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

[suarezguy]

Not really, Roddenberry's vision shifted significantly between the original series and TMP/TNG, some fans feel the change was for the worse, and the Bennett/Meyer films and DS9 to a large degree tried to distance themselves from and critique the TMP/TNG version. Disagreeing with or disliking it probably would make it pretty hard to like the series aside from the original and DS9.

I do think it's weird that a lot of fans *hate* and see no value in the Prime Directive, particularly the TNG version but also even when milder versions appear in the other shows too.

 

[suarezguy]

The Original Vision- "Earth has survived the chaos and base instincts of humanity and learned hard lessons about how to work together despite cultural / racial / religious / ideological differences and our natural flaws...and in doing so have realized and achieved great things, including moving out into the great unknown of space to explore."

and

The Revised Vision- "Earth is a paradise and a virtual utopia as humanity has evolved into a species devoid of flaws, violent instincts, prejudices, etc. This shining beacon of humanity is now the measuring stick other cultures and our own backward present cultures should aspire to."

The first vision is meaningful, dramatic, and inspiring. The second is dull, plodding, and pretentious.

You don't think the original vision included the implication that our present culture, at least aspects of it, were backward compared to the fictional future and that we should aspire to become more and more like the future presented?

 

[fireproof78]

No.

 

[CorporalClegg]

 

[Tenacity]

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.

Not every fan takes the same things from the show, and the image that you're getting might (probably) not be what other are getting. Of the things you mentioned, racism (among Humans) is really the only thing the Star Trek universe is showed to have let go of.

Characters on the show (Picard) are often depicted as narrow-minded.

I think IDIC precisely opposes racism, sexism, and other dehumanizing ideas.

IDIC probably embraces those things too, all concepts, not just the ones off the approved list. The Vulcan captain in Take Me Out To The Holosuite wore a IDIC, and was obviously a bigot.

They named an actual space shuttle Enterprise

Well, it wasn't actually a space shuttle.

I do think it's weird that a lot of fans *hate* and see no value in the Prime Directive

The inflexible version where entire intelligent species and whole planets are killed while Starfleet does nothing? Yeah, hate.

You don't think the original vision included the implication that our present culture, at least aspects of it, were backward compared to the fictional future and that we should aspire to become more and more like the future presented?

Not really, the Humans in the original version were essentially us living in the future, my favorite version of Star Trek. As mentioned before, overt racism being gone was the only change.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

The Vulcan captain in Take Me Out To The Holosuite wore a IDIC, and was obviously a bigot.

The failings of one person to live up to an ideal doesn't invalidate the ideal.

IDIC is not about being cool with racism. That is nonsense. Failing to oppose bigotry makes one complicit in perpetuating it.

 

[The Old Mixer]

There's a pattern throughout the franchise going back to TOS of Vulcans generally being portrayed as closed-minded, condescending to others, and intolerant of diversity among themselves. It's a hoot that IDIC is supposed to be one of their core beliefs. It seems less an ideal that they try to practice and more a way of coping with the fact that they have to share the universe with everyone who's not like them.

 

[Mojochi]

Well, it wasn't actually a space shuttle.

Well, it wasn't, but it was. lol. It was named Space Shuttle Enterprise. If I buy a golf cart but never use it for golf, & never take it to a golf course, it's still a golf cart.

 

[C57D]

For me at around 13-14 when I first saw TOS there was no sense of any vision. It just captured me because it tied in with all the 70's books about robots, cities on the moon and flying cars by 2001. TOS seemed a natural extention of that and the adventuring in the stars vibe.
Probably why TNG never really caught me, it was too elist and self satisfied for me. No guts and glory "strange new words and new civilisations" that TOS had.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Not necessarily. At first I might have, but apparently there are a lot of weirdos who watch the show too. Remember just a couple of months back some fans or whatever complained about Discovery because the two leads were female and POC.

Even before that, I read the Voyager production got bomb threats (because Janeway being the first female captain lead), even DS9 got hate mails and calls because of the same sex kiss episode.

Funny thing, in Trek, humanity started behaving progressively worse around late TNG and onward. Admirals trying to take over earth, The Maquis situation, ect. Weren't humans suppose to be done with this type of behavior?


Sometimes it seemed like the only thing that made humanity so great, was the technology. Still, I like the future vision it presents.

 

[Ethros]

I would like to think in the future Earth and people in general can be like we see it in Star Trek, I just think the 24th century is probably too soon, especially for humanity to really change that much the way Roddenberry percieves human behaviour in TNG. Maybe a few more centuries at least

 

[urbandefault]

I enjoy the show, but I recently started looking at this forum and r/StarTrek and it seems that many English speaking fans think that to enjoy the show, one must be in agreement with the Roddenberry vision of the future.


What's your opinion?

I think it's pointless to argue about, because we will all be dead in the future, but from a cultural perspective (as a non-American/Western European) I see Star Trek as far from an ideal, and from a demographic perspective (world getting less western, more Asian and African, less Christian, less atheist, more Muslim) I find it increasingly unlikely. However I am curious whether or not you think that being a fan means subscribing to the ideology of the creator

Nah.

I believe in Criswell's vision.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Tenacity]

Weren't humans suppose to be done with this type of behavior?

No matter the comfort that technology provides us, we will still be Humans, gloriously imperfect.

I believe in Criswell's vision

Future events ... will affect us ... in the future.

Sage words indeed.

IDIC is not about being cool with racism.

Being cool? It acknowledges, celebrates and embraces all things without exception.

Limited categories of diversity, and only in narrowly approved combinations?

I really don't think that it's a emblem of political correctness.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Being cool? It acknowledges, celebrates and embraces all things without exception.

Limited categories of diversity, and only in narrowly approved combinations?

I really don't think that it's a emblem of political correctness.

You have completely missed the point but there is no sense going back and forth about it. You're wilfully misinterpreting a symbol of compassion and understanding to turn it into the exact opposite of its intended purpose. And for what? To make racists feel included. You do you.

 

[BillJ]

I guess it depends on the person and the vision?

I believe in the vision that we will eventually grow to accept differences and move out to the stars. I also believe that we will make a lot of mistakes if we get out there, and that it will be a learning experience. Essentially the "vision" as it existed during TOS.

I don't believe in the vision that we will conquer all the negative qualities of being human and that it is our job to go out an be missionaries promoting the human way of life. Essentially the "vision" that was promoted during TNG.

 

[suarezguy]

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

Most works of entertainment, particularly those that have been around for a while and have a lot of fans, do have a philosophy.

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.

What, if anything, do your think does distinguish Star Trek from Star Wars? I think it is a big and significant difference that ST generally is much more nuanced and contemplative and engaging in social commentary than Good guys vs. Bad guys of SW (even compared to later SW which did become more nuanced and about social issues) and a lot of other blockbuster sci fi/fantasy.
You can like and even prefer the action-adventure elements but it does seem weird if someone thinks there is or should be no difference between ST and other sci-fi which is much more or almost only action.

 

[BillJ]

What, if anything, do your think does distinguish Star Trek from Star Wars? I think it is a big and significant difference that ST generally is much more nuanced and contemplative and engaging in social commentary than Good guys vs. Bad guys of SW (even compared to later SW which did become more nuanced and about social issues) and a lot of other blockbuster sci fi/fantasy.

There's also about seven-hundred hours of Trek. They have to do something with all that time.

 

[Timewalker]

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

Which vision is that? If you take a roomful of 50 assorted fans and ask them to describe "Star Trek's Vision," you'll get several dozen different answers.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Which vision is that? If you take a roomful of 50 assorted fans and ask them to describe "Star Trek's Vision," you'll get several dozen different answers.

That might be a low ball figure.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Which vision is that? If you take a roomful of 50 assorted fans and ask them to describe "Star Trek's Vision," you'll get several dozen different answers.

That's probably true but i think it's easier to debate the vision as given by the show rather than the thoughts and feelings of one person involved in the show who is also deceased.