From Janeway, Picard and Sisko to modern Star Trek: what happened to the ethical future we were once asked to imagine?
I have been watching Picard, and I am genuinely surprised by how much the ethical structure of Star Trek has changed.
I am not talking about nostalgia, and I am not saying that characters should remain exactly the same for thirty years.
I am talking about something much more fundamental.
TNG, DS9 and Voyager were built around an ethical premise that, for me, was one of the strongest elements of Star Trek:
THE END DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS.
This principle appeared again and again.
Characters could make mistakes. They could become angry, afraid, traumatised or confused. They could even cross ethical lines.
But the line existed.
And when they crossed it, Star Trek stopped and examined what that meant.
That was the difference.
The characters did not simply ask:
Can we do this?
They asked:
Do we have the right to do this? What will this choice make us? What responsibility comes with the power we have?
Voyager is probably the clearest example.
They were trying to cross an impossible distance to return home. They could have justified almost anything through survival.
But they did not.
Again and again they accepted a longer journey, greater risk and personal sacrifice because reaching home could not justify destroying another civilisation, exploiting another species or abandoning the principles they represented.
That was not weakness.
That was the entire point.
Humanity had evolved technologically, but Star Trek proposed that perhaps we could also evolve ethically.
And this is where I struggle enormously with Picard.
Picard himself feels fundamentally different.
The Picard I knew could certainly be wrong, but his reasoning had extraordinary internal coherence. He questioned himself. He debated. He understood that being captain was not simply having authority — it was carrying responsibility for how that authority was used.
The new Picard often feels reactive, impulsive and strangely ineffective.
For me, that is not simply “an older and more vulnerable Picard”.
It changes the architecture of the character.
And Seven of Nine is even more difficult for me.
Seven was one of the characters I identified with most.
Her journey in Voyager was not simply about becoming emotional or “more human”.
It was about learning how to be human while maintaining discipline, logic and integrity.
She struggled with identity, belonging and emotion, but what made her extraordinary was precisely her effort not to become governed by impulse.
She could be wrong. She could be severe. She could misunderstand human behaviour.
But revenge was never the foundation of the character.
Her relationship with the Doctor was particularly important because both of them were learning what humanity meant almost from the outside. Their logic often exposed the inconsistencies of ordinary human behaviour.
Now I find Seven driven by anger, punishment and revenge.
At times she feels closer to a Klingon archetype than to Seven of Nine.
For me, this is not character development.
It is a different character.
And the change goes beyond Picard and Seven.
The entire universe feels different.
The older Star Trek made an extraordinary effort to maintain coherence.
Character coherence.
Ethical coherence.
Political coherence.
And even scientific coherence, as far as science fiction could reasonably achieve it.
Of course there were mistakes across hundreds of episodes, but you could feel that the writers cared about the rules of the universe they were creating.
A decision made years earlier could still matter.
A species had a culture and internal logic.
Technology had rules.
Characters carried the consequences of what they had experienced.
And most importantly, Star Trek was never simply fantasy in space.
It was asking something.
What could humanity become if we improved?
Not if we became perfect.
If we improved.
What would happen if curiosity became stronger than conquest?
If responsibility became stronger than ego?
If knowledge created an obligation rather than simply power?
If we learned that having the ability to do something did not automatically give us the moral right to do it?
That was what made Star Trek different from ordinary science fiction.
It was not the Enterprise.
It was not warp drive.
It was not aliens.
It was the idea that the future could contain people who had learned something that we still struggle to understand today.
I started watching Star Trek when I was around 18, and this philosophy genuinely influenced the way I grew up.
I saw many things I already believed in expressed in a more evolved society, and it made those principles feel possible rather than naïve.
Responsibility mattered.
Integrity mattered.
The method mattered as much as the result.
The end did not justify the means.
DS9 challenged this perhaps more
- JANEWAY — Caretaker THE COST OF DOING WHAT IS RIGHT
“I’m not willing to trade the lives of the Ocampa for our convenience.”
JANEWAY — CARETAKER 70,000 light-years from home. The easier way home would cost someone else their future. She refuses.
- PICARD — I, Borg POWER DOES NOT CREATE THE RIGHT TO USE IT
Caption:
PICARD — I, BORG He could destroy the enemy that once destroyed him. Having the power does not give him the right.
- SISKO — In the Pale Moonlight WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE END DOES JUSTIFY THE MEANS?
Caption:
SISKO — IN THE PALE MOONLIGHT He crosses the line — and he wins. The episode is about the moral price of that victory.
JANEWAY I will sacrifice our advantage rather than sacrifice them.
PICARD I will not become my enemy in order to defeat him.
SISKO I crossed the line to save millions — now I have to live with what I became.
When did Star Trek stop making the moral cost the story — and start treating moral compromise simply as character development?
Yeah. One thing Im not wild about trek since ds9 is a sorta slippery slope. Increasinglingly the franchise has become more typical space opera over what it was. Much like what we are seeing in our actual society it was slow at first but yeah everything in the new trek era is sci fi but kinda no longer feels trek.
Part way reading through that, I began to wonder, the when, and what was happening then, …
It seems, Trek lost its way in this moral regard, after Voyager, …so, after 2001. 2001… so, after the PNAC plan kicked into action with their unifying false flag terror attack?
Can’t help also wonder about maybe the slippage had already begun earlier… perhaps, showing the fringe of the federation, evoked, in a “what if all art a tool of manifestation” sense, sanctuary districts. Overdue mends… Where’s our Bell?
And as I near the end, I think of the pale moonlight, and yup, you rightly mention it too. … It’s haunting, as Sisko closes the episode, trying to convince himself he is okay with it. New fake trek would have just blasted past that like it was nothing of consideration at all.
I’m glad there are others who see this too, and can put it to words as well as you have there. Good stuff. Maybe we who care about the essence of trek can revive trek. … I’ve already got various notes taken for an outline for a new trek in the same spirit as TNG, DS9 and VOY, accumulating over years. I wont be the only one. … How long before some start to churn it out via LLM? [Edit: <- Oh look, that’d be like thinking the ends justify the means.] I’d rather make it for real.
All the whitewashing narcissistic sadistic psychopathic machiavelianism, as seen in the fake trek (especially the most recent), is clearly not star trek.
The older Star Trek made an extraordinary effort to maintain coherence.
Character coherence.
Ethical coherence.
Political coherence.
And even scientific coherence, as far as science fiction could reasonably achieve it.
And it can be again. :)
Make it so.
That was not weakness. That was the entire point.
Okay, chatgpt. 🙄
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted, I was already convinced it was LLM generated and I didn’t even notice that bit. The fact that their response to you is completely different seals it.
You’re surprised that someone writes differently when writing a long post about something they obviously care about vs responding to a baseless accusation that only warrants half a thought? Care to elaborate?
Do you sincerely want to understand or are you just trying to argue?
I sincerely don’t understand what would lead you to think the post is AI written, I was enjoying reading people discuss Star Trek before coming across this AI thread, and after having my human written comment called AI not too long ago it bothers me to see what seems to me like earnest writing be called AI.
That’s where I’m coming from when I say that I’m willing to argue, but I follow the core tenets of arguing I learned in philosophy 101 to assume the other person (you) have something worth saying and that questions of meaning come before questions of truth. I’m open to being wrong, but I haven’t seen anything to convince me that I am.
After reading this thread I went back and skimmed through the first several lines of the post with an eye for AI/human indicators, and found three things that gave the impression of a human touch before coming back and writing my comment. First, there was a sentence in all caps, which seems weird for an LLM to do as I believe they usually go for a more neutral tone that’s antithetical to digital shouting. Second, 7o9_99 skipped the oxford comma in at least one place and a cursory internet search tells me that LLMs tend to make full use of that.
But the big thing that I feel bad saying but easily overlooked while reading it for the content is that the post is terribly formatted. My experience has been that LLMs write nice looking paragraphs, and if it does break things out into single lines it tends to do so with bullet points. This post breaks out each sentence into a new line instead of using any real paragraphs that reads to me like a person’s stream of consciousness rather than the more structured writing of an LLM. I guess you could argue they went through and hit enter everywhere to add the new lines but that seems like more work than an LLM user would be willing to put in.
Does that make sense?
no dear is my text and my reflections
I highly doubt that, but in case it’s true, consider not allowing yourself to be brainwashed so thoroughly by LLM writing patterns.
As someone who has used em-dashes, semicolons, and other punctuation (including bullets and spacing) for clarity and emphasis since adolescence, fuck that.
This person’s using proper grammar. GET 'EM!
Removed by mod
The conflict should not come from within the ship and starfleet should feel professional. Corruption should not be a part of future utopia. Less swearing and tantrums pls. A modern show should feel more utopian, with humanity ever closer to replacing the q.
Oh please. Surely we’re of better moral character than the Q already [On the bridge of the Enterprise D]. At least by example of the mischievous loud one most seen. We can do far better at aiming high, than to aspire to Q. … “What was it they called you on Brax, the god of lies?”
Power has clearly corrupted the Q. In humanity’s current state, power would corrupt them. Is corrupting them. In TNG, whether power would corrupt the average Federation citizen was an open question. In Discovery and Strange New Worlds and Academy, the answer was obviously yes.
In Lower Decks… once more, an open question.
Really enjoyed this post.
I enjoy Strange New Worlds for the most part, and most of the recent series I think I like better than the loud complainers (nothing wrong with that, mind)… I think what bothers me more than the end-means problem is that it seems like everyone talks endlessly about whatever the current crisis is, and the talking seems to 1) not be interrupted by the critical time of the crisis and 2) do most of the problem solving. As in, they stop the action, take time to talk it all out, and then do whatever magical thing magically fixes the problem that we will never see or hear of ever again. It all works out perfectly, and everyone’s emotional needs are met. (except where they’re trying to create ongoing drama otherwise).
I guess it would make for a boring show if crises happened as quickly as they do IRL, and if repairs took as long as they would IRL, but I think they’ve gone WAY too far the other direction on being to talk their way out of any crisis (with a little exciting shaky-camera thrown in)
Yes, I think this is part of the same problem.
Talking was always central to Star Trek, but the dialogue used to build the solution. It clarified the ethical problem, the scientific constraints, the risks and the consequences. You understood why a decision was made and what it would cost.
Now, too often, the talking feels detached from the actual mechanics of the crisis. Everyone processes the situation emotionally, then a solution appears, works almost perfectly, and the consequences disappear with the episode.
For me, the issue is not that they talk too much. It is that the reasoning no longer feels structurally connected to the outcome.
Old Trek could spend ten minutes in a briefing room, but by the end of those ten minutes you understood the problem better.
That made the resolution feel earned.
Now it can feel as if the emotional conversation is the resolution. …
I enjoy Strange New Worlds fo
I’ve never managed to get that far. Because (like is stated and elaborated upon in the original post)…
The entire universe feels different.
Breaking coherence very early on in the first episode, to such an extreme, I cannot bring myself to carry on watching. It’s like someone forgot the brief on what and who Vulcans are, what their culture’s like, and did not pass it on to writers, directors, nor actors.
I can understand that. It didn’t bother me as much. The singing episode I skipped large parts of (although they actually had an in-universe explanation, I still rolled my eyes so hard they hurt for a few hours).
I think, for the most part, that they sort of have captured some of the more classic Trek feel, but… specific things might bother specific people, e.g. you and the Vulcans. So I wouldn’t encourage you to take another look because it’d annoy you. heh.
But… I stuck with Discovery. I liked some of what they did, disliked a lot, but it ended up mostly alright, except for the whole emo-talky thing on crack.
I think I might not be a hardcore Trek fan, though. I tend to prefer my sci-fi a bit harder (The Expanse was GREAT - books and show; growing up I read lots of Asimov. And Heinlein and the other classic era authors, but Asimov was my favorite). With the exception of Andor, while I grew up adoring the original three, I hated the prequels, was fine with the sequels, and have been meh on most of the other media (baby yoda was fun but the series got old imho) - with the exception of Andor which I think it one of the top shows of all time ever in any genre. heh.
I’ll probably watch just about any new Trek series. I like enough about most of them to overcome any things I dislike. :)
But I can totally respect a viewpoint like yours.
I can understand that. It didn’t bother me as much. The singing episode …
Glad I didn’t go further.
I wonder how much of it is habit. DS9 thoughtfully examined the idea, and then Voyager did so much more loosely given the desperation level. Then Enterprise often had them fall short on this, because it’s the beginning of Starfleet- they’re the reason the rules are being written, that’s the point. Then Disco S1 was both wartime, although by now that was more of an excuse than the point like it was in DS9, and also you had the mirror captain. By the time Picard rolled around, it had accidentially just become habitual and reflexive. The idiom of Trek became looking at the line over your shoulder
You’re absolutely right, it’s not the same. I refuse to watch the new franchise because I find it depresses me. It’s so far off from the shows I know and love.
I think it’s hard to blame one person for its divergence, so I blame them all. Cast, creators, producers, and writers equally.
What I like to say is that Star Trek: Picard (STP) is so bad it tries to retroactively drag Star Trek: The Next Generation (TNG) down with it. If you take STP as canon, it means the Federation and one of its best Captains were lying all along about having principles. Red Letter Media did an excellent analysis of how terrible it was, and it depressed the hell out of them. Alex Kurtzman is so much of a hack he didn’t even bother asking why Star Trek is great, he just went straight for generic action sci-fi with interpersonal conflicts
I wish this was a real discussion prompt and not a (probably LLM-assisted) rant disguised as a question because as it reads now it’s just more of this:
If you don’t like something, that’s fine, but getting upset because [new thing] is different than [childhood thing] is not productive.
your udnerstanding is superficial. I suggest you to read again , understand better, and judge less
The fact that your writing in this response is so different than the post and other lengthy comments makes me wonder if my LLM assumption was correct.
There is such a thing as too many paragraphs.
Sadly, not everyone is familiar with markdown.
On a slightly unrelated note:
What’s up with double-spacing every sentence?
It’s really
annoying to read
if you ask me.
I think you are partially trapped in nostalgia. Star Trek has never been this philosophically pure. Picard broke the Prime Directive in S1 by having contact with the Edo. And then regrettably prevented them from executing Wesley for trespassing a flower bed. Either should’ve cost him his command.
When Data has an inappropriate chat with a girl on a dying planet, JLP jokes with Riker about the level the shit is up to for them. And there are no palpable consequences for any of this behaviour.
Picard doesn’t feel like he should plant the Borg bug in Hugh. Admiral Valarian Canapés wholeheartedly disagrees. And while I like Picard’s reasoning, from a ten thousand foot perspective I agree with her. With the benefit of hindsight, it would have prevented the best TNG movie from existing but perhaps we would have also been spared Picard S2-3.
Late TNG and early DS9 with the introduction of Starfleet Al Qaeda, i.e. the Marquis, is a turning point for me. We get more stories that are more grey. Star Trek went from Kirk coming to a planet, telling the inhabitants their culture was stupid, to more contemporarily thoughtful treatments of ethical and moral conundrums in a utopian world, to seeing where utopia rubs up against the rest of the galaxy that isn’t there yet. Starfleet and the Federation are no longer exclusively the good guys. Sisko poisons an atmosphere just to catch one traitor and gets away with it. WTF?
Janeway gets a pass from me for most of her bad decisions because she tried and had to figure stuff out by herself. Tuvix be damned!
Enterprise also exists.
Third wave Trek is more grey than Marquis era Trek. It’s more CGI and action oriented because they can. That saves a couple of pages of dialogue otherwise spent on ethics. It’s different just like TNG was different from TOS. But it isn’t a radical change if you ask me.
Early TNG isn’t great until they stabilised the writers room. And then there is a continuation of development through DS9 and even into ENT. (Unfortunately including grade A assholes.) “Chaos on the bridge” is the default for Disco and Picard. And that’s why they often tell weird stories that don’t match up with what came before. They try to do Trek in the now passé golden age of television. And failed a lot imo.
Of all the third wave Trek, I’m most fond of Lower Decks. Because it doesn’t take itself too seriously and is littered with easter eggs. Disco S2 is good. Most of SNW S1-3. Picard had moments in it but that’s it. My heart’s not in it any more. I watch it because I see we are entering another content drought. I even enjoy SNW S4, not because I think it’s good Star Trek but because it’s a middle finger to Paramount for no longer financing any new projects.
What’s up with double-spacing every sentence?
One of the multiple hallmarks of LLM text found in this post/some of OPs comments.
I think there’s more to Lower Decks.
Lower Decks shows a crew that’s certainly not as professional and dignified as the TNG-era ones but also one that still feels like the crews we saw back then. They might have issues but they’re also dedicated professionals and they’re all interested in becoming better versions of themselves. Even Mariner, who has a whole menagerie of deep-seated issues, manages to work through them with the help of her fellow lower deckers (and sometimes even the bridge crew).
“Cerritos strong” may be a particularly blunt implementation of the Starfleet ethos but it is one. The idea that they’re all in this together and they’re all working towards a better future for everyone underpins everything the characters do, even when they get drunk off contraband hooch. Ultimately, Lower Decks shows that flawed individuals can come together and achieve great things and that you don’t have to be Jean-Luc Picard to do the right thing.
The show highlights the silliness of the Star Trek universe but it also takes a firm stance on the side of idealism at a time when the writing room seems to be staffed by 1990s comic writers.
I don’t think nostalgia is the issue.
I’m not saying old Star Trek was morally pure. DS9 in particular had characters crossing serious ethical lines. My point is that the line mattered: when someone crossed it, the story examined the moral cost.
What feels different in Picard is not that it is darker. It is the loss of ethical and character coherence. Too often the characters seem to react as the plot requires, rather than from the moral architecture built around them over decades.
Seven is the clearest example for me. Of course she should change after twenty years. But moving from discipline, logic, self-control and the struggle to build an ethical individual identity toward revenge and punishment needs a convincing bridge. I don’t see enough of that bridge.
Old Trek repeatedly asked:
We can do this — but should we?
Sometimes the characters answered badly. But the consequences of that answer were part of the story.
That is what I miss. Not the 1990s. Not old sets. The coherence and the ethics.
I hear you. You think crossing the line mattered in 80s+ Trek but it doesn’t now. I don’t think that’s true. Sisko poisoning a planet is one of the examples where it clearly didn’t. But should have. So nostalgia is the only thing I could come up with to explain why you like the older and dislike the new stuff.
I don’t want to be in a position where I have to defend Picard, the show. Half of S1 is okay and then it goes off the rails. There are moments in it that are good. Overall, it’s a mess. One aspect that they did well is that they show a hero aging. Kurt Corbain will always be an icon because he ended his life early. So we were spared his ideas on COVID, Q Anon, or pick another hot button issue later in life or albums continually deteriorating in quality. With Picard they wanted to show consequences and chisel away at the icon a bit. The trauma of being borgified. His being sidelined for his unwillingness to bend to his superiors’ will. Why they had to bring his parents into it will be the writers’ secret. But they show consequences of lines being crossed. One of them is him standing rightly on his professional principles. It sounds to me this is exactly the stuff you’re missing and they built the whole S1 premise on it.
Burnham getting to be captain is about as realistic as chubby Kirk being demoted back to Captain.
Just want to say to both of you that this type of discussion about Star Trek is the best and it’s why I love the show.
You both make such great points, and exemplify for me why sitting around in the conference room talking about a tense situation was so important in old Trek. Different viewpoints can both be important enough to be presented in the discussion.
I think we are mixing two different things: consequences in a character’s biography and ethical consequences as part of the storytelling.
Yes, Picard shows consequences: ageing, Borg trauma, losing his position, conflict with Starfleet. I am not denying that at all. My point is that this is not the same thing as the older Trek habit of stopping and asking:
Was this action right? Was it proportionate? Did we have the right to do it? What responsibility follows from it?
That distinction matters.
Sisko poisoning the Maquis colony is actually a good example of where old Trek itself failed to examine something as deeply as it should have. I can criticise that episode too. I am not claiming every old episode was ethically perfect.
I am talking about the overall narrative architecture.
Across TNG, DS9 and Voyager, ethical reasoning was repeatedly built into the story itself. Characters had recognisable moral structures, and those structures were so consistent that in several episodes a change in behaviour was enough for the others — and for us — to realise that someone had been replaced, possessed or manipulated. That level of trust came from coherence.
That is what I find weaker in Picard.
Seven can move from a character built around discipline, restraint, logic and moral self-construction to revenge and vigilante violence, without the story really earning that transformation.
Jurati can kill Maddox while manipulated — and I am not saying she should necessarily have been punished; she might well have been cleared — but older Trek would likely have made the question itself part of the story: coercion, responsibility, guilt, consent, manipulation. Instead the explanation largely replaces the ethical examination.
And with Picard himself, my objection is not that he is old, traumatised or imperfect. I actually find that potentially interesting. My objection is when his established way of reasoning disappears because the plot needs him to react differently.
So no, I am not asking for morally perfect characters or consequence-free heroes.
I am asking for ethical coherence.
Old Trek could show someone doing the wrong thing. But very often, the fact that it was wrong — and why — was the story.
That is the difference I am talking about.
As I said before: I don’t want to be the guy who defends PIC … Jurati being justifiably imprisoned or at least institutionalised may have also spared us S2. Who am I to argue with that?
I’m thinking of Quark who burgled, sabotaged, schemed, snuggled, bought more than one child from the GQuad, and engaged in weapons trade and remained for the most part a comedic diversion character 7 series long. No consequences and maybe the thinnest veneer of looking at any of his decisions from an ethical POV. That’s another reason why I don’t perceive the difference you describe.
We could probably go back and forth a couple of more times here but maybe we leave it at that? Just tell me in no more than a paragraph: Tuvix. Janeway yay or Janeway nay? I’m just curious.
Just want to say to both of you that this type of discussion about Star Trek is the best and it’s why I love the show.
You both make such great points, and exemplify for me why sitting around in the conference room talking about a tense situation was so important in old Trek. Different viewpoints can both be important enough to be presented in the discussion.
Removed by mod
J.J. Abrams killed it and it’s been Marvelized since then.
Or maybe it was dead before that, maybe Malcolm McDowell did it
Enterprise and Nemesis killed it, he revived interest.
Shut up.
What’s wrong with Enterprise, aside from it’s shit finale? I always liked it.
Wrongness is in the eye of the beholder but ENT did not do well with the audiences that UPN needed to sell ads.
Do you have any particular examples of the “the ends justify the means” attitude you seem to think is so prevalent now?
Yes sure a lot and a lot… but Seven is the clearest example for me.
In Voyager, she repeatedly learns to restrain impulse, revenge and Borg-style utilitarian logic in favour of individual rights and ethical judgement. In Picard, she becomes a vigilante and ultimately kills Bjayzl out of revenge even after Picard explicitly challenges that choice. … she changed is nto mroe seven of nibe and all the character behind…
More broadly, Picard normalises extrajudicial violence, revenge and “necessary” moral compromise much more than TNG/Voyager did. My point is not that older Trek never crossed those lines . DS9 absolutely did. The difference is that older Trek usually made crossing the line itself the ethical problem of the story.
That distinction matters to me: not “nobody ever does wrong”, but the narrative still knows that the means require moral scrutiny.
In Picard, she becomes a vigilante and ultimately kills Bjayzl out of revenge even after Picard explicitly challenges that choice.
And you believe the show was endorsing the fact that she did it? Portrayal of an act is not an endorsement of that act. Seven did plenty of shady stuff on Voyager, from trying to take over the ship to disobeying orders and waking up the Vaadwaur.
That distinction matters to me: not “nobody ever does wrong”, but the narrative still knows that the means require moral scrutiny.
You seem very determined to make the case that the new shows don’t provide that, but I simply don’t agree.
Enterprise got pretty rough in seasons 2-3. But that was a reaction to 9/11 and yeah a lot of people kinda had their minds broken by that.
Which I think alludes to the crux of the issue: Star Trek does not REALLY take place in the 23rd century: it takes place on a series of soundstages in Los Angeles in the twentieth and twenty-first century.
Each show is an examination of the values of the moment as we want to believe ourselves. Earlier Trek was filmed in a more optimistic age; later Trek was filmed in a more jaded, bitter, cynical age. And it shows.
This is one of the reasons I love Lower Decks so much, btw: aside from the jokes, it embraces the corny wholesomeness of the Berman & Braga era. I think Strange New Worlds might. I’m curious how it feels. I haven’t watched it much.
That’s the best part of science fiction. On the one hand, it’s a mirror. “See, even with all their technology, they’re still people. They’re still us. Look at what we are” But on the other hand it’s a place to play with and practice ideas. “Look at what we can become.”
The best of Star Trek, I think, is the “look at what we can become.” But if things are rough out there, it turns into “look at what we are.” And it’s rough out there.
Exactly. For me, Star Trek was never just science fiction. It was always a human question: what could we become if we genuinely chose to become better?
Even TOS, rough as it was, was already pushing boundaries — putting Uhura, a not only white skin and woman, on the command and imagining a future where that was simply normal. The same principle continued through the franchise: different planets and species were rarely just “aliens”; they reflected real cultures, conflicts, prejudices and political or social problems from our own world, but displaced far enough to let us examine them differently.
Even the science was treated with unusual discipline. Much of it was speculative, of course, but it was usually extrapolated from real scientific ideas rather than used as random fantasy. The strength of Star Trek was coherence — scientific, cultural, ethical and psychological.
That is why “look at what we can become” matters so much more to me than “look at what we are.”
If the future simply reproduces our present cynicism, ego, revenge and moral shortcuts with better technology, then we have advanced technologically, but not as human beings.
And Star Trek’s most radical idea was always that perhaps we could do both.
That’s very well put.
it takes place on a series of soundstages in Los Angeles in the twentieth and twenty-first century.
Earlier Trek was filmed in a more optimistic age; later Trek was filmed in a more jaded, bitter, cynical age. And it shows.
This really sums up the huge difference in attitude and tone.
And even then…they got there in the end. It was rather the point of the arc.
Doesn’t NuTrek glorify Section 31, which is basically just that?
I always think about that TNG episode where the enterprise comes across that phase shifting technology but ultimately destroys it since it’s too close to stealth tech.
NuTrek would probably use it to 9/11 Romulus’s sun’s core and wipe their home world out just to stir up drama. I think the second part was a plot point in Picard so it wouldn’t be hard for them to insert either lol
Star Trek Discovery did an entire season arc about how Section 31 almost wiped out all intelligent life in the galaxy because they thought the ends justify the means. So that kind of makes me wonder whether you or OP have actually engaged with the thing you’re criticizing.
Doesn’t NuTrek glorify Section 31, which is basically just that?
Arguably in the movie, though they didn’t do anything particularly immoral in it.
Beyond that, not even a little bit. They’re still the bad guys.
NuTrek would probably use it to 9/11 Romulus’s sun’s core and wipe their home world out just to stir up drama.
If you have to conjure examples out of thin air, it’s possible your argument isn’t as strong as you think it is.
I’m not conjuring examples, I’m having a toilet thought. I think I got a stomach bug or food poisoning
Not everything is an argument
I think I got a stomach bug or food poisoning
I feel you. I’ve been going through it this weekend, myself. Flu season came early.
Flu is the worst, hopefully you’re not blowing chunks
I’m pissed Covid isn’t important enough any more to merit a free vaccine, both those illnesses are hellish
