TREK's bright lights

[RobertScorpio]

24th century earth....

Why is it that sometimes it seems like Earth, in the 24th century, is populated by a bunch of weak minded men and women who have no variety in their lives...part of this 'cruise boat' feeling that many seem to attribute even to the flagship of the Federation; NCC-1701-D ect...

With everything controlled by a world government we are led to believe that man kind, on Earth, is no longer racist or sexist. Even the fricking weather is controlled so I guess that means no more sandbagging to control the flooding around one's house....

There seems to be no material want or starvation or anything like that. Earth is the paradise that we in the real world wish it will become someday..

But when you look at how easily the Borg turned all the upside down, and the Dominion War to some degree, did the 'ease' of life really benefit mankind in the 24th century?

I argue; yes. But many of my younger friends don't care for TREK because of this implied vanilla world in which Earth became...I tell them that it is that vanilla world, or hope for that future, that fuels much of the fandom of TREK...they are cynical..they say it is TREK's weakness when trying to attract new fans. The future can not be that bright...

So where do you stand? Should TREK be a beacon of hope? Should it show a future where Earth turned out okay? Or should it move toward the bleak futures that ALIEN or BLADE RUNNER or FIREFLY show?

Rob
Scorpio

 

[Chekt]

It should definitely be a beacon of hope.

 

[Fel]

Earth should be however the writers choose to make it, in order to better the story along.

 

[JNG]

Why is it that sometimes it seems like Earth, in the 24th century, is populated by a bunch of weak minded men and women who have no variety in their lives...

What episodes would you say showed this? Because Earth of that era was not featured very often, I didn't feel like we had much of a clear idea on life there one way or another, but I am curious about impressions to the contrary. It is definitely a cornerstone of Trek that Earth has accomplished a tremendous amount in the intervening years and is a "beacon of hope" as you say, so it would be really interesting to hear where viewers might have walked away with a different impression.

 

[JiNX-01]

There's a lot to be said for a future in which humanity has become less greedy, where famine is unheard of and where you don't read about "soldiers" gang raping 5-year-olds in Darfur. Where people living in Bangladesh enjoy the shelter of well-built homes on stable foundations so they aren't washed away when it rains. Where people have no idea what extraordinary rendition means...

But I have to admit, it makes for very dull storytelling, TNG being the best (worst?) example of that (Sorry, Gene, but from a dramatic standpoint, the edict that there be no conflict among the main characters was a bad call.).

 

[RobertScorpio]

There's a lot to be said for a future in which humanity has become less greedy, where famine is unheard of and where you don't read about "soldiers" gang raping 5-year-olds in Darfur. Where people living in Bangladesh enjoy the shelter of well-built homes on stable foundations so they aren't washed away when it rains. Where people have no idea what extraordinary rendition means...

But I have to admit, it makes for very dull storytelling, TNG being the best (worst?) example of that (Sorry, Gene, but from a dramatic standpoint, the edict that there be no conflict among the main characters was a bad call.).

I am no fan of Roddenberry, but it was his edict that by that time these primative drives that makes "us" rape five year old in Darfur would, at best, not be as many as they are now...Yes, a bit hard to believe, but it was that 'hopeful' future that Roddenberry wanted to be at the core of Star Trek....

Dramatically, yes, it boxed them in. But the whole premise was to show that Earth made it, after years of growing pains, but then you would use other alien races to address the issues that still plague us today.

It is a fine tight rope that JJABRAMS must walk. He can't make it too 'goody two shoe' and yet he can't go for "Alien" either.

DS9, I think we all agree, took TREK, as of now, into the more darkest areas. Some say that is when the rift began with fans. You had Picard on one hand, willing to risk humanity rather than compromise his ethics (Hugh), and then on DS9 you have a starfleet Captain cashing in his morality to save humanity (Pale Moonlight)...

can there be a middle ground? Can TREK be hip but vanilla? Maybe that is beyond the ability of today's screenwriter. We shall see..

Rob
Scorpio

 

[sbk1234]

All I know is that in the real world, there have been plenty of times that I really needed to check into Star Trek's positive future for a little bit of hope, and to feel a little bit better about things in the world.

 

[SFRabid]

With all the scifi shows that show a dark future for this world there is plenty of room for Star Trek's bright future.

 

[Sheliak]

What if the Federation was conquered by the Romulans and all of Earth's history and culture was nothing but a faint glimmer?

 

[shatastrophic]

Earth being paradise is the whole point, for people who think that is dull then Star Trek is not for them.

 

[alicelouise]

I think it's relative. Think of the time of Elizabethan/Tudor England. If you showed one of their denizens the 20th/21st Century world they would be astounded by the great prosperity.

Life expectancy in even the world's poorest countries probably exceeds 16th Century England. A significant number of the poor in the world are obese. Only King Henry VIII seemed to have that luxury in the 16th Century.

There was the conflict of Christianity and the Moslem religion. It was less intense than the Reformation.

To a 16th Century person 20th/21st Century life wouldn't seem so bad.

Gene Roddenberry does seem to go a little overboard. In the TNG earlier seasons the Enterprise crew seemed to be smug and self satisfied. Such an enlightened people would know better than to patronize their ancestors.

I would submit that humans living in 1008 were no less intelligent than those today.

 

[AdmiralGarak]

We've got enough bleak sci-fi. Star Trek is one of the few sci-fi franchises these days that isn't dark and dreary. Let's keep it that way.

 

[RobertScorpio]

We've got enough bleak sci-fi. Star Trek is one of the few sci-fi franchises these days that isn't dark and dreary. Let's keep it that way.

Agreed. I hope JJ sees it this way too..

Robert Scorpio

 

[Rush Limborg]

With everything controlled by a world government we are led to believe that man kind, on Earth, is no longer racist or sexist. Even the fricking weather is controlled so I guess that means no more sandbagging to control the flooding around one's house....

Actually, I've always been astonished whenever someone calls the Federation Government socialist, i.e., that it "controlls everything". If you think about it, the Fed's gov seems to have three basic duties:

National Security: Starfleet, Section 31, etc. Ambassadors also seve this function (sort of).

A Justice System: Interstellar Law, Federation Code of Justice, Khitomer Accords, Fed. Contitution (and Guarantees), etc.

Public Goods/Services: Neccessities that can't be made at a profit. Thus, the weather contol system, the Memory Alpha/Prime data archives, etc.

Meanwhile, free trade seems to be encouraged, as is individual responsibility. And even though the Fed. doesn't use money, it does have a monetary system (credits, probably some kind of E-money).

Does this system sound familiar? It's the Libertarian/Capitalist system proposed by Adam Smith, and supported by conservatives everywhere!

As Grand Nagus Zek said (off camera): "The future is looking very bright indeed!"

 

[Chuckling]

We've got enough bleak sci-fi. Star Trek is one of the few sci-fi franchises these days that isn't dark and dreary. Let's keep it that way.

Agreed. I hope JJ sees it this way too..

Robert Scorpio

Agreed x2

Chuckling

 

[maryh]

TOS era ST was also called "a beacon of hope" and we all know it certainly wasn't incense and peppermint like later Trek. I always thought that it was a beacon of hope in a more realistic way. That mankind, in spite of himself and with all his potential for evilness, still survived because the goodness in him won over the badness in him. However, it doesn't suppose that mankind ceases to be human and eliminates all desires, dishonesty, competitiveness, or those 7 deadly sins but rather they struggle everyday against them but the good wins. Reminds me of the TOS episode where Kirk get split into a good and evil Kirk. The good one was better than the bad one, but the good one had no drive, ambition, or ability to make things happen. For me a better beacon of hope is to show realistic people having real human drives, desires and emotions, yet not caving into them but struggling to overcome them and succeeding.

Makes for better storytelling :

http://trekmovie.com/2008/06/12/exclusive-interview-ron-moore-on-breaking-out-of-the-box/

 

[Lynx]

Trek should be a beacon of hope, not only because of tradition and typical "TV-series optimism" but also because of the fact that history shows us that humanity is developing in that direction, even if it takes time and there are setbacks on the way.

Just look at the world about 400 years ago. There were wars, poverty, opression, starvation, torture, suffering. OK, we have that today too but the difference is that today there are people who are trying to do something about it.

If a crazy king murdered hundreds of people 400 years ago, no one cared. Today there are demosntrations and political boycotts against such atrocities. The same for war, starvation and other things. If humanity continue to develope in that direction, we may have something similar like the Trek society in about 400 years, even if there will be temporary setbacks before we achieve that.

Besides that, we need positive and encouraging thoughts and ideas in the Dark Ages we are living in. There are too many negative thoughts and series with negative message as there are.

The hope for a better future is one of Star Trek's cornerstones. Sacrificing that in order to attract those viewers who drool over the dark and pessimistic series would be a sell-out which would clearly fail. The real Trek fans would probably abandon such a concept and it wouldn't attract the "darksiders" either.

In fact, most of those "dark" series really sucks.