What is Khan, in all three of his appearances, if not a super weapon gone rogue?
Social Commentary in this new Star Trek show
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
Respectfully, I will disagree. I think that Abrams Trek has villains who think they are doing the right thing (Nero to protect Romulus and Marcus to defend the Federation). Then you have the action romp to stop them
Oh, and I think Abrams Trek is wholly steeped in real world problems that are being addressed.
What I mean is: The difference is in the first few examples, it's the social commentary that basically enables the plot in the first place. Abrams-Trek both times is a pretty basic "stop-the-badguy"-story, with social commentary sprinkled in as a bonus. That can work, but for me in those cases it feels somewhat disjointed. Then again, that's probably the only way to do a big budget blockbuster. Not everyone is Christopher Nolan.
Completely agree with that part!
Although almost every TOS and TNG-episode has a deeply humanistic message at it's core (the later series not always...). Sometimes quite blatant ("Your god is a big computer", "Stop the circle of violence and don't kill the Gorn!"), and oftentimes deeply hidden behind greater meaning ("City on the edge of forever", "Chain of command"). It's probably not possible to re-create that for the new series - but one can hope
I guess this is a matter of perspective, as I don't see it as "sprinkled in" or "a bonus" as I do see it woven throughout the films. But, as you say, big budget blockbusters are not the easiest to work in social commentary like you can a show.
One aspect that I think Star Trek needs to try and avoid is attempting to recreate moments from past series, or elements of past series. TNG did that in Season 1 with TOS style stories until the characters found their footing. ENT tried to have the triumvirate a'la TOS.Completely agree with that part!
Although almost every TOS and TNG-episode has a deeply humanistic message at it's core (the later series not always...). Sometimes quite blatant ("Your god is a big computer", "Stop the circle of violence and don't kill the Gorn!"), and oftentimes deeply hidden behind greater meaning ("City on the edge of forever", "Chain of command"). It's probably not possible to re-create that for the new series - but one can hope
As for commentary, as humanistic as TOS could be, there were also moments of just wacky adventures. And some commentary could be just awful. I think the insistence upon the new series have commentary in every single episode could result in something rather terrible. I think a balance needs to be struck.
In fact, my major problems with the JJ Abrams movies is exactly that: The atempted to recreate moments from past series. Not single shots. Or objects. But major plot points.
You should never do that! And I certainly don't want to see the new series "recreate" some iconic moments. I want them to recreate what made Star Trek special in the first place: Entertaining stories with interesting characters about high-concept science fiction - ideas with (somewhat) believable science.
Not sure what major plot points are being referred to, as I think the only recreation Abrams Trek did was Khan and the reactor death scene, but I understand the complaint.
As to your second point, I think that the new series should shoot for that. But, unfortunately, Star Trek often feels beholden to it past.
Well, at least at this point I'm quite hopefull for the new series: "new crews", "new heroes", "new villains", "new worlds". The included the word "new" four(!) times. Seems they have recognized the complaint. Let's hope they also make it entertaining.
I think entertaining is my best hope. I actually don't mind if they revisit some aspects of prior series, if they give me likable characters to relate to and fun stories to enjoy. I honestly don't mind if social commentary is not heavily present in the early parts as we learn about the characters.
Well, for me personal there are actually some things more important than being purely entertaining: Humanism has always been at the core of Star Trek, and I want the characters action still be defined by their humanistic ideals. And I want a somewhat scientific approach. Those are for me personally what seperates Star Trek from other ation/adventure-based sci-fi properties. I can get pure dull entertainment anywhere else, comicbook-movies for example. But it's a personal distinction i make, probably not one general audiences would care much for.
I would add to Rahul's comments that Trek has also had an optimistic streak.
If the new series has nothing but endless "fun stories" I think I would grow tired of it after several episodes. The same with "likable characters," there were characters (example 7 of 9) who were great for and on the show, but who I wouldn't want to be around in real life. Some of the heroes can be unlikable.
Sometimes yes, but the future Federation/Starfleet should never be pollyanna. The insistance from some fans that the show depict a utopian future is obsurd.
Though, GR was among those who insisted upon a utopian future, specifically for TNG. Often referred to as the "Roddenberry Box."
Also, I'm not saying that characters can't be unlikable, or do unlikable things. But, personally, I would not go for a show where the lead is generally unlikable as, just with likability, that is a one note trick and gets boring and/or annoying and I would turn it off. Extremes is not the place for characters, at least not in the long term. One merely need to look at G'Kar from Babylon 5 to see such an example.
First of all, as much I know that humanism is a part of Trek's framework, I also appreciated the fact that TOS and DS9 took some time to explore some downsides to that philosophy. So, as much as they are guided by their ideals, I would also like to see those ideals some times lead them to a bad choice or two that they have to go back and correct.
As for scientific, that is an interesting question, mostly because I wonder how much the new series will be beholden to past Trek in terms of tech. And this is a genuine question on my part, not a demand, as I think the writers can take some of the technological understanding from contemporary science and apply it to understand Trek tech and explore it in different ways.
But, they might also hold on to tech staples too. So I'm curious to see that explored.
None.
It does seem that TNG was the only one of the five series that presented (pushed) the "utopian" future as being a a essentual part of Star Trek. TOS's message was more that Humanity simply survived to have a future. The utopian future was largely absent from both VOY and ENT, and while Sisko did (once) describe Earth as a paradise, what we see in episodes set there is merely a comfortable existence.
Humans have moved their warfare to distant battlefields, but the future still has frequent wars.
Top positions in Starfleet are still mostly occupied by males.
And many have pointed out the absence of gays.
The Star Trek future is admittedly a touch better than today, but hardly utopian.
I liked Riker when we first met him, ambitious, driven, a man who took humor in many things. Later these attributes faded and he was kind of just there, and my liking of him ebbed.
It would be good to see characters occasionally face the imperfections in their own ideals, Picard in FC, where Lily point out to him that his highly cultured sensibilities were a fragile house of cards.
To any particular point ... or just life in general?
Let me be clear-I'm not saying Star Trek's future is utopian in its execution or presentation, nor do I personally think THAT specific future needs to be one that is worked towards. No doubt I'm in a minority opinion but that's my view. I think we saw the more utopian vision largely because of GR's influence.
And even though VOY and DS9 didn't show Earth as a utopia, per se, there certainly was lingering effects of TNG's early days and the general lack of substantial conflict between crewmembers, especially in VOY. DS9 obviously went on to do its own thing and have far more shades of gray.
Finally, I don't necessarily need to see a "utopia" of Earth as part of the future. TOS worked fine in the broad strokes, but dealt with the details in a different way. Social commentary can still exist, if any, even without utopia.
I think Roddenberry's point was that if mankind put aside its conflicts, it could build a wondrous society. It's not a particularly original point. Picard's speechifying in "The Neutral Zone" is basically Roddenberry speaking to us at his most explicit. Quite late on, Troi channels Roddenberry in the Times Arrow episode as she extols her era in response to Twain's challenge to Federation society.
World government, a cosmic alliance, eliminating scarcity are wondrous achievements. And huge strides are made -- we don't have people falling into debt and evictions and so on. We don't have people hording wealth or the rat-race. But we do have misguided patriot-types, usually delinquent Admirals, moving on wrongheaded ideals, screwing things up and falling from grace. So we're not dealing here with a perfect society populated by vanilla "new man" types devoid of vice - just a society that has bettered itself in some very radical ways.
As for social commentary, it's just intuitive and unavoidable that recognisable and universal themes will be included in this series, both in an explicit and mediated way. I think almost every series is like that to one degree or another, although I don't watch much TV these days.
World government, a cosmic alliance, eliminating scarcity are wondrous achievements. And huge strides are made -- we don't have people falling into debt and evictions and so on. We don't have people hording wealth or the rat-race. But we do have misguided patriot-types, usually delinquent Admirals, moving on wrongheaded ideals, screwing things up and falling from grace. So we're not dealing here with a perfect society populated by vanilla "new man" types devoid of vice - just a society that has bettered itself in some very radical ways.
As for social commentary, it's just intuitive and unavoidable that recognisable and universal themes will be included in this series, both in an explicit and mediated way. I think almost every series is like that to one degree or another, although I don't watch much TV these days.
It was more successful after it left behind GR's speeches about perfect humanity and embraced a more ecumenical approach. One merely need to see a Picard speech from Season 2 or 3 and a Picard speech from Season 5 or 6 to see a little more genteel approach.
Also, as much as DS9 wasn't a "success" like TNG was, I still find myself revisiting DS9 for more timely and pertinent themes and/or characters.
Also, Transformers was more successful too
Nevertheless, TNG even post GR was more politically-correct than TOS and more optimistic and idealistic than DS9. Things go through cycles. I think the dark and gritty approach is kind of getting tedious these days.
Product of the times. I think that dark and gritty is getting annoying as well, but I can at least identify more with DS9's characters than many of the TNG ones. But, that is certainly personal preferences.
Also, optimism is great and I love it, but I also want to see that optimism challenge and survive the challenges.
Everyone applauds Trek message shows, but don't forget how much cringe they've also generated. I still start twitching for the fast forward button whenever Edith Keeler starts giving her spaceship speech to a room full of hobos.
Aslo, the Prime Directive really went off the rails in some episodes. Cultures are better off totally destroyed than changed at all, apparently. They may all be dead, and their culture may be dead, but at least they never had to stop worshiping their tree god before their sun exploded. That would've been the real tragedy.
Aslo, the Prime Directive really went off the rails in some episodes. Cultures are better off totally destroyed than changed at all, apparently. They may all be dead, and their culture may be dead, but at least they never had to stop worshiping their tree god before their sun exploded. That would've been the real tragedy.
Similar threads
