• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Let’s talk about the destruction of Trek utopia…

From the writers guide:
“We must have an optimistic projection of man and his society if we are to approve of and identify with Captain Kirk, the crew of the Enterprise, and their mission.”
Optimism does not mean utopian.
Picard is not written for general audiences. Let’s not pretend it is. It’s too entrenched in lore and fanwank. So that’s not even a consideration. Next, you don’t know what people today will watch without trying, which we haven’t.
Ok, that's a non sequitur. I never argued that it was for general audiences. I stated that it being a projection into our humanity's future brings a certain level of realism with it.

And, even without it, the more fantastical setting requires some realism.
 
I'm optimistic that the coronavirus won't be a big public health issue by sometime later this year. That doesn't mean it'll vanish forever and bad strains of flu virus won't kill anyone else in 2020.
 
And, even without it, the more fantastical setting requires some realism.
That was intended for another user who said TNG wouldn’t work for today’s audiences. What I would say to you again, what is realism. No one has answered that. As Ryan Riddle says, Trek is not at its best when it’s just today with gadgets and pew-pew. If that’s the limit of your imagination it’s not good enough for me.
 
There are lots of things I don't even remotely like about DSC or even PIC. "Pew pew" and different for the sake of different are more often than not lazy and dumb choices, but I don't see that PIC is even remotely a betrayal of the classic Star Trek view of humanity's future nor that it's unrecognizable Trek.

There's a difference between the choice of changing Klingon makeup so that it looks stupid and a series not being Star Trek because it doesn't say that we're going to be a non-corrupt, peaceful society with no moral problems by the 23rd and 24th centuries. Aesthetic and dramatic storytelling choices do not necessarily a betrayal of Star Trek make.
 
That was intended for another user who said TNG wouldn’t work for today’s audiences. What I would say to you again, what is realism. No one has answered that. As Ryan Riddle says, Trek is not at its best when it’s just today with gadgets and pew-pew. If that’s the limit of your imagination it’s not good enough for me.
No, it's about people and being able to relate to them. Picard succeeds for me. Mileage and all that jazz.
 
In all of those situations he was talking about faux-Tahitian edens with no growth, creativity, or free thought. So, let’s not mix that up. And a planet with no chance of war and resources to send people into space is utopian. Compare this to DS9 and everything after it that exists in a world with an Illuminati backend in section 31, armies of android workers with human like ai, and an alien force infiltrating it’s highest offices. That’s not just not utopia, it’s dystopian. That should be the discussion. Not the death of Trek utopia, but the birth of the Federation dystopia.

You really need to look up what those words mean. It's making your argument look worse than it is.
 
Dystopia is a society with an unaccountable illuminati backend that subverts the will of everybody working for that society and everything it stands for.

Well, it's not a terrible definition, but it only applies to this show at a truly absurd level of hyperbole. Seriously, dude, "subverts the will of everybody"? You know nobody's going to take that seriously. "Everything it stands for" is just as bad.
 
The Oracle of the People: You have listened to the words of the non-believers.

Natira: Yes, I have listened.

The Oracle of the People: That was the first transgression. You felt the pain of warning?

Natira: Yes, I did.

The Oracle of the People: Why did you listen further?

Natira: They said they spoke the truth.

The Oracle of the People: THEIR truth.

Natira: Is truth not truth for all?

The Oracle of the People: The truth of Yonada is YOUR truth. There can be no other for you.
 
And that's not the Federation during and after the Dominion War. The vast majority of the Federation's citizens live in a peaceful environment where food and shelter don't seem to be a problem and we even have transporter gateways outside Starfleet Headquarters by 2399, making the already-fantastic technology even more rapid and easy for those using them. Picard is in no need of anything except internal peace and confidence in a bureaucracy that's allowed itself to give into fear and be infiltrated from outside.

That's not dystopia. That's a society where nobody starves or goes without health care and where people in positions of authority still act the way they pretty much always have - as bureaucrats. Fear and anger aren't going to go anywhere just because humanity and the Vulcans have stopped bombing themselves. It's just going to be redirected to the problems of the 23rd and 24th centuries.
 
I couldn't agree more. And Picard isn't like that.
Picard is exactly like that. It's the very conceit of the show.

That's why it works. It shows that we (humans) don't need space magic tech to try and better ourselves. We can be like that now. Use the tech as a tool. Not a crutch.

In no way is this better presented than with the Trois' home. It's placed in this serene aboral landscape. They live an almost Amish-like existence, save for the bare 24th-century necessities. They've created as ideal of a life as any human could possibly ask for. But it isn't perfect. It isn't utopia. Because utopias don't exist. The word literally means "no place." They're not real.

Therefore, it's a much more positive and optimistic outlook on the future of civilization than "Well everyone's life is perfect. we're all shiny happy people thanks to space magic."
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top