Spoilers Variety Article on Patrick Stewart's Return

[JamesRye]

But.....but I thought Star Trek showed a positive vision for humanity, one where we had overcome our petty problems and that we had evolved and that science and reason would triumph. Wasn't it always the aliens that were analagous to our current flawed thinking?

Star Trek used to portray a positive future for mankind. Now it seems it's veering toward a more corrupt and dystopian picture of mankind's future. It may be good story telling but is it the Star Trek of Gene Roddenberry's vision?

 

[BillJ]

But.....but I thought Star Trek showed a positive vision for humanity, one where we had overcome our petty problems and that we had evolved and that science and reason would triumph. Wasn't it always the aliens that were analagous to our current flawed thinking?

You can have a positive vision, that we learn to get along and reach out into space. But you can't hang every war on somebody else with humanities hands clean. We aren't supposed to be perfect in TOS. Just that we had solved some of our problems, while it was clear that we were still human.

"All right. It's instinctive. But the instinct can be fought. We're human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands, but we can stop it. We can admit that we're killers, but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes. Knowing that we won't kill today."

From "A Taste of Armageddon", where the Federation was trying to force a treaty port on an unwilling planet. Even ignoring the 'Code 710' which told them to stay away.

 

[Cake]

The Federation has never lived up to those ideal, we've seen it doing questionable things pretty much since day 1. And it sounds like the whole point of this story point is that the Federation has moved away from what it's supposed to be, so it's not like they are portraying this as a good thing. A big part of the show is also Starfleet turning it's back on Picard and vice versa, and that isn't going to happen if it was still the same place that Picard represented back in the TNG era.

Of course they won't portray it as a good thing. After all the stated goal of TPTB is among other things to criticize current US and UK politics.

---

Also from the article:

“The Next Generation” presented a humanist future in which issues like poverty, race and class have long been sorted out, and conflicts are more often resolved through negotiation and problem-solving than at the point of a phaser pistol.

Stewart had no desire to go there again.

“I think what we’re trying to say is important,” he says. “The world of ‘Next Generation’ doesn’t exist anymore. It’s different. Nothing is really safe. Nothing is really secure.”

So sounds like even racism might be a thing again. And I am curious how far they will go with poverty? Will people starve despite the Federation having replicators? Or just live in really shitty homes though again that shouldn't be a problem with the technology and countless worlds available. And I guess as negotiations and non violent problem-solving are out, we might even get some action hero Picard scenes despite his age.

 

[BillJ]

So sounds like even racism might be a thing again. And I am curious how far they will go with poverty?

Spoiler: Picard

I imagine this has to do with the Romulans who I think are living on Mars. Humanity will continue to uphold its own moral superiority while treating others like shit. Like how they spent a long time looking down on the Ferengi.

And I guess as negotiations and non violent problem-solving is out...

I wouldn't count it out. But I wouldn't expect conference room scenes every episode as this is one-ten part story.

 

[The Old Mixer]

High-minded values like those of TNG are meaningless if not put to the test. It sounds like Picard will be doing just that.

 

[The Wormhole]

It may be good story telling but is it the Star Trek of Gene Roddenberry's vision?

Good storytelling and Gene's Vision rarely mix together anyway.

Besides, the "positive future" Star Trek pedals is simply that humanity eventually becomes a united race and heads into space. And every Star Trek series reflects this. This does not mean humanity is picture perfect flawless and humans never get into conflict with one another, nor should it ever mean that.

And what about TOS, which implies early in season one that humanity are conquerors? That's right, The Conscience of the King has a line implying humans conquered Vulcans. You want to go back to Gene's Vision, let's go back to the 1960s where Gene saw his perfect humans as galactic conquerors. That's a Gene's Vision I want to learn more about. Well, that and the one with naked women on a tropical island...

 

[BillJ]

Good storytelling and Gene's Vision rarely mix together anyway.

It did at one time. But Gene Roddenberry of 1966 was very different from the one of 1987. Roddenberry had bought into the hype.

 

[Tuskin38]

Of course they won't portray it as a good thing. After all the stated goal of TPTB is among other things to criticize current US and UK politics.

---

Also from the article:


So sounds like even racism might be a thing again. And I am curious how far they will go with poverty? Will people starve despite the Federation having replicators? Or just live in really shitty homes though again that shouldn't be a problem with the technology and countless worlds available. And I guess as negotiations and non violent problem-solving are out, we might even get some action hero Picard scenes despite his age.

Star Trek has always criticized whatever the current day politics were. This isn’t new at all.

 

[The Wormhole]

It did at one time. But Gene Roddenberry of 1966 was very different from the one of 1987. Roddenberry had bought into the hype.

It's my experience when people say Gene's Vision, they mean the 1980s mentally ill alcoholic Gene who wanted bland humans as the pinnacle we all are supposed to aspire to. I agree, 1960s Gene would have realized he wouldn't net an audience that way. Then again, 1980s Gene took advantage of already having a built in audience who were guaranteed to watch the show because it had been too long since televised Star Trek was a thing, so he didn't really need to worry about appealing to the masses the way 1960s Gene did.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

They don’t understand that Trek is positivity. It’s what we aspire to be. We look at these issues thru the dealings with the various aliens we meet. We don’t want Starfleet to be exclusive.

 

[The Old Mixer]

The important thing is that Picard, our protagonist, champions those ideals. Starfleet and the Federation are just setting / plot devices.

 

[fireproof78]

High-minded values like those of TNG are meaningless if not put to the test. It sounds like Picard will be doing just that.

Exactly.

 

[Tuskin38]

They don’t understand that Trek is positivity.

Yes they do.

 

[Winterwind]

They never turned the Federation into current day USA and UK though. The Federation was always clearly better than any real world country, especially the humans living in it were better. They used mainly aliens when it comes to criticizing something humans in the real world do. But now it is all about how humans as a whole will never change and how they will be in the future just like they are in the present.

I guess you never watched TOS.

While Starfleet officers strove to be better the average everyday human didn't. And even Starfleet officers broke on occasion.

 

[Ovation]

This article has done much to reassure me that the new series will NOT be TNG 2.0. To the extent the series is as described in the interview, I will be happy.

 

[Uhura's Song]

I really prefer Star Trek portraying a better future and not just reality with better technology. If I want reality, I watch the news. Going the "dark and gritty" route is really getting tired and Star Trek is losing its unique selling point.

I get where you are coming from.

In TOS, in a country divided at war & divided on racial lines, Trek shone a light in what humanity could achieve. An optimistic take on humanity's future. Much needed and deservedly well loved.

TNG continued that optimistic take. Some critics complain TOS/TNG was too polyanna. But within it, there was still Federation gone bad stuff (Undiscovered Country, Conspiracy, Drumhead, Insurrection, etc).

By the same token, just because a show may be darker, grittier, less polyanna, that optimistic vision, that light, is still gonna shine. It did during DS9. It did during the rare edgy Voyager episodes. It during Enterprise. It continues in Discovery.

 

[Jayson1]

I think the Federation has always been America but a idealized version of it. The key though is it has been positive and hopeful and with a sense of fun. It explored real issues but they didn't often go with super cynical takes on them. Always sort of leaving the feeling that people can rise above them.. Also despite human flaws their is something special about the human race. We are more than just evolved apes with tech. Also while they sometimes explored current day issues they never went after present day figures. At no point on TNG for example do you see a character and say. That's clearly Reagan or Bush. And the one time they went very topical with Wesley's just say no to drugs speech I think we fans laughed at how absurd it played.

Basically they were more subtle and avoided the modern day lingo and talking points of the time. Like nobody ever used the Ferengi by having one say something like "We believe in trickle down profit" or something so on the nose like that. Well at least in the better written episodes. It's not a accident that Hippies, about as dated a thing as you will see in Trek is a very bad episode. Usually if you could see to much current day political talking points it was not something that played well.

I personally think the show is going to be great but I also have a feeling it's something that people might not love even if they appreciate how well made it is. That is because it's not going be something you want to put on because your having a bad day or your feeling lonely and you want to be with tv friends for a lack of a better word. It's not going to feel special in the way Trek does. It's going be like many tv shows. Their are plenty of shows out their that are better shows than Trek in many ways but some shows sort of appeal to people on I guess you could say a more emotional level. Were you love it because of how it makes you feel even if comes with little bad quirks like some bad acting here and their or some bad episodes but even though the episode is bad you still kind of like it. Things like that.


Jason

 

[Mondragon]

I'm not sure how anyone can say the Federation isn't the USA when its ships all have USS in their names.

You man other then Gene Roddenberry?
USS means "United Space Ship" and that "Enterprise is a member of the Starship Class".[
And with the eradication of political earth boarders, hunger, money, etc, it never once represented the US alone, (then or at a later time), but an idealized as yet achieved global and the galaxy wide future.
Not sure how people(supposed fans) can get that so wrong?

 

[Tuskin38]

You man other then Gene Roddenberry?
USS means "United Space Ship" and that "Enterprise is a member of the Starship Class".[
And with the eradication of political earth boarders, hunger, money, etc, it never once represented the US alone, (then or at a later time), but an idealized as yet achieved global and the galaxy wide future.
Not sure how people(supposed fans) can get that so wrong?

The Federation was the USA (or just NATO) and the Klimgons were the Soviet Union. In allegory of course. It’s very obvious when watching Undiscovered Country.

The show also tried to push some American ideals (Remember when Kirk read the American constitution?)

 

[BillJ]

USS means "United Space Ship" and that "Enterprise is a member of the Starship Class"

"USS" is the prefix used by the United States Navy. Of which, Gene Roddenberry was a member.

And with the eradication of political earth boarders, hunger, money, etc, it never once represented the US alone, (then or at a later time), but an idealized as yet achieved global and the galaxy wide future.

It wasn't the "galaxy" wide future for humanity. As clearly shown by colonies like Terra Nova and Turkana IV. Not all humans were happy with the course of Earth, and later, the Federation. We even see that with the Terra Prime movement in Enterprise.

Not sure how people(supposed fans) can get that so wrong?

Because we haven't gotten it wrong. The proof is in the proverbial pudding.