Spoilers Saints of Imperfection and Gene's Vision

[Alan Roi]

No, you didn't. You were choosing easy insult instead of insightful conversation. I respected Doc Mugatu enough to try and share my perspective with him. If you're interested to, please address specific parts of my reply that you think your perspective might help. Thanks.

fireproof78, I don't remember if I've ever reported anyone here before, and it didn't immediately come to me to in the moment. Thank you, as well.

By the time I got to the end of your post I was laughing because, fo example, Shakespeare's work, which is often referred to in Star Trek still very much informs the art of our drama today and is often viewed as timeless. So saying something written in 1619 doesn't read into 2019 seems, IMHO, sophistry. As well, there are numerous folks in our world who do feel that slavery isn't really so bad or the fault of the slaves themselves (Kanye famously implied this), and that certainly is something to think about the hows and whys of this attitude in 2019. IMHO, and again, to reduce that into the argument you presented.

The definition of Utopia is 'perfect society', What is it about your comment about my reference to how the series presents itself is sophistry.

 

[Arpy]

...Shakespeare's work, which is often referred to in Star Trek still very much informs the art of our drama today and is often viewed as timeless. So saying something written in 1619 doesn't read into 2019 seems, IMHO, sophistry.

You missed it. It wasn't that 400 y/o literature wouldn't be read in 2019 (I was Oedipus for Halloween one year, and that's much older literature right there) but the idea that slavery would still be ubiquitous in 2019 because it had always been a thing in 1619 and because it's really easy to be reductionistic about the "evil" of "human nature."

No one's an angel and no one's a demon and that has nothing to do with doing away with slavery. Progress can be made, and Roddenberry presented for our consideration a look far ahead enough in which people made more.

"And [we] saw that it was good," and enjoyed it.

I think he overdid it a bit later on, but even from the start he presented a female first officer and racially diverse cast. Not to mention a Soviet on the bridge at the height of the Cold War.

As well, there are numerous folks in our world who do feel that slavery isn't really so bad or the fault of the slaves themselves (Kanye famously implied this), and that certainly is something to think about the hows and whys of this attitude in 2019.

And it might be interesting to see some of the discussions in the future utopia that people have to sort things out for themselves so that they can maintain it. But, just like you don't need slavery in a story set 2019 to discuss race, economics, and power that effects us still, you don't need to completely undercut that the Federation can defend itself without Nazi's in friggin' black leather coats and Shadow starships making it possible.

And, really, where is Starfleet Intelligence in all this? 31 is Intelligence in DSC.

 

[Alan Roi]

You missed it. It wasn't that 400 y/o literature wouldn't be read in 2019 (I was Oedipus for Halloween one year, and that's much older literature right there) but the idea that slavery would still be ubiquitous in 2019 because it had always been a thing in 1619 and because it's really easy to be reductionistic about the "evil" of "human nature."

No one's an angel and no one's a demon and that has nothing to do with doing away with slavery. Progress can be made, and Roddenberry presented for our consideration a look far ahead enough in which people made more.

"And [we] saw that it was good," and enjoyed it.

I think he overdid it a bit later on, but even from the start he presented a female first officer and racially diverse cast. Not to mention a Soviet on the bridge at the height of the Cold War.



And it might be interesting to see some of the discussions in the future utopia that people have to sort things out for themselves so that they can maintain it. But, just like you don't need slavery in a story set 2019 to discuss race, economics, and power that effects us still, you don't need to completely undercut that the Federation can defend itself without Nazi's in friggin' black leather coats and Shadow starships making it possible.

And, really, where is Starfleet Intelligence in all this? 31 is Intelligence in DSC.

I don't view Section 31 as Nazis. Nor do I believe its helpful for my personal assessments of this series to view aspects of the series by resorting to such labels.

On the other hand, narrative still have to reach their audiences. TOS imagined that we still had a lot of things to overcome, and worried that a lot of the solutions provided would have unintended consequences. We know the roadmap from 1619 to 2019 didn't eliminate all ills, and created a whole lot of new ones, even though our world could be considered rightfully much better than 400 years ago. I see value in exploring what is less than perfect about the federation in any era, because it reminds us that the Federation isn't a wish fulfillment fantasy, something I do not find useful in a grown up narrative.

Slavery still exists in our world, although it is not as widespread as it was 400 years ago. It's logical to assume that may societal ills will not also not be entirely erased in the next 200.

 

[zar]

Except they're caricatures half a step from the Mirror Universe? Keeping ourselves in check is one thing, but 31's specific nature is akin to a play written in 1619 showing the world in 2019 filled with slavery because that's the way it's always been and will always be because man is imperfect.

You can criticize Section 31 as "caricatures" if you like, that's another discussion, but this whole 1619 argument doesn't work. First of all, just for fun, if you actually mapped that onto Star Trek, it would fit: Subtracting 400 years from Trek's setting as if it were written in 1619, Discovery would have taken place in the 1850s and DS9 would have taken place in the 1970s. And you know, attitudes toward slavery in 1850 compared to 1970 kind of do match attitudes towards Section 31 in Discovery compared to DS9. In the first, it was more accepted as a necessary evil, and in the second it was mostly unheard of but still existing. Let's also keep in mind that this battle has been going on for over a thousand years and continues to this day.

Now going back to my first reply to this thread, I think Discovery is meant to depict a time of change to show how Trek's "core values" became more firmly established in the first place. If you think the point is simply "this is how it is and how it will always be", I'm not sure we're watching the same show. If you insist on comparing the institution of Section 31 to slavery, if you like, you could pick a historical figure who was instrumental in fighting slavery, and imagine that Pike represents that here, because that might not be far off. Kurtzman talked about this not long ago:

He also revealed that the reason they thought a spin-off was such a good idea will become clear after watching season 2 of Star Trek: Discovery, teasing that the evolution of Section 31 is the thing to look out for.

"If you know Section 31, you know that by the time Deep Space 9 comes around they've gone underground and they are this mysterious organisation – but there's nothing official about it," he said.

"In the promos [for season 2] that you've seen so far, Section 31 has a badge. There's a ship and all these different things, so the question is: how do they get from here to there?

"What happened in that window of time between those two pivot points in Section 31’s evolution?"

https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/ustv/...le-yeoh-get-started-after-discovery-season-3/

I think what Mugatu and Alan are saying is that realism means societies can change, but people don't. Even if they are caricatures, they still represent real people who will always exist. That was the same point DS9 was making, that only their societal standards make it work, not their nature. Bashir, visiting 350 years into the past: "If push comes to shove, if something disastrous happens to the Federation, if we are frightened enough, or desperate enough, how would we react? Would we stay true to our ideals or would we just end up here, right back where we started?"

 

[Doc Mugatu]

And that's beside the point. His personal life and that of other adults is their business. It's like when they used to shun divorcees...or when in parts of the world today women can be condemned for having been raped. The folly is society's but it's still effective.

I did not condemn Roddenberry for it. It does, however, point to a fundamental selfishness. He did not care about the anguish it caused either his first or second wives nor the effect it had on his children. This does go to the point that he was hardly the altruistic "visionary".

As for the rest of your point, with all due respect, it's silliness to the extreme.

It's also unclear to me if it's true. Whether the idealism was always there (to whatever extent) or found later, he devoted himself to it in his work and fought for it for possibly decades. He didn't need to do that for the money.

You are perpetuating a fallacy. Sadly, another flaw of Gene Roddenberry, was that he would not always give credit where credit is due. Much of what folks, including yourself, enjoy about Star Trek in general and TOS specifically came from "visionaries" other than G.R.. Gene Coon to name but one. Gene's Roddenberry's "fighting" was largely overstated by Roddenberry. There are a number of good books that point this out. In fact, many times he was his own worst enemy. Yes, he most certainly did have to do it for money. He was not a wealthy man in the 1960s. He had spousal and child support to pay on top of providing for his new wife and eventual son. So I don't know what you base the "he didn't need to do that for the money" on?

It doesn't even have to be conscious or deep. The fact is that lots of sci-fi comes and goes and will continue to. But how much of it, or anything, share the impact of Trek? The stories of people in hospitals who found hope in Star Trek, or astronauts or politicians who were inspired by it?

The "impact" is from it's appeal. Many chefs worked in that kitchen. Pragmatically, when you want something to be successful so you can reap the financial rewards you are going to work hard to make it appealing. The decision to go color was for appeal. NBC's push for a multi-racial cast was for appeal.

Except they're caricatures half a step from the Mirror Universe? Keeping ourselves in check is one thing, but 31's specific nature is akin to a play written in 1619 showing the world in 2019 filled with slavery because that's the way it's always been and will always be because man is imperfect.

As someone else has already pointed out Shakespeare to you, I will let their point stand. I would add you need to look around and see "slavery" still exists in forms both subtle and gross. Both literally and figuratively.

"Caricatures" and "tropes" are a valid literary tools. I don't understand where you get the idea that they are not or that somehow their use diminishes a work. Your lack of understanding really undermines your arguments.

 

[fireproof78]

"If push comes to shove, if something disastrous happens to the Federation, if we are frightened enough, or desperate enough, how would we react? Would we stay true to our ideals or would we just end up here, right back where we started?"

And that's good drama and story telling. Please give me that!

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

I never saw the Federation as a perfect utopian society, I saw it as a society striving to achieve utopian ideals. Such a goal can never be achieved in full or permanently. It's not that section 31 exists in the Federation that matters, it's how our heroes react to and work with section 31. A society like the Federation must always be on guard for shadow groups like section 31, lest they gain more power. As Captain Sisko perfectly stated, ''t's easy to be a saint in Paradise'. What's hard is maintaining Paradise.

We might want to ask the patients of Dr. Adams from "Dagger Of The Mind" (TOS), the Troglyte underclass of Ardana from "The Cloud Minders" (TOS), the followers of Dr. Sevrin in "The Way To Eden" (TOS), the harrowed denizens of the failed Turkana IV colony from which Tasha Yar hailed in TNG, the colonists inhabiting territories ceded to the Cardassians who became the Maquis, and the Ba'ku, among others, as to their view of "the Federation as a perfect utopian society"!

And, really, where is Starfleet Intelligence in all this? 31 is Intelligence in DSC.

Apart from Section 31—which is portrayed as an elite "division" of it here, just as had been claimed by Sloan when they were first introduced in "Inquisition" (DS9)—they're out doing all the "everyday Federation espionage" that Tyler clearly recognizes 31's machinations as standing apart from in "Point Of Light" (DSC).

-MMoM

 

[Jam3s1701]

Gene's vision...

Think Zefram Cochrane...

Sorry when ever I see someone say "Gene's Vision" I laugh hard.

On a side note, you know he was essentially a figure head from TNG season 3 onwards yeah.

He had like no control over Trek from then onwards because he was seen as someone who caused mayhem on set etc.

 

[Nerys Myk]

He had like no control over Trek from then onwards because he was seen as someone who caused mayhem on set etc.

From 1991 on being dead kinda put a damper on the mayhem.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

From 1991 on being dead kinda put a damper on the mayhem.

Not if you said his name three times.

 

[fireproof78]

From 1991 on being dead kinda put a damper on the mayhem.

As far as we know. Perhaps he terrorized the spirit realm.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

As far as we know. Perhaps he terrorized the spirit realm.

He was definitely getting down with the younger hot ghost ladies

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm sure there is special level of Hell for TV producers.

 

[Gov Kodos]

If it is one thing that I am often amazed at is the fact that a study of human history reveals that many of the struggles are very similar.

For all the promises of great political and social revolutions down through history are the product of people, ordinary people, who have the same drives as the lot that came before the revolution and their descendants, too. Or as Barbara Tuchman put it her history of the American Revolution, 'Revolutions produce other men, not new men. Halfway between truth and endless error, the mold of the species is permanent. That is Earth's burden.'

 

[RandyS]

I thought his vision was to make a lot of money and retire to an island filled with naked women.

Actually, that's MY vision........

 

[Iamnotspock]

That was Hurley's version. I heard writer Tracy Torme's version. He proposed the idea about starfleet admirals but Gene didn't like that so he changed it to aliens and submitted his script. Showrunner Hurley rejected his script, so Torme went over his head and showed the script to Gene. Gene liked it and approved it. Of course this created tension between Torme and Hurley. His next 2 scripts ("The Royale" and “manhunt") were massively rewritten so Torme removed his name and used a pseudonym in the credits and then left the writing staff at the end of 2nd season, and so did Hurley.

"You disagree with me, fine. You need to take it to Gene, fine. Through me. You do an end run around me again, I'll snap you back so hard, you'll think you're a first-year Creative Writing student again."

 

[DaveyNY]

Gene's vision wasn't all that great, he wore glasses, but only put them on when absolutely necessary.

Now his EGO and Vanity on the other hand, were something to really talk about!

 

[Pauln6]

I love the pedantry of nerds.

TOS wasn't as squeaky clean as TNG as far as the Federation or Federation colonies were concerned and even in TNG, the Federation exercised considerable hypocrisy and cultural blackmail in its dealings with many cultures, while espousing its moral superiority.

I think if the censors had not been all over TOS, I'm sure Gene would have a lot more shagging going on between the characters, sort of crew with benefits.

As far as s31 goes, the writers have a fairly clean slate, so it will be interesting to see how they push the moral ambiguity .