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

[fireproof78]

Maybe "people" do, but I think I have the word "nihilism" pretty well under control. I'm guessing you think you do, too, if you're telling us that "people" are using it wrongly?!

Nope. I don't have anything under control.

ETA: I think people are overusing it more than anything else, especially in relationship to Star Trek. None of this is directed at any one person in particular, but just the overall idea that current Trek somehow isn't optimistic enough.

 

[Isaac Lawrence]

It's true, Star Trek is nowhere near as progressive as its reputation makes it seem. Even in the 1960s there were shows that had non-white actors in more meaningful roles than TOS had, and contrary to The Myth, there were other interracial kisses on TV before Plato's Stepchildren. Hell, TOS itself had other interracial kisses before Plato's Stepchildren. But this whole thing some people have been latching onto here lately with "90s Trek/Berman era couldn't have gay people because that was too risky for TV at the time" really has to stop. If Star Trek really were as groundbreaking and progressive as the Myth makes it out to be, that shouldn't have been an issue. But even ignoring that, by the time we got to the midway point of Voyager gay people were very common on TV meaning there was zero risk to Star Trek if they included a gay character. By the time the Berman era ended in 2005 the supposedly progressive Trek franchise had turned into a dinosaur with its refusal to have gay people on the show.

Yeah, that is kind of true, about the 60s.

Because on television during that time you had Julia, with Diahann Carroll who was actually the star of the show. And I Spy with Bill Cosby, who was the star/co-star of that show. And both of those were firsts, and both of those shows ran longer than Star Trek.

Of course, Uhura was important to Star Trek, but she was like fourth or fifth in line.

You had Kirk and Spock and Bones. Then kind of Scotty. Then Uhura. And sometimes she had bigger parts, and other times she didn't factor in much at all in the story.

So yes, she was something, but I agree and think that the perception kind of outstrips the reality a bit. And yes, having an actor who was black or any other non-white actor at that time as a guest star counts a fair amount. But "eh... " Because to me being the star or main character is ideally what representation means. Being just another member of the cast or a guest star is nice but not as nice as being the star.

Commodore Stone was cool and outranks Kirk, but nobody remembers who Commodore Stone was...

Of course, Star Trek stepped it up with Avery Brooks and Deep Space Nine, and Discovery is just a whole other level for progressive or representation in the science fiction genre. And I guess that's what Star Trek gets it's "pats on the back" for, for doing what it's done in the science fiction genre space. Because taken outside of science fiction it's just done a somewhat okay job.

All of the Star Trek shows though are of course products of their time, and reflect what was "allowable" or acceptable for the most part for that time. The Original Series feels very much like a 60s show, and the 90s Star Trek feels very much like the 90s, at least aesthetically. And today's Star Trek feels very much like today.

Also...

Exactly so. By the 1990s Star Trek had become one of the more conservative dramas on TV. There would have been nothing groundbreaking about gay characters.

I forgot where I read it, but I seem to recall reading something about how some felt that that's when a lot of people who were politically conservative came to Star Trek, during the 90s. I imagine though the militaristic aspects of Star Trek was always a draw for some of those of more of a conservative mindset.

Whatever the case, 90s Star Trek was a very different feeling beast. And even though it largely existed during the Clinton era, it wasn't really "wild and loose." It was pretty button down. It was pretty much "Don't ask, don't tell"... with a few moments of, "Okay, go ahead."

The 60s Star Trek was of course very different. And today's Star Trek of course could only exist today.

So everything is kind of right in a way. Everything is pretty much how it should be, and how it always was... A Star Trek of it's time and for it's time.

 

[fireproof78]

Commodore Stone was cool and outranks Kirk, but nobody remembers who Commodore Stone was

Well, I had no idea words could hurt so much until right now...

 

[Mudd]

I forgot where I read it, but I seem to recall reading something about how some felt that that's when a lot of people who were politically conservative came to Star Trek, during the 90s. I imagine though the militaristic aspects of Star Trek was always a draw for some of those of more of a conservative mindset.

The TNG era was when a lot of parents watched Trek with their children - it had become a "four quadrant" family show as far as the marketers were concerned, and I was told more than once by people involved with the show that the studio considered it family or even children's programming to some degree. So that would also probably have influenced Paramount's unwillingness to push the envelope on anything that might offend anyone (there are a few notable exceptions, like the second part of "Chain of Command").

 

[cooleddie74]

And TOS itself was largely scheduled to air when it was more likely that kids and teenagers could watch it. The 7:30 to 9:30 range allowed whole families to watch the show during its network run so the third season "time slot of death" of Friday nights at 10:00 was even more of a blow to the series' chances for survival because kids and teenagers on a Friday night weren't focused on watching whatever one of the big three networks broadcast at 10:00 East Coast time. A show that appealed to both kids and grownups from 1966-68 was largely left to fend for itself in bored Friday night adult viewers' territory during its final season on the air.

Could that explain a greater willingness to tackle issues like racism in Season 3 since the network knew fewer people would be watching and caring? Maybe, maybe not. But Trek's first three series counting TAS were advertised as family friendly viewing and largely written as such.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Nope. I don't have anything under control.

ETA: I think people are overusing it more than anything else, especially in relationship to Star Trek. None of this is directed at any one person in particular, but just the overall idea that current Trek somehow isn't optimistic enough.

Certainly. Check your understanding isn't a bad message. If only more people would....

 

[Mudd]

Season 1 of TNG was awful. The show later getting popular didn't change the fact that the first season was awful.

That's a misuse of the word "fact." Season One was not awful. Some episodes were very bad. Some were good. A couple were about as good as TNG would get.

There are a few episodes in Season Two that are as bad as the worst in the first year, and not necessarily early in the second year.

 

[cooleddie74]

"The Neutral Zone" is fantastic. I'd rewatch it before I'd rewatch lots of episodes from later seasons.

 

[Ovation]

Maybe "people" do, but I think I have the word "nihilism" pretty well under control. I'm guessing you think you do, too, if you're telling us that "people" are using it wrongly?!

Of course, the only real nihilists on screen are found in The Big Lebowski. I thought this was common knowledge.

 

[fireproof78]

Of course, the only real nihilists on screen are found in The Big Lebowski. I thought this was common knowledge.

I thought that was more "Fight Club." But, I haven't seen either film in decades either.

 

[Steve Roby]

I mean, since we're playing the "my subjective opinion is the objective truth" game.

Ignore the fact that nu trek doesn't feel like canon or even seem like trek in anything other than name, ignore the part that nu treks are alienating a massive proportion of the fanbase with unlikable character arcs, at the end of the day none one of the 3 shows can compete with the current day sci fis.

I guess we're still playing the "my subjective opinion is the objective truth" game. For what it's worth, товарищ Салю́тБура́н, I'd been a Star Trek fan for a couple of years already when I watched the Apollo-Soyuz linkup on live TV in 1975. The new Star Trek series do everything for me that the best of the old Star Trek did. They give me stories that keep me watching, with characters I want to know more about and enjoy seeing develop, while trying to promote ideas like prejudice being bad, knowledge and science being important, and friendship despite cultural differences being good. And giving me cool space stuff to watch. It's all there, from the original 1960s pilots right through Discovery, Picard, and Lower Decks. I haven't enjoyed all of it equally. I think Enterprise in particular made a number of mistakes. And yet, I accept that it's canon and it's Star Trek, I own the blu-rays and books, and I enjoyed the Enterprise era stuff in Star Trek Beyond, because I love that this is all one big fictional universe with a thousand stories that tell one big story. That's my opinion, of course. And I expect it will continue to be.

Edited to add: for the heck of it, I decided to start my Star Trek: Picard rewatch. I saw it when it first ran and now I'm watching the blu-rays. I'm halfway through the first episode and I'm thinking, how could any Star Trek fan -- at least, any who liked The Next Generation -- not get caught up in this? We've got Patrick Stewart back. And there's Brent Spiner. How can any TNG fan be unmoved by the opening sequence? "I don't want the game to end. I'm all in."

 

[SalyutBuran]

Nope. I don't have anything under control.

ETA: I think people are overusing it more than anything else, especially in relationship to Star Trek. None of this is directed at any one person in particular, but just the overall idea that current Trek somehow isn't optimistic enough.

Nihilism does not mean the opposite of optimism.

Nor does nihilism equate to a philosophical theory.

One of the traits associated with nihilism is an inconsistency of value.

Since things are relatively arbitrary one persons up and down can be entirely different to someone elses.

Nu Trek could be entirely dystopian and not nihilistic. The key is the way in which federation values have changed without any clear indication of why. It's as if the federation went through a radical values change in just a few years. This is the kind of thing you see with nihilistic values. You can change fundamental values without any justification and people are just ok with it.Seems they never really believed in anything in the first place.

If the dominion came in and enslaved humanity forcing their values on the federation that would be dystopian but nihilistic. If a writer determines those values held by the federation aren't important, just because they think its boring that is nihilism. You can write a happy go lucky comedy and still have nihilistic values at its core.

And values doesn't just me "killing people is bad" values are entire sets of things a person holds dear and considers worth prioritising.

 

[fireproof78]

Nu Trek could be entirely dystopian and not nihilistic.

It is neither.

 

[SalyutBuran]

I guess we're still playing the "my subjective opinion is the objective truth" game.

And people are entirely misusing what subjective means. Subjective does not mean you have a blank check to claim whatever you want. Value is partially determined by the independent person but that does not mean there aren't objective truths within that process. An out of tune guitar is not subjective, it's a quantifiable fact. Subjective means you can like guitar sounds that are out of tune, off time and sloppily played. But at the end of the day you're just playing a semantics game, where a person is unwilling to admit they are a fan of something of lower quality. It's throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Just the same you can stick electrodes to a brain and collect consistent data on how a person will view a property. Cutting someone's eyeball out has a predictable gut reaction with the majority of the population. Just the same a psychologist can make effective judgements that most of the cast of STD are written as if they have serious personality flaws. Just the same you can take a survey to determine the proportion of the population who can see that discovery has serious plot issues. Just the same you can see a spectrum of people who can predict the popularity and acceptance of a property. Just the same it's easy to see a correlation with special effects budgets and how well it is received. The failures of nutrek are incredibly easy to see.

There's tonnes of things I like that I can objectively state as being "bad". This is where the phrase "guilty pleasure" comes in. I don't think anyone thinks there's guilt associated with liking these things, it's a personal acknowledgement that you like something of poor quality.

Shades of Gray is objectively an awful episode. But I personally enjoy it. I don't deny that it's a thing limited to me, and it'd be absurd to suggest my enjoyment of the episode in any way repairs the objective flaws in its creation.

If you're reading a math problem that says "Jane has 3 brothers and 6 sisters, how many siblings does she have?".

Saying "all of them" isn't smart, it's a failure to comprehend the intended question.

Just the same saying "it's subjective" doesn't address the nature of whether there are objective truths in art.

For what it's worth, товарищ Салю́тБура́н, I'd been a Star Trek fan for a couple of years already when I watched the Apollo-Soyuz linkup on live TV in 1975. The new Star Trek series do everything for me that the best of the old Star Trek did. They give me stories that keep me watching, with characters I want to know more about and enjoy seeing develop, while trying to promote ideas like prejudice being bad, knowledge and science being important, and friendship despite cultural differences being good. And giving me cool space stuff to watch. It's all there, from the original 1960s pilots right through Discovery, Picard, and Lower Decks. I haven't enjoyed all of it equally. I think Enterprise in particular made a number of mistakes. And yet, I accept that it's canon and it's Star Trek, I own the blu-rays and books, and I enjoyed the Enterprise era stuff in Star Trek Beyond, because I love that this is all one big fictional universe with a thousand stories that tell one big story. That's my opinion, of course. And I expect it will continue to be.

Edited to add: for the heck of it, I decided to start my Star Trek: Picard rewatch. I saw it when it first ran and now I'm watching the blu-rays. I'm halfway through the first episode and I'm thinking, how could any Star Trek fan -- at least, any who liked The Next Generation -- not get caught up in this? We've got Patrick Stewart back. And there's Brent Spiner. How can any TNG fan be unmoved by the opening sequence? "I don't want the game to end. I'm all in."

Because I can give you a link to personality surveys and virtually anyone can see he's had unrealistic changes to his entire personality.

Just the same anyone with any understanding of how art works can tell you it is counterproductive to give a romulan the behaviours of a british tea granny. The entire premise of establishing a group of aliens is leveraging canon and behaviour patterns to imply that something that doesn't exist(alien cultures) is a real thing.

There's no continuity in how romulans are defined in tng and how they are defined in STP.

If you're tone deaf that doesn't mean there aren't people walking around with perfect pitch. Not perceiving poor quality doesn't mean something isn't of poor quality. Being tone deaf isn't a character flaw, extending your tone deafness across the broader population is in fact a flaw.

And my reference point isn't my feels on picard, it's the things being pointed out by relative experts. RedLetter Media are more than proficient in pointing out a large number of issues with picard. You don't have to agree with their subjective opinions to acknowledge what they are talking about.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

An out of tune guitar is not subjective, it's a quantifiable fact. Subjective means you can like guitar sounds that are out of tune, off time and sloppily played. But at the end of the day you're just playing a semantics game, where a person is unwilling to admit they are a fan of something of lower quality. It's throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Leaving aside the question of what it means to be in tune for the moment, and coming back to that below because that's also important, there are times when not being in tune is more desirable than being in tune.

Say you're doing the soundtrack for a Western, and it's time to do the piano in the saloon. Do you use a perfectly in tune piano, or do you pick one that is noticeably out of tune? Far from being of lower quality, the out of tune piano is more than likely the more desirable choice that better makes the Western work. If you used the perfectly in tune piano, the Western would be of "lower quality."

You ever notice how an opera singer slides up to notes, allowing them to actually be out of tune before settling on the note? That creates tension in the performance for artistic reasons. Resolving tension is one of the cornerstones of musical composition and performance.

You don't go to the opera to hear everybody on Auto-tune. And you don't go see live music to have the time stamped out by a metronome.

As for the question of being in tune, there are many different kinds of being in tune. There's equally tempered, Pythagorean intonation, just intonation, meantone temperament, and so on. If you think these aren't important distinctions, master orchestration, and then get back to me. There's the question of which A you use. Only once you've set your standard can measuring against it have a hope of becoming objective. Prior to that, there is still flexibility driven by the people involved as well as the tools and instruments that are favored and used, what it is they are trying to optimize, and so forth.

 

[Steve Roby]

Just the same anyone with any understanding of how art works can tell you it is counterproductive to give a romulan the behaviours of a british tea granny.

For one thing, Orla Brady's Irish, not British. Second, why can't members of a fictional alien culture living on Earth for years pick up some local habits? Why can't individual members of a society have distinct personalities?

The entire premise of establishing a group of aliens is leveraging canon and behaviour patterns to imply that something that doesn't exist(alien cultures) is a real thing.

Creating one specific personality type for a group of aliens and insisting that they must all be the same to be more believable is counterproductive. We don't expect all human characters to be the same. It's not helpful to assume all Romulans must be.

There's no continuity in how romulans are defined in tng and how they are defined in STP.

Out of curiosity, are you aware that TNG did not introduce the Romulans? They were created for TOS, and when TNG came along, a lot of fandom wondered why the cultural traits of the Romulans (a culture that valued honour) and the Klingons (sneaky, untrustworthy schemers with no sense of honour) were swapped for TNG. So I'm not sure what your point is, other than that cultures in Star Trek are presented inconsistently (real world explanation) or evolve and change (in universe explanation).

And my reference point isn't my feels on picard, it's the things being pointed out by relative experts. RedLetter Media are more than proficient in pointing out a large number of issues with picard. You don't have to agree with their subjective opinions to acknowledge what they are talking about.

Actually, I don't give a flying wallenda what some guys on Youtube think, and I don't spend hours of my time watching people complain about shows they don't like. I'd rather just watch something I enjoy.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Nu Trek could be entirely dystopian and not nihilistic. The key is the way in which federation values have changed without any clear indication of why. It's as if the federation went through a radical values change in just a few years. This is the kind of thing you see with nihilistic values. You can change fundamental values without any justification and people are just ok with it.Seems they never really believed in anything in the first place.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I think you missed the point of these movies.

 

[Steve Roby]

It's as if the federation went through a radical values change in just a few years.

It did, sometime between TOS and TNG. Federation culture changed dramatically without explanation between the shows, because Roddenberry decided he was a philosopher and that the Federation represented his vision of utopia.

 

[BillJ]

Just the same you can stick electrodes to a brain and collect consistent data on how a person will view a property.

No, you can't. Because people change as they age. Especially over the 55 years Star Trek has existed.

Just the same anyone with any understanding of how art works can tell you it is counterproductive to give a romulan the behaviours of a british tea granny.

I seriously didn't see that, I thought Laris and Zhabon were one of the few highlights of Picard. Why wouldn't Romulans have tea drinking grannies? Hell, we know Klingons have nannies from "Sins of the Father". In actuality, it serves the dramatic purpose of showing that we are all more similar than we think, a lesson humanity in the here-and-now desperately needs to learn.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I thought Laris and Zhab[a]n were one of the few highlights of Picard.

Agreed, they were among the highlights.