What would a fan debate about Trek be without nit-picking?.
But yeah, I don't think this particular one is helpful. Starfleet is the embodiment of the Federation's principles and it's actions are authorized by the Federation Council. The shows themselves conflate the two all the time. And elements of the "Roddenberry Rule" are clearly meant to apply to the overall society.
Speaking of the Roddenberry Rule, I see it as applying most to ST:TNG's first season, which is universally considered the weakest (and most dramatically inert and/or silly). I find it least in TOS.
The Roddenberry Rule really strikes me as something that solidified & became dogmatic in the years *between* TOS and TNG, to the detriment of TNG's first season. TNG becomes much more interesting when it backs away from it; cf. episodes like "The Enemy" and "The Most Toys".
Worf refusing to allow the transfusion to save the Romulan prisoner vs. Picard's refusal to order him to do so is interesting, it feels like a real test of the Federations principles in legitimate conflict.
Data trying to execute Kivas Fajo and then kinda lying about it maybe not be a ringing endorsement of Starfleet values, but it feels like a meaningful comment on what a quest to be a real boy entails.
The Federation is politicians and bureaucrats, whereas Starfleet is supposed to be the best of the best. The Roddenberry Rule was more of a guideline for TOS, becoming a more hard and fast rule by NG. I figure that they really started deviating from it after Gene's death.
I remember watching a few documentaries about Star Trek, and the Roddenberry rule is called out, pretty much universally, as an extremely bad idea and directly responsible for some of the absolutely worst Trek episodes out there. The notion that your crew HAS to all work together in harmony means that there's no drama.
Who the heck wants to watch that? And, as the first three seasons of TNG prove, no one. Their viewership in the first three seasons goes straight down the toilet. It isn't until late in season 3, when they finally reject this Roddenberry Rule that things actually get interesting again.
Gimme flawed, realistic characters every time.
Maybe so. Maybe not. All that I know for sure, is that I'm done with Discovery.
I thought you were done with it two weeks ago!
Your argument makes no sense. If that's what you want you have literally every other show in existence to choose from.I remember watching a few documentaries about Star Trek, and the Roddenberry rule is called out, pretty much universally, as an extremely bad idea and directly responsible for some of the absolutely worst Trek episodes out there. The notion that your crew HAS to all work together in harmony means that there's no drama.
Who the heck wants to watch that? And, as the first three seasons of TNG prove, no one. Their viewership in the first three seasons goes straight down the toilet. It isn't until late in season 3, when they finally reject this Roddenberry Rule that things actually get interesting again.
Gimme flawed, realistic characters every time.
Your argument makes no sense. If that's what you want you have literally every other show in existence to choose from.
It's the distinctly Trek qualities that set Trek apart.
Doing away with those would be a huge mistake. Let's hope Discovery is just setting up the current amoral characters for a brutal fall.
Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app