It would explain many things.
Star Trek Picard is not Star Trek
- Thread starter AnotherGalaxys
- Start date
I'm not sure. Saying that the Federation depicted in Picard is a dystopia is obvious nonsense. Non-Federation places have often been a bit dystopic in Trek. So, beyond the hyperbole, you don't seem to have said anything of substance. What were you attempting to communicate?
Come on, if you've ever watched Star Trek then you should know exactly what I mean. It's not like it wasn't pretty explicit. Just how human society "evolved past" its lesser qualities is never really spelled out, but I'd bet it has something to do with a little television show called Star Trek.
Well yeah, I did dismiss one interpretation out of hand. "A wizard made all that bad stuff go away and we never have to think about how it happened and how it stays gone again" never really worked for me, but I was wrong to act like this perspective doesn't exist.
Last edited:
Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.
But that's up to the fans and their interpretation. It is not incumbent upon CBS to be strict adherents to fan perception. It is, as Roddenberry would put it, to entertain their audience.
Star Trek has had optimism at its core, but Picard has not betrayed that optimism in any meaningful way. Despite allegations, it is not dystopian in its portrayal of future humanity. It is doing exactly what Trek has always done-gone out to the frontier and found that not everything is great.
If you want great optimism then perhaps a TV show is not the place for it to live and die. Entertainment is entertainment and philosophy is philosophy. It is tempting to conflate the two but they, are in fact, separate pieces.
But....but.......Star Trek is above other shows. It's supposed to be something different, and special, and visionary, and intellectually superior, and philosophical, and inspirational, and serious, and.....
Arrogant? Yep, Trek can be arrogant.But....but.......Star Trek is above other shows. It's supposed to be something different, and special, and visionary, and intellectually superior, and philosophical, and inspirational, and serious, and.....
I was pretty explicit. Picard is a dystopia. If you find that to be hyperbolic that's on you. I wasn't trying to communicate anything further. This is not a criticism, it's a description. If you don't see it that way that's fine with me. As for whatever you said below, I'm not sure where the wizard comes from, I was stating a fact that can be backed up by dialog from the series. I'm finding it hard to understand where the disconnect is here. Are you familiar with Star Trek before 2009? If so, I don't understand why you'd be questioning this.
Perhaps it's time to turn off the most critical part of ones brain when watching a TV Show based on a Fifty Year Old Franchise.
Star Trek has evolved from it's humble beginnings decades ago into a multitude of ideas and opinions.
Best not to get too caught up in ones personal ideals, when one is not and never will be, the controlling force behind Star Treks future.
'Entertainment' is meant to be enjoyed, when a particular piece no longer evokes that emotion, it's definitely time to adjust ones viewing habits.
Being angry and/or annoyed or just plain bothered about a TV Show, but continuing to watch it, doesn't seem to me to be a very good way to spend ones time.
Just like viewing a car wreck, eventually you do have to drive past or you'll never get where you really want to be.
Star Trek has evolved from it's humble beginnings decades ago into a multitude of ideas and opinions.
Best not to get too caught up in ones personal ideals, when one is not and never will be, the controlling force behind Star Treks future.
'Entertainment' is meant to be enjoyed, when a particular piece no longer evokes that emotion, it's definitely time to adjust ones viewing habits.
Being angry and/or annoyed or just plain bothered about a TV Show, but continuing to watch it, doesn't seem to me to be a very good way to spend ones time.
Just like viewing a car wreck, eventually you do have to drive past or you'll never get where you really want to be.
Last edited:
Based on my read of this, there's clearly no point in arguing with you.
That said, I'm compelled to support those who do not believe that PIC is a "dystopia." Mad Max is a dystopia. Blade Runner is a dystopia. Logans Run is a dystopia.
PIC is a view of the Federation that isn't as "perfect" or "squeaky-clean" as the rhetoric of the early TNG seasons would have you believe, and it shows the frontier as a place that isn't quite as fortunate as core Federation worlds.
It's realatively more realistic and perhaps even more overtly cynical than 1987 Trek was.....but it sure as hell isn't dystopian. Again, it's all relative here.
And, before you start in on me with that "you must not know Star Trek" defense...I assure you, I do. I've been watching since 1977 and have always (since early childhood) been a massively active and involved fan. A difference in opinion doesn't mean someone is devoid of fundamental understanding. It simply means they have different views and tastes than you do.
But....but.......Star Trek is above other shows. It's supposed to be something different, and special, and visionary, and intellectually superior, and philosophical, and inspirational, and serious, and.....
No, it's clear from you reference to early TNG that you know your Star Trek, that's pretty much what I was thinking of. Knowing your Trek is a lot different than acting as if Star Trek was never presenting a utopian future. To argue that (and I'm glad you're not) is a sign that you don't know Trek very well. And yes, a difference of opinion doesn't mean someone is devoid of fundamental understanding, and I would never claim it did mean that, but it's also not cool to call someone arrogant because they hold a different opinion. But hey, some of us have a harder time dealing with other peoples views.
I have found in my 60+ years, that people who are constantly overly dismissive of other folks ideas and/or opinions, usually don't realize that their own opinions are often based on rhetoric that is easily debunked.
Star Trek has presented us with a possible future where People have mostly, learned to get beyond any petty differences, but it also has showed us that even in the 23rd & 24th Centuries, humans still have a ways to go.
That's neither a Utopia nor is it a Dystopia, it's simply people trying their best to make the galaxy a better place for everybody.
Star Trek has presented us with a possible future where People have mostly, learned to get beyond any petty differences, but it also has showed us that even in the 23rd & 24th Centuries, humans still have a ways to go.
That's neither a Utopia nor is it a Dystopia, it's simply people trying their best to make the galaxy a better place for everybody.
Last edited:
Honestly, I put far more stock in what we see than what the characters say.
In TNG, Picard is definitely a kool-aid drinker with regard to Federation cultural superiority and Earth's status as some kind of paradise where humans are far beyond vices, hang-ups, prejudices or flawed thinking.
BUT.....The reality of what Star Trek portrayed rarely, if ever, matched what Picard would spout about this kind of stuff.
So I'm not sure I think Star Trek ever presented a utopian future. I think there were characters who believed it so passionately that they preached it constantly at the audience. But the reality of what was consistently portrayed onscreen doesn't match the character rhetoric.
Star Trek portrayed a much better future, where mankind had risen despite our flaws, instincts, and engrained behaviors / history.....but "better" isn't utopian.
Again....it's all relative. Star Trek of old was no more utopian than PIC or DSC are dystopian. They all portray, to varying and oscillating degrees, a better future. That's the key ingredient. And that's true of all the series and time periods represented.
This.
Picard was sat on the bridge of the Enterprise representing the very pinnacle of the Federation's ideals and technology, but we regularly saw the backwaters.
Fans gripe about the Klingons or Ferengi or (insert alien race here) being a monolithic, one-note culture.
And then in the next breath, they express an opinion that basically says they expect the portrayal of humanity to be exactly that.
Makes absolutely no sense.
Last edited:
Dystopia...dat topia...whatever. The future isn't perfect.
Agreed, and good night.
Even in DS9 we learn that humans on Earth can be prejudiced and paranoid and resort to some pretty base behavior to defend what they see as this so-called "paradise."
Exactly.
Similar threads
