Not the best way to start off a thread like this, IMO.
Spoilers Let’s talk about the destruction of Trek utopia…
- Thread starter Anters
- Start date
Not the best way to start off a thread like this, IMO.
Your problem is that the two situations don't map onto each other exactly?
I really don't see how the (ongoing) Syrian refugee crisis that's clearly the inspiration for it doesn't work because it's allegedly different since it's caused by people and not mother nature. In an allegory the circumstances don't have to be exactly the same, and besides one has to look what is actually compared in the confines of the allegory. The Romulan refugee crisis is not a commentary on the root cause of the Syrian refugee crisis, it's a commentary on it's consequences. Poverty, lawlessness, violence, xenophobia, mistrust etc. It doesn't matter why they are there if your goal is to show the effects of people falling between the cracks.
You make it sound like they are close.
I say, why not call it dystopian? I don't think it affects the quality of the show itself, or destroys Star Trek itself. It does have some aspects of it.
The technological advances, and advancement of human society is still there. It's basically in a state of well being like in the previous shows.
But on the other hand:
You have a couple of major catastrophes. One of them results in lawlessness and mercenaries etc. Secret police running amok. The main characters are bitter with a bitter story to tell. State agencies appearing to betraying its core values (according to Picard). Synthetic human creations used as working machines turn on their controllers and cause one of the catastrophes.
I din't think it totally affects the enjoyment of the show, but honestly you do see some elements of it in Picard. At least it's a little dystopian.
I wonder if that was actually the producer's intent to show it.
The technological advances, and advancement of human society is still there. It's basically in a state of well being like in the previous shows.
But on the other hand:
You have a couple of major catastrophes. One of them results in lawlessness and mercenaries etc. Secret police running amok. The main characters are bitter with a bitter story to tell. State agencies appearing to betraying its core values (according to Picard). Synthetic human creations used as working machines turn on their controllers and cause one of the catastrophes.
I din't think it totally affects the enjoyment of the show, but honestly you do see some elements of it in Picard. At least it's a little dystopian.
I wonder if that was actually the producer's intent to show it.
I get what you're saying. Trek's optimism was one of the things that made me feel good about the future. it seems like in Picard, they're keeping the technological advances and ditching the optimism and moral progress humans are supposed to have made.
But I think one problem TNG had i that tended to go over the top in its attempt to portray human progress.
Entertainment consisted of watching plays and orchestras, playing musical intraments or reading books.. the only music they seemed to listen to was classical music or jazz maybe. Any type of TV style entertainment or streaming was extinct.
People drank tea all the time and always spoke in a standard, watered down way, if it wasn't technobabble. At times it came off as so artificial.
It tended to ignore basic down to earth issues you might find in a human society.
Like what happens if someone like Chakotay (Indian/native American) were asked to participate in a holodeck program set in the Christopher Columbus era. TNG would probably have him participate and pretend an issue didn't exist.
The difference with DS9 was that Sisko didn't, although he still remained an enlightened 24th century person afterwards. The same thing with Beverly Crusher and Odan - (The Host)
TNG's version of things had certain limits and restrictions to it IMO.
Last edited:
Thanks for all who read my post and especially those who took the time to respond. Just to clarify a bit...
Many have correctly pointed out that ST TV series contained profanity. It is the degree and type of profanity in STP that I find distasteful. I am probably more old-fashioned than most of you, but I find it unnecessary and vulgar. You can make a point with emphasis without restoring to it. The gore aspect is also unnecessary. It's not necessary to be so obvious to portray suffering. Subtlety is a powerful way to spark a viewer's imagination. Yes, STP is rated TV-MA. I just think you can produce excellent drama without resorting to the language and gore for shock value.
Some also pointed out that the world of STP is not as dystopian as I stated. Perhaps it isn't, but it is certainly darker than what we saw in the ST TV series. I have encountered many ST fans who expressed an appreciation for the optimistic view of the future that ST portrayed. Picard forcefully stated in his interview in episode 1 that Starfleet was no longer Starfleet. So it certainly doesn't seem to be the same organization we knew in past iterations of ST up to Discovery. I confess I'm not much of a fan of Discovery either. STNG was criticized for portraying a reality that was too perfect. There is some merit to that, but the individual characters still had crises and problems that they had to resolve. I'm not aware of any other future-based drama that has shows much progress in the human condition other than technological advancement. If anyone does, I'd like to know about it. ST had a unique place in the SF genre, which I think it very valuable and worth preserving.
Thanks again to everyone
Many have correctly pointed out that ST TV series contained profanity. It is the degree and type of profanity in STP that I find distasteful. I am probably more old-fashioned than most of you, but I find it unnecessary and vulgar. You can make a point with emphasis without restoring to it. The gore aspect is also unnecessary. It's not necessary to be so obvious to portray suffering. Subtlety is a powerful way to spark a viewer's imagination. Yes, STP is rated TV-MA. I just think you can produce excellent drama without resorting to the language and gore for shock value.
Some also pointed out that the world of STP is not as dystopian as I stated. Perhaps it isn't, but it is certainly darker than what we saw in the ST TV series. I have encountered many ST fans who expressed an appreciation for the optimistic view of the future that ST portrayed. Picard forcefully stated in his interview in episode 1 that Starfleet was no longer Starfleet. So it certainly doesn't seem to be the same organization we knew in past iterations of ST up to Discovery. I confess I'm not much of a fan of Discovery either. STNG was criticized for portraying a reality that was too perfect. There is some merit to that, but the individual characters still had crises and problems that they had to resolve. I'm not aware of any other future-based drama that has shows much progress in the human condition other than technological advancement. If anyone does, I'd like to know about it. ST had a unique place in the SF genre, which I think it very valuable and worth preserving.
Thanks again to everyone
DS9 certainly was darker than PIC
Yeah I can't believe how many and how popular these racist, sexist assholes on YouTube are who have a hateboner for modern Star Trek.
You'd think that Star Trek would be relatively safe from misogynistic white supremacists.
How so is more my question.
We have several instances (as cited in this thread) of colonies being less than perfect, the Enterprise crew encountering truly difficult circumstances, Tasha Yar's colony having rape gangs, etc. Michael Chabbon is even on record that the Federation is hardly in decline in terms of current quality of life. We just happen to be out on the frontier and seeing difficulties. Which, sounds like Trek to me and no more dystopian than before.
I generally agree but do these brief two second bits impact the whole show?
No I wouldn't.
some of the most progressive fandoms have been attacked by this little group and their 'culture war'. they raged against Star Trek, Doctor Who, Marvel Comics...wherever they think they find impressionable young minds that can be perverted by their ideas. It's never really about the subject at hand, it is about corrupting fans of something unrelated to their racist, multiphobic, misogynistic political agenda
Are you talking about Nerdrotic? That was the first time I saw someone who viewed Star Trek as being for white manly men who rule over women. It would be like the NRA using MacGyver (Richard Dean Anderson version) as their calling card.
The "this wasn't necessary" argument never works. It's a bad framing of the debate, since the other side never believes that the content in question was necessary, and they also don't believe that such content may only be used when necessary.
You have to argue against the position the opposition actually holds.
Not only does it not work, it doesn't even make any sense. Who decides what's necessary for an episode and what isn't? A 30-second recap is perfectly enough for me to understand what's happening in an episode, that would surely mean the other 40+ minutes are totally superfluous, right?
And, often, it imposes a higher standard of "necessary" for the "offensive" material than for any other artistic choice. I mean, it's seldom literally "necessary" to do anything just one way, fictionally speaking. Do phaser beams have to be blue or red or instead of green or purple? Was that bit of comedy relief strictly "necessary" to the plot, or was it simply amusing in its own right? Did that character have to be black, or a woman, or gay? Did they have to say "fuck" instead of "damnit"?
The underlying assumption is always that, for instance, profanity is an Unfortunate Thing that should be avoided unless it's absolutely "necessary."
Whereas other types of dialogue or plot devices are not required to justify their use in the same way.
"Seriously? Was it absolutely necessary to have the captain quote Shakespeare again? All those highbrow literary quotations are just snobby and elitist! You don't need iambic pentameter to make your point!"
But all of that is seen on a far smaller or vague level than any headline we've seen in real life. We have a snappy reporter, Romulan camps on the frontier, Picard moaning. Poverty, Lawlessness, Violence, Xenophobia, and Mistrust is in play not because 'Ugh these Romulans are here" but because everyone is fighting each other over some super-secret mythos and intelligence agency. The Romulan 'Refugees' are nice added-on dressings to the setting, and nothing central. Soji, Narek, Elnor may have their roots in this crisis but the story they're focusing on is getting far, far away from it as possible and not looking back.
The focal point of the story is the journey of one man out of inaction and to face those he abandoned (Romulans, Raffi) and those he fears due to old trauma (the Børg). The Romulan refugee crisis is not meant to be front and center. It's connected thematically to the main plot, which is centered around othering and the fear of the other, and how inaction is a sin in itself.
I love the optimistic/evolved humanity in TNG and so far it's not too far off from that. It's more like an extended version of Conspiracy where the federation has some issues. The only thing slightly different than I imagined is Raffi should be surrounded by counselors trying to help her get clean
You have to be willing to accept help.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
