DSC and the "No Conflict" Rule
- Thread starter Balok's Decoy
- Start date
Totally agree. Conflict makes good drama. But I'm sure they'd come up with a way to address it (or ignore it
) in a post-Nemesis series.
Agreed on the conflict part, it is the very essence of drama. However, a non-interference policy towards lesser developed species is extremely relevant to what is going on in our world now and I hope they still deal with it in some way and neither ignore, hide behind, or oversimplify it.
I fully expect the Prime Directive to be a focal point of several episodes. That's a big point of turmoil.
The prime directive is more than just a rule designed to generate artificial problems (although it is also that 
) it's an opportunity for characters to grapple with the core morality of Starfleet, the idea of being who you say you are going to be, regardless of whether this costs you, or whether it goes against your instincts or what is the easy choice. Some iconic episodes have come out of this concept, so I hope it isn't lost.
The idea however that the characters are never in conflict with each other is nonsensical, and was barely followed even when GR had his iron grip on TNG.
) it's an opportunity for characters to grapple with the core morality of Starfleet, the idea of being who you say you are going to be, regardless of whether this costs you, or whether it goes against your instincts or what is the easy choice. Some iconic episodes have come out of this concept, so I hope it isn't lost.The idea however that the characters are never in conflict with each other is nonsensical, and was barely followed even when GR had his iron grip on TNG.
It's used as a really thinly veiled excuse for favouring some parts of 1987-2005 over others really. Gene Roddenberry deliberately made writing Star Trek difficult for anyone other than himself, because he feared Paramount might take it away from him again. He did so with no rhyme or reason to my mind. He wanted to control his baby and could obviously behave very irrationally. There's actually interpersonal conflict between humans even in the shittest daytime melodramas of TNG.
Last edited:
I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand the "rule" in STNG--which applied mainly to the main cast--has never been used 100% of the time, but it gave the Berman era shows, especially STNG a feel no other show in history had..that it was a different social development that most stories explore as a dystopia. No show will ever feel as enlightened and futuristic as STNG. Shows that came after felt like a letdown, like Farscape, because the characters were so petulant and annoying to me. In NuBSG the characters were simply portrayed as stupid, constantly making the dumbest of decisions, to the point it felt like a cheap horror movie, with characters putting the whole of society in jeopardy on a whim.
But...knowing that Discovery won't feel so enlightened will probably make it a better outright "drama", and one the fits the temperament of us primitives in the 21st century much better. It'll probably be a darling to the media for this, will probably do better than Berman Trek at award times.
Let's face it, society as a whole is probably at its peak compared to throughout Earth history, and we are still a mess. Forces in multiple countries are going through an expected phase of reacting against the social development made over the last 50 years. A sort of last-ditch effort, and it may well last decades, but I think ultimately will not overcome the sheer weight of societal growth, one that is more influential than ever, In this climate, a Discovery show will seem more topical than ever.
Ultimately we may strive for perfection as a species, but that'll probably always elude us. Can people/crewmates argue and still be good crewmates? Can the DSC show still be positive and show the striving continues? Sure it can. It can also lead by example, with a diverse crew and it's heart and mind in the right place.
RAMA
But...knowing that Discovery won't feel so enlightened will probably make it a better outright "drama", and one the fits the temperament of us primitives in the 21st century much better. It'll probably be a darling to the media for this, will probably do better than Berman Trek at award times.
Let's face it, society as a whole is probably at its peak compared to throughout Earth history, and we are still a mess. Forces in multiple countries are going through an expected phase of reacting against the social development made over the last 50 years. A sort of last-ditch effort, and it may well last decades, but I think ultimately will not overcome the sheer weight of societal growth, one that is more influential than ever, In this climate, a Discovery show will seem more topical than ever.
Ultimately we may strive for perfection as a species, but that'll probably always elude us. Can people/crewmates argue and still be good crewmates? Can the DSC show still be positive and show the striving continues? Sure it can. It can also lead by example, with a diverse crew and it's heart and mind in the right place.
RAMA
When people from different cultures and backgrounds find themselves on board a starship far away from their own kind, they’re forced to find a way to live together in peace. Focusing on what binds them instead of what makes them different from one another. That’s what Star Trek should be about in the 21st century.
I thought the rule was no conflict among humans and Starfleet, who had apparently evolved beyond that, and that other races and non-Starfleet humans wouldn't be bound by that, and could be used as allegories to relate our world. DS9 ignored the rule as it wasn't a human centric show, and it had the Maquis versus Starfleet.
Heck societies seem to operate in cycles, mini-skirts are fashionable one decade, obscene the next. Right now, the world of the nineties and early 2000s seem a tolerant and inclusive place compared to the world we live in now, where societies are becoming more insular, governments more populist, and people becoming more reactionary and intolerant to difference. Maybe Picard's evolved humanity took a battering with the Borg invasions, and died with the Dominion War. So there's no reason why any other Trek should adhere to that rule. Of course bland writing is bland writing no matter the series. Looking at Voyager and Enterprise.
Heck societies seem to operate in cycles, mini-skirts are fashionable one decade, obscene the next. Right now, the world of the nineties and early 2000s seem a tolerant and inclusive place compared to the world we live in now, where societies are becoming more insular, governments more populist, and people becoming more reactionary and intolerant to difference. Maybe Picard's evolved humanity took a battering with the Borg invasions, and died with the Dominion War. So there's no reason why any other Trek should adhere to that rule. Of course bland writing is bland writing no matter the series. Looking at Voyager and Enterprise.
Talking at all about the pursuit of "perfection" in human behavior and relationships is fundamentally a misunderstanding of what is and is not.
As more suggestions about the storylines and tone of the series emerge it starts to look like this show will be a more essential and, for lots of fans, a more disruptive and disturbing break with previous Trek than the Abrams movies.
That is, if they deliver on anything they're saying. That trailer is nothing but stuff that looks different while having the characters jabber on in ways that are repetitiously familiar.
As more suggestions about the storylines and tone of the series emerge it starts to look like this show will be a more essential and, for lots of fans, a more disruptive and disturbing break with previous Trek than the Abrams movies.
That is, if they deliver on anything they're saying. That trailer is nothing but stuff that looks different while having the characters jabber on in ways that are repetitiously familiar.
I quote Michael Piller on this, who was head writer of TNG during its most successfull time and co creator of DS9 and VOY:
"The answer can be found in Roddenberry’s Box. I happen to like the box. A lot of writers don’t. In fact, I think it’s fair to say, most writers who have worked on Star Trek over the years would like to throw the box away. [...] I began to learn how Roddenberry’s Box forced us as writers to come up with new and interesting ways to tell stories instead of falling back into easier, familiar devices."
https://artiewayne.wordpress.com/20...rrys-box-michael-piller-chapt-2-download-now/
I go with Piller here: Removing the Roddenberry Box from the story structures is a bad decision for Star Trek. The writers do not complain about this rule because it causes bad stories, they only complain about it because it makes earning their paycheck much harder. It's about their core interest of making earning money under the Star Trek brand easier by avoiding that rule that forces them to think outside the box of the usual (space) drama.
And viewers who are frustrated about that Box don't like it, because it challenges their own views. Most Star Trek viewer don't like to be challenged, so they dismiss this aspect of Star Trek: "I want characters to behave like I behave every day. How dare you reflect me in a negative light! I dream about punching people in the face that piss me off, so I want to see characters on the screen that punch others in the face when they are pissed off."
I am one of the consumers who got mainly interested in Star Trek and its story telling because of this Roddenberry Box. I only clicked with Star Trek because of TNG, because this Box made it a different unique show unlike any other before and after it. The farther a series tried to steer away from it (DS9 or the TOS movies), the lesser I cared about it.
"The answer can be found in Roddenberry’s Box. I happen to like the box. A lot of writers don’t. In fact, I think it’s fair to say, most writers who have worked on Star Trek over the years would like to throw the box away. [...] I began to learn how Roddenberry’s Box forced us as writers to come up with new and interesting ways to tell stories instead of falling back into easier, familiar devices."
https://artiewayne.wordpress.com/20...rrys-box-michael-piller-chapt-2-download-now/
I go with Piller here: Removing the Roddenberry Box from the story structures is a bad decision for Star Trek. The writers do not complain about this rule because it causes bad stories, they only complain about it because it makes earning their paycheck much harder. It's about their core interest of making earning money under the Star Trek brand easier by avoiding that rule that forces them to think outside the box of the usual (space) drama.
And viewers who are frustrated about that Box don't like it, because it challenges their own views. Most Star Trek viewer don't like to be challenged, so they dismiss this aspect of Star Trek: "I want characters to behave like I behave every day. How dare you reflect me in a negative light! I dream about punching people in the face that piss me off, so I want to see characters on the screen that punch others in the face when they are pissed off."
I am one of the consumers who got mainly interested in Star Trek and its story telling because of this Roddenberry Box. I only clicked with Star Trek because of TNG, because this Box made it a different unique show unlike any other before and after it. The farther a series tried to steer away from it (DS9 or the TOS movies), the lesser I cared about it.
Last edited:
In the short term, it was an interesting departure from what was going on with other shows. In the longer term, it became more and more uninteresting. It is tough to do drama with all conflict coming from outside the core characters.
It became a straight-jacket. I know I longed for an episode where Riker knocked Picard across a table.
Personally, I wouldn't go that far. I've said it before and I'll say it again: We may be able to give up many of the petty arguments that we have but conflict will likely never go away. It's part of the drive and determination and even more so the passion that makes us who we are.
This ideal of a perfect society where no one ever argues and we have an enlightened viewpoint about everything? We are a lot further than 250 years from coming anywhere close to that. I mean millennia.
You only have to look as far as many of the "white genocide" comments in regards to this series to discover that where we were when GR created Star Trek isn't very far from where we are now.
This ideal of a perfect society where no one ever argues and we have an enlightened viewpoint about everything? We are a lot further than 250 years from coming anywhere close to that. I mean millennia.
You only have to look as far as many of the "white genocide" comments in regards to this series to discover that where we were when GR created Star Trek isn't very far from where we are now.
The 'no conflict rule' was a product of the TNG era. the TOS era had no such rule (and was better for it.)So EW is reporting that DSC won't follow the old (very old) "no conflict" rule.
The article is kind of funny because it forgets that DS9 also threw out this rule back in the 90s and they're reporting on this as if it's a newfangled approach in Star Trek.
Nevertheless! Still thought I might post it because the debate about the "Roddenberry Ideal" still goes on, although I think most Trekkies are perfectly fine with conflict between the Starfleet characters. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.
This article also confirms DSC will be serialized. Not sure if that had been previously confirmed. Basically it looks like they're taking their influence from DS9, BG, stuff like that.
Last edited:
You know what else Star Trek would be better off ditching, this bizarre idea among the fans that the franchise was all about reinventing the wheel and being a philosophical thesis on the future of humanity and its place in the stars. That's what TNG is about, and to a certain extent, Phase II/TMP.
Granted, TOS did have some ideas which were considered radical by 1960s standards, a future where humanity is a united race, people of all nationalities, races, ethnicities working together, men and women having equal opportunities, etc. But when you get down to it, the world of TOS wasn't all that different from modern day, people enjoyed a good drink, got into fistfights over nothing, Dr. McCoy would give anyone within earshot a piece of his mind, and despite his southern gentleman charm, he could be quite nasty when it suited him, and his attitude towards Spock wasn't always friendly. Everyone was honest about Starfleet's military purpose, and indeed the Federation was on the verge of war with two of its neighbours. And there was money, people were paid and used money to buy things. And you know what, people still watched this and were inspired to enter scientific professions and dream of a better world and it arguably played a part in the promotion of tolerance and acceptance, though I'll be the first to admit that something modern society still needs to work on.
But if you look at a lot of the things people look on as being the "golden rules" of Star Trek that didn't start to be a thing until TNG and have somehow moved onto dominate the franchise as holy commandments of script writing and world-building, then TOS comes off as being downright anti-Trek. And you know something, fifty years down the road TOS is the one that a lot of people still turn to. All the fan-productions are TOS-based, TOS novels dominate the Pocket Books line-up, the TOS movies are still considered the franchises best, story wise, and indeed one of which has been mimicked by most of the movies of the 90s onward, TOS is the enduring Trek and has endured for fifty years, TNG may have done better ratings first run, but it's been reduced to cult status thirty years later, and the others are barely on the radar. Indeed, the most successful Trek since TNG is the remake of TOS, that truth be told is more faithful to the source material than I'm really comfortable admitting.
People want Star Trek to be a reflection of idealized versions of themselves living and thriving in the future. They do not want it to be an almost biblical guide defining what humanity should be about and how that life should be lived. That's why the Star Trek everyone turns to is the one that didn't have such rigid rules governing how people should act and interact, and the one that had these rules is quickly becoming a distant memory. And why future Star Trek would be better off tossing those rigid rules down the trash.
Last edited:
