Still can't make people get help.
Spoilers Let’s talk about the destruction of Trek utopia…
- Thread starter Anters
- Start date
G
Gonzo
Guest
For a start they have to realise they have a problem in the first place.
I think Raffi knows she has a problem and every time she makes progress she encounters something she can't handle and its back to hiding in addiction, while I can't say I blame her son I can appreciate how it would make her fall off the wagon again, if her son mattered that much to her she would have taken his words to heart and used it to help her stay clean.
Its very much a way of coping with problems by running away.
I am tee total, I have never smoked anything or taken any drugs (besides those prescribed) in my life, group of coworkers got me drunk once when I was like 18 (the first and only instance), we had a good time but I never felt the want or need to do it again, so I never did to this day.
Perhaps there is something about my personality that makes me resistant or maybe I just know better than to use or be around those who do, it never ends well.
Never?
It's a little more than that. Addiction is both medical, but it also is a coping strategy for dealing with life's difficulties. Recognizing that there is a problem is the first part of it. But you also have to be willing to learn new skills in order to cope with life's problems. Step 1 can be easy. The rest is a bigger challenge.
Switching up the near-utopia on Earth within the Federation?
The thing is, it was in the background of TNG. So it was easier to portray when you hardly see it. But since there was so much focus on Earth in PIC, then to make things interesting you might have to switch it up.
Roddenberry's vision resulted in two classic shows, one of them long running, and a classic TOS films series. Switching it up doesn't bother me to much as long as they do something interesting with it. I suppose I might prefer to continue with what was established in TNG as I found that to be more unique and interesting, and somehow find a way to do conflict with that kind of background on Earth. But I just shrug my shoulders, because there's so much variety out there in SF, and even in Star Trek, that I have my pick of what I want.
If we always saw utopia in Star Trek, then it might get boring and we'd resent seeing the same thing. Or maybe it would be even more ambitious to address that kind of writing challenge in a new series and make space exploration with utopian ideals feel exciting.
But right now I want to know what happens with Soji and how Data ties into this, why the synths went rogue, so for now I'm enjoying the ride.
That's a problem of messaging, though. Either it was filtered to me wrong, or it was something they really missed the mark on, but I was under the assumption this would take far, far more center stage. But then it goes back to my last remark: Picard is going to be zipping around, trying to be a role model, solve mysteries, make little things right.
But then why not emphasize that? It's not bad marketing to show a former hero down from their prime or have suffered a huge failure, get a goading, and set out for 'one last adventure' or 'one last chance to do right'. Stuff like Unforgiven comes to mind in that vein. In that regard, the 'Slipping Federation' makes some more sense, but the emphasis beforehand on how this show is to be a remark on our current world doesn't.
I think the utopianism of TNG is over-sold. If we go back and watch the show, there is clearly a lot of corruption and shady shit within the Federation -- Pressman and the phase cloak in "The Pegasus," the admiral who tried to get Ensign Ro to do some shady shit in "Ensign Ro," Admiral Satie's witchhunt in "The Drumhead," Maddux trying to turn Data into a slave in "The Measure of a Man," the admiral who tried to steal Lal away in "The Offspring," the Federation allowing entire civilizations to die out in "Pen Pals" and "Homeward," the culture of idolization and hero worship built up around elite squads at Starfleet Academy like Nova Squad and Red Squad in "The First Duty" (and DS9's "Valiant"), the Federation's blithe willingness to engage in a war of genocide against the Borg in "I, Borg" and subsequent episodes where Nechayev ordered Picard to genocide them if he got the chance, the Federation's refusal to do anything substantive to help the Bajorans before they drove off the Cardassians in S6, the Federation's willingness to forcibly relocate a Native American settlement after totally ignore their wishes (and their complete blindness to the idea that those folks could just leave the Federation and accept Cardassian rule), and their general attitude towards the Maquis in S7, their willingness to forcibly relocate the Bak'u in INS -- these things all come to mind as examples of how the Federation was far from pure.
I think what PIC has done is, it has changed the tone and focus. Instead of focusing on morally righteous heroes who are always powerful enough to do the right thing without suffering negative repercussions for it and for whom moral corruption always comes from without, PIC focuses on Picard and company as morally imperfect political actors embedded in a morally imperfect society, who are trying to do their best and to redeem their society for its bad choices, but who are not themselves always perfect and who do not themselves always have enough power to make the morally correct choices. Instead of reassuring us that in the future, things will be better and we'll mostly make better choices as a society like TNG did, PIC is challenging us to ask if that will really always be the case and to think about how we can make sure that that is the case when we're faced with problems that are more complicated than TNG presented us with.
I like both types of stories, but I think the second type makes for more complex, higher-quality writing that says a lot more about our society today.
I think what PIC has done is, it has changed the tone and focus. Instead of focusing on morally righteous heroes who are always powerful enough to do the right thing without suffering negative repercussions for it and for whom moral corruption always comes from without, PIC focuses on Picard and company as morally imperfect political actors embedded in a morally imperfect society, who are trying to do their best and to redeem their society for its bad choices, but who are not themselves always perfect and who do not themselves always have enough power to make the morally correct choices. Instead of reassuring us that in the future, things will be better and we'll mostly make better choices as a society like TNG did, PIC is challenging us to ask if that will really always be the case and to think about how we can make sure that that is the case when we're faced with problems that are more complicated than TNG presented us with.
I like both types of stories, but I think the second type makes for more complex, higher-quality writing that says a lot more about our society today.
Of course, there was a lot corruption and shady shit (to quote Sci) within the federation, but - and I don't know, how to describe it better - the way, the narrative "went" with it, was different. At the end of a TNG episode, the "corruption of the week" was dissolved and maybe, there was a JLP-speech with this special way of integrity, that gave me a feeling of "hope". As I wrote it in some other threads before: I know, that even TNG wasn't very "utopian"... but it always made me feel like utopia was neigh, that it was possible. Like in a bedtime story, Picard made his point, even convinced Q and all was well.
Now, in PIC, they've metaphorically destroyed Utopia (Planetia) and let all the other characters around Picard claim, how wrong Picard's point of view seems to be. Even Seven, maybe the only other character in PIC with the same "narrative weight" like JL, confirms Picard's "misjudgement" of the universe - and not only through her words, but also with her way of acting.
With DS9, we even had another show in the past, that also had the "destruction of Trek Utopia" on its agenda. It was always my favourite Trek show (and still is). Especially, I appreciated the way they took to fullfill this agenda. They "started" in TNG universe and used some small episodes like the Q-episode to establish, that DS9 isn't TNG and that the way, Sisko is solving his problems, is different to Picard's and up from this point, they increased "the level of destruction", until they could put elements like Section 31 in this universe without any problems. And as much as I love the idea of Section 31, I'm very sure, the idea wouldn't have worked for me, if they had introduced it in season 2 or even in TNG.
To compare the two ways of the destruction: While DS9 used a scalpel in a very intelligent way to prepare the TNG universe for some more "shady shit", in PIC, they're now using a sledgehammer. So, my critic isn't levelled at the road they take (I've always loved the idea of bringing back Picard in the "DS9-way of the ST-universe"), but at the clumsy driving skills.
Now, in PIC, they've metaphorically destroyed Utopia (Planetia) and let all the other characters around Picard claim, how wrong Picard's point of view seems to be. Even Seven, maybe the only other character in PIC with the same "narrative weight" like JL, confirms Picard's "misjudgement" of the universe - and not only through her words, but also with her way of acting.
With DS9, we even had another show in the past, that also had the "destruction of Trek Utopia" on its agenda. It was always my favourite Trek show (and still is). Especially, I appreciated the way they took to fullfill this agenda. They "started" in TNG universe and used some small episodes like the Q-episode to establish, that DS9 isn't TNG and that the way, Sisko is solving his problems, is different to Picard's and up from this point, they increased "the level of destruction", until they could put elements like Section 31 in this universe without any problems. And as much as I love the idea of Section 31, I'm very sure, the idea wouldn't have worked for me, if they had introduced it in season 2 or even in TNG.
To compare the two ways of the destruction: While DS9 used a scalpel in a very intelligent way to prepare the TNG universe for some more "shady shit", in PIC, they're now using a sledgehammer. So, my critic isn't levelled at the road they take (I've always loved the idea of bringing back Picard in the "DS9-way of the ST-universe"), but at the clumsy driving skills.
It's easy to be a saint in paradise. The corruption wasn't fixed in TNG. Picard and company flew off in the love boat. The ordinary people who got themselves into their shitty situations would do what folks do everywhere throughout history. Get into other shitty situations. Picard is taking us into the lives of the folks who don't have the luxuries of the Federation draped around them anymore. Quark understand that all too well about humans.
Sorry, I don't get your point. What you're describing, is a similarity to DS9: Both shows started with showing us parts of the ST universe "outside the heart of Starfleet". In my metaphor, that is the road they've taken and I like the idea. My critic is levelled at the implementation of this idea in the "ST universe they've shown us before", not at the idea itself.
This happened already when the dominion war started. Admirals were afraid that the founders were infiltrating the federation highest ranks and therefore everyone turned on each other. We had soldiers patrolling San Fransisco and almost every earthling was very afraid of the situation and unhappy with the federation.
Out of 5 episodes where the Feds had the chance to destroy the Borgs by committing genocyde, the only one against that was the captain (either Picard or Janeway).
So yeah, let's respect the Prime Directive unless we think that a specie could kill us all. When we are in danger, the Prime Directive can be disregarded completely because yes.
Basically the reason for Maquis existance is that the Federation is not really that good at spreading the Human Utopia outside of the Sol system. In TOS and early TNG the Romulans and the Klingons (the main occupant of the alpha/beta quadrant beside the Federation worlds) are very aggressive against border colonies, they threat the lives of federal colonists to get resources and if it wasn't for the Enterprise D they would have died at the hands of the bad aliens.
SO MUCH FOR THE TOLERANT FEDERATION!
Not to mention that there are some episodes where the Federation and it's values are undermined in some way.
In DS9 "The Siege of AR-558" we see how the federation can abandon it's men and women in complete disregard of it's core values.
In VOY "Equinox" we see how easy can be for some to abandon the federation core values in complete disregard of what they should represent.
These two examples are the first I can think of, but surely there are more (maybe not so evident as these two).
In DS9 "The Siege of AR-558" we see how the federation can abandon it's men and women in complete disregard of it's core values.
In VOY "Equinox" we see how easy can be for some to abandon the federation core values in complete disregard of what they should represent.
These two examples are the first I can think of, but surely there are more (maybe not so evident as these two).
Sorry...no, in no way can one assume the Federation has become a fascist regime just because after an attack that destroyed a terra formed world and cost the Federation 92000 lives and a major resource - they decide to stop supporting a plan many were on the fence about to begin with - especially since for the majority of Federation history, the Romulans have been a deceiving duplicitous enemy of the Federation.
Ehm
Have I already mentioned the Maquis issue? They are present in three different shows and basically it's a faction that originated because the federation abandoned them.
They fight for their own freedom because the federation sold them to the cardassian empire.
If you try to look at the world with their own eyes you will think that the federation became a fascist regime.
The reality is that the show emphasises on the wrong aspects of the federation just because the main character is not of the same opinion and you are watching the federation trough Picard eyes
To better understand this concept, just think about how neo-nazi movements are made up of people who think Hitler was right.
Take a neo-nazi german and an old european jewish and ask both what they think about Hitler: you will get two entirely different versions of the same man.
Take a neo-nazi german and an old european jewish and ask both what they think about Hitler: you will get two entirely different versions of the same man.
WTF are you talking about. Again, regardless of how the Maquis feel and respond - the Maquis were NEVER portrayed as Fascists.
As someone who hard parts of his family wiped out in the Holocaust, I'm glad that Chabon has added new words to the Star Trek vocabulary to describe this logic.
Read again my comment: I said that the federation was mistreating the maquis therefore the maquis could consider the federation as a fascist regime, not the other way around
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
