Are you "aging out" of Star Trek?

[Firebird]

What is telling, though, is that instead of addressing:
the character → conflict → choice → meaning argument
the comparison between allegory and didactic storytelling
or the difference between exploration and declaration

…the response shifts to questioning my authorship and intelligence.

Yes, it is telling, because whatever merits you think you have to your argument are so obfuscated by how the message is delivered that it falls apart under the barest amount of scrutiny.

Why should any of us be compelled or obligated to debate you in any fashion if you're not bothering to take any care to put together a cogent message on your own in the first place?

 

[The Wormhole]

I don’t reject progress, diversity, or humanism. Star Trek has always stood for those things.
What I’m critical of is didactic storytelling - ideology first, character second.

Classic Star Trek handled difference by universalizing it. Race, gender, class, belief, and identity were explored through allegory and culture, not through labels. The stories trusted the audience to engage and reflect rather than instructing them what to think.

Old Trek also emphasized competence and aspiration. Characters weren’t symbols; they were capable professionals facing moral and existential dilemmas. The meaning emerged from character → conflict → choice → consequence, not from overt messaging.

That’s the key distinction for me.

When identity becomes a character’s primary on-screen trait, characters stop feeling like explorers and start feeling like talking points. With Discovery and Starfleet Academy, the pattern often feels like:
“Here’s another checkbox, here’s another lecture, here’s another subversion - without the dramatic work to support it.”

Classic Trek structure:
Character → Conflict → Choice → Meaning

Current Kurtzman-era structure often feels like:
Representation → Identity → Message → Story

Take the example of a gay Klingon in Starfleet Academy. I don’t object to the idea at all - in fact, it could have been excellent Trek storytelling. From a Klingon cultural perspective, Worf in TNG was practically coded as an outsider already.

In older Trek, this would have been:

• a cultural schism
• a test of honor
• a trial by combat
• a story about exile, shame, reconciliation, or reform

In other words: drama rooted in culture and consequence.

Instead, it’s often presented as a shrug, followed by applause, and then the story moves on. That’s not progress - that’s dramatic laziness.

Star Trek works best when it explores uncertainty, not when it declares conclusions.
When a show replaces curiosity with certainty, it stops exploring.

And a ship that stops exploring…
is just a floating manifesto.

Well, that certainly is a lot of words.

 

[Captain Bjorn]

It's not because the writing is "coherent" or "clear", it's because it 1-for-1 matches the template used by GPT/Gemini in cases where the user hasn't supplied their own system prompt.

Like, this "mic-drop" sign-off:

Is 100% part of the default way these models speak, GPT especially. Combined with the random bolding, the bullet-point list, the "character → conflict → choice → meaning" schematic, and especially the confident proclamations about things that are factually incorrect, it screams "written by LLM acting under default instructions".

People are wary of replying to the content of the message because, if it is written by an LLM, there's not really anything to reply to; it's just a simulation of a post comprised of likely words without a core meaning. It's hard to reply to "old Star Trek was allegorical, not didactic" when the post itself doesn't really clarify what that means.

Like, if we're just taking that at face value (and going with the "ideology first, character second" suggestion), then TNG at its worst was ten times more didactic than anything in SNW/SFA (neither of which really seem to have anything to say, most of the time). If you want an earnest reply, I guess I'd ask what ideology you think SFA has pushed so far in its first two episodes, beyond "woke".

First: style is not evidence of authorship. Bullet points, schematics, and structured argumentation are basic rhetorical tools. I'm not going to keep discussing this.

Second: the claim that the post has “no core meaning” isn’t accurate, you just disagree with the premise.

The core distinction I’m making is this:
Allegorical storytelling embeds ideas in culture, conflict, and consequence, allowing multiple interpretations.
Didactic storytelling foregrounds the message and expects the audience to accept it, often flattening ambiguity.

The message comes first. The story exists to deliver a lesson: moral, political, philosophical, spiritual. Characters, plot, and world are arranged like props to make sure you “get it.” They don't care about Klingon culture, Jem'Hadar biology or the fact that chessboard guy's race is extinct.

And the audience is expected to accept the message, not wrestle with it. That’s what I mean by “ideology first, character second.” It’s not a slogan; it’s a description of narrative priority.

Third: yes, TNG could be didactic at its worst. But even there, the ideology was usually externalized through alien cultures and framed as something to be interrogated, not simply affirmed. The audience was still invited to judge, disagree, or feel discomfort.

As for your question: what ideology has SFA pushed so far?
My criticism isn’t about a single, explicit doctrine in two episodes. It’s about a pattern across modern Trek where identity framing is introduced prior to character-driven conflict, and where affirmation often replaces tension. That’s a structural critique, not a checklist of messages.

If you want to argue that SNW or SFA avoids that pitfall better than Discovery, I’m open to that. SNW in particular often does. But that’s a different discussion than questioning whether a post “counts” as meaningful because you don’t like its conclusions.

If you want to talk Trek, I’m happy to.

 

[Captain Bjorn]

Yes, it is telling, because whatever merits you think you have to your argument are so obfuscated by how the message is delivered that it falls apart under the barest amount of scrutiny.

Why should any of us be compelled or obligated to debate you in any fashion if you're not bothering to take any care to put together a cogent message on your own in the first place?

Ok. You hold this conversation in my language.

 

[fireproof78]

They don't care about Klingon culture, Jem'Hadar biology or the fact that chessboard guy's race is extinct.

This is all absurd on its face since none of this is established in dialog.

 

[Captain Bjorn]

Well, that certainly is a lot of words.

Thank you kindly. I can do that in multiple languages.

 

[cooleddie74]

This is 817 years after the end of the Dominion War. At some point after 2375 female Jem'Hadar could be conceived and born.

 

[Captain Bjorn]

This is 817 years after the end of the Dominion War. At some point after 2375 female Jem'Hadar could be conceived and born.

True, I hear that. A good writer would clarify such an inconsistency in the story though.
And if this was the only example I wouldn't say anything.

 

[Starflight]

But that’s a different discussion than questioning whether a post “counts” as meaningful because you don’t like its conclusions.

Nobody said "this post doesn't count as meaningful because I don't like its conclusions"! Your post is following the form and structure of a discussion, but the content doesn't correspond to what other people are saying, or make internal sense! This is why everyone's accusing you (correctly) of using an LLM, it's a telltale sign.

To respond anyway to stop the thread going in circles:

Third: yes, TNG could be didactic at its worst. But even there, the ideology was usually externalized through alien cultures and framed as something to be interrogated, not simply affirmed. The audience was still invited to judge, disagree, or feel discomfort.

Not sure about that, there's a number of episodes of TNG where you simply are not invited to disagree with Picard, and the entire plot is set up to prove him right (The Drumhead being an obvious one).

My criticism isn’t about a single, explicit doctrine in two episodes. It’s about a pattern across modern Trek where identity framing is introduced prior to character-driven conflict, and where affirmation often replaces tension. That’s a structural critique, not a checklist of messages.

When does this happen in SFA, SNW, Picard, or the first two seasons of Discovery (the only ones I've seen)? When is a character's identity made a big deal and the focus of the entire plot?

 

[cooleddie74]

True, I hear that. A good writer would clarify such an inconsistency in the story though.
And if this was the only example I wouldn't say anything.

We still have lots of episodes to do so. She might explain her origins as exposition in one of those.

 

[cooleddie74]

I mean, we didn't even know Odo was a Founder of the Dominion until the beginning of Season 3 of DS9, 47 episodes in!

 

[Finn]

True, I hear that. A good writer would clarify such an inconsistency in the story though.
And if this was the only example I wouldn't say anything.

A good writer wouldn't waste time with this, and worry about telling a good story without worrying about prior productions.

 

[Captain Bjorn]

I mean, we didn't even know Odo was a Founder of the Dominion until the beginning of Season 3 of DS9, 47 episodes in!

That's fair. Again, if this was the only example, I'd not roll my eyes.
I'm still watching, hoping it gets better. I do like the Betazoid daughter of the telepath that needs sign language.

 

[fireproof78]

Not sure about that, there's a number of episodes of TNG where you simply are not invited to disagree with Picard, and the entire plot is set up to prove him right (The Drumhead being an obvious one).

Picard is showing being correct without much especially early on. His earlier characterization consisted of "grumpy old man who hated children and was right."

 

[cooleddie74]

Hell, Picard was barely even tolerable until sometime in Season 2, and even that's debatable.

 

[Michael]

The character's been discussed before the episodes aired, but the gay-factor is dripping off the screen.

Pray tell, what’s “the gay factor” and how did it manifest in Jay-Den so far?

the fact that chessboard guy's race is extinct.

“Let That Be Our Last Battlefield” actually merely establishes that on planet Cheron itself no-one has survived. But they don't make the claim that each and every member of the species everywhere is extinct. And how could they? For a species that’s space-faring and as long lived as the Cherons, it actually would almost be ridiculous to assume no-one else had left their planet in fifty thousand years.

But really, why get worked up over a background character that just meant as an homage to the classic show?

 

[cooleddie74]

Gay-Factor sounds like a Bravo network gameshow from the 2010s.

 

[Firebird]

Or a critique Tim Gunn would've used on Project Runway.

 

[The Salt Umpire]

chessboard guy

You mean the black on one side female crew I saw? What race are they?

 

[cooleddie74]

Cheronian.