why does it matter if the Roddenberry vision is unrealistic?

[M.A.C.O.]

Shows like Mad Men, Grey's Anatomy, Smallville, 24, Lost, Battlestar Galactica and Babylon 5 are TV dramas. Long arcing stories that season after season build to something. Generally main characters from season 1 will make it from start to finish in the series' run and have the onion of their character peeled away so the audience can get to know and understand them better.

DS9 is a TV drama. VOY tried to be a TV drama with the whole lost in space angle, with Maqui rebels serving on Voyager. How will they survive in uncharted space with races like the Kazon and later the Borg antagonizing them? The stakes were set high on VOY but the character and drama of it all fell flat. No one ever lost it on VOY with the crushing reality that they might never make it back home. We see in TNG that starships get blown up nearly every week for a multitude of reasons and really no big deal. Had the characters exhibited emotion like that to their situation and not just act like Starfleet professionals still exploring space in the Alpha and Beta Quadrants with Starfleet only a subspace message away, the show could have excelled at what it was trying to do. Put Starfleet officer's utopian society values to the test.

ENT was also set up like a TV drama but for a number of reasons didn't flower like it needed to.

TNG is a tv series. The show never builds to anything grand by the series finale. Granted outside the season finales of every season starting from season 3 had some sort of epic climax. The show wasn't multilayered like DS9. It was a tv show where audiences could tune in every week and see a different adventure featuring the TNG crew. That's not a bad set up. People can miss an episode or two of TNG and not be lost on what's happening. Miss an episode or two on DS9 you may have missed a vital plot point of character development. TV dramas are the stronger television source. However DS9 has to be looked at as a whole to sum up all the great things about it. I could cherry pick a dozen or so episodes from TNG and show them to a non-Trekkie and they would get the idea. Most of DS9's best episodes involve the Dominion War, which stretches from the end of season 2 to the last episode of season 7. Harder to abridge DS9 than it is to abridge TNG. A non-trekkie would be lost trying to keep up on the show. Which probably what happened to DS9 during it's television run. Along with competing with VOY.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Oh, OK. So it's a terminology issue.

I call DS9 a TV show, and more specifically a serial drama.

TV shows consisting of mostly standalone episodes are often called procedurals. TNG falls into that category. However, TNG was a TV drama, a science fiction drama more precisely, though not a serial drama.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

Ah I see thank you.

 

[DWF]

I'd like to believe in a future where nobvody goes hungry, where people can discover and explore their potential, where there's no sexism or racism. I'd like to think that's the vision that Gene Roddenberry had in mind and somehow I think it'll be earned, but DS9 was something of a step backwards and I think JJ Abrams and co. think that way too, they patterned the 2009 after TOS and TNG.

DSN still presented a Federation where nobody goes hungry, where people can discover and explore their potential, and where there was no sexism or racism. What DSN did not do was depict a future in which Humanity is somehow magically more "evolved" than it is today, where there's no interpersonal conflict, where people are naturally saints. DSN presented a future that was brighter, but where people still struggled to listen to the better angels of their natures -- even if the culture was designed to cultivate those better angels most of the time.

And ST09's characters are in no way patterned after TNG's. They're far more three-dimensional, far less self-consciously "evolved" and perfectible.

It's hard not to call Sisko a saint since he was in the end half Prophet. And how can you call the crew of DS9 the best humanity has to offer? Only O'Brien was totality human, Bashir was genetically engineered, Dax was a Trill, Kira a Bajorian and Worf a Klingon, in fact DS9 was the most alien of all the Star Trek series. And JJ Abrams did say TNG was his favorite Star Trek series.

 

[Greg Cox]

Which Roddenberry vision are we talking about? Because TOS showed Humans to be flawed beings, still prone to the same faillings of today's mankind. However, it also showed that, with effort and perseverance, Humanity could build a better world. That was what Star Trek was about.

Bingo. TOS is optimistic, but not utopian, which makes for much better stories.

I was just watching "Conscience of the King" the other day. And, yeah, it's set in an optimistic future in which a united humanity has gone to the stars, but you still had flesh-and-blood human beings who suffer from guilt and love and murder and madness. All that good meaty stuff that has been the stuff of human drama since the days of Oedipus and Antigone.

Star Trek, at its best, was never about perfect, evolved people. It was about humans--a half-savage child race--doing their best in the face of new worlds and challenges.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

At this point ... to what extent does Roddenberry's vision even matter? If a series, a franchise, cannot evolve then it's doomed to ... well ... the results we saw with VOY and then ENT. How closely did RDM follow Glen Larson's original vision of BSG? The basic premise remains the same, but the tone, message, characters are radically different. The only thing RDM should be judged against is his own consistency with his chosen style. Same for DS9, VOY, ENT, and JJ Abrams and nuTrek.

DS9 was successful, at least artistically, because it maintained a mostly consistent, believable approach to its basic premise (red-eyed pah-wraiths notwithstanding). Ditto for Abrams (lens flares notwithstanding). ENT and VOY had issues with both consistency and believability.

Put simply: If someone created a series which portrayed the Federation as villains and the Borg as heroes, I'd watch it ... as long as it was consistent and believable within its primary conceit (premise).

Star Trek, at its best, was never about perfect, evolved people. It was about humans--a half-savage child race--doing their best in the face of new worlds and challenges.

Good point. And perfectly stated.

 

[Greg Cox]

At this point ... to what extent does Roddenberry's vision even matter? If a series, a franchise, cannot evolve then it's doomed to ... well ... the results we saw with VOY and then ENT. How closely did RDM follow Glen Larson's original vision of BSG? The basic premise remains the same, but the tone, message, characters are radically different. The only thing RDM should be judged against is his own consistency with his chosen style. Same for DS9, VOY, ENT, and JJ Abrams and nuTrek.

Good point. People get too hung up sometimes on trying to second-guess what some long-departed creator might or might have done. Ultimately, you have to move on and let new creative teams trust their own instincts, without having ghosts looking over their shoulders.

I remember when DC reinvented Batwoman as a lesbian. Various fans complained that this was not the original intent back in the fifties or whenever.

So? What difference does that make? Times change.

 

[DWF]

Which Roddenberry vision are we talking about? Because TOS showed Humans to be flawed beings, still prone to the same faillings of today's mankind. However, it also showed that, with effort and perseverance, Humanity could build a better world. That was what Star Trek was about.

Bingo. TOS is optimistic, but not utopian, which makes for much better stories.

I was just watching "Conscience of the King" the other day. And, yeah, it's set in an optimistic future in which a united humanity has gone to the stars, but you still had flesh-and-blood human beings who suffer from guilt and love and murder and madness. All that good meaty stuff that has been the stuff of human drama since the days of Oedipus and Antigone.

Star Trek, at its best, was never about perfect, evolved people. It was about humans--a half-savage child race--doing their best in the face of new worlds and challenges.

I've yet to see anything from Roddenberry himself saying that TNG's people were more evolved, he did use the word more mature. The idea of TNG's people being perfect in any way came from the fans.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Given the behavior of Captain Goody Two-Shoes in TNG's first season, that wasn't much of a stretch.

 

[Greg Cox]

The idea of TNG's people being perfect in any way came from the fans.

Who probably need to watch more TOS and DS9 then!

And, to be fair, the TNG cast eventually developed into rich and complicated characters who were by no means perfect. I mean, just look at Picard's messy relationship with his brother. Or Worf's many moral dilemmas. Or Ensign Ro's conflicted loyalties.

Or even the way Deana's mom occasionally drives her nuts. You don't get more "realistic" than that!

 

[JustKate]

The problem with Roddenberry's vision wasn't that it was unrealistic - it was that it could so easily become boooooorrrrrrring. As DS9 and the later seasons of TNG showed, you can be optimistic about humanity without turning the humans into idealized 24th century Eagle Scouts, but that's apparently not what GR wanted. I think that's why the aliens are so often more interesting than the humans.

 

[Sci]

I'd like to believe in a future where nobvody goes hungry, where people can discover and explore their potential, where there's no sexism or racism. I'd like to think that's the vision that Gene Roddenberry had in mind and somehow I think it'll be earned, but DS9 was something of a step backwards and I think JJ Abrams and co. think that way too, they patterned the 2009 after TOS and TNG.

DSN still presented a Federation where nobody goes hungry, where people can discover and explore their potential, and where there was no sexism or racism. What DSN did not do was depict a future in which Humanity is somehow magically more "evolved" than it is today, where there's no interpersonal conflict, where people are naturally saints. DSN presented a future that was brighter, but where people still struggled to listen to the better angels of their natures -- even if the culture was designed to cultivate those better angels most of the time.

And ST09's characters are in no way patterned after TNG's. They're far more three-dimensional, far less self-consciously "evolved" and perfectible.

It's hard not to call Sisko a saint since he was in the end half Prophet.

What? He was not "half-Prophet." He was entirely Human. A Prophet possessed Sarah Sisko's body in order to ensure his birth, apparently by the Prophets design, but no genetic or biological material was transmitted to him, nor did he inherit any special powers or gifts, nor was his moral fiber especially different from any other person's.

And how can you call the crew of DS9 the best humanity has to offer?

... I don't believe I did. But what does that have to do with anything? And, more to the point -- what does it mean to say that someone is the "best?" By what standard are we judging this "best"-ness?

Only O'Brien was totality human, Bashir was genetically engineered, Dax was a Trill, Kira a Bajorian and Worf a Klingon, in fact DS9 was the most alien of all the Star Trek series.

"Infinite diversity in infinite combinations!" I love it. If I want to watch a show about an interstellar polity that's staffed entirely by Humans, I'd put Babylon 5 on. The Federation is more than just Humans, and Star Trek should reflect that diversity more often.

And JJ Abrams did say TNG was his favorite Star Trek series.

Yet that doesn't mean he and the writers patterned ST09's characterizations after it.

 

[Drago-Kazov]

The problem with Roddenberry's vision wasn't that it was unrealistic - it was that it could so easily become boooooorrrrrrring. As DS9 and the later seasons of TNG showed, you can be optimistic about humanity without turning the humans into idealized 24th century Eagle Scouts, but that's apparently not what GR wanted. I think that's why the aliens are so often more interesting than the humans.

I would trade 2-3seasons of ENT for for a six episode spinoff miniseries with Klingons exploring/fighting or Worf's ambassadorship.

 

[DWF]

Given the behavior of Captain Goody Two-Shoes in TNG's first season, that wasn't much of a stretch.

You do remeber that Picard hated children in those early seasons? Picard and Riker blew up Maddox's head and made a nice hole in his chest, no "Captain Goody Two-Shoes" would've done that.

 

[JarodRussell]

Which Roddenberry vision are we talking about? Because TOS showed Humans to be flawed beings, still prone to the same faillings of today's mankind. However, it also showed that, with effort and perseverance, Humanity could build a better world. That was what Star Trek was about.

Bingo. TOS is optimistic, but not utopian, which makes for much better stories.

I was just watching "Conscience of the King" the other day. And, yeah, it's set in an optimistic future in which a united humanity has gone to the stars, but you still had flesh-and-blood human beings who suffer from guilt and love and murder and madness. All that good meaty stuff that has been the stuff of human drama since the days of Oedipus and Antigone.

Star Trek, at its best, was never about perfect, evolved people. It was about humans--a half-savage child race--doing their best in the face of new worlds and challenges.

I've yet to see anything from Roddenberry himself saying that TNG's people were more evolved, he did use the word more mature. The idea of TNG's people being perfect in any way came from the fans.

In the novelization of The Motion Picture, he states that humans as a whole have evolved, but that Starfleet needs rougher types of people for space exploration. That might have been his mindset in TNG as well. Picard always admired humanity for what it achieved and how it behaved in his time, but that doesn't mean that he himself was perfect.

 

[Greg Cox]

Interesting. In a way, the new movie kind of picked up on that idea. Pike seems to think that Starfleet has gotten a little too complacent and by-the-book--and needs some rough-around-the-edges scrappers like Jim Kirk.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Given the behavior of Captain Goody Two-Shoes in TNG's first season, that wasn't much of a stretch.

You do remeber that Picard hated children in those early seasons? Picard and Riker blew up Maddox's head and made a nice hole in his chest, no "Captain Goody Two-Shoes" would've done that.

"But even when we wore costumes like that we'd already started to make rapid progress." (Referring to old uniforms as costumes is derogatory.)

"I put it to you all. I think we shall end up with a fine crew, if we avoid temptation." (Preach much?)

 

[DWF]

Given the behavior of Captain Goody Two-Shoes in TNG's first season, that wasn't much of a stretch.

You do remeber that Picard hated children in those early seasons? Picard and Riker blew up Maddox's head and made a nice hole in his chest, no "Captain Goody Two-Shoes" would've done that.

"But even when we wore costumes like that we'd already started to make rapid progress." (Referring to old uniforms as costumes is derogatory.)

"I put it to you all. I think we shall end up with a fine crew, if we avoid temptation." (Preach much?)

I'd hardly call either of those preaching, McCoy was just as down on the 20th century and nobody seemed to care. I don't understand the need to bash TNG to try and make DS9 look better, it's counterproductive.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Who says DS9 departed from Roddenberry's vision? DS9 agreed that the Federation is a paradise. Sisko said so. The story was not about the Federation, but the unparadisical things it takes to keep paradise safe. And TOS covered that same territory, eg, Kirk's speech about not being killers today.

The fallacy is that Star Trek is supposed to be namby-pamby. If that was even Roddenberry's vision, and maybe it was when he got old and started to lose it, it needed to change because that leads nowhere worthwhile dramatically.

 

[DWF]

Well I doubt seriously that if Gene Roddenberry wrote a war into Star Trek, it wouldn't have been ended by a criminal organization using genocide as a weapon.