Could Gene's vision coexist with DS9

[VulcanMindBlown]

The one where Troi is a four breasted hermaphrodite.

Yes, I read about that. That was disgusting, and I am glad that Gene didn't put that in.

Which version of Gene's Vision are we talking about?

His vision of the future where everyone was a much better person and society and culture was constantly getting better.

And Gene's "vision" was a load of hooey, anyway. It was some self-important philosophy he came up with years after the fact of the original Star Trek, and started promoting on the convention circuit, even though it had nothing to do with Trek in the first place.

Kor

That might be true, but I'd have to research it more. He did say that in the 24th century, there would be no greed and every child would be able to read. This is very much in line with his Progressive Atheist agenda, if you don't mind me talking religion's impact on politics and philosophy. It would have been great to fantasize and hope about, but ultimately, Deep Space Nine is more inline with reality than The Next Generation.

Really, in what way?

I could be wrong about this, but didn't Gene say that he didn't really want character conflict to last beyond an episode and there was no war? It is true that Kirk, Spock and Bones did banter a lot, in a small way. You cut off the portion where I said that it is more around the TNG themes.

Actually DS9 was extremely in character with TOS. There was no real paradise in Kirk's era. Yes they were explorers. But they were also tasked in service to military security and realpolitik. It was a positive vision of the future. But not an ungrounded one.

The more pacifist happy hippy commie utopia Star Trek didn't put in an appearance until TNG. Which yes much of DS9 was a direct critical answer to. Largely by pointing out that you can't escape economics with fairy dust. Some way in some form the bill comes due.

I underlined and bolded the key part of your post that I thought was important.

I view DS9 as a critical essay on Gene's utopia.

Yes, you said it first, but not in this post.

DS9 showed that Trek could be more than just the optimistic bright colours and sterilsed utopia. It could expand into other, dirtier directions. Frankly, that was necessary and doing it on a faraway space station meant you could maintain the bright, sterilsed utopia back on Earth just as Sisko described it. No contradiction there.

The only real contradiction was the economy stuff and all those human beings slogging their guts out in jobs or on planets that previous Trek said they didn't have to do. But it was a small price to pay to push the franchise in a new and interesting direction. You can't stand still with this stuff. Something the new show will hopefully embrace.

That is true and the human characters of Deep Space Nine ran into problems with having no money.

Actually DS9 was extremely in character with TOS. There was no real paradise in Kirk's era. Yes they were explorers. But they were also tasked in service to military security and realpolitik. It was a positive vision of the future. But not an ungrounded one.

The more pacifist happy hippy commie utopia Star Trek didn't put in an appearance until TNG. Which yes much of DS9 was a direct critical answer to. Largely by pointing out that you can't escape economics with fairy dust. Some way in some form the bill comes due.

Okay, cool.

 

[Kor]

Yes, I read about that. That was disgusting, and I am glad that Gene didn't put that in.

Why be disgusted? I think it's more interesting to explore alien life that is actually alien and bizarre, and not just humans with bumps on their foreheads.

Kor

 

[Tosk]

You cut off the portion where I said that it is more around the TNG themes.

No, I only cut off "and the early TNG days" I agree that DS9 is different to the early TNG stuff, hence the removal. I only wanted to know why you thought it was particularly different to TOS.

 

[Vger23]

Why be disgusted? I think it's more interesting to explore alien life that is actually alien and bizarre, and not just humans with bumps on their foreheads.

Kor

Agreed,

With all this talk about potential LGBQT characters, why does this bother us?

 

[STEPhon IT]

His vision of the future where everyone was a much better person and society and culture was constantly getting better.

Not everyone but most of them was much better, and society as whole will as well. It's the future and a positive one, there's nothing wrong with that kind of vision, and it's a progressive one.

 

[Vger23]

I disagree entirely that TOS promoted utopian philosophy.

TOS embraced the flaws of mankind and asserted that we'd learn to continue existing in spite of those flaws. But, it NEVER embraced the ideas of paradise or utopia. How many times did Kirk undermine a supposed "paradise" or reveal that mankind is "not meant for Eden" or show that life had to be a little "dirty" to be meaningful or whatever?

Just off the top of my head:
Return of the Archons
This Side of Paradise
A Taste of Armageddon
Who Mourns for Adonais
The Apple
The Way to Eden
Star Trek V
Star Trek Generations

TOS (often through Kirk) always tried to show that humans are meant for challenge and that "paradise" was unattainable because it is not natural or healthy for us to live like that.

I think DS9 did a nice job to bring back the idea that the Federation is not perfect, that life is hard no matter what, and that humans are flawed but will struggle against those flaws to try to do better.

I'm not even really convinced that the Federation was "perfect" and that humans were "evolved beyond" all their flaws like we think TNG depicted. I rather believe that this was Picard's personal world view, and that we are (since he is the leader and main character) seeing things through his eyes.

 

[Vger23]

The original "vision" was that humans could learn to work together and fight through all their flaws and instincts to advance and mature and try to do more good than harm in the galaxy. It was never about washing that clean and becoming a bland, passionless, perfect society.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I think a lot of the things Roddenberry established for TNG was really more to differentiate it from TOS. The "no-conflict thing" only really extended to the main characters, but other (mostly guest & reoccurring) characters were really free to bring in as much conflict as they wanted. But it may have started to become something that applied to 24th-Century Humans in general, ironically, as Roddenberry became less involved with the show due to health reasons.

 

[Shawnster]

I never found DS9 to be "dark" or "edgy" in contrast to what a lot of people have said here and elsewhere. I don't think it strayed that far beyond TOS or TNG at all.

Actually DS9 was extremely in character with TOS. There was no real paradise in Kirk's era. Yes they were explorers. But they were also tasked in service to military security and realpolitik. It was a positive vision of the future. But not an ungrounded one.

From the words of James T. Kirk

"Maybe we were meant to fight our way through. Struggle, claw our way up, scratch for every inch of the way. Maybe we can't stroll to the music of the lute. We must march to the sound of drums. " This Side of Paradise

 

[T'Girl]

... I think in some respects DS9 went too far in undermining it, Section 31 stuff in particular was disgusting and had no place in the Federation.

Maybe section 31 had no place in the Federation, but there it was, and apparently it predated the Federation itself. Section 31 couldn't exist in Picard's pollyanna bubble universe, but it fit perfectly into Sisko's realistic universe.

But some thinks it started during the Reagan era??? Wow.

TNG is a creature of the Reagan era, an era of making things happen making things better, instead of merely talking about about it. Ending (for example) the cold war instead of endlessly having one.

†

 

[DS9forever]

Roddenberry was also a bit of a deviant. Look at his idea at having the Ferengi having huge genitals.

 

[BillJ]

Roddenberry was also a bit of a deviant.

We're all deviants of one kind or another.

 

[Kor]

It would just be another form of biodiversity among alien life.

Kor

 

[hux]

Roddenberry was also a bit of a deviant. Look at his idea at having the Ferengi having huge genitals.

Well that would have at least allowed for and encouraged a conversation about inter species relationships instead of what we actually got which was... everybody can fuck everybody. The end.

 

[Griffeytrek]

Maybe section 31 had no place in the Federation, but there it was, and apparently it predated the Federation itself. Section 31 couldn't exist in Picard's pollyanna bubble universe, but it fit perfectly into Sisko's realistic universe.

TNG is a creature of the Reagan era, an era of making things happen making things better, instead of merely talking about about it. Ending (for example) the cold war instead of endlessly having one.

†

You hit on something major there. TOS was really a creature of and celebration of the Kenedy era. Most of the philosophy and worldview in it was very Kenedy'esque. Rodenberry was clearly a follower of Kenedy and Camelot.

He was not however a conservative republican. TNG was in many ways the opposite. It was a protest or refutation of Reagan. It was portraying the perfect future utopia where everything was the opposite of Reagan's ideals.

Both TOS and TNG were clumsy hamhanded reflections of Gene's take on politics and economics. Sometimes brilliant, sometimes laughable.

DS9 was an odd beast. It's early seasons, alongside All of Voyager and Enterprise were largely impacted by Rick Berman, who is something of a ghost in terms of personal style and messaging. One felt he was there to serve the franchise and offend no one, thus imparting no real message of his own. Hence the very bland manufactured feel to his shows.

And then we get DS9 the later years. Gene Rodenberry had strong political opinions, which were reflected in his art. Ron Moore was or is by education and field of study an actual Political Scientist. It is the nature of politics itself that fascinates him and influences his art. Hence we got the much more nuanced and reflective approach.

Of them all TOS and DS9 feel the most real and fleshed out. With their show runners celebrating what they loved and believed in, and asking questions of the viewers. They are probably the most comparable shows as well, having a good dose of realpolitik embedded in them. TNG has an undercurrent of nagging about it, often voiced through Picard or Riker that sometimes rings shallow. The big tip off being how often we debate their stands here tooth and nail, because they don't often make perfect sense. Whereas we respect and understand Kirk or Sisco's occasionally delving into the grey areas of the universe. We may not approve what Sisco did in "In the Pale Moonlight" but we understand it.

 

[Navaros]

it seems like the character conflict on the show was very different from TOS

No it wasn't. DS9's character conflict is exactly like TOS' character conflict. That is why DS9 and TOS are far and away the best Trek shows and also the two Trek shows that are by far the most similar to each other.

The "Gene's vision" myth of "no conflict among the good guys" is something that never existed until Berman-era Trek. DS9 was lucky to escape that curse despite being a Berman show. TNG and VOY and ENT all suffer greatly from that curse.

 

[Mysterion]

While DS9 isn't my thing, I don't think it ever conflicted with "Gene's Vision". Though its worldview is probably more in line with TOS than TNG.

This. DSN and TOS mesh very well. It's the latter-day Roddenberry that it may have some conflict with. Roddenberry's overall worldview and view of Trek changed between the time he gave us TOS and the debut of TNG. I really appreciate the fact that DSN seems to align more with the TOS worldview and outlook more than that of the TNG/VGR/ENT era.

 

[Greg Cox]

TOS was critical of the "happy hippie commie utopia" idea. See The Way to Eden.

Kor

TOS was deeply suspicious of utopias in general. Anytime the Enterprise encountered a planet or society that seemed too perfect or peaceful or whatever, there was almost always a fly in the ointment: mind-warping spores, deranged computer gods, etc.

See "This Side of Paradise," "The Apple," "Return of the Archons," etc.

Heck, Kirk is forever making speeches about how humanity is not meant for paradise, how we need to struggle to advance, etc.

EDIT: I see Shawnster beat me to the punch by quoting Kirk's big speech from "This Side of Paradise."

 

[Mysterion]

^^^^
Very JFK/"New Frontier", IMO. We can make this all better, but we need to strap-in and work hard to do it.

 

[Greg Cox]

Not everyone but most of them was much better, and society as whole will as well. It's the future and a positive one, there's nothing wrong with that kind of vision, and it's a progressive one.

But "better" is not the same as perfect, and optimistic is not the same as "utopian."

TOS presented a positive view of the future, one that you might actually want to live in, but it was hardly perfect, especially out on the rough-and-tumble Final Frontier, far from comfy confines of 23rd century Earth (which we never actually saw on the original series). People had flaws, conflicts, and challenges, and even distant Earth colonies struggled against plagues, famines, hostile neighbors, and their own demons.

As god-like aliens were fond of reminding us, humanity was still a half-savage child race with a long way to go. And Kirk didn't disagree. "We're not going to kill . . . today."

Sounds like DS9 to me . . . .