Drop the S31 show for a Captain Pike show?

[Longinus]

Good for them. I, as the audience member, have my own viewpoint, my own message, and can think for myself regarding the message presented. I don't have to agree with Gene Roddenberry (I don't), I don't have to agree with Ira Steven Behr (don't agree with him either), or Kurtzman. I can think for myself and make up my own mind. Just like I can watch "Daredevil" and not decide that vigilantism is somehow morally good, even if it is presented as "cool."

Just because the show presents it as such does not mean I will emulate it. The point of Star Trek was to offer social commentary on real world events, to cast light on to current problems. The fact that we are discussing it is the point, to my mind. A free exchange of ideas. And Star Trek, in my opinion, is better when it isn't black and white fantasy.

Star Trek's social commentary previously had pretty clear viewpoint. Message of 'Let That Be Your Last Battlefield' was not that racism exist, and you decide whether it is good or bad. If your episode about genocide makes people to contemplate the maybe genocide is sometimes OK, then that is a shit message. Some thing are just wrong, and trying to 'both-side' them is in fact excusing evil.

 

[fireproof78]

Star Trek's social commentary previously had pretty clear viewpoint. Message of 'Let That Be Your Last Battlefield' was not that racism exist, and you decide whether it is good or bad. If your episode about genocide makes people to contemplate the maybe genocide is sometimes OK, then that is a shit message. Some thing are just wrong, and trying to 'both-side' them is in fact excusing evil.

I'm not "both side" anything. I am saying let them say their message and you make up your mind. I don't need a show telling me right or wrong. I don't care what show it is. Moralizing isn't why I watch a show.

And certainly Trek has had other shows were genocide was offered as an option. Perhaps that was OK too?

 

[Longinus]

I'm not "both side" anything. I am saying let them say their message and you make up your mind. I don't need a show telling me right or wrong. I don't care what show it is. Moralizing isn't why I watch a show.

If the show shows something that is blatantly evil such as genocide, slavery or a conspiracy to commit murder without portraying it as evil, then she show is 'both-siding' the topic. This is apparently what you want. Also, Star Trek has historically done a lot of 'moralising', it has been one of its defining features and a thing a lot of people like about it; not being afraid to take a stand.

 

[fireproof78]

If the show shows something that is blatantly evil such as genocide, slavery or a conspiracy to commit murder without portraying it as evil, then she show is 'both-siding' the topic. This is apparently what you want. Also, Star Trek has historically done a lot of 'moralising', it has been one of its defining features and a thing a lot of people like about it; not being afraid to take a stand.

This is not "what I want." This is me taking the show as it comes, and being able to decide on my own right and wrong, being a moral person, concluding "genocide is bad." I mean, Picard was ordered to commit genocide on the Borg if he had the chance. Picard almost left a society to just destroy itself because they wouldn't agree with his solution, and basically blackmailed them in to the solution.

Again, Star Trek is supposedly a rational person's show. Which means that I can come to my own conclusions. Star Trek doesn't always have to moralize and its ok if it doesn't.

Can't we think for ourselves?

 

[Noname Given]

If the show shows something that is blatantly evil such as genocide, slavery or a conspiracy to commit murder without portraying it as evil, then she show is 'both-siding' the topic. This is apparently what you want. Also, Star Trek has historically done a lot of 'moralising', it has been one of its defining features and a thing a lot of people like about it; not being afraid to take a stand.

But before TNG - the majority of Star Trek moralizing was not as Black & White (and it had exceptions of which TOS S3 "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" was one. personally, there's very little in the world that is clearly "Evil" or "Good" - and TOS was usually more subtle in general).

I like stories like say "Conscience Of The King" where yes, Governor Kodos did a terrible act; BUT it wasn't simply because he was 'evil' - there was a food/resource shortage, and the supply ships were scheduled to arrive on a particular date - and Kodos' point was well taken that IF they had not arrived ahead of schedule, the actions he took might have been viewed differently.
^^^
Again, here's a story where the facts are presented and the viewer can make his own determination.

Also, to be fair, prior to TNG - Star Trek didn't make a point of moralizing everything. TNG only did it because after TOS went into syndication it was a 'hook' GR used to try and elevate Star Trek; and play the the fans belief they and it, were something REALLY special.

IMO - Star Trek worked best when it told interesting stories and tried to entertain FIRST (and if there was a moral, great). IMO TNG really suffered when they started doing their 'social commentary topic of the week' style stories that hit the viewer over teh head with a viewpoint (often preached by Picard, and often made him at best look naive; but more often - especially with anything involving Worf and Klingon culture - look like a hypocrite.)

That why TOS has been my favorite, and for me the entirety of Berman/Braga era Trek hasn't aged well, and gets harder to re-watch. (ENT under Manny Coto being the one Berman era exception with S3 and S4).

YMMV of course.

 

[Jadeb]

The real problem is that the show has dealt with these topics in an unbelievably stupid and juvenile fashion. What it has put forth isn’t worth thinking about. It would be like doing a deep dive on the Omega Glory. You could, I guess, but why would you?

 

[Noname Given]

The real problem is that the show has dealt with these topics in an unbelievably stupid and juvenile fashion. What it has put forth isn’t worth thinking about.

Oh please. You want to watch juvenille and ham-fisted presentations of topics? Pick almost any episode from TNG Season 1 or 2.

 

[Jadeb]

Oh please. You want to watch juvenille and ham-fisted presentations of topics? Pick almost any episode from TNG Season 1 or 2.

Yes, that's also bad. And?

 

[Noname Given]

Yes, that's also bad. And?

Okay. I don't agree. I thought their portrayal of PTSD issues via Burnham in S1 was done well. better than any "Topic of the Week" stuff from TNG and DS9. For me blanket statements are weak arguments (and I realize I made a blanket statement above too) because they're just put out there with no concrete example of what you felt was done poorly - and just invite the pile on mentality of: "Yeah, it sucks!!!"

 

[Jadeb]

Okay. I don't agree. I thought their portrayal of PTSD issues via Burnham in S1 was done well. better than any "Topic of the Week" stuff from TNG and DS9. For me blanket statements are weak arguments (and I realize I made a blanket statement above too) because they're just put out there with no concrete example of what you felt was done poorly - and just invite the pile on mentality of: "Yeah, it sucks!!!"

My comment probably comes off harsher than I intended. But I did not feel like the show ever meaningfully grappled with genocide or any issues related to it. It did not make me think, and it did not say anything I would spend time thinking about. In the end, we got "genocide is bad" from Burnham, which is better than "genocide is good," but her morality sermon came at the expense of all the other characters, including Sarek -- and Starfleet itself. It's absurd, IMO, that they abandon genocide because she gives a two-minute speech pointing out the obvious. Surely those arguments would have been made a thousand times, and a better show would have explored that and not treated it in such a trite fashion.

I'm not opposed to the show tackling serious, even ugly, issues, but I want it to be in a sophisticated manner that takes advantage of the serialized format. The old "last act morality speech that fixes everything" doesn't cut it anymore.

 

[Longinus]

But before TNG - the majority of Star Trek moralizing was not as Black & White (and it had exceptions of which TOS S3 "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" was one. personally, there's very little in the world that is clearly "Evil" or "Good" - and TOS was usually more subtle in general).

I like stories like say "Conscience Of The King" where yes, Governor Kodos did a terrible act; BUT it wasn't simply because he was 'evil' - there was a food/resource shortage, and the supply ships were scheduled to arrive on a particular date - and Kodos' point was well taken that IF they had not arrived ahead of schedule, the actions he took might have been viewed differently.
^^^
Again, here's a story where the facts are presented and the viewer can make his own determination.

But did anyone really end up cheering for Kodos like they did with Dukat, Sisko and the Cannibal Empress?

I agree that Trek shouldn't be black and white, and on its best it isn't. It is grey and white. The 'bad guys' are understandable, they have their reasons, they can be sad and tragic. And they're still in the wrong. And the heroes oppose them. If you make these 'bad guys' the main characters then you have lost the contrast that shows them to be in the wrong and the viewers end up with agreeing with them.

And @fireproof78 no, unfortunately most people can't think for themselves; if they could the world wouldn't be in such a sorry state.

 

[fireproof78]

And @fireproof78 no, unfortunately most people can't think for themselves; if they could the world wouldn't be in such a sorry state.

Telling them what to think is no better.

To quote a favorite book of mine "You can bring a child to knowledge but you can't make him think!"

To me, insisting that Star Trek and its protagonists always be right is telling the audience what to think, rather than allowing them to think for themselves. And that's not OK by me.

 

[Jadeb]

Telling them what to think is no better.

It doesn’t have to be one or the other. You can explore issues without a thumping Burnham sermon: But to bring stuff like rape and genocide into the show when you have nothing to say about it strikes me as distasteful.

 

[Longinus]

My comment probably comes off harsher than I intended. But I did not feel like the show ever meaningfully grappled with genocide or any issues related to it. It did not make me think, and it did not say anything I would spend time thinking about. In the end, we got "genocide is bad" from Burnham, which is better than "genocide is good," but her morality sermon came at the expense of all the other characters, including Sarek -- and Starfleet itself. It's absurd, IMO, that they abandon genocide because she gives a two-minute speech pointing out the obvious. Surely those arguments would have been made a thousand times, and a better show would have explored that and not treated it in such a trite fashion.

I'm not opposed to the show tackling serious, even ugly, issues, but I want it to be in a sophisticated manner that takes advantage of the serialized format. The old "last act morality speech that fixes everything" doesn't cut it anymore.

If they really had wanted to explore the 'hard men making hard choices' and 'ends justify means' thematic, they should have kept Lorca. Not mirror Lorca, just normal damaged Lorca, who due his loss and guilt would have been driven to even more desperate measures. The Klingon genocide plan had been his. He would have lied to the crew that he had orders for it, and it was super secret for obvious reasons so no one could confirm. And then the crew would have to take a stand to resist him, even if it risked the Federation being defeated.

 

[fireproof78]

It doesn’t have to be one or the other. You can explore issues without a thumping Burbham-style sermon: But to bring stuff like rape and genocide into the show when you have nothing to say about it strikes me as distasteful.

As opposed to a Picard speech?

Sorry, Trek has never handled rape well and has alluded to genocide before. This is neither new, nor offensive to me in their handling.

If they really had wanted to explore the 'hard men making hard choices' and 'ends justify means' thematic, they should have kept Lorca. Not mirror Lorca, just normal damaged Lorca, who due his loss and guilt would have been driven to even more desperate measures. The Klingon genocide plan had been his. He would have lied to the crew that he had orders for it, and it was super secret for obvious reasons so no one could confirm. And then the crew would have to take a stand to resist him, even if it risked the Federation being defeated.

Completely agree. Damaged Lorca is much better than Mirror Lorca and I would have preferred no Mirror Universe shenanigans, at least until the second season or beyond.

 

[Jadeb]

He was by far the most interesting part of the first season, until they ruined him. A real missed opportunity.

 

[fireproof78]

He was by far the most interesting part of the first season, until they ruined him. A real missed opportunity.

Agreed. And the more I read and explore with him, and revisit Season 1, the more confident I am that Prime Lorca would have been even more engaging and dynamic.

 

[Longinus]

Telling them what to think is no better.

To quote a favorite book of mine "You can bring a child to knowledge but you can't make him think!"

To me, insisting that Star Trek and its protagonists always be right is telling the audience what to think, rather than allowing them to think for themselves. And that's not OK by me.

Making people to think is not inconsistent with the story having a message or a viewpoint. It doesn't need to be anything as blunt as someone saying 'racism is bad, ok,' You show how it is bad! Make the audience think about the consequences. This sort of thing is literally what stories do. And speeches can be part of that if done well, and Picard certainly often did that extremely well. Similarly stories can be constructed so that the audience reaches a questionable moral conclusion.

Aren't you Christian or something? Tho whole fucking point of that religion is that it is stories which tell people what to think! Star Trek on its best is a bit like that, except with better morals and the audience understanding that it is fiction.

 

[Noname Given]

My comment probably comes off harsher than I intended. But I did not feel like the show ever meaningfully grappled with genocide or any issues related to it. It did not make me think, and it did not say anything I would spend time thinking about. In the end, we got "genocide is bad" from Burnham, which is better than "genocide is good," but her morality sermon came at the expense of all the other characters, including Sarek -- and Starfleet itself. It's absurd, IMO, that they abandon genocide because she gives a two-minute speech pointing out the obvious. Surely those arguments would have been made a thousand times, and a better show would have explored that and not treated it in such a trite fashion.

I'm not opposed to the show tackling serious, even ugly, issues, but I want it to be in a sophisticated manner that takes advantage of the serialized format. The old "last act morality speech that fixes everything" doesn't cut it anymore.

IDK - I DIDN'T care for the "We're Starfleet..." speech either, but it's something most post TOS Star Trek series have been guilty off.

Picard in TNG S5 - "I Borg" did something similar (remember this was pre-ST:FC so the Borg were more locust like than anything - couldn't be negotiated with, yet Picard (after all the death and destruction he as a Borg 2 seasons earlier; and the Borg had done over countless millennia - including the DESTRUCTION of Guinan's civilization and society - could see using Hugh as a virus based weapon to try and end the Borg threat. I was cheering at the start of "I Borg" because I felt for once they were treating Picard lie an ACTUAL Human being -- but by the end, he was back to the predictable "Perfect Human", who'd rather risk the destruction of his entire civilization then sacrifice one being...(Ugh).

But yeah - My point: That type of thing seems like something EVERY post TOS writer's room feels they need to include to gain the stamp of: "Gene Roddenberry's: Star Trek™"

 

[fireproof78]

Aren't you Christian or something? Tho whole fucking point of that religion is that it is stories which tell people what to think! Star Trek on its best is a bit like that, except with better morals and the audience understanding that it is fiction.

Yes, I am Christian. And can think for myself and am encouraged to do so in my beliefs. I have studied Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and the I Ch'ing. Not that it is entirely relevant to the conversation, but I bit. I like talking religion. I think that people often grossly misunderstand the point of Christianity and Christian beliefs.

I have every confidence in the human being to think for themselves, regardless of what the story says. And, if Trek future is about a humanist focus then humans are to be trusted to make their own choices.

Making people to think is not inconsistent with the story having a message or a viewpoint. It doesn't need to be anything as blunt as someone saying 'racism is bad, ok,' You show how it is bad! Make the audience think about the consequences.

Whelp, then that's what DSC has done, DS9, and Star Trek 2009. Mission accomplished, I'd say.