That's a recurring theme in a lot of the interviews with the writers on the TNG blu-rays. So many of them felt straight-jacketed by "Roddenberry's box" of the perfected human.
It bothers me of how much corruption there is within Starfleet.
- Thread starter The Rock
- Start date
I think that straight-jacket is part of the reason TNG feels so distinctive and mature. It wasn't allowed to be like regular TV, the writers couldn't always take the easy route to drama, so they had to try different things. When you compare it to Picard, the newer series has a really nasty and cynical feel to it because it's less restrained.
Don't mince words; what do you really think?
You must have watched a different version of TNG. It was quite comfortable using every trope in the writer's handbook to get to its drama.
Yeah, it sounds like I probably did see a different version to you.
Come on. What "new drama ground" did TNG break? It was often two steps behind it's contemporaries. Many of which were much more sophisticated in the stories they told and how they told them.
TNG was an intended refinement of TOS. At least in Roddenberry’s eyes.
It didn’t do anything that contemporary shows, sci-fi or not, were not also doing. I don’t think it ‘broke ground’ at all.
In fact, TNG didn’t really do anything that TOS hadn’t already done 2 decades earlier.
It didn’t do anything that contemporary shows, sci-fi or not, were not also doing. I don’t think it ‘broke ground’ at all.
In fact, TNG didn’t really do anything that TOS hadn’t already done 2 decades earlier.
I'm not saying it was a revolutionary new form of television, it just closed off some familiar doors and forced the writers to find other ones to open. They were frustrated by working within Roddenberry's box, yet they kept coming out with classic episodes every season. Deep Space Nine stuck with the idea that humans were generally pretty awesome, and as a TV show it was generally pretty awesome.
Roddenberry's box was always a problem for writers, not for viewers.
Roddenberry's box was always a problem for writers, not for viewers.
To me it's really simple. There is Star Trek as a setting to tell interesting stories. And there is Star Trek as an optimistic vision of what humanity could become. Often, these two align, but not always, and I can understand writers wishing to tell 'the other type of stories' too.
So what? It doesn't necessarily mean society has become more corrupt since the sixties or TNG (*). It's only entertainment at the end of the day.
(*) Perhaps society has become more corrupt, it very well may, but I wouldn't base that on what I see in Star Trek.
I'l leave an in-universe explanation to others, for now.
So what? It doesn't necessarily mean society has become more corrupt since the sixties or TNG (*). It's only entertainment at the end of the day.
(*) Perhaps society has become more corrupt, it very well may, but I wouldn't base that on what I see in Star Trek.
I'l leave an in-universe explanation to others, for now.
Yeah I totally disagree with that.
Examples?
Oh, yeah? One of the most resonant lines from DS9 was, "... it's easy to be a saint in paradise" ["The Maquis, Part II"]. With episodes like that one, like "Paradise Lost", and like "In the Pale Moonlight", DS9 focused intently on refuting the idea that humans of the 24th century were somehow inherently superior to today's people. Getting back to the more realistic portrayal of humans that was found in TOS and away from the stuffiness of TNG was one of the refreshing things about DS9.
From TOS, "A Taste of Armageddon", another one of Kirk's greatest speeches [transcript]:
ANAN: You realise what you have done?
KIRK: Yes, I do. I've given you back the horrors of war. The Vendikans now assume that you've broken your agreement and that you're preparing to wage real war with real weapons. They'll want do the same. Only the next attack they launch will do a lot more than count up numbers in a computer. They'll destroy cities, devastate your planet. You of course will want to retaliate. If I were you, I'd start making bombs. Yes, Councilman, you have a real war on your hands. You can either wage it with real weapons, or you might consider an alternative. Put an end to it. Make peace.
ANAN: There can be no peace. Don't you see? We've admitted it to ourselves. We're a killer species. It's instinctive. It's the same with you. Your General Order Twenty Four.
KIRK: All right. It's instinctive. But the instinct can be fought. We're human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands, but we can stop it. We can admit that we're killers, but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes. Knowing that we won't kill today. Contact Vendikar. I think you'll find that they're just as terrified, appalled, horrified as you are, that they'll do anything to avoid the alternative I've given you. Peace or utter destruction. It's up to you.
I never said that Star Trek implied that humans had become biologically superior, it's their society that's evolved. And Deep Space Nine backs me up on this, pointing out that 'it's easy to be a saint in paradise'.
Fine, let's get a bit more specific. DS9 ditched "Roddenberry's Box," for the better.
I always thought of that line as DS9's mission statement.
Personally, I've always thought Trek was at its best when its essential optimism was still grounded in a realistic portrayal of human nature, good and bad, as on TOS, DS9, DISCO, etc. You can't explore the human condition if you declare that we've somehow "evolved" beyond basic humanity.
Heck, the whole point of "The Enemy Within" back in the day was that our positive and negative aspects are inextricably entwined and we need both halves to be whole. They couldn't just beam the "Bad Kirk" into space and let the "Good Kirk" thrive, minus any primitive human traits. Kirk needed both haves to be whole and human.
Indeed, you can find the same message in Star Trek's grandfather, Forbidden Planet. The Krell perished because they thought they had evolved beyond "the monsters from the Id," so they were completely unprepared when all those long-repressed inner demons resurfaced with a vengeance:
"After a million years of shining sanity, they could hardly have understood what power was destroying them."
But presumably, as we are capable of both good and evil without being split in half, it's more complicated than that. A sin of omission (failure to act when one ought) can also be evil. An impulsive action may turn out to be absolutely the/a correct one.
You're free to do so, but I found a ship full of pretentious, looking-down-their-noses / "perfect" / "evolved" people to be lifeless and heartless. CorporalCaptain's TOS quote is just one of many that can be referred to proving how in touch with humanity--being people with some heart and soul--the TOS characters were, as opposed to the general behavior of TNG characters.
To be fair, even TNG toned down the "utopian" preaching after a while, allowing for a more nuanced view of humanity, warts and all. To quote Jean-Luc Picard himself:
"We think we've come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches, it's all ancient history. Then - before you can blink an eye - suddenly it threatens to start all over again."
And, yes, Q's lecture in "Q Who?" about how space is not for the timid is quite possibly my favorite quote from TNG. The final frontier is not supposed to be entirely safe and civilized and domesticated.
Which is why I love that DS9 brought back some of the "Wild West" feel of TOS, which TNG sometimes seemed to be trying to leave behind.
(Although we should also give credit to Ensign Ro for bringing some much-needed edge and friction to the bridge of the Enterprise-D.)
"We think we've come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches, it's all ancient history. Then - before you can blink an eye - suddenly it threatens to start all over again."
And, yes, Q's lecture in "Q Who?" about how space is not for the timid is quite possibly my favorite quote from TNG. The final frontier is not supposed to be entirely safe and civilized and domesticated.
Which is why I love that DS9 brought back some of the "Wild West" feel of TOS, which TNG sometimes seemed to be trying to leave behind.
(Although we should also give credit to Ensign Ro for bringing some much-needed edge and friction to the bridge of the Enterprise-D.)
Last edited:
There are at least a couple of lines in TNG that, if taken literally, would imply that humans literally have evolved beyond the more primitive traits associated with 20th-century humankind.
From "Code of Honor" [transcript]:
From "Violations" [transcript]:
Taken in the context with how fast and loose other episodes played with the science of evolution (I'm looking at you, "Genesis"), I think that those who interpreted TNG as implying, at least sometimes, because of dialog such as this, that there was a shift in genetic traits towards benevolence in humanity after the horrors of WWIII, however slight, can be forgiven. (Wisely, the second example includes the counterpoint, "But I think no one can deny that the seed of violence remains within each of us.")
From "Code of Honor" [transcript]:
PICARD: That is, ironically, what this is about. By our standards, the customs here, their code of honour, is the same kind of pompous, strutting charades that endangered our own species a few centuries ago. We evolved out of it because no one else imposed their own. I'm sorry, this is becoming a speech.
From "Violations" [transcript]:
PICARD: Earth was once a violent planet, too. At times, the chaos threatened the very fabric of life, but, like you, we evolved. We found to find better ways to handle our conflicts. But I think no one can deny that the seed of violence remains within each of us. We must recognise that, because that violence is capable of consuming each of us. As it consumed your son.
Taken in the context with how fast and loose other episodes played with the science of evolution (I'm looking at you, "Genesis"), I think that those who interpreted TNG as implying, at least sometimes, because of dialog such as this, that there was a shift in genetic traits towards benevolence in humanity after the horrors of WWIII, however slight, can be forgiven. (Wisely, the second example includes the counterpoint, "But I think no one can deny that the seed of violence remains within each of us.")
Similar threads
- Poll
