General Star Trek thread

Evade

Goodshape wrote: »

I kinda strongly disagree. It might not lend itself as easily as a war to the series (or more) long story arcs, but seeing how a future socialist utopia of mankind might deal with issues – including non-threatening issues like "what is this cool new thing we've found this week?" – is infinitely more interesting to me than yet another devastating war or catastrophic event and the hardships and contrived "drama" born from that.

Dealing with the cool new thing has almost nothing to do with the socialist utopia parts. I like cool new thing of the week too but the whole "we don't use money, we work to better ourselves" part is grating. If Star Trek wanted to show off their utopia they could be honest about it and show it as a mixed economy. All the basics, food, clothing, housing, educational materials, etc all freely supplied by replicators but if you want more, like a restaurant or vineyard, you work hard and pay for it. There's zero on screen evidence for this but it makes a lot more sense than what is on screen.

Goodshape wrote: »

A lie would be disappointing. Difficulty on the fringes... that, I might more interested in.

It kind of already is a big lie. Sisko's "It's easy to be a saint in paradise" and all. Then there's the absolute disaster that is Tasha Yar's homeworld in prime Rodenberry Trek before DS9 made it darker and grittier.

Goodshape

Evade wrote: »

Dealing with the cool new thing has almost nothing to do with the socialist utopia parts.

No, but I'd like to see how a socialist utopia (for lack of a better descriptor) would deal with those things, rather than seeing how people exactly-like-us-but-with-space-guns deal with it.

I like cool new thing of the week too but the whole "we don't use money, we work to better ourselves" part is grating. If Star Trek wanted to show off their utopia they could be honest about it and show it as a mixed economy. All the basics, food, clothing, housing, educational materials, etc all freely supplied by replicators but if you want more, like a restaurant or vineyard, you work hard and pay for it. There's zero on screen evidence for this but it makes a lot more sense than what is on screen.

Well yes exactly... expand on it, update it, and flesh it out. Make it real again. Something we can aspire too, not just another "$specious has attacked because they are evil! And our moral conundrum is whether to defend or attack and – oh no! – space terrorists!! Because 2018!!"

Indricotherium

Goodshape wrote: »

Well yes exactly... expand on it, update it, and flesh it out. Make it real again.

The ruthless secret police force that props it all up.

The constant expansion and assimilation of neighbouring states.

It's fleshed out pretty well by ds9

Goodshape

Indricotherium wrote: »

The ruthless secret police force that props it all up.

The constant expansion and assimilation of neighbouring states.

It's fleshed out pretty well by ds9

Ugh. Fine. Depressing. I guess the future is as ****ed as the present and we can't ever have nice things.

I'll just sit over here on my own with my delicious TNG optimistic ignorance.



Yummy.

Evade

Goodshape wrote: »

No, but I'd like to see how a socialist utopia (for lack of a better descriptor) would deal with those things, rather than seeing how people exactly-like-us-but-with-space-guns deal with it.

It would be more alien than most of the alien societies in Star Trek.

Indricotherium wrote: »

The ruthless secret police force that props it all up.


The constant expansion and assimilation of neighbouring states.

It's fleshed out pretty well by ds9

When you put it like that the socialist paradise really comes crashing back to historical reality.

AMKC

pixelburp wrote: »

I'd say the Academy idea is more about a cheap, soap opera style show set in and around a limited number of locations. Keeping everything on Academy grounds around San Francisco would be cheaper than the fortune currently spent on Discovery, and some love triangles with Andorrian twists would be easy to knock out.

Seems like between CBS and Paramount there's a LOT of Trek TV & film floating around the early stages of development. Wonder what, if any, of this will get made.

Indricotherium wrote: »

The ruthless secret police force that props it all up.

The constant expansion and assimilation of neighbouring states.

It's fleshed out pretty well by ds9

The constant expansion and assimilation of neighbouring states.

It is not like they the Federation that is force anyone to join unlike the Klingons, the Romulans, the Dominion or the Cardassians with there empires. When a world does join they still have their own cultures and way of living eg: the Vulcanes, Betazed, Riza etc. Wheres if it was one of the four empires above I mentioned taking over your world they just want your resources and too use the people of that world for cheap labour. They do not care about your culture or your living standards.
I know which I would prefer.

Indricotherium

Indricotherium wrote: »

The ruthless secret police force that props it all up.

The constant expansion and assimilation of neighbouring states.

It's fleshed out pretty well by ds9

I was wondering how long it would take for you to smell some Federation bashing

Indricotherium

AMKC wrote: »

Wheres if it was one of the four empires above I mentioned taking over your world they just want your resources and too use the people of that world for cheap labour. They do not care about your culture or your living standards.
I know which I would prefer.

The federation has a labour cost and resource cost free economy.

They dominate the galactic economy with their cost free manufacturing.

They jealously guard their position as technological top dog under the guise of "protecting" cultures they judge lesser.

Ask the Borg, the Cardassians, or the Changelings, about their cultures or living standards. All more or less annihilated. Their crime... being in the path of federation expansion.

When two or more nation-races make common cause against the federation, the result is unrelenting war that doesn't stop until the enemy's home planets are in ruins and their race is on the edge of extinction.

Other cultures like the Klingons, are engineered into a position of utter dependence where their culture is realigned to the federation norm. This can be seen at the end of ds9.

Goodshape

Did the Federation start any of those fights or was it a case of someone kicking a big friendly giant in the shin one too many times?

Evade

Goodshape wrote: »

Did the Federation start any of those fights or was it a case of someone kicking a big friendly giant in the shin one too many times?

They kept poking around the Gamma Quadrant despite Dominion warnings and Burnham arguably caused the Federation-Klingon war. Granted both those empires were up for a fight but the Federation didn't help matters.

Indricotherium

Goodshape wrote: »

Did the Federation start any of those fights or was it a case of someone kicking a big friendly giant in the shin one too many times?

You have a border with the Federation, you get a war with the Federation.

We've seen the depths they will plumb to drag other states into wars.

The Zimmerman letter has nothing on the federation.

pixelburp

Totally spitballing here, but maybe the era of Trek is over? What I mean is ultimately, what the erosion of the perfect Federation in Star Trek demonstrates is not any inherent fallacy in the concept itself, but just a reflection on how the zeitgeist of Science Fiction has changed over the years.

There's no two ways about it: Trek was born in an era when the space race was at full tilt and generally, SciFi (or at least, the Western-American version of it) reflected this sudden, brief exploratory & optimistic phase of humankind. There was a spark, however terse, that perhaps humanity might break out from its limited perspectives and expand into the Solar System. A new horizon devoid of nation states and old rivalries. Star Trek was a manifestation of this blue sky thinking - even if the Federation itself was born from the Cold War gone hot / WW3.

Of course, it didn't last, and with the onset of the 1970s, that starry vision of a socialist utopia gave way to a cynical, Vietnam tinged set of Science Fiction IMO, with famous works such as the Forever War being a not-too-subtle analogue of American Expansionism coming crashing to a halt. To be fair, on the flip-side cinematic nostalgists such as Lucas and Spielberg, looking back at their 1950s childhood, of Flash Gordon and so on, brought the adventure back to SciFi, if not perhaps the optimistic futurism.

The 80s had the same throughline of Cold War malaise and economic stagnation, by which time the fatalistic cynicism that had crept into SciFi started creeping into Star Trek too: Socialism had failed; the Space Race had failed; the dreams of a utopia in the stars never seemed so far away so where did that leave the Federation?

I mean, I dunno: the late 90s, early 2000s saw a flurry of adventure serials and mainstream SciFi that was exploratory and exciting - space was fun again, and sometimes genuinely alien and mysterious thanks to the Farscapes of the genre - but in the 2010s we've seen a return of dystopian resignation. Game of Thrones, Handmaid's Tale (even if it was published in the equally depressing 80s), The Expanse, Walking Dead, Donald Trump - let's face it, there's a LOT of pessimism floating around.

Brainfart over.

TL:DR? The lack of happy Trek is just 'cos the world's a miserable, horrible place, moreso than ever

Evade

pixelburp wrote: »

The 80s had the same throughline of Cold War malaise and economic stagnation, by which time the fatalistic cynicism that had crept into SciFi started creeping into Star Trek too: Socialism had failed; the Space Race had failed; the dreams of a utopia in the stars never seemed so far away so where did that leave the Federation?

TNG was probably the most utopian and that was a product of the 80s.

AMKC

Indricotherium wrote: »

The federation has a labour cost and resource cost free economy.

They dominate the galactic economy with their cost free manufacturing.

They jealously guard their position as technological top dog under the guise of "protecting" cultures they judge lesser.

Ask the Borg, the Cardassians, or the Changelings, about their cultures or living standards. All more or less annihilated. Their crime... being in the path of federation expansion.

When two or more nation-races make common cause against the federation, the result is unrelenting war that doesn't stop until the enemy's home planets are in ruins and their race is on the edge of extinction.

Other cultures like the Klingons, are engineered into a position of utter dependence where their culture is realigned to the federation norm. This can be seen at the end of ds9.

The federation has a labour cost and resource cost free economy.

They dominate the galactic economy with their cost free manufacturing.

I do not know if it is cost free. It's just different to how we know and understand it now. Maybe they do have a limit to the amount of dilithium for instance that can be produced in a year which limits the amount of ships that can be built so they only mine enough metal and other resources to build that many ships etc. The same with food. I am sure most of the work is probably done by robots with the odd person here and there to check up and make sure it is up to standard.

Evade wrote: »

They kept poking around the Gamma Quadrant despite Dominion warnings and Burnham arguably caused the Federation-Klingon war. Granted both those empires were up for a fight but the Federation didn't help matters.

That's two different timelines do. One is the Prime timeline the other is in between the Prime and the JJ Verse one.

Indricotherium wrote: »

You have a border with the Federation, you get a war with the Federation.

We've seen the depths they will plumb to drag other states into wars.

The Zimmerman letter has nothing on the federation.

You have a border with the Federation, you get a war with the Federation.

I do not for one minute believe the Federation would be like that. I think they would much rather negotiate and trade with a race that has a border with them instead of having a war as the costs of having a war would be far higher than just trading.

pixelburp wrote: »

Totally spitballing here, but maybe the era of Trek is over? What I mean is ultimately, what the erosion of the perfect Federation in Star Trek demonstrates is not any inherent fallacy in the concept itself, but just a reflection on how the zeitgeist of Science Fiction has changed over the years.

There's no two ways about it: Trek was born in an era when the space race was at full tilt and generally, SciFi (or at least, the Western-American version of it) reflected this sudden, brief exploratory & optimistic phase of humankind. There was a spark, however terse, that perhaps humanity might break out from its limited perspectives and expand into the Solar System. A new horizon devoid of nation states and old rivalries. Star Trek was a manifestation of this blue sky thinking - even if the Federation itself was born from the Cold War gone hot / WW3.

Of course, it didn't last, and with the onset of the 1970s, that starry vision of a socialist utopia gave way to a cynical, Vietnam tinged set of Science Fiction IMO, with famous works such as the Forever War being a not-too-subtle analogue of American Expansionism coming crashing to a halt. To be fair, on the flip-side cinematic nostalgists such as Lucas and Spielberg, looking back at their 1950s childhood, of Flash Gordon and so on, brought the adventure back to SciFi, if not perhaps the optimistic futurism.

The 80s had the same throughline of Cold War malaise and economic stagnation, by which time the fatalistic cynicism that had crept into SciFi started creeping into Star Trek too: Socialism had failed; the Space Race had failed; the dreams of a utopia in the stars never seemed so far away so where did that leave the Federation?

I mean, I dunno: the late 90s, early 2000s saw a flurry of adventure serials and mainstream SciFi that was exploratory and exciting - space was fun again, and sometimes genuinely alien and mysterious thanks to the Farscapes of the genre - but in the 2010s we've seen a return of dystopian resignation. Game of Thrones, Handmaid's Tale (even if it was published in the equally depressing 80s), The Expanse, Walking Dead, Donald Trump - let's face it, there's a LOT of pessimism floating around.

Brainfart over.

TL:DR? The lack of happy Trek is just 'cos the world's a miserable, horrible place, moreso than ever

Game of Thrones, Handmaid's Tale (even if it was published in the equally depressing 80s), Walking Dead, Donald Trump

They might be dystopian but none of them shows are sci-fi shows and they are all way overrated. As for that buffon that's supposed to be president of America. Well you really do not want to know what I think of the emoral moran.

The Expanse: I have no idea what this is like yet. Have heard it is like B5 in a way. I will get to watching it at some stage.

Rawr

I may have been too hasty wishing for yet another "war-angle" in future Trek, but on reflection and reading some of the posts here, I guess what I really want from future installements of Star Trek is more "depth" regarding life within the Federation for the ordinary people who happen to not be Star Fleet bridge crews.

Now and again, they occasionally did this and it was often kind of interesting. Although more often than not I'd leave these moments wondering more about how this "money-less" world worked.

In previous posts and threads I have often wondered what actually drives a Federation citizen to...well...do anything constructive. I'd like to think that even if money wasn't an issue for me, I would spend my time doing things and trying to fill my days constuctivly working on things I had always wanted to work on if it weren't for a lack of time and money. But that is just me, and without the motivation of going out to earn money to have a home / food, I can easily imagine some people not bothering at all.

So I am very curious....how does that life actually look like day-to-day. How does that "work" and how does that relate to the adventurous world of the Star Fleet that we already know so well?

Also, one thing that always had my head scratching a little was Sisco's dad. He ran a resturant, and without money to think about I can only assume that he did that out of his own love for the work itself.

But then follow up questions arise:
- Without money; how did he obtain a resturant?
- Can anyone get a resturant if they show enough interest?
- Are all restaurants state-owned, and does that make Sisco Sr. a sort of civil servant?
- Is dinner free at the Sisco resturant? (Because...no money)
- Can Sisco Sr. turn around one day and just say "F*ck it, this is too much stress" and not bother running the resturant since he'll have food and lodging anyway.

I'm over thinking this, but the lack of explaination of Roddenberry's money-less Federation really has me wondering and really has me wanting to know more. I hope one day we might get that chance within the canon of this universe.

pixelburp

Evade wrote: »

TNG was probably the most utopian and that was a product of the 80s.

I'm not claiming my theory is bullet proof - I did point out that the 70s seemed to spawn polar opposite approaches to mainstream sci-fi, but there's no escaping the fact that Trek reflects the era it was born in; when you go and read about that decade, the Space Race of the 1960s really did make it seem like we were just years from lunar colonies and manned space exploration; probably why Roddenberry naively set the Eugenics Wars in the 1990s (even he wasn't beyond seeing humanity's penchant for self-destruction). It's fascinating to read about future visions that weren't just slightly wrong, but completely wide of the mark. Trek to me is a lingering beacon from that time and became increasingly isolated in subsequent decades whose fiction was dictated by dystopias or apocalypses.

AMKC wrote: »

Game of Thrones, Handmaid's Tale (even if it was published in the equally depressing 80s), Walking Dead, Donald Trump

They might be dystopian but none of them shows are sci-fi shows and they are all way overrated. As for that buffon that's supposed to be president of America. Well you really do not want to know what I think of the emoral moran.

The Expanse: I have no idea what this is like yet. Have heard it is like B5 in a way. I will get to watching it at some stage.

Doesn't matter if you think they're overrated or not, they dominate the landscape of mainstream TV, and have shaped both the approach of other shows, as well as reflect the broad mood that pervades mainstream pop culture ATM. Yes, Game of Thrones is technically 'fantasy' if we go by labels, but Handmaid's Tale is fair game IMO to include as part of a general theme of shows who exist outside the realms of conventional science or reality. If you want more definitive 'SciFi' examples, see Black Mirror, Westworld, Humans, Wayward Pines, Colony, The 100, the adaptation of Farenheit 451, Altered Carbon - all have one thing in common, generally being "humanity is a bit rubbish". The nihilists seem to have taken over.

It's easy to forget, but it's not that long ago that anything SciFi, Fantasy or speculative was pretty much a no-no for most TV networks. It was expensive and only needs / kids watched it.

To be fair, outliers like the Netflix Lost in Space reboot, or CW superhero output suggest there's still room for hopeful, optimistic SciFi or Genre TV, but the superhero genre kinda exists in its own bubble - and the CW stuff is arguably the exception than proves the rule.

Evade

AMKC wrote: »

That's two different timelines do. One is the Prime timeline the other is in between the Prime and the JJ Verse one.

I'm pretty sure STD is supposed to be prime timeline.

Indricotherium

Rawr wrote: »

Also, one thing that always had my head scratching a little was Sisco's dad. He ran a resturant, and without money to think about I can only assume that he did that out of his own love for the work itself.

He inherited the restaurant.

We know that the Picard vineyard is handed down.

membership to the landed elite is locked down into a handful of families on earth, by virtue of the moneyless economy.

That is why the Federation's constant wars / aggressive colonisation are required. All those second third and fourth sons need beautiful vineyards and kitschy eateries to run.

Indricotherium

Indricotherium wrote: »

He inherited the restaurant.

We know that the Picard vineyard is handed down.

The landed elite is locked in on earth by virtue of the money free economy.

That is why the Federation's constant wars / aggressive colonisation are required.

We see the effect not producing an heir, and risking the family dynasty (and land) has on Picard in generations. He has a complete breakdown.

Greyjoy

pixelburp wrote: »

but in the 2010s we've seen a return of dystopian resignation. Game of Thrones, Handmaid's Tale (even if it was published in the equally depressing 80s), The Expanse, Walking Dead, Donald Trump - let's face it, there's a LOT of pessimism floating around.

I think though if Trek tries to emulate that dystopian style from other shows it'll just get lost in the shuffle. Having a sense of optimism would set it apart.

AMKC

Evade wrote: »

I'm pretty sure STD is supposed to be prime timeline.

Exactly it's supposed to be but I do not believe it for one second and I think there is many more trekkies and fans that do not agree with it being in the prime timeline either.

Greyjoy wrote: »

I think though if Trek tries to emulate that dystopian style from other shows it'll just get lost in the shuffle. Having a sense of optimism would set it apart.

I agree totally. It is what Trek is supposed to be about. Giving us hope to be optimistic for the future. It is something the world could really do with in these dark times.

Evade

Indricotherium wrote: »

He inherited the restaurant.

We know that the Picard vineyard is handed down.

membership to the landed elite is locked down into a handful of families on earth, by virtue of the moneyless economy.

That is why the Federation's constant wars / aggressive colonisation are required. All those second third and fourth sons need beautiful vineyards and kitschy eateries to run.

In the alternate future of the Visitor Sisko's Creole Kitchen isn't owned by anyone in the Sisko family anymore so there might be cases for nominated successors.

Inviere

Anyone want a $10 voucher for the Eaglemoss shop?

Spon Farmer

Is the forthcoming series with Patrick Stewart going to TNG series* or is it more likely going to be a "Star Trek Picard" were the other cast members may turn up from time to time in guest roles?

EDIT: * As in bring the TNG actors back as the main cast

Spear

Spon Farmer wrote: »

Is the forthcoming series with Patrick Stewart going to TNG series* or is it more likely going to be a "Star Trek Picard" were the other cast members may turn up from time to time in guest roles?

EDIT: * As in bring the TNG actors back as the main cast

The others on the TNG cast have publicly said they've not been asked anything so far, but it's still early days.

Evade

I think Patrick Stewart is the only only one confirmed to be in the Picard series so far so it's definitely not TNG 2.0 and might not even have any familiar face but that would be a misstep.

Spon Farmer

I just read that Dorn said he doesn't want to sit through the make up process for any sort of cameo.

Wouldn't blame him.

Spon Farmer

Evade wrote: »

I think Patrick Stewart is the only only one confirmed to be in the Picard series so far so it's definitely not TNG 2.0 and might not even have any familiar face but that would be a misstep.

It would be a shame if the old crew weren't back as the main cast.

I don't want them to be a crew again - Riker has his own command now and the other should also have gone their separate ways - but it should definitely be a "TNG 2.0".

Evade

Spon Farmer wrote: »

I just read that Dorn said he doesn't want to sit through the make up process for any sort of cameo.

Wouldn't blame him.

I wonder if it still takes as long as it did the last time he had it done or could they get away with some CGI or Worf could be really into hats in his old age.

Spon Farmer

Evade wrote: »

I wonder if it still takes as long as it did the last time he had it done or could they get away with some CGI or Worf could be really into hats in his old age.

The Klingon make up on Discovery looks even more heavy going as so I think it is the same as what Dorn sat through.