• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

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

@2takesfrakes , I love that answer. Just because I love hearing people talk about Star Trek (or stuff in general) that I don't enjoy (OK, I like TNG) and explaining why they do. See also JJ fans. I love knowing that the "Next Generations" have THEIR stuff that they will love and cherish.

I can't wait to see Disco fans at conventions who think "They FINALLY made Star Trek for ME!"
 
I'm not holding TOS up as perfect, but when was it Utopian? One of my biggest objections to retconning TOS is that I don't think it ever was. A Private Little War (for example) is anything but.

TOS seemed to have suggested a few things too. It said "humans no longer fear words" so therefore are not bothered by slurs or insults. So you imagine a society where everyone walks around with smiles and have no concept of being insulted. It's a small thing, but it does create a utopian picture.

Later on we see people like Picard do exactly that-- get insulted by name calling.

Other small things are the futuristic food cubes they sometimes showed people eating. It was like it a 60's utopian idea of a future food that kept people nourished--it just had a utopian vibe to it.


But the bigger thing is even if TOS simply just claimed social progress, it was too limited by its time to ever really show it in its entirety. It was never going to show same sex relationships, interracial couples, alternative lifestyles etc. It was even still flirting with some pretty hard core sexism on the show.

At best it could say 'we solve a lot of problems' and be pretty vague about it, but never show truly show it.

No, why should that be required? Wouldn't just enjoying the shows for entertainment (without having to actually 'believe in the Rodenberry vision')be enough to call oneself a fan?

Some fans have said that Trek was always futuristic action adventure space show and that it was later blown up to be a social justice, sci fi show with a message.

If that's true, the commentaries in all those documentaries, books and blogs may have been responsible for spreading this idea.
 
Roddenberry's own writer's guide for the original series made it clear that entertainment and drama were most important, and that any messages should be presented within that context instead of being the main point of the whole thing. "We don't need essays, however brilliant."

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

Paradoxically, believing in a vision is a form of Faith, and Roddenberry was against religion. As an Atheist, I don't think believing in a vision should be required.

There's the idea that humanity gets better over time, but DS9 proved that the Federation wasn't as spiritually advanced as thought they were in TNG. The same as how (unfortunately) 2016 proved America is not as socially advanced as we thought we were becoming in 2008.
 
To be a fan of Star Trek you need only be enthusiastic about the show. That doesn't require a deep ideological commitment to the values espoused by the show. Trek doesn't have to be a political cult.

A fan of slasher films doesn't require you to share the values of serial killers. And the same is true of Trek. ;)
 
Nope. Fans of any persuasion can find something of fun and/or worthiness, but nobody need to toe the line 100%...

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.

The Borg did the same thing as well, taking the Federation and doing the same things - but in a frightening way.

DS9, IMHO, pretty much showed how the utopia-Federation was maintained. TNG just enjoys it. DS9 was layered. TNG wasn't as complex.
 
Paradoxically, believing in a vision is a form of Faith, and Roddenberry was against religion. As an Atheist, I don't think believing in a vision should be required.

Yet he gave a pass to DS9, which integrates religion far more - to the point Federation characters saw some truth in the Prophets (Sisko, Dax, etc)...


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

Toni Basil's version is somehow more fun!

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

:D
 
Yet he gave a pass to DS9, which integrates religion far more - to the point Federation characters saw some truth in the Prophets (Sisko, Dax, etc)...
:D

Gene Roddenberry knew they were making a third series. What or how much he knew about the third series, is a different matter. How much even Rick Berman and Michael Piller knew as of October 1991, likewise.
 
Gene Roddenberry knew they were making a third series. What or how much he knew about the third series, is a different matter. How much even Rick Berman and Michael Piller knew as of October 1991, likewise.
Yeah, I think it's pretty conventional wisdom that GR would never have OKed DS9.
 
Why? Taken as just wormhole aliens with access to non-linear time to explain any prophetic abilities, or highly advanced technology to explain any seemingly supernatural ability, wouldn't that still fit the Trek mold?
 
Why? Taken as just wormhole aliens with access to non-linear time to explain any prophetic abilities, or highly advanced technology to explain any seemingly supernatural ability, wouldn't that still fit the Trek mold?
He objected to the God plot in Star Trek V because it suggested that someone in the 23rd century would even bother to look for such nonsense.
 
The 23rd century? And he assumes all people from all planets are at the same level of development with Earth? Silly bugger. But he didn't object to Q? Of all the god-like beings in Trek, the Q do seem the most powerful and least dependent on technology (that we can see). I haven't seen anything close to actually creating the universe, or having omniscience or omnipotence. What one requires for god to be God, however, is probably quite subjective.

The wormhole aliens were small potatoes when compared to the Q. Even that being at the "center" of the galaxy was trivial compared to Q (as far as I could see).

But to assume no one in known Federation space would still be looking for God in the 23rd century? Well, it's not the first time GR has been spectacularly wrong, or probably will be spectacularly wrong by then, IMO.

AkGQN5g.jpg
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top