Star Trek Picard is not Star Trek

[Kor]

As I believe Greg Cox has pointed out, TOS displayed a marked distrust toward utopias that Kirk and co. encountered. Utopias aren't real. If a planetary society appears utopian, then something is amiss.

Humans in the future are trying their best, and are making progress in a lot of ways, but things aren't all perfect. Still, life on Earth in ST:Picard looks pretty good to me!

Kor

 

[cooleddie74]

Gamma Trianguli VI was a utopia, but at what cost?

 

[Nightdiamond]

But....but.......Star Trek is above other shows. It's supposed to be something different, and special, and visionary, and intellectually superior, and philosophical, and inspirational, and serious, and.....

Arrogant? Yep, Trek can be arrogant.

Talk about myths too......

I use to think this way about Star Trek. When you think "positive future" Trek is always in the back of your head.

And then you read the behind the scenes stories, tell-all books and interviews, and it seems like after Trek became popular and mainstream, it started to believe the myths that grew around it.

I think it's mostly due to things like the documentaries or anniversary specials they would show. They usually end with the dramatic music playing while someone talks about how Star Trek is a symbol showing us how positive our real future could be. And it had a serious commitment to inspire society to become that future etc.

It seems more like Star Trek after a lot of improvements, gradually evolved into the multi diverse, social justice and science inspiring symbol over time.

 

[Vger23]

Gamma Trianguli VI was a utopia, but at what cost?

Lots of food thrown into a giant paper-mâché dragon's mouth.

 

[cooleddie74]

Sounds like a party to me!

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I think this vision of the Trekverse has enhanced it. Star Trek is better with it than without it.

 

[Hythlodeus]

Sorry Hythlodeus, I don't know anything about you, but it seems you might be unfamiliar with the history of the Star Trek franchise and/or its fandom. If you're interested I'd recommend researching the matter, you might be surprised by what you find.

Alright, I was quoting this post just in case no one beat me to answering it while I was asleep and of course a lot of people did for which I'm grateful.

Yes, I'm totally unfamiliar with the franchise, in fact, I'm only here because I can't find any good messageboards for the Lego Movie, but (and that's a big but - because I like them that way) if you take the time researching Star Trek yourself, you might find that from the earliest years of the franchise onwards to the present, the Federation was never depicted as a perfect utopian society, that racism, bigotry, alcoholism, drug abuse, war, greed, poverty and a lot of stuff that's lamented on in this thread are not only depicted but in some cases part of the main character's backgrounds. Even the early years of TNG that are supposedly "Gene's Vision" (you know, the optimistic one) on speed (ha!), rape gangs merrily do whatever rape gangs do in UFP colonies.

Look, I know Star Trek fans often have the habit of a near religious transfiguration of what the shows are and that there's a cult like following of Gene's Vision that rivals Hubbard's, but most of that has to do with our first exposure happening in our early childhood were some of the more "darker" things might have gone over our heads. And that's fine, as long as we as adults can take another look at it and see that what we thought was Star Trek isn't necessarily Star Trek.

As for the youtube videos, I think I stated multiple times on this board, that those videos by Midnight's Edge or Doomcock or whoever it is, are never really about Star Trek itself. They are part of what they themselves call a "culture war", propaganda pieces to influence easily impressionable minds for the sole purpose of making them receptive of dangerously misogynistic, racist ideas. Those youtubers are not your friends, they do NOT care about the franchise you love, they just see you as a pawn for their bigger game. And as sooner you can see that, the better for you.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

To respond to your question, modern Star Trek presents a dystopian future, whereas the original Star Trek presented a utopian future. That's probably the broadest basis for calling it an antithesis. Another reason is that in the original franchise, humanity had evolved past many of its current issues like racism, greed, the need for revenge, among other negative traits. That's no longer the case in Picard. There are other reasons why I feel that modern Trek is an antithesis, but instead of spending a lot of time rehashing points that others have already made, I'd direct you to the multitude of youtube reviews that have covered the same ground.

I don't think modern trek presents a dystopia any more than the previous series did. A dystopia is literally a state that has fallen due to an apocalypse, the rise of a totalitarian regime or where the status quo is injustice and suffering. The Federation depicted in Picard, whilst hawkish, hasn't become a totalitarian regime. Earth is still a paradise and people are still working to better themselves. Picard could openly question the Federation and Starfleet without being arrested. None of this would be possible in a true dystopia

Past trek depicted a society striving to be utopian that wasn't wholly so. Was it better than today? Absolutely. Sure people had their needs met, Humanity had solved a lot of it's problems but there were still cracks in the veneer. The Federation felt it had the right to give away peoples homes to appease the Cardassians, Starfleet was willing to commit genocide against the Borg and overlook the attempted genocide of the Founders. Starfleet officers attempted a military coup, willfully committed a treaty violation that could have resulted in war with the Romulans and you had people like Norah Satie, who sought to defend the Federation through McCarthy-esque tribunals.

Racism was still around in the 24th century, O'brien called the Cardassians 'spoon-heads' and claimed that the 'bloody cardies can't be trusted'. Starfleet were openly distrustful of Odo because he was a shapeshifter. Worf refused to save the life of a Romulan because he hated them. We saw Federation citizens resort to greed, commit murder and commit treason. A utopia, is literally a state that is perfect. Things that I have described above would indicate that the Federation is not a perfect society. However those things do not make a dystopia either. It's just that you can't explore humanity, without exploring it's failings.

If modern trek truly depicted a dystopia and was the 'antithesis' of past Trek, Burnham wouldn't have threatened to mutiny a second time to prevent the Federation from enacting a weapon of mass destruction on the Klingons. Pike wouldn't have accepted a fate worse than death to help save the future. Picard would have told Dahj to go away while he continued to drink wine and feel sorry for himself and so on. Yet we continue to see people do heroic things and exhibit the best of the society that Star Trek depicts.

Star Trek has never been about the perfect, it's always been about the strive to be better than we were yesterday.

 

[DaveyNY]

Sounds like a party to me!

... as long as I'm the Dragon.

 

[Hythlodeus]

... as long as I'm the Dragon.

It's 2020, you can be whoever and whatever you want to be.

But Paul is still the walrus!

 

[Gonzo]

Well, shit...if Jonathan Del Arco said so......it must be true!!!

Perhaps he knows what is to come in the show, or at the very least has heard rumors of the direction it will go.

 

[Gonzo]

Based on my read of this, there's clearly no point in arguing with you.

That said, I'm compelled to support those who do not believe that PIC is a "dystopia." Mad Max is a dystopia. Blade Runner is a dystopia. Logans Run is a dystopia.

PIC is a view of the Federation that isn't as "perfect" or "squeaky-clean" as the rhetoric of the early TNG seasons would have you believe, and it shows the frontier as a place that isn't quite as fortunate as core Federation worlds.

It's realatively more realistic and perhaps even more overtly cynical than 1987 Trek was.....but it sure as hell isn't dystopian. Again, it's all relative here.

And, before you start in on me with that "you must not know Star Trek" defense...I assure you, I do. I've been watching since 1977 and have always (since early childhood) been a massively active and involved fan. A difference in opinion doesn't mean someone is devoid of fundamental understanding. It simply means they have different views and tastes than you do.

It never really was, although Picard thought so until he finally realised it wasn't.

Then again he got to swan around in his ship while those at home dealt with the paperwork and political fallout.

 

[Hythlodeus]

yup, the Enterprise-D was it's own little microcosmos, an utopia in itself if one looked past the strict hirarchy of the fascist military complex that is Starfleet. It's easy to be a saint on the Enterprise, were only the best of the very best serve and all of the kids are scientific geniuses.

 

[ITDUDE]

Sorry Hythlodeus, I don't know anything about you, but it seems you might be unfamiliar with the history of the Star Trek franchise and/or its fandom. If you're interested I'd recommend researching the matter, you might be surprised by what you find.

Ahh, the good old, “I’m not wrong, everyone else is” defense. Read the room, if you are in the vast minority, maybe, maybe you need to re-evaluate yourself and your own options before accusing everyone else of being wrong?

 

[Bad Thoughts]

How does Star Trek depict the future? Why does it do it?--these are important questions that involved a lot of nuance to answer. They are perhaps incredibly important for appreciating the series (even when someone disagrees with many political intentions of the individuals creators and episodes), but I don't think that they can be answered easily. They certainly cannot be reduced to one word, like "utopian," nor to a single personality, namely Gene Roddenberry. Many other creators put their fingerprints on Star Trek, dramatizing when they felt was the promise of Star Trek in powerful ways. Dorothy Fontana, Gene Coon, Nick Meyers, Leonard Nimoy, Michael Piller, Jeri Taylor, Ira Steven Behr, Ron Moore, Bryan Fisher, Brannon Braga, Manny Coto, and others, and now Michael Chabon, have taken the ideas, tropes, and forms of the franchise in order to make social commentary. What they have to say and how they have said it is not always consistent. Generally speaking, future Earth is better because of some combination of technological progress and social commitment. Humans have been imperfect to varying degrees, regardless of the values that have evolved. Drama has been used to examine those values and how they can be achieved. Sometimes Star Trek can be hamfisted when talking about the future. In the end, Star Trek has been more of a tool for social commentary, and only to a small extent a statement about what the future must look like.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Telling a board full of Trek fans...some of whom have been hanging around here for a couple of decades...that they must not be familiar with Star Trek is not exactly "how to win friends and influence people".

 

[Spot261]

Even in DS9 we learn that humans on Earth can be prejudiced and paranoid and resort to some pretty base behavior to defend what they see as this so-called "paradise."

Just like some of our so called civilised nations in the real world.

 

[AlanC9]

Sorry Hythlodeus, I don't know anything about you, but it seems you might be unfamiliar with the history of the Star Trek franchise and/or its fandom. If you're interested I'd recommend researching the matter, you might be surprised by what you find.

I gotta ask... who else read this and immediately thought "sheer fucking hubris"?

 

[AlanC9]

I was pretty explicit. Picard is a dystopia. If you find that to be hyperbolic that's on you. I wasn't trying to communicate anything further. This is not a criticism, it's a description. If you don't see it that way that's fine with me. As for whatever you said below, I'm not sure where the wizard comes from, I was stating a fact that can be backed up by dialog from the series. I'm finding it hard to understand where the disconnect is here. Are you familiar with Star Trek before 2009? If so, I don't understand why you'd be questioning this.

If you say Picard is a dystopia, then you really don't know what dystopia means. The Federation is simply not a society where there is great suffering and injustice. The worst thing we can say about it is that the Federation is not interested in expending a great deal of effort to extend those benefits to more people than it already contains.

As for that "fact", nobody ever said that human nature had intrinsically changed. The opposite has been stated, many times. The difference between Federation humans and 21st-century humans is that the Federation has better economic and social structures, which encourage better behavior. Take those things away, or move away from them, and humans are the same as they ever were.

Edit: and you played the "are you familiar with earlier Trek" card again? Really?

 

[EnderAKH]

That said, I'm compelled to support those who do not believe that PIC is a "dystopia." Mad Max is a dystopia. Blade Runner is a dystopia. Logans Run is a dystopia.

Or an example from Star Trek? Tasha Yar's homeworld, Turkana IV (thank you Memory Alpha), was dystopian. And if anyone can look at the Federation in Picard and lump it in with Turkana IV and their rape gangs, well, I don't think the problem is whether the Federation is a utopia, I think the problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes a world a dystopia.