Star Trek and Idealism vs cynicism

[Micah Sweet]

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

Better than most franchises, especially over the long time frame and multiple people involved.

 

[Umbran]

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

I think it is fair for Trek to ask the question of whether you can succeed while still holding to high ideals.
The moment that Trek answers, "No. You cannot hold to high ideals and still succeed," it ceases to be Trek.

The world already has a surfeit of anti-heroes, and morally flawed people and systems. We don't need that from Trek.

 

[GreyLord]

I haven't seen the movie.

I don't have a problem with the idea of Section 31.

It's like acting like Western Nations don't have things like the CIA and Black Ops, or that Britain doesn't have the equivalent of MI6 or SAS.

They do things that we like to pretend don't happen in order to continue our way of life, and to continue our illusions that it is through superior ideology that we are able to practice Western Ideals and morality, rather than the idea that these things are protected by those who do dark things to protect them, rather than the world merely respecting them and allowing us to keep them.

However, keeping the things they do in the shadows is probably important.

Even in DS9 (if I remember correctly), though morally it was wrong, ultimately it was Section 31 spreading the virus (or disease or whatever it was) to the Founders is what won/ended the war, even if it was done via offering a cure via Odo and the solution was found in a round about way. It didn't end how they envisioned, but it DID play a key part in preserving the Federation.

In that way, I think keeping Star Trek idealistic, but also being realistic about the fact that such ideology does not exist in a vacuum, without those to do things that are counter that ideology in order to preserve that ideology, the chances of a morality of that sort surviving on it's own grows dimmer.

The same as our own Western Values (whether you see that as a good or evil, part of the reason we can keep and preserve them are due to the dark things others do in the shadows to preserve our way of life).

 

[MarkB]

Even in DS9 (if I remember correctly), though morally it was wrong, ultimately it was Section 31 spreading the virus (or disease or whatever it was) to the Founders is what won/ended the war, even if it was done via offering a cure via Odo and the solution was found in a round about way. It didn't end how they envisioned, but it DID play a key part in preserving the Federation.

Assuming that it wasn't the threat of the virus that was spurring on the Dominion to keep fighting at all costs in the first place.

 

[Mort]

The same as our own Western Values (whether you see that as a good or evil, part of the reason we can keep and preserve them are due to the dark things others do in the shadows to preserve our way of life).

No, the whole point is that humanity ACTUALLY has evolved beyond that and found a better way, just like the Federation actually IS a post scarcity society.

If that "evolution" is still being made possible by dark things done in the shadows than it is a facade and a lie - which is not what Star Trek is supposed to be.

 

[Staffan]

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

Disco season 1 was pretty interesting in this way, because they presented Lorca as someone willing to bend more than a few rules to get what he needed. Him taking an interest in Burnham made perfect sense, as she was in a vulnerable position due to only being on temporary release from prison and in his care – that's an excellent position from which to manipulate someone. However, it turns out that Lorca's actually Mirror!Lorca, which explains his disregard for Starfleet ethics. And as I recall, once they return from the Mirror Universe without him, the rest of the crew starts solving problems using communication and understanding rather than phaser cannons, and reaffirm their commitment to Starfleet principles.

The issue with season 2 is that they made Section 31 too official. I mean sure, Starfleet needs their spooks. That's Starfleet Intelligence, which we've seen before. Section 31 is something different, and should stay in the shadows and mostly be a bad guy.

 

[Mort]

The issue with season 2 is that they made Section 31 too official. I mean sure, Starfleet needs their spooks. That's Starfleet Intelligence, which we've seen before. Section 31 is something different, and should stay in the shadows and mostly be a bad guy.

I re-watched a bunch of Discovery season 2 episodes yesterday, and yeah. Section 31 was essentially treated interchangeably with Starfleet intelligence. It wasn't some big secret at all. IMO, it was an odd choice and it didn't work.

I guess they justify the later ignorance of the section the same way they do of Discovery. Events later in the season cause everything to be 'super" classified and no one is allowed to discuss Discovery or Section 31.

 

[MarkB]

I guess they justify the later ignorance of the section the same way they do of Discovery. Events later in the season cause everything to be 'super" classified and no one is allowed to discuss Discovery or Section 31.

Which the new movie breaks by being set much later and still having Section 31 portrayed as Starfleet's official Black Ops division.

 

[Mort]

Which the new movie breaks by being set much later and still having Section 31 portrayed as Starfleet's official Black Ops division.

And they introduce "control" as a basically a cyborg giving computer assisted orders. Which considering what happened at the end of Discovery season 2, is just nuts.

The movie is just really misguided, in addition to not being very good.

 

[Umbran]

IDK, that sounds like discomfort to me. Drawn lines were its not appreciated if they are crossed.

Well, "discomfort" is such a broad word that it can mean just about anything. If we ascribe any and all negative opinions of the show to "discomfort" then the word is not specific enough to be useful.

An inability to see the possibilities and an expectation of roads well traveled and rules observed.

And, this is where you go too far. "Inability" - you have a negative opinion of the show because you lack the ability to appreciate it, making the opinion effectively a character or cognitive flaw of the viewer. That's bogus right there.

How about you scratch that - entertain that folks can see the possibilities just fine, but not like them.