Could Gene's vision coexist with DS9
- Thread starter VulcanMindBlown
- Start date
Nicely put!
so long as the checks clear it fits fine
I don't think even TNG agrees with Gene's vision. The crew of the Enterprise were all buddies but most Admirals that walked through the door were up to no good.
Gene's visions were a series of contradictions.
TOS: Starfleet was a military, Kirk stating he was soldier, and the mission was about exploration. People weren't perfect, and the crew was always skeptical of utopia's, gods and totalitarian beliefs to a single idea..
TMP: After Gene had drunk his own Kool-Aid; this is where the evolved humans, pomp and sterile nature came from. TMP was long and boring, and very stiff. These weren't the same characters we watched on TOS.
TWOK-TUC: Was Nick Meyer, Nimoy and Shatner's era of directing the franchise.
TNG: For season 1 and 2, I would definitely consider TMP redux era. Gene's ideas about what Star Trek means and should be ("Starfleet is not a military"), change again. I don't even know where to start with these two seasons. If you haven't watched "Chaos on the Bridge", you should. They do a better job than I, of explaining this era.
TNG: Seasons 3-7 Are when Gene was more hands off (due to failing health), and it was Berman, Piller, Braga, Moore, Behr (briefly), and Jeri Taylor's vision of TNG.
TOS: Starfleet was a military, Kirk stating he was soldier, and the mission was about exploration. People weren't perfect, and the crew was always skeptical of utopia's, gods and totalitarian beliefs to a single idea..
TMP: After Gene had drunk his own Kool-Aid; this is where the evolved humans, pomp and sterile nature came from. TMP was long and boring, and very stiff. These weren't the same characters we watched on TOS.
TWOK-TUC: Was Nick Meyer, Nimoy and Shatner's era of directing the franchise.
TNG: For season 1 and 2, I would definitely consider TMP redux era. Gene's ideas about what Star Trek means and should be ("Starfleet is not a military"), change again. I don't even know where to start with these two seasons. If you haven't watched "Chaos on the Bridge", you should. They do a better job than I, of explaining this era.
TNG: Seasons 3-7 Are when Gene was more hands off (due to failing health), and it was Berman, Piller, Braga, Moore, Behr (briefly), and Jeri Taylor's vision of TNG.
Last edited:
Roddenberry died early during season five. So I'd definitely say he was hands off the rest of the way!
Wasn't the first couple of seasons before the coming of age TNG with the "Best of Both Worlds" had less character conflict and more optimism than the rest of the show? I thought that the later seasons of TNG were better.
The excesses were walked back starting with season 3, but TNG remained abstract and high concept for the most part. There were episodes that did delve into characters' psychology, but they could be largely ignored in the series as a whole. There were, for example, compelling character traits in Family, Inner Light, and Lessons; arguably, Stewart showed an evolving sensitivity in those episodes. However, whatever happened in those episodes could be ignored in the next. Picard was, as always, stoic, professional, and reserved.
I think that TOS and DS9 mesh well together and seemed to be on the same page when it came to humanity, I think TNG and Voyager mesh well when it came to depicting humanity but they never meshed well together.
Of course not. The TNG cast was likable and had entertaining stories to carry them. The VOY cast had Janeway, Seven, and the Doctor to carry the weight of the show. Sometimes Tom Paris had better showings, but I think he was underutilized. Plus VOY was just TNG all over again at times.
If I can post a contrasting view, because I don't think it is a yes or no answer exactly but having to do with perspective and how you view what's important about Star Trek.
The first time I watched DS9 (when it was in its first run), I hated it (don't dislike me yet, I changed my mind!). I watched it until the end because I liked some of the individual characters and actors (mostly O'Brien and Garek) and because I grew up watching TNG and couldn't imagine not watching it.
But the first time I saw it, what I felt like was that it was thumbing its nose at optimism, or more accurately, faith in human progress. I am not just some hippy navel gazing idiot, but I also don't ascribe to the whole "human nature" is set in stone camp. I firmly believe human nature is a self fulfilling prophesy, we are exactly what we allow ourselves to be. That isn't worth arguing about. It's philosophical, psychological and political and I think everybody has to draw their own conclusions.
However, my point is that, I'm not nearly so charmed by the "this is the real human nature" approach. Partially because a lot of shows take it too far in reaction. Everybody only acts for selfish ends. You know they are more real because they are jerks. It's a philosophy, just not the only one, or mine.
It isn't that I think the original Star Trek is clean and idyllic, but for as much as they rejected false Eden, they seemed to always be trying to be better. They set a high goal and the drama was they were sometimes short of meeting it.
But DS9 was different. The first time I watched it, it rubbed me as anti Star Trek because I felt like so often they didn't even try. It was just throwing up there hands and saying "the answer to everything is realpolitik." The "that's just how it is" mode. That the show, like some of the people who answered this question, was saying "if you believe in ideals, you are a fool." Despite the fact that the first step to any achievement, is believing something is possible which others have disregarded.
Anyway, a few years ago I rematched it and I loved it. I had a completely different perspective and found the characters and stories amazingly compelling and authentic. I liked it so very much, I watched it again it's entirety recently, and if possible, liked it even more.
But I see it as fundamentally a different type of story. I actually see TOS, TNG and DS9 as fundamentally different philosophies. So I think it doesn't go against the vision, in the sense that it shares the life parallel aspect with TOS as well as the sometimes harsh realpolitk, and even the sense of certain values from TNG, honor and loyalty, unexpected bravery and compassion.
What it does alter though, in my mind, is the sense in TOS and TNG that people were trying to evolve or had, as a race or community. Even the difference from how the "utopia" of earth is depicted had changed. What in TOS and even TNG was just a civilization which had achieved peace we can't picture yet, DS9 presented it as a clueless stepford planet ignorant of the dangers of the universe.
I love DS9, in fact I think I'm going to watch it right now, but I do think the fundamental perspective of humanity changed. I don't know what Gene's vision was exactly, but I think that if TNG is the too positivist view of the future, DS9 is on the other side, with TOS presenting a melding between ideals and real universe conflict.
Sorry that was so long, but I thought I'd throw that out there. I enjoy all three shows.
The first time I watched DS9 (when it was in its first run), I hated it (don't dislike me yet, I changed my mind!). I watched it until the end because I liked some of the individual characters and actors (mostly O'Brien and Garek) and because I grew up watching TNG and couldn't imagine not watching it.
But the first time I saw it, what I felt like was that it was thumbing its nose at optimism, or more accurately, faith in human progress. I am not just some hippy navel gazing idiot, but I also don't ascribe to the whole "human nature" is set in stone camp. I firmly believe human nature is a self fulfilling prophesy, we are exactly what we allow ourselves to be. That isn't worth arguing about. It's philosophical, psychological and political and I think everybody has to draw their own conclusions.
However, my point is that, I'm not nearly so charmed by the "this is the real human nature" approach. Partially because a lot of shows take it too far in reaction. Everybody only acts for selfish ends. You know they are more real because they are jerks. It's a philosophy, just not the only one, or mine.
It isn't that I think the original Star Trek is clean and idyllic, but for as much as they rejected false Eden, they seemed to always be trying to be better. They set a high goal and the drama was they were sometimes short of meeting it.
But DS9 was different. The first time I watched it, it rubbed me as anti Star Trek because I felt like so often they didn't even try. It was just throwing up there hands and saying "the answer to everything is realpolitik." The "that's just how it is" mode. That the show, like some of the people who answered this question, was saying "if you believe in ideals, you are a fool." Despite the fact that the first step to any achievement, is believing something is possible which others have disregarded.
Anyway, a few years ago I rematched it and I loved it. I had a completely different perspective and found the characters and stories amazingly compelling and authentic. I liked it so very much, I watched it again it's entirety recently, and if possible, liked it even more.
But I see it as fundamentally a different type of story. I actually see TOS, TNG and DS9 as fundamentally different philosophies. So I think it doesn't go against the vision, in the sense that it shares the life parallel aspect with TOS as well as the sometimes harsh realpolitk, and even the sense of certain values from TNG, honor and loyalty, unexpected bravery and compassion.
What it does alter though, in my mind, is the sense in TOS and TNG that people were trying to evolve or had, as a race or community. Even the difference from how the "utopia" of earth is depicted had changed. What in TOS and even TNG was just a civilization which had achieved peace we can't picture yet, DS9 presented it as a clueless stepford planet ignorant of the dangers of the universe.
I love DS9, in fact I think I'm going to watch it right now, but I do think the fundamental perspective of humanity changed. I don't know what Gene's vision was exactly, but I think that if TNG is the too positivist view of the future, DS9 is on the other side, with TOS presenting a melding between ideals and real universe conflict.
Sorry that was so long, but I thought I'd throw that out there. I enjoy all three shows.
Idk, I think Star Trek might be the one IP that was better as group project/committee, than as a single person's vision.
I think it's safe to say that the things we enjoyed from Trek, didn't all come from Gene's brain.
Behr and Moore's interview from a few years ago was insightful.
http://trekcore.com/blog/2013/05/exclusive-ron-moore-ira-steven-behr-interview-part-ii/
Nimoy's grievances about Spock's story in TMP. Which was later amended in the final film. I can't find the exact quote but it was brutal.
Also, SFDebris is a good reservoir for Gene's crazy ideas.
http://sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/t109.php
http://sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/t110.php
I think it's safe to say that the things we enjoyed from Trek, didn't all come from Gene's brain.
Behr and Moore's interview from a few years ago was insightful.
http://trekcore.com/blog/2013/05/exclusive-ron-moore-ira-steven-behr-interview-part-ii/
Nimoy's grievances about Spock's story in TMP. Which was later amended in the final film. I can't find the exact quote but it was brutal.
Also, SFDebris is a good reservoir for Gene's crazy ideas.
http://sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/t109.php
http://sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/t110.php
Ouch!
Section 31 is the one facet of DS9 that I think GR would have vehemently disagreed with. By the time TNG made it to the airwaves, Roddenberry had convinced himself that Starfleet members were 'noble' and I can't imagine him concurring with the concept of S31 even existing.
So basically for me, DSN comes down more to Ira Behr's vision of Star Trek. I'm not sure Behr's vision was not better than GR's.
Section 31 within the federation actually make a certain amount of sense. If the federation is compose of Capn Nick's clueless stepford planets, for it to continue to exist, the federation would require a "evil fairy step-mother" to look after it in ways that the federation's morality wouldn't permit itself to do
Last edited:
TNG's perfect society was the result of 80 more years 'working on it' from TOS. (it wasn't bland etc...not least as those are subjective, and contradictory when stuck next to positive words like Utopia) TOS itself is 250 years and a world war catastrophe of 'working on it' from the optimistic side of the sixties (Kennedy etc)
Ds9 is on the edge of the Federation, on a former occupied world, (deliberate parallels to eastern Europe are made, and of course with the federation as what became the EU. Sort of) So once again our characters are 'working on it' more than in the federation proper.
It's all cohesive to be honest, and any disconnect of 'TNG is too perfect, I like my heroes flawed' sort of misses the point, like the Trek for 'dark and gritty" that pops up every ten years or so. (Trek should never be dark and gritty at its core, that defeats the point of it...we don't watching tell ourselves the future will be shit as today after all)
Voyager nd enterprise, well...I drifted off from the first but came to really love it much later, I guess I had some growing up to do to appreciate some of it enough to make up for any flaws....Enterprise...no, that one never got me, and was objectively a failure in many ways. But do they fit? In places.
Ds9 is on the edge of the Federation, on a former occupied world, (deliberate parallels to eastern Europe are made, and of course with the federation as what became the EU. Sort of) So once again our characters are 'working on it' more than in the federation proper.
It's all cohesive to be honest, and any disconnect of 'TNG is too perfect, I like my heroes flawed' sort of misses the point, like the Trek for 'dark and gritty" that pops up every ten years or so. (Trek should never be dark and gritty at its core, that defeats the point of it...we don't watching tell ourselves the future will be shit as today after all)
Voyager nd enterprise, well...I drifted off from the first but came to really love it much later, I guess I had some growing up to do to appreciate some of it enough to make up for any flaws....Enterprise...no, that one never got me, and was objectively a failure in many ways. But do they fit? In places.
I think it is often the case that the original genius of a creative idea has to be somehow removed from the process if the idea is to evolve and survive. Hewing to closely to one mindset creates redundancy and staleness. I think Roddenberry would have had a lot of problems with DS9. Personally, I think DS9 was welcome and necessary in order to give the audience something that was still recognizably ST while being fresh.
I think, sometimes, that the way to look at DS9 is the realization that the only way we CAN have Gene's vision is to be willing to stand up and defend it and fight for it. Very much like the politics of the 1990s, TNG lived with the assumption the vision was just going to happen and it would just be the way things would be... .DS9 was a tough reminder that reality just doesn't work that way.
Similar threads
