Spoilers Disco and Picard weren't the first Trek shows to hold a dystopian view.
- Thread starter The Rock
- Start date
Its funny, I feel Discovery as well as the Kelvin films, restored some vitality to the franchise which slowly waned over the Berman years. The fact some portray this as "pew pew" really doesn't seem to take into account the reality of the situation. Both have increased drama, the Kelvin films actually have character growth, which the TOS film series did only grudgingly and in half measures.
One of the things I love about DS9 is that it frequently reinforces the idea that a future utopia like that of the Federation takes work and cannot be maintained without constant vigilance and effort. Human beings are flawed and slip up even with the best of intentions, and this is the case even in a much improved future. The Federation and Starfleet aren't immune to corruption, and like any society, there need to be people within willing to stand up and fight when they see that society becoming less just. That's precisely what Picard does in PIC.
The Federation we see in PIC became more insular after the devastation of the Dominion War, and that led to Starfleet making some decisions Picard viewed as a betrayal of Federation values. He tried to challenge these decisions and hold Starfleet to higher standards, and after exhausting the rest of his options, he took matters into his own hands. In the end, he was vindicated, and the season ended on a hopeful note, both for Picard and his crew and for the future of Starfleet, reinforcing the message of unity and progress the Federation represents. The show may have a darker tone and more violence than what some viewers are accustomed to seeing in a Trek series, but I don't think PIC deviates from "Trek values" nearly as much as some people claim, and it's certainly not dystopian. TNG, DS9, and VOY have all tackled the failings of Starfleet and Federation ethics in one way or another, and PIC is no different in this respect. Sure, tensions between Picard and Starfleet form a major source of conflict in the show's first season, but at its core, PIC is still optimistic about the future and still wants us to believe in the Federation, just like Picard does.
The Federation we see in PIC became more insular after the devastation of the Dominion War, and that led to Starfleet making some decisions Picard viewed as a betrayal of Federation values. He tried to challenge these decisions and hold Starfleet to higher standards, and after exhausting the rest of his options, he took matters into his own hands. In the end, he was vindicated, and the season ended on a hopeful note, both for Picard and his crew and for the future of Starfleet, reinforcing the message of unity and progress the Federation represents. The show may have a darker tone and more violence than what some viewers are accustomed to seeing in a Trek series, but I don't think PIC deviates from "Trek values" nearly as much as some people claim, and it's certainly not dystopian. TNG, DS9, and VOY have all tackled the failings of Starfleet and Federation ethics in one way or another, and PIC is no different in this respect. Sure, tensions between Picard and Starfleet form a major source of conflict in the show's first season, but at its core, PIC is still optimistic about the future and still wants us to believe in the Federation, just like Picard does.
Indeed.
I often feel like Star Trek is like the cave in Star Wars:
"What's in there?"
"Only what you take with you."
Fans who go in expecting just "pew pew" will only see the pew pew.
You're right. "Utopia" is not a given in modern Trek.
As much as I love TNG, and to some extent the other shows, it's hard to repeat it's tone in modern TV. It is also a dramatic dead end. So where does contemporary Trek have to begin? By re-assessing itself and starting from a different line. In this case, the no-intra crew conflict edict is gone. The UFP and officers can be fallible. We move forward by learning lessons, and not all of the paths are easy or clean.
RAMA
As much as I love TNG, and to some extent the other shows, it's hard to repeat it's tone in modern TV. It is also a dramatic dead end. So where does contemporary Trek have to begin? By re-assessing itself and starting from a different line. In this case, the no-intra crew conflict edict is gone. The UFP and officers can be fallible. We move forward by learning lessons, and not all of the paths are easy or clean.
RAMA
I was calling him out on his hypocrisy more than anything else.
Odo, against orders in general and those from Sisko, did decide to prevent the genocide and that ended the war (and before he did Bashir and O'Brien on their own were able to save him), that doesn't speak really well for the Federation generally or argue that the plan wasn't beneficial to the Federation in weakening the Founders and Dominion.
The Federation acting as accessories to genocide, denouncing Section 31's dirty work but choosing to benefit from it rather than stop it, seems pretty bleak to me. But the show didn't make or really portray the Federation as an outright dystopian, yeah not that bad, but the show was very iconoclastic to the idea that the Federation is or even really should be utopian, very non-cruel and principled, more like ends, at least in desperation, do justify a lot of means, that in war laws should be disregarded.
This would be easier to believe if we were not shown so many corrupt leaders or easily manipulated Federation presidents.
Again, it is an abuse of the word "dystopia" to use it for any and every bad thing. It is a word with a clear, specific meaning. It refers to a state that is intrinsically, systemically tyrannical, unjust, or harmful, not to a basically decent society that has temporarily lost its way under the pressures of wartime.
Using the classic definitions of the words; a "utopia" is considered to be an idealized and desirable pinnacle of a society whereas a "dystopia" is a society that is frightening or undesirable. It is completely possible to argue that, from our current perspective, TNG represents a society that is actually dystopian in nature.
You can argue that we are living in a dystopia right now!
For clarity, I don’t subscribe to this interpretation. I feel that ST:PIC depicts a less desirable view of the future. The general aesthetic of the show is darker. By our standards, it’s a more believable view of the future. People still have vices, they still bicker, kill, enslave, discriminate on racial grounds (treatment of Romulans), there is still money and by implication, rich and poor.
https://www.theguardian.com/culture...ot-that-boldly-goes-where-nobody-wanted-it-to
You can argue that we are living in a dystopia right now!
For clarity, I don’t subscribe to this interpretation. I feel that ST:PIC depicts a less desirable view of the future. The general aesthetic of the show is darker. By our standards, it’s a more believable view of the future. People still have vices, they still bicker, kill, enslave, discriminate on racial grounds (treatment of Romulans), there is still money and by implication, rich and poor.
https://www.theguardian.com/culture...ot-that-boldly-goes-where-nobody-wanted-it-to
Here is a link to a discussion thread that argues that TNG is dystopian. Whether something is dystopian or not really is a matter of opinion. One persons utopia could be another persons dystopia.
https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3ikt3n/cmv_star_trek_represents_a_dystopian_human/
That oversimplifies it. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, most utopias in fiction only appear to be perfect on the surface but are really dystopian underneath. The utopian genre, going back to Thomas More's work that coined the name, is usually about deconstructing the fantasy of a flawless, ideal society.
So Star Trek is neither utopian nor dystopian. It is facile to treat those labels as the only two options that exist in all of fiction. Star Trek shows an optimistic future, but whenever it shows a society that seems like paradise, there's always a dark underbelly, e.g. Omicron Ceti III, Vaal's planet, the Edo planet, etc. It rejects the myth of utopia in favor of the more realistic notion that a better world can only be built through hard work and will always be imperfect, and that it's in the imperfections that our freedom and humanity lie. Perfection is not something that can actually be achieved, it's a limit to approach, a goal to strive toward. If you ever believe you've achieved perfection, then you stop striving to improve, which is always bad. Star Trek's core message is about continuing to strive to better ourselves, which requires recognizing that we're still short of perfection.
I'd say you'd have to be in deep denial to argue otherwise.
Similar threads
