Early TNG is in fact PEAK Roddenberry.
Star Trek to me will always be the story and misadventures of a post-Utopian humanity.
I’m sorry, but any of the dystopian or counter-utopian or tearing down utopia series feel not just not like Star Trek to me, but fully contrary to it.
The best Trek is the one you like the most.
What is NOT up for debate is that the best intro song is from Enterprise.
The best Trek is the one you like the most
It’s like the people who complain how bad SNL is these days. When it always gets summed up by SNL was best when [first started watching it in HS/College and most of the topical references were things I understood at the time]
It’s been a long road for me to come to a point in my life where I agree with you.
I second that … and if you’ve only ever watched a few episodes or a movie or one series and that’s enough for you, then that’s fine.
I love engaging with Trek fans about Trek stuff but it isn’t fun when you’re made to feel less for not watching or knowing everything.
The majority of Trek fans I’ve ever run into love any of the shows so much, they’re just happy to talk about any of it.
I liked Firefly’s way better:-)
Omg this is my favorite image on all of Lemmy now:-).
I have a feeling that, of all the Treks he didn’t produce, he’d have liked Lower Decks the most. It’s still mostly “humans got better” future, which I think was his core tenant.
TNG was also very much — not utopian; I can’t think of a word that implies that the human race evolved socially; “utopia” would imply everything was perfect for everybody. But he obviously hoped we’d be progressive.
I love DS9, but it’s a step backwards socially. There’s a darkness in the Federation. It’s there in most of the other series, post-TNG, and maybe a little in later TNG seasons, too.
The culmination of all this is the newest series, Section 31. All of Roddenberry’s ideals have simply been shit-canned. The Federation has a black ops section that’s basically cold war CIA; they go around assassinating people and manipulating cultures.
I think this just reflects the zeitgeist. It’s hard to be optimistic now, whereas when ST:TOS was produced we were on the moon, the cold war was fading, and mankind was reaching for the stars. TOS reflects that, and Section 31 reflects exactly how optimistic we are about the future, and current affairs.
It’s depressing. And - to get back to my premise - while Lower Decks was faithful to cannon, and didn’t ignore Section 31, I felt it captured the original general optimism about the future: that we’d be a better, more progressive society. And I think that would have appealed to Roddenberry.
You hit the nail on the head.
Your username, ironically, underscores that it wasn’t all optimistic progressive future. Although, I guess that was a decade later; the space race had mostly wound down, we’d been through disco and punk was peaking.
No, the missing letter did not escape my attention.
The “standard” Star Trek for me by which I compare others to is TNG, because I grew up in the 80s and 90s. TOS I guess is great for getting it off the ground but I just can’t relate to the 60s aesthetics, feels like I’m watching an old episode of The Munsters or I dream of Jeannie. I’m not from that time, and it feels very campy to me.
It’s a thing you can’t get back, a melange of culture and society and media technology and drugs. It was absolutely the best, and still is, in many ways. It was almost done in a vacuum, because the fanbase wasn’t there yet (they were becoming fans) and there was no instant polling or trending media other than the basic ones they had in the 60s. The studio, even the actors, weren’t getting a good picture of how huge it was.
With DS9, as an example, you get all the cool things and you also get to speculate about why this is the way it is, and what they were trying to do with that and if they thought the other was going to make the show a certain way or not, etc. . . . With TOS you get what you get. Star Trek, original, home made, artisinal episodes with 100% pure Shat and a Spock/McCoy overtone blend on a shoestring with everyone but the fans laughing at or ignoring them. Watching it now and kind of going back to the future is big fun if you can get to it. I totally understand if people can’t, but don’t dismiss it - it’s the only one you actually need to grok to love Star Trek.
Early TNG feels pretty campy too. I watched a lot of TNG and some DS9 in the early 90s (with some VOY/ENT and obviously the movies) but only really took it at face value. It wasn’t until post-college (05-06) with a lot of free time & streaming that I’d marathon TNG and DS9 and was able to really start to appreciate it all.
Remember when it was just Enterprise
No bloody A, B, C, or D.
You could tell the speed we were traveling by the feel of the deck plates.
Wasn’t Gene involved in the early seasons of TNG?
Not only that, he said that it more closely captured his vision.
That’s what I was thinking too.
I’m pretty sure he’s credited as [executive] producer or something
Forgot The Orville.
TNG fanfic
Hi-ooooooooo
All versions of Star Trek have their high and low points. The debate should be which ones managed to do that enough times. Because that’s more of a subjective measure people are going to differ on what they like, so we get the disagreement of what’s “best” or “real”. In the end they all are tied to the Star Trek universe and concepts, just aren’t the same in how they present and tell the stories. I don’t like Discovery for a number of reasons, but I have seen a few parts where it felt TOS/TNG Star Trek level for a bit.
And I know this is just visual media, but I’m a rarity who likes the alternate future of the Star Fleet Battles board game that was based on TOS ships and history but expanded much differently ways. TNG and later loosely used some of the ideas in their various plots. The Borg are absolutely a variant of the Andromedans, sans a cube ship.
The mental disorder of Lower Decks is ADHD.
Prodigy isn’t a mental disorder. It’s just not yet fully grown.
And a lot of slapstick
Where do the Star Trek Christmas Specials fit in?
I started trying to place them on a triangle with the three corners labelled “good trek”, “bad trek”, and “not trek” but I soon ended up arguing against my own choices of where I’d put them.
Not to mention that gatekeeping is kinda gross and actively goes against what Star Trek stands for. You wanna label good trek or bad trek, fine. But not trek? Come on.
I think on the mindset of what trek stands, bringing humanity together & tearing down divisions is really at the core. I think it’s completely fine to dissociate with elements of the media that seem to go contrary to that when you want to engage with something that pushes the idea of a positive future.
I think it’s completely fine to dissociate with elements of the media that seem to go contrary to that when you want to engage with something that pushes the idea of a positive future.
What elements? I’m begging you. I keep seeing people claim that the newer Treks go contrary to the older Treks but no one has ever been able to give me any examples of stuff that hasn’t already been done in Trek before. Stuff they either didn’t know about, forgot about, or purposefully ignored.
Answering everything with combat & lasers? Like I love a good kirk fight on a rock outside cali but give me a well written “we are stronger together speech” or some introspective or our differences make us stronger together, which I think most trek has been able to do.looking at kelvin trek or picard & saying no thanks to that I think is fine?
but give me a well written “we are stronger together speech” or some introspective or our differences make us stronger together, which I think most trek has been able to do
Dude. That was literally the resolution of the first season after everything that they had been through. The war was won with a speech.
Season 1: Episode 15 - Will You Take My Hand?
Beginning of Act 3:
Burnham: Is this how Starfleet wins the war? Genocide?!
Cornwell: You want to do this here? Fine. Terms of atrocity are convenient after the fact. The Klingons are on the verge of wiping out the Federation.
Burnham: Yes. But ask yourself: Why did you put this mission in the hands of a Terran and why the secrecy? It’s because you know it’s not who we are.
Cornwell: It very soon will be. We do not have the luxury of principles.
Burnham: That is all we have, Admiral… A year ago, I stood alone. I believed that our survival was more important than our principles. I was wrong. Do we need a mutiny today to prove who we are?
<Shots of the bridge crew looking with Burnham in solidarity before Acting Captain Saru stands up>
Saru: We are Starfleet.
Not enough? Same episode but later when they’re talking to L’rell.
<Burnham and L’rell enter the shrine where the hydrobomb was planted by Georgiou>
L’rell: What is this?
Burnham: This is the place the Federation crushed the Klingons. We planted a bomb in the heart of your homeworld. Qo’noS will be destroyed.
L’rell: You bring me here to gloat?
Burnham: No. To offer you an alternative. Klingons respond to strength. Use the fate of Qo’noS to bend them to your will. Preserve your civilization rather than watch it be destroyed.
L’rell: But… I am no one.
Ash Tyler: You once told Voq that you didn’t want the mantle of leadership. It’s time for you to leave the shadows.
<They then give L’rell the codes for the bomb. The only piece of leverage that Starfleet has, they have now given to the Klingons. Do note that the episode also shows Birds of Prey heading towards Earth. This was the last stand.>
Then there’s the speech that Burnham gives to Starfleet after the war: Link here
So, how does that not fit the criteria? I can find examples from the other seasons too, if you’d prefer.
The only difference between Star Trek: Discovery using speeches and any older Trek is that Star Trek: Discovery is serialized. Meaning that character growth happening instantly in one episode is going to feel awkward, stilted and like bad writing. If you want a speech like that you need to earn it now. You can’t just throw it out willy nilly for major threats like that. Yet, when they deal with smaller threats in the other seasons, they do use speeches like that. First thought that comes to mind was when they head to earth in Season 3 and force a chat that ends a standoff been going on near a century. Or the other chat they had with the Vulcans in Unification III.
There are plenty of those speeches.
Burnham was in the first season of picard? What?
-I am an asshole-
deleted by creator
IMO it’s got to have a healthy shot of humor. Running gags work for me, but keeping it light at least at the edges or the ending is very important. Too much humorless drama, too much self-seriousness, too many traumas means I’m not going to watch it. Make it fun. Give me zingers to balance the shooting and screaming. Have Spock insult McCoy every so slightly. Let Kirk side eye them both. That’s a good wrap for Trek.
If mentioning the existence of critics of this particular film isn’t wholly forbiedden now, here is one take which mentions some ways in which it perceived by some as atypical of traditional Star Trek.
-
That movie was released today. That straight up does not count. If it hasn’t been released for 24 hours then it can’t have had an impact on all the Trek shows that have been going on for nearly the better part of the past decade. Also, you can quite easily ignore literally everything about that movie and it will never have an impact on the overall lore or standing of Star Trek.
-
It’s about a black ops CIA organization within Starfleet that is morally corrupt and fucked. Section 31 is literally supposed to be contrary to the rest of Starfleet. I wouldn’t be shocked if that movie is too.
-
I haven’t seen it yet and cannot comment on the substance of the movie at all nor do I want to read it considering it says there are spoilers.
Do you have any examples from the past 10 years?
I wasn’t aiming to argue with you. Discovery is fine although it’s not for me. I was just expressing hope that the movie won’t be as bad as they say, since I still have some.
I wasn’t aiming to argue with you
I asked for examples and you offered examples. You also started it with an argumentative phrase suggesting that critics of a movie cannot be mentioned on this community.
I was just expressing hope that the movie won’t be as bad as they say, since I still have some.
I heard people describe Discovery as essentially murdering the barely warm corpse of Star Trek. The show isn’t nearly as bad as that. All of these loud critics always end up being that. The loudest. Things are rarely as bad as they claim to be. I’m also very hesitant to accept criticisms from people whos livelihoods depend on clickbait.
-
Removed by mod
I disagree. The orville is more trek than most new series. I also can’t recommend the podcast “Star Trek Outpost” enough. It’s brilliantly made.
It’s genuinely TNG fanfic
I’m by no means a Trekkie as much as I am a Gater, but didn’t TNG get immensely better after Roddenberry stopped being able to give input and make weird episodes?
It definitely became something… different after season 1 when he stopped contributing
