Spoilers Two steps forward, one step back? Thoughts on the world DSC presents

[lawman]

I don't think we can generalize about broad categories of "purists" versus "revisionists," but I do agree that classic Trek definitely had a utopian backdrop, a very optimistic vision of humanity's future... and optimistic futurism is out of fashion these days, whilst dystopias are very much in. A lot of people seem to want to inject more of that into Trek, for various reasons, and it doesn't really fit. (Especially in a prequel series.) I can enjoy a different SF show like The Expanse or Dark Matter on its own dystopian merits, but I don't want too much of that sensibility to infect Trek.

(For those of you who are comics fans, it's worth mentioning that similar debates have gone on for years about the future occupied by the Legion of Super-Heroes. It's always been optimistic, but just how utopian should it be, and how dark should any given story be allowed to get without "breaking" the concept? I personally very much enjoyed the 5YL Legion, for instance, but largely because it was a carefully conceived thematic contrast to what had come before, and acknowledged the virtues of trying to rebuild what had been lost.)

 

[Alan Roi]

I don't think we can generalize about broad categories of "purists" versus "revisionists," but I do agree that classic Trek definitely had a utopian backdrop, a very optimistic vision of humanity's future... and optimistic futurism is out of fashion these days, whilst dystopias are very much in. A lot of people seem to want to inject more of that into Trek, for various reasons, and it doesn't really fit. (Especially in a prequel series.) I can enjoy a different SF show like The Expanse or Dark Matter on its own dystopian merits, but I don't want too much of that sensibility to infect Trek.

(For those of you who are comics fans, it's worth mentioning that similar debates have gone on for years about the future occupied by the Legion of Super-Heroes. It's always been optimistic, but just how utopian should it be, and how dark should any given story be allowed to get without "breaking" the concept? I personally very much enjoyed the 5YL Legion, for instance, but largely because it was a carefully conceived thematic contrast to what had come before, and acknowledged the virtues of trying to rebuild what had been lost.)

TOS offered up a number of cautionary tales that did have dystopian elements, found in such episodes that I pointed out above. The TNG era producers largely disallowed the Federation as being permitted to be a setting for such cautionary tales, as a mere Next Generation later they had just about been eliminated from the Federation in their entirety. As we are all well aware, such boundless optimism isn't exactly a reflection in the world we have experienced over the past 50+ years. Not the incremental improvements as we have seen in our world, but from a better world to somehow a utopian one, all while experienceing massive expansion and absorbing many different races and civilizations all while getting involved in a bunch of interstellar wars along the way. Tricky to pull off, don't you think?

As for the Legion of Super Heroes, if your civilization is a utopia, exactly what should the need be for superheroes at all, let alone a 'Legion" of them (FYI, I read at least a hundred or more issues of said comic that had been published between the 60s and the 80s during my formative years so I'm not exactly a newbie with regards to the Legion.)

And as we see, Discovery is set not during that Utopia but before it, as, along with it offering better opportunities for drama, for many people around the planet, since many here dislike the idea of the Federation being the subject of criticism, Utopia that it is, the idea of a collection of privileged folk setting out to explore and lecture more primitive civilizations that they don't measure up (such as what we see on the TNG facsimilie currently being duplicated for public consumption) such behavior can seem a little insulting in its presentation, and that's even if it done with grace, as opposed to handling it in clunky 80s style).

That being said, I look forwards in seeing how the Picard series manages to sidestep those obvious pitfalls.

 

[lawman]

That penultimate paragraph of yours is a little tricky to parse, but (I think) I can extract one particular thread from it...

for many people around the planet... the idea of a collection of privileged folk setting out to explore and lecture more primitive civilizations that they don't measure up... can seem a little insulting in its presentation

...is that really what you see as the thematic focus of past Trek? Or of TNG in particular? Really? I mean, sure, Picard could get a little pedantic sometimes (and Riker was just generally an asshole)... but while one of the purposes of SF futurism is to show how Things Can Be Better, I think that goal was more often served by example than by lectures or insults.

 

[Alan Roi]

That penultimate paragraph of yours is a little tricky to parse, but (I think) I can extract one particular thread from it...

...is that really what you see as the thematic focus of past Trek? Or of TNG in particular? Really? I mean, sure, Picard could get a little pedantic sometimes (and Riker was just generally an asshole)... but while one of the purposes of SF futurism is to show how Things Can Be Better, I think that goal was more often served by example than by lectures or insults.

Well, the issue is, TOS and DS9, the Federation and its representatives caught a fair degree of flack, much of it deservedly so. Things can get better, certainly, but old problems remain stubbornly pernicious, and the new things that are supposed to fix problems can turn around and create new problems. TNG and VOY however, were insistent that just about everything within the FED had been fixed and the only significant problems to be encountered are external or the "other". And running a show where you are making the "other" the only usable source of problem, whether that's a spacial anomaly or a less 'moral' culture. I can see being a hard sell beyond those devotees of how Federation Ideals and streams of technobabble were promoted in TNG and VOY. As such, it ends up being very limiting on a human scale. For instance, compare the number of compelling characters in TOS and DS9 vs. TNG, VOY and ENT.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Perhaps we should coin some neologism that describes the practice of eating species which are at or above a certain level of intelligence/sentience/whatever the applicable term is.

Kor

Foodie.

 

[fireproof78]

Or of TNG in particular? Really? I mean, sure, Picard could get a little pedantic sometimes (and Riker was just generally an asshole)... but while one of the purposes of SF futurism is to show how Things Can Be Better, I think that goal was more often served by example than by lectures or insults.

Only TNG in particular, and some times DS9. I agree with that the idea of SF futurism is how things can be made better, but I don't think TOS presented perfectly utopian society and allowed a lot more room for mistakes by the main characters.

 

[plynch]

We don't actually know a lot about the Federation in TOS. The humans are flawed like us. There are pirates, human trafficking, mad scientists, bar fights. There seems to be money. No bathrooms, of course, but that isn't so utopian, cuz introverted folk like me would have no place to retreat to during parties. Noel parties where the Captain embarrasses himself. Aren't there still penal colonies? The human races cooperate yes, but Fed delegations get pretty feisty on the way to Babel. Speaking of the way to, "Eden" and several other eps are cautionary or ambivalent about techno-utopias. Court-martial comes to mind ( "Books!" ).

I just don't see TOS Fed as being utopian. I will say the producers intended starfleet as good guys. Being World War II vets, they knew the morally ambiguous acts good guys have to do sometimes. But they didn't portray their heroes that way. For which I am grateful.

 

[fireproof78]

I just don't see TOS Fed as being utopian. I will say the producers intended starfleet as good guys. Being World War II vets, they new the morally ambiguous acts good guys have to do sometimes. But they didn't portray their heroes that way. For which I am grateful.

My personal favorite line from "Way to Eden" sheds some light on the idea of a utopia. Spock says, "There are many who are uncomfortable with what we have created. It is almost a biological rebellion. A profound revulsion against the planned communities, the programming, the sterilized, artfully balanced atmospheres. They hunger for an Eden where spring comes."

Kirk's response is one that I find most telling, and interesting to wonder at what Picard or Sisko might say. Kirk simply notes that this hunger exists in all. As though there are some things this world they have created cannot satisfy.

 

[Lord Garth]

We don't actually know a lot about the Federation in TOS. The humans are flawed like us. There are pirates, human trafficking, mad scientists, bar fights. There seems to be money. No bathrooms, of course, but that is isn't so utopian, cuz introverted folk like me would have no place to retreat to during parties. Noel parties where the Captain embarrasses himself. Aren't there still penal colonies? The human races cooperate yes, but Fed delegations get pretty feisty on the way to Babel. Speaking of the way to, "Eden" and several other eps are cautionary or ambivalent about techno-utopias. Court-martial comes to mind ( "Books!" ).

I just don't see TOS Fed as being utopian. I will say the producers intended starfleet as good guys. Being World War II vets, they new the morally ambiguous acts good guys have to do sometimes. But they didn't portray their heroes that way. For which I am grateful.

If I could, I'd give this post 10 likes instead of one. I agree with every word you said.

.
.
.

I seriously hope after the Borg Invasions, the Dominion War, and Romulus' Destruction, they turn the 25th Century into the Anti-24th Century in the Picard Series.

 

[gblews]

First off, I would like to thank sincerely the creators of Discovery for taking onboard constructive criticism of season one.

Lol, like Kurtsman came here to gain insight as to DSC's "problems". Most of the criticism here consisted of variations of "STD sucks", in just about that much detail. As the showrunners told us last season, the Klingon war story would be just one season, so what we're seeing is DSC in (relative) peace mode.

 

[Hythlodeus]

There are pirates, human trafficking, mad scientists, bar fights.

yeah, but they did that to better themselves

 

[F. King Daniel]

Georgiou is technically not a cannibal. She was not depicted as eating members of her own species.

Perhaps we should coin some neologism that describes the practice of eating species which are at or above a certain level of intelligence/sentience/whatever the applicable term is.

Kor

What she did was exactly as bad as cannibalism, since Trek presents sapient humanoids as equals.

So "cannibal" fits perfectly, IMHO.

 

[Alan Roi]

What she did was exactly as bad as cannibalism, since Trek presents sapient humanoids as equals.

So "cannibal" fits perfectly, IMHO.

There are plenty of characters in Star Trek from species who eat or absorb sentient beings bodies or energy. I'm curious as to why the only one I've ever heard referred to as a cannibal is Georgiou. Exactly why is she the only one to receive this 'honor'?

Does anyone refer to May the spore a cannibal, since her entire race are cannibals by the above definition. Along with Tyler (who ate Prime Georgiou when he was Voq), or say, Seven of Nine, since she to engaged in eating her fellow borg.

An inquiring mind wants to know.

 

[Timo]

I'm not sure I can see the TOS heroes as somehow less self-assured about their superiority, or the superiority of the culture they represent. Kirk, too, prowled the galaxy in order to promote a superior way of life. He may have described it with different language, emphasizing hardship and struggle rather than harmony and tolerance, but he, too, divided the world sharply in well-meaning humans perfect in their imperfection, and inhuman scum (alien, the wrong sort of human, whatever).

The world described in TOS was basically our world, with a temporary pause in warfare between great powers, with ideological strife, with shortages of means, with a struggle to manage crime. But it was all labeled perfect and desirable. Humans had the ability to turn hot war into cold. Humans could be of many different minds and nevertheless ultimately obey Starfleet. Humans could secure resources from misguided natives with minimum fuss. Humans could brainwash criminals of their madness, and then brainwash the washers.

TOS was more explicit about the means and the doing. TNG was more explicit about the results and the enjoying. In terms of the actual action, both showed mankind and its assorted serfs struggling with making progress, or just with coping with the ages-old problems. But logically enough, TNG was a hundred years farther down the road, with more to show for it.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[XCV330]

What she did was exactly as bad as cannibalism, since Trek presents sapient humanoids as equals.

So "cannibal" fits perfectly, IMHO.

And now she serves on board a ship with a guy who has actually eaten "her" own flesh. It might not technically be entirely him, but the framework there and he certainly can remember the taste and whether she needed salt and pepper. Can't get too hung up on these things in Sec.31 I guess.

 

[Sir Stewart Wallace]

Lol, like Kurtsman came here to gain insight as to DSC's "problems". Most of the criticism here consisted of variations of "STD sucks", in just about that much detail. As the showrunners told us last season, the Klingon war story would be just one season, so what we're seeing is DSC in (relative) peace mode.

I think that's kind of disrespectful to the posters who took the time to write out serious, thoughtful criticisms of DSC last year. It seems that whenever a new Trek property comes out, some fans are simply unable to see anything wrong with it. Which is fine, I guess, but allow others their opinions as well.

 

[ozzfloyd]

What she did was exactly as bad as cannibalism, since Trek presents sapient humanoids as equals.

So "cannibal" fits perfectly, IMHO.

Nope. Words have meaning and cannibal does not fit perfectly.

 

[fireproof78]

I think that's kind of disrespectful to the posters who took the time to write out serious, thoughtful criticisms of DSC last year. It seems that whenever a new Trek property comes out, some fans are simply unable to see anything wrong with it. Which is fine, I guess, but allow others their opinions as well.

With due respect to those who articulate their concerns so well I am highly skeptical that the production team came here, waded through a lot of posts that could be summarized as "DSC is bad/not real Trek" for the actual, workable, critiques.

I appreciate the well thought out discussions and don't think that many here labored under the assumption that any Star Trek can do no wrong. However, I also do not credit this, or any fan site, for the reasons for DSC's change of tone this season. Which, and @gblews can correct me if I'm wrong, seemed to be the point of their post.

 

[Alan Roi]

TNG was a hundred years farther down the road, with more to show for it.

Timo Saloniemi

Um... TNG was not even a single hundred years further down the road. And we even saw that Picard acting like a Kirk wannabe when he was a youth, at least until he got stabbed.

 

[Sir Stewart Wallace]

With due respect to those who articulate their concerns so well I am highly skeptical that the production team came here, waded through a lot of posts that could be summarized as "DSC is bad/not real Trek" for the actual, workable, critiques.

I appreciate the well thought out discussions and don't think that many here labored under the assumption that any Star Trek can do no wrong. However, I also do not credit this, or any fan site, for the reasons for DSC's change of tone this season. Which, and @gblews can correct me if I'm wrong, seemed to be the point of their post.

I wouldn't say online reactions had absolutely nothing to do with the change of tone. That would be an assumption, not a fact. I happen to agree with that assumption, but it's not an objective fact whatsoever.

And that wasn't even my problem with the post. It was stated that most of the criticism of DSC here boiled down to "the show sucks," which I feel represents more the poster's bias towards DSC criticism than anything resembling what people actually posted.