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

[Vger23]

Oh, just little things, like exploring the issues of our time through allegorical stories set in other societies. Maybe also having a crew who are likeable and get on well with each other? That works a tonic with viewers dont cha know, when they have a collective group they can root for.

You're mixing up your personal tastes with what "Star Trek is supposed to be."

Star Trek is supposed to be a sci-if outer space show about how humanity (not having destroyed itself) has grown to the point of cooperating enough to be traveling the galaxy.

After that, all bets are off.

Don't mix up your personal preferences for what a 50-year running franchise is "supposed to be"

It seems to be resonating with plenty of people. Unfortunately you don't feel the same way. But, respectfully that's your problem, not the show's.

 

[Vger23]

Well, yeah to that point - one of the reasons I gave up on it was that I didn't give a damn about what happened to anybody.

Well...after Georgiou got eaten, anyway.

If "given up" is defined as "still taking time out of my day 3-5 times on average to express my disappointments and displeasures in the hope of both causing discord and gaining sympathetic responses," then yeah...you've definitely given up

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Full disclosure: I haven't read this whole thread, and I probably won't be. I just happened to accidentally click on the most recent page, and couldn't help but notice this nugget:

Oh, just little things, like exploring the issues of our time through allegorical stories set in other societies.

Issues like the rise of the so-called Islamic State and other forms of extreme religious fundamentalism at odds with the texts on which they're based, foreign and domestic terrorism, racial stereotyping, police shootings, PTSD, torture, sexual abuse, medical ethics, rules of engagement in war, and general clashes of values and ideology not only across cultures, but within one's own? Issues like those?

-MMoM

 

[Gepard]

Of course you're not allowed to say that now, as legions of sneery "move with the times" or "Roddenberry's vision was cash" types will descend on you.

Gene's Vision was making a lot of money and running a show that provided him with creepy access to hit on female employees by convincing Lucy Ball that his idea of basing a show off of Forbidden Planet would pay out. Eventually it did, and the other thing worked out for him too.

Hey @Four Lights , can you get me next week's Powerball numbers?

 

[Kor]

Gene's "vision" is pure baloney that is contrary to interesting storytelling and just has nothing to do with anything. Why has this thread gone on so long?

Kor

 

[Four Lights]

Hey @Four Lights , can you get me next week's Powerball numbers?

You obviously haven't read any of my subsequent posts and just zoomed in on what you wanted to see.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Oh, just little things, like exploring the issues of our time through allegorical stories set in other societies...

I take it you missed the part where the Klingon Empire is directly and obviously an allegory for the ISIS/Islamist attempted reformation of the glory days of the Ottoman Empire, unifying a dysfunctional and chaotic scattershot of disparate states under the rule of a ham-fisted religious fanatic? Allegorical villain is allegorical.

Maybe also having a crew who are likeable and get on well with each other? That works a tonic with viewers dont cha know, when they have a collective group they can root for.

Is there a particular reason you are NOT rooting for all the people on the ship whose name isn't Lorca? Because I sure as hell am.

 

[Gepard]

You obviously haven't read any of my subsequent posts and just zoomed in on what you wanted to see.

And you completely missed the point of my post. I was noting, in a jocular manner, that exactly what you predicted came to pass.

 

[Four Lights]

You're mixing up your personal tastes with what "Star Trek is supposed to be."

Star Trek is supposed to be a sci-if outer space show about how humanity (not having destroyed itself) has grown to the point of cooperating enough to be traveling the galaxy.

After that, all bets are off.

Don't mix up your personal preferences for what a 50-year running franchise is "supposed to be"

It seems to be resonating with plenty of people. Unfortunately you don't feel the same way. But, respectfully that's your problem, not the show's.

I tend to stick the admittedly crazy to some notion that when the franchise had stellar rating and was winning awards, it was in some way good and what more people would consider to be Star Trek. Whereas when that wasn't happening, maybe that was a bit less the case.

Call me old fashioned hey.

 

[Kor]

I take it you missed the part where the Klingon Empire is directly and obviously an allegory for the ISIS/Islamist attempted reformation of the glory days of the Ottoman Empire, unifying a dysfunctional and chaotic scattershot of disparate states under the rule of a ham-fisted religious fanatic? Allegorical villain is allegorical.


Is there a particular reason you are NOT rooting for all the people on the ship whose name isn't Lorca? Because I sure as hell am.

Lorca is the one I'm rooting for the most!

Kor

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Gene's Vision was making a lot of money and running a show that provided him with creepy access to hit on female employees by convincing Lucy Ball that his idea of basing a show off of Forbidden Planet would pay out. Eventually it did, and the other thing worked out for him too.

FRAKES: <turns on a TV> Look at that!
RODENBERRY: What, you don't have a science fiction in the 21st century?
FRAKES: Sure we do. It looks a lot different. There are fifty major science fiction properties in my time. You can see Battlestar Galactica, Stargate SG-1, even Babylon 5 on a day like this.
RODENBERRY: Uh huh...
FRAKES: And you know, Gene...
RODENBERRY: Please ...don't tell me it's all thanks to me. I've heard enough about the great Gene Rodenberry. I don't know who writes your history books or where you get your information from, but you people got some pretty funny ideas about me. You all look at me as if I'm some kind of saint or visionary or something.
FRAKES: I don't think you're a saint, Gene, but you did have a vision. ...And now we're filming it.
RODENBERRY: You wanna know what my vision is? ...Dollar signs! Money! I didn't create this show to usher in a new era for humanity. You think I wanna spend the rest of my life writing space operas? I don't even like to science fiction! I watch westerns! I built this show so that I could retire to some tropical island filled with ...naked women. That's Gene Rodenberry. That's his vision. This other guy you keep talking about. This historical figure. I never met him. I can't imagine I ever will.
FRAKES: Someone once said 'Don't try to be a great man. Just be a man, and let history make it's own judgements'.
RODENBERRY: Rhetorical nonsense. Who said that?
FRAKES: You did, ten years from now, right before you got fired for going massively over budget on the first Star Trek movie. Live and learn, right?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Lorca is the one I'm rooting for the most!

Kor

I'm not rooting for him, exactly, but he is definitely one of the most interesting major characters I've ever seen on Star Trek.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Roddenberry once rejected Melinda Snodgrass's "The Measure of a Man" because according to him it violated his vision. According to Gene's Vision:

1. Humanity no longer needs a court system, having figured out how to resolve issues more efficiently.

2. Data would not only obey Maddox's orders to be disassembled for study but do it GLADLY.

Thankfully, Rick Berman recognized how great her script was and in one of the few times decided to overrule Gene's rejection.


In short: Gene's Vision is a lot more constrictive than people realize. Heck, a huge amount of Trek would not exist if Gene had his way. Truthfully, Trek had become more than one man's vision.

 

[Tallguy]

I'm not rooting for him, exactly, but he is definitely one of the most interesting major characters I've ever seen on Star Trek.

He is trying to win the war against the Klingons and he is surrounded by a bunch of hippies and idiots on his ship.

I love that quote so much.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Roddenberry once rejected Melinda Snodgrass's "The Measure of a Man" because according to him it violated his vision. According to Gene's Vision:

1. Humanity no longer needs a court system, having figured out how to resolve issues more efficiently.

2. Data would not only obey Maddox's orders to be disassembled for study but do it GLADLY.

Thankfully, Rick Berman recognized how great her script was and in one of the few times decided to overrule Gene's rejection.


In short: Gene's Vision is a lot more constrictive than people realize. Heck, a huge amount of Trek would not exist if Gene had his way. Truthfully, Trek had become more than one man's vision.

Trek stopped being Gene's vision exclusively the day Nicholas Meyers and Harve Bennet were given creative control of "Wrath of Khan." From that day on, it was a truly collaborative effort.

 

[Four Lights]

Lorca is the one I'm rooting for the most!

Kor

What we have in Lorca is an actor portraying him capable of pitch perfect delivery, gravitas and presense. If the character was suitably tweeked to tone down the darkness some, he could be right up there with Picard as a great 'hero' captain.

 

[XCV330]

He's an even better antihero captain.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

What we have in Lorca is an actor portraying him capable of pitch perfect delivery, gravitas and presense. If the character was suitably tweeked to tone down the darkness some, he could be right up there with Picard as a great 'hero' captain.

Why, because he's played by a British guy?

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

I'm not rooting for him, exactly, but he is definitely one of the most interesting major characters I've ever seen on Star Trek.

Same here.

What we have in Lorca is an actor portraying him capable of pitch perfect delivery, gravitas and presense. If the character was suitably tweeked to tone down the darkness some, he could be right up there with Picard as a great 'hero' captain.

But that would defeat the whole point. He's quite intentionally portrayed as morally ambiguous. We're not supposed to know whether we "should" be rooting for him from one moment to the next, whether we feel so inclined in a given context or not.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Even TNG, as bright and optimistic as it was, could sometimes present our heroes in situations that aren't exactly black and white.

"It may turn out that the moral thing to do was not the right thing to do."

-Jean-Luc Picard


If Roddenberry lived beyond 1991, he probably would have died right then in 1993 hearing Picard utter those words.