Is it just me, or is Star Trek going the wrong way?

[Locutus of Bored]

Jesus you probably read David Brooks articles while eating a mayonnaise sandwich as you congratulate yourself on seeing how both sides are crazy amirite?

Look, centrist. I started watching Star Trek in the late 80s. I was in college during Enterprise. It wasn't my cup of tea. I thought the temporal cold war storyline was completely unnecessary. Some of the characters were undeveloped and unnecessary. I remember the passionate discussion among Trek fans about the merits of that series while it was new. But I don't recall anyone ever trying to claim that it wasn't Star Trek. Or that it went against everything Star Trek stood for. Because it was genuine star trek, just not the best example.

I'm sorry you don't recall that happening during the run of Enterprise, but it most certainly did.

And what the hell does that political jab have to do with Star Trek? There are times when discussing politics and Trek are intertwined by the nature of the story, but this isn't one of them. You just tossed that in to push people's buttons.

 

[Bork359]

Allow me to burn down that straw man characterization of my argument.

I'm not talking about set lighting, or cgi vs practical effects, or the gender, races, or sexual preferences of the cast. All of those things are irrelevant to the argument that Discovery and Picard are not real Trek. Star trek has always been politically progressive. That's not the issue.

So what is the problem? In my view, the following characteristics are fundamental to the core of Star Trek:

-An optimistic view of the future. The trek universe is supposed to represent a future of prece, unity, and scientific exploration. It's supposed to be a better, more enlightened world than we live in today. Something to aspire to. A place where everyone would want to live in someday. A time when humanity has moved past the more barbaric aspects of their nature and solves problems using scientific ingenuity while holding to their strong moral principles.

-The Federation as a force for good in the galaxy. A focus on solving problems with diplomacy first, and always trying to achieve peace and get out of situation where everyone walks away in a better position. They act intelligently, and put faith in their best people. Any elements within the federation that don't confirm to these ideals like section 31 shouldn't be glorified as the good guys.

-Faith in and an exploration of humanity. What does it mean to be human? What are the better angels of our nature? How do we foster positive personal growth in that never ending search for truth? Star trek doesn't wallow in darkness, with characters drinking and murdering and screaming and groaning and betraying and torturing. While these elements can be touched on as a way of showing how they can be overcome with the love, support, and wisdom of your federation colleagues, they should never be the main focus of the show.

-Intelligent characters doing the best they can in difficult situations. Star fleet is the best humanity has to offer. They make good decisions. The writing is should be smart and consistent.

-Respect for the canon that came before. Star trek is a rich sci-fi universe with a long internal political history and well established rules of how the technology works. This shouldn't be broken or reversed for the sake of laziness. The galaxy is huge. There are other galaxies to potentially explore. There are an infinite number of time periods where new series can take place. Yeah, it might be hard to make everything fit together, but it isn't impossible. However writers don't want to do that these days. They want the ready-made fan base of Star Trek to get pre-invested in their story without making those stories worthy of existing in the universe. They want all the benefits of the franchise history without respecting it.

Watch the Plinkett review of Picard. Hell, just watch the last 10 minutes if you're really impatient. It says everything I could say better than I ever could. It's not just a matter of taste.

 

[Awesome Possum]

And it's doing all of that and I have better things to do like watch a Plinkett review, like watch my cat run around like a lunatic.

 

[cooleddie74]

I'd love more visual connectivity to TOS myself and I wouldn't have made a lot of the decisions the DSC producers did from an aesthetics and design perspective but Plinkett videos are about as entertaining as constipation and seem to last longer.

 

[EnderAKH]

Look, centrist. I started watching Star Trek in the late 80s. I was in college during Enterprise. It wasn't my cup of tea. I thought the temporal cold war storyline was completely unnecessary. Some of the characters were undeveloped and unnecessary. I remember the passionate discussion among Trek fans about the merits of that series while it was new. But I don't recall anyone ever trying to claim that it wasn't Star Trek.

Let me refresh your memory. Set the way back machine!
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/why-dont-the-execs-see-it.27447/
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/top-ten-reasons-i-hate-enterprise.27878/
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/pol...orward-to-most-in-s3.27800/page-8#post-729469
https://www.trekbbs.com/posts/721565/

Now, admittedly, these aren't the BEST examples, as a lot of the good stuff has been lost to time, but it'll get you there.

Here's one that calls it out BY NAME:
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/the-its-not-star-trek-thread.92795/

And somewhere around here is an image of a fan letter from the TNG days of a fan calling TNG not Star Trek. Again, this has been around since the first time the franchise diversified. Your opinion? Not original. Not even a little bit.

Ah yes, using "centrist" as an insult and having a go at them because they don't agree.

Wait, Centrist was supposed to be an insult? What passes for an insult these days is "You don't have an extreme view on a topic?" I must admit to being taken aback by that.

 

[Weyoun 251]

Let me refresh your memory. Set the way back machine!
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/why-dont-the-execs-see-it.27447/
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/top-ten-reasons-i-hate-enterprise.27878/
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/pol...orward-to-most-in-s3.27800/page-8#post-729469
https://www.trekbbs.com/posts/721565/

Now, admittedly, these aren't the BEST examples, as a lot of the good stuff has been lost to time, but it'll get you there.

Here's one that calls it out BY NAME:
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/the-its-not-star-trek-thread.92795/

And somewhere around here is an image of a fan letter from the TNG days of a fan calling TNG not Star Trek. Again, this has been around since the first time the franchise diversified. Your opinion? Not original. Not even a little bit.
Wait, Centrist was supposed to be an insult? What passes for an insult these days is "You don't have an extreme view on a topic?" I must admit to being taken aback by that.

Oh yeah - certainly in UK harder left leaning circles it has become an insult and a way to put someone down as being part of the establishment who can't form their own opinion or see what is really going on.

Kind of a sat on the fence, happy with whatever is served to them and doffing their cap to their "betters".

It is basically bullshit and a way to avoid engaging with the points raised by the person on the end of the "insult"

 

[The Old Mixer]

Jesus you probably read David Brooks articles while eating a mayonnaise sandwich as you congratulate yourself on seeing how both sides are crazy amirite?

Look, centrist.

The Golden Rule in these parts is "the post, not the poster". You can disagree with what somebody says without getting personal / insulting the poster, which could earn you a formal warning.

 

[Bork359]

The Golden Rule in these parts is "the post, not the poster"

Agreed, I apologize. I'm still waiting for anyone to respond to my points without attempts to mischaracterize my arguments or shut down any legitimate disagreement about the worthiness of a show as being simply a matter of taste.

Do Discovery and Picard depict:
-An optimistic/aspirational vision of the future?
-The federation as force for good?
-Faith in and an exploration of the best of humanity?
-Intelligent, well written characters making rational decisions?
-Respect for the canon/existing fan base?

No on all counts. Disagree? Give examples please. Do you disagree that the five elements I've listed are not fundamental to Star Trek? Why or why not? What do you consider fundamental to the series? If your answer is something like, "Star Trek can be whatever it wants to be, has no important throughlines, and is whatever Paramount (or whoever owns the IP at the time) tells us it is." Well then, I think you're just plain wrong that your opinion is indefensible. Feel different? Give me some arguments and engage the conversation instead of dismissing legitimate criticism.

 

[The Wormhole]

Star fleet is the best humanity has to offer.

Considering how many Starfleet Captains and Admirals have turned out to be evil renegades, even in TOS and TNG, I worry if they are really "the best humanity has to offer."

Do Discovery and Picard depict:
-An optimistic/aspirational vision of the future?
-The federation as force for good?
-Faith in and an exploration of the best of humanity?
-Intelligent, well written characters making rational decisions?
-Respect for the canon/existing fan base?

Star Trek has never respected its own canon. Early TOS could never decide what time period the show took place in and even at one point depicted humans as conquerors. Seriously, it's right there in Conscience of the King that humans conquered Vulcans. Is that the optimistic view of the future you want? And the other shows ignored this, eventually making it so that Vulcans were the overlords who watched over humanity in the early years and dictated their technological progress. Canon Violation!

What do you consider fundamental to the series? If your answer is something like, "Star Trek can be whatever it wants to be, has no important throughlines, and is whatever Paramount (or whoever owns the IP at the time) tells us it is." Well then, I think you're just plain wrong that your opinion is indefensible.

Glad to know where we stand on this matter. Good day.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Allow me to burn down that straw man characterization of my argument.

I'm not talking about set lighting, or cgi vs practical effects, or the gender, races, or sexual preferences of the cast. All of those things are irrelevant to the argument that Discovery and Picard are not real Trek. Star trek has always been politically progressive. That's not the issue.

So what is the problem? In my view, the following characteristics are fundamental to the core of Star Trek:

-An optimistic view of the future. The trek universe is supposed to represent a future of prece, unity, and scientific exploration. It's supposed to be a better, more enlightened world than we live in today. Something to aspire to. A place where everyone would want to live in someday. A time when humanity has moved past the more barbaric aspects of their nature and solves problems using scientific ingenuity while holding to their strong moral principles.

-The Federation as a force for good in the galaxy. A focus on solving problems with diplomacy first, and always trying to achieve peace and get out of situation where everyone walks away in a better position. They act intelligently, and put faith in their best people. Any elements within the federation that don't confirm to these ideals like section 31 shouldn't be glorified as the good guys.

-Faith in and an exploration of humanity. What does it mean to be human? What are the better angels of our nature? How do we foster positive personal growth in that never ending search for truth? Star trek doesn't wallow in darkness, with characters drinking and murdering and screaming and groaning and betraying and torturing. While these elements can be touched on as a way of showing how they can be overcome with the love, support, and wisdom of your federation colleagues, they should never be the main focus of the show.

-Intelligent characters doing the best they can in difficult situations. Star fleet is the best humanity has to offer. They make good decisions. The writing is should be smart and consistent.

-Respect for the canon that came before. Star trek is a rich sci-fi universe with a long internal political history and well established rules of how the technology works. This shouldn't be broken or reversed for the sake of laziness. The galaxy is huge. There are other galaxies to potentially explore. There are an infinite number of time periods where new series can take place. Yeah, it might be hard to make everything fit together, but it isn't impossible. However writers don't want to do that these days. They want the ready-made fan base of Star Trek to get pre-invested in their story without making those stories worthy of existing in the universe. They want all the benefits of the franchise history without respecting it.

Watch the Plinkett review of Picard. Hell, just watch the last 10 minutes if you're really impatient. It says everything I could say better than I ever could. It's not just a matter of taste.

Kool-aide is a helluva drug.

 

[fireproof78]

Watch the Plinkett review of Picard

No. Not at all. If it cannot be articulated then it clearly did not carry an impact.
As for the rest, Star Trek means more than what you said. And for every optimistic story there's a dark one around the corner.

Faith in and an exploration of the best of humanity?

Yes, and the capacity for growth.

The federation as force for good?

Yes.

An optimistic/aspirational vision of the future?

Yes.

-Intelligent, well written characters making rational decisions?

Never was a part of Star Trek in any consistent measure.

-Respect for the canon/existing fan base?

Canon doesn't deserve respect and the fan base will always argue about it any way so that doesn't deserve respect.

So, I'm good with current Trek. It explores humans, not paragons of virtue.

 

[XCV330]

We're in the dark ages as far as Trek is concerned. For a franchise supposedly based on the human potential for unity and peace, the two "flagship" series on the air right now have done more to divide the fan base than anything before.

Remind me to tell you about that time DS9 was on the air with two other very different series at the same times. It's a gasser!

Discovery is just bad. Dark, depressing, violent stories.

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

you don't say..

Unlikable characters.

Are we talking about Kes , Neelix or Chakotay?

On the nose (more like bash over the head) political messaging.

are we still discussing TOS?

Inconsistent writing that's disrespectful of canon. (yeah, that's important, you fucks.)

someone's not a happy camper

 

[Tuskin38]

I'll never forgive Paramount from taking the best, most inspirational character in the history of Trek and putting him in this shit show.

Paramount didn't create that series.

Other people have basically said what I would have said regarding your other points.

 

[cooleddie74]

Someone hasn't seen TOS. Or is selective about their memory of its content.

TOS was a sledgehammer at times when it came to being political. PIC can't hold a candle to some of the transparent messaging in the original show.

 

[fireproof78]

Someone hasn't seen TOS. Or is selective about their memory of its content.

TOS was a sledgehammer at times when it came to being political. PIC can't hold a candle to some of the transparent messaging in the original show.

I think it's more a matter of what resonates with different fans that gets solidified in to what makes "Star Trek" a Star Trek show. Certainly the Berman era carried a lot of weight, if by sheer volume and amount than anything that came before it. The other side is the apparent importance that the optimistic outcomes that apparently is necessary for the "feel good" Star Trek. As I said, TOS certainly had a mix of all of those endings, especially early on. And Kirk was hardly the best of humanity...and he knew it.

Recently it strikes me that "Star Trek" means "TNG."

 

[cooleddie74]

And even TNG didn't live up to that image at times. The metric these fans use isn't even a consistent one unto itself.

 

[EnderAKH]

Agreed, I apologize. I'm still waiting for anyone to respond to my points without attempts to mischaracterize my arguments or shut down any legitimate disagreement about the worthiness of a show as being simply a matter of taste.

Do Discovery and Picard depict:
-An optimistic/aspirational vision of the future?
-The federation as force for good?
-Faith in and an exploration of the best of humanity?
-Intelligent, well written characters making rational decisions?
-Respect for the canon/existing fan base?

No on all counts. Disagree? Give examples please. Do you disagree that the five elements I've listed are not fundamental to Star Trek? Why or why not? What do you consider fundamental to the series? If your answer is something like, "Star Trek can be whatever it wants to be, has no important throughlines, and is whatever Paramount (or whoever owns the IP at the time) tells us it is." Well then, I think you're just plain wrong that your opinion is indefensible. Feel different? Give me some arguments and engage the conversation instead of dismissing legitimate criticism.

Yeah, here's the thing. For you this argument is a new shiny toy. For many others here, they've been having this same argument (exact same argument) about Discovery for four years. And round the beginning or end of a season, someone new (or perhaps a ghost of someone past) pops up and starts regurgitating the exact same points, spoiling for a fight. We've had the fight. We're not going to change your mind, you won't change ours. Watch the show. Don't. Couldn't care less. Think it's Star Trek, or don't. That's really up to you and doesn't affect my enjoyment of the show, you know, at all. And seeing as how they keep green lighting more, there are more of us than there are of you. So if you want to have The Great Debate you seem to be spoiling for, at least come in with some new arguments, and not the same rehashed ones along with the same rehashed YouTube videos.
Here is where we argued that the show was trying too hard to be nuBSG:
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/i-t...be-ronald-d-moore-esque.302947/#post-13252921
Sci-Fi Fan certainly had opinions. On characters:
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/and-the-quest-for-the-post-punchable-character-continues.299236/
Violating Gene's Vision:
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/let...violates-roddenberrys-vision-big-time.290396/
Casting:
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/the-casting-of-this-series-is-extremely-bad.298870/
Here is where the argument that Discovery gave up philosophical naturalism:
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/yea...al-naturalism-its-depressing-juvenile.292432/
How Discovery is depressing, but Orville is optimistic and great:
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/has...epressing-and-the-orville-inspires-me.300980/
This is a good read for the discussion on if Discovery was trying to fast forward character development:
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/star-trek-discovery-2x09-project-daedalus.298781/
A discussion on whether Discovery upholds the Star Trek philosophy:
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/dsc-and-the-star-trek-philosophy.300714/
A couple of recurring oldies but baddies. Burnham cries too much:
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/crybaby-burnham-embarrassing.305978/
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/discovery.303489/
That Alex Kutzman generally is a super poor fit for running Star Trek:
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/alex-kurtzman-is-a-wrong-fit-for-discovery.303223/
And, finally, one that will be near and dear to your heart, Discovery is not Star Trek:
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/this-is-not-star-trek.298903/

Go. Read all of those (just a small taste of the discussions had on here about your talking points). If you think you have something new to bring to the argument, by all means.

 

[F. King Daniel]

On the nose (more like bash over the head) political messaging.

Were you paying attention when watching pre-2017 or 2009 or whenever-your-tru-Trek cutoff point is Star Trek?

Half-black half-white people? Space Vietnam? Tasha's "Say no to drugs" speech? Vulcan mind-meld AIDS? These were message shows with all the subtlety of the Romulan supernova.

 

[cooleddie74]

DS9's Bajoran clerical storylines were allegories about Fundamentalist religion on Earth. Kai Winn was every TV preacher rolled into one Karen.

 

[Bork359]

Watch the show. Don't. Couldn't care less. Think it's Star Trek, or don't.

Where do I get off expecting to have a passionate discussion about the merits of Star Trek on an internet Star Trek forum, right? Why not just shut the forum down and replace it with a sign that says "Everyone enjoy Star Trek! Or don't! Doesn't matter!"

I'm not going to complete your homework assignment and read through pages of debates that happened in the past. Why not just tell me what you think, dude? If your entire position is "I likes what I likes" than sure, I can respect that. It doesn't really add anything to a thread titled "Is it just me or is star trek going the wrong way," now does it? But to each his own.

I'm not interested in having a conversation where everyone holds hands and decides that accepting each others preferences is the beginning and end of the conversation. We're here to debate. Is Star Trek heading in the right direction? What is the right direction for Star Trek? What are the essential elements required to move a franchise along from one incarnation to the next? Why are they important? Is Discovery/Picard doing? Why or why not? To what degree?