The way The Federation was portrayed in DS9

[Withers]

To each his own, I can relate to people who stick to their morals just fine.

Swing and a miss.

"It's easy to be a saint in Paradise." It's easy to say, "Yes, given that extraordinarily black and white situation where one course is clearly wrong and the other is clearly right, I would have done what he did." That gets boring when it is repeated over and over again. It also becomes unrealistic after a while.


But yes, 'to each his own,' I like episodes of Full House and other such innocuous, drama-free, PBS-esque programming every now and then too.

-Withers-​

 

[Anwar]

"It's easy to be a Saint in Paradise" supports Trekian ideals, it says that humanity's default setting pretty much IS to be good and pure and that remains at the core of their nature even when the outside situation changed and they had to adapt. If Behr was trying to go for his "humans are a bunch of bastards" viewpoint he should've had DS9 be more like District 9 or something.

 

[RyuRoots]

"It's easy to be a Saint in Paradise" supports Trekian ideals, it says that humanity's default setting pretty much IS to be good and pure and that remains at the core of their nature even when the outside situation changed and they had to adapt. If Behr was trying to go for his "humans are a bunch of bastards" viewpoint he should've had DS9 be more like District 9 or something.

Anwar, dude. Buddy. You might not believe in it BUT ALMOST EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD KNOWS WHAT "MIDDLE GROUND" IS.

Humans are neither "pure and holy angels" OR "a bunch of bastards" in DS9, and that's what we're saying and what we like.

"It's easy to be a saint in paradise" argues nothing of the sort. The implication is that it's easy to be moral when everything is easy for you, but that it's harder to resist one's vices or temptations when times are difficult.

 

[Anwar]

You can easily get "Humanity's default setting is NOT to be cruel and vicious" from that.

And again, NO Trek show said that Humans were Angels. Ever.

 

[RyuRoots]

You can easily get "Humanity's default setting is NOT to be cruel and vicious" from that.

And again, NO Trek show said that Humans were Angels. Ever.

*facepalm* When did I EVER use the words "cruel and vicious?

It is not in any way a commentary on humanity's default state. It's...well, exactly what I said in my last post.

And that's what's called hyperbole. More to the point, early TNG and VOY preached and prattled about how evolved humans were. TNG got better about it, and DS9 did a pretty good job showing most people in shades of gray.

 

[TheGodBen]

And again, NO Trek show said that Humans were Angels. Ever.

TNG - Hide and Q:

Q: Perhaps maybe a little Hamlet?
PICARD: Oh, no. I know Hamlet. And what he might said with irony, I say with conviction. What a piece of work is man. How noble in reason. How infinite in faculty. In form, in moving, how express and admirable. In action, how like an angel. In apprehension, how like a god.

 

[Withers]

"It's easy to be a Saint in Paradise" supports Trekian ideals, it says that humanity's default setting pretty much IS to be good and pure and that remains at the core of their nature even when the outside situation changed and they had to adapt.

First of all that isn't an accurate description of what the line means. The line (and, oh my god, I can't believe I'm explaining this) is basically saying "Yeah, it's easy to be all high and mighty when there's no conflict." Introduce conflict (a decision that isn't clearly defined as either totally righteous or totally evil) and what do these characters do? They turn out to be, not gods, not beings with seven life times worth of experience, not worm hole aliens but people. People that are easy to relate to based on the idea that the best of us will try to make the most out of bad situations.

If Behr was trying to go for his "humans are a bunch of bastards" viewpoint he should've had DS9 be more like District 9 or something.

He... wasn't trying to go for that because he didn't have that view point, The view point he was going for was what we got- it was called Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.

-Withers-​

 

[Anwar]

And again, NO Trek show said that Humans were Angels. Ever.

TNG - Hide and Q:

Q: Perhaps maybe a little Hamlet?
PICARD: Oh, no. I know Hamlet. And what he might said with irony, I say with conviction. What a piece of work is man. How noble in reason. How infinite in faculty. In form, in moving, how express and admirable. In action, how like an angel. In apprehension, how like a god.

Wow, even real human literature says that of us. We really are something .

And introduce conflict, the humans will NOT immediately get shaken up and loosen their morals. They will in fact do their best to go for the morally good solution (not merely the most pragmatic) and not easily be denied. That AGAIN shows that humanity's base nature is not to be shady and easily shook up moral-wise.

Behr's viewpoint was more akin to "Things haven't changed and never will so don't get mistaken about whatever hopes and ideals you have for humanity's future because that's all they are: hopes and ideals. Not reality, NEVER reality."

 

[TheGodBen]

And introduce conflict, the humans will NOT immediately get shaken up and loosen their morals. They will in fact do their best to go for the morally good solution (not merely the most pragmatic) and not easily be denied. That AGAIN shows that humanity's base nature is not to be shady and easily shook up moral-wise.

WARNING: Don't click the links if you are of a sensitive disposition

http://www2.newpaltz.edu/~walterme/violence/torture.jpg
http://trueslant.com/michaelpeck/files/2009/05/abu_ghraib_532.jpg
http://nastyish.com/images/the-911-rollercoaster/abu-ghraib-leash.jpg
http://dancull.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/abu-ghraib21.jpg

In action, how like an angel...

 

[Anwar]

I should've said Trek humans.

But anyways, I've seen worse.

 

[Withers]

And introduce conflict, the humans will NOT immediately get shaken up and loosen their morals. They will in fact do their best to go for the morally good solution (not merely the most pragmatic) and not easily be denied. That AGAIN shows that humanity's base nature is not to be shady and easily shook up moral-wise.

You make it seem as though the entire cast, when faced with a decision, always took the murderous underhanded route first without ever considering any other options. Like there were 24 people all playing variations on Dukat; the subtleties (or in Voyagers case lack there of) of all the Trek you discuss seems to be completely lost on you. It's all one way or it is completely the other way in your mind. Such emphatic reasoning makes any...substantive discussion difficult at best.

Behr's viewpoint was more akin to "Things haven't changed and never will so don't get mistaken about whatever hopes and ideals you have for humanity's future because that's all they are: hopes and ideals. Not reality, NEVER reality."

That's your personal opinion and frankly, coming from someone who excuses every writers mistake on Voyager yet indicts the writers for making DS9 what it was in the same breath, it leaves something to be desired.

-Withers-​

 

[DevilEyes]

And again, NO Trek show said that Humans were Angels. Ever.

TNG - Hide and Q:

Q: Perhaps maybe a little Hamlet?
PICARD: Oh, no. I know Hamlet. And what he might said with irony, I say with conviction. What a piece of work is man. How noble in reason. How infinite in faculty. In form, in moving, how express and admirable. In action, how like an angel. In apprehension, how like a god.

Wow, even real human literature says that of us. We really are something .

At least Picard was aware that Hamlet was being sarcastic.

 

[Anwar]

See, again TNG shows that it WASN'T about humans being a bunch of purity sues.

 

[TheGodBen]

Such emphatic reasoning makes any...substantive discussion difficult at best.

Indeed, that's why I stopped trying and not I only post episode quotes and pictures in response.

 

[CoveTom]

And again, NO Trek show said that Humans were Angels. Ever.

TNG - Hide and Q:

Q: Perhaps maybe a little Hamlet?
PICARD: Oh, no. I know Hamlet. And what he might said with irony, I say with conviction. What a piece of work is man. How noble in reason. How infinite in faculty. In form, in moving, how express and admirable. In action, how like an angel. In apprehension, how like a god.

You left out the remainder of that exchange, though. To wit:

Q: Surely you don't really see your species like that, do you?
PICARD: I see us one day becoming that, Q. Is that what concerns you?

Picard wasn't arguing that humans were like that in the 24th century. He was arguing that they could become like that some day and that perhaps that's what the Q feared about them.

Anywho, Behr hates Trek so he wanted to make things less "perfect" (though NO Trek series made the Federation perfect, especially not TNG).

I should have known that Behr is part of the hatedom too.

I see no evidence that Behr hated Trek. In fact, the evidence that I see is that he loved and respected Trek. But the variety of Trek he preferred was closer to that of TOS and the TOS movies from TWOK on, rather than that of TNG.

He is certainly not the only one to say so. Harve Bennett has been quite vocal about the fact that by the time of the films, Roddenberry's perception of what Trek is about had changed quite a bit. He felt -- and I agree -- that TOS showed us a very hopeful future, a future in which humanity has learned to quite often rise above its darker instincts. But still a future in which underlying human nature still exists and people are still flawed.

Bennett said -- and again that I agree -- that if you go back throughout the entirety of human history, there's no evidence to support the idea that a couple hundred more years of technological advancement will turn Earth into a utopia.

Behr was hardly unique in his viewpoints, and I think his take on Trek, as expressed in DS9, was far truer to the spirit of the original Star Trek than some of the interpretations we got from TNG and Voyager.

 

[TheGodBen]

Picard wasn't arguing that humans were like that in the 24th century. He was arguing that they could become like that some day and that perhaps that's what the Q feared about them.

I know, I was just having my fun.

 

[Anwar]

I should have known that Behr is part of the hatedom too.

Nah, he doesn't hate TNG, VOY and ENT for existing like the Hatedom does but he does hate that they don't all act 100% like 20th century people would in every single way.

I see no evidence that Behr hated Trek. In fact, the evidence that I see is that he loved and respected Trek. But the variety of Trek he preferred was closer to that of TOS and the TOS movies from TWOK on, rather than that of TNG.

In other words, "Things haven't changed and never will", since he figures that even 100 years after TOS the TNG cast should've all acted exactly the same as TOS people (and 100% like 20th century people, by extension).

Bennett said -- and again that I agree -- that if you go back throughout the entirety of human history, there's no evidence to support the idea that a couple hundred more years of technological advancement will turn Earth into a utopia.

And if you remove stuff like poverty, planet-bound politics, and add things like alien beings whom have accepted us as friends and partners in exploring space then I find it hard to believe that everyone would still act 100% the way they do today.

 

[BenRoethig]

And again, NO Trek show said that Humans were Angels. Ever.

TNG - Hide and Q:

Q: Perhaps maybe a little Hamlet?
PICARD: Oh, no. I know Hamlet. And what he might said with irony, I say with conviction. What a piece of work is man. How noble in reason. How infinite in faculty. In form, in moving, how express and admirable. In action, how like an angel. In apprehension, how like a god.

Wow, even real human literature says that of us. We really are something .

And introduce conflict, the humans will NOT immediately get shaken up and loosen their morals. They will in fact do their best to go for the morally good solution (not merely the most pragmatic) and not easily be denied. That AGAIN shows that humanity's base nature is not to be shady and easily shook up moral-wise.

When it comes to a survival situation, they sure will.

 

[Anwar]

If you're so eager and willing and quick to ditch morality just so you don't have to get a black eye, all that proves is that you weren't a moral person to begin with.

 

[I am not Spock]

Behr doesn't hate Trek. He just disagreed with Roddenberry's 'no conflict' rule. And so do I. You can't have drama without conflict. Many Trek writers, including a lot of TNG ones, said they found it hard to work around the fact that the main characters couldn't have conflict with each other. So the threats had to come from the outside, not the inside.