Unpopular Trek opinions game

[Greg Cox]

All of this is supposed to be the foundation that Trek is based on.

Nah, that's mostly early TNG stuff, from when they got a little carried away with the whole "utopian" thing. That's hardly the foundation of the franchise, which had been around for decades before TNG came along.

TOS took place in a future that was better than 1966, but it was by no means "utopian," especially out on the final frontier. Heck, every third TOS episode had them delivering vitally needed supplies to some remote colony or outpost that was suffering from a plague or famine or whatever. And, as for the people, they could get testy, jump to conclusions, have personality conflicts, screw up, commit crimes, and so on, even if our heroes' better angels usually won out in the end.

"We're not going to kill . . . today."

 

[Nightdiamond]

I don't think it was quite that perfect, since McCoy laments not having a cure for the common cold, Spock notes dissatisfaction with the highly "balanced" environments of human colonies, etc.

I think that TNG had this base, but I don't think it was to be applied to all of Star Trek all the time.

True, the bulk of these claims come from early TNG, and they laid it on thick. You can see a hint of Rodenberry's futurism in these claims too.

Ironically TNG stepped in and claimed the common cold was cured by its time.

 

[Nightdiamond]

This is due to technology. It did not change human nature.

It made humans *comfortable* enough that they can become *narcissistic* and *arrogant* enough to start claiming things like



The only reason these things can be *claimed* is because humans are *comfortable* enough to not NEED to be so offended, warlike, tribelike, and with medical technology they don't need to be afraid of being sick or dying young. It is the only reason that economic systems don't really matter (although at the frontier, its still in huge play, ala Mudds Women, etc). "Drugs", I would argue, is a combination of 1) some things just no longer being demonized, because with medical tech, it cures addiction and/or afterefects and 2) with the comfort levels enjoyed by humans, the mental conditions that lead to looking for comfort or release from depression in drugs no longer exists.

They laid it on thick and although it was admitted that technology played a part, they would often attribute their behavior to evolution-or that they mentally evolved to this point. And proudly.

The Maquis situation, based on this list, should never had happened, didn't need to happen. The abundance, prosperity, advanced human behavior, that we all heard about-- it didn't make any sense.

Sisko himself came pretty close to saying earth was an utopia.

 

[Phoenix219]

They laid it on thick and although it was admitted that technology played a part, they would often attribute their behavior to evolution-or that they mentally evolved to this point. And proudly.

The Maquis situation, based on this list, should never had happened, didn't need to happen. The abundance, prosperity, advanced human behavior, that we all heard about-- it didn't make any sense.

Sisko himself came pretty close to saying earth was an utopia.

Yup - because everything we heard about was self proclaimed. They had time and comfort to prop up these thoughts with all sorts of philosophical claptrap, but at the end of the day, it is The Pride that proves the words as lipservice. These humans like to think they are superior and have a great vocabulatry of rhetoric to prop them up.

Its the old cliche, if ya got it, ya don't have to flaunt it, and the person loudly proclaiming (fill in the blank) is probably the one that is overcompensating the most.

 

[Nyotarules]

They laid it on thick and although it was admitted that technology played a part, they would often attribute their behavior to evolution-or that they mentally evolved to this point. And proudly.

The Maquis situation, based on this list, should never had happened, didn't need to happen. The abundance, prosperity, advanced human behavior, that we all heard about-- it didn't make any sense.

Sisko himself came pretty close to saying earth was an utopia.

He said its easy to be a saint in Paradise. The Maquis were not living in Paradise, some humans wanted a challenge, Paradise might be too boring for them.

 

[fireproof78]

Nah, that's mostly early TNG stuff, from when they got a little carried away with the whole "utopian" thing. That's hardly the foundation of the franchise, which had been around for decades before TNG came along.

TOS took place in a future that was better than 1966, but it was by no means "utopian," especially out on the final frontier. Heck, every third TOS episode had them delivering vitally needed supplies to some remote colony or outpost that was suffering from a plague or famine or whatever. And, as for the people, they could get testy, jump to conclusions, have personality conflicts, screw up, commit crimes, and so on, even if our heroes' better angels usually won out in the end.

"We're not going to kill . . . today."

Precisely so.

True, the bulk of these claims come from early TNG, and they laid it on thick. You can see a hint of Rodenberry's futurism in these claims too.

Ironically TNG stepped in and claimed the common cold was cured by its time.

This is why I prefer TOS over TNG. Humanity feels less perfect and more relatable. Evolving but not perfectly evolved.

 

[Greg Cox]

There's an early episode of TNG in which Picard has a headache and everyone reacts as though he has scurvy or something, because apparently even a common headache no longer exists in TNG's utopian future.

I still remember rolling my eyes at that one. "Seriously? People don't have headaches anymore? How perfect is this new future supposed to be?"

As opposed to, say, Kirk having a hangover in STAR TREK VI.

 

[Delta Vega]

The whole concept of humans living in a reality where there are no wars, no intolerance, no bigotry, no minor conflicts, no poverty, no money etc, is simply complete and utter bollocks.

 

[Greg Cox]

One of STAR TREK's distinguishing characteristics is that it's set in a future one would actually want to live in.

But, as has already been noted, there's a wide spectrum between a better future and a "perfect" future.

I like to think that DS9 (and now DISCO) served as a much-needed corrective to the extreme utopianism of early TNG, bringing Trek back in line with the optimistic but imperfect future of TOS.

 

[fireproof78]

He said its easy to be a saint in Paradise. The Maquis were not living in Paradise, some humans wanted a challenge, Paradise might be too boring for some.

Probably most who enlist in Starfleet.

 

[Nightdiamond]

The whole concept of humans living in a reality where there are no wars, no intolerance, no bigotry, no minor conflicts, no poverty, no money etc, is simply complete and utter bollocks.

I have noticed that lately even a few Trek fans are skeptical of Trek's classic idea of a better future.

I've seen some comments like "humans have spent the last 2 million years being programmed to be warlike, greedy, territorial, racist, sexist, and somehow Trek has it that they're going to magically evolve to be enlightened just because some aliens visited them?".

We can blame a little of Rodenberry's futurism on it, but at the same time Roddenberry was so cool to create a better a future when he could have made a simple space adventure show. His vision is something to be admired, maybe just a little wacky here and there.

 

[Mojochi]

I've seen some comments like "humans have spent the last 2 million years being programmed to be warlike, greedy, territorial, racist, sexist, and somehow Trek has it that they're going to magically evolve to be enlightened just because some aliens visited them?"

Actually, there was a lot of it attributed to the rising from the ashes of the 20th/21st centuries too. Not only is TNG's more evolved humanity an optimistic view of the future, it's also a doomsday prophecy. The whole point of Q is that he's trialing us on our barbarism. Clearly it's suggested there was an end of times for our way of life, & there were truly dark times soon after ours, from which true enlightenment rose up to push man forward into this evolved future. It also wasn't so much the getting visited by aliens part, as it was the discovering light speed travel, that catapulted humanity into an age of more prosperity than it had ever known

By my way of thinking, it doesn't even make sense for any culture that has warp capability to still be anything less than thriving in the greatest of idyllic prosperity. You can literally go anywhere & get anything. Add to that matter/energy transference, such as transporters & replicators, & how could a society be anything less than paradise?

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Really, all that TOS did was present a future where Earth's countries were no longer at war with each other. We'd all banded together so we could go have wars with aliens out in space instead.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I don’t think TNG showing a world where humans have gotten past all their current problems is a bad thing but stuff like the “Ten year olds learn calculus” thing is clearly overdoing it.

I like DS9’s response to maintain the Utopianism but poke a few holes in its hypocrisies.

Humans in 24th century are the same species as the 20th century, the only difference is they set up education and social systems that make those impulses less destructive.

 

[Greg Cox]

Really, all that TOS did was present a future where Earth's countries were no longer at war with each other. We'd all banded together so we could go have wars with aliens out in space instead.

And, to be fair, we'd joined with other, like-minded species in a United Federation of Planets. (Even if that often seemed to be more of a loose alliance than the more centralized organization we saw later on.)

Certainly, TOS postulated a future society that had progressed beyond the prejudices of the twentieth century, even if it never went so far as to suggest that human nature had somehow evolved beyond its old frailties. People were still people, and sometimes they were far from perfect--and sometime even left their faults get the best of them.

(Hi, Stiles, Ben Finney, Marla McGivers, Richard Daytrom, Laurence Marvick, Finnegan, Ron Tracy, Tristan Adams, John Gill, Janice Lester, etc.)

Optimistic is one thing; "utopian" is another.

 

[Delta Vega]

Roddenberry's vision was indeed optimistic, and indeed admirable
But it was ultimately flawed
There is no way that war, intolerance, hatred, duplicity etc are going to be bred out, or evolved out of human nature any time soon.
And as has been pointed out, if humans didn't have issues with each other, the attention would soon turn to any alien civilisation we had encountered.

 

[Nyotarules]

There's an early episode of TNG in which Picard has a headache and everyone reacts as though he has scurvy or something, because apparently even a common headache no longer exists in TNG's utopian future.

I still remember rolling my eyes at that one. "Seriously? People don't have headaches anymore? How perfect is this new future supposed to be?"

As opposed to, say, Kirk having a hangover in STAR TREK VI.

I'm watching TNG season 2 as part of my Star Trek watch every tv episode and movie challenge. So far I find TNG boring and unrelatable. I bet they don't even fart on that ship. I'm surprised they were not immortal.
The TNG relaunch novels are better than the T.V show.

I have noticed that lately even a few Trek fans are skeptical of Trek's classic idea of a better future.

I've seen some comments like "humans have spent the last 2 million years being programmed to be warlike, greedy, territorial, racist, sexist, and somehow Trek has it that they're going to magically evolve to be enlightened just because some aliens visited them?".

We can blame a little of Rodenberry's futurism on it, but at the same time Roddenberry was so cool to create a better a future when he could have made a simple space adventure show. His vision is something to be admired, maybe just a little wacky here and there.

Better does not mean perfect. My life/standard of living is better than what my mother/grandmother experienced 50 years ago, but it is definitely not perfect. Humans will always be prejudiced, its just a matter of who is the target of such prejudices. Today its each other, in the ENT world its the Vulcans, in the TOS world its the Klingons and in the TNG world probably the Cardassians or Cardies or anyone not aligned to the Fabulous Federation.
I bet the first Human-Vulcan, Human- Klingon, Human-Whatever were treated like shit by some of their human and alien peers, as well as embraced by others. (Consider how human bi-racial people were/are treated in society).
A real life example, it was not that long ago when Western Europe going to war with each other was The norm for centuries. Our ancestors would consider the life we have now a Utopia, but it is not. Before BREXIT, the idea of moving from one part of Europe to the other was as normal as moving from London to Newcastle. People no longer see the village down the road as a foreign place, people no longer consider the idea of going to Paris or any other European city strange or unique, sorry but once humans of a certain age are long gone it will be even stranger not to travel overseas or have a romance with someone from a different nationality.
Of course there are nations that are monolithic today, and probably want to remain that way (hello China and Japan), however in the Star Trek TOS world you can live in London, work in San Francisco and find a lover in Timbuktu. By the TNG era you can live in London, work on Mars and find a lover from Alpha Centauri.
Post TNG your lover might even come from the gamma quadrant!

Progress but not perfection.

 

[Henoch]

Humans in 24th century are the same species as the 20th century, the only difference is they set up education and social systems that make those impulses less destructive.

(Hi, Stiles, Ben Finney, Marla McGivers, Richard Daytrom, Laurence Marvick, Finnegan, Ron Tracy, Tristan Adams, John Gill, Janice Lester, etc.)

And people with violent and destructive tendencies are sent to penal colonies to be "cured".

 

[Nyotarules]

And people with violent and destructive tendencies are sent to penal colonies to be "cured".

Judicial systems reform/improve over time. Back in the 'good old days' we dropped folks in a dungeon. I bet our present day prisons would look better than the average medieval hovel, and yet humans are still the same. The caribbean island where my father was born, the local police cell makes the British police cell look like a five star hotel, and trust me British people are not perfect just because they have improved facilities!

 

[Vger23]

Roddenberry unfortunately had the mistaken idea that the sole "secret sauce" to TOS's success was the positive view of the future. He then doubled-down on that concept in the mid-70's as the convention scene heated up as a "utopian view of humanity." Finally, he went with that as the core concept for TNG rather than the understanding that adventure, exploration, great character chemistry / drama, etc were what really attracted people to the show. Yes, the "positive future" element was part of the appeal, but it sure as hell wasn't the driving force in the show's success.

You can have a "positive future" without making humans flawless utopians.

Flawless utopians are dull as shit, dramaless, and completely unrealistic. Last time I checked, those are three things that don't make for good storytelling.