"Captain's log, stardate 73740.9. The Enterprise has taken on board a distinguished Federation virologist, dr. Daniel Tillett, to help him with his search for a less harmful strain of the virus that's currently ravaging several planets in Federation space. The doctor is confident that such an attenuated strain could be used to swiftly end the ongoing pandemic."
I would watch that episode. Hell, I'd watch any new episode; unfortunately, the only proper Star Trek we've had since Enterprise stopped airing is The Orville.
And then it turns out similar to "Ethics", where the virologist's work is questionably founded and potentially quite dangerous, we get a Picard speech about how sacrificing some to save others is wrong, Data and Crusher technobabble up a treatment that doubles as a vaccine, the photogenic kid gets saved at the bottom of the fourth act, Admiral Nechayev and Picard fence a bit, credits.
Pretty wild to count Enterprise as "real Trek", but not Discovery. And hey, TNG was seminal and I loved it growing up too, but let's be real, it's showing its age quite badly these days.
Perhaps, but that's Star Trek. It wasn't always obvious how the episode would end.
> Pretty wild to count Enterprise as "real Trek", but not Discovery.
Why? TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT, together with movies from TMP to NEM, form a certain coherent whole - both artistically, with themes, styles, pacing, and story-wise with a shared universe. Both Discovery and Picard, as well as JJ's movies, depart from that significantly. The style is different, the pacing is different, the stories and ethics are different (arguably much more shallow).
The Orville, though it was meant as a TNG-era Star Trek parody, seems much closer in pacing, style and ethics to that core TNG-era trek than Discovery.
> TNG was seminal and I loved it growing up too, but let's be real, it's showing its age quite badly these days
How so? Remastered version holds up pretty well today, I'd say.
I mean, yes, Berman/Braga era Trek has a fairly consistent style both visually and thematically because that's how they wanted it, but to privilege that style as "real" (or "proper", as you have it) requires considerable justification as yet not provided. Even from that era, First Contact not only used a largely horror/action-movie style then unprecedented in Trek, but went far out of its way to cast doubt on the Federation's - and the TNG era's - doctrinaire self-congratulation about its "more evolved" ethical ideal, in the shape not only of Picard's desire to exact vengeance upon the Borg, but also of the lack of self-awareness that blinded him to it very nearly unto catastrophe. Was First Contact therefore less "real"?
And if we're going to talk about ethics, we could do a lot worse than to talk about the Picard series's accidental but very real point that Picard's own moral absolutism and blind righteousness is as much of its time, as contingent, as any other ethic, and when taken out of a context where it's able to be effective, it does as much harm as any other, too. The point isn't explicitly made, because Kurtzman and Chabon are a couple of hacks just like Berman and Braga were, but it's easy to draw from the text on the basis of an almost trivial engagement - Picard's quixotism managing to ruin just about everyone it touches, and the writers having to fall back on a Bond-villain plot to try to make him come out looking good, is enough all by itself for that.
That's the kind of thing I mean when I talk about TNG showing its age. The remasters look pretty good, sure. But the Trek fandom has ever qualified their shows as especially worthy not for the quality of their visuals, but for that of their ideas. From that perspective, a lot of TNG, and of its era more generally, struggles today.
> but to privilege that style as "real" (or "proper", as you have it) requires considerable justification as yet not provided
It's arguably the largest consistent body of work in the entire Star Trek franchise, the one that was the peak of its popularity, the one that fleshed out the universe and is most recognizable. Also somewhat unique compared to other science fiction, which I can't say about post-ENT installations.
> Was First Contact therefore less "real"?
Nah, I consider it real because - besides mostly staying thematically and stylistically consistent - in terms of storyline, it critiqued the "ethically more evolved" humanity; it shown shades of gray of an otherwise mostly white object, instead of making it black with occasional lighter tones, like post-ENT installments do. It's the same defense I'd give DS9. It's still the same utopian world, the same beacon of hope - just not a perfect utopia.
(Also: throughout TNG/DS9 and the movies, the Federation did feel like an actual character in the movies. ENT was leading up to it, and it portrayed humanity growing up towards the TNG-era utopia. This aspect seems completely missing from Discovery/Picard; both the Federation and Starfleet seem to exist there just to have a flag and an icon to slap on things.)
Unlike JJ movies, I'm not considering DIS and Picard as completely bad. I've noticed and appreciated the point about Picard brought up in his eponymous series, as much as I appreciated the concerns of Klingons in DIS - their point about Federation being a cultural threat to them would fit perfectly fit TNG-era Trek, and add further depth to their race. And I tried to be fair to both DIS and Picard, to watch them without biasing myself against them - but they really don't fit the whole in my eyes. They stand out as something totally different in almost every way.
> But the Trek fandom has ever qualified their shows as especially worthy not for the quality of their visuals, but for that of their ideas. From that perspective, a lot of TNG, and of its era more generally, struggles today.
I've been rewatching TNG (and DS9) quite recently, and the way I feel, it's the concerns that aged, not the ideas. I.e. TNG (and DS9) cover themes that were the concern of society of the 80s and 90s, which seem less relevant today, but I don't feel like the way of thinking of the characters has aged badly.
I'd argue that First Contact's critique of Federation ideals is uniquely pointed because it aims that critique specifically at Picard, who is constantly shown to be the conscience of the Federation, the one who insists on those ideals even when others argue that the exigencies of the situation demand compromise. His character mirrors Worf's in that way - just as Worf values Klingon ideals far more highly than the other Klingons we see, Picard does the same with the ideals of the Federation. It might be part of why they get along so well, but it's also worth considering that Worf's idealism is founded on detachment - he's able to indulge in it because he's in a position where he almost never has to deal with the messy realities that make idealism so difficult to sustain.
One wonders whether the same might be true of Picard. Unfortunately, we don't get a chance in B&B-era Trek to see how he reacts to the test of the Dominion war, but his behavior in First Contact is nonetheless telling. If even "the conscience of the Federation" so signally fails to live up to the ideal - if it's only the desperate intervention of someone from a time universally regarded in Picard's own as a cesspool of cruelty and horror that saves him from his own mad, vengeful hatred - does that tell us something about the merit of the ideal? If even the person who most exceeds all others in following its guidance can so signally fail, are we wrong to question its value as a guide for those less uniquely exceptional?
I can't disagree that Discovery and Picard are very different from what's gone before. But, then, the TNG-era works were very different from TOS, too. Where we differ, I think, is that I don't see anything wrong with that - indeed, I don't see how it could be any other way. The works are made in the context of, and in dialogue with, their times - as you yourself note with regard to TNG and DS9. These are very different times from those in which the earlier shows were made, and it would be much more of a surprise to see new Trek shows try to ignore that difference than to see them embrace it.
"Infinite diversity in infinite combinations." It's a worthy ideal, and an apropos one to see expressed in the same series of TV shows and movies whose own originator codified it.
I saw a few clips of ST:Discovery and nearly had an apoplexy. When the ship spins (rolls) on its longitudinal axis and disappears (using the "spore drive"...) I pretty much lost my mind for a moment.
Then it reappears with a flash that illuminates the nebula in the background. There are no clouds in space. Nebulas are big, really big. It would be light-years away. But the ship's photo-backwash lights it up like a flash bulb! I know Star Trek isn't hard sci-fi, but that's pathetic.
And the "spore drive"!? Who thought that up? (I know about mycorrhiza and all that, I'm not ignorant) The universe is pervaded by invisible intangible cosmic fungus? That somehow enables FTL teleportation? And keeps people alive in limbo after they die? That might be Lovecraft but it's not Roddenberry.
And they named the "astromycologist" character after the real guy!? (Paul Stamets) Did they ask him? That's just so weird.
To me it feels like it's made to mock Star Trek fans. Watching it (just for about ~4 minutes) made me feel like the network and producers are just mocking me. (And not in a good way. I love Galaxy Quest, because it's obviously made with love and, yes, respect for the show(s) it mocks. When Sigourney Weaver loses it and starts ranting about how it's a dumb episode, nobody would design a space ship with giant crushers and fire spouts... Yeah, it's awesome!)
So...you're upset to see space opera played straight in your space opera? Have you forgotten entirely about S1 of TNG, or just chosen to ignore it? DS9 is "not Roddenberry", too, what with its most universally acclaimed episode being about Sisko deliberately subverting his own principles and those of the Federation to suborn all manner of criminality, not excluding several murders, in order to deceive a neutral party into entering the war as a Federation ally. Is DS9 awful, too?
To be honest, I don't get the mockery angle at all. I mean, you're talking about a show whose first season not only has antimilitarism as a major through-line in the way Lorca's story plays out, but concludes with a war being ended by a couple of people having a conversation about why more fighting sucks for everyone, and implementing a clever technobabble-driven plan to bring about peace. There's a lot I don't love about Discovery - most of its second season, for a start - but come on, what could possibly be more Star Trek than that?
> So...you're upset to see space opera played straight in your space opera?
No, I like space opera too. I'm upset that ST has become Buffy the Vampire Slayer in Space. (Don't get the wrong idea, I like Buffy too.)
> Have you forgotten entirely about S1 of TNG, or just chosen to ignore it?
You'll have to clue me in to what specifically you're referring to, I re-watched it last year but I don't want to guess at what you mean.
> DS9 is "not Roddenberry"
I agree. DS9 was, in part, created specifically to explore "not Roddenberry" directions in the ST universe.
There's a book, I can't find it at the moment, and I don't remember the title, but it's all excerpts from interviews with cast and crew. That's it. It's amazing.
Anyhow, I bring it up because, reading it, it became clear what, for me anyway, is the crucial defining aspect of ST that differentiates it from other sci-fi franchises: In ST, people in the future have gotten over their bullshit. They are emotionally mature, guided by reason and rationality and their higher values. That's the key difference (from say, Star Wars or Farscape or Firefly...) People in the future pretty much have their shit together.
Now this is something that some of the writers don't get. You find them complaining in their own words that Gene won't let them write an episode involving interpersonal drama between bridge crew. (Apparently this is really hard for some writers. No judgement intended.) It wasn't until after he died that Berman/Braga started to relax that.
Now to me, this is wrong (for ST) for two reasons:
First, it makes sense to me that these folks who fly around the galaxy in machines that can destroy worlds would have to be level-headed to use them w/o destroying themselves.
Second, and more importantly, that's a huge part of what made ST so endearing and appealing in the first place: the deep and abiding love that Kirk/Spock/McCoy (most obviously) and the rest of the crew (less obviously) feel for each other.
I mean, when Spock tells McCoy that he would also wish him to be present at his Pon farr, oh man, my eyes well up with tears.
When it comes down to it, the characters in the "real" ST (if I may) treat each other like members of a healthy family do, and that's wonderful to see (in any context, not just space operatic sci-fi.)
That's also the source of the "moral" superiority of Star Fleet: they actually are good guys. (And Vulcans don't lie.) You erode that and you've got Spaceballs.
> To be honest, I don't get the mockery angle at all. I mean, you're talking about a show whose first season not only has antimilitarism as a major through-line in the way Lorca's story plays out, but concludes with a war being ended by a couple of people having a conversation about why more fighting sucks for everyone, and implementing a clever technobabble-driven plan to bring about peace. There's a lot I don't love about Discovery - most of its second season, for a start - but come on, what could possibly be more Star Trek than that?
I've only seen ~4 minutes so I can't speak to the good things about the show, feeling mocked was my subjective response (I don't think the ST:D folks sat down and twirled their mustaches while contemplating how much they despise ST fans, hey?)
It was things like how the Klingons are space orcs; the Romulan guy looks like space Legolas the elf. The people wearing hoodies (why does everyone in space wear hoodies these days?) The gay guys are the only ones married? Why does the female lead have a masculine name? It seems like they're trying to tick the diversity boxes without actually rattling anybody's cages (and I say that as a SJW, pro-diversity.) The rolling spaceship is ridiculous, the flash illuminating the nebula was just idiotic. The whole thing feels superficial and lazy despite obviously being the result of a lot of hard work by a lot of skilled, talented people. Maybe they're just pandering to the tastes of a younger audience (with whom I am out of touch.)
Let me see if I can sum it up... Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones seem similar, yeah? But LotR is about Good vs. Evil whereas GoT is about aristocrats being really really shitty to each other. They are both entertaining, but I wouldn't let my kids watch the latter.
I mean, don't get me wrong, what you describe as the good in Trek is something I also appreciate. The trouble is that, TOS aside, I don't see it where you do.
The reason I called out TNG S1 earlier was because it lacked absolutely nothing in terms of space-opera absurdity by comparison with Discovery, and so it's odd to me that you should abhor the one and disregard the other. But I'd also mention it in this connection because the Roddenberry-driven performances of its characters don't read as "members of a healthy family", as you describe, but rather mostly as just flat and lifeless in affect. The interpersonal stuff just reads off, like a stage play put on by disinterested actors not directed very well. As we see later in the same series, that's certainly not the fault of any lack on the part of the main cast, whose relationships become more believable, rather than less, as the show goes on. The major change is the one you cite: Roddenberry no longer exercising creative control. I think it's reasonable to consider that that change lay behind the improvement of character and relationship portrayals that I describe - especially considering that, as you also note, many of the people who made the show have said exactly the same.
Consider, too, that while the idea for TOS was his and a lot of the development was as well, he did not exercise anything like the same degree of absolute authority over that show as he did over S1 of TNG. I agree with you that TOS's characters were lively and that their friendships were obviously close, deep, and warm, and I think it's interesting that they were so in an environment much more similar to TNG's later seasons than to its early ones.
(As a side note, if you haven't read Diane Duane's The Wounded Sky, from the Pocket Books TOS novel series, I can strongly recommend it. Of all the portrayals I've seen of the relationships among the TOS main characters, in and out of canon, this is the only one I find myself always coming back to specifically for the sake of that portrayal. I'm told that "Where No Man has Gone Before" from TNG S1 was meant to be an adaptation, but God alone knows how; they're nothing alike, especially in that that episode's characters are exceptionally flat even in comparison with the standard set by that season.)
With regard to your comments on the supposed superficiality of Discovery, I feel it necessary to note that this is a judgment you've formed, and which you apparently hold quite firmly, on the basis of about four minutes of what I gather to be trailers and promos, and not on the basis of any true engagement, however adversarial, with the show itself. I find it difficult to understand how any judgment so formed could be anything other than superficial in its own right, considering that you have by your own account barely scratched the surface. It may be worth considering whether a more sustained investigation is worth your while. If nothing else, it can only enable you to better substantiate your arguments for why the show is bad!
And, sure, I wouldn't let my kids watch Game of Thrones, either, if I had any. But that doesn't make it a bad show. To be sure, there's a vast sufficiency of traits which do make it a bad show! But it being inappropriate for children is not among them.
> The reason I called out TNG S1 earlier was because it lacked absolutely nothing in terms of space-opera absurdity by comparison with Discovery, and so it's odd to me that you should abhor the one and disregard the other.
Oh there is a lot of silliness in TNG (Data can't get the hang of contractions!?) but, and this is entirely subjective, to me it seemed in line with the rules or framework that TOS established. What I mean is, other than the holodeck, most of the technology was the same. Of course, the TOS tech is "magical" already: there are no teleporters, warp drives, etc., and we can't diagnose disease by waving rotating salt shakers over people. But somehow the rolling effect preceding "spore drive" offended me in a way that "going to warp" doesn't.
When I say "offended" I don't mean "oh my opinion is different". I mean that scene broke me. I was gibbering in the corner.
Ah, here's the exact clip that triggered a kernel panic in my brain: 'Discovery Spore Jumps to the Second Red Signal | Star Trek Discovery "New Eden"' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-3WKobwcxQ
Oh God. I forgot about the rotating dongle on the ship...
Anyway, it starts off bad, hard to take, and then just keeps getting worse and worse, and the the jump... https://youtu.be/7-3WKobwcxQ?t=232
Whaaaaaat?
It's like watching "Team America" but with real people playing the parts of the puppets, in space, with goofy special effects and way too much production value.
(But it's not space. Just as the ship arrives the background is illuminated as if there is atmosphere (it's not the background nebulas like I thought, just open space. Whew! That's something.))
Sorry, sorry...
(Like I said, maybe I'm just too old...)
> But I'd also mention it in this connection because the Roddenberry-driven performances of its characters don't read as "members of a healthy family", as you describe, but rather mostly as just flat and lifeless in affect. The interpersonal stuff just reads off, like a stage play put on by disinterested actors not directed very well. As we see later in the same series, that's certainly not the fault of any lack on the part of the main cast, whose relationships become more believable, rather than less, as the show goes on. The major change is the one you cite: Roddenberry no longer exercising creative control. I think it's reasonable to consider that that change lay behind the improvement of character and relationship portrayals that I describe - especially considering that, as you also note, many of the people who made the show have said exactly the same.
Granted, but they (the characters) don't really get into interpersonal conflicts, eh? Consider Lt. Barclay and how he is treated as his character develops. Off the top of my head, that's about as close as you get to drama. Or when Riker meets his duplicate, or his father. There is some drama. (I'm reminded that Spock and his father are also at odds in TOS.)
So I seem to have convinced myself that you're right: already in TNG the cracks in the utopian "healthy family" milieu are showing.
It's not that I don't enjoy TNG, or DS9 or the others, despite the drift from utopia. FWIW, it's the utopia I miss.
In re: The Wounded Sky I'll pick one up. Thanks for the advice!
> With regard to your comments on the supposed superficiality of Discovery, I feel it necessary to note that this is a judgment you've formed, and which you apparently hold quite firmly, on the basis of about four minutes of what I gather to be trailers and promos, and not on the basis of any true engagement, however adversarial, with the show itself.
You're right. Some trailers, a few minutes of the beginning of s1e1, and the clip I linked above. I wouldn't call it a judgment, more like a visceral reaction. But as you read above, it's pretty firm and consistent.
> I find it difficult to understand how any judgment so formed could be anything other than superficial in its own right
Oh it is, I didn't dig too deep, although it does come from my core. Part of it is that I take sci-fi way too seriously. I identify as a sci-fi fan.
But you're right! Without "a more sustained investigation" I can, at best, only be projecting my own BS onto it, eh? And like I said, it's obvious that a lot of work and talent went into it. It's kind of crass to dismiss it like I've been doing. I'll try to watch that clip again and get over myself. Cheers!
> And, sure, I wouldn't let my kids watch Game of Thrones, either, if I had any. But that doesn't make it a bad show. To be sure, there's a vast sufficiency of traits which do make it a bad show! But it being inappropriate for children is not among them.
Ha! Well met.
G.R.R.M. once said that he thought LotR would be better if Gandalf didn't come back, but I think he was just trolling. ;-)
Oh, I don't know; I think I can see what he means. The change would give additional point to the major theme of mortals taking on the burden of looking after themselves - of deciding their own course among the wonders, terrors, and banalities of the ever-unfolding future, instead of any longer relying on gods, demigods, and immortals to do so.
(If that's a theme you appreciate in LotR, then you may be interested to know it is also the theme closest to the heart of Babylon 5, and around which its story entirely revolves...)
Thanks for this response! And for what it's worth, I miss utopia, too - or utopianism, anyway. Blame the postmodernist insistence on engaging in dialogue with a work, if you like, or the wide contrarian streak in my nature; when I see something presented as if without cracks, I insist on looking for them all the harder, and always end up finding them, too.
Sometimes I wish I didn't; life would seem simpler that way, for sure. But Leonard Cohen was right: there is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in.
> Oh, I don't know; I think I can see what he means. The change would give additional point to the major theme of mortals taking on the burden of looking after themselves - of deciding their own course among the wonders, terrors, and banalities of the ever-unfolding future, instead of any longer relying on gods, demigods, and immortals to do so.
Also, is that a theme of LotR? It's been a while since I read them but I thought the theme was pretty clearly just "stick it Sauron", no? Am I a philistine?
The spore drive is a correctly-formatted and notarized petition to Juffo-Wup.
The flash does not originate at Discovery and propagate outward as light, but begins before the ship appears, from a diffuse source, constructively interferes at Discovery's normal-spacetime discontinuity, and generates a holographic illusion between the observer and the nebula that just appears to be a flashbulb reflection.
Every Star Trek problem may be resolved by sufficient application of technobabble (a.k.a. [TECH] in the script). It's space opera. Apply the MST3K rule. (It's just a show; I should really just relax.)
The space-mushroom dimension is the same as the gate network from Stargate SG-1, or the wormhole-traversal tech and Leviathan starburst from Farscape. It's the plot conceit that allows the cast to instantly move from one set to another without any of the boring and unremarkable travel time. The exact nature of the instant-transport is dependent on the dramatic series plot arcs that the show-runners came up with in case they ever got past the pilot episode. The cool CGI visual effect used to signal to the viewer that sci-fi is happening now is flawed. Not everyone can pull off the Stargate-opening vortex.
Discovery and Picard are very much darker than pure Roddenberry, in that they portray The Federation as something far short of a perfectly ethical Utopia. In my opinion, this is a decision that allows for a far wider range of character development. An imperfect Starfleet can employ a monstrous starship captain that murders to keep its secrets. Klingons can be more than just a racial stereotype to be used as a script proxy for 1960s Russia (and the language has already been constructed, so might as well use it).
> In my opinion, this is a decision that allows for a far wider range of character development.
This may be the core disagreement, I (and I'm guessing GP) don't like this decision. Star Trek was an unique word in sci-fi (at least on-screen sci-fi) because of that bright idealism, that utopia. "An imperfect Starfleet can employ a monstrous starship captain that murders to keep its secrets"[0], and done regularly, this makes the show just another run-of-the-mill sci-fi.
(I do like how Klingons were fleshed out as a species in DIS, though; it's my favorite aspect of the show.)
There's plenty of sci-fi shows and movies. Star Trek, in its TNG to ENT era, was unique in terms of positivity and optimism. I miss that, because (with the possible exception of the Orville) there's nothing like that anymore.
--
[0] - To the extent that Sisko once facilitated murder to keep a secret hidden, this infamous DS9 episode works precisely because it's a one-off situation that's in a stark contrast with the overall behavior of the character and setting of the show.
Bingo! Take away Roddenberry's vision of a better future and you've got Babylon 5, eh? Like I mentioned in a sib comment, it turns out that this was a tension going right back to the original series. It's hard to write!
(You like the Klingons? To me they seemed derivative of (LotR) Orcs but I haven't spent time to really know.)
> I miss that, because (with the possible exception of the Orville) there's nothing like that anymore.
I've been thirsty as hell for some good (video) sci-fi for a while now and have been looking and (IMO) you're correct.
(And don't get me started on the blurring of the "sci-fi" genre. Superhero movies are not sci-fi. Sharks attacking are not sci-fi even if they have lasers on their heads, or six heads, or swim through ice. Fast & Furious isn't sci-fi. Harry Potter isn't sci-fi. (WTF Sy-fy channel!?) Zombies aren't sci-fi. Nor vampires, nor bigfoot, nor giant animals. Godzilla isn't sci-fi. I'm just ranting... ignore me. Swords and magic: not sci-fi. ...okay I think I'm done...)
> Take away Roddenberry's vision of a better future and you've got Babylon 5, eh?
There's a hell of a take! Whatever Roddenberry's virtues, I don't recall him ever having the gumption to write a story in which the heroes go to war against the gods because the gods aren't doing it right.
(It's a very Klingon thing to do, though, unless Worf was joking about that.)
Fair, and thank you! Fwiw, I'd have aimed the shot at the 2003 Battlestar Galactica instead, where it is very much deserved. Wild that Ronald Moore, who wrote so much of what's best in TNG, could also produce something that's so grim for the sake of grimness...
I personally loved the reimagined BSG in its own way (different from my feelings for Star Trek or B5). I only wish they'd explored the hybrid utterings angle further, there was a lot of space for some out-there (and possibly Lovecraftian) ideas.
> Take away Roddenberry's vision of a better future and you've got Babylon 5, eh?
I'd wish! I find B5 to be great in a different way than Star Trek. It has one of the deepest and most interesting stories I've ever seen explored in sci-fi on the screen. I wish there was another show like this. Alas, it seems that if you take away a vision for a better future, the shows you get today are cookie-cutter action flicks. They're sometimes fun to watch, but I don't feel enriched in a way I felt after Star Trek or B5.
> (You like the Klingons? To me they seemed derivative of (LotR) Orcs but I haven't spent time to really know.)
Not initially, and not from the looks - though the series did manage to (spoiler alert) turn them into what you'd expect to see in TNG in the latter seasons.
What I liked about the Klingons in DIS is that they didn't feel like space brutes who value violence and hate the Federation for no reasons. In DIS, they had a good reason, that resonates with people today - cultural imperialism. They went to war with the Federation because they felt it's the only way to protect their cultural identity, as they perceived UFP to be a civilization that conquers in times of peace, through slowly infusing everyone with their views and values. The DIS Klingons have seen that as a threat to the survival of their species' identity. And put that way, it's a very believable as a justification for conflict.
> And don't get me started on the blurring of the "sci-fi" genre. (...)
In complete agreement (though I liked Iron Man 1; it was more serious than other MCU movies, and also scratched my tech porn itch). My additional complaint is the pressure put on inter-character drama and general "character development". As I often repeat, if I wanted to watch the deep emotional struggles of people and their relationships, I'd pick literally any other literal/movie genre. Sci-fi (and to some extent fantasy) is unique, because it can get away with extensive world building and exploring ideas that are hard to explore otherwise. It serves as a real-life holodeck simulation. And I'd prefer my sci-fi to focus on that.
In re: B5, I've a confession to make. I never watched it. I've seen a few episodes, of course, but I was homeless at the time it ran and I've just never gotten around to it since. I should probably go order the DVD set right now, eh? I know a teeny bit about the story and characters, and I've heard that it was written as a single super-arc, which sounds awesome.
Those Klingons sound more interesting than what I was afraid they were like.
> My additional complaint is the pressure put on inter-character drama and general "character development". As I often repeat, if I wanted to watch the deep emotional struggles of people and their relationships, I'd pick literally any other literal/movie genre. Sci-fi (and to some extent fantasy) is unique, because it can get away with extensive world building and exploring ideas that are hard to explore otherwise. It serves as a real-life holodeck simulation. And I'd prefer my sci-fi to focus on that.
I couldn't have put it better myself. So much this. And I find it doubly exasperating because there's so much written science-fiction to draw on, going back decades! Where is the movie/mini-series of "Moon is a Harsh Mistress"? ...oh! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress#F...
> In 2015, it was announced that Bryan Singer was attached to direct a film adaptation, entitled Uprising, in development at 20th Century Fox.
I wonder if that's still happening?
I think "The Legacy of Heorot" would work really well as a movie.
I know it's kind of a cliche (and more work than it seems) but I kind really want to start a sci-fi production house... just a little one. Y'know? Specializing in hard sci-fi mostly, but not neglecting the other, uh, dimensions worth exploring.
...and it lead me down a rabbit-hole. It seems all the good sci-fi these days is being done as shorts by mostly independent filmmakers and posted to youtube. Here are some I found last night:
ENT was pretty dark, too, you know. If we're not going to talk about "In the Pale Moonlight"'s argument that violating an ideal in a small way might be justifiable, if not respectable, to preserve it in the large, then can we talk about how Archer, in "Dear Doctor", refused to hand over the cure Phlox had developed for the Valakian plague, thus consigning an entire species to extinction, because the then-inchoate Prime Directive ideal meant more to him than saving the lives of millions of fellow sentients? Sure, the show portrays this as an uncomplicatedly virtuous choice, without the nuance that Michael Taylor brought to "In the Pale Moonlight". But I don't see why I need to take that portrayal at face value, when the supposed virtue in question is that of refusing to save millions of lives.
I think the core disagreement here may instead be that, where you see the Federation portrayed as a true utopia, I don't. I agree that in the B&B era it claims to be so, and that the claim is also often made on its behalf, but that's not the same thing at all. I think it's less interesting and less worthwhile to take those claims at face value, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, than to take them as a stepping-off point for a discussion of how utopian ideals are no less susceptible to failure in practice than any other sort of absolutism, and how, while idealism is certainly not lacking in value, it cannot alone serve as the foundation for a mature sense of morality.
Granted that this is a difference of interpretation. But, then again, we're talking about how we choose to appreciate works of art. In that context, what isn't?
I give ENT a pass because it my mind it works as "humanity halfway from now to TNG-era UFP". Taking baby steps both outwards and inwards. It was dark, particularly across the Xindi angle, but not that dark relative to everything else.
I mean, it's like TNG was #EEE, ENT went down to #AAA, but everyone else (including post-ENT Trek) seems to be made at #555 or below. There's a gap, and I'd love if someone was making more idealistic shows these days.
> where you see the Federation portrayed as a true utopia, I don't.
I used to, then I rewatched the whole series as an adult and it changed my mind a bit. But then, I probably used the wrong word. I don't see the Federation as a perfect, flawless utopia. Just a vision of a world as close to utopian as you can get without breaking your suspension of disbelief. A world that works much better than the real one, and not just because of matter replicators and near-infinite energy availability. A word where the baseline for humans is much higher than it is now. And maybe it's unrealistic, it's too out-there, but every time I watch it I feel inspired to do better, be better. It's not something I usually get from other shows; they're all too focused on.
> than to take them as a stepping-off point for a discussion of how utopian ideals are no less susceptible to failure in practice than any other sort of absolutism, and how, while idealism is certainly not lacking in value, it cannot alone serve as the foundation for a mature sense of morality
That's fair, but again - while I love talking about this, I think our media culture spends too much time talking about all the ways ideals fail and high standards don't work, and too little time about what good ideals or values could be and how to make them work.
There's a certain positivity about TNG-era Star Trek that I feel, that I try to refer to, but continuously fail to express in words.
EDIT:
And I forgot one thing: the curiosity of space, the exploration angle. I know that a lot of astronomy in Star Trek is bunk, and a lot of what was accurate at the time of filming didn't age well, but there was a way in which TOS and TNG made people curious about space. I got similar vibes from a few StarGate: SG-1 episodes as well. I don't see any of that in modern shows - just as if familiarity with real and sci-fi astronomy was table stakes these days. It works for me, but I wonder how the young audience, not exposed to TOS/TNG, responds to modern shows.
> Star Trek was an unique word in sci-fi (at least on-screen sci-fi) because of that bright idealism, that utopia.
What utopia? Outside of the crew of the Enterprise itself in TOS and TNG (most of the time, when not under malevolent outside influence, abd even then there are some exceptions), neither Starfleet, the Federation outside of Starfleet, nor the galaxy outside of the Federation (in roughly descending order of proximity to utopia) were portrayed as without flaws in any version of Trek.
> Star Trek, in its TNG to ENT era, was unique in terms of positivity and optimism.
Usually, this claim is made for the TOS to TNG era (or, more specifically, the era when Gene Roddenberry was directly involved). While, as noted above, it's flawed even then, it really doesn't work for DS9, VOY, or ENT.
Maybe instead of "utopia" I should've said "as close to utopia as you can get without shattering your suspension of disbelief". The world was designed as a reachable utopia, and in my eyes, the vision didn't decay fast enough when Roddenbery left the scene to be lost by the time of ENT.
> While, as noted above, it's flawed even then, it really doesn't work for DS9, VOY, or ENT.
Compared to what? Relative to pretty much every other show, I think it worked really well. The baseline is still visibly much more idealistic than everything else (including post-ENT Star Trek).
> The baseline is still visibly much more idealistic than everything else (including post-ENT Star Trek).
Picard, specifically, seems to differ from late TNG or DS9 not so much in the degree to which the Federation is or is not a utopia, but in that the focal characters are (at least initially, the arc if season one seems to have most of them evolving in the direction of more conventional ST focal characters) in places that would only have been occupied by non-focal characters.
(“Starfleet is doing bad things because it's upper echelons have been infiltrated by outsiders with an agenda that is, at least in chosen methods if not goals, anthithetical the the ideals towards which the Federation strives” is not inconsistent with the degree of idealism in TNG.)
Well, they were working on it innit? The Federation was young (I'm talking about TOS here strictly) and working hard to prove itself to the galaxy. And they met people who were further along than themselves (like the Organians.)
> Discovery and Picard are very much darker than pure Roddenberry, in that they portray The Federation as something far short of a perfectly ethical Utopia.
Every Star Trek series does that. TOS and TNG tend to portray the focal crew as perfectly ethical taken together (though not always individually), but often as being in antagonistic relationship with their superiors in Starfleet and/or the civilian leadership of the Federation for precisely that reason.
It's true that many of those struggles reflect bureaucratic indifference, incompetence, and narrow-mindedness more than active malevolence (excluding when it is due to outside influence/infiltration), but that's pretty much true of Picard (the series) as well.
I think what I liked about the TNG-era Star Trek was that, as often that there was an "antagonistic relationship with their superiors in Starfleet and/or the civilian leadership of the Federation", they also as often get along. The Federation was a government that worked. That was the baseline assumption. The show demonstrated it, the characters believed it. They were proud of being a part of it, and not just because of some ill-conceived patriotism.
Related to that is the baseline assumption of competence. Characters in Star Trek, especially ones from the Federation, were always assumed to be extremely competent and good at working together; everyone valued excellence. Sure, they were exceptions, but they were that - exceptions, around which a story or a joke could be built. I miss that world of excellence in other shows.
I would watch that episode. Hell, I'd watch any new episode; unfortunately, the only proper Star Trek we've had since Enterprise stopped airing is The Orville.