For me, I feel like we’ve had so much ‘positive utopia’ Trek, that more of the same just gets a bit boring. There’s also the fact that life today is different compared to when Trek first aired. We’re more aware of some of those sharper edges and want to see them represented in media.
From a practical standpoint, there’s also ‘we can, so we do’. When Trek aired on regular TV, you couldn’t drop an F-bomb, much less show actual gritty stuff. With streaming, there’s no reason to hold back. Which gives writers more room to explore.
A big part of the original concept of Trek was to be a very avant-garde thought experiment about how our institutions and culture really could look quite different in the future in ways that are hard to picture now. Roddenberry himself was kinda nuts and I don’t think had a coherent picture of what that could look like, but he did at least sort of try to keep the thread of this through Trek. But with TNG and later stuff, the writers just did not seem that interested in exploring how the basic institutions of society itself could change and turned it into a fun geopolitics in space with an optimistic/hopeful spin show. Love the espionage episodes, very fun, but even by middle of TNG it’s hard to recognize the show in terms of its attitudes towards political economy. You can see this shift in the attitude towards money. Money references become more and more common the closer to the present you get, because the social milieu changed and it became harder to talk about a society without money. So they stopped. Now they’re just vague about it.
Anyways, I think that anodyne posi-posi utopia idea kind of worked in context with Roddenberry’s original thought experiment, although it was never realistic (“we all became socialist because the Vulcans showed up and logic’ed us out of capitalist imperialism” it would be nice if it worked like that, huh?) but as later writers decided they wanted to do something different, that energy stopped mattering so much. Now it’s just limiting.
Lucky they made DS9 before TNG had even finished, then.
We didn’t really get more of the TNG side of things with the TNG movies. Then they moved on to JJA Star Trek, which wasn’t much of anything, not dark, not utopian, just references.
While Discovery was in part based around rescuing an ultra-fascist from another universe.
It took bringing back Picard himself to approach doing what they once did decades ago. And I guess not let the actor have too much say over the script, if that’s what messed up the movies.
While Discovery was in part based around rescuing an ultra-fscist from another universe
You mean part of a single episode. Saving her was never planned in the first place and was even a surprise to the character in the moment. when she comes back she actively fucks everything up and is constantly at odds with everyone. So no part of it was based around her at all. Unless you’re talking about the season 3 two partner in which case it’s two episodes but that’s still very distinctly not the entire show. It’s also AGGRESSIVELY Star Trek to help others you have differences with. Starfleet goes out of its way to do that constantly in TNG even if it might put them at risk too.
Not to mention the fact you say after TNG that the older style was dead as if Voyager doesn’t exist. Then you mention Picard bringing back the old style which is an utter lie. Picard was willing to execute a prisoner. The first two seasons are nothing remotely like TNG and the third season is an even further detraction. Doesn’t mean it’s bad but it is aggressively different.
Gettin real tired of y’all just blatantly lying because you don’t like a thing and wanna slander it.
No. They kept her around like she wasn’t someone who should be imprisoned for life, far removed from any position where she could manipulate others.
Which is a different complaint. Your initial problem was saying it was “based around her.” This isn’t. She’s a side character. But let us address your complaint then, shall we? She commited no crimes in Federation space. None. Not a single one. She was brought, against her will, from the place she was from into the Prime universe. What you’re asking for is to hold her guilty under Federation law when no crimes were ever committed in Federation space or against Federations persons. In fact, she actively helped Starfleet in multiple occasions. When she arrived in the Prime Universe she was imprisoned and while having issues with that, she didn’t fight back. She understood the situation that she was in a new world with new rules. The Federation doesn’t imprison people for doing things in their own space, nevermind when it’s a different universe altogether.
If they wanted to help others, there was a universe full of people more deserving. Two, even.
Both are capable as were proven throughout Season 1, 2 and 3.
Yep.
Then nothing you say can be taken seriously if you are willing to outright ignore, and admit you’re ignoring, things that don’t fit into your invented narrative.
Have fun with that. I’ve got far better things to do with my time than engage with arguments made with such bad faith and dripping with such bitterness.
Re: edgier Trek:
For me, I feel like we’ve had so much ‘positive utopia’ Trek, that more of the same just gets a bit boring. There’s also the fact that life today is different compared to when Trek first aired. We’re more aware of some of those sharper edges and want to see them represented in media.
From a practical standpoint, there’s also ‘we can, so we do’. When Trek aired on regular TV, you couldn’t drop an F-bomb, much less show actual gritty stuff. With streaming, there’s no reason to hold back. Which gives writers more room to explore.
A big part of the original concept of Trek was to be a very avant-garde thought experiment about how our institutions and culture really could look quite different in the future in ways that are hard to picture now. Roddenberry himself was kinda nuts and I don’t think had a coherent picture of what that could look like, but he did at least sort of try to keep the thread of this through Trek. But with TNG and later stuff, the writers just did not seem that interested in exploring how the basic institutions of society itself could change and turned it into a fun geopolitics in space with an optimistic/hopeful spin show. Love the espionage episodes, very fun, but even by middle of TNG it’s hard to recognize the show in terms of its attitudes towards political economy. You can see this shift in the attitude towards money. Money references become more and more common the closer to the present you get, because the social milieu changed and it became harder to talk about a society without money. So they stopped. Now they’re just vague about it.
Anyways, I think that anodyne posi-posi utopia idea kind of worked in context with Roddenberry’s original thought experiment, although it was never realistic (“we all became socialist because the Vulcans showed up and logic’ed us out of capitalist imperialism” it would be nice if it worked like that, huh?) but as later writers decided they wanted to do something different, that energy stopped mattering so much. Now it’s just limiting.
Pretty much every trek since 9/11 has been edgy.
Lucky they made DS9 before TNG had even finished, then.
We didn’t really get more of the TNG side of things with the TNG movies. Then they moved on to JJA Star Trek, which wasn’t much of anything, not dark, not utopian, just references.
While Discovery was in part based around rescuing an ultra-fascist from another universe.
It took bringing back Picard himself to approach doing what they once did decades ago. And I guess not let the actor have too much say over the script, if that’s what messed up the movies.
You mean part of a single episode. Saving her was never planned in the first place and was even a surprise to the character in the moment. when she comes back she actively fucks everything up and is constantly at odds with everyone. So no part of it was based around her at all. Unless you’re talking about the season 3 two partner in which case it’s two episodes but that’s still very distinctly not the entire show. It’s also AGGRESSIVELY Star Trek to help others you have differences with. Starfleet goes out of its way to do that constantly in TNG even if it might put them at risk too.
Not to mention the fact you say after TNG that the older style was dead as if Voyager doesn’t exist. Then you mention Picard bringing back the old style which is an utter lie. Picard was willing to execute a prisoner. The first two seasons are nothing remotely like TNG and the third season is an even further detraction. Doesn’t mean it’s bad but it is aggressively different.
Gettin real tired of y’all just blatantly lying because you don’t like a thing and wanna slander it.
No. They kept her around like she wasn’t someone who should be imprisoned for life, far removed from any position where she could manipulate others.
If they wanted to help others, there was a universe full of people more deserving. Two, even.
Yep.
Which is a different complaint. Your initial problem was saying it was “based around her.” This isn’t. She’s a side character. But let us address your complaint then, shall we? She commited no crimes in Federation space. None. Not a single one. She was brought, against her will, from the place she was from into the Prime universe. What you’re asking for is to hold her guilty under Federation law when no crimes were ever committed in Federation space or against Federations persons. In fact, she actively helped Starfleet in multiple occasions. When she arrived in the Prime Universe she was imprisoned and while having issues with that, she didn’t fight back. She understood the situation that she was in a new world with new rules. The Federation doesn’t imprison people for doing things in their own space, nevermind when it’s a different universe altogether.
Both are capable as were proven throughout Season 1, 2 and 3.
Then nothing you say can be taken seriously if you are willing to outright ignore, and admit you’re ignoring, things that don’t fit into your invented narrative.
Have fun with that. I’ve got far better things to do with my time than engage with arguments made with such bad faith and dripping with such bitterness.