32nd century was a big mistake... BIG

[Ragitsu]

Now it can be said.
Trek never should have gone into the future future.
Plenty of stories that could be (and were successfully) told between 22nd and early 25th centuries.
My recommendation (that no one asked for) to bring Star Trek from it's death (again)

• Mark everything in 32nd century non-canon
• Delete Section 31 from archives
• Green light Star Trek Legacy
• Fire Alex Kurtzman

Not going to happen, but it better if you want to see new Star Trek, in any form within next 10-15 years

This whole "one step forward, three steps backward" approach to Star Trek was and is terrible.

"Progress? NEENER NEENER!"

If one cannot maintain a consistent and earnestly optimistic attitude concerning the future, one should not be a steward - even temporarily - of Gene's vision.

 

[BillJ]

If one cannot maintain a consistent and earnestly optimistic attitude concerning the future, one should not be a steward - even temporarily - of Gene's vision.

You mean the universe where World War III and Vulcan intervention was needed before we figured our shit out?

 

[Nerys Myk]

This whole "one step forward, three steps backward" approach to Star Trek was and is terrible.

"Progress? NEENER NEENER!"

If one cannot maintain a consistent and earnestly optimistic attitude concerning the future, one should not be a steward - even temporarily - of Gene's vision.

 

[Shawnster]

I liked the 32nd Century portion of DSC.

I didn't like how they got there. Not Section 31. Not its rogue AI. Not the gratuitous eye-scream (not even Leland deserved that).

This.

They should have set DISCO in the 32nd century from the very start.

You mean the universe where World War III and Vulcan intervention was needed before we figured our shit out?

Was Vulcan intervention a Roddenberry concept or did that come about after his death?

 

[fireproof78]

This whole "one step forward, three steps backward" approach to Star Trek was and is terrible.

"Progress? NEENER NEENER!"

If one cannot maintain a consistent and earnestly optimistic attitude concerning the future, one should not be a steward - even temporarily - of Gene's vision.

Deep Space Nine and TUC must have sucked then.

 

[BillJ]

Was Vulcan intervention a Roddenberry concept or did that come about after his death?

Not sure it really matters, since even without it, there were still multiple wars before we get to utopia.

 

[Tallguy]

You mean the universe where World War III and Vulcan intervention was needed before we figured our shit out?

Only one of those was a Gene thing.

Deep Space Nine and TUC must have sucked then.

Both of those are still optimistic.

Not sure it really matters, since even without it, there were still multiple wars before we get to utopia.

And there always will be.

 

[fireproof78]

Both of those are still optimistic.

But not improvements.

 

[Shawnster]

Not sure it really matters, since even without it, there were still multiple wars before we get to utopia.

To be factual, utopia wasn't even a Roddenberry thing until after TAS.

 

[Commander Troi]

I firmly disagree with the OP. I really liked seeing the 32nd century, especially in Starfleet Academy.

Personally, I think the cancellation of SFA (and probably SNW) has more to do with the BTS at Paramount than anything else.

 

[Tallguy]

To be factual, utopia wasn't even a Roddenberry thing until after TAS.

In the 1960's a United Earth that had intragalactic travel and a matter / antimatter power source was pretty Utopian all by itself.

During the 70's that was no longer enough and by TNG it had to become "post scarcity".

 

[Dukhat]

I didn’t have a problem with sending the Discovery into the 32nd century in the third season. The mistake, in my opinion, was continuing the show past that season.

 

[Commander Troi]

In the 1960's a United Earth that had intragalactic travel and a matter / antimatter power source was pretty Utopian all by itself.

And that had dealt with racism and inter-Earth wars.

 

[Shawnster]

During the 70's that was no longer enough and by TNG it had to become "post scarcity".

And the military suddenly became something dirty.

And so did money.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

I find Roddenberry’s anti-capitalist stance from TNG onwards to be very strange in light of the near-constant greed he displayed throughout his time on Star Trek.

The guy loved money, loved grabbing as much money as he could and had no qualms about ripping off colleagues, friends and even family.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I find Roddenberry’s anti-capitalist stance from TNG onwards to be very strange in light of the near-constant greed he displayed throughout his time on Star Trek.

The guy loved money, loved grabbing as much money as he could and had no qualms about ripping off colleagues, friends and even family.

He was trying to play to who he thought his audience was.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

You don't need to be an ideal person to try to write an ideal world.

 

[BillJ]

You don't need to be an ideal person to try to write an ideal world.

Helps though if one has some kind of moral code. The only one Roddenberry has was to please Roddenberry. Reminds me of someone…

 

[Richard S. Ta]

You don't need to be an ideal person to try to write an ideal world.

You don’t. Absolutely.

Some of the shine of Trek is eroded a bit though when it’s revealed that it was created by a misogynist, opportunistic, racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, egotistical bully.

Roddenberry wasn’t just a guy with flaws. He’s a deeply problematic figure. He was a conglomerate of flaws with a human being trapped in the middle somewhere.

Fortunately in his case I can separate the art from the artist due to the fact that a great deal of fantastic Trek has been created either without him or despite of him.

 

[Tallguy]

Fortunately in his case I can separate the art from the artist due to the fact that a great deal of fantastic Trek has been created either without him or despite of him.

And he's dead.