That was not only a rude (and unoriginal) response, but also a distraction/waste of time.
So, I had to think on this a bit because I generally like Stargate over Star Trek of the same era. And the real political implications of it were part of the reason why I think. It has a much greater sense of weight to it of the implications at times of what was happening and the consequences of the technology. It didn't sanitize the struggles that extended beyond the team. Probably the best example is O'Neill's infiltrating the rogue NID and staring plainly the need for allies not technology.
Now, Star Trek certainly can do this and had in the past. It's party of the reason I rate Into Darkness higher than most. The Orville did a couple of times too. But, Stargate felt like it had an eye on both the ugly and optimistic. Like TOS, it didn't hesitate to look at the process of becoming better.
Where Star Trek differs from Stargate is for me mainly in the reason they are exploring.
In the former, its exploration for the sake of exploration. They want to get out there and find things out of a sense of curiosity.
In Stargate, they are specifically looking for weapons/allies in order to gain the upper hand in a wider conflict.
In the former, its exploration for the sake of exploration. They want to get out there and find things out of a sense of curiosity.
In Stargate, they are specifically looking for weapons/allies in order to gain the upper hand in a wider conflict.
I always liked how this video put it, that Stargate is basically the GWOT version of Star Trek:
Well, I read the OP's post (but admittedly got bored halfway through once Star Wars came up; could probably have cut a lot of that out), and I would agree that a MU type show as some kind of social commentary would not work. I see enough of that with The Boys, and while I like that show, it's just hitting too close to home, so if it went past it's fifth season, I probably would stop watching it. Same with a MU series.
I read the entirety of your post. It was well-written. I don't agree that a MU is the way forward, especially since it was used and abused in Kurtz Dreck. Its portrayal there has tainted the concept for the foreseeable future.
Your point about cultural and societal regression answers the question you ask about Trek's future. All pop culture, our modern myth, has been exploited and deconstructed and gutted for the sake of profit. This is why Trek won't work anymore, which is also why not much else will, either. If we do somehow manage to get through this nadir in history, there's a chance that Star Trek might become relevant again. I don't personally think that will happen anytime soon, when even the romantic and heroic concept of space flight and exploration has been turned into an opportunity for the ultra rich to get richer while the rest of us continue to wallow in their scraps and refuse. Star Trek was born in an era of optimism, and while I once believed that such optimism could lead to iconic Trek returning, I no longer believe it possible. As with comic book characters, Star Wars, and countless other modern myths, we need new stories and new concepts. It remains to be seen if humanity will rebel against the mediocrity and hollow idiocy of AI, leading to a renaissance in human creativity. I don't have much hope of that as of now.
Your point about cultural and societal regression answers the question you ask about Trek's future. All pop culture, our modern myth, has been exploited and deconstructed and gutted for the sake of profit. This is why Trek won't work anymore, which is also why not much else will, either. If we do somehow manage to get through this nadir in history, there's a chance that Star Trek might become relevant again. I don't personally think that will happen anytime soon, when even the romantic and heroic concept of space flight and exploration has been turned into an opportunity for the ultra rich to get richer while the rest of us continue to wallow in their scraps and refuse. Star Trek was born in an era of optimism, and while I once believed that such optimism could lead to iconic Trek returning, I no longer believe it possible. As with comic book characters, Star Wars, and countless other modern myths, we need new stories and new concepts. It remains to be seen if humanity will rebel against the mediocrity and hollow idiocy of AI, leading to a renaissance in human creativity. I don't have much hope of that as of now.
Once the staples of TV schedules,cop shows,medical shows and lawyer shows are now struggling to attract new audiences because all those genres have been done to death.
Granted now and again programmes like “The pit” will break new ground but the hyper-realism of stuff like “The wire” really seems to have landed TV in a zero sum game.Either pile realism on top of grit or go totally formulaic with pablum like “The rookie”.
Trek? Genuinely I don’t know.
I had high hopes for SNW and without wishing to start a row,let’s just say it has practically killed Trek for me.(I’m old,cranky and probably in the minority on that one,but whatever).
Hard to see where the franchise goes..any reboot will be accused of being fanwank or nostalgia-mining.Anything in the vein of SNW or Lower Decks will be accused of being pastiche.
Granted now and again programmes like “The pit” will break new ground but the hyper-realism of stuff like “The wire” really seems to have landed TV in a zero sum game.Either pile realism on top of grit or go totally formulaic with pablum like “The rookie”.
Trek? Genuinely I don’t know.
I had high hopes for SNW and without wishing to start a row,let’s just say it has practically killed Trek for me.(I’m old,cranky and probably in the minority on that one,but whatever).
Hard to see where the franchise goes..any reboot will be accused of being fanwank or nostalgia-mining.Anything in the vein of SNW or Lower Decks will be accused of being pastiche.
Any of these alone would make a great series. I'd love to see the anthology approach, but I don't know that the studio would put up the cost for it since they rejected it when Fuller proposed it.
I just watched this video and it really put into words a lot of what I've been thinking.
Star Trek at its creative peak was about characters in a utopian society facing challenges that test their ingenuity and morality, which ultimately prove the value of their philosophy.
But the modern series keep trying to appeal to a wider audience by making the Federation corrupt or broken, by having Section 31 handle the dirty work, by making the characters more troubled and dysfunctional. The belief is that Star Trek can't go back to the TNG vibe, because that's not going to appeal to people, especially not the younger audience they desperately need.
But it did appeal to people, and it did appeal to younger viewers. TNG was a hugely successful series. Adjusted for inflation TMP was the highest grossing Star Trek movie. By trying to expand Trek's appeal with edgier stories or gimmicks, or going deeper into darkness, they've been stripping it of its unique selling point. When really the biggest problem Star Trek had... is marketing. The writers just need to make damn good utopian science fiction again that people can buy into, with heart and a bit of action adventure, and if the marketing department can sell it, it will hook an audience.
Star Trek at its creative peak was about characters in a utopian society facing challenges that test their ingenuity and morality, which ultimately prove the value of their philosophy.
But the modern series keep trying to appeal to a wider audience by making the Federation corrupt or broken, by having Section 31 handle the dirty work, by making the characters more troubled and dysfunctional. The belief is that Star Trek can't go back to the TNG vibe, because that's not going to appeal to people, especially not the younger audience they desperately need.
But it did appeal to people, and it did appeal to younger viewers. TNG was a hugely successful series. Adjusted for inflation TMP was the highest grossing Star Trek movie. By trying to expand Trek's appeal with edgier stories or gimmicks, or going deeper into darkness, they've been stripping it of its unique selling point. When really the biggest problem Star Trek had... is marketing. The writers just need to make damn good utopian science fiction again that people can buy into, with heart and a bit of action adventure, and if the marketing department can sell it, it will hook an audience.
Last edited:
Utopia is boring.
Show me people struggling and choosing to become better, like TOS. Not a perfected humanity but one that is growing.
The biggest downside to utopian humans is it isn't inspiring to me. It looks down on lessers, says why haven't you obtained to enlightenment yet.
While TNG was popular it did so when utopian arrogance was left behind.
Show me people struggling and choosing to become better, like TOS. Not a perfected humanity but one that is growing.
The biggest downside to utopian humans is it isn't inspiring to me. It looks down on lessers, says why haven't you obtained to enlightenment yet.
While TNG was popular it did so when utopian arrogance was left behind.
Yet you wrote 2000 words.
The old Star Trek that so many seem to be trying to resurrect ended in 2005.
Ended. It's over. Not coming back.
Since then, Paramount has tasked a number of producers and writers with creating new versions of Trek. They'll keep doing that.
Last edited:
I'm afraid that's correct. I would love nothing more than a Lost Era series with the same production values as the films and TNG, but what I would ostensibly get is something just like the Section 31 movie. And I'd rather not have anything than have that again.
I’d like to get back the one that ended in 1991, but that one’s not coming back either.
I never had that abomination in the first place. It felt great.
Yeah, because I had something to say. But, seeing as you've never posted anything remotely interesting, I can see why you apparently got confused.
Well, I addressed that in the OP. Trek's futuristic utopia is inextricably bound with the colonialist/Manifest Destiny promise of infinite land to explore, tame, and civilize, with infinite resources to do so. That may have been a relatable fantasy in the 80s and 90s, but, now that catastrophic global warming feels like an inevitable existential challenge hurtling toward our very finite planet, I don't know that it is anymore.
“Utopian” was never the draw of TOS and later series were at their respective best when “utopia” was either minimal or, even better, absent.
I agree with the rest of the statement, though. Particularly since the best of the post 2005 material has given me plenty of it (with some exceptions along the way, of course). So clearly it’s not an impossible task, though it may require a willingness to move beyond the “classic Trek” parameters to succeed. We should seek new, additional experiences, not merely recapitulation of the old. As to what specific direction? I leave that to the professionals who know much more about this kind of thing than I do. I’ll judge it when I see it. One thing I certainly DON’T want is for the production team to try and cater to the whims of fandom. Just make your version your way and let the chips fall where they will.
It may have been a secondary factor to Colorful Space Adventures, but I don't think one can discount the implicit human utopia of TOS as a key factor in its appeal. Just a few years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, and as the Vietnam War was heating up, Star Trek showed a future in which humans of all backgrounds were apparently peaceful and united. Surely that wasn't not part of its appeal.
Coleman's argument in that video that TMP was a much bigger box office hit than TWoK because TMP embraced Roddenberry's optimistic futurism while Meyer heavily downplayed it is absurd. TMP was a big hit because it was rushed into production to capitalize on the phenomenon of Star Wars before Lucas could produce a sequel. By the time TWoK opened two years after ESB, however, that novelty factor was gone, and TMP itself had given audiences ample reason not to return.
Moreover, his overall argument that Trek's main obstacle to mainstream success isn't its own utopian streak, but rather ineffective marketing is... fanciful, to put it mildly.
Similar threads
