Here's a cheery little tune from 1971
Spoilers Let’s talk about the destruction of Trek utopia…
- Thread starter Anters
- Start date
I think the answer lies in a Voyager episode called 'Fury.'
This is akin to saying “Lord of the Rings needs a reality check. What’s with all this magic and dragons?” Why do you want “realism” in your fantastic utopian fiction? And who are you to determine what could be “real” four hundred years from now? I’d love to see how many 16th century people would believe the story of our current techno democracy where even women vote and hold power and people have walked on the moon.
Last edited:
John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band, 1970, is such a cheery, feel-good album:
Though I'm not who you responded to, I'm not a fan of Utopian Trek. My favorite series besides Picard are TOS, DS9, and DSC. Draw your own conclusions from that. Picard is much more to my tastes than TNG ever was.
Picard has single-handedly corrected everything I didn't like about the 24th Century.
Star Trek is neither written in the 24th Century nor for citizens of the 24th Century. Fantastic elements doesn't mean unrelatable or unrealistic characters or situations.
Largely because it is not utopian fiction and presents itself as humanity's future. Some realism is expected in the premise.
It draws no conclusions for me. You’re not telling me why fiction needs to be “realistic” and what even makes something “realistic”. I love TOS best as well, and it was utopian. Certainly more so than the war porn of DS9
Who said it was? And, again, what’s realism? Relatable? TNG had the highest ratings of any Trek show topping off at 13 million viewers. DS9 and all other “realistic” space show can’t hold a candle. But whatever.
Still no definition of what “realism” is.
Of course I'm not. Because I'm not the one who made the argument it's "realistic". More realistic isn't the same as actually realistic. The real 2399 will look nothing like Picard.
TOS was anti-Utopian. It was a recurring theme of the show.
You did
Yes a lot of people watched TNG in the 90s. That doesn't mean a show made in the 2020s would have the same success.
From the writers guide:
“We must have an optimistic projection of man and his society if we are to approve of and identify with Captain Kirk, the crew of the Enterprise, and their mission.”
Picard is not written for general audiences. Let’s not pretend it is. It’s too entrenched in lore and fanwank. So that’s not even a consideration. Next, you don’t know what people today will watch without trying, which we haven’t.
Star Trek became arguably the biggest hour-long syndication hit ever. And TNG was very very successful. So, at least at the time, the "utopian" futures of those two shows was no barrier to entry for significant audiences. Sure, TNG's characters were often bland due to Roddenberry's deciding to over-perfect them and many writers' inability to understand that you can have conflict without it being the petty kind that Roddenberry primarily railed against. It's right there in "Encounter at Farpoint" for instance, with Riker being uneasy with Data, Picard being prickly with just about everyone, etc. TOS certainly had relatable characters without resorting to portraying the far-off-future as being just like now.
And, as others have pointed out upthread, how recognizable does anyone think people from 1620 would find our modern first-world societies, with #MeToo and PETA and modern medicine that can cure so many things so easily, and the scientific method putting into question things accepted since the Bronze Age, including so much secularity in friction with religiosity? To them we might seem as pompous and ridiculous as a lot of people are accusing "utopian" Trek of being. Would they say you can't tell relatable human stories in our world?
Maybe they would.
And, as others have pointed out upthread, how recognizable does anyone think people from 1620 would find our modern first-world societies, with #MeToo and PETA and modern medicine that can cure so many things so easily, and the scientific method putting into question things accepted since the Bronze Age, including so much secularity in friction with religiosity? To them we might seem as pompous and ridiculous as a lot of people are accusing "utopian" Trek of being. Would they say you can't tell relatable human stories in our world?
Maybe they would.
I prefer naturalistic over realistic. The original series was certainly naturalistic, creating a stylish verisimilitude of people living and working on a starship—shipboard life, discussions of resources aboard, and a more lived in look with tapes and equipment scattered about. It wasn't saying this is a "realistic" view of space travel, but was naturalistic in how it showcased its world.
That being said, I'm frustrated with PIC and its portrayal of 24th Century Earth/Federation living. Now I prefer the Utopia-in-Progress of TOS. But I do really like TNG's Post-Scarcity, non-monetary society. With PIC, as has been pointed out elsewhere, we have apparent materialism and consumerism (Blade Runner ads for new padd models—would a technologically advance society like the Federation give a shit about that?—and Raffi's material jealousy).
Also, it seems like a lack of imagination that the current Trek powers that be can't imagine other conflicts besides those requiring money and conspiracies within conspiracies.
Last edited:
it’s getting disingenuous seeing people say TOS wasn’t a comparative utopia. I was around when there was nothing but TOS and we knew we were watching optimistic utopian fiction. That was the draw.
Utopia would be a Paradise. TOS rejected paradise. Repeatedly.
A better future than Present Day (now or then)? Sure. I'd never argue it wasn't. But better isn't the same as "paradise". TOS was decidedly against Paradise. Kirk said humanity wasn't meant for it. It was one of the main themes of the show.
Optimistic =/= Utopian
Kirk commented that mankind wasn't meant for paradise every chance he got.
Oh for sure it was. What I mean by "Utopia-in-Progress" is how TOS was much more readily than TNG to admit to the darker, more flawed view of humanity and that we can overcome that to build a better tomorrow. But TOS was a utopia just not the refined one in TMP and TNG.
Kirk rejected paradise that didn't offer anymore challenges, anymore growth. Where humanity would be sheeps or slaves to a technological or alien overlord as the price of admission for paradise.
In Trek's utopia, there is plenty of challenges... which is why people sign up for Starfleet service, as per Roddenberry in the TMP novalization.
Last edited:
In all of those situations he was talking about faux-Tahitian edens with no growth, creativity, or free thought. So, let’s not mix that up. And a planet with no chance of war and resources to send people into space is utopian. Compare this to DS9 and everything after it that exists in a world with an Illuminati backend in section 31, armies of android workers with human like ai, and an alien force infiltrating it’s highest offices. That’s not just not utopia, it’s dystopian. That should be the discussion. Not the death of Trek utopia, but the birth of the Federation dystopia.
TOS wasn't utopian. It was just a lot more peaceful and advanced than the real world was in the late 1960s or today. Those aren't the same things.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
