Yes. I have seen forums-not intended for politics-turn nasty, hateful when people brought in contemporary political issues. I have seen moderators having to intervene....
Is it time to put Star Trek to rest?
- Thread starter Dar70
- Start date
This. Far too many ST fans--including some of the bigger YouTube ST channel hosts--still spew that utopia crap, when a casual look at TOS shows a universe of racial hatred (Stiles and Boma toward Spock and Vulcans in the broader sense, some Vulcans toward humans, Klingons despised humans, etc.), mass murder (Kodos, et al.), planetary disasters caused by external threats (the Doomsday Machine, Nomad, etc.), and humans--as the reflection of the viewers--still suffering from a host of antisocial traits they were not struggling to move beyond. TOS never painted a rosy picture of the future in the way some fans argue.
The utopian nonsense largely grew in the 1970s, thanks to Roddenberry, et al., selling that revisionist notion, yet the claim never held up when anyone simply watched the episodes.
I think a better word - that encapsulates your point well - would be aspirational
“We will not kill today” (defo not quite the quote but hopefully everyone gets the one I mean) owns humanities flaws but puts an exclamation mark on its desire to do better
TOS starts to flirt with it some more as it goes on - "Day of the Dove" relies in part on the Starfleet characters snapping out of an alien trance because they find the idea of racism so shocking that it disrupts the alien's control. "The Way to Eden" also has Spock refer to the Federation as having "planned communities", which is interesting.
I get the impression that humans in the TOS era generally are trying to be better and are living under the assumption that they're in a time of social and technological progress, they're just not dogmatic weirdos like people in the TNG era. If we assume Kirk is representative of the average 23rd-century human, then his appeals to better angels in countless episodes suggest a certain mindset developing among people in that era.
I get the impression that humans in the TOS era generally are trying to be better and are living under the assumption that they're in a time of social and technological progress, they're just not dogmatic weirdos like people in the TNG era. If we assume Kirk is representative of the average 23rd-century human, then his appeals to better angels in countless episodes suggest a certain mindset developing among people in that era.
Whether revisionism is at play, it makes little difference: people usually regard Star Trek - in the "classic" sense (i.e., from TOS to VOY) - to be inspirational. Even the original series with its comparatively muted emphasis on tooting the Federation's horn still taught many viewers the value of logic, open-mindedness, science and self-sacrifice while packaging those concepts in an altruistic context. This future isn't yet a utopia, but you can certainly witness the improvements over our present.
Some folk are content with the razzle-dazzle and the two-fisted action, but, to me, there has to be a more substantial element in the mix. Otherwise, we're taking the same ills of today (and even in the same proportion, in certain cases) while throwing in ray guns and green aliens for window dressing. You can get that with many other science-fiction series. Star Trek ought to distinguish itself.
Some folk are content with the razzle-dazzle and the two-fisted action, but, to me, there has to be a more substantial element in the mix. Otherwise, we're taking the same ills of today (and even in the same proportion, in certain cases) while throwing in ray guns and green aliens for window dressing. You can get that with many other science-fiction series. Star Trek ought to distinguish itself.
Indeed. TOS shows that aspirational quality of humanity, the drive to become better, perhaps best shown in Carl Rogers and his person centered psychotherapy theory and Maslow's idea of moving towards self actualization.
Which is why I like ST 2009. It has razzle dazzle but also a warmth to it, both with Spock and Sarek in their relationship, but also Kirk growing and needing that challenge from.a Father figure to become better. For all the complaints over the Kelvin films there is a thread of "we can become better" through it.
Other Trek's have it too, like Deep Space Nine, and Discovery, but I feel like TOS and Kelvin hit the best balance.
I've had some further thoughts about whether or not Star Trek should take a break and ended up with a question instead. The Abrams Films officially over and I honestly don't think Alex Kurtzman's contract is going to be renewed (I think SNW and SFA S2 will be it), so I think the real question is...
How much of a rest should Star Trek take before the next people take over?
How much of a rest should Star Trek take before the next people take over?
Just as long as it takes to clean the office.
Two years.
And the holodeck.
As long as it takes for the new Paramount regime to realize they have no cash cows?
So, what... 30 seconds?
Wow, you think they are that patient?
I think the thread got hung up on the word "utopia" and missed the part about Star Trek depicting humans that had moved past most our contemporary nonesense behavior (like racism and other pettiness), which is a nice future to watch.
It was conceived in the late 60s so obviously by our standards we still see flaws, particularly sexism.
I'm glad that at least the 3rd Kelvin movie was in that vein and wasn't hung on up broken characters repairing themselves or a corrupt Star Fleet. That's probably what annoys me the most about the Picard series - suddenly Star Fleet seems incompetent and corrupt.
Last edited:
I wonder how the 2080s movies will critique our 2020s visions.
"Suddenly"?That's probably what annoys me the most about the Picard series - suddenly Star Fleet seems incompetent and corrupt.
Boy, have I got TOS stories to tell you.
Except TOS had those things.
About as cringe as people are now towards older films.
The underrepresentation of afros in Starfleet is clearly a sign of gross incompetence? Corruption, perhaps?
Starfleet has always been corrupt. The sheer number of renegade Captains and Admirals is all the proof we need.
Similar threads
