Fans Disenfranchised with Utopia?

[2takesfrakes]

Reading these boards, as I often do, it kind of surprises me how we STAR TREK fans are anything but united by Gene Roddenberry's bold vision of the future. Without him, we continue to be leaderless and divided.

Do we, in our hearts, no longer believe in Utopia? Indeed, did we ever pledge ourselves - genuinely - to Gene Roddenberry's teachings? Imagine that the Apollo Moon Landing did for the world what First Contact did in STAR TREK. It did, in some ways, by showing us how small, singular and fragile Earth is ... but not alot, unfortunately.

STAR TREK's positive message of Hope and Peace always made me a fan. I needn't tell you how the World is a pretty mean place and shows like STAR TREK, but STAR TREK specifically, was always a place where magic and a charming sort of innocense could still exist amongst adults.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Dude. It's a tv show.

 

[Gov Kodos]

You know who else believed in leaders with bold visions of a future utopia, the Nazis.

 

[Tosk]

He wasn't my leader. Just a dude who made a cool couple of TV shows.

 

[T'Girl]

Do we, in our hearts, no longer believe in Utopia?

Part of the problem I have with utopia is that I've read the story where the word utopia comes from, and on examination it really isn't a very nice place under the surface. I know that the utopia referred to in the the show isn't supposed to be the one from the story, but it 's what I think of when I hear the word used.

Beyond that, there are aspect of Roddenberry's version of utopia that I personally find undesirable. I think the prime directive, particularly the way it's applied in the 24th century to be cold hearted to say the least. Picard, as the symbol of the future man, is self-superior and condescending. Children aren't supposedly to feel sadness at the passing of a parent. They say there is no fear of death, but they obviously struggle to avoid it themselves.

When Picard and Jake separately announce proudly that there is no money, they employ the exact same words, like they are mouthing a political slogan. Which is kind of scary.

The future apparently has completely discarded the concept of personal privacy.

There are other things in Roddenberry's "vision" of the future that are wrong (imho), off and down right disturbing.

 

[JarodRussell]

You know who else believed in leaders with bold visions of a future utopia, the Nazis.

Hitler also was a vegetarian. And he liked dogs and cats.

 

[BillJ]

Reading these boards, as I often do, it kind of surprises me how we STAR TREK fans are anything but united by Gene Roddenberry's bold vision of the future. Without him, we continue to be leaderless and divided.

I simply prefer Roddenberry's view of the future circa 1966 vs. his view of the future circa 1987.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Reading these boards, as I often do, it kind of surprises me how we STAR TREK fans are anything but united by Gene Roddenberry's bold vision of the future. Without him, we continue to be leaderless and divided.

I simply prefer Roddenberry's view of the future circa 1966 vs. his view of the future circa 1987.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

I don't think it's troubling that fans might disagree about the Roddenberry vision. However Gene wanted to be remembered for his ability to predict and project a positive image of the future, he must have known that the power of utopias is not their ability to be true, but their ability to let people imagine different future. It's a tool for realizing a better future, not the future itself.

 

[dub]

While I found some of the political messages interesting, and many aspects of the future presented in Trek are appealing, they are not the reasons I fell in love with Trek.

I guess everybody has a different fascination with Trek. For me I love the characters and their relationships, the stories, the adventure, the music, the continuity (hard to manage when we're talking about tons of episodes, movies and more and centuries of fictional history. While it certainly wasn't seamless, overall for me they created a believable timeline that felt real), the geek in me loves the fact that Trek predicted many gadgets years or decades earlier, that they used real scientific theories and ideas in their stories from time to time, that it literally has become a part of our human culture, that fans are so loyal we are still talking about anything from TAS to ship design to obscure characters, and that it was and continues to be a fun get-away-from-life-for-awhile library of incredibly enjoyable entertainment that in many cases is very re-watchable.

 

[T'Girl]

I simply prefer Roddenberry's view of the future circa 1966 vs. his view of the future circa 1987.

I prefer the Star Trek world of the 23rd century over the 24th.

 

[Greg Cox]

It's possible to get carried away with the "utopian" thing. The way I see it, Trek presents a positive vision of the future, absolutely, but not a "utopian" one where there aren't still hardships and conflicts and challenges. Things are getting better, yes, but people are still flesh-and-blood human beings, not idealized paragons of human perfection.

And, yes, this is very much how TOS portrayed the future, especially out on the final frontier . . . .

 

[F. King Daniel]

I simply prefer Roddenberry's view of the future circa 1966 vs. his view of the future circa 1987.

I prefer the Star Trek world of the 23rd century over the 24th.

This. The stuff about 'evolved' humanity in TNG sounded like something from a creepy cult (especially in light of DS9 showing it to be complete BS), and the way the crew looked down on others was deplorable.

 

[Jonas Grumby]

Frankly, Gene Roddenberry is one of the things I admire least about Trek.

 

[-Brett-]

Are Game of Thrones fans believers in the bold vision of a feudal society fighting endless wars of succession? Do Walking Dead fans live for the day when they can be the last survivors of a zombie apocalypse? Why should Star Trek fans be any different?

 

[Mary Ann]

I simply prefer Roddenberry's view of the future circa 1966 vs. his view of the future circa 1987.

I prefer the Star Trek world of the 23rd century over the 24th.

This. The stuff about 'evolved' humanity in TNG sounded like something from a creepy cult (especially in light of DS9 showing it to be complete BS), and the way the crew looked down on others was deplorable.

I second this, and agree with T'Girl that Picard's interpretation of the Prime Directive is cold and condescending. The "evolved humanity" stuff smacks of privilege. Quark nailed it when he says how humans would revert back to infighting and self-preservation at the expense of others should they lose the security of always-available food and shelter should their technology fail for whatever reason, which is something Picard would never admit.

 

[Mad Mike]

I can't really say that I'm a big Roddenberry fan myself. Once upon a time he came up with a good concept for a TV show. He wasn't a visionary, he wasn't a guru, and he certainly wasn't anyone's leader. While he came up with the foundation or Trek, a sizable amount of what I consider to be Trek's finest moments had nothing to do with him.

It's important to remember that in the sixties, Roddenberry had one primary goal in mind with Star Trek; making a successful television program. While he certainly did use Trek to make political/social commentary, I don't think the grand vision of the future was anything more than the fans trying to justify their love (or obsession, if you will) of a cancelled television program. Then sometime in the seventies, after doing conventions and the college lecture circuit, either he actually came to believe it or he decided to capitalize on it. Either way, I don't see evidence of the grand vision when I watch TOS or the animated series (at least nowhere near to the extent that TNG displayed it).

In the end, to me, it's a bunch of tv shows and movies that was a fertile playground for ideas and "what ifs" but in the end, it's just entertainment.

 

[HaventGotALife]

Star Trek opened my mind as a young lad. I would see a story, talk about it with my family and friends, and we would debate things like gender roles and the proper use of the military. Those discussions in my formative years are why I am a part of this site and while I may disagree with you, there aren't a lot of people on here that I have a problem with. Star Trek gave me a place to strive towards as an individual. To be open-minded, to embrace people who were different because they were just as important as myself. My religious upbringing, at least in talk, reinforced that idea. This is why I have said, in another thread, I couldn't imagine my life without Star Trek. It helped form me. And for those that say "it's just a TV show" is denying the media influences psychology says are in-place. Shows, when experienced more than viscerally, are thought about. Those thoughts, at least in this fan, are tested against reality to see if it is believable or not. Then the conversation about it, what the Aesop's Fable moral was, and that stuck with me as a child.

I think the utopia was talked about more in commentary, than in the show. Society did change, but what was talked about was embracing differences, not a utopia where everything is perfect. That came later, as we had a host of retrospectives for the 25th and 30th anniversaries of Star Trek.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

This. The stuff about 'evolved' humanity in TNG sounded like something from a creepy cult (especially in light of DS9 showing it to be complete BS), and the way the crew looked down on others was deplorable.

There was plenty of arrogance and judgmentalism in the 23rd century--humans were simply more often on the receiving end. And whenever an evolved creature said humans were at least on on the right path, Kirk always took the opportunity to pat himself on the back.

 

[C.E. Evans]

To me, I don't see Utopia in Star Trek at all. Perhaps in comparison to us today, it's a much better place with people no longer starving, working just to survive, killing each other in wars, and discriminating against one another based on who they are (race, sex, religion, creed, etc.)--but it's not really a perfect place. There are still disagreements (although they generally tend to talk them out rather than use violence), people still make horrendous mistakes, people in positions of power still sometimes abuse that power, and our heroes still frequently find themselves in armed conflicts with bad guys. I think the idea of "perfect Humans" or "an evolved sensibility" is a load of bull, one that even our heroes sometimes falsely believe.

From Star Trek: First Contact
PICARD: In my century we don't succumb to revenge. We have a more evolved sensibility.

LILY: Bull-shit!

From DS9's "The Siege of AR-558"
QUARK: Let me tell you something about hew-mons, Nephew. They're a wonderful, friendly people--as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts, deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers, put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people...will become as nasty and as violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon.