My bad. Yes, he was. Sorry.
My bad. Yes, he was. Sorry.
The Ministry of Love can cure sickness of the mind as well as criminal ideas.
Don't generalize. Some young people believe this foolishness. So do some older people.
But even then, that was never the intent with TOS. Right off the bat, in the very first episode we know space pimps are a thing and our heroic Captain is actually seriously considering becoming one. And when he voices that thought, the response he gets is "nah, that's not the life for you" rather than any sort of condemnation of the idea. Go a little further in the first season and we find out humans conquered Vulcan. Even in the second season when the Federation was established within the narrative, it wasn't a happy union as it is stated in Journey to Babel half the Federation is ready to go to war with the other half.
Now I can already see the arguments of "early days weirdness" or whatever, and that might even be true to a certain extent. But the point remains that at no point when TOS was in production did anyone involved with it ever consider it to be taking place in a utopian world. Not even Gene Roddenberry Himself. As previously stated, TOS regularly spoke out against utopia as something to avoid since it could only lead to stagnation. TNG was the one which decided utopia is okay, and even that didn't last. Just in the first season alone, the one where Roddenberry had the most influence to peddle Gene's Vision, we learn a human colony which collapsed into complete anarchy ruled by rape gangs. To say nothing of Berman's other 24th century shows, DS9 regularly deconstructing utopia and Voyager using one of those deconstructions in its core premise, even if it did end up being famously ignored as the series went on. Talking about the Maquis, in case anyone hadn't figured that out.
Is Star Trek Losing Its Way?
Since Enterprise, it feels to me like each new Star Trek series has moved further from what made the franchise special. The stories can feel weighed down by heavy-handed messaging and political correctness, with less room for the thoughtful exploration and hopeful spirit that once defined the show.
Of course, Star Trek has always explored social and political issues. The difference, for me, is that the older series often let those ideas unfold through compelling stories and debate, while some newer shows put the message front and centre.
Even Strange New Worlds, which brought back more self-contained adventures, has had episodes that felt downright weird (especially the Muppet one). Maybe that’s part of Star Trek’s willingness to experiment—but for me, it adds to the feeling that the franchise has lost its way.
What do you think? Is Star Trek evolving, or has it drifted too far from what made it special?
Since Enterprise, it feels to me like each new Star Trek series has moved further from what made the franchise special. The stories can feel weighed down by heavy-handed messaging and political correctness, with less room for the thoughtful exploration and hopeful spirit that once defined the show.
Of course, Star Trek has always explored social and political issues. The difference, for me, is that the older series often let those ideas unfold through compelling stories and debate, while some newer shows put the message front and centre.
Even Strange New Worlds, which brought back more self-contained adventures, has had episodes that felt downright weird (especially the Muppet one). Maybe that’s part of Star Trek’s willingness to experiment—but for me, it adds to the feeling that the franchise has lost its way.
What do you think? Is Star Trek evolving, or has it drifted too far from what made it special?
Last edited:
"The Omega Glory," "A Taste of Armageddon," "The Cloud Minders," "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield," "Justice," "Measure of a Man," and "Critical Care" have entered the chat.
People seem to think Trek is/was this debate club that aired both sides of every argument equally (It wasn't).
Trek has always had an agenda.
Star Trek has always had weird episodes, from ESP to Catspaw.
Modern trek has had great episodes, terrible episodes, weird episodes.
The problem nowadays is the lack of run of the mill episodes. This is a consequence of the TV industry moving away from 24 episodes a year. What good is a Quark/Odo relationship without The Ascent.
Modern trek has had great episodes, terrible episodes, weird episodes.
The problem nowadays is the lack of run of the mill episodes. This is a consequence of the TV industry moving away from 24 episodes a year. What good is a Quark/Odo relationship without The Ascent.
Last edited:
Star Trek has lost it's way in my opinion, but it's nothing to do with heavy handed moral messages. Star Trek has always been a progressive, humanist show. Rather, Discovery became a 'pew pew' action fest, whilst alienating the fans by not adhering to continuity. Then Strange New Worlds started out really well and fast became a strange sort of parody of Star Trek.
I have just finished up Season 5 of 'For All Mankind' - and I wish this show had been a Star Trek prequel show. It is incredible, the writing, stories and character development are in a completely different league to any of the nu Star Trek shows. Ron Moore showed how dated and stale 'Enterprise' was with Battlestar Galactica back in the day - and now he demonstrates how poor DSC and SNW are.
I have just finished up Season 5 of 'For All Mankind' - and I wish this show had been a Star Trek prequel show. It is incredible, the writing, stories and character development are in a completely different league to any of the nu Star Trek shows. Ron Moore showed how dated and stale 'Enterprise' was with Battlestar Galactica back in the day - and now he demonstrates how poor DSC and SNW are.
Trek isn't something that's holy. It's people in funny outfits and make-up having adventures in space. Yes, there's morality plays & strong character-focused stories here and there, but fans (and at one point Roddenberry) have sometimes placed Trek on a pedestal that is often too high. Trek's way is to entertain to the widest audience possible, to have something for everyone, and losing its way is it's inability to do that, IMO.
I think Star Trek just needs a break, time to build up demand again, and some new people running it. I think Kurtzman and Company have overstayed their welcome much like Berman and Company did in the previous iteration.
I also agree with Brannon Braga. Star Trek needs to make more episodes. I know, I know, streaming services and modern TV are not going to support that. Doesn't change my feeling that it needs to happen.
I also agree with Brannon Braga. Star Trek needs to make more episodes. I know, I know, streaming services and modern TV are not going to support that. Doesn't change my feeling that it needs to happen.
A lot of people say this and I've never gotten an answer in every thread I've asked - what heavy-handed messaging? What are the messages?
I've watched DSC S1 + S2, PIC, SFA, and SNW. I've not really seen any heavy handed messaging in any of those (though I understand DSC apparently goes that way and becomes insufferable - can't speak to it myself).
SFA maybe, but the messages are so vague and woolly that they're almost without meaning ("Betazed built a wall, but maybe love can bring it down!"). PIC S1 had a refugee crisis, but it was so far removed from anything resembling reality that I think you'd have to strain to read a message into it (even if the authors presumably intended it to be "current"). Even ICE showing up in S2 was the same - they undercut any message they might have made by making it an alternate reality where evil Seven is in charge. You can see they want to be seen as having a message, but they don't really have anything meaningful to say, so it winds up as mindless signalling toward whatever American liberals/centrists were talking about at the time without anything useful to contribute (which, in fairness, describes a great deal of TOS and TNG too).
It's a far cry from Kirk basically saying "America was right to participate militarily in Vietnam" in "A Private Little War" or Picard's bizarre "war orphans being abducted is heartwarming" in "Suddenly Human", or even just the "religion is superstitious barbarism and evidence of a primitive society" stuff in "Who Watches the Watchers".
So, what messages did you find in the shows (especially PIC and SNW), and what are some moments where political correctness intruded on them for you?
Last edited:
Things may have seemed less obvious to you in terms of the older shows because you were younger when you watched them, but the truth is Star Trek has never been particularly subtle in its messaging. TOS alone is loaded with stuff that’s completely on the nose, before we even get into the later shows.
The message is regularly front and centre in all versions of Star Trek. It’s never been a particularly subtle show.
I think RDM shows Star Trek up badly with FAM. The show displays the value of having some sort of slow burn plan right from the start, how to build a multi-season narrative and how to make one season affect the next and feel like a development from it. It baffles me how badly PIC failed to do this.
And yes, it’s incredible. Quite possibly my favourite sci-folk show ever. I marathon the whole thing with my wife every time a new season comes out and we will do so again before the final one next year. It really rewards rewatches.
Last edited:
PIC had an arc planned, but Covid got in the way and threw everything out the window (Don't get me started on Terry Matalas's fanwank orgy in S3 where he pitched the S1-S2 cast over the side!
)
Last edited:
Personally I think FAM has gone downhill after the first couple of seasons. It's too different from reality to be an alternate universe, but too close to make allegorys work well.
The further it diverges, the more inevitable that becomes I guess.
I enjoy the characters.
Just my point of view, but I’ve enjoyed every season more than the one before it.
i think it all depends
Indeed. There’s a few threads going on now which seem to serve largely the ‘is modern Star Trek shit?’ purpose.
D
Deleted member 106352
Guest
True... A lot of young people enjoy dystopian scenarios, too. It was just a suggestion.
I would like to see an optimistic and positive "Star Trek" again. I enjoyed "The Orville".
It actually surprises me to see how many people on this forum would prefer to watch dark dystopian series. Most of the films and series are like that, anyway, so there's quite a lot to choose from. Being dystopian became mainstream nowadays...
Star Trek hasn’t lost its way at all. (I reserve judgment as to whether this will happen under the new owners. But up to the present, and setting aside the single example of the Section 31 movie, no, it hasn’t.). In every series, it’s been doing what it always has — in the style and idiom of its era. That’s what (necessarily) changes over time, and which people mistake for “losing its way” because it’s not done the way I remember them doing it when I was 8-12 (in whichever actual years that happens to be).
It’s very much the same phenomenon Steven Moffat used to recognize in certain Doctor Who fans: “They’re making this thing like a kid’s show! Why aren’t they keeping it a serious adult drama like it was when I was eleven?”
It’s very much the same phenomenon Steven Moffat used to recognize in certain Doctor Who fans: “They’re making this thing like a kid’s show! Why aren’t they keeping it a serious adult drama like it was when I was eleven?”
Similar threads
