Spoilers Variety Article on Patrick Stewart's Return

[The Overlord]

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.

But is Star Trek sci-fi with challenging ideas or is it the Care Bears, where everyone is good and nice and gets along all the time?

I think after a while, it's hard to compelling social commentary if the Federation is as perfect as Gene tried to present it as in season 1 TNG and the Federation has never been as great as they have claimed.

Is it realistic that after decades of hostility, everyone in the Federation would just welcome Romulan refugees into their worlds to settle? The Federation can still be mostly good and still have some problems.

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.

Would all Federation citizens treat Romulan refugees as equals, despite decades of hostility?

Yeah, it's not like the Federation ever had racism in its ranks:

The first appearance of the Romulans in the original series featured a crewman named Styles, who was racist against Romulans because his grandfather or great grandfather, died in the Romulan Wars and was even bigoted towards Spock because Romulans and Vulcans are from the same ancestry. Deep Space 9 has Federation crew member making slurs towards Cardassians. Kirk was pretty bigoted towards the Klingons in Star Trek 6 and a bigoted admiral tried to use the fact a cadet tried to hide his Romulan heritage on his application, to have him drummed out of Star Fleet.

Again there is a huge middle ground between being the Care Bears and being the Imperium of Man from Warhammer, the Federation can in between those extremes.

 

[Jayson1]

It's funny in a way. TNG is certainly the most aggressively "utopian" of the Trek shows, although even they toned that down after the first season or so, and folks often talk as though it's the somehow the gold standard for Trek, to which all other Trek shows should be compared. "That new show is too dark! Why can't it be more like TNG?"

And yet, if you look at it from another angle, you can argue that TNG is the outlier, and that most Trek is closer to TOS or DS9 or DISCO in tone. So maybe we should stop expecting every new Trek show to be as "utopian" as TNG aspired to be?

(I'll cop to being a shameless TOS partisan, who prefers Kirk's rough-and-ready Final Frontier" to TNG, which sometimes got carried away with the "utopian" thing. As I like to point out, Kirk tended be highly suspicious of utopias. Anytime they found a planet that seemed a little too perfect or peaceful, you could count on there being a fly in ointment: mind-warping spores, an insane computer-god, etc. TOS was never "utopian," as Dr. McCoy would surely agree! )

Granted, even TNG did a widely-acclaimed episode in which Picard is mercilessly tortured, so we should not that even TNG wasn't all hope and progress and "non-scarcity" all the time, which is probably a good thing. An unexamined utopia is just escapism.

For me I like TOS and DS9 better than TNG as well in away. It's kind of weird for me because TNG is what made me a fan not just of Trek but eventually Science Fiction as well. It has the most nostalgia for me though TOS and DS9 are also close because I got into them pretty quickly once I got hooked on TNG. I also agree it's escapism but to me that is something I find kind of sad about modern Trek.

I got into Trek because I was lonely and unhappy and that utopian escapism appealed to me and made me feel happy. It still does. I just find it sad that Trek now that it wants to be cynical and not as hopeful means young people are most likely not going like Trek in the same way. Not they don't have options for that escapism. The MCU has basically taken over the roll that both Trek and Star Wars use to have I suspect. Still it feels wrong on some level that Tre,. The King of hopeful and positive thinking tv is unlikely to be that to new fans anymore. It's just going to be a show with spaceships and aliens they might like or not like. I don't see them getting into the fun of the world building and all of that especially if Trek is just going to make the universe more tech advanced version of today. I just watched the latest Short Trek. That short glimpse of the 24th century barely feels even futuristic at all. Take out the aliens and it could be our world in 15 years.


Jason

 

[Qonundrum]

I'm gonna watch just for the alleged f-bombs. Gene would approve.

 

[Qonundrum]

While I'd prefer to see The Federation portrayed positively I don't disagree that good writers could make a compelling darker story about the Federation losing its way.

Personally I don't think it's wise to use the Federation as an analogy for Britain or the U.S. to make some political statement that is probably simplistic or misinformed.

Agreed.

Also, the only problem with that is regarding the number of times TNG already used the Federation as a dumping ground for cheap plot points. Pegasus (at least it was compelling but TNG was on its last season and struggling to do something different - originally it was the penultimate year but season 8 was nixed due to lack of ideas), Insurrection (cliche after cliche after cliche), First Contact the movie (Picard in a hammy cheesy scene violates direct orders)...

Which isn't to say it can't work. Sisko did acts that would go against the grain of the Federation and DS9 made it germane and work, so PIC has an equal chance at blurring the lines to make whatever it's going to tell work.

 

[Qonundrum]

It's funny in a way. TNG is certainly the most aggressively "utopian" of the Trek shows, although even they toned that down after the first season or so, and folks often talk as though it's the somehow the gold standard for Trek, to which all other Trek shows should be compared. "That new show is too dark! Why can't it be more like TNG?"

"aggressively 'utopian'". Best oxymoron ever.

People expect it to be like TNG because the new show is continuing the showing of the exploits of a prominent figure from the 80s/90s TV show.

Also note that not everybody liked the TNG 90s movies that turned Picard from an intellectual into a largely action hero caricature. So precedent exists with changing character archetypes. Which doesn't mean it will fall flat just because 20 years went by and Picard is now aged and telling the kids to get off his lawn and all that.

And yet, if you look at it from another angle, you can argue that TNG is the outlier, and that most Trek is closer to TOS or DS9 or DISCO in tone. So maybe we should stop expecting every new Trek show to be as "utopian" as TNG aspired to be?

Roddenberry was a different person in the 80s compared to the 60s. Some blame excessive ingestion of drugs and alcohol.

But one thing was consistent: Roddenberry always showed a more unified humanity in better times. Utopia isn't necessarily about the whole of everything, it can be comparative. TOS had conflict but the crew certainly got along when they needed to... and were tolerant. Spock especially, given some McCoy's jibes but they still respected each other. Humanity had generations of development between TOS and TNG. But in their own way, both were utopias. Just of a slightly different sense.

(I'll cop to being a shameless TOS partisan, who prefers Kirk's rough-and-ready Final Frontier" to TNG, which sometimes got carried away with the "utopian" thing. As I like to point out, Kirk tended be highly suspicious of utopias. Anytime they found a planet that seemed a little too perfect or peaceful, you could count on there being a fly in ointment: mind-warping spores, an insane computer-god, etc. TOS was never "utopian," as Dr. McCoy would surely agree! )

Granted, even TNG did a widely-acclaimed episode in which Picard is mercilessly tortured, so we should not that even TNG wasn't all hope and progress and "non-scarcity" all the time, which is probably a good thing.

Kirk also hated computers, or anyone looking at the lady of the week he wanted to teach love to, too. It's amazing he fell for Rayna but he nagged her to self-destruct too.

An unexamined utopia is just escapism.

Isn't entertainment at its core escapism? What makes it interesting is what people want in terms of blended realism while using creative freedom to do different things, and it's technically limitless in scope.

 

[The Wormhole]

We don’t know that yet.

Certainly seems to be heavily implied, the V'drayash in Calypso are confirmed by Chabon to be the Federation turned evil, the trailer for season 3 shows Michael and Cleveland Book fighting enemies which are comprised of Andorians and other humans, while Book's own people fly a modified version of the Federation flag.

One of the reasons why Trek was to powerful because it never explained its utopia and how it was accomplished. That inspired the viewers to reflect how to find real life solutions to come closer to this fictional utopia. The same way the fictional gadgets are never explained and then someone finds a way to create a flip phone in real life.

Utopia was never a thing in Star Trek until TNG. Star Trek became popular and "powerful" because of TOS, which was never a utopia, and indeed Kirk often stated his belief that living in a utopia would lead to stagnation and ruin. TOS was about living in a better world, not a perfect one. TNG presented a perfect world, and even then there were cracks in the facade, with one of its main characters being a human from a colony that collapsed into complete anarchy where rape gangs ruled the streets.

It did not explain the utopia or the technology,

Now, just what the hell are you talking about here? TNG explained the technology all the time, it was they who got the ball rolling the "Treknobabble" that would become a defining trait of 90s Star Trek. TOS refused to explain the technology, it was even a rule in the writer's guide. TNG always explained the technology. Hell, there's even an officially licensed TNG technical manual published. And a DS9 one.

Yeah, it's not like the Federation ever had racism in its ranks:

Hell, according to comments Jeri Ryan's been making an interviews for Picard, there's open bigotry in the Federation towards former Borg drones such as Seven of Nine, which is why she's adopting human-like mannerisms, which hardly seems fair at all. Granted, this was something we frequently saw among Delta Quadrant races on Voyager, but for the supposedly enlightened Federation to be shunning people who are essentially victims themselves for actions they did involuntarily seems pretty messed up.

 

[Noname Given]

The Omega Glory was a single episode. I would hardly say it reflected what the show was about. I do think TOS was very much more of it's time than the other shows but where modern shows used aliens and humans getting along to show how evolved they were,TOS showed different human races and gender to do it. Asian pilot,black communcations officer,Russian officer,Scotish etc. It wasn't exactly hippie inspired even though they of course did have hippies show up for a episode but it was socially conscious. It did want the suburban kids to like it though and I would say that it kind of has lots in common with Batman66 in that way. It appealed to those who were already believers in those idea's but it also wanted to tell stories in away that wouldn't offend and thus make it easier to reach kids or others who were not full into the hippie way of life. It was trying to stay mainstream even if it did also have some more noble idea's it wanted to express.

Jason

It was a single episode written FULLY by Gene Roddenberry himself - and was actually one of the scripts considered to be used as the second pilot. It was retooled a bit and used during the Second Season.

But yeah, If a script written directly BY the show creator doesn't speak to who the creator's own 'vision' for said show, I don't know what does.

Also note that not everybody liked the TNG 90s movies that turned Picard from an intellectual into a largely action hero caricature.

^^^
the problem with that line of reasoning was that 'Action Picard' was something Patrick Stewart, fought for and got in the TNG films; and it's the SAME with this Star Trek Picard series. They CATERED to Patrick Stewart and involved him directly in the writing and execution of the series, and the story for Season 1 - so I would dare say, don't be surprised if the series is more akin to the TNG films in attitude then it was to the TNG series. Especially when Patrick Stewart himself has said numerous times WRT this series that he doesn't/wouldn't be involved if it was TNG reduex.

 

[eschaton]

Certainly seems to be heavily implied, the V'drayash in Calypso are confirmed by Chabon to be the Federation turned evil, the trailer for season 3 shows Michael and Cleveland Book fighting enemies which are comprised of Andorians and other humans, while Book's own people fly a modified version of the Federation flag.

Chabon confirmed the V'draysh is the Federation. This means Craft's homeworld - which was mostly non-human, but with a human minority - were fighting a 10-year war against them. But just because Craft is a good guy doesn't mean the V'draysh are evil. It doesn't mean there's any bad side in the conflict. He could be, for example, on a "Maquis-type" planet.

 

[Terok Nor]

I'm having reservations about this show lately. I don't want to because I've been looking forward to it but everything in that "Children of Mars' short, Stewart's liberal pontificating and the fact it's looking more and more like Discovery style misery porn is setting alarm bells ringing.

I hope I'm wrong but it's not a good start when the star of the show alienates half the viewership before it even airs.

 

[eschaton]

I'm having reservations about this show lately. I don't want to because I've been looking forward to it but everything in that "Children of Mars' short, Stewart's liberal pontificating and the fact it's looking more and more like Discovery style misery porn is setting alarm bells ringing.

I hope I'm wrong but it's not a good start when the star of the show alienates half the viewership before it even airs.

The Trekverse has always been a liberal's wet dream though - particularly from TNG onward. You have a humanity which has abandoned racism and sexism, seemingly completely turned its back on any form of religion in exchange for secular humanism, and where there have been several extremely strong in-canon statements that the accumulation of wealth is a thing of the past. It's hard to see anything about the traditional UFP "utopian" ideals which would appeal to conservatives.

 

[Terok Nor]

The Trekverse has always been a liberal's wet dream though - particularly from TNG onward. You have a humanity which has abandoned racism and sexism, seemingly completely turned its back on any form of religion in exchange for secular humanism, and where there have been several extremely strong in-canon statements that the accumulation of wealth is a thing of the past. It's hard to see anything about the traditional UFP "utopian" ideals which would appeal to conservatives.

That's not all Star Trek is about. As people are fond of saying, Star Trek is many different things to many different people. The Utopia stuff was always absurd to me but I did appreciate the hopeful nature of the franchise. Both Discovery and Picard come across as cynical so far.

 

[Armus]

The Trekverse has always been a liberal's wet dream though - particularly from TNG onward. You have a humanity which has abandoned racism and sexism, seemingly completely turned its back on any form of religion in exchange for secular humanism, and where there have been several extremely strong in-canon statements that the accumulation of wealth is a thing of the past. It's hard to see anything about the traditional UFP "utopian" ideals which would appeal to conservatives.

Conservatives like Star Trek because the characters are honorable, and many episodes are about personal loyalty, duty, telling the truth, and working together to solve life and death struggles often for a worthy ideal.

In the 90s Berman Trek was written by baby boomer liberals whose liberalism rarely got in the way of mass appeal.

 

[eschaton]

Conservatives like Star Trek because the characters are honorable, and many episodes are about personal loyalty, duty, telling the truth, and working together to solve life and death struggles often for a worthy ideal.

Those aren't really conservative values though. Those are universal human values. I know plenty of avowed communists who hold the same things to heart.

I suppose that the hierarchical, quasi-military structure of Starfleet itself is a bit conservative in an institutional sense. But every Trek series has basically told us while the chain of command should be respected, there are times when the moral thing to do is to disobey a direct order.

 

[fireproof78]

It's hard to see anything about the traditional UFP "utopian" ideals which would appeal to conservatives.

A post scarcity world appeals to me.

 

[eschaton]

A post scarcity world appeals to me.

Nearly every conservative I have ever known has lectured me that money is necessary, because without material reward no one would work hard.

Which I always found kinda ridiculous, given most scientists who make key breakthroughs have a relatively modest middle-class living - and certainly aren't given economic incentives to come up with breakthroughs.

 

[fireproof78]

Nearly every conservative I have ever known has lectured me that money is necessary, because without material reward no one would work hard.

Ok. I think people just need a reward for behavior. Money is one, since it creates even form of exchange.

But, in post scarcity things could be redefined. Humans thrive with positive reward. That's all.

 

[Armus]

On the flip side just because there is no money in Star Trek's future, that doesn't mean it portrays a socialist or communist utopia. There is no money nor is there taxes or bureaucratic government that runs social programs. It's a meritocracy and people work hard to "enrich themselves". At least that's what Picard said in a TNG episode.

 

[eschaton]

On the flip side just because there is no money in Star Trek's future, that doesn't mean it portrays a socialist or communist utopia. There is no money nor is there taxes or bureaucratic government that runs social programs. It's a meritocracy and people work hard to "enrich themselves". At least that's what Picard said in a TNG episode.

That's exactly what Marx and Engels wanted as an end state dude. The final state of the communist economy was never supposed to be everything being nationalized. The state was supposed to "wither away" to nothing and people were supposed to do work toward the betterment of everyone else without being coerced by either the capitalist class or government.

I'm not making any claims about whether or not it's feasible - I'm just saying that the situation we see in the Federation is in some senses eerily similar to the end-goal of communism.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm not making any claims about whether or not it's feasible - I'm just saying that the situation we see in the Federation is in some senses eerily similar to the end-goal of communism.

And, in a post-scarcity economy, that might make sense. For me, my more conservative mindset is limited government, personal freedom and personal responsibility. Most conservatives I know are highly pragmatic, so it is difficult to image a world without money.

That's why you might see the push back from more conservative minded people. They are dealing with this world now. A post scarcity environment would be a completely different animal.

 

[eschaton]

That's why you might see the push back from more conservative minded people. They are dealing with this world now. A post scarcity environment would be a completely different animal.

To shift gears, I wonder how the new showrunners make the Federation more of a sadsack place considering it's post-scarcity. How do you get communities of Romulan refugees still in dusty encampments which appear to be out of the middle ages over a decade after arrival when an industrial replicator could give them clean, modern housing in no time?

Hopefully they don't just gloss over this - thinking we need scarcity for story purposes, universe be damned. I could see in-universe ways to deal with this - like replicator capacity is theoretically nearly infinite, but the terms under which the Federation let the Romulans in meant they only get survival-level replicator access within their own communities.