Bryan Fuller: Diversity is key

[CorporalClegg]

But an "optimistic outlook" and Gene's utopia are mutually exclusive. TOS had the former in spades. But it did so without ever having to thumb through the Gene's Vision Card Catalog.

And here's the argument people make about the "utopia": It's such flawed concept that, when you actually think about it, it becomes extremely sinister. Fan's may not like to acknowledge it, but Eddington was 100% correct.

So the "utopia" business is just there for the sake of it, and it's needless obfuscation, not only for the viewership, but the writers as well.

TOS was: "Humans have come along way in a short time. We got rid of most of the petty bullshit, but we've still got a long way to go and go about our business and keep our pretentious crap in our quarters."

TNG was: "Humans are prefect and we tell everyone else we're perfect. All the time. Actually, we're not perfect, but the bridge is a Holiday Inn."

 

[Mudd]

But an "optimistic outlook" and Gene's utopia are mutually exclusive. TOS had the former in spades. But it did so without ever having to thumb through the Gene's Vision Card Catalog.

And here's the argument people make about the "utopia": It's such flawed concept that, when you actually think about it, it becomes extremely sinister. Fan's may not like to acknowledge it, but Eddington was 100% correct.

So the "utopia" business is just there for the sake of it, and it's needless obfuscation, not only for the viewership, but the writers as well.

All true.

Utopias are lies; they're no place for human beings to try to live.

 

[Longinus]

TOS was: "Humans have come along way in a short time. We got rid of most of the petty bullshit, but we've still got a long way to go and go about our business and keep our pretentious crap in our quarters."

TNG was: "Humans are prefect and we tell everyone else we're perfect. All the time. Actually, we're not perfect, but the bridge is a Holiday Inn."

That's a straw man but whatever...

 

[cultcross]

But an "optimistic outlook" and Gene's utopia are mutually exclusive. TOS had the former in spades. But it did so without ever having to thumb through the Gene's Vision Card Catalog.

And here's the argument people make about the "utopia": It's such flawed concept that, when you actually think about it, it becomes extremely sinister. Fan's may not like to acknowledge it, but Eddington was 100% correct.

So the "utopia" business is just there for the sake of it, and it's needless obfuscation, not only for the viewership, but the writers as well.

TOS was: "Humans have come along way in a short time. We got rid of most of the petty bullshit, but we've still got a long way to go and go about our business and keep our pretentious crap in our quarters."

TNG was: "Humans are prefect and we tell everyone else we're perfect. All the time. Actually, we're not perfect, but the bridge is a Holiday Inn."

Completely agree - this is one of the reasons I love First Contact so much. It took the raw ideas of TNG and presented then in a much more real way as they interacted with mid 21st Century humans. War, poverty, scarcity of resources, all eliminated, brilliant. That's a Good Thing (tm). But when Picard tries to sell the fact they no longer have to work to live as being an 'evolved sensibility' of a perfect utopian world, Lily calls bullshit and instead of pompously laughing off the primitives as the show was prone to doing, he actually came to realise she was right. He may not have to chase wealth or claw his way past others to live a lifestyle of great abundance and largely without want, and that's a real blessing and a hope for all of us, but he sure as hell is open to the full range of emotions and is no more 'evolved' than Lily is. That was, to me, the best perspective on TNGs premise they ever did; it's not cynical, it doesn't tear down hope for the future (in fact the ending is one of the most positive they've ever done), but it doesn't patronise the audience or come across as arrogant imperialism. It's a human culture that has achieved a better world.

 

[Kor]

TNG and later Trek just took itself too seriously overall and tried to be too mainstream, losing the colorful "cult" quality that made the original so fun and enjoyable.

Kor

 

[fireproof78]

All true.

Utopias are lies; they're no place for human beings to try to live.

Reminds me of this:

 

[BillJ]

...the last thing I want to see is the sort of 'hard men making hard choices' bullshit we got in DS9 and Ent.

Usually the heart of good drama is people making hard choices. Why do you think "City on the Edge of Forever" or "In the Pale Moonlight" constantly rank at the top of fan ratings?

 

[jaime]

Usually the heart of good drama is people making hard choices. Why do you think "City on the Edge of Forever" or "In the Pale Moonlight" constantly rank at the top of fan ratings?

Cos they never ask me

 

[Mudd]

And we thank them for that.

 

[Longinus]

Usually the heart of good drama is people making hard choices. Why do you think "City on the Edge of Forever" or "In the Pale Moonlight" constantly rank at the top of fan ratings?

What I mean is Jack Bauer style ends justify means shit. 'In the Pale Moonlight' qualifies, albeit it is well made and there is some reflection of that choice. I'm still not a fan though. Archer basically becoming a war criminal in Ent is much worse case of it though. I want to see heroes that stick to their principles, even if it might not be expedient.

 

[BillJ]

Archer basically becoming a war criminal in Ent is much worse case of it though. I want to see heroes that stick to their principles, even if it might not be expedient.

If my choice is inconveniencing a couple hundred people or saving billions. I'm going to save billions every single time and twice on Sunday. Historians can call me a war criminal, but they'll be around to do it.

Those are the types of moral quandaries that interest audiences now. We've grown up to a degree and have left the "Leave it to Beaver" moral quandaries behind.

 

[cultcross]

If my choice is inconveniencing a couple hundred people or saving billions. I'm going to save billions every single time and twice on Sunday. Historians can call me a war criminal, but they'll be around to do it.

Those are the types of moral quandaries that interest audiences now. We've grown up to a degree and have left the "Leave to Beaver" moral quandaries behind.

I completely disagree with your moral choice, but the point is that Star Trek should generate that sort of debate. It's genuinely best episodes have that sort of moral quandary at their core where people can have a real discussion about what is done by the characters and the issues they face.

 

[Longinus]

If my choice is inconveniencing a couple hundred people or saving billions. I'm going to save billions every single time and twice on Sunday. Historians can call me a war criminal, but they'll be around to do it.

Those are the types of moral quandaries that interest audiences now. We've grown up to a degree and have left the "Leave to Beaver" moral quandaries behind.

I really don't need see attempts to justify war crimes in Star Trek. But yes, you're probably right that that is the sort of thing people want to see now.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few. Sometimes that means a woman gets hit by a truck and dies so billions can live.

 

[fireproof78]

What I mean is Jack Bauer style ends justify means shit. 'In the Pale Moonlight' qualifies, albeit it is well made and there is some reflection of that choice. I'm still not a fan though. Archer basically becoming a war criminal in Ent is much worse case of it though. I want to see heroes that stick to their principles, even if it might not be expedient.

Sticking to principles can result in uncomfortable choices as well.

 

[Noname Given]

I really don't need see attempts to justify war crimes in Star Trek. But yes, you're probably right that that is the sort of thing people want to see now.

So, I take it DS9's "In the Pale Moonlight" isn't on your list of favorite Star Trek franchise episodes?

 

[Refuge]

Usually the heart of good drama is people making hard choices. Why do you think "City on the Edge of Forever" or "In the Pale Moonlight" constantly rank at the top of fan ratings?

I would rate the 'drama' aspect of Star Trek beneath it being science fiction and an adventure. It's entertainment playing at issues.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I would rate the 'drama' aspect of Star Trek beneath it being science fiction and an adventure. It's entertainment playing at issues.

Of the three, I think the people writing the show would put science fiction at the bottom. They were always more interested in creating drama than some science fictional concept.

 

[Refuge]

Of the three, I think the people writing the show would put science fiction at the bottom. They were always more interested in creating drama than some science fictional concept.

Do you mean the general writing theme (throughout) all the versions of Star Trek or the emphasis that we might be seeing in Discovery? Its rating suggests more drama. I get the little messages but I prefer the escapism.

 

[fireproof78]

Science fiction can also be the extrapolation of human reactions to changes in technology. So, the drama will always come along with the escapism.