The Dismal Frontier (Thinkpiece on Discovery, Star Trek and Utopian Science Fiction)

[Donker]

https://currentaffairs.org/2018/05/the-dismal-frontier

Current Affairs just posted a thinkpiece looking at Star Trek Discovery and how it fits into Star Trek and wider Science Fiction and television trends and honestly I think I agree with basically everything. I think this nails the point for why a large portion of the fandom, Discovery seems to be Trek In Name Only beyond just the canon issues and why it doesn't even matter if Discovery is technically better produced than other S1's of Trek, it drastically misses the point and feel of Star Trek on a fundamental core level.

What do you think about argument made in the piece?

 

[BillJ]

I just care if it is entertaining. By that standard, it misses the mark by a wide margin.

 

[Nyotarules]

TOS Star Trek was never presented as a Utopia,the admirals were idiots, some of the captains were looney tunes, a few of the crew were bigots, colonies were nowhere I wanted to live (This side of paradise, Mudd's women).
Discovery fits in perfectly.

"Roddenberry’s cheerful post-scarcity utopia, which is supposed to be just ten years down the road, is nowhere to be seen."

Never existed in TOS, I revoke the writer's Star Trek card. The TNG Utopia, or
(Picard's version of it) is 100 years away from Discovery.

"The original series usually featured the crew as a whole, with occasional episodes devoted to the inner lives of individual characters."

Of course, that fantastic episode focusing on Uhura, and that one all about Sulu and the other one on Chekov, what were they called again????

"Discovery is only interested in Burnham and maybe four other characters; everyone else is window dressing, spectators at the feast. "

And TOS focused mainly on Kirk, Spock and McCoy and, and, and er...yeah those three.

The writer needs to remove his/her rose coloured TNG tinted glasses and rewatch all three seasons and the movies of TOS.

 

[Mudd]

Well, it's worth noting that people are beginning to notice just how dismal and unsatisfactory this show is. Many of the observations in the piece are dead-on accurate, though the thesis is arguable. STD is really nothing more than one more stodgy, uninvolving and creatively conservative CBS hour-long. Might as well be NCIS: Starfleet.

 

[jaime]

TOS Star Trek was never presented as a Utopia,the admirals were idiots, some of the captains were looney tunes, a few of the crew were bigots, colonies were nowhere I wanted to live (This side of paradise, Mudd's women).
Discovery fits in perfectly.

"Roddenberry’s cheerful post-scarcity utopia, which is supposed to be just ten years down the road, is nowhere to be seen."

Never existed in TOS, I revoke the writer's Star Trek card. The TNG Utopia, or
(Picard's version of it) is 100 years away from Discovery.

"The original series usually featured the crew as a whole, with occasional episodes devoted to the inner lives of individual characters."

Of course, that fantastic episode focusing on Uhura, and that one all about Sulu and the other one on Chekov, what were they called again????

"Discovery is only interested in Burnham and maybe four other characters; everyone else is window dressing, spectators at the feast. "

And TOS focused mainly on Kirk, Spock and McCoy and, and, and er...yeah those three.

The writer needs to remove his/her rose coloured TNG tinted glasses and rewatch all three seasons and the movies of TOS.

Yeah...I can’t disagree with much of the piece, and find the cartoons entertaining...but TOS is not TNG. By the para,enters being discussed though...TOS is light years closer to TNG than DSC. At least we knew Uhura could sing, or Sulu likes fencing and plants etc. Scott and Chekhov May have been Hollywood stereotypes, but at least they had that...I literally do not know the name of equivalent crew on discovery. It’s braids girl, robochick, and ...I think I may know the name for facial implant...Detmer? Named leads are otherwise a total sausage fest, and the whole thing is imbalanced. I am not DSCs biggest critic, I liked it more by the end certainly, but it’s a bit of a mess.

 

[fireproof78]

That they miss the point. All the points that are brought up against Discovery have been done in Star Trek before. Irrational hatred of an alien species? Kirk and Stiles did that before Burnham did. War plots? I didn't realize that DS9's Dominion War was just an "occasional" plot device, rather than an overarching, multi-season, arc. Poor decisions in war time, including genocide? Again, hello Kirk and wanting to allow the death of an entire species. Oh, maybe Burnham's speech would better if it had included more Shakespeare like Kirk or Picard.

Refusing to engage with GR's vision? In TOS, the vision was less socialist, and far less utopian than what would later be presented in TNG. We know of colonial governors who engaged in mass murder to save other colonists, essentially eugenics of selecting those who would live and who would die.

Speaking of living and dying, how positive is it when the pilot episode shows a grim view of being a starship captain debating on retiring because he is tired of that choice. the burden of command was too much. Same character ends up living in a fantasy world for the rest of his life. How idealistic.

While we are on the subject of dismal, let's be clear about something. Star Trek, for all its utopian platitudes ("There is no money in the 24th century.") has always had a dark side. The Borg are among the most popular enemies ever presented on screen, and yet there is never any effort to redeem them, negotiate towards a permanent peace, or find common ground. At the end of every episode with the Borg, ultimately, they must be destroyed. How positive.

Oh, but the fans are all in love with the utopian, optimistic future of Star Trek, right? So much so, that I know of at least 3 fan film productions developed around darker, grittier tones, including a famous speech in a well lit room:

Burnham would have probably been better accepted if she was played by Tony Todd...

Not dark enough? What about Star Trek: Renegades, before it became just Renegades? That one looked very optimisti...

When a seemingly unstoppable new enemy threatens the very existence of the Earth, Admiral Pavel Chekov (Walter Koenig) is forced to work outside the boundaries of Starfleet’s rules to combat this deadly new foe.

Planet after planet winks out of existence, yet Starfleet refuses to act. Chekov turns to Commander Tuvok (Tim Russ) the new head of Starfleet’s covert operations division, Section 31. Together, they assemble a new elite strike-force, consisting of rogues, outcasts and criminals, led by the fearless yet haunted Lexxa Singh (Adrienne Wilkinson).

The Renegades’ mission is simple: take on an army and stop their leader, Borrada (Bruce Young), from destroying the Earth. Outnumbered and outgunned, the ragtag crew is in an adrenaline-pumping race against time and space. But they soon find their foes are the least of their concerns: the real trouble may be coming from within!

Oh...more Section 31, more war, more dystopian than utopian. But, that's not what the fans want even though its a fan production?

Maybe Pacific 201 will be more utopian?

He's smiling on the inside, I'm sure of it.

And that's just a brief slice of fan films, let alone the various fictions and RPGs that I have seen involving the collapse of the Federation, or war plots, or conspiracy theories. One merely need to stroll through the "Future of Star Trek" subforum here to hear that pitch for a new Star Trek series.

The article demonstrates a lack of self-awareness regarding the history of Star Trek, TOS in particular, and what fandom has also presented as being of interest and presumes to talk for an entire fan base rather than acknowledge that things have not always been optimistic or utopian in its presentation.

 

[jaime]

That they miss the point. All the points that are brought up against Discovery have been done in Star Trek before. Irrational hatred of an alien species? Kirk and Stiles did that before Burnham did. War plots? I didn't realize that DS9's Dominion War was just an "occasional" plot device, rather than an overarching, multi-season, arc. Poor decisions in war time, including genocide? Again, hello Kirk and wanting to allow the death of an entire species. Oh, maybe Burnham's speech would better if it had included more Shakespeare like Kirk or Picard.

Refusing to engage with GR's vision? In TOS, the vision was less socialist, and far less utopian than what would later be presented in TNG. We know of colonial governors who engaged in mass murder to save other colonists, essentially eugenics of selecting those who would live and who would die.

Speaking of living and dying, how positive is it when the pilot episode shows a grim view of being a starship captain debating on retiring because he is tired of that choice. the burden of command was too much. Same character ends up living in a fantasy world for the rest of his life. How idealistic.

While we are on the subject of dismal, let's be clear about something. Star Trek, for all its utopian platitudes ("There is no money in the 24th century.") has always had a dark side. The Borg are among the most popular enemies ever presented on screen, and yet there is never any effort to redeem them, negotiate towards a permanent peace, or find common ground. At the end of every episode with the Borg, ultimately, they must be destroyed. How positive.

Oh, but the fans are all in love with the utopian, optimistic future of Star Trek, right? So much so, that I know of at least 3 fan film productions developed around darker, grittier tones, including a famous speech in a well lit room:

Burnham would have probably been better accepted if she was played by Tony Todd...

Not dark enough? What about Star Trek: Renegades, before it became just Renegades? That one looked very optimisti...

Oh...more Section 31, more war, more dystopian than utopian. But, that's not what the fans want even though its a fan production?

Maybe Pacific 201 will be more utopian?

He's smiling on the inside, I'm sure of it.

And that's just a brief slice of fan films, let alone the various fictions and RPGs that I have seen involving the collapse of the Federation, or war plots, or conspiracy theories. One merely need to stroll through the "Future of Star Trek" subforum here to hear that pitch for a new Star Trek series.

The article demonstrates a lack of self-awareness regarding the history of Star Trek, TOS in particular, and what fandom has also presented as being of interest and presumes to talk for an entire fan base rather than acknowledge that things have not always been optimistic or utopian in its presentation.

There’s no money by the 23rd century of the movies.
The prejudices in TOS characters were usually one story things, and always, always, shown to be wrong in extremely short order. Maybe it’s the serialised storytelling, but that’s not what happened with Burnham, or anyone else.
The pilot you refer to was not the pilot, it was the failed pilot. Kirk is not like Pike for a very good reason.
The governors etc you refer to are shown to be anomalies and great evils, not a direct result of or part of the Federations hierarchy as such...unlike DSCs admirals.
The less said about the shoehorned Kirk racism in ST VI the better...it ignored the previous film ‘everybody’s human’ and the film gets clumsier with every repeat viewing. On the plus side, it tried for a message.
Fan films...well...huh. It’s a bit apples and oranges. Especially with grimdark being so in vogue. But it’s not really a good example. They really don’t speak to a wide group of fans, partially because they embrace a more military tone than TruTrek (tm) and also because they, like DSC, hew to some imagined TOS as the one Trek. Renegades is a bit of an outlier, but well...it’s not trek anymore, and it played to trends. It also still managed to be more optimistic in many ways than DSC did, and treated its cast of characters better in its pilot than DSC managed in a whole series. But..apples and oranges. Renegades had some names, DSC had a couple, both shows managed to dispose of them pretty quickly...maybe Sean Young can turn up on DSC xD.

 

[eschaton]

Well, it's worth noting that people are beginning to notice just how dismal and unsatisfactory this show is. Many of the observations in the piece are dead-on accurate, though the thesis is arguable. STD is really nothing more than one more stodgy, uninvolving and creatively conservative CBS hour-long. Might as well be NCIS: Starfleet.

As I said recently, I've come to believe the fundamental problem with DIS is that it's effectively showrunner-less. With Fuller's exit, it's being led by people who not only weren't big Trek fans, but didn't really want the job to begin with. Everyone's just keeping their head down, breaking the stories, and trying to not upset CBS too much.

 

[Tuskin38]

You don’t need to be a Star Trek fan to write and produce a Star Trek series

 

[jaime]

You don’t need to be a Star Trek fan to write and produce a Star Trek series

I think the Doctor Who renaissance series shows that fandom can really help though.
Trek could do with a bit of that spirit, including the approach used in Who, best typified by Elim Garaks line in Ds9 about what is true.

 

[cultcross]

There’s no money by the 23rd century of the movies.

But still Scotty just bought a boat...

The prejudices in TOS characters were usually one story things, and always, always, shown to be wrong in extremely short order.

They really weren't - for just one example I'd refer you to Wolf in the Fold, where ridiculous prejudices about women are core to the plot and presented as scientific fact, and Scotty is seen to be quite understandably mad at all women because one was responsible for an accident.

TOS Star Trek was never presented as a Utopia,the admirals were idiots, some of the captains were looney tunes, a few of the crew were bigots, colonies were nowhere I wanted to live (This side of paradise, Mudd's women).
Discovery fits in perfectly.

"Roddenberry’s cheerful post-scarcity utopia, which is supposed to be just ten years down the road, is nowhere to be seen."

Never existed in TOS, I revoke the writer's Star Trek card. The TNG Utopia, or
(Picard's version of it) is 100 years away from Discovery.

"The original series usually featured the crew as a whole, with occasional episodes devoted to the inner lives of individual characters."

Of course, that fantastic episode focusing on Uhura, and that one all about Sulu and the other one on Chekov, what were they called again????

"Discovery is only interested in Burnham and maybe four other characters; everyone else is window dressing, spectators at the feast. "

And TOS focused mainly on Kirk, Spock and McCoy and, and, and er...yeah those three.

The writer needs to remove his/her rose coloured TNG tinted glasses and rewatch all three seasons and the movies of TOS.

I pretty much agree. TOS was a better future, not a utopian future. It was full of conflicts, prejudices, pettiness and arsehole bureaucrats. In TOS, the human race fought it's base instincts to try to be better. By TNG, they had none.

 

[Nyotarules]

But still Scotty just bought a boat...

When he could have replicated one..... Maybe he went outside the Federation and did a dodgy deal or he just like collecting gold pressed latinum bars for no reason or all those Federation credits he had stashed before 2293 had to be put to some use before they were declared obsolete.
And the less said about Turnabout Intruder the better...

 

[Tuskin38]

I think the Doctor Who renaissance series shows that fandom can really help though.
Trek could do with a bit of that spirit, including the approach used in Who, best typified by Elim Garaks line in Ds9 about what is true.

Well Nemesis was written by a fan, and look how that went.

Like have people on the show that know Trek, but they don't need to be in every position.

 

[eschaton]

You don’t need to be a Star Trek fan to write and produce a Star Trek series

Absolutely not. Michael Piller doesn't seem like he was a big Trek fan. He casually watched TNG's first two seasons and enjoyed them, but didn't really know TOS. That said, he had a clear vision of what had gone wrong in the first two seasons, and he worked to execute the (successful) pivot of the series into a more character-focused show which still held true to the setting Roddenberry helped to create. Perhaps even more importantly, he knew how to find spec writers who knew Trek and could write well, which led to the hiring of Moore, Braga, Echevarria, and Shankar.

 

[eschaton]

Well Nemesis was written by a fan, and look how that went.

From what I've read, Nemesis's flaws have much to do important scenes getting cut out in postproduction. Roughly 50 minutes were taken out in total, including virtually all of the "character moments" that TNG became well-known for. Indeed, the director famously hated Star Trek and refused to watch any of TNG to prepare for his role in production. I think the film is remembered to be worse than it is due to bombing at the box office though (which was mostly due to release right around LOTR and Harry Potter). Honestly it's better than Generations, and probably about on the same level as Insurrection.

Like have people on the show that know Trek, but they don't need to be in every position.

I don't think it's important to have a die-hard fan as the showrunner, but I think it's important to have someone who respects the Trek legacy and understands it's something more than a devoted fandom/potential revenue stream. My issue with DIS is that it was basically Trek-irrelevant. I could have dealt with an Orville-like homage, although it wouldn't have impressed me. I would have also loved a smart deconstruction of Trek. Instead, we were told a season-long arc which basically didn't need to take place within the Trekverse at all, except that the series would have surely bombed as an original-content sci-fi adventure show.

 

[Gepard]

TOS was a better future, not a utopian future.

And thats really the problem – DSC doesn't feel like a better future, it feels like a future populated with impulsive idiots.

 

[Vger23]

Oh, excellent- another discussion about whether or not DSC is a utopian/Roddenberrian series that executes on THE VISION.



Maybe it's just me...but perhaps it's time to move off of it and/or see what tonal changes might be in place for S2.

 

[Mudd]

As I said recently, I've come to believe the fundamental problem with DIS is that it's effectively showrunner-less. With Fuller's exit, it's being led by people who not only weren't big Trek fans, but didn't really want the job to begin with. Everyone's just keeping their head down, breaking the stories, and trying to not upset CBS too much.

Yes. Everyone's a hired hand and none of them are really people with a lot of experience - save Goldsman, who's career is 95 percent lowest common denominator hackwork with one unexpected gem of a movie.

 

[AlanC9]

I pretty much agree. TOS was a better future, not a utopian future. It was full of conflicts, prejudices, pettiness and arsehole bureaucrats. In TOS, the human race fought it's base instincts to try to be better. By TNG, they had none.

Or perhaps those base instincts had merely been successfully repressed? They seem to keep breaking out whenever things get really tough.

 

[AlanC9]

Oh, excellent- another discussion about whether or not DSC is a utopian/Roddenberrian series that executes on THE VISION.



Maybe it's just me...but perhaps it's time to move off of it and/or see what tonal changes might be in place for S2.

Hell, we might as well go ahead with this. We gotta fill up the months until S2 drops with something.