Problem being, these kinds of stories and organizations are a dime-a-dozen on TV. When Trek hops on that bandwagon, it loses a bit of what makes it distinctive.
Spoilers Saints of Imperfection and Gene's Vision
- Thread starter Pauln6
- Start date
Problem being, these kinds of stories and organizations are a dime-a-dozen on TV. When Trek hops on that bandwagon, it loses a bit of what makes it distinctive.
Distinctive in that it sometimes is preachy and finger-pointing instead of realistic?
It is entertainment set in the far future, I don't need it to be realistic. I can look out my front door or turn on the news and get "realistic" anytime I like.
Distinctive is not a synonym for appealing, however subjective that term may be. There's also lots of aspects of Star Trek which are distinctive enough to allow for some familiarity as we have seen enrich the series plento of times in the past where the franchise as offered its own spin.
Last edited:
I never saw the Federation as a perfect utopian society, I saw it as a society striving to achieve utopian ideals. Such a goal can never be achieved in full or permanently. It's not that section 31 exists in the Federation that matters, it's how our heroes react to and work with section 31. A society like the Federation must always be on guard for shadow groups like section 31, lest they gain more power. As Captain Sisko perfectly stated, ''t's easy to be a saint in Paradise'. What's hard is maintaining Paradise.
Last edited:
And that's fine. But like Turtletrekker stated above, I never saw the Federation as a total utopian society either, even with TNG (especially early on) trying to tell us so.
I'm sure if they pay her enough, she'll stick around for the entire season.
Unless she lets the power go to her head once its handed to her. Seems to have been an issue with previous showrunners of this series.
Star Trek was never about the far future. It was just set there. It was very much about the mid-twentieth century. It was realistic in that sense.
I think my earlier comment was misunderstood - when I said Section 31 turned out pretty awful, I meant morally speaking in-universe, not critically speaking out-of-universe - i.e. they tried to kidnap, frame for murder, then lobotomise(?) an innocent man - a pretty awful act. (For example).
Par for the course when it comes to things Kirk and crew had to deal with in the era.
If it is one thing that I am often amazed at is the fact that a study of human history reveals that many of the struggles are very similar.
And that's beside the point. His personal life and that of other adults is their business. It's like when they used to shun divorcees...or when in parts of the world today women can be condemned for having been raped. The folly is society's but it's still effective.
It's also unclear to me if it's true. Whether the idealism was always there (to whatever extent) or found later, he devoted himself to it in his work and fought for it for possibly decades. He didn't need to do that for the money.
It doesn't even have to be conscious or deep. The fact is that lots of sci-fi comes and goes and will continue to. But how much of it, or anything, share the impact of Trek? The stories of people in hospitals who found hope in Star Trek, or astronauts or politicians who were inspired by it?
I'm actually quite delighted that technology will be able to help us analyze and quantify our interests, personalities, and so on. The danger is in what we do with the information (oversight, checks and balances, please), but I'm fascinated by its maybe ontological(?) potential.
Except they're caricatures half a step from the Mirror Universe? Keeping ourselves in check is one thing, but 31's specific nature is akin to a play written in 1619 showing the world in 2019 filled with slavery because that's the way it's always been and will always be because man is imperfect.
The one good thing about 31 as presented previously was that it was a secret pre-Federation organization that existed only in the minds of the conspirators. There was something interesting about that...on a sci-fi level, about the reach of technology, and, on a dramatic level, about the betrayal (or neuroses) of the individuals who chose against being "saints in Paradise."
DSC presents Neil Patrick Harris in Starship Troopers. Obviously the gestapo way is the only way to do Intelligence. Because writers only regurgitate what they've seen before.
I don't think tropes equals sound drama. Again, in 1619, Mr. Future says slavery in 2019 is sound drama. Today, it'd work as Fantasy but not reality, yet our lives are still plenty dramatic. I like it when Trek finds the drama in the better future, not when it goes where everyone's gone before because it's easy for the writer and familiar to the audience. There are a lot of shows that I don't watch that I'm sure are easy for the writer and familiar to the audience.
Last edited:
Hell, early TOS actually implies Vulcan was conquered by humans. Which means Roddenberry originally envisioned humanity as conquerors! Which conveniently gets ignored by the Gene's Vision crowd, or the Starfleet isn't military crowd.
Last edited:
Sophistry.
Exactly my point. Presenting the Federation as a dystopia is not only the near opposite of what it is but hackneyed in its redundancy.
Most fans, including this one, don't expect "perfect" anything. ...These conversation usually go the same way, and I honestly don't know if you're trolling me right now...
...Now I do.
Just hit the Report button. Makes life easier.
Actually, the Federation was presented as a dystopia 40 years ago by Terry nation (unofficially but there are a whole lot of connections between B7 and TOS) with Blakes Seven. However, there are many aspects of the Federation that is presented to have dystopian aspects as presented in the series around this era, Such as in 'Conscience of the King' and 'Dagger of the Mind'. The Ultimate Machine suggests the the risks of space exploration frighten a whole lot of people in Star Fleet as well as well as appealing to pragmatists.
We encounter a lot of people unsatisfied people in the Federation during TOS. And a lot of fires Starfleet has to put out inside the Federation suggests problems with not only classic issues but their solutions..
And I did find the post that compelled me to be respond with
because I honestly found it very .
Last edited:
More sophistry. That's no hidden secret. It's been discussed many times, and I think it's charming how old-fashion and awful it is – right out of the Old Sci-Fi trope book, along with "lasers" and "Space Central." Again, doesn't change how Trek evolved over time. {Cough} lithium crystals {cough}. And I guess since Starfleet didn't conquer Vulcan it isn't a military organization. You're right.
Last edited:
No, you didn't. You were choosing easy insult instead of insightful conversation. I respected Doc Mugatu enough to try and share my perspective with him. If you're interested to, please address specific parts of my reply that you think your perspective might help. Thanks.Actually, the Federation was presented as a dystopia 40 years ago by Terry nation (unofficially but there are a whole lot of connections between B7 and TOS) with Blakes Seven. However, there are many aspects of the Federation that is presented to have dystopian aspects as presented in the series around this era, Such as in 'Conscience of the King' and 'Dagger of the Mind'. The Ultimate Machine suggests the the risks of space exploration frighten a whole lot of people in Star Fleet as well as well as appealing to pragmatists.
We encounter a lot of people unsatisfied people in the Federation during TOS. And a lot of fires Starfleet has to put out inside the Federation suggests problems with not only classic issues but their solutions..
And I did find the post that compelled me to be respond with
fireproof78, I don't remember if I've ever reported anyone here before, and it didn't immediately come to me to in the moment. Thank you, as well.