11 ms·

These two snippets stood out for me: "Violence, on The Next Generation, is shown as a problem, or the failure to solve a problem, never as the true solution."

These two snippets stood out for me: "Violence, on The Next Generation, is shown as a problem, or the failure to solve a problem, never as the true solution." "Lots of young people watch it, too, of course, and, recently, at a conference about science fiction, one of them told me why: “A lot of science fiction shows us a future just like now, only worse,” she said. “I like The Next Generation because it shows us a future I could live in.” " Compare the old shows, TNG & DS9 with the new shows - Discovery and Picard. Alan Kurtzman and team have completely destroyed the spirit of Star Trek - totally ignored what Roddenberry tried to achieve - which is nicely encapsulated in the two snippets above. Instead Kurtzman & team created something bland, superficial with no depth by desperately and selfishly imprinting their own mark on the Star Trek world without respecting its history. Even the great actors like Stewart, Spiner or De Lancie couldn't save it. ---- PS. This is a good summary of the new Trek: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaK7jGyY4Wo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaK7jGyY4Wo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BiyH8lENRs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BiyH8lENRs

Jalad 4y ago
RedLetterMedia does a fine grained overview[0] of Picard, where they brutally dunk on the show over the course of hours of commentary. I wholeheartedly agree with their takes too which is sad, because I really enjoyed Star Trek as well [0]: https://youtube.com/watch?v=hfQdf93e63I&list=PLXiyyhCy2ANpZxINTHkuQCa9KF0rzcZ_h&index=3 https://youtube.com/watch?v=hfQdf93e63I&list=PLXiyyhCy2ANpZx...
- morelisp 4y ago
  IIRC (it's been a while since I watched it) RLM's take is very different than the parent's "great actors like Stewart, Spiner or De Lancie" - RLM places a significant amount of Picard's failure on Stewart being given far too much latitude to chew scenery and bounce around heroically. Edit to reply to both replies below: Go read up on Stewart's influence on e.g. Starship Mine or Captain's Holiday - he never cared about maintaining (at least what OP says is) the spirit/lore of TNG. Is it really surprising that the guy who loved Starship Mine would, when given more creative reign, push something like Picard? It ain't coming (only) from the writers... Chabon for sure can do the genre-heavy psychodrama just fine.
  - halfmatthalfcat 4y ago
    I thought RLM's take was Steward didn't care at all about maintaining the spirt/lore of TNG but just cashing a check?
  - uxcolumbo 4y ago
    Agree - I couldn't understand how Stewart could agree to take part in this - surely he must have read the script. The only thing I can think of is that he's 80 something and getting out of the house, being part of a bigger project again, acting, meeting your old friends etc - it's exciting. So he compromised.
    - jonnycomputer 4y ago
      These shows don't always write the scripts ahead of time, so he might have only see the pilot, which wasn't that bad.
      - bsder 4y ago
        For "Picard", I wholeheartedly disagree. Supposedly, Picard was kicked out for a "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" level speech that pissed off EVERYBODY in Starfleet Command. That they never showed. You have an actor practically synonymous with Shakespearean scenery chewing and you never have him deliver the actual speech that supposedly kicks off the whole series?!?!?! That should be an unending shame to the series writers. Furthermore, had the writers created that speech, it probably would have created a much better series as it would have set up the boundaries of the world properly for the series writers to operate within.
        paulryanrogers 4y ago
        Agree that missing speech really left a bad taste. My guess was it must have been years ago to explain why the series was beginning when Picard was at such an advanced age.
    - Swalden123 4y ago
- unethical_ban 4y ago
  Sometimes even if they have points, their analysis is asinine. They could hold their own in a debate, but do I really want to see TNG through their lens? We get out of it what we want, and they search for technical inconsistencies in search of flaws.
morelisp 4y ago
DS9 is perhaps not the show to hold up to prove violence is never the answer. In the Pale Moonlight for example is quite explicit. I agree overall Picard was a thematic and narrative mess and Discovery needs someone who can stick the landing they're missing in the last two episodes of every season. But Roddenberry isn't god; some of his future was good in the 70s but naive or trite even by the 80s and regressive by the 90s; and some of it was never good to begin with.
- uxcolumbo 4y ago
  Yes true - Pale Moonlight was a great episode though. Zero violence is most probably a Utopian view and maybe the writers of this episode wanted to pull back a little... after all the whole Alpha Quadrant was at stake. And also good point about Roddenberry. I meant more the principle of showing a better future and how humanity overcame its problems. It made people think.
- Brian_K_White 4y ago
  I think DS9's violence is just a side effect of one of it's key intentional differentiators that it's "darker". I think it's still fair to say that the violence is portrayed as at best a necessity, and never a goal or a definition of success. The only positive light or satisfaction or pride is maybe that of professionals performing their task well.
- goodpoint 4y ago
  You missed the point. Star Trek never showed and endlessly peaceful universe, or a Federation that refused to act in self defense. But it systematically depicts war and violence in general as not being a solution, rather a problem to be solved, a wound to be healed, an understanding to be found. [yes, there has been few shocking exception, including Archer in Enterprise torturing an alien]
  - morelisp 4y ago
    > You missed the point… it systematically depicts war and violence in general as not being a solution With absolutely zero respect, I think you missed the point of the episode I named, widely considered one of the best episodes ever. They literally murder someone in cold blood to start a war, to solve the problem they might not otherwise win it.
foobarbecue 4y ago
I agree with you about Discovery and (ugh) Picard. But calling those THE new shows? What about Strange New Worlds? I love SNW because it's very much in the spirit of TOS and TNG. And while I wouldn't say Lower Decks /respects/ the spirit of early Trek, it certainly shows an awareness of the utopian philosophy!
- uxcolumbo 4y ago
  I haven't watched it yet - I stopped following Kurtzman's projects, as the other shows were such a disappointment. But if you think SNW is better maybe I should check it out.
- ho_schi 4y ago
  High Five for Lower Decks. It is TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT as animation series at quality level. Cannot say something about SNW because Paramount decided to tease people with another streaming platform. Back with TNG the did it right, offered the series to all TV-Stations instead partnering with one. The drawbacl, the first seasons of TNG were low on money.
  - drdec 4y ago
    > Back with TNG the did it right, offered the series to all TV-Stations instead partnering with one. That wasn't a choice, if one of the networks wanted it, there's no way it would have been in syndication.
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      And if I recall correctly, it wasn't so much "offered" as "inextricably bundled to the TOS syndication rights so if networks wanted to keep running that series they had to bankroll a season of TNG." Smart business practice but kind of rude to the stations.
  - foobarbecue 4y ago
    Just torrent it. Seems like the industry isn't bothering to sue anyone these days.
ho_schi 4y ago
Yes. We should mention that - aside the actors - the writers rescued TNG. Ronald D. Moore for example. Gene Roddenberry nearly ruined TNG with his lawyer. But nobody is perfect, right?
SkyMarshal 4y ago
I think the reorientation around conflict actually began with Rick Berman after he took over from Roddenberry back 90s or early 2000s or whenever it was. He explicitly stated that he wanted more interpersonal conflict between the crew of the enterprise. His notion was that Roddenberry’s utopian vision of the way the crew worked together was just not realistic. Of course he missed the whole point, that it may not be realistic today, but it was an aspirational vision of a better future. I watched TNG religiously as a kid, but once Berman took over and began infusing pointless interpersonal conflict, I lost interest. That said, everything I’ve seen of Strange New Worlds so far is excellent, it’s like the old Roddenberry vision reincarnated.
- morelisp 4y ago
  "Star Trek got bad shortly after I grew up" is not the thoughtful take anyone seems to think it is.
  - dendriti 4y ago
    Is that what OP actually said?
- such12 4y ago
  Can you give an example of the kind of conflict you thought was pointless? Early TNG seemed like a new age cult to me, and then it became more real without losing the positivity.
  - liveoneggs 4y ago
    early TNG, literally, re-used TOS problems and solutions (aka plots). It was like a best-of playlist. Absolutely ridiculous as a television show.
    - Aloha 4y ago
      This isn't uncommon in TV series. How many I Love Lucy plots were recycled later on? All in the Family? I can go on, but great writing and plots are often reused later.
WrtCdEvrydy 4y ago
> "Lots of young people watch it, too, of course, and, recently, at a conference about science fiction, one of them told me why: “A lot of science fiction shows us a future just like now, only worse,” she said. “I like The Next Generation because it shows us a future I could live in.” " I'll argue this isn't a problem with Star Trek as a problem with our society... in general we have seen a general bitterness in media since 9/11. Imagine a show that you saw before then and generally whatever you imagine will be far more positive than post-9/11 television.
- MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
  Makes me think about how after the 2008 and occupy wall wall st protests being squashed that the Hunger Games was super popular.
- goodpoint 4y ago
  The bitterness has little to do with 9/11.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
regular 4y ago
I really, really wanted to like Picard (as I'm sure most fans did). But it sucks. It's boring-ass gibberish about... um, I think it's about people who hate androids. Right? Terrible. Remember how the Phantom Menace's central premise originated with unjust taxation, but didn't show any hardships or physical struggles caused by said taxation? Also shit.
pessimizer 4y ago
The weirdest part is that the Star Trek revival was shepherded by Rick Berman, who leaned very conservative, but the show stayed techno-utopian. Now that the show is explicitly woke (in the modern sense), it's become unbelievably authoritarian and militaristic. I had to bail on Discovery when the Federation turned down an (gimmick-verified) honest offer of universal peace at the conclusion of a season because of their deep desire to punish and humiliate the enemy that was offering it to them. I hope the Federation was written as the evil empire from then on, but I'm not going to be there to see it. In the world of Discovery, the return of the Federation is obviously the biggest threat to the galaxy. ----- edit: I have to admit that the Federation turning down the offer made me more angry than anything I had seen in fiction for years, so if it was a trick that they played with or overturned in the next season, they sure got me. I mean they lost me, because I bailed, but they got the emotion they were going for.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  If you're referring to the Emerald Chain plot, I think you may have missed the point. The party offering wasn't interested in rule of law. There was no long-term peace to be had with authoritarians who would only be content with peace as long as it was peace that put them above the law.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    That's exactly the point of view that I'm condemning, so it looks like I did understand it and they didn't reverse it. The "rule of law" (with scare quotes because there is no in-universe government of the galaxy to be violating the laws of) was the desire to punish the "authoritarian" who was making an honest offer of unconditional peace. Please save us from that rule-of-law, and deliver us to the authoritarians.
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      Yes. All of Earth would have had peace had they merely accepted the rule of Khan and his supermen. ... of all the deviations from Roddenberry's vision one could criticize Discovery for, I think this criticism fits least. (They didn't "reverse" it so much as Osyraa died in the subsequent events that season and since the Chain was authoritarian, it collapsed without its mafia boss at the head. Dictatorships are such fragile things).
shadowgovt 4y ago
I'm old enough to remember the Activision / Viacom lawsuit in 2003 when Viacom was accused of so badly mis-handling the franchise that they'd ruined the value of Activision's exclusive license. Whatever our fond memories of the older versions of the show, they stopped resonating with audiences. And a franchise that cannot adapt dies. The new Star Trek is a different flavor from the old, but it has to be. Because the kids that grew up watching the old Star Trek didn't see that future manifest (if anything, history has played out in a direction bending away from it). I'm honestly impressed at the new material's ability to bridge the core ideas of the original shows to a language that modern audiences speak. It's pulling in viewers again, and that's vital to the franchise surviving.
- ginko 4y ago
  >The new Star Trek is a different flavor from the old, but it has to be. Because the kids that grew up watching the old Star Trek didn't see that future manifest According to the Star Trek timeline we're 4 years away from World War III.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    >According to the Star Trek timeline we're 4 years away from World War III. That seems pretty accurate.
- sangnoir 4y ago
  > Because the kids that grew up watching the old Star Trek didn't see that future manifest On the contrary: those kids are making the tech real (communicators & ever present computer acting as a digital personal assistant using voice communication)
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    The Star Trek universe is far more than its tech, and those other things are far more important.
    - 4y ago
mikebenfield 4y ago
I don't entirely disagree with you about old vs new Trek. But I think it's important to avoid the idea that Roddenberry was "trying to achieve" some grand vision. What Roddenberry was "trying to achieve" was to make a TV show, and then he was the target of hero worship by some overzealous fans, and then he bought into the hype himself. It really weakens the argument to continue to present Roddenberry as a bold visionary when this is known to not really be true.
- uxcolumbo 4y ago
  From what I read, he was inspired by futurist Jacque Fresco and Roddenberry wanted to show that a better world is possible and challenging norms that are holding back humanity. That's what I meant with what he was 'trying to achieve' at the beginning with TOS. I also read that later in his life he believed the hype about himself and became difficult to work with. Whether it's true or not - I don't know.
GordonS 4y ago
> I like The Next Generation because it shows us a future I could live in. I watched TNG as a kid, and maybe this is why I liked it so much. Recently, my 5 year kid came running to me with his tablet during his allocated screen time, all excited in the way that only young kids can be. He was going on about how great it was he'd "killed them before they killed me!"*, and I just can't stop thinking about what an awful moment that was :( Maybe we need to sit down and watch TNG and DS9 together... * He has a Kindle Kids with an age limit set, so he's only playing curated games from the Amazon Kids collection
nytesky 4y ago
I think this may add value for a discussion on Roddenberry’s legacy. https://theoatmeal.com/comics/plane https://theoatmeal.com/comics/plane And the best new Star Trek is Orville, clearly carrying the mantle from TNG.

Jalad 4y ago

RedLetterMedia does a fine grained overview[0] of Picard, where they brutally dunk on the show over the course of hours of commentary. I wholeheartedly agree with their takes too which is sad, because I really enjoyed Star Trek as well [0]: https://youtube.com/watch?v=hfQdf93e63I&list=PLXiyyhCy2ANpZxINTHkuQCa9KF0rzcZ_h&index=3 https://youtube.com/watch?v=hfQdf93e63I&list=PLXiyyhCy2ANpZx...

morelisp 4y ago
IIRC (it's been a while since I watched it) RLM's take is very different than the parent's "great actors like Stewart, Spiner or De Lancie" - RLM places a significant amount of Picard's failure on Stewart being given far too much latitude to chew scenery and bounce around heroically. Edit to reply to both replies below: Go read up on Stewart's influence on e.g. Starship Mine or Captain's Holiday - he never cared about maintaining (at least what OP says is) the spirit/lore of TNG. Is it really surprising that the guy who loved Starship Mine would, when given more creative reign, push something like Picard? It ain't coming (only) from the writers... Chabon for sure can do the genre-heavy psychodrama just fine.
- halfmatthalfcat 4y ago
  I thought RLM's take was Steward didn't care at all about maintaining the spirt/lore of TNG but just cashing a check?
- uxcolumbo 4y ago
  Agree - I couldn't understand how Stewart could agree to take part in this - surely he must have read the script. The only thing I can think of is that he's 80 something and getting out of the house, being part of a bigger project again, acting, meeting your old friends etc - it's exciting. So he compromised.
  - jonnycomputer 4y ago
    These shows don't always write the scripts ahead of time, so he might have only see the pilot, which wasn't that bad.
    - bsder 4y ago
      For "Picard", I wholeheartedly disagree. Supposedly, Picard was kicked out for a "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" level speech that pissed off EVERYBODY in Starfleet Command. That they never showed. You have an actor practically synonymous with Shakespearean scenery chewing and you never have him deliver the actual speech that supposedly kicks off the whole series?!?!?! That should be an unending shame to the series writers. Furthermore, had the writers created that speech, it probably would have created a much better series as it would have set up the boundaries of the world properly for the series writers to operate within.
      - paulryanrogers 4y ago
        Agree that missing speech really left a bad taste. My guess was it must have been years ago to explain why the series was beginning when Picard was at such an advanced age.
  - Swalden123 4y ago
unethical_ban 4y ago
Sometimes even if they have points, their analysis is asinine. They could hold their own in a debate, but do I really want to see TNG through their lens? We get out of it what we want, and they search for technical inconsistencies in search of flaws.

morelisp 4y ago

DS9 is perhaps not the show to hold up to prove violence is never the answer. In the Pale Moonlight for example is quite explicit. I agree overall Picard was a thematic and narrative mess and Discovery needs someone who can stick the landing they're missing in the last two episodes of every season. But Roddenberry isn't god; some of his future was good in the 70s but naive or trite even by the 80s and regressive by the 90s; and some of it was never good to begin with.

uxcolumbo 4y ago
Yes true - Pale Moonlight was a great episode though. Zero violence is most probably a Utopian view and maybe the writers of this episode wanted to pull back a little... after all the whole Alpha Quadrant was at stake. And also good point about Roddenberry. I meant more the principle of showing a better future and how humanity overcame its problems. It made people think.
Brian_K_White 4y ago
I think DS9's violence is just a side effect of one of it's key intentional differentiators that it's "darker". I think it's still fair to say that the violence is portrayed as at best a necessity, and never a goal or a definition of success. The only positive light or satisfaction or pride is maybe that of professionals performing their task well.
goodpoint 4y ago
You missed the point. Star Trek never showed and endlessly peaceful universe, or a Federation that refused to act in self defense. But it systematically depicts war and violence in general as not being a solution, rather a problem to be solved, a wound to be healed, an understanding to be found. [yes, there has been few shocking exception, including Archer in Enterprise torturing an alien]
- morelisp 4y ago
  > You missed the point… it systematically depicts war and violence in general as not being a solution With absolutely zero respect, I think you missed the point of the episode I named, widely considered one of the best episodes ever. They literally murder someone in cold blood to start a war, to solve the problem they might not otherwise win it.

foobarbecue 4y ago

I agree with you about Discovery and (ugh) Picard. But calling those THE new shows? What about Strange New Worlds? I love SNW because it's very much in the spirit of TOS and TNG. And while I wouldn't say Lower Decks /respects/ the spirit of early Trek, it certainly shows an awareness of the utopian philosophy!

uxcolumbo 4y ago
I haven't watched it yet - I stopped following Kurtzman's projects, as the other shows were such a disappointment. But if you think SNW is better maybe I should check it out.
ho_schi 4y ago
High Five for Lower Decks. It is TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT as animation series at quality level. Cannot say something about SNW because Paramount decided to tease people with another streaming platform. Back with TNG the did it right, offered the series to all TV-Stations instead partnering with one. The drawbacl, the first seasons of TNG were low on money.
- drdec 4y ago
  > Back with TNG the did it right, offered the series to all TV-Stations instead partnering with one. That wasn't a choice, if one of the networks wanted it, there's no way it would have been in syndication.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    And if I recall correctly, it wasn't so much "offered" as "inextricably bundled to the TOS syndication rights so if networks wanted to keep running that series they had to bankroll a season of TNG." Smart business practice but kind of rude to the stations.
- foobarbecue 4y ago
  Just torrent it. Seems like the industry isn't bothering to sue anyone these days.

ho_schi 4y ago

Yes. We should mention that - aside the actors - the writers rescued TNG. Ronald D. Moore for example. Gene Roddenberry nearly ruined TNG with his lawyer. But nobody is perfect, right?

SkyMarshal 4y ago

I think the reorientation around conflict actually began with Rick Berman after he took over from Roddenberry back 90s or early 2000s or whenever it was. He explicitly stated that he wanted more interpersonal conflict between the crew of the enterprise. His notion was that Roddenberry’s utopian vision of the way the crew worked together was just not realistic. Of course he missed the whole point, that it may not be realistic today, but it was an aspirational vision of a better future. I watched TNG religiously as a kid, but once Berman took over and began infusing pointless interpersonal conflict, I lost interest. That said, everything I’ve seen of Strange New Worlds so far is excellent, it’s like the old Roddenberry vision reincarnated.

morelisp 4y ago
"Star Trek got bad shortly after I grew up" is not the thoughtful take anyone seems to think it is.
- dendriti 4y ago
  Is that what OP actually said?
such12 4y ago
Can you give an example of the kind of conflict you thought was pointless? Early TNG seemed like a new age cult to me, and then it became more real without losing the positivity.
- liveoneggs 4y ago
  early TNG, literally, re-used TOS problems and solutions (aka plots). It was like a best-of playlist. Absolutely ridiculous as a television show.
  - Aloha 4y ago
    This isn't uncommon in TV series. How many I Love Lucy plots were recycled later on? All in the Family? I can go on, but great writing and plots are often reused later.

WrtCdEvrydy 4y ago

> "Lots of young people watch it, too, of course, and, recently, at a conference about science fiction, one of them told me why: “A lot of science fiction shows us a future just like now, only worse,” she said. “I like The Next Generation because it shows us a future I could live in.” " I'll argue this isn't a problem with Star Trek as a problem with our society... in general we have seen a general bitterness in media since 9/11. Imagine a show that you saw before then and generally whatever you imagine will be far more positive than post-9/11 television.

MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
Makes me think about how after the 2008 and occupy wall wall st protests being squashed that the Hunger Games was super popular.
goodpoint 4y ago
The bitterness has little to do with 9/11.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

regular 4y ago

I really, really wanted to like Picard (as I'm sure most fans did). But it sucks. It's boring-ass gibberish about... um, I think it's about people who hate androids. Right? Terrible. Remember how the Phantom Menace's central premise originated with unjust taxation, but didn't show any hardships or physical struggles caused by said taxation? Also shit.

pessimizer 4y ago

The weirdest part is that the Star Trek revival was shepherded by Rick Berman, who leaned very conservative, but the show stayed techno-utopian. Now that the show is explicitly woke (in the modern sense), it's become unbelievably authoritarian and militaristic. I had to bail on Discovery when the Federation turned down an (gimmick-verified) honest offer of universal peace at the conclusion of a season because of their deep desire to punish and humiliate the enemy that was offering it to them. I hope the Federation was written as the evil empire from then on, but I'm not going to be there to see it. In the world of Discovery, the return of the Federation is obviously the biggest threat to the galaxy. ----- edit: I have to admit that the Federation turning down the offer made me more angry than anything I had seen in fiction for years, so if it was a trick that they played with or overturned in the next season, they sure got me. I mean they lost me, because I bailed, but they got the emotion they were going for.

shadowgovt 4y ago
If you're referring to the Emerald Chain plot, I think you may have missed the point. The party offering wasn't interested in rule of law. There was no long-term peace to be had with authoritarians who would only be content with peace as long as it was peace that put them above the law.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  That's exactly the point of view that I'm condemning, so it looks like I did understand it and they didn't reverse it. The "rule of law" (with scare quotes because there is no in-universe government of the galaxy to be violating the laws of) was the desire to punish the "authoritarian" who was making an honest offer of unconditional peace. Please save us from that rule-of-law, and deliver us to the authoritarians.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    Yes. All of Earth would have had peace had they merely accepted the rule of Khan and his supermen. ... of all the deviations from Roddenberry's vision one could criticize Discovery for, I think this criticism fits least. (They didn't "reverse" it so much as Osyraa died in the subsequent events that season and since the Chain was authoritarian, it collapsed without its mafia boss at the head. Dictatorships are such fragile things).

shadowgovt 4y ago

I'm old enough to remember the Activision / Viacom lawsuit in 2003 when Viacom was accused of so badly mis-handling the franchise that they'd ruined the value of Activision's exclusive license. Whatever our fond memories of the older versions of the show, they stopped resonating with audiences. And a franchise that cannot adapt dies. The new Star Trek is a different flavor from the old, but it has to be. Because the kids that grew up watching the old Star Trek didn't see that future manifest (if anything, history has played out in a direction bending away from it). I'm honestly impressed at the new material's ability to bridge the core ideas of the original shows to a language that modern audiences speak. It's pulling in viewers again, and that's vital to the franchise surviving.

ginko 4y ago
>The new Star Trek is a different flavor from the old, but it has to be. Because the kids that grew up watching the old Star Trek didn't see that future manifest According to the Star Trek timeline we're 4 years away from World War III.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  >According to the Star Trek timeline we're 4 years away from World War III. That seems pretty accurate.
sangnoir 4y ago
> Because the kids that grew up watching the old Star Trek didn't see that future manifest On the contrary: those kids are making the tech real (communicators & ever present computer acting as a digital personal assistant using voice communication)
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  The Star Trek universe is far more than its tech, and those other things are far more important.
  - 4y ago

mikebenfield 4y ago

I don't entirely disagree with you about old vs new Trek. But I think it's important to avoid the idea that Roddenberry was "trying to achieve" some grand vision. What Roddenberry was "trying to achieve" was to make a TV show, and then he was the target of hero worship by some overzealous fans, and then he bought into the hype himself. It really weakens the argument to continue to present Roddenberry as a bold visionary when this is known to not really be true.

uxcolumbo 4y ago
From what I read, he was inspired by futurist Jacque Fresco and Roddenberry wanted to show that a better world is possible and challenging norms that are holding back humanity. That's what I meant with what he was 'trying to achieve' at the beginning with TOS. I also read that later in his life he believed the hype about himself and became difficult to work with. Whether it's true or not - I don't know.

GordonS 4y ago

> I like The Next Generation because it shows us a future I could live in. I watched TNG as a kid, and maybe this is why I liked it so much. Recently, my 5 year kid came running to me with his tablet during his allocated screen time, all excited in the way that only young kids can be. He was going on about how great it was he'd "killed them before they killed me!"*, and I just can't stop thinking about what an awful moment that was :( Maybe we need to sit down and watch TNG and DS9 together... * He has a Kindle Kids with an age limit set, so he's only playing curated games from the Amazon Kids collection

nytesky 4y ago

I think this may add value for a discussion on Roddenberry’s legacy. https://theoatmeal.com/comics/plane https://theoatmeal.com/comics/plane And the best new Star Trek is Orville, clearly carrying the mantle from TNG.