News Starfleet Academy Coming to P+

[eschaton]

Could you please give any example from a supposedly "progressive" speculative fiction story according to your definition (where the world starts out kinda shit but turns better by the end)?
I really am curious, for the moment I can't think of a good example.

Off the top of my head:

• Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy begins with an unterraformed Mars controlled by megacorps, and ends with a terraformed Mars which is an eco-socialist utopia.
• Frederick Pohl's legendary Gateway Series transitions across four books from a nightmare dystopia where humans risk taking one-way trips in alien spacecraft to make money to a post-scarcity utopia where even death has been conquered.
• I think most of the books of Cory Doctorow count. He's carved out a niche over the last 20 years as a "mundane SF" writer - constructing near-future timelines which explore the development of post-scarcity and human political transformation.
• Iain Bank's Culture series also likely counts, on the whole. In a lot of ways it's Star Trek like, focusing on a big multicultural, post-scarcity, post-capitalist polity. Utopia is never challenged, but various agents have "away missions" on the fringes, with manyof the novels focusing on improving things in a given corner of space.
• An alternate history example was the 1632-verse by Eric Flint. In it a small town from West Virginia gets transported into Germany in...well, 1632. The political earthquakes caused by this result in the enlightenment and liberalism happening decades earlier than they actually did.

If you're talking about TV, I'd argue that - on the whole - The Expanse is a show that has an optimistic story arc. Yeah, there are a lot of disasters along the way, but the opening of other solar systems to humanity and the continued independence of the Belt suggest things are far, far better than when the show started.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

and Kurtzman certainly means the latter

What examples do you have to support this?

 

[Rahul]

Off the top of my head:

• Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy begins with an unterraformed Mars controlled by megacorps, and ends with a terraformed Mars which is an eco-socialist utopia.
• Frederick Pohl's legendary Gateway Series transitions across four books from a nightmare dystopia where humans risk taking one-way trips in alien spacecraft to make money to a post-scarcity utopia where even death has been conquered.
• I think most of the books of Cory Doctorow count. He's carved out a niche over the last 20 years as a "mundane SF" writer - constructing near-future timelines which explore the development of post-scarcity and human political transformation.
• Iain Bank's Culture series also likely counts, on the whole. In a lot of ways it's Star Trek like, focusing on a big multicultural, post-scarcity, post-capitalist polity. Utopia is never challenged, but various agents have "away missions" on the fringes, with manyof the novels focusing on improving things in a given corner of space.
• An alternate history example was the 1632-verse by Eric Flint. In it a small town from West Virginia gets transported into Germany in...well, 1632. The political earthquakes caused by this result in the enlightenment and liberalism happening decades earlier than they actually did.

If you're talking about TV, I'd argue that - on the whole - The Expanse is a show that has an optimistic story arc. Yeah, there are a lot of disasters along the way, but the opening of other solar systems to humanity and the continued independence of the Belt suggest things are far, far better than when the show started.

Ah, my bad, should have specified movies or tv
Books are a different beast, because they can better work without an immediate, central conflict, and really go into aeons of worldbuilding lore & change over time.

For tv I would accept the Expanse - though (with having watched only the very beginning) I would have put this more in the "conservative" group than the "progressive", which was kind of the point...?

What examples do you have to support this?

I mean he directly says it:
https://blog.trekcore.com/2024/05/alex-kurtzman-star-trek-starfleet-academy-32nd-century-setting/

they are coming into a world that is only beginning to recover from a cataclysm — which was the Burn, as established on “Star Trek: Discovery,” where the Federation was greatly diminished.

So they’re the first who’ll inherit, who’ll re-inherit, the task of exploration as a primary goal, because there just wasn’t room for that during the Burn — everybody was playing defense. It’s an incredibly optimistic show,

 

[fireproof78]

I mean he directly says it:
https://blog.trekcore.com/2024/05/alex-kurtzman-star-trek-starfleet-academy-32nd-century-setting/

People having to clean up after a calamity and working to improve their lives. Sounds like Star Trek to me.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

Ah, my bad, should have specified movies or tv
Books are a different beast, because they can better work without an immediate, central conflict, and really go into aeons of worldbuilding lore & change over time.

For tv I would accept the Expanse - though (with having watched only the very beginning) I would have put this more in the "conservative" group than the "progressive", which was kind of the point...?




I mean he directly says it:
https://blog.trekcore.com/2024/05/alex-kurtzman-star-trek-starfleet-academy-32nd-century-setting/

I still don't know what point you're trying to make. We already know from Discovery that the Federation is rebuilding. We also know they aren't living in a mad max style alpha quadrant. So provide some examples of what you think 'kurtzman optimism' is

 

[Jayson1]

I think people have different ideas of what, being optimistic looks like or should look like in Trek. The Berman era was built around more of a fantasy utopia, where most of our daily problems are solved and when they show up they not only rare but not nearly as toxic as in modern society. For example Hobson in "Redemption part 2" on TNG has a bigoted view towards Data but even then you would never think this guy is on par with Klu Klux Klan member. As a Starfleet officer you assume he in general is a pretty progressive guy in most regards and not only that we see he is able to grow and learn from his mistake by acknowledging he was wrong about Data.

My guess if modern day Trek writers wrote that story they would see the progressive angle being that Hobson is fired from Starfleet at the end. That his racist views reflect on someone who likely has a whole lot of other toxic views so the victory is not about bad people not being so bad deep down and being able to evolve but being in society were bad people are punished instead of getting away with it. It's both a more cynical take on human nature but also maybe more realistic. Only problem is realism gets in the way of the fantasy and dream which many people find aspirational. Not to mention being a world people want to live in because everyone seems so nice and friendly and they all care.

Reason the feel good all the time aspects of Discovery didn't work is because the characters still come off as to judgmental and unprofessional with also still to much edgelord snark. The show basically feels like the USS Twitter. Were you feel like if you were on the ship the crew would turn on you the first time you did something that wasn't seen as progressive enough. You feel like older Trek characters would not be welcomed on that ship from Kirk,McCoy,Worf,RIker to KIra and Odo and Quark and so forth.

 

[Tiran O'Saurus]

If you're talking about TV, I'd argue that - on the whole - The Expanse is a show that has an optimistic story arc. Yeah, there are a lot of disasters along the way, but the opening of other solar systems to humanity and the continued independence of the Belt suggest things are far, far better than when the show started.

It looks like that because of where the show got cancelled. I don't think the books fit anywhere under your "conservative-progressive" story matrix.

Spoiler: Expanse Books

The other solar systems that you mention opening are accessible through a system that angers angry space horrors, so Holden has to shut down the gates, scattering humanity across the galaxy. It definitely doesn't improve anyone's quality of life besides stopping them from being killed by space monsters, so it's "conservative". But it leaves the galaxy in a much different state from the first book, so it's "progressive".

 

[BillJ]

Even with the jump to the 32nd century, I found Discovery indistinguishable from the 22nd, 23rd, 24th and 25th century.

 

[fireproof78]

You feel like older Trek characters would not be welcomed on that ship from

I do?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Reason the feel good all the time aspects of Discovery didn't work is because the characters still come off as to judgmental and unprofessional with also still to much edgelord snark. The show basically feels like the USS Twitter. Were you feel like if you were on the ship the crew would turn on you the first time you did something that wasn't seen as progressive enough. You feel like older Trek characters would not be welcomed on that ship from Kirk,McCoy,Worf,RIker to KIra and Odo and Quark and so forth.

What??????
Judgmental? (have you met Jean Luc Picard????)
Unprofessional??? Not seeing it. It's not MASH. And Trek has never been Dragnet.
Edgelord???? What does that even mean??? Another overused buzzword.

1. a person who affects a provocative or extreme persona, especially online (typically used of a man).
   "edgelords act like contrarians in the hope that everyone will admire them as rebels"

How does that fit any character on DISCO? Your post might qualify more than anything on DISCO.
USS Twitter???? Another eye-roller. Again what on the show says this? "Progressive" has been part of Trek's spin since the 60s. It can get preachy and even condescending (Looking at you again Jean-Luc), but that's not something I've noticed in DISCO. It doesn't often turn a spotlight on it prog cred with in the show.
In what way would those you named not be welcomed?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Even with the jump to the 32nd century, I found Discovery indistinguishable from the 22nd, 23rd, 24th and 25th century.

But but the nacelles floated and... stuff.

I'm sure the similarity was deliberate to keep it recognisable, the far end version of ENT's prequel being made to include transporters, phasers and time travel for the same reasons.

 

[Jayson1]

What??????
Judgmental? (have you met Jean Luc Picard????)
Unprofessional??? Not seeing it. It's not MASH. And Trek has never been Dragnet.
Edgelord???? What does that even mean??? Another overused buzzword.
How does that fit any character on DISCO? Your post might qualify more than anything on DISCO.
USS Twitter???? Another eye-roller. Again what on the show says this? "Progressive" has been part of Trek's spin since the 60s. It can get preachy and even condescending (Looking at you again Jean-Luc), but that's not something I've noticed in DISCO. It doesn't often turn a spotlight on it prog cred with in the show.
In what way would those you named not be welcomed?

What I mean is Trek of course is progressive but it has been smart and thought provoking as well. We even still see it in modern Trek shows like with SNW and Orville. We see it also non-modern day Trek-like shows such as The Good Place, Ted Lasso, Atlanta and The Expanse. Trek is not on the level of say West Wing or even some of those other shows, but it's also usually been above the level of the CW in it's approach. Discovery feels like it has been dumbed down and to controlled by corporate synergy or something. It's got lots of interesting parts such as some good characters to work with but it's never had the writing to deliver. Maybe if Fuller hadn't been fired that would be different but we will never know.

 

[The Wormhole]

What I mean is Trek of course is progressive but it has been smart and thought provoking as well.

Not really, no.

Maybe if Fuller hadn't been fired that would be different but we will never know.

Fuller getting fired is probably the best thing that ever happened for Disco.

 

[Jayson1]

I think Trek is thought provoking in it's way. Trek doesn't really explore issues in specifics I would agree. If you want to see the Patriot Act or the MAGA movement explored in detail then Trek is likely not going to deliver. But it does have ways of making you think of issues or I would even say human nature in ways you won't get from a more modern day mainstream show that might also be exploring issues.

It also is great at showing us examples of how we should ideally deal with situations. Picard stopping a Romulan attack with a speech and a moment of trust like lowering the shilds to beam Geordi and another Romulan up, even though the Romulan ship can easily destroy them if they want. Like I said. Not exactly West Wing but way more than a CW show or a twitter debate.

 

[fireproof78]

or I would even say human nature in ways you won't get from a more modern day mainstream show that might also be exploring issues.

Strong disagree. I think more from other shows than a lot of Star Trek, including TOS. Hell, people accused ST 09 of being "mindless" yet I contemplate more with it as a film than many other Trek stories.

It might be effective compared to a social media debate but that's not a high bar.

 

[Jayson1]

I'm not saying other shows can't make you think. Heck I am not even sure Star Trek was the 60's show that even did it best. That would likely be "Twilight Zone." Rod Serling was a smart and forward thinking, writer genius. Trek's strength was able to though create a feeling of optimism better than most other shows, while also doing it's commentary.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm not saying other shows can't make you think.

Hmmmm...

But it does have ways of making you think of issues or I would even say human nature in ways you won't get from a more modern day mainstream show that might also be exploring issues.

(emphasis added.

This is the part I disagree with. I think more with other shows than a lot of Trek, even TNG or TOS. Hell, I credit MASH for some commentary on the nature of war and leadership more so than Trek ever did.

. Trek's strength was able to though create a feeling of optimism better than most other shows, while also doing it's commentary.

Which it still does, but optimism doesn't come from the show itself but people's willingness to work on it.

 

[Jayson1]

I think one issue is Discovery is saying the future is better because people are working to become better and more evolved. TNG though created the idea that all those problems had been solved. So now it's sort of a fantasy world showing just how great it would be to live in that place.

I mean who wouldn't want to live on the Enterprise D and be friends with Data and use the holodeck and then go home and make anything with your replicator. If you get sick you just go down to sickbay and don't have to deal with all the crap you have to do with the modern day medical system. Crusher will fix you up all nice. Get cancer. A hypospray shot and your healthy as can be, like nothing big happened to you.

I know I became a fan of Trek and TNG specifically at first back in 93 or 94 in part because that optimism appealed to me at the time. I was feeling lonely and depressed and the show just made me feel good when watching it. It still makes me feel good when I watch it and I feel depressed about things. Even when "Discovery" had good episodes, which it did from time to time, it still all just feels like a generic Sci Fi show.But missing that special magic it that makes it feel like Trek. SNW,Orville,Picard season 3 and Prodigy creates those feelings. Lower Decks does as well from time to time. But "Discovery" almost never does that. IMO

 

[fireproof78]

I mean who wouldn't want to live on the Enterprise D and be friends with Data and use the holodeck and then go home and make anything with your replicator.

I would not, so not a great question to ask me.

I think one issue is Discovery is saying the future is better because people are working to become better and more evolved. TNG though created the idea that all those problems had been solved. So now it's sort of a fantasy world showing just how great it would be to live in that place.

And that's the problem. TOS didn't have the problems solved, but this idea that, working together, we could make it. And that's what appeals to me with Star Trek, not utopia. Because, guess what? People sit there and argue over utopia and make me feel bad for not wanting to be there, so it doesn't sound good to me when people can't accept that idea.

.But missing that special magic it that makes it feel like Trek. SNW,Orville,Picard season 3 and Prodigy creates those feelings. Lower Decks does as well from time to time. But "Discovery" almost never does that. IMO

Ok. I had those feelings about TOS and 09 and that's it.

DS9, Discovery and Prodigy create new feelings. That's my preference. If I want old feelings, I watch old shows. I want new ones, new challenges, new adventures. Orville didn't do that, Picard tried and failed, and Prodigy left me depressed after 3 episodes.

So, were' the optimism then? That good feeling?

 

[Jayson1]

Orville does that for me. I would also say outside of Trek that would be Ted Lasso, The Good Place,Superman and Lois, Cobra Kai and the modern day Santa Claus tv show with Tim Allen back.