To be fair the TNG writers hated pretty much all of the TNG writing rules - "no interpersonal conflict", "no references to TOS", "no military rituals", "no drug addictions", "no psychological trauma", "no prejudices on earth", "no money/fame", and so on.
But they made for a better show.
No, they made for an emotionally stunted show that was inhibited from reaching the fullest heights of artistic maturity. TNG is well-remembered
in spite of those rules, not because of them.
That's the thing, I think DS9 worked under similar limitations and TOS too.
DS9 actively worked to deconstruct those limitations at every turn. We would never have seen a TNG-style Sisko dance with the Devil in the pale moonlight.
It would imply some things that would strongly conflict with the sort of utopia Roddenberry envisioned in ways that I think the occasional power-hungry admiral doesn't. It also undercuts the message at the heart of Edith Keeler's speech in the soup kitchen. That one day the destiny of exploring the galaxy will fill humanity with "hope and a common future" that'll be the days worth living for, not getting high from whatever dime bag that Ensign Petey was selling on Deck 2.
Beyond that, we're told Earth is a place where there is no poverty, no crime, and no inequality (although, I know people are gonna argue this is more of a TNG thing than a TOS thing). But if we accept the vision of Star Trek that Roddenberry intended, why would someone deal drugs in a society with no money? If there are drug dealers on Federation starships, it implies there's still disparities and indicates there are still huge cracks in human society where people either feel the need to sell drugs to get ahead, or to use them to cope.
I mean, I don't really think the idea that people might use drugs to cope with the stress of being trapped in a tin can in the vast void of outer space conflicts with the idea of a progressive, egalitarian future. Life planetside can be truly wonderful and egalitarian while life aboard your space navy/space explorers ship can still be difficult enough that some people would be tempted to turn to drug use to cope. Hell, we already know life in Starfleet is more hierarchical than civilian life.
I could imagine someone in Starfleet looking to deal on the side either because there are limited amounts of wealth inequality (nothing to the point of poverty or classism) and/or because it would create informal clout and influence for them.
I understand your point. But I have to disagree. For me it boils down to this:
- TNG shows future humans
- PIC shows present day Americans on spaceships
I think Rios might have a bone to pick with you for calling him an American.
I never believed in Roddenberry's "evolved" humans. I DO however believe that people growing up in a post-scarcity, post -healthcare-issues society will be more gentle, rational people.
I agree, and I think we see this in PIC. Raffi's idea of living rough is... having secure shelter, good nutrition, good health care, access to the planetary Internet, and enough surplus wealth to afford some recreational drugs. Even in a world where people are more flawed than they were depicted in TNG, most of the things people are fighting over in PIC are not about scarce resources. They're about fundamental beliefs, or finding a purpose in your life, or dealing with disillusionment with institutions.
Now both approaches are valid. I LOVE nuBattlestar Galactica & the alien franchise, both pinnacles of the "flawed humans in space" approach.
But for me, the Roddenberry-ian humans are as much a part of Star Trek as beaming and phasers.
That also applies to TOS btw (which feels "more" human because the characters smile & joke a lot more - but it's actually quite amazing how similar TOS is to TNG in regard of "more enlightened" humans). Even DS9 "rebels" against this approach, but it's still there. For me the shift appeared on ENT - and all modern Trek since then.
I strongly disagree with you here, especially with regards to DIS. The area where DIS is probably most progressive and genuinely optimistic in its depiction of a better future, is that DIS depicts as normal the use of mental health care to cope with profound trauma. Characters on DIS have a much healthier relationship with their emotions than the characters on TNG -- they openly share their pain and allow themselves to be vulnerable with one-another, and they treat reciprocal vulnerability with respect and care rather than as weakness to be overcome.
That is a much better vision of a bright future than a world where people magically don't experience emotions like grief, as one TNG episode claimed.
Quick point...O’Brien wasn’t racist.This goddam false hood persists.
“It’s not you I hate Cardassian,it’s what I became because of you”.
The man is a traumatized veteran not a racist.
He was absolutely a racist. Even that line is a racist line -- he refuses to address Glinn Daro by his rank or name, and instead only addresses him by the name of his species. He refuses to see Daro
as an individual; he's just a Cardassian, and he holds all Cardassians as responsible for the actions of the Cardassian Guard during the war.
He remains racist on DS9. In "Cardassians," when Miles and Keiko host the Cardassian child Rugal (who had been raised by Bajorans after being abandoned by the Cardassians as an orphan), he is horrified to learn Keiko allowed Rugal to play with Molly. The following exchange occurs:
O'BRIEN: You let them play together?
KEIKO: Why not?
O'BRIEN: The boy almost bit somebody's hand off.
KEIKO: I was with them all afternoon. He's not like that. He's really very gentle.
O'BRIEN: Gentle was bred out of these Cardassians a long time ago.
KEIKO: You know, that was a very ugly thing you just said.
O'BRIEN: I only said.
KEIKO: I don't need to hear it twice.
Now, do I think O'Brien is an irredeemably racist person or not a good person? No. I think he's capable of overcoming his bigotry and has many positive qualities, and I think he's a good person overall. And I also think he gets better about this over the course of DS9. But he is absolutely an anti-Cardassian racist and it's silly to pretend otherwise.
Without getting sucked into a whole debate, the whole "no money" thing was NEVER established on TOS. The earliest reference to it was a gag in the whale movie. And forget 23rd-century Earth (which we never actually saw on TOS) for a moment; there are plenty of indications that commerce is still a thing out on the Final Frontier.
Indeed, more than a few episodes completely fall apart without wealth inequality as a structural feature of life out on the frontier, including "Mudd's Women" and "The Devil in the Dark."
. I think it's partly designed to burn people out.
