cultcross said:
exodus said:
Berman worked side by side with Roddenberry. Berman learned from him just what he wanted the future of Trek too be.
Even if this is the case, and to me it smacks of a real-life version of ret-conning, why is what Roddenberry in his later years wanted automatically what's best for the franchise or where it should go? TNG season 1 was pretty much what Roddenberry by this point wanted the franchise to be, do you honestly think that was sustainable long term?
Roddenberry didn't want Trek to be about war or violence, Trek was to meant to teach peace & understanding. The Federation/Starfleet are non-violent for that reason.
Berman allowed DS9 to stray from that path just to satisfy those fans that did want war & conflict. That story is over and Trek returned to it's peaceful roots as Roddenberry wanted it.
...or, to satisfy those fans who wanted to see how the perfect paradise that was the Federation of TNG was maintained and how such a future doesn't just appear magically one day and stay forever, it takes a lot of effort, and sometimes it has to be fought for. And we saw this, against the backdrop of trying to create the 24th century society for a world that had seen nothing but conflict for years. Of all the series, I think DS9 is
most about bringing and maintaining peace and free existence, sometimes at tremondous cost. None of the easy 'our morality is inherently right, we have to imprint it on this incorrect character/race' of TNG.
Berman didn't get Trek wrong, we did because we want Trek to be something is wasn't meant to. Isn't there enough war in the news, do we really have to see more of it in fiction too?
We want Trek to be original, interesting, and tell adult and nuanced stories with modern day relevance? horrors, we've
really missed the point!