Fans Disenfranchised with Utopia?

[Greg Cox]

To be fair, Trek's optimistic outlook is one of its distinguishing characteristic and a big part of its appeal. Unlike its competitors (Planet of the Apes, Logan's Run, Terminator, The Matrix, etc.), it's not set in some oppressive dystopia or post-apocalyptic wasteland. The apes and computers have not taken over, we're not being invaded by hostile aliens, etc. Star Trek, unlike most popular sci-fi franchises, is set in a future that works, that someone might actually want to live in. And that's a good thing.

But doesn't mean that, first and foremost, Star Trek is just a delivery mechanism for delivering some sort of inspirational message. It's a work of fiction, and a theatrical entertainment, not a policy paper or sermon. And optimistic does not equal "utopian." You can still present a hopeful vision of the future without insisting that all rough edges be sanded away and that no elements of darkness be allowed to intrude into the narrative.

It's worth noting (again) that we never saw the utopian Earth of the 23rd century on the original TV series, because that wasn't what the series was really about. At its core, TOS was about exploring a dangerous far frontier, not lulling viewers with cozy images of a world where all human flaws and unpleasantness had been left behind.

As TOS used to remind us every other week, humanity was still just a half-savage child race with a long way to go . . . .

 

[Armored Saint]

united by Gene Roddenberry's bold vision of the future. Without him, we continue to be leaderless and divided.
[...]
- to Gene Roddenberry's teachings?

Dude, are you trolling?

I'm pretty sure you do, but I will still point out a fact: Star Trek's humans doesn't have a Surak or a Kahless. They talk about their values, not a specific code established by a major mythological or historical figure.

So, talking about the "Roddenberry's teachings" is a serious paradox.

 

[BillJ]

Q: (taking a snort of something) Oh, better. And later, on finally reaching deep space, humans of course found enemies to fight out there too. And to broaden those struggles you again found allies for still more murdering. The same old story, all over again.

This is the humanity TNG should have acknowledged more often.

 

[T'Girl]

... Trek's optimistic outlook ...

Optimistic? Oh I'd agree it was that.

... but I will still point out a fact: Star Trek's humans doesn't have a Surak or a Kahless. They talk about their values, not a specific code established by a major mythological or historical figure.

Murder is against the laws of God and man.

Kirk: "We don't need god's we find the One quite adequate."

 

[Robert Comsol]

Reading these boards, as I often do, it kind of surprises me how we STAR TREK fans are anything but united by Gene Roddenberry's bold vision of the future. Without him, we continue to be leaderless and divided.

Do we, in our hearts, no longer believe in Utopia?

That's a very good issue you brought up but you see for yourself some revealing replies.

IMHO, you can think what you want of Gene Roddenberry (without him we wouldn't be having this board at all ) and someone like Pablo Picasso.

They mave have not been human role models (but then, who is?!?), but Picasso created great art (IMO) and Roddenberry a great vision (IMO, too).

I cherish the utopian aspects of Star Trek but feel that the franchise has been somewhat dumbed down to thrive on conflict-driven plot premises in the past two decades and not too surprising it will attract new fans that cherish or even prefer that over the utopian aspects (good thing the BBS has sections where everyone can find a "home").

It's interesting that you mention "Utopia" because in my last thread activity today I was about to compare someone to its author before reading your post (but some power higher than mine prevented that).

Now, "Sir" Thomas More may have been writing "Utopia" in his idealistic younger days, but eventually he turned into a religious fanatic pursuing and persecuting "heretics".

One BBS member has for quite some time been acting a lot like Thomas More when it came to my contributions and even accused me of doing scatological things but I refused to assume the role of Martin Luther (the correspondence between More and Luther is outrageous! Never would have thought that either of them would correspond like that).

Stating "it's just a show" is a vast understatement. Journalists in the 1990's examining Star Trek fandom observed what they felt to be a modern form of subsititution for religion and the quasi religious fervour and tone that permeates some discussions (with me being the "heretic" that needs to be brought back into line) isn't exactly proving these journalists wrong.

Bob

P.S. I'm not throwing a self-pity party. I've been here now for over a year and know what to expect when I comment or create threads.

 

[TheGoodStuff]

First off, I think idolizing Roddenberry is misguided and silly.

Secondly, the key aspect of my love for Star Trek is the portrayal of humanity. The ethics, morality and philosophy of these shows is something unique to the franchise.

Thus, I adore Roddenberry's vision. A socialist, atheistic, rational Earth where freedom and liberty are so respected is simply a heart warming vision. I get a little sad when I read some who wish Trek had more conflict or that humanity was less 'perfect' in its portrayal [which it never really is, even in TNG]. Star Trek's true strength is its portrayal of what we COULD be [not WILL be] and showing how we, as a species, could behave without the evils with which we currently shackle ourselves:

Hatred, homophobia, racism, religion, corruption, greed etc.

So, yes, I love Roddenberry's 'vision' but it was crafted over decades with the help of many. He deserves tremendous credit however, something about Star Treks 'goddy goody' humanity struck a real chord with millions and, for me, its not just about cool starships and funky aliens. There is a deeper representation within the franchise. I, for one, adore that.

 

[Armored Saint]

... Trek's optimistic outlook ...

Optimistic? Oh I'd agree it was that.

... but I will still point out a fact: Star Trek's humans doesn't have a Surak or a Kahless. They talk about their values, not a specific code established by a major mythological or historical figure.

Murder is against the laws of God and man.

Kirk: "We don't need god's we find the One quite adequate."

Yeah, I justly thought about that when I wrote my post, but there's not a strong implication. It's not like in Bread and Circuses where the rebels are talking about their own version of the son of God or the Iotians with THE Book.

"Murder is against the laws of God and man." God is above all a symbol, the important is the man. The computer didn't refer to any religious text or prophet.

"We don't need god's we find the One quite adequate." We, humans, turned the page for a long time and we will not return to that. By the way, Kirk later referred to the general heritage of the ancient Greeks.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

... Trek's optimistic outlook ...

Optimistic? Oh I'd agree it was that.

I would agree too, up to a point.

The federation is such an optimistic outlook on the future only because the scenarists/authors are keeping it on life support:
The trekverse is so full of implacable and hugely powerful foes that, if the trekverse was allowed to be as indifferent as the real world, the federation would soon succumb - regardless of whether it retained its, at times, suicidal political correctness or not.

... but I will still point out a fact: Star Trek's humans doesn't have a Surak or a Kahless. They talk about their values, not a specific code established by a major mythological or historical figure.

Murder is against the laws of God and man.

Kirk: "We don't need god's we find the One quite adequate."

On the other hand, Picard&co were atheist.
So - humans still have no single figure revered by the planet of hats.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

It's easy to find a lot of problems with the TNG season 1 vision of the future, but it's not those specifics I take from Trek. I take the general message that current social problems can be solved. Humanity will never be perfect, but that is not to say it can't become less warlike and greedy, or that Earth can't become a much nicer place to live for much more people.

The thing I find disheartening is the streak of fashionable cynicism that says "Humanity sucks so it's arrogant to even try to improve it, might as well just take what you can for yourself cause everyone else will too."

DS9's vision of an improved humanity is more likely than TNGs. Modern social problems are solved but people are as imperfect as ever.

 

[T'Girl]

On the other hand, Picard&co were atheist.

From his statements at the end of Where Silence Has Leased Picard isn't a atheist, he definately has personal spiritiual beliefs. Picards holds that the self survives the demise of the flesh.

Hardly an atheist belief.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Spirituality has nothing to do with one's belief in a deity.

 

[FreedPhotons]

One certain thing: I don't think Star Trek ever protrays "utopia". They talk about it a lot since Earth is supposedly "Paradise", except we spend very little time on Earth, and there is no realistic portrayal of how 100% of the planet would be free of poverty, war etc., because most causes of these things have not been shown to be eradicated (there are still distinct races, distinct nationalities, distinct jobs etc.).

On the other hand, it's very anthropocentric to speak of "utopia" being achieved when every other episode is about a planet where there are a lot of problems, wars, etc. Even if Earth was actually a paradise, that wouldn't mean "utopia" has been achieved in a broad sense.

What you may mean maybe is a certain vision of a positive future. And in that I agree witg Greg Cox that Star Trek stands out for its positive-leaning portrayal of the future. A very 60's view of technological advances (which are perceived as linked to social progress), which ultimately didn't really hold up as the decades went on: Starfleet is just the US army with a sprinkle of foreigners and the Federation is basically the USA - when the US began to have economic problems, suddenly Starfleet started to have problems as well (DS9), because that's what viewers presumably identified with.

I any case I personally do agree with many things about Star Trek's vision of a "positive future" (which is probably not the same as, say, George Wallace's or Malcom X's ideas of a positive future...) like the disappearance of religion for example or gender equality, but I disagree with others, like the apparent absence of gay people.

In the end I don't think it's so much a question of "following Gene's vision" as wanting to believe the future will be better than the present in the ways that count for you. In that, well, I admit I want to believe that, yes. So no I guess I haven't abandoned that quest and it's one of the reasons I like Star Trek.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

On the other hand, Picard&co were atheist.

From his statements at the end of Where Silence Has Leased Picard isn't a atheist, he definately has personal spiritiual beliefs. Picards holds that the self survives the demise of the flesh.

Hardly an atheist belief.

Spiritual beliefs and practices are not precluded by having no deity. What Picard says in WSHL is so vaguely descriptive, only reacting against the idea of heaven and nothingness, that it could mean almost anything: "a reality beyond what we understand now as reality."

 

[Armored Saint]

One certain thing: I don't think Star Trek ever protrays "utopia". They talk about it a lot since Earth is supposedly "Paradise", except we spend very little time on Earth, and there is no realistic portrayal of how 100% of the planet would be free of poverty, war etc., because most causes of these things have not been shown to be eradicated (there are still distinct races, distinct nationalities, distinct jobs etc.).

On the other hand, it's very anthropocentric to speak of "utopia" being achieved when every other episode is about a planet where there are a lot of problems, wars, etc. Even if Earth was actually a paradise, that wouldn't mean "utopia" has been achieved in a broad sense.

It's not only anthropocentric, but also "Earth"-centric because life on human colonies can be really hard. You can be wiped-out by an alien aggressor or executed by your own Governor.

Of course, Star Trek is originally optimistic, it was created during an optimistic era. On some points, Star Trek has a pretty naive conception of progress. There was a third World War and after that, it's the come-back of a linear progress, like if technical progress would necessarily bring human progress. But this optimism is not the problem.

It's a problem in TNG when it turns to this pompous claims they've really reached the utopia. There's a lack of humility and also some hypocrisy (especially when Picard is so inspired by Shakespeare despite he's supposed to be a evolved human of the 24th century).

 

[JarodRussell]

They never claimed they reached Utopia. They just said there are no wars, no money and in general they have a different behavior than we do.

Just like they don't have the Grand Unifying Theory just because they know warp drive and transporters.

 

[2takesfrakes]

Dude, are you trolling?

I'm pretty sure you do, but I will still point out a fact: Star Trek's humans doesn't have a Surak or a Kahless. They talk about their values, not a specific code established by a major mythological or historical figure.

So, talking about the "Roddenberry's teachings" is a serious paradox.

Everyone else here understood what I was asking and they've provided some interesting answers, which is all I was after. And I'm certainly not making this stuff up. Gene Roddenberry did have this "vision" about Humanity and fans were certainly preached to ... but are there converts? Is STAR TREK only so much entertainment? We always hear about how everybody and their brother became a doctor or an engineer because of STAR TREK. Or how they were on the wrong path in life and STAR TREK somehow became this symbol of hope. And still others do view it as a religion. And while they're all drawn to STAR TREK, it seems there's no cohesion, beyond that. I was curious to see what's the fanbase point of view on this matter. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[2takesfrakes]

You know who else believed in leaders with bold visions of a future utopia, the Nazis.

Quite so. But I wouldn't take an alarmist's position to the late Gene Roddenberry, or his views. There have been a few others who've responded, like T'Girl, for example, stating the perceived shortcomings of such a Princely Plan. Indeed, it's not an entirely incorrect philosophy, the proverb that states: A Promise is like a Thick Blanket ... that leaves you shivering, when the weather turns cold.

 

[AirCommodore]

Reading these boards, as I often do, it kind of surprises me how we STAR TREK fans are anything but united by Gene Roddenberry's bold vision of the future. Without him, we continue to be leaderless and divided.

Do we, in our hearts, no longer believe in Utopia? Indeed, did we ever pledge ourselves - genuinely - to Gene Roddenberry's teachings? Imagine that the Apollo Moon Landing did for the world what First Contact did in STAR TREK. It did, in some ways, by showing us how small, singular and fragile Earth is ... but not alot, unfortunately.

STAR TREK's positive message of Hope and Peace always made me a fan. I needn't tell you how the World is a pretty mean place and shows like STAR TREK, but STAR TREK specifically, was always a place where magic and a charming sort of innocense could still exist amongst adults.

The problem with Ideal Societies is getting everyone who lives in it to agree on what exactly the Ideal is. To racial separatists, the Ideal is one thing. To religious fundamentalists, it might be something very different. The same applies to Libertarians, Greens, Maoists, Socialists, or ethnic nationalists.

What is Ideal to some of these groups would be a dystopian nightmare society to others. IDIC itself would called genocide by racial separatists. We have to consider the possibility that one Ideal held by all humanity simultaneously everywhere may not be attainable.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Reading these boards, as I often do, it kind of surprises me how we STAR TREK fans are anything but united by Gene Roddenberry's bold vision of the future. Without him, we continue to be leaderless and divided.

Do we, in our hearts, no longer believe in Utopia? Indeed, did we ever pledge ourselves - genuinely - to Gene Roddenberry's teachings? Imagine that the Apollo Moon Landing did for the world what First Contact did in STAR TREK. It did, in some ways, by showing us how small, singular and fragile Earth is ... but not alot, unfortunately.

STAR TREK's positive message of Hope and Peace always made me a fan. I needn't tell you how the World is a pretty mean place and shows like STAR TREK, but STAR TREK specifically, was always a place where magic and a charming sort of innocense could still exist amongst adults.

The problem with Ideal Societies is getting everyone who lives in it to agree on what exactly the Ideal is. To racial separatists, the Ideal is one thing. To religious fundamentalists, it might be something very different. The same applies to Libertarians, Greens, Maoists, Socialists, or ethnic nationalists.

What is Ideal to some of these groups would be a dystopian nightmare society to others. IDIC itself would called genocide by racial separatists. We have to consider the possibility that one Ideal held by all humanity simultaneously everywhere may not be attainable.

Well said. Getting everyone in one country to do so has been tried. It's gotten very bad results for the most part.

 

[1001001]

united by Gene Roddenberry's bold vision of the future. Without him, we continue to be leaderless and divided.
[...]
- to Gene Roddenberry's teachings?

Dude, are you trolling?

I'm pretty sure you do, but I will still point out a fact: Star Trek's humans doesn't have a Surak or a Kahless. They talk about their values, not a specific code established by a major mythological or historical figure.

So, talking about the "Roddenberry's teachings" is a serious paradox.

If you think someone is trolling, please use the Notify Moderator button, and refrain from commenting.

Thanks.