As a conservative, watching the evolution of Star Trek since my childhood in the 80s has been interesting. Obviously most of the writers are left-wing, and even if they do not consciously imbue their scripts with a left-wing message it still shows in their base assumptions.
The article clearly demonstrates the motivations of those behind ST, or rather TNG - forward were increasingly leaning in one direction--to the point where the essence of what made Trek...
Trek, was gone, replaced by an agenda chest-deep in a new age university, peacenik
"we have no right to, and neither do you" form of smug judgement. That position utterly ripped away that which established
Star Trek as a thought-proving sci-fi drama, instead turning into the kind of one-ideology fiction one would see on the political shows airing on PBS
For those furious with Sandefur's summary of NuTrek, I ask what was so incorrect about the following:
By the time Khan reappears under Abrams’s direction, the fixed moral stars by which the franchise once steered have been almost entirely obscured. No longer the thoughtful, bold captain, the young Kirk (Chris Pine) is now all rashness and violence, taking and breaking everything around him. He confesses that he has no idea what he is doing.
I realize some are hyper defensive over NuTrek, and might argue that,
"well Kirk is young in that 1st film! Its realistic to be brash" Kirk was also young
er in his TOS pilot, but even in that 1st episode, he tempered any inherent move to action with reason, even doubt. That's what made TOS Kirk a great character: he had the ability to fight--wage war, but he was not impulsive, or some hothead--even in the worst of situations. He was always
thinking, which is a trait lacking in NuKirk.
There rests the balance absent in the other biggest franchise hallmark productions: TOS' captain was not some action movie caricature like NuKirk, and he was not the self-handcuffing / lecturer like Picard. His mind, action and intent had to be guided by a full personality, not extremes.
