Do you think that believing in the Roddenberry vision of the future is required to be a fan?

[Mage]

I mean in terms of story content, tone, and perspective, DS9 is quite different than TOS and TNG. It's in many ways a deconstruction of that vision.

Because DS9 operated on the fringes, both as a setting and as a show. What happens when you take these humans away from paradise? What happens when they have to struggle a little bit more? It takes the essence of TOS, in regards to taking something from real life (racism or sexism) and exaggerates them (people who are right half black/left half white hating people who are the opposite). For the Star Trek universe, that ment prolonged war and conflict for one.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

No, it isn't required. But, it does amaze me often, how sexist, racist or narrowminded Star Trek fans sometimes are, considering they love a show where humanity has learned to let those things go.

That's kind of the point. You can be a fan of Star Trek if you're an asshole who believes in those things, but it doesn't make sense really. Like....are they even paying attention?

 

[Mojochi]

No. In fact, I've accepted that even considering Star Trek's whole vision of the future to be completely unrealistic doesn't mean you can't be a fan. It's fiction, & some of it is really good fiction, & some of it makes you wonder what possibilities we might be able to bring about in our own future, even if it isn't realistic in itself

 

[Tallguy]

Answering the question: No you don't. I am a fan of long standing. (Damn skippy!) And I do not believe in the Roddenberrian Utopia.

I have become very resentful of late. Oh, ahem, sorry, I should elaborate. I have become very resentful of late of two things:

1) This very question and the insistence that the answer is "Yes." I can't speak very well to later TV series (except that I don't enjoy them as much) but TOS as presented on television did NOT have this world view. But I have seen threads (many pertaining to current American political situations) positing that "If you believe or want X then you can't be a Star Trek fan." Politely: Screw you. ("You" here is not specific to a user so I hope I'm still within the code of conduct.)

2) The other thing that I resent is that GR's views and some of the attitudes of (for instance) TNG ran all the way back to the beginning. They didn't. Things were different in the world, on television, in Star Trek, and in Roddenberry's head from 1966 to 1987. I enjoy TOS above all because of many of those reasons, not in spite of them.

To me the "message" was not "we avoided the end of the world" (because in Star Trek, we didn't) it's "Hey! We got into SPACE and we get to BOLDLY GO!"

Following the tangent: Funny enough, I'm re-reading Spock's World at the moment and loving the daylights out of it. The Duane-verse was more advanced than the TV show(s), but still not nearly as Utopian. I HIGHLY recommend this book. Romulan Way and other Star Trek novels are good too. But IMHO this was her best.

Then go read The Final Reflection.

That's kind of the point. You can be a fan of Star Trek if you're an asshole who believes in those things, but it doesn't make sense really. Like....are they even paying attention?

I'm not sure what "those things" are. But IDIC and all that, right?

 

[Mage]

That's kind of the point. You can be a fan of Star Trek if you're an asshole who believes in those things, but it doesn't make sense really. Like....are they even paying attention?

Exactly.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

I'm not sure what "those things" are. But IDIC and all that, right?

When I said "those things" I was referring to @Mage's previous comment where he referred to racist, sexist, and narrow-minded Trekkies.

Yes, IDIC. I agree. But when people hold views which deny the humanity and dignity of other people, I don't think IDIC is intended to mean "you should tolerate racism because everybody's cool." I think IDIC precisely opposes racism, sexism, and other dehumanizing ideas. It's the exact opposite of that. So when Trekkies say things that are racist or sexist, it's a little confusing, because I wonder what exactly they think they're watching.

 

[Gojira]

If you like the show for whatever reason then you're a fan, no prerequisites. Personally, I don't think the Earth will be a utopia but I do like the positive vision of the future where humanity is much more harmonious than they are now.

 

[Kor]

Roddenberry's vision was dollar signs, money.

All that high-minded "evolved humanity" Utopian thought was just some self-serving hokum that he cooked up for the convention circuit years after the fact of the original Star Trek. You no more need to believe in this stuff to be a fan of Trek than you need to be a Machiavellian in order to enjoy Machiavellianism in fiction.

Kor

 

[Balok's Decoy]

I think we should stop using the phrase "Roddenberry's Vision" and try "Star Trek's Vision."

 

[Tallguy]

When I said "those things" I was referring to @Mage's previous comment where he referred to racist, sexist, and narrow-minded Trekkies.

Yes, IDIC. I agree. But when people hold views which deny the humanity and dignity of other people, I don't think IDIC is intended to mean "you should tolerate racism because everybody's cool." I think IDIC precisely opposes racism, sexism, and other dehumanizing ideas. It's the exact opposite of that. So when Trekkies say things that are racist or sexist, it's a little confusing, because I wonder what exactly they think they're watching.

Ah. Sorry, wasn't reading in the best conditions. I should have just posted what I had written and not tried to catch up.

I would think that some people who are very fond of TOS or even TNG might find some views from those shows to be 50 or even 20 years out of date (to some).

 

[Mage]

Roddenberry's vision was dollar signs, money.

All that high-minded "evolved humanity" Utopian thought was just some self-serving hokum that he cooked up for the convention circuit years after the fact of the original Star Trek. You no more need to believe in this stuff to be a fan of Trek than you need to be a Machiavellian in order to enjoy Machiavellianism in fiction.

Kor

Doesn't mean it's a bad concept to live by.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Star Trek is a TV show. It's entertainment, not a philosophy or a magical utopian future.

 

[velour]

I am going to echo the answer given by other previous posters, no.

I was a fan of ST before I was even aware of GR's vision. I didn't really give it much thought before that. GR's vision, whatever it may have been, is for the most part irrelevant for me. I enjoy watching ST for whatever reason.

In any case, I didn't quite get GR's vision of utopia. Three of my favorite TOS episodes, "The Return of the Archons", "The Apple", and "This Side of Paradise" seemed to be downright against an utopian society.

The stories of those episodes gave the impression that a utopian society is a totalitarian society. In order to achieve paradise, you give up free will and individual liberties.

 

[Mojochi]

I think we should stop using the phrase "Roddenberry's Vision" and try "Star Trek's Vision."

You'll notice I did do that lol I honestly don't think he was the L. Ron Hubbard of the thing anyhow. WE are the source.

All that high-minded "evolved humanity" Utopian thought was just some self-serving hokum that he cooked up for the convention circuit years after the fact of the original Star Trek.

My take on it is that it was the positive impression it left on viewers of the 60's & 70's which fed the whole thing. That a tv show about the future depicted a harmony & equality of genders, nationalities, & ethnicities, rarely seen before in American entertainment, that it showed we could rise up from the ashes of the dark path we were on, & advance the species into unknown wonders, had a profound effect on not only tv viewers, but the culture as a whole. It was this phenomenon that I believe probably affected the man himself.

Years of being told how the show had influenced real scientists, world leaders, & people of every walk of life, has a way of inflating a person's ego, I'm sure. They named an actual space shuttle Enterprise, & all those people were there too see it. By the time TNG had come around, it was no longer just a quirky space adventure they were making. It was a legacy they were passing on, & that legacy was the hope of a bright future, which I do really think Gene ended up taking to heart, for good or ill.

It didn't take too well in the cinemas, & they ended up shutting him down & trying to bring back what people loved about the show, the adventure & drama, & he probably didn't care for that direction they took, because he wanted it to be the thing everyone was dreaming of.

Little did he know, that Utopia? Makes for boring tv & movies, & as much as I love TNG, that aspect of it can definitely become tedious & cumbersome, not to mention inconsistent. Don't hate on him too much though. He just got swept up in the hype. Who among us wouldn't? For god sake, MLK told Nichols she shouldn't leave the show, because it was that important people see her there. That kind of thing might get under your skin a little, make you think you have an obligation to right the world through your little sci-fi play

 

[Kor]

Though there are reasons to question the details of the MLK story...

Kor

 

[C.E. Evans]

I think that Roddenberry's vision is simply that there will be a time when people will no longer be judged by what they look like or where they come from. Everything else is kind of extraneous ideas that came about from various internal storylines here and there and from internet message boards like this one. But at it's core, it's about us, about humanity. That humanity will have a future, and it may be kind of cool rather than the end of the road for us...

 

[The Wormhole]

Of course you have to believe in Gene's Vision if you're going to call yourself a fan. Every True Fan knows it's not True Star Trek unless it's a morality tale about a group of explorers who shun the military while still acting like the military anyway travelling the galaxy talking down to aliens for being too violent while fighting them but stopping short of definitively defeating them just so they can preach to these aliens the superiority of the human condition. Oh and these aliens are usually identically human or resembling humans with funny bumps on their foreheads and/or noses.

If you don't accept this, go watch Star Wars or Stargate or Doctor Who. There's no room for you in our fandom.

 

[Mojochi]

Though there are reasons to question the details of the MLK story...

Kor

Meh. Even if it isn't exactly as it's been portrayed, it's not as though her part in the show didn't add to the overall collective vision of a brighter future for all. She planted a mouth kiss on a white leading actor in the 60s. There was definitely leaps forward going on, with or without the MLK tale

 

[TheStumps]

No.
That would be counter to what Roddenberry was aiming for, actually.
He didn't create Star Trek to demand fans believe in a utopic future.
He created a utopic future and very static, one dimensional characters, because he needed as few cluttering complications in the way of already difficult philosophical examinations.

It's like philosophical novels that way.
They don't require that you agree with the setting in the story. The setting in the story is employed because it serves the purpose of supporting the topical explorations the philosophical author wishes to examine.

Roddenberry didn't want fans to believe in a utopic future or not be called fans.
He wanted fans to think about only the dilemmas put forward.
To make it easy to judge what they thought, he removed as much possible clutter as he could.
Think of Star Trek like a philosophical lab.
It's sterile not because the world should be sterile.
It's sterile because otherwise you have to worry about contaminating the test bacteria.

Don't focus on sterility; in utopia.
Focus on the test in the lab; the episode.

A bad episode of Star Trek is one which contaminates the clarity of the comprehension of the examined philosophical dilemma with too many setting and character variables, or is absent any examination at all.

Gene's real world utopia is a world where people often think critically about the experience of living; regardless of what state the world is in, or how badly each fails to achieve their iconified ideals.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

No.