Totally agree, VOY and ENT seem to me largely devoid of any real courage or attempts to ask hard questions. They are pretty vanilla and frankly I think that's a major part of why I find them the least interesting or engaging versions of the show.
Why Do We Demand Internal Consistency & Continuity in Star Trek?
- Thread starter Samuel
- Start date
Totally agree, VOY and ENT seem to me largely devoid of any real courage or attempts to ask hard questions. They are pretty vanilla and frankly I think that's a major part of why I find them the least interesting or engaging versions of the show.
Bing bing bing bing bing! Absolutely.
Thanks for the recommendation — sounds awesome!
Have you noticed the conversation actually going on around you in this thread? It's all about the implications and questions raised...
Or the Abrams films, for that matter. But saying it's some of the best Trek produced in 20 years, as I've posted elsewhere, is damning with very faint praise indeed...
But they aren't, and it isn't. As I keep saying, the two things are not at odds with one another. Trek is large; it can be enjoyed (and analyzed) in myriad ways without any one of them being at the expense of the other(s).
If you really want to talk about something that is at odds with the idea of Trek as a vehicle for social commentary, and especially any sort of counter-culture, you should be talking about the urge to turn it into a lowest-common-denominator money-making entertainment "franchise." (A trend which does largely characterize the past 20+ years.) But that's a criticism of the producers, not of fellow fans...
I thought "Demons"/"Terra Prime" did a decent job of it. Not a great one, but it was at least an attempt.
But it's the exception, not the norm. Look through the thread listings on the DSC forum front page and tell me the social commentary isn't overshadowed. It is.
Yeah, can't disagree there, but at least it's making efforts where it matters. It's showing potential.
But I've given two clear examples where the two have been at odds with one another, where no matter how big the universe is the portrayal either does not or cannot accommodate both.
There will always be times when one IS at the expense of the other, either onscreen portrayal or in terms of the conversations surrounding it.
He was seeking to better the restaurant and improve the floors, he might be a shareholder
Admittedly I've only seen twelve episodes, and was kinda in-and-out of those due to boredom. I just didn't see much in the way of social commentary. We finally got a gay couple, but I'm not sure they deserve props for finally getting around to something every other serious entertainment got to twenty years ago.
You had Lorca and his destroying of the Buran. They could've done a powerful story about the loss and PTSD, instead they made him evil.
TOS and TNG were simplistic to a degree, but they aired in different times. Times where you had to hide what you were saying in allegory. Discovery continues on with the simplicity, and it just isn't enough for me. Not in this age of TV giving us things like The Handmaid's Tale and others. At the end of the day, their idea of edgy was a Klingon tit and the word fuck, showing they really don't understand the world they are now producing entertainment in.
And the 50th story about Spock's duality won't cut it either. All in my opinion.
I totally agree, hence my saying it did lack the kind of sophistication we should be able to expect. Shall we say "could do better" and acknowledge the good intentions?
Were they good intentions? Or were they handcuffed because CBS doesn't want Trek to push any boundary that might insult someone and kill the cash cow?
It really makes me wonder what Fuller's show would've been and why he was pushed out the door?
I'll definitely swing back around sometime in season two and see if things improve.
Honestly I suspect a mix of the two, they were Fuller's good intentions
The no money episode that needs to be told, is how people finally got tired of all the wealth being accumulated by a few, even after they found a source of limitless energy. Where CEO's and politicians were strung up and murdered in a bloody revolt.
The no money episode we would get, is how benevolent CEO's and politicians gave up everything to make the world a better place when a source of limitless energy was found.
The no money episode we would get, is how benevolent CEO's and politicians gave up everything to make the world a better place when a source of limitless energy was found.
I prefer the other version, source of limitless energy is found, the stock market crashes, inflation goes sky high and all those rich folks find out whats it like to value food stamps when they no longer exist. Result they all move to Mars.
Not only do the writers not get how a no money world would work, they even made fun of their ignorance on the matter with that DS9 episode where Jake and Nog have their conversation about money. Jake uses the "humanity works to better itself" line, and Nog asks "what does that mean, exactly. Jake, after being stumped for a minute or so answers "it means we don't need money."
In terms of "issues" what I got from DIS season 1 was basically this:
1. A very clumsy attempt in the prologue to equate the Klingon Empire's xenophobia with Trumpism
2. Rehashing Devil in the Dark with the tardigrade
3. A brief attempt in the penultimate episode to analogize Ash's identity with being transgender
4. Lorca even more transparently standing for MAGA.
I know Moore said the writers hated the replicators, because it basically eliminated any plot device which had to do with resource scarcity. I'm guessing they hated the no money edict as well.
In all fairness, though, most adolescents today (and indeed most adults, I suspect) couldn't tell you the basics of a capitalist economy or of how money works. No reason we should expect a denizen of the future to be able to explain the basics of a post-capitalist one. It's like asking a fish to explain the water it swims in.
Wait, don't forget "genocide is bad." We got that too! (On the other hand, almost committing genocide is apparently A-OK so long as you back off at the last minute.)
Starfleet Command is corrupt. It's always been slightly crooked. It's not as squeaky clean as people like to think. It only really seems squeaky clean in TNG, a series which I think shows Starfleet, Federation, and Latter-Day Roddenberrian Propaganda on steroids.
Commodore Stone in "Court Martial" to Kirk after he accused Kirk of perjury and tried to get him to take a ground assignment, "You're tired, worn out. That's how the record will read if you cooperate."
In "Turnabout Intruder", Lester-as-Kirk tells McCoy, "You know promotions and demotions can be politically maneuvered." McCoy only denies that it can happen in Starfleet Medical not Starfleet overall.
In Star Trek VI, Admiral Cartwright conspires with Romulan Ambassador Nanclus and General Chang to sabotage peace since they all stand to lose from it.
In "Homefront", Admiral Leyton pushes the President to give Starfleet control over Earth and tries to get Sisko onboard. All in the name of "protecting" Paradise from Changeling infiltration.
In "In the Pale Moonlight", Starfleet approves of Sisko and Garak's plan to create false evidence of a planned Dominion invasion of Romulus in order to convince the Romulans to join the War against the Dominion.
In "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges", Admiral Ross is working in conjunction with Section 31 to install a plant in the Romulan government who'll bend however the Federation bends. When Ross says, "Inter arma emin silent leges," an angry Bashir translates it for us into "In time of war, the law falls silent."
I won't count "Conspiracy" because that can be blamed on alien influence.
Anyway, with DSC, Admiral Cornwell would never be onboard for a genocide mission unless the Federation was desperate. The crew of Discovery are not onboard with this, and then Burnham finally stands up to Cornwell who I think probably wanted to be talked out of going through with Mirror Georgiou's idea.
I can guarantee you if Burnham was totally fine with the genocide and if Cornwell dug in after she were stood up to, that it would decidedly not have been something I would've been okay with. It's not even an issue of whether or not destroying Qo'noS would've been canon. If they'd done it, I would've dropped the series right then and there like a bad habit because I wouldn't be willing to follow a series where protagonists would act like that.
Even in the discussion thread for "Will You Take My Hand?", I was expressing concern about how the episode would go, before I saw it.
I think the gray area's fascinating but it has to stay gray.
Commodore Stone in "Court Martial" to Kirk after he accused Kirk of perjury and tried to get him to take a ground assignment, "You're tired, worn out. That's how the record will read if you cooperate."
In "Turnabout Intruder", Lester-as-Kirk tells McCoy, "You know promotions and demotions can be politically maneuvered." McCoy only denies that it can happen in Starfleet Medical not Starfleet overall.
In Star Trek VI, Admiral Cartwright conspires with Romulan Ambassador Nanclus and General Chang to sabotage peace since they all stand to lose from it.
In "Homefront", Admiral Leyton pushes the President to give Starfleet control over Earth and tries to get Sisko onboard. All in the name of "protecting" Paradise from Changeling infiltration.
In "In the Pale Moonlight", Starfleet approves of Sisko and Garak's plan to create false evidence of a planned Dominion invasion of Romulus in order to convince the Romulans to join the War against the Dominion.
In "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges", Admiral Ross is working in conjunction with Section 31 to install a plant in the Romulan government who'll bend however the Federation bends. When Ross says, "Inter arma emin silent leges," an angry Bashir translates it for us into "In time of war, the law falls silent."
I won't count "Conspiracy" because that can be blamed on alien influence.
Anyway, with DSC, Admiral Cornwell would never be onboard for a genocide mission unless the Federation was desperate. The crew of Discovery are not onboard with this, and then Burnham finally stands up to Cornwell who I think probably wanted to be talked out of going through with Mirror Georgiou's idea.
I can guarantee you if Burnham was totally fine with the genocide and if Cornwell dug in after she were stood up to, that it would decidedly not have been something I would've been okay with. It's not even an issue of whether or not destroying Qo'noS would've been canon. If they'd done it, I would've dropped the series right then and there like a bad habit because I wouldn't be willing to follow a series where protagonists would act like that.
Even in the discussion thread for "Will You Take My Hand?", I was expressing concern about how the episode would go, before I saw it.
I think the gray area's fascinating but it has to stay gray.
Last edited:
Well, I've not committed a single genocide since watching DSC, so obviously it's had an impact
I think to be fair there's also been a lot of well meaning comments on race and cultural identity, the Klingons being effectively a commentary on many of those issues, or at least the psychology of groups who feel that cultural identity to be under threat. Much of their behaviour could be viewed in the light of white nationalism or islamic extremism, the dangers of populist movements and how charismatic individuals can manipulate it.
Voq's albinoism seems an attempt to add nuance to the literal question of skin colour in that equation, while the Vulcan logical extremists look to be an easy nod towards Brexit, the Northern Ireland situation or any of dozens of other similar situations where national interests become associated with and inherent zenophobia and jingoism.
I know there's a certain amount of reaching here but my point is at least the attempt is being made now, whereas ENT and VOY really made no effort at all (with maybe a couple of very easy exceptions). Where DSC arguably has made an impact has been in terms of representation (particularly with the belated inclusion of gay characters) and that is where I would suggest it has provoked a certain amount of reactionary backlash. Personally I'd have liked it to go further with transgender people actually being represented in the literal sense rather than via allegory in the form of Ash/Voq, but the impact has been there.
I wouldn't mind being on one of these spaceships... with a holodeck.
Continuity and making sense is just plain good writing.
Tell that to Michael Moorcock
There as way round that, replicators require energy and energy is not finite. Whatever is replicated is reduced quality like food and drinks, the only thing the machines get right is water.
Similar threads
- Locked
