• 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!

Let's talk about the elephant in the room, this series violates Roddenberry's vision big time

I don't know but so far just about all of them have sucked. "Precious Cargo(ENT)" is an episode so bad that even the writer knew it was complete and utter garbage and still believed it wasn't any good when interviewed for the DVD extras.

Trek is by its nature derivative. And often mediocre at best at mimicking other television shows and films.
 
Is it possible that one can take a position in the argument that isn't either feverish fundamentalism or violent iconoclasm?
 
Hornblower is not particularly evident in the original series, which appears to take as its models the 20th century American Navy - reasonable, for creators who served in the military during the WWII era - crossed with pulp science fiction stories of the 1940s as filtered through Forbidden Planet.

Roddenberry's talk about Hornblower, as with so much else, mostly came later.
 
I thought the "Hornblower in Space" concept was something that Meyer and Bennett came up with.

Kor
 
I always have problems with the type of discussion in this thread because I see Roddenberry's so called vision as simply a TV show concept. I guess it can be called visionary because it turned out so good, popular, forward looking, prescient and influential.

Spartacus is a TV show concept, CSI too, Star Trek TOS, TNG, Elementary, Farscape, 12 Monkeys are all different TV shows concepts and, that's what is important for me, they could have been created by the same writer. The same TV show creator.

In my mind, Roddenberry could be the same guy who came up with Star Trek TOS, TNG, Spartacus and Game of Thrones. That aspect is very important for me and to understand this post.

For example, TV execs could give students or would be writers 2 different assignments.

1) Write a dystopian future Sci-fi story
2) Write a non-dystopian future Sci-fi story

If a particular student writer or future show creator is very good. He could have come up with 2 great stories. LIke 12 Monkeys for the assigment 1 and Star Trek TNG or TOS for assigment 2. So this good student writer/TV show creator could have come up with both 12 Monkeys (or BSG), and Star Trek TNG. It's 2 different TV show concepts.

For me Roddenberry is just a guy who came up with an original TV show concept called Star Trek which was accepted by TV execs, put into production and eventually became popular.

Most Hollywood, sci-fi books, TV shows and even Sci-fi in the 50s and 60s, usually come up with a dystopian future. Technology turning against us. Tyrannical government or corporation taking over. Individuals right abolished. Aliens attacking earth. Science experiment producing monsters. Etc.

So, it made sense that some author or TV creator (pitcher, pilot writer), came up with the idea of not writing a dystopian sci-fi story, if not simply because creatively it's something different, while being possible for the future. So the basic for a good/realistic/interesting story.

You can have a dystopian outlook on the future but also you can have a more progressive outlook on the future where science continue to lead humanity to new heights in development, human rights, individual freedom ,and quality of life. Of course, it's also possible for science to lead us to a nuclear holocaust, destroying planet earth. Instead of being progressive, it can be regressive for humanity. A dystopian future is possible and can also constitute the basis of a good story.. Dystopian future sci-fi are a warning based on our fears of the future. A warning of things to avoid.

So I don't see all the hoopla about Roddenberry's vision. For me, it's just a TV show concept. A "what if". For me Roddenberry's so-called vision is Star Trek TOS and TNG (especially the first seasons), simply because he's the one behind those TV shows. He could be the guy behind 12 Monkeys, Game of Thrones and Sliders, and I would say he had 3 good "visions", 3 good TV shows concepts.

When people attack Roddenberry's vision in relation to Star Trek, I feel they attack the whole Star Trek concept (TOS, TNG) and what make Star Trek unique. Star Trek is just a TV show concept. A TV show idea pitched to TV execs after writing/creating a pilot and basic outlines for it.

The way I see it, if you don't like "Roddenberry's vision", you don't like Star Trek TOS and TNG. You don't like the TV show idea that is Star Trek TOS and TNG.

I see Roddenberry who could be a guy trying to pitch different stories to TV execs, One about a police man, another one about a dystopian future, another about a non-dystopian future wagon in space, etc. If one of them is taken and become popular. You're happy.

If you're the creator of those shows you know what makes them unique and you don't want people to change the concept. For example, I like Game of Thrones, I like comedic shows like Seinfeld. But I don't want Game of Thrones: Discovery to be turned into a comedic show like Futurama or the Bing Bang theory. In a way, it's ridiculous because those are different TV shows concepts. Game of Thrones shouldn't even be like Spartacus either even if they are closer in style. They are each their own show. If I was the Roddenberry's of those show, I wouldn't want them to turn Game of Thrones: Discovery into a comedy or a show like Spartacus (whatever that means). Those are different concepts for TV shows.

If you take the Star Trek concept and do something completely different with it. For example, turn a non-dystopian sci-fi to a dystopian one, you're just changing the concept, one of the aspect that made a TV show unique. It's happens sometimes in Hollywood: Batman, Total Recall, etc but I don't like it. It's mostly for the money, for the name recognition. You keep the name but creatively you don't keep the same concept in spirit. I prefer when people come up with their own concept for movies and TV shows if they want to make something different. I'm a big fan of action-adventure space sci-fi, and sci-fi in general, and looking forward for more.

If you say you don't like Roddenberry's so called vision, it's because you don't like the original concept of Star Trek TOS and TNG and I don't see the point. You don't like the basic ideas behind Star Trek TOS and TNG. If I don't like Game of Thrones and prefer Seinfeld, I don't have to turn one into the other. If you don't like Star Trek TOS and TNG, you don't have to turn them into BSG or Total Recall original. Those are 4 great but different tv shows/movie concept. If you do, it's only for the money, marketing/name recognition (even if it can turn out to be good).
 
Last edited:
XCV330 said:
I can see your point.

I think there is some correlation to the times and the shows. Not always but it has been there. There were elements of worry about the Cold War in TOS as well as in some of TNG. I think DS9 deals with the idea of nation-building and the rise of theocracies in the wake of the fall of an empire at a time when that was going on. I can't find much relevant with Voyager. The parallels of the Xindi attack and 911 are visible, as well as the rise of xenophobia afterwards.

I'm not sure what the modern equivalent of Discovery is except perhaps we're (the US anyway) a culture that's been at war so long, but in a distant war, that a never ending state of brushfire war just seems natural. We know we must win this conflict with terrorism, but there is no criteria for victory. Previous ST crews have had the mission to boldly go where no one has gone before.This mission is to "send everyone home, safe and happy." Lorca seems to long for a time when things were objectively better for the Federation, and why shouldn't he. It might well be to close to comfort if i think about it that way.
Click to expand...

I do not think the STD people thought about it as much as you do. And that is what frustrates me the most, they use the Star Trek in their title only to gain audience and they do not go beyond that. And at the same time they introduce ST to newbies as a shallow mess.
I see a random "collection" of cliches and various bastardized "peak tv" elements with the purpose of attracting new audience.
They are trying to impress more than trying to say anything.
"lets add to the mix, an antihero deeply traumatized lead and lets make it dark, no, lets make it darker and grim cause this stuff are popular right now".

I recently watched full TNG, DS9 and VOY series (thank you Netflix).
Living in Greece, I never had the chance to watch more than TOS and some seasons of TNG. The rest, I had watched by buying full seasons of second hand VHS tapes on Ebay. So there were big gaps I had to fill.
As a result, I have old ST very fresh in my mind.
And I simply cannot see STD as Star Trek. Not yet, anyway.
One can only hope.
 
McDuff said:
If you say you don't like Roddenberry's so called vision, it's because you don't like the original concept of Star Trek TOS and TNG and I don't see the point.
Click to expand...
I like the basic ideas just fine. I don't like how it can't be challenged at all.
 
Sci-fi fan said:
Especially on the 3rd episode most characters, even the leads are often depicted as extremely cranky like a regular crime show on any regular tv script. Roddenberry's vision is not a fixation, it's what genuinely made TNG a phenomenon.
Click to expand...
While I do think it's good that some of Roddenberry's more questionable rules were thrown out the window (that there can't be conflict among the lead characters), I think they've thrown out the core of Star Trek: The optimistic vision of the future. . I've already described in my review of the third episode how I think this is more of a dystopian vision. It's only been three episodes and one shouldn't judge too soon, but I don't think this show feels much like Star Trek. We have a one lead character (that I quite frankly don't want to root given her arrogance) instead of the group of earlier shows. Heck, we haven't really learned to know any characters besides Saru, Lorca, Tilly and the annoying Stamets.

I have not given up on the show yet (it's on Netflix that I pay for anyway) but....
 
Ensign Mas said:
While I do think it's good that some of Roddenberry's more questionable rules were thrown out the window (that there can't be conflict among the lead characters), I think they've thrown out the core of Star Trek: The optimistic vision of the future. I've already described in my review of the third episode how I think this is more of a dystopian vision. It's only been three episodes and one shouldn't judge too soon, but I don't think this show feels much like Star Trek. We have a one lead character (that I quite frankly don't want to root given her arrogance) instead of the group of earlier shows. Heck, we haven't really learned to know any characters besides Saru, Lorca, Tilly and the annoying Stamets.

I have not given up on the show yet (it's on Netflix that I pay for anyway) but....
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you think it's a dystopian vision.
 
Ed Mercer said:
Hornblower is not particularly evident in the original series, which appears to take as its models the 20th century American Navy - reasonable, for creators who served in the military during the WWII era - crossed with pulp science fiction stories of the 1940s as filtered through Forbidden Planet.

Roddenberry's talk about Hornblower, as with so much else, mostly came later.
Click to expand...
For me the "Horatio Hornblower" mini-series (1998)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornblower_(TV_series)
felt very much like Star Trek (TOS). Take anyone of those HH episodes and you could easily translate it to a TOS era episode. The same with the feature film: "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World."

Also, the Gregory Peck "Horatio Hrnblower" film (1951)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Horatio_Hornblower
could easily have been some inspiration for April/Pike/Kirk as they were developing the original series for production.
 
McDuff said:
...
If you say you don't like Roddenberry's so called vision, it's because you don't like the original concept of Star Trek TOS and TNG and I don't see the point. You don't like the basic ideas behind Star Trek TOS and TNG. If I don't like Game of Thrones and prefer Seinfeld, I don't have to turn one into the other. If you don't like Star Trek TOS and TNG, you don't have to turn them into BSG or Total Recall original. Those are 4 great but different tv shows/movie concept. If you do, it's only for the money, marketing/name recognition (even if it can turn out to be good).
Click to expand...

The self-important pseudo-philosophical mumbo-jumbo of Roddenberrys "vision" didn't start to germinate until some time well into the 1970s. It had nothing to do with TOS.

Kor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Qonundrum
Poppin' saucers at Farpoint
Replies
13
Views
2K
somebuddyX
somebuddyX
Qonundrum
Run Amok to get there in Time
Replies
7
Views
1K
Denise
D
McCovey Cove
Star Trek: Delta, Stars, & Anchor #1: "Esprit de Corps" (WIP)
2
Replies
23
Views
955
BrotherBenny
BrotherBenny
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top