Do you think Trek has always been 'dark'?

[Sci]

Well said, Sci. I agree with your assessment of where Star Trek needs to go from here. Trek's optimism about the future sets it apart from almost every other franchise.

Thanks! Mind you, I don't think Star Trek should be unrealistically optimistic. I think that Star Trek has a responsibility to acknowledge the darkness of the times it lives in, and to avoid giving pat answers to hard questions. Star Trek should not depict utopia, and it should not depict its better future as being some sort of easy thing to have. The people in Star Trek should be facing many of the same problems we face today, because these are problems that will always be with us.

The difference should come in Star Trek's answers. Even if it has a darkness to it, Star Trek should always maintain its hope for a brighter, better future. DS9 can be a model for that -- for all its darkness, DS9 still believed in a better future, even when it acknowledge that that better future would not be perfect and that the people living there would still be deeply flawed.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

Okay, here is a thought:

Since we've established that Trek is not the perfect utopia it was alleged to be[although, it has made some ecological strides, etc],

Oh, it's more than ecological strides. The Federation has some very serious flaws, but it's a monumental improvement over present-day societies. It's eliminated poverty and hunger, it's eliminated almost all forms of bigotry, it's eliminated economic classism. The Federation is as close to a genuinely egalitarian democracy as it's possible to have.

I'm fairly critical of the Federation at times -- I think it can be a deeply ethnocentric society -- but I think it's absurd to claim that the Federation is not a better society by leaps and bounds than modern-day societies.

so where does it go from there? Trek 2009 has given us the 'fun' and 'adventure'....but even Vulcans are as perfect as some claim to be....

I would suggest that the writers need to look at the general zeitgeist of American political culture and figure out how to respond to that. If ST09 was Batman Begins, then its sequel needs to be The Dark Knight -- and the reason The Dark Knight resonated with people and became such a huge hit was that it spoke to how Americans felt about the times they were living in. It was released in the summer of 2008, when people were fed up with the Bush Administration, desperate for better leadership, and there was a general lack of faith in society's institutions; The Dark Knight was ultimately a story about a society that is falling apart, and so it resonated with people.

The next Trek film needs to find something to say that will resonate with people about where we are at that point in our history -- and just as the Batman films ground their stories in the darkness of the Batman mythos, the next Trek film needs to find something to say that will resonate while also grounding it in Trek's essential optimism.

Well said, Sci. I agree with your assessment of where Star Trek needs to go from here. Trek's optimism about the future sets it apart from almost every other franchise.

Seconded...

Well said, Sci. I agree with your assessment of where Star Trek needs to go from here. Trek's optimism about the future sets it apart from almost every other franchise.

Thanks! Mind you, I don't think Star Trek should be unrealistically optimistic. I think that Star Trek has a responsibility to acknowledge the darkness of the times it lives in, and to avoid giving pat answers to hard questions. Star Trek should not depict utopia, and it should not depict its better future as being some sort of easy thing to have. The people in Star Trek should be facing many of the same problems we face today, because these are problems that will always be with us.

The difference should come in Star Trek's answers. Even if it has a darkness to it, Star Trek should always maintain its hope for a brighter, better future. DS9 can be a model for that -- for all its darkness, DS9 still believed in a better future, even when it acknowledge that that better future would not be perfect and that the people living there would still be deeply flawed.

 

[Sci]

¡Muchas gracias!

 

[Myasishchev]

Interestingly, I think TOS might have had more genocide than any other series. But they usually laughed it off. Which might actually make it darker.

Examples please? Genocide is serious charge. Was the Dikironium creature really the only one? Ditto the Salt Vampire.

Also if one believes general order 24 was not a bluff it certainly was never carried out.

"Extinction-level events" is longer to type, although Nomad certainly fits the bill (for both genocide and a lulz ending).

The doomsday machine and the space amoeba likewise destroyed star systems (I forget if they were inhabited, I believe in the latter it was, and in the former only by the marooned crew of the Constellation). Genocide, legally, is a charge that can only be leveled against a sapient creature, so neither one of them technically could have committed genocide--and admittedly "Doomsday Machine" didn't end on a funny note. I wasn't leveling the charge against the Enterprise crew itself, either--though they killed the crap out of the (possibly) last salt vampire when a non-violent solution (salt) was surely in the offing, didn't they?

My basic premise, tongue-in-cheek though it is, was that Kirk and company experienced a lot of massive death and destruction, yet are so jaded, cynical and unfeeling that they can make jokes in the immediate aftermath. "The Changeling" and "Wolf in the Fold" come to mind as prime examples of that sort of attitude. You never saw Picard laughing off dead women.

 

[I am not Spock]

Star Trek has always had a dark side. Whenever someone tells me they don't like the franchise because its too Little House On The Prarie-ish, and too happy-clappy; try watching 'In The Pale Moonlight', 'The Drumhead', 'Chain of Command', etc. Every Trek series has both light and dark moments.

One of the things I love about Trek is that it can do such a diverse range of stories. One week, you have a dark episode with a disturbing, heavy subject matter or moral debate; the next week an action-adventure, or light-hearted comedy romp.

It gives you the whole spectrum. I don't think a show should be all dark, all the time, like BSG. That's just depressing.

 

[I am not Spock]

There is nothing "dark" about anything in Star Trek. Not even in DS9.

There's plenty dark in Star Trek. Even if you disregard DS9. As I said - death, mass murder, genocide, rape, torture, insanity, racism, xenophobia, corruption, crazy rogue captains turned dictators, creepy stuff happening to Our Heroes, and sometimes even Our Heroes doing immoral and criminal things.

for instance:
TOS:
Dagger of the Mind
Conscience of the King
Balance of Terror
The Enemy Within
The Doomsday Machine
A Private Little War
Whom Gods Destroy
The Empath
Let That Be Your Last Battlefield

TNG:
Chain of Command
The Best of Both Worlds
The Wounded
The Drumhead
The Defector
Sins of the Father
Reunion
The First Duty
Lower Decks
Dark Page
Schisms
Phantasms
Frame of Mind (most of the episode is basically Riker's delusions, which aren't pleasant to watch)
Homeward (the suicide of what's-his-name)

VOY:
Jetrel
Meld
Faces (the Vidiian does a very creepy thing to one of the redshirts)
Resistance
Remember
Tuvix
Year of Hell (without the reset button)
Equinox
Mortal Coil
Retrospect
Course: Oblivion
Hope and Fear
The Void

Parts of ENT Xindi arc are very dark, especially Damage. Cogenitor is up there as well.

and the movies: The Wrath of Khan, The Search for Spock, The Undiscovered Country, First Contact, STXI, feature a lot of deaths, as well as racism, genocide etc. Plus Nemesis has a (telepathic) rape scene for absolutely no reason at all (except to show how eeevil the villain is ).

Great post! As we can see, every Trek series has its fair share of heavy subject matter. I might have added a few to your VOY list, like Death Wish (assisted suicide), Nothing Human (the Mengele-esque Cardassian doctor's methods), Memorial (genocide); etc, but overall your point is very well made!

 

[GalaxyClass1701]

I love Trek both ways but dark is more fun! TNG could have used a few darker episodes.

 

[Sector 7]

^^I do not count some dark episode themes the same as an overall outlook. Later series lacked the overall optimism of TOS and TNG. Setting aside the occasional episode, the optimism that mankind WILL have a definitely more positive future where petty differences are set aside (at least on a large scale) to advance mankind into the larger galactic community.
Pre-first contact, mankind was divided by beliefs, race, ethics (or lack thereof), poverty, war, etc. FC made mankind realize their differences were petty in the overall scheme of life among the stars. Earth began to set aside those differences and prejudices and unify as a HUMAN species. This advance allowed us to become a member of the community of space-faring races.

IMO, later series failed to live up to our potential as portrayed in earlier series. The (sometimes imperfect) "Utopia" of TOS and TNG became, instead, replaced by a reflection of some of the worst of our present day Earth. As such, what is left to strive toward? Where did the hope that mankind would overcome our failings go? It was replaced with the portrayal that the future is no better than what we have now... they just have more technology. To some degree, later series proved that perhaps the Vulcans had it right... humans were not developed enough to merit membership in the galactic community.

 

[DonIago]

That's one interpretation...another interpretation is that no matter how evolved we become, there will always be those who seek to drag us back down...but there's always hope.

DS9 didn't end with war, it ended with peace and hope.

 

[Sci]

IMO, later series failed to live up to our potential as portrayed in earlier series. The (sometimes imperfect) "Utopia" of TOS and TNG became, instead, replaced by a reflection of some of the worst of our present day Earth.

As I've said before, that's just silly. The Federation, even at its darkest and most morally ambiguous, is leaps and bounds better as a society than any current polity. It's eliminated poverty, hunger, want, religious bigotry, racism, sexism (virtually), economic classism. It's about as close to a genuinely egalitarian liberal democracy as you can imagine.

It's not perfect and it has serious issues -- and bear in mind that the Federation of TOS was not saintly: the Federation allowed Ardana, a Federation Member State, to practice de facto slavery, and it apparently allowed Vulcan to commit unofficial religious persecutions of Vulcans that chose to reject the teachings of Surak, given Sybok's status as an exile from Vulcan in ST5 -- but even at its worst, it's still a better society than any that currently exist by any meaningful standard.

 

[Sector 7]

IMO, later series failed to live up to our potential as portrayed in earlier series. The (sometimes imperfect) "Utopia" of TOS and TNG became, instead, replaced by a reflection of some of the worst of our present day Earth.

As I've said before, that's just silly. The Federation, even at its darkest and most morally ambiguous, is leaps and bounds better as a society than any current polity. It's eliminated poverty, hunger, want, religious bigotry, racism, sexism (virtually), economic classism. It's about as close to a genuinely egalitarian liberal democracy as you can imagine.

It's not perfect and it has serious issues -- and bear in mind that the Federation of TOS was not saintly: the Federation allowed Ardana, a Federation Member State, to practice de facto slavery, and it apparently allowed Vulcan to commit unofficial religious persecutions of Vulcans that chose to reject the teachings of Surak, given Sybok's status as an exile from Vulcan in ST5 -- but even at its worst, it's still a better society than any that currently exist by any meaningful standard.

The only silly part is those who call silly any opinion which differs from theirs. Repeating the word makes it no more true. If you wish to address me with respect, as I do your views, then we can discuss our opinions intelligently.

Opinions are like belly buttons. Some are in, some are out, but everybody has one.

 

[Sci]

IMO, later series failed to live up to our potential as portrayed in earlier series. The (sometimes imperfect) "Utopia" of TOS and TNG became, instead, replaced by a reflection of some of the worst of our present day Earth.

As I've said before, that's just silly. The Federation, even at its darkest and most morally ambiguous, is leaps and bounds better as a society than any current polity. It's eliminated poverty, hunger, want, religious bigotry, racism, sexism (virtually), economic classism. It's about as close to a genuinely egalitarian liberal democracy as you can imagine.

It's not perfect and it has serious issues -- and bear in mind that the Federation of TOS was not saintly: the Federation allowed Ardana, a Federation Member State, to practice de facto slavery, and it apparently allowed Vulcan to commit unofficial religious persecutions of Vulcans that chose to reject the teachings of Surak, given Sybok's status as an exile from Vulcan in ST5 -- but even at its worst, it's still a better society than any that currently exist by any meaningful standard.

The only silly part is those who call silly any opinion which differs from theirs. Repeating the word makes it no more true. If you wish to address me with respect, as I do your views, then we can discuss our opinions intelligently.

Dude, I said your opinion was silly, not you. And you still haven't explained how a Federation that has accomplished so many things that elude us today is no better than the societies that exist today just because it has serious failings.

 

[DevilEyes]

IMO, later series failed to live up to our potential as portrayed in earlier series. The (sometimes imperfect) "Utopia" of TOS and TNG became, instead, replaced by a reflection of some of the worst of our present day Earth.

You mean, like TOS' sexism (or, if you prefer, Pike's, Spock's, Kirk's etc... sexism: see "The Cage", "The Corbomite Maneuver", "The Enemy Within", "Wolf in the Fold", "Turnabout Intruder"...); Picard's arrogance and self-righteousness in dealing with aliens; hatred and racism shown towards the Romulans and Vulcans (Stiles in "Balance of Terror") and by Kirk and a bunch of others towards the Klingons ("The Undiscovered Country"), not to mention the everyday racism of Scotty ("Day of the Dove") and McCoy and others towards Vulcans (all the time) or Vulcan arrogance and prejudice towards Humans (T'Pau in "Amok Time", Spock getting bullied at school for being half-Human - see "Journey to Babel"), including Spock's self-loathing anti-human prejudice... Not to mention all those crazy rogue Starfleet captains... and what about assassinations and conspiracies in the highest ranks of Starfleet ("The Undiscovered Country")?

 

[Deckerd]

He did say TOS was sometimes imperfect.

 

[DevilEyes]

He did say TOS was sometimes imperfect.

And what exactly is the difference between that and what he calls "a reflection of some of the worst of our present day Earth"?

 

[Deckerd]

Speaking from my own point of view I wouldn't say ST has ever reflected the worst that humans can do. It wouldn't be much fun if it did. RJD would argue that destroying a planet is as dark as can be but that's just fantasy to me. The fact we all know Vulcan doesn't exist means that blowing it up will always be part of the fantasy. ST has always skirted round anything too unpleasantly realistic. It's not a fault, since the shows are designed to entertain children as well as adults.