Discovery is doing it. Star Trek is an action/adventure platform with an optimistic view of human capability (note: not outcome) with social commentary woven in, both subtlety and unsubtly at times. That's it.
Is it just me, or is Star Trek going the wrong way?
- Thread starter LunaticBurnout
- Start date
You've got me there. I've seen very little of TOS besides all of the movies. I do think TNG is the epitome of what Star Trek ought to be, and based on the original cast films I don't see much conflict between the original cast (in the films) and TOS.
I do however think going back to the original show as a way to score gotcha points is pretty weak though. TNG was huge and much wider in scope than TOS, and far more popular in terms of ratings. More importantly, the series is generally beloved by a large majority of the fan base. This goes back to the (apparently controversial) Wikipedia definition of what canon means:
In fiction, canon is the material accepted as officially part of the story in an individual universe of that story by its fan base.
Now, I know many on here don't agree with that definition and think canon is whatever the owners of the IP produce is canon. Legally correct, but shallow. I wholeheartedly endorse the definition above - canon is determined by the fan base in a democratic fashion. TNG was hugely popular and beloved and is now canon. The people have spoken. Discovery and Picard, on the other hand, are sitting at 41% and 55% audience score on RT. Those shows are still in production and neither have achieved anything close to mainstream acceptance by the fans. Why do you think that is? I think that's a question worth debating.
Because fans have a narrow definition of canon.
I wish you'd taken this less argumentative and combative attitude in the first place. Now we can actually debate things.
Here's the thing-even if TNG is what Trek ought to be that doesn't meant that is the only thing it can be. And TOS is Star Trek too, correct? So, Discovery taking references from TOS as well as TNG and DS9, who both did very dark stories, humans acting poorly, evil admirals, and poor decisions. The only optimism presented at times was that our heroes were not as bad as other Starfleet officers. Star Trek is a huge sandbox, not a TNG sized one.
It's not just TNG though, I also liked DS9 and Voyager (and to a lesser extent Enterprise and occasionally Lower Decks).
DS9 especially did some great storylines about the not so admirable aspects of the federation, but it was never the focus of the show. The core tenants of what made Star Trek Star Trek were not violated there. Our heroes always fought for what was right, and if they ever did something morally questionable (like tricking the Romulans into war) it was done intelligently and with appropriate moral reflection.
But to your point, discussing what star trek ought to be is the whole point of this discussion. I mean, we could just call everything Star Trek and discuss comparative quality, but that's kind of boring. What if the next James Bond film was a romantic comedy filled with slapstick humor? Like, say James Bond's date tripps over a big pink dildo and lands in a pile of dog poop and the camera pans in on his Bond's as he says "now that's what I call sticky situation."
I think that would piss off a lot of James Bond fans, and they'd have a right to debate whether it was ever a "true" bond film at all. That sense of whether a new component of a franchise has any right to be considered a legitimate part of the larger story is a valid discussion to have.
DS9 especially did some great storylines about the not so admirable aspects of the federation, but it was never the focus of the show. The core tenants of what made Star Trek Star Trek were not violated there. Our heroes always fought for what was right, and if they ever did something morally questionable (like tricking the Romulans into war) it was done intelligently and with appropriate moral reflection.
But to your point, discussing what star trek ought to be is the whole point of this discussion. I mean, we could just call everything Star Trek and discuss comparative quality, but that's kind of boring. What if the next James Bond film was a romantic comedy filled with slapstick humor? Like, say James Bond's date tripps over a big pink dildo and lands in a pile of dog poop and the camera pans in on his Bond's as he says "now that's what I call sticky situation."
I think that would piss off a lot of James Bond fans, and they'd have a right to debate whether it was ever a "true" bond film at all. That sense of whether a new component of a franchise has any right to be considered a legitimate part of the larger story is a valid discussion to have.
Canon is what the studio says it is. End of story. My head canon is whatever I want it to be but that means nothing to anyone else but me unless other people like my ideas and agree with them.
By and large I am not. I am here to talk excitedly with friends about things I love.
Nor are they here. But, we, the audience, are actually treated more intelligently and not spoon fed the answer.
The Roger Moore Bond movies were full of slapstick humor and were well loved by fans.
And the most financially successful until GoldenEye and the later Brosnan and Craig films, even adjusted for inflation.
Star Trek is about our heroes facing a challenge and the ups and downs encountered along the way. The challenge may be physical, mental or moral. It may be solved in an hour, two hours or a season. The answers don't always have to be "pretty". Sometime our heroes can falter. DISCO and PICARD aren't doing that any differently.
I’m not sure how the new Treks aren’t optimistic.
Because there is no happily ever after.
TOS didn't even have those. A lot of episodes ended sadly or with tragedy, barely redeemed by the crew learning lessons about humanity and how civilized beings should behave to one another.
Yep.
"Let's get the hell out of here.
" A hundred serpents. Serpents for the Garden of Eden. We're very tired, Mister Spock. Beam us up home."
" Oh, please, don't let them take me. I can't even touch them! Janice, they can't feel. Not like you! They don't love! Please, I want to stay." (fades away)
"Forget"
I think that the way Discovery is depicting the Federation is even more powerful now than it was before. While TOS was made in a time of turmoil, it was showing that everything worked out and we were better because of it. TNG was even more hopeful and so on. But today we're starting to see the dramatic effects of climate change, there is a rise of fascism in the US and other western countries, and we seem to edging closer to an economic collapse. But Discovery shows that even when all hope seems lost, you can recover and rebuild to something stronger. Even with the Federation on the brink of extinction with no hope in sight, there is a way out. By sticking to their ideals and having faith in each other, they can solve problems that seem impossible to fix and create a brighter future. We can't just stand around and wait for things to fix themselves, we have to fight for it and work towards it. It's a message that we need now more than ever.
"I wonder...would it have hurt us just to gather a few more laurel leaves?"
That's emblematic of the hypocrisy and shallowness of much of the positive view of humanity/Federation. People outside our heroes are constantly doing horrible things, which hardly reflects a positive view of humanity and the Federation. It's often just a product of the lazy writing which was particularly common in the Berman era, where people outside our heroes were used to make our heroes look more heroic and to create conflict, but it's nonetheless part of the narrative. Even when our heroes do it they face no consequences (see Archer engaging in piracy and torture, Janeway nearly killing an Equinox crewmember, Sisko's use of chemical weapons to displace civilians, etc).
Let's not forget that the Federation won the Dominion war through biological warfare, attempted genocide and a false-flag assassination. Oh, and there was also a false-flag attack on Earth which was used to repress the population. All, mind you, with virtually no consequences. Such a positive future! What wonderful humans!
As to your other points...
Consistency in canon? Stacks of examples of inconsistency and outright revision. First Contact, as but one example, is fundamentally inconsistent with two of Trek's most beloved episodes, Best of Both Worlds and Space Seed.
Well-written characters? If anything, I've found that a consistent weakness in previous Trek series - plenty of Trek characters have been shallow, unlikeable and lacking development.
So no, I neither accept that those points are intrinsic in defining Trek, nor that the current shows are notably worse in reflecting them than their predecessors.
Similar threads
