Star Trek and Idealism vs cynicism

[Micah Sweet]

Some of the discussion about the section 31 movie got me thinking and i figured it should be it's own thread. We all know that when roddenberry started the Star Trek universe, it was meant to be hopeful and very idealistic about humanity's future (along with a commentary on contemporary issues) but then things slowly started to change.

I think how you feel about the existence of S31 comes down to how idealistic you think ST should be overall.

I liked how DS9 showed that everything outside the core of the federation wasn't all sunshine and rainbows and that it asked the question "What does it take to keep it that way?"

So, how do you feel about Star trek leaning into cynicism?

I care about worldbuilding more than anything else, so making the world feel as real as possible within the context of the setting is very important to me. I figure that the idealism of Roddenberry is literally an ideal to aspire to, easier to do the more you live and/or grew up in the post-scarcity core of the Federation (although even there plenty of folks, some of them not even Starfleet admirals, will compromise those ideals in order to "protect" them). Our Federation mains mote or less fall into that idealistic category, which is why stories like that of Picard post-TNG are without a doubt tragic, but to my mind understandable.

In short, cynicism is part of the setting, the part that makes it feel like a real place with real people. The philosophical battleground of Star Trek is what makes the setting so compelling to me. This is why I tend to look askance at Treks that feel too action-oriented (like Discovery often did). That stuff is a side dish to me, not an entree.

 

[MarkB]

I don't mind the Federation having a dark underbelly. No institution is perfect, as we've seen in all Star Trek shows. To maintain the ideals of the Federation, sometimes you have to do what needs to get done, and it should always always be considered a last resort that idealistic realist despise.

Can you maintain an ideal by breaking it?

 

[Micah Sweet]

In the Pale Moonlight was meant to be a difficult and thoughtful episode and outside the norm. But the point was to have to make an impossible choice when otherwise faced with disaster.

Section 31 isn't that, its lets proactively do horrible things because (we think) the ends are justified.


Disagree. The first and second seasons of discovery are REALLY cynical (Captain Pike mostly excepted - great take on a Start Trek Captain). And the first two seasons of Picard double down. The whole plot line of the Federation making its decisions out of fear and ignorance? IMO, completely wrong direction



Original Trek didn't always get it right, but it tried and was progressive for it's time. It's sad that much of New Trek, in it's attempt to be edgy and "relevant" is actually regressive.

But they've shown they CAN get it right, Lower Decks and Strange New Worlds are great shows with great messages.

See to me the whole point of that story in Picard was that the Federation had suffered a tragedy and lost their way. They were in the wrong.

For the record, I am about to watch the new movie, so I'll let you know my take in a couple hours.

 

[Mort]

For the record, I am about to watch the new movie, so I'll let you know my take in a couple hours.

Sorry in advance!

 

[Mort]

See to me the whole point of that story in Picard was that the Federation had suffered a tragedy and lost their way. They were in the wrong.

Sure, I get that. But to me, one tragedy shouldn't be able to tip the Federation from a utopia to a dystopia. If it can, than all the progress (through really hard times) was illusory.

The whole point is humanity is actually supposed to be better (better not perfect), not just appear to be better to the uninitiated. There are plenty enough stories to be told from this angle, without implying that all the progress is a facade.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sure, I get that. But to me, one tragedy shouldn't be able to tip the Federation from a utopia to a dystopia. If it can, than all the progress (through really hard times) was illusory.

The whole point is humanity is actually supposed to be better (better not perfect), not just appear to be better to the uninitiated. There are plenty enough stories to be told from this angle, without implying that all the progress is a facade.

I always liked the Mark Twain episode on TNG when he just can't believe they have created a society that works and is constantly looking for some sign that something isn't right. Again I love a good cynical social fiction story or science fiction film. That isn't what star trek was. It is not what drew me to star trek.

Also this just seems like a major misuse of Michelle Yeoh's acting talent

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, I get that. But to me, one tragedy shouldn't be able to tip the Federation from a utopia to a dystopia. If it can, than all the progress (through really hard times) was illusory.

The whole point is humanity is actually supposed to be better (better not perfect), not just appear to be better to the uninitiated. There are plenty enough stories to be told from this angle, without implying that all the progress is a facade.

I would certainly have liked more nuance than we got, but the principle made sense to me in general.

 

[Mort]

I would certainly have liked more nuance than we got, but the principle made sense to me in general.

It didn't help that (in Picard) the whole basis of the conspiracy was just (IMO) so profoundly stupid.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I care about worldbuilding more than anything else, so making the world feel as real as possible within the context of the setting is very important to me. I figure that the idealism of Roddenberry is literally an ideal to aspire to, easier to do the more you live and/or grew up in the post-scarcity core of the Federation (although even there plenty of folks, some of them not even Starfleet admirals, will compromise those ideals in order to "protect" them). Our Federation mains mote or less fall into that idealistic category, which is why stories like that of Picard post-TNG are without a doubt tragic, but to my mind understandable.

In short, cynicism is part of the setting, the part that makes it feel like a real place with real people. The philosophical battleground of Star Trek is what makes the setting so compelling to me. This is why I tend to look askance at Treks that feel too action-oriented (like Discovery often did). That stuff is a side dish to me, not an entree.

I don't know. I go to franchises like Babylon 5 for that. It isn't like they didn't have plot lines like this in the past (TNG had a whole seasonal arc about corruption). But I think those plots generally have been weaker when they have appeared in Star Trek. That doesn't mean you can't have conflict or nuance, but I do think Star Trek doesn't work as well when it is trying to be something like the Walking Dead. To me that is like Mr. Rogers putting out a rap album. Nothing wrong with rap. Nothing wrong with Mr. Rogers. But they don't fit. Also so much of this stuff feels kind of lazy and old hat at this point. Maybe twenty years ago a show that took a more cynical look at the federation would have been surprising. But every show now inverts that kind of trope (the hero is really the bad guy, the ideal you believed in was a lie, etc).

I have to admit I like my Star Trek to be on the slow, space hotel side. What I always liked about the show was a lot the gripping moments revolved around diplomacy and conversations.

 

[Ryujin]

I don't know. I go to franchises like Babylon 5 for that. It isn't like they didn't have plot lines like this in the past (TNG had a whole seasonal arc about corruption). But I think those plots generally have been weaker when they have appeared in Star Trek. That doesn't mean you can't have conflict or nuance, but I do think Star Trek doesn't work as well when it is trying to be something like the Walking Dead. To me that is like Mr. Rogers putting out a rap album. Nothing wrong with rap. Nothing wrong with Mr. Rogers. But they don't fit. Also so much of this stuff feels kind of lazy and old hat at this point. Maybe twenty years ago a show that took a more cynical look at the federation would have been surprising. But every show now inverts that kind of trope (the hero is really the bad guy, the ideal you believed in was a lie, etc).

I have to admit I like my Star Trek to be on the slow, space hotel side. What I always liked about the show was a lot the gripping moments revolved around diplomacy and conversations.

Agree completely. For me, the best Star Trek always hammered home the moral of the story with words, not 'splosions. "In the Pale Moonlight" is such a great episode because it ends with Cisco essentially trying to convince himself that he can live with what he has done. I'm not so sure that he really can, despite the words used, because he's a fundamentally moral man. I think that the episode would have omitted that ending, if it wasn't a question to be asked in all seriousness.