Star Trek and Idealism vs cynicism

[Ryujin]

It isn't. And I think farming this as 'an inability to see possibilities" when people have clearly stated they like it in other media is not an accurate representation of what folks are saying. Ifpeople are totally fine with cynicism in entertainment in general, but just don't like it in Star Trek. That doesnt' mean they are uncomfortable with the concepts. It just means that isn't what they want when they go to that franchise. It just doesn't fit the show for them. It feels like an awkward fit

I love me a good dystopian Cyberpunk story. Star Trek isn't for that. I need it for when I'm living in the dystopia and want to forget about that, for a while.

 

[pukunui]

It isn't. And I think farming this as 'an inability to see possibilities" when people have clearly stated they like it in other media is not an accurate representation of what folks are saying. Ifpeople are totally fine with cynicism in entertainment in general, but just don't like it in Star Trek. That doesnt' mean they are uncomfortable with the concepts. It just means that isn't what they want when they go to that franchise. It just doesn't fit the show for them. It feels like an awkward fit

I’m OK with some dystopia in Star Trek. I just don’t want it to be at the heart of the Federation and in an officially sanctioned way.

If Section 31 was some kind of conspiracy to undermine the Federation, that would probably be OK. It’s the idea that some top-level Starfleet officials created Section 31 and subsequent top-level officials have continued to sanction its activities for over a century is what I don’t like.

One thing I’ll note: there didn’t appear to be any Section 31 elements on the far-future Starfleet as seen in the later seasons of Discovery.

While it was sad to see the Federation in a diminished form, one thing I liked about those seasons was the hopeful rebuilding of the Federation to be a genuine force for good in the Galaxy again.

 

[payn]

It isn't. And I think farming this as 'an inability to see possibilities" when people have clearly stated they like it in other media is not an accurate representation of what folks are saying. Ifpeople are totally fine with cynicism in entertainment in general, but just don't like it in Star Trek. That doesnt' mean they are uncomfortable with the concepts. It just means that isn't what they want when they go to that franchise. It just doesn't fit the show for them. It feels like an awkward fit

Well, coupled with your Mr rogers cant make a rap album and its ok over here but not over there seems like a distinct categorization that leaves an inability to see the possibility. Its ok, when, and only when, you think it is.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, coupled with your Mr rogers cant make a rap album and its ok over here but not over there seems like a distinct categorization that leaves an inability to see the possibility. Its ok, when, and only when, you think it is.

Not at all. I just was using Mr Rogers as a ridiculous example to show sometimes a cool concept doesn't work in certain hands (because it just feels off for whatever reason). Also I am not the arbiter of what is okay for you or anyone else. I am just saying what I come to Star Trek for. I am not telling you you shouldn't be able to enjoy the new series or the new movies

 

[Bedrockgames]

I’m OK with some dystopia in Star Trek. I just don’t want it to be at the heart of the Federation and in an officially sanctioned way.

If Section 31 was some kind of conspiracy to undermine the Federation, that would probably be OK. It’s the idea that some top-level Starfleet officials created Section 31 and subsequent top-level officials have continued to sanction its activities for over a century is what I don’t like.

One thing I’ll note: there didn’t appear to be any Section 31 elements on the far-future Starfleet as seen in the later seasons of Discovery.

While it was sad to see the Federation in a diminished form, one thing I liked about those seasons was the hopeful rebuilding of the Federation to be a genuine force for good in the Galaxy again.

I think I know what you mean here. It is maybe an odd example to bring up but one show that kind of went off the rails for me in this respect was Torchwood. I loved the first two seasons, and while I know a lot of people like the 3rd and 4th more than the first two, I really enjoyed the tone and approach it had originally. It was still dark, but by season three it felt as if the show runner had watched too much 24 and wanted to to turn it into a 24-like series, which for me just didn't work as much

 

[MarkB]

I’m OK with some dystopia in Star Trek. I just don’t want it to be at the heart of the Federation and in an officially sanctioned way.

If Section 31 was some kind of conspiracy to undermine the Federation, that would probably be OK. It’s the idea that some top-level Starfleet officials created Section 31 and subsequent top-level officials have continued to sanction its activities for over a century is what I don’t like.

One thing I’ll note: there didn’t appear to be any Section 31 elements on the far-future Starfleet as seen in the later seasons of Discovery.

While it was sad to see the Federation in a diminished form, one thing I liked about those seasons was the hopeful rebuilding of the Federation to be a genuine force for good in the Galaxy again.

One thing that was very clear in DS9 was that Section 31 was a nigh-unknown organisation that most people in Starfleet had never heard of. This seems at odds with its portrayal in both Discovery and this movie as a known associate organisation of Starfleet.

Incidentelly, the stardate given for the Section 31 movie places it during the period between TOS and the TOS movies, and it's still an associate organisation in this period, with Starfleet assigning "problem" officers to it. That makes it even less likely that it could have sunk into obscurity by the time of the Dominion war.

 

[overgeeked]

No thanks. DS9 did the outer edge of Star Trek and cynicism for me. I’ve no interest in one of the vanishingly few hopeful sci-fi franchises joining the endless cadre of cynical sci-fi franchises out there. S31 as a secret spy org, sure. Not matter how utopian the future, you’ll still need intelligence work and counter intelligence work. S31 as black ops and wetworks in a Starfleet uniform, hell no. Someone failed to understand the basic premise of Star Trek.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I wasn’t suggesting they were. Just that I feel like Discovery was at times too nerdy and technobabbly. I never felt it was too action-oriented.

Honestly, my only real complaint with Discovery was that it needed more episodes per season. It needed more room to breathe, especially in the later seasons. It skimmed over a lot of the worldbuilding elements that you prize so much.

It skimmed over those things because the show only really cared about plot first, and the continuing spotlight on Michael Burnham's character arc second, with everything else a distant third (although they slowly increased Saru's spotlight over time).

 

[trappedslider]

Incidentelly, the stardate given for the Section 31 movie places it during the period between TOS and the TOS movies, and it's still an associate organisation in this period, with Starfleet assigning "problem" officers to it. That makes it even less likely that it could have sunk into obscurity by the time of the Dominion war.

I don't think continuity has ever been a strong suite of Star Trek

 

[Ryujin]

I don't think continuity has ever been a strong suite of Star Trek

If continuity was 100% then doctors would have been replaced by transporter operators by season 3 of TOS.