Seriously, what's "Gene's Vision"?

Genes vision: The future will be full of gorgeous women in miniskirts. Don't really have a problem with that one.

Seriously though, the level of humanities "perfection" changed considerably between TOS and TNG. In TOS, despite solving many of them, people still had issues and problems, but they mostly tried to deal with it rationally. Hate and prejudice still existed (like in Balance of Terror), but people were rational enough realize they had a problem and fix it.

In TNG people were just "perfect" and largely unquestioning about their perfection. It makes ships like the Galaxy-class perfectly understandable when you realize it was made by a society that had it's head stuck up it's arse.

 

He envisioned a distant future where a man could bang a random new chick every week without consequences.
Unfortunately, at my impressionable age at the time, I thought that was the way life was supposed to work.
BOY did that get me in trouble!

 

He created the basic idea of a starship exploring space and having adventures, which to be fair isn't really very original, and wasn't in the 1960s either. That idea was then developed by Gene Coon, DC Fontana and others into what we know and love now.

 

If you enjoy TOS, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and the first four seasons of TNG, all which reflect Gene's influence to varying degrees, then Gene's "vision", whatever that may be, produced quality entertainment.

 

This. This was the basic "vision" of Star Trek, even in the days of TOS.

I really am enjoying DISC, but my first reaction was "this isn't Star Trek." Yes, TOS had corrupt captains and admirals, but those corrupt officers weren't the main characters. Someone contrasted Kirk's line about bigotry in BoT to Landry's calling the prisoners animals. Star Trek was bright and positive, not grimdark. The main characters, while not paragon's of virtue, were always on the side of right and were full of moral integrity. Yes, some disobeyed orders and Spock even "mutinied," but these acts of disobedience were always in the service of the moral good. The audience never debated the moral integrity of the main characters.

Even Sisko, whose darker moments are used in examples, wasn't that grimdark. His dark acts were not visually depicted. We see him push a few buttons and dialog tells us he poisoned a planet's atmosphere. We see him stand and give orders and then we're told he arranged for the assassination of Romulans. His dark deeds were not exposed with blood and gore and violence. Plus, Sisko wasn't INTRODUCED as this grimdark character. He started off as virtuous as the others.

Star Trek was always bright primary colors. Our main characters were always in the right or had the moral high ground. At the end of the day, they were in the right and the audience cheered for them. Totally unlike what we're seeing with the anti-Lorca crowd.

I think this is what people are reacting to. They are used to watching Star Trek as a bright uplifting story. The grimdark aspects were always the "other guys," the villains, the people who needed put in their place.

 

I'm amused that DS9 never really gets mentioned in the same breath as the others, yet it (along with Enterprise in its last season) took seriously how it was that this optimistic future was supposed to come into being.

 

Early TNG is a category unto itself, reflecting the whackadoodle ideas that Gene came up with in later years, well after TOS.

Not to mention that the best aspects of TOS were actually developed by people other than Roddenberry. At that time, he still knew how to come up with a general concept for something but then sit back and let other people do their jobs to make a good product.

Kor

 

Others would say early TNG was much more like TOS than later seasons and subsequent series. So it's a matter of perspective on aspects of Gene's influence.

 

Gene's vision was cold cash and hot women.

 

Drugs, drinks and dames.

 

Where has this "Gene's vision" originated?

Was it something Gene himself put out there or created by people who want to categorize things...

 

Thank you.

This is good vision and to me it is the important part of what makes Star Trek special. I'm really tired of people constantly mocking it.

 

A show about people working toward these things (maybe as a "B-story") as well as other objectives, might be interesting.

A show where you have perfect people (and sanctimonious about it) from a perfect society? Opposite of a good show.

Kirk's speech about people needing to strive and claw their way, definition of a good show.

Joining a galactic society sounds somewhat nice, as long as we retain our Human identity and personal independence and political sovereignty after doing so.

Optimism yes, but not to the point of being pollyanna, optimism needs to be combined with realism and clear vision.

Overcome prejudice, but not to the point where you cease being discerning. Nor should "overcoming prejudice" become a tool that enables a small group to manipulate and control a larger group.

Scientific progress leads to good thing, being aware that that isn't always the case. Progress sometime means progressing into a worse situation than you were in in the first place.

 

If this straw man is about TNG, I'd like to point out that it was very well liked and most successful of the spin offs. And personally my favourite TV show ever.

If not, then carry on...

 

Allusion.

 

Following the timeline, a socialist utopia driven by an abundance of resources after centuries of catastrophes caused by limits to growth.

 

It does not have to be, given that TNG reached its zenith after the writers pull away some of the rules and the characters became more human.

 

I think TNG peaked when Gene was still involved during seasons 3 and 4.

 

Season 3 was the last time at which Gene could have been described as being actively involved, and the writers were clearly challenging his dicta. By season 4, they had clearly won: Family, a story that explored the fears of the captain, was not something that Roddenberry would previously allowed.

 

To it seems to primarily be non-discrimination, tolerance, having ended poverty, eschewing militarism and conquest and maintaining humility.

Most original series-only or original series-most fans despise the version of TNG (although some of the original cast like it and see a lot of continuity) and even somewhat Roddenberry himself so to use the term it refers primarily to the TNG version (but also to what, consistent with it, was already established earlier).
I don't see how the 24th century people are often self-righteous or depicted as not still growing and learning.

Sacrosanct seems a rather loaded word but I do think the vision is important since it's a big part of what makes ST different from other sci-fi works. And while he died in 1991, Berman and Piller and Taylor believed a vision did exist and tried to follow and be true to it in the later work they did.

Well Bennett/Meyer Trek and DS9 had different ideas, they were even fairly iconoclastic, and yet ultimately not that much of a break.