No.
Spoilers Let’s talk about the destruction of Trek utopia…
- Thread starter Anters
- Start date
No.
The word "evolve" never passed Kirk's lips in that context. TNG's version of humanity was "evolved". TOS's was improved but still struggling with its nature.
Anyone else find this a little disturbing? Violence is palatable as long as it happens to other species rather than to ours?
Pretty much all the defining of the Trek "utopia" and acceptable levels of violence in Trek has disturbed me. Violence should only occur to characters we don't care about, aliens, and never to humans whom we do care about. Utopia means that people have to think exactly the same.
It's beginning to trouble me on a number of levels.
You can talk about the philosophical ramifications of that all day - it's a worthwhile topic.
But please don't tell me that seeing a human being tortured and dismembered alive, screaming in agony and fear, leaves you as unfazed as seeing a slimey puppet explode.
He wasnt actually human he's brunali
They both disturb me. There are scenes with puppets I skip.
"The destruction of Trek utopia." 2020... or 1989?
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
- Kirk, Spock, and McCoy dress "contemporary". What they're wearing wouldn't look out of place in 1989.
- St. John Talbot, the Federation Representative on Nimbus III, was smoking a cigarette.
- McCoy says, "You really piss me off Jim." Swearing in the 23rd Century that wasn't just "damn" or "Hell".
- The Federation, Klingons, and Romulans all live together on the same colony. A colony that failed.
- The miner who Sybok recruits isn't well off. The field of empty holes is "all I have."
- Kirk is worried that Spock might turn on him. "I am here, Captain." "That's a little vague, Spock."
Last edited:
Thanks for the kind words!Watch @Ketwolski . One of the more interesting ones right now for me. And a member here to boot
LLAP!As for the topic of this discussion...well I wont just link my review video here, but needless to say I dont think it destroys anything. In fact it shows me just how hard it is to continue for humans to strive for that perfection. It gives it a realistic spin in my mind.
Thanks for coming to Jesse's aid.Thanks for the kind words!
As for the topic of this discussion...well I wont just link my review video here, but needless to say I dont think it destroys anything. In fact it shows me just how hard it is to continue for humans to strive for that perfection. It gives it a realistic spin in my mind.
I look forward to watching itThanks for the kind words!
As for the topic of this discussion...well I wont just link my review video here, but needless to say I dont think it destroys anything. In fact it shows me just how hard it is to continue for humans to strive for that perfection. It gives it a realistic spin in my mind.
Per Michael Chabon...
https://trekmovie.com/2020/02/24/st...n-questions-plus-frakes-interviewed-and-more/
In the one, long, ten-part story we’re telling, we’re asking two questions about the greater world of Star Trek (i.e, the Federation *and* everything outside the Federation). One—a venerable Star Trek question, with a long pedigree in previous series and films: What happens when the Federation, the Roddenberry Federation with all its enlightened and noble intentions, free from want, disease, (internal) war, greed, capitalism, intolerance, etc., is tested by forces inimical to its values? What happens when two of its essential principles; (security and liberty, say) come into conflict? The answer has to be—at first, it buckles. It wobbles. It may, to some extent, compromise or even betray its values, or at the very least be sorely tempted to do so. If not, there’s no point asking the question, though it’s a question that any society with aspirations like ours or the Federation’s needs to ask. If nothing can ever truly test the Federation, if nothing can rock its perfection, then it’s just a magical land. It’s Lothlorien, in its enchanted bubble, untouchable by the Shadow. And, also, profoundly *inhuman*. To me it’s the humanity of the Federation—which means among many admirable things, its imperfection, its vulnerability and the constant need to defend it from our own worst natures—that makes it truly inspiring
The other, related question we’re asking is: What about the people who live outside, at the edges (or even within) the Federation but who, for various reasons, aren’t quite *of* it. Ex-Starfleet officers, refugees, people like Seven who served on a Starfleet ship but was never actually in Starfleet. People who have fallen through the cracks, or fallen victim to their own weaknesses. What is life like for people who, for whatever reason, live beyond the benevolent boundaries of the Federation—where, for example, post-scarcity is a dream, and there is a monetary economy? Again, there is precedent for this kind of story on Trek, but the fact that our story only resolves over ten episodes, not one, or two, or four out of a season of 23, might make it feel, sometimes, that there is more darkness, more trauma in our characters’ lives. More *struggle.* This show unquestionably has darker tonalities than some others (DS9 is the standout exception). It lives more in the shadows, where the Federation’s light can’t always reach. That isn’t to condemn, criticize, undo, break or, god knows, betray the Federation or Gene Roddenberry’s vision. Shadow defines light.
https://trekmovie.com/2020/02/24/st...n-questions-plus-frakes-interviewed-and-more/
In the one, long, ten-part story we’re telling, we’re asking two questions about the greater world of Star Trek (i.e, the Federation *and* everything outside the Federation). One—a venerable Star Trek question, with a long pedigree in previous series and films: What happens when the Federation, the Roddenberry Federation with all its enlightened and noble intentions, free from want, disease, (internal) war, greed, capitalism, intolerance, etc., is tested by forces inimical to its values? What happens when two of its essential principles; (security and liberty, say) come into conflict? The answer has to be—at first, it buckles. It wobbles. It may, to some extent, compromise or even betray its values, or at the very least be sorely tempted to do so. If not, there’s no point asking the question, though it’s a question that any society with aspirations like ours or the Federation’s needs to ask. If nothing can ever truly test the Federation, if nothing can rock its perfection, then it’s just a magical land. It’s Lothlorien, in its enchanted bubble, untouchable by the Shadow. And, also, profoundly *inhuman*. To me it’s the humanity of the Federation—which means among many admirable things, its imperfection, its vulnerability and the constant need to defend it from our own worst natures—that makes it truly inspiring
The other, related question we’re asking is: What about the people who live outside, at the edges (or even within) the Federation but who, for various reasons, aren’t quite *of* it. Ex-Starfleet officers, refugees, people like Seven who served on a Starfleet ship but was never actually in Starfleet. People who have fallen through the cracks, or fallen victim to their own weaknesses. What is life like for people who, for whatever reason, live beyond the benevolent boundaries of the Federation—where, for example, post-scarcity is a dream, and there is a monetary economy? Again, there is precedent for this kind of story on Trek, but the fact that our story only resolves over ten episodes, not one, or two, or four out of a season of 23, might make it feel, sometimes, that there is more darkness, more trauma in our characters’ lives. More *struggle.* This show unquestionably has darker tonalities than some others (DS9 is the standout exception). It lives more in the shadows, where the Federation’s light can’t always reach. That isn’t to condemn, criticize, undo, break or, god knows, betray the Federation or Gene Roddenberry’s vision. Shadow defines light.
Last edited:
Hey if we're gonna talk politics...I've quite enjoyed how millions of activists have appeared out of nowhere upon a certain November day.
Patrick Stewart and Chabon are right. PICARD is timely. Some 9 years too late...but better late than ever.
And this ties into the OP of Utopia. We've only seen five episodes. There are certainly BILLIONS of Fed citizens whose lives haven't changed a whit since the end of the Dominion War. Neutral Zone? Romulans? Those are things that happen to funny looking people with funny sounding names.
What i want to know is....what the hell has been Vulcans reaction to all this??? Why arnt THEY being taken to task by Picard? Surely they didn't secede or I'd think we would have heard by now.
Patrick Stewart and Chabon are right. PICARD is timely. Some 9 years too late...but better late than ever.
And this ties into the OP of Utopia. We've only seen five episodes. There are certainly BILLIONS of Fed citizens whose lives haven't changed a whit since the end of the Dominion War. Neutral Zone? Romulans? Those are things that happen to funny looking people with funny sounding names.
What i want to know is....what the hell has been Vulcans reaction to all this??? Why arnt THEY being taken to task by Picard? Surely they didn't secede or I'd think we would have heard by now.
Wow. Those are great responses from Chabon, showing a deep understanding of the multiple issues that have shaped the franchise. And he admits, just like I have been saying, Picard is not quite as dark as DS9.
I came across an article that accused Federation society in Trek Picard of now being capitalist and materialist. Because of the mention of money.
Not much along ago, it was accused of being socialist, communist or utopian because the idea of it using no money.
Talk about irony.
To be honest I do think TNG was shooting for utopia.
At least based on what I've seen on the show.
And from what I've seen on Trek Picard so far, I think it's doing a little to take it apart.
If anything, some parts of it look like a dystophia.
Not much along ago, it was accused of being socialist, communist or utopian because the idea of it using no money.
Talk about irony.
To be honest I do think TNG was shooting for utopia.
At least based on what I've seen on the show.
And from what I've seen on Trek Picard so far, I think it's doing a little to take it apart.
If anything, some parts of it look like a dystophia.
Last edited:
Star Trek has a pretty long history of torture scenes. Maybe not quite as physical, but certainly terrible.
The Agony Booth (TOS and ENT)
Chain of Command
Romulan brainwashing of Geordi in Mind's Eye
Garak and Odo in The Die is Cast
The Agony Booth (TOS and ENT)
Chain of Command
Romulan brainwashing of Geordi in Mind's Eye
Garak and Odo in The Die is Cast
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
