"Star Trek was supposed to be" wasn't even a consistent standard in the late 1960s.
Is it time to put Star Trek to rest?
- Thread starter Dar70
- Start date
It's an alternate history based on the idea of what would happen if the Soviets beat Apollo to the moon. It's probably the best alternate history series ever made. It might be the best science fiction show ever made, honestly. Ronald D Moore is the showrunner. And there is more than a litle Trek in it.
this is like the litumus test for For All Mankind. I have found people who don't really dig this scene, are never going to get the series.
Because he lived in a extremely depressing time were World War 3 was considered inevitable. You can see it all across science fiction of the era. So context is essential rather than think he was just a blind optimist. He wasn't. He, like all artists, was impacted by thr culture of the day.
I have no doubt but I was referring to Star Trek and why it isn't dystopian.
In entertainment? No, I disagree completely that comparison is necessary.
And this illustrates why comparison is a thief. It's always below a standard and ignores the positive of the new for a rose tinted glasses view of the past.
Even though some of those jokes are rather obvious, damn it if I wasn't smiling throughout the whole thing and even laughed a few times.
Honestly, Trek has always had an air of gloominess and dystopia.
The two best series, since probably TOS.
Oh, so obvious. But also spot on.
Star Trek at its best is extremely honest about the human condition. It isn't lofty or idealized but strongly pragmatic, balancing individual and collective goals, logic and emotions, optimism and cynicism.
TNG was overly optimistic to the point that it was made fun of in First Contact.
I don't think of Trek as a dystopia, nor do I really want to think of it that way. I can find already existing dystopias to read and watch. I don't need another.
Trek is pretty unique in that it claims a happy and prosperous future, then goes out and blasts anyone that gets in their way.
Thank you, 1960s through 2000s action-adventure television format and audiences! 
If you go back and watch TNG, it was essentially self-contained science fiction stories with very little character development. It was plot over character, where most stuff reset at the end of each episode. But it was essentially an optimistic future. At its worse, it was the Office in Space.
Well, thats one way to do it.
I guess it comes down to point-of-view. Certainly, certain folks live very well. It also seems like a lot of folks out there live pretty crummy lives, especially away from Earth.
I think it is one of the reasons so many Conservatives latch onto it. There is an underlying "might makes right" message.
This isn't really dived into with TNG. Sure, there are colonies that they visit that have less than ideal circumstances, but it's more about moving the plot along. TNG didn't go out of its way to do a lot of world building within its short run time.
Trek is whatever the producers want it to be, even a fourth wall-breaking animated comedy.
I think there's a bit of a negotiation with the viewers there. The producers once thought that Star Trek was a Section 31 movie and the audience pointed out their error.
See, this is what most of us are talking about. This is a very judgy statement without a lot of merit to it. Say what you want about the quality of the Kurtzman era Star Trek, but the commentary that it is dark, gloomy and destroying good characters is a very uninformed and meritless opinion.
Edit: better word choice
Last edited:
Is there? I never really picked up on it - the closest plot I can remember to the Federation expanding through military adventurism is "A Private Little War" which is obviously a clumsy Vietnam allegory, but otherwise they mostly seem to expand through diplomatic inevitability.
The case maybe is a bit stronger in the Berman era, especially DS9 and some later TNG episodes that start falling back on standard war and brinksmanship tropes, but in TOS the Federation mostly seem very relaxed and non-expansionist and their reaction to things like the Gorn attack on Cestus III or the Klingon invasion of Organia is to peacefully back off after establishing the facts, even though they could theoretically win a military engagement.
There are bitsof military science fiction in Trek. But it's mostly diplomacy over war.
Last edited:
Similar threads
