Came across this article, and it’s a very interesting take on how Star Trek has changed with the times, and how modern audiences seem to have a harder time trusting institutions or imagining Trek’s utopia.
This is not to say that the ’90s shows never delved into the complexity and nuance of this ethos—indeed, playing at the edges of their internal morality was how they derived much of their interest…Things are different in modern Trek.
If you have to include a variation of “sure, it was always like this, but it’s different now,” it’s time to go back to the drawing board with your thinkpiece.
I’ve admittedly still only watched up through the 90s, but I’d definitely say that DS9 depicted a significantly more “morally gray” version of Starfleet than TOS or TNG.
I think the point the author is making is that the extent to which this idea gets explored is reflective of our society’s growing mistrust of institutions IRL, rather than suggesting the theme has never been explored.
Yeah, and I don’t buy it.
Can anyone make a serious claim that “as a rule, Starfleet is good, and the best way to be a good servant of the true and just in the world of Star Trek is by being a good Starfleet officer” is not the message of literally every current series? Even “Picard,” which had arguably the most cynical take on Starfleet by virtue of featuring a number of characters who had left the organization, ended by sticking everybody back into a uniform, ready to take on the galaxy. “Starfleet is good” is the central thesis of “Prodigy,” as well as “Discovery,” particularly during the two most recent series.
The piece treats the crew stealing the Enterprise in SNW as something particularly meaningful, despite the fact that this sort of thing has been done repeatedly since…checks notes 1984.
It’s just another tired bit about how following orders and perfect institutions are what Star Trek is really about, to hell with any evidence to the contrary.
It’s just another tired bit about how following orders and perfect institutions are what Star Trek is really about, to hell with any evidence to the contrary.
I’d argue that the theme is less about following orders and more We are all individually flawed and are at our best when we follow our shared values - which is represented by both Starfleet and the utopian setting as a whole.
I can see the argument (for fiction and real life), that as we trust institutions less, our focus becomes more on individual judgement rather than collectivist ideas. It also tracks for me that as this occurs in real life, our media would reflect individualism more and more.
Sure, and if the core of the article is “today’s values are somewhat different than those of the 90s”…yes, they are, just as the values of the 90s were different from those of the 60s. I think there’s an interesting academic discussion to be had in there, but I don’t think this article is it.
Were the earlier series not focused on shared values to more or less a similar extent too?
Kirk has usually been given the reputation of being a rule-breaker, often ignoring Starfleet rules when they are in conflict with his values. Even off-camera (in DS9 I think) they attribute him 17 temporal violations, and I think he has been accused of violating the prime directive multiple times.That’s a good point. I think this contrast between individual (often flawed) human judgment vs collectivist ideals has always been a theme. In TOS, you see Kirk calming McCoy’s knee-jerk reactions almost every episode. In TNG, it was Yar or Worf. In DS9, probably Kira.
Even then, I would say the collectivist ideals (i.e. Starfleet regulations) were more often portrayed as overly-cumbersome in implementation, which leads to someone like Kirk violating the rules in place of the ideals that they stand for. For example, how many naïve (but well-meaning) diplomats do we see in TOS or TNG? However, rules being restrictive or imperfect in an effort to support larger agreed-upon morals can still be trusted, compared to corrupt power structures, which cannot.
Kirk doesn’t really violate them, also you can tell that the writers don’t really have the rules of star fleet worked out in season 1 or even 2.
It wasn’t really always like this, in modern Trek they don’t have any ideals to aspire to, they just do what they have to. In DS9 you had Captain Sisko breaking his back trying to convince himself that letting Garak kill a Romulan diplomat to get them on the alpha quadrant’s side was worth it.
in modern Trek they don’t have any ideals to aspire to
I disagree strongly with this, and can’t see how anyone could watch the shows and draw that conclusion.
It’s easy, go and watch the way Picard deals with Barcley and then go watch discovery and see how their COs deal with problem crew members.
Modern Star Trek is written by adult children and you can fucking tell.
While I overall like SNW (like, not love), Pike seems more interested in being a friend to his crew (at least the senior officers) rather than being an effective leader who demands nothing but the best from his crew. Picard and Janeway were great at this. They were friendly enough with their crew, but maintained enough professional distance to not get too chummy. Sisko less so, but he knew how to walk the line between friend and commanding officer.
@PlainSimpleGarak @startrek Yep, I’ve really enjoyed SNW but the show seems completely unfamiliar with the concept of military discipline.
modern audiences seem to have a harder time trusting institutions or imagining Trek’s utopia.
Paramount doesn’t even want to write about the Utopia anymore. All of the Picard series is about corruption, greed, power, and the Federation failing on all accounts. I hate them for it. Star Trek is supposed to be a glimpse into a hopeful future, not a reflection of our current problems but with phasers added.
It’s always been both, just with our current problems offloaded to aliens for scrutinization. That they’re no longer using aliens for commentary is the problem.
That’s true. It would be aliens, or a single scientist, or an admiral with a vendetta, but always the Federation sided with the objectively ethical viewpoint. They never showed absolute corruption or incompetence at the head of the Federation, and there were always more ethical people than unethical. The situations involving corruption, or fascism, or other similar themes never seemed hopeless. Perhaps because of the episodical nature of the previous shows. Everything would be neatly wrapped up by the end of 1 or 2 shows. In Picard the same struggles extend across 10 episodes, and it’s not fun. Not for me anyways.
Paramount doesn’t even want to write about the Utopia anymore. All of the Picard series is about corruption, greed, power, and the Federation failing on all accounts. I hate them for it. Star Trek is supposed to be a glimpse into a hopeful future, not a reflection of our current problems but with phasers added.
I think there are many valid criticisms of new trek but I really just don’t see this, old star trek had the same shit
I loved the nearly boundless optimism of TNG. It inspired me to believe in a better future. Watching Picard was depressing because they decided Starfleet was an org where a little corruption at the top could take the whole thing down. The Starfleet that inspired me didn’t tolerate corruption at any level. Truth from an ensign was honored above a lie from an admiral and I liked it that way.
This is why I love TNG so much. Even though TOS is the original that laid the groundwork for everything, TNG took that “boundless optimism” and ran with it. Watching TNG inspires me to continue to self-improve and encourage it in others.
I just wrote almost the same thing right before seeing your comment. Picard is trash, and I hate them for what they did to the Federation.
A good article that I unfortunately can’t read much of due to a pay wall.
I think my main question would be: so I wasn’t around in the 1960s… but I can’t imagine the average Star Trek viewer was sitting around thinking “yep, that’s what real life is going to be like” in the future, even with a somewhat more optimistic culture.
I think Star Trek is more aspirational. It aspires to have this society where most everyone is very professional, very intelligent, very emotionally controlled and empathetic, etc. The newer seasons seem to miss some of this especially on that professionalism front. The kind of “British stiff upper lip” stereotype. It’s harder to imagine this utopia future without a significant change in how everyone acts and talks in their day to day lives, and modern Star Trek doesn’t really capture that latter part (imo). It makes it feel like society just kind of “stumbled into” a utopian society
Modern Trek has no actual vision; it has nostalgia. Which is a terrible substitute it frankly is the opposite in many ways.
Modern Trek (by which I mean SNW) is very very close to being good to me. Something about the dialogue just throws me off though, along with the hour long episodes not really suiting the subgenre imo.
I think people are genuinely trying to make SNW good, just kind of a lightning in a bottle scenario
Yes, I wholly agree. I still think that the show is still firmly rooted in nostalgia not in making a new attempt to outline a future.
Look, it’s Kirk’s brother’s roommate’s boyfriend from that one background scene in that one episode! . Modern star wars has the same problem of making an entire universe seem so small. Makes me appreciate the bold choice that was Voyager: tossing them far away from anything familiar and any cameos (not that we didn’t get them but they had to be more creative within the premise, aka tuvok on sulu’s Excelsior )
Yeah, both are clear examples of the money people overfitting to a data set. They did a poll about what people like about star trek wars and made movies include that, the issue they assumed it meant put the exact same thing in the new movies.
The newer seasons seem to miss some of this especially on that professionalism front. The kind of “British stiff upper lip” stereotype.
This presumes that that sort of stoicism is particularly aspirational or healthy, and I don’t think there’s anything close to universal consensus on that one.
I think something that gets missed in discussions of “utopia” is that it’s not real. Utopia is not attainable, because there is no universal definition of what that would look like. It exists as a dream of the future, but that’s all.
At least to me, I find it pretty aspirational. But I can see how others would differ on that regard.
Regardless, I appreciate that this is still seen through a few different lenses. The Klingon for example are like… notably emotional. A Klingon being quick to anger is one of their defining traits. Yet they’re still very “respectful” in their own way, with that code of honor being very key to their society.
Yeah, there’s a singular implied “universal morality” throughout Star Trek of accepting diversity and learning to not impose on other civilizations or each other on the basis of one’s biological differences or culture, even for Klingons! I’d say the rest is hard to define and subjective, as @ValueSubtracted@startrek.website said above, but post-scarcity and free agency in life to follow your passions has to be pretty close!
learning to not impose on other civilizations
And even this is the central conflict of many TNG episodes - it’s a little more indirect, but the eternal question of “how do we navigate the Prime Directive” is essentially a conflict between the characters and Starfleet (it’s their rule, after all).
Ah damn, sorry about the paywall. It let me hit “continue reading” on mobile, but I know sometimes these types of sites can be inconsistent.
It’s all good! I appreciate you posting, and I understand that websites like that need to get money from somewhere.
Strange New Worlds definitely still has the “optimistic” viewpoint of old trek. I think that’s why it has been doing so well. I think the problem in other modern Trek shows like the first 2 seasons of Picard or all of Discovery was that there wasn’t enough of the hopeful optimism that made Trekkies fall in love with the franchise. There doesn’t need to be a universe ending plot calamity, exploration and interesting sci-fi plots that actually drive character development are enough.
Even “grittier” old trek like DS9 (my favourite trek show) had optimistic undertones of recognizing similarities between cultures, forging alliances, trying to be ethical in the face of war, and addressing social issues.
Even the underlying theme of Voyager was to maintain the ideals of the federation against all odds in the face if hopelessness.
I just hope studios see the success of Strange New Worlds and make more trek like it.
Fascinating
I think so. I don’t think the level of tolerance among humans in star trek will be reached by people before we go extinct.
Pretty much. Don’t get me wrong I love Star Trek, but at this point The Expanse looks optimistic compared to the future humanity is recklessly careening towards.
We’re unlikely to colonate mars before we go extinct.
Considering the article is on Substack, a proud Nazi-supporting site, I would imagine it’s readers don’t appreciate Star Trek much at all.
The biggest change in America between TOS and TNG was Watergate. Even if people thought that Johnson was wrong to go into Vietnam, they mostly believed that the government was trying to do the right thing.
