both the original vision and the updated one.

Again: Stan Lee's version of superheroes wasn't perfect either, and Stan Lee the man even less.
Yet MARVEL has had tremendous success with updating his original visions - make the same ideas accessable to a modern audience, and improve the shortcommings - rather than "calling out" the mistakaes and shortcomings of the past.

 

[The Habs Fan]

The absolutey wrong way would be to try to "deconstruct" the original vision, and make it clear TOS was a hypocritical, patriarchal society that despised women. That would be a disservice to both the original vision and the updated one.

I don't think this is in any danger of happening. There's ignoring Star Trek's vision of utopia in the Federation and then there's subverting that utopia and finding the grey areas within. Those are 2 different things. The Federation can outwardly be a utopia and accepting of everyone but that doesn't mean it's perfect in that regard. in fact, the only show that showed us a perfect utopia, and not in every episode, was TNG.

 

[Jayson1]

One could see the effort to deconstruct the Roddenberry vision as a means of clearing out its flaws for something that is also new but still a new positive view of the future. I don't think deconstruction means saying everything always sucked and will always suck. Only that we are moving beyond that and showcasing what a real positive view of the future looks like. In fact in would kind of be interesting to see Trek sort of remove the fantasy aspects away from the vision to actually trying to showcase pratical idea's that humans could actually do to make it happen.


Jason

 

[The Habs Fan]

This part right here. This is the problem. Because it's not an interesting angle for a show - it's the failure to "get" Star Trek. And sadly, this is the direction the franchise has taken as a whole in the last decade.

I don't agree with this statement because what has Star Trek released in the last decade failed to "get" about Star Trek? Or is it failing to "get" your personal vision of Star Trek?

 

[Steve Roby]

"Gene's vision," as a single coherent set of ideas, does not exist. There's no such thing. A lot of what Roddenberry believed in when he was working on TNG was the opposite of what he believed in when he was working on TOS. A lot of what's in both shows came from other people entirely.

Not to mention that a lot of the Star Trek people love is in conflict with what Gene considered his vision. Wrath of Khan's already been mentioned as an example.

The values I appreciate in Star Trek are the need to improve society through science and exploration and the importance of standing up for rights and democracy. People aren't perfect, but people can become better as individuals and as a society. Knowing things is better than not knowing things. Getting along is better than fighting. Not to mention: science fiction is cool, complex characters are cool, and big imaginary worlds are cool. I see all of those things in every version of Star Trek, to varying extents, sure, but always there.

 

[LanceRViolator]

I enjoy my MYTHICAL "White Privilege," and being EVERYTHING the imagination of those on the "Chart of Victim Intersectionality" can think up, by living in the real world.

Now, with that out of the way, be it known that "STD, the disease meant to kill 'Trek," IS what happens when you have the abortive results of, what's left of 'Trek, and SJW's wet dream. Let's not continue that with the new 'Trek series with Sir Patrick Stewart.

 

[Steve Roby]

Star Trek has always been an SJW show. Bye now.

 

[Tenacity]

Star Trek has always been an SJW show.

Nope.

 

[The Old Mixer]

I enjoy my MYTHICAL "White Privilege," and being EVERYTHING the imagination of those on the "Chart of Victim Intersectionality" can think up, by living in the real world.

Now, with that out of the way, be it known that "STD, the disease meant to kill 'Trek," IS what happens when you have the abortive results of, what's left of 'Trek, and SJW's wet dream. Let's not continue that with the new 'Trek series with Sir Patrick Stewart.

Warning for Trolling...this sort of crap was inevitable given the topic, but it doesn’t belong in this forum. Comments to PM.

 

[Tuskin38]

Nope.

Yes it has.

 

[Jayson1]

Nope.

Well I am not sure if SJW is the right word because that word has different meaning to different people but I do think it's been progressive throughout it's run. That hasn't really changed. It's even been a little preachy in the past only nobody noticed because of Patrick Stewarts all so wonderful voice. When he talks it always feels like he knows whats up and has great wisdom.

Jason

 

[The Old Mixer]

Alright, this thread was asking for trouble from the title alone. How social topics are addressed in Trek is a relevant discussion, but this one was loaded from the get-go with hot-button subjects that are best discussed in Miscellaneous or TNZ.