Is it just me, or is Star Trek going the wrong way?

I think the latter is true of Old Trek perhaps even more than of New Trek.

 

Yeah, "Let that Be Your Last Battlefield" and "A Private Little War" were not exactly subtle in what was presented.

New Trek doesn't seem as worried about social commentary as past Trek. It seems more about presenting a specific image.

 

TOS was unsubtle but making an effort. "We're not going to kill -- today." TNG was, by and large, cowardly, when not actually regressive (Angel One, Code of Honor, etc.). Roddenberry promised David Gerrold they'd do an AIDS allegory with no intention of actually doing it. After he died, when Berman was asked if he could introduce a gay character, he'd say, well, we really need the right story to deal with that issue. He couldn't see it in terms of people, only as a controversial issue they might tiptoe allegorically around in one episode (which is what they did). Hell, a very popular sitcom had a gay character ten years before The Next Generation premiered, and he wasn't just a regular, he was the breakout star. Billy Crystal. But Rick Berman didn't want to go there.

In new Trek, no TOS sledgehammer is required. Gay characters aren't an issue, they're just people. Kind of like real life that way.

 

Real life doesn't apply to Star Trek

 

You are not kidding, Almost reads like Berman-ism all over again.

 

I mean, yes and no. Picard shows us a UFP that was afraid after a terrible attack coming on the heals of a long war which resulted in many dead. So they became protectionist and reactionary with the synth ban, and were not willing to risk further when it came to the Romulans. It was all too much at the moment and they had to find their way again, recognizing that one enemy in a group doesn't mean they are all enemies.

 

Add to that:

DS9-Also made it to a fourth season by the skin of its teeth
TAS (The Animated Series)-only lasted two seasons because that's how most Saturday morning shows were (of course, these days on the dedicated animation cable channels, a show can last as long as it wants to.)

 

What’s not to understand? Good stories are about struggle and making some kind of progress. Good characters overcome obstacles and go on journeys of growth.

True Utopia presents no opportunity for struggle or growth. It’s fucking dull and completely uninspiring to most people, because it’s a desired end state, handed to the audience on a silver platter. There’s really nothing interesting about that.

The original Star Trek, before Gene’s Vision (tm) took hold when Roddenberry realized he has an image to “sell,” always dumped all over the concept. Kirk often came to conclusions that man wasn’t meant for paradise as the theme to entire episodes. It was as core a concept to Trek as false gods and Vulcan logic.

It was really just Captain Picard, who it can be argued is pretty over-bought-in to the “ideals of the Federation” who gave the impression that mankind is some kind of enlightened and evolved species. But even the later movies (First Contact in particular) and the PIC series call him out on his privileged, rose-colored bullshit.

I just think it’s not as interesting as people imagine it would be.

 

Now lets not go messing around with utopian visions with things like entertainment or struggle or drama.

 

I think being a show about space exploration provides plenty of inherent opportunity for obstacles and journeys of growth without taking away the inspirational notion that back home within the Federation we've finally got our shit largely together.

 

Yes, I agree. I don't think that it's necessary for the Federation to be depicted as dysfunctional, dystopian or decimated for Star Trek to be an interesting premise with engaging characters. My contention is that those narrative choices are too easy, too obvious. To preserve a more-or-less Utopian vision as the core setting for the show would indeed be more difficult. My suggestion is that the added challenge would open the possibility for better, more innovative stories.

 

Having your shit together and "living in a Utopia" are two entirely different things.

Star Trek already depicts us as having our shit together, for the most part. But the notion that humanity will suddenly change and have no inherent weaknesses, failings, temptations or vices is quite frankly not only dull and laughable, it's also fantasy.

The inspirational element is in seeing the characters or the society rise to the challenges that present themselves in spite of their failings, not due to the absence of them.

One is interesting, dramatic, and inspirational. The other is pretentious, boring, fanciful tripe.

 

I'll accept that the word "Utopia" may be the problem here. If we're talking about a society in which everything is literally perfect, it's obvious that there isn't much room for drama there. My meaning is a society in which the larger human problems—poverty, war, bigotry, crime—have been mostly solved at the structural level. It may also be that some of these problems were solved using methods that contemporary people would find troubling, presenting a space in which the ethical cost of eliminating some social problems can be discussed. Again, my issue here is not so much the presence of conflict and drama in contemporary Star Trek, but rather that the sources of conflict and drama are lazy, predictable and out of sync with the franchise's core concept.

 

Isn't that what we already have, for the most part? I mean there are individual instances of these elements (we've seen plenty of bigoted characters, or criminals, etc....), but it seems these are no longer systemic issues.

I don't agree, particularly as someone who believes that Star Trek's "core concept" was laid flat long before 1987.

 

• In Discovery, The Federation was portrayed first as a dysfunctional puppet of a shadow organization (Section 32), and then as an ineffectual remnant in a post-apocalyptic context.
• In Picard, the Federation is depicted as a corrupt and compromised mockery of its higher ideals in a setting that appears to have forgotten many of the societal advances discussed in TNG.

You may be right. But I think it's worth resuscitating.

 

I don't agree with the harshness of that assessment. But, there was certainly "trouble in paradise." And, the point was that the Federation was able to fight through the fear and misdirection that led to those states and still return to a better place more aligned with their core values.

Again, it's drama. The struggle to retain / maintain / return to one's ideals and values is interesting drama. Just inherently having them and being assured of them isn't really interesting. If you're going to depict paradise, you need to have a way to test that structure and challenge its existence. Otherwise, it becomes meaningless.

If you mean it's worth bringing back concepts TNG laid over what TOS had originally established, I'll take a hard pass. I like TNG, but nowadays it's really dated and frankly incredibly boring. Picard and the virtuous crew of the Enterprise, always counted on to be the heroes and do the right thing, simply doesn't inspire me. I'd rather we "not kill....today" than prance around the galaxy showing off our "evolved sensibility."

YMMV, of course. Always a good debate.

 

That's not utopian. That's having your together. I don't find utopia inspiring. Never have. I find improvement, overcoming adversity and mutual cooperation more inspirational than utopian humans who have no time for savages like me.

 

I think Picard's new show went too far, but I have always thought of him as arrogant. Indeed, of all the captains he seems to be the biggest believer in the rightness of Federation Values. As for the other captains;

Kirk believes that Federation Values are a great baseline for everyone else, but he knows better.

Janeway is similar; while as thoroughly indoctrinated in Federation Values as Picard, she secretly relishes the idea of going where the values don't apply.

Sisco really wants to believe in Federation Values, but is frustrated as he sees them constantly tested.

Archer is a man in need of a set of values no one's got round to yet! Strangely, he is still always quoting them, while never actually living up to them.

Freeman and the crew of the Cerritos have no time for such philosophical idealism. Most of the time, they are too busy dealing with the fallout!

Michael Burnham, on the other hand, is the most self-absorbed. She believes that she herself is the ultimate embodiment of Federation Values. In truth, she barely understands them!

 

I think Picard also believes he is the ultimate embodiment of them. To his detriment, and also makes him less engaging as a character. I can at least understand Michael. I don't understand Picard. At least not until Picard and then he made somewhat sense.

Kirk and Pike are the best examples thus far.