Roddenbery originally didn't like the idea of a bald captain and made Stuart audition in a wig. After the initial audition he decided that Stuart was perfect no matter how much hair he had. There are a few photos online of him in the wig and man does he look goofy.
We saw how deep this rabbit hole really went when they introduced Section 31 and even went so far as to do an episode where the Federation imposed martial law on earth, something I never would have imagined Roddenberry doing.
I don't think Discovery was darker than DS9 at all. I thought it was a fantastic attempt to explore how a highly progressive society deals with a culture who doesn't share their ideals.
They vast majority of the characters are huge believers in the highest ideals of the Federation. Throughout the series they struggle with sticking to those ideals, but at the end they manage to do it. I actually thought that the ending of Discovery was very similar thematically to Picard's decision with Hugh.
The problem with a utopian ideal is that utopias are, by definition, inhumane. Humans are not perfect, so you either have to make them perfect, or force them to conform to a perfect ideal which ignores and suppresses human nature. We war, we hunger, we lust, we hate, we fear... those aspects of our psyche aren't just going to go away because someone invents replicators and warp drives.
Humans that are like us struggling (and often failing, in their imperfection) to live up to an ideal in an imperfect universe are far more relatable and, ironically, more optimistic than simply having them be perfect to begin with and skipping over the messy details of how to get there from here.
Also, in practical storytelling terms, Gene Roddenberry's ideal humans evolved beyond a lot of the pathos that makes for compelling drama. Look at Wesley Crusher, whose character was basically Gene Rodenberry's Ubermensch, on one end of the spectrum , versus someone like Barclay on the other - which character would be more interesting to watch?
But then with the right acting and writing many different types of characters can become compelling - see Quark, for instance.
As for utopias, I've spent a lot of time thinking about them recently. I just finished taking a philosophy course on utopian and dystopian societies. The overall impression I got was that utopias are predicated on assumptions about human nature and they tend to marginalize or outright exclude anyone who doesn't fit in. This made for an interesting comparison with the dystopias.
I think Gene Roddenberry's argument is that we can develop a culture of excellence that overcomes the need for any sort of radical biological engineering to make people more agreeable. I don't know it's at all feasible but I find it interesting to imagine.
what is your take on Andromeda? I feel like in many respects it is really back to the original spirit.
I mostly thank Patrick Stewart and Michael Jordan for the push toward normalizing it.
Say what? Lot's of guys rock it! Off the top of my head Jason Statham, Michael Jordan, shaved-head Sam Jackson, Johnny Ive, shaved-head Bryan Cranston all pull it off pretty damn well. What would Vin Diesel even look like with hair?
So this is confirmation bias.
Out of the whole population of bald/balding men, these men are the exceptions.
Well, fast forward 10 years, and no one bought the alpha schtick, and he missed his chance to be a billionaire working with Zuckerberg.
You never know how positively the world is going to react to you being comfortable and confident with yourself.
that's only reassuring if he's in a good place...
I’ve been told people literally do not believe me because of my looks.
FWIW I've been told the same thing when I wore a beard, and have heard the same of other people for other physical traits.
Since I was a kid I've hated sunscreen so I do my best to find other solutions. Or pretend it's not a problem.
> Overall, the researchers found hair offered a protection factor ranging from 5 to 17, which is significantly lower that the average sunscreen, which offers a protection factor of 30.
I guarantee people will care in the 24th century. People will care about so many pointless things we'll have forgotten how to blow off the distress of balding men with virtue signalling. And we'll be better off for it.
Meanwhile, in the present day, the top of your head is the part of your body most exposed to the Sun, and hair is useful in preventing sunburns. So being bald isn't equal to having hair.
so i guess it'll fix a few ailments on the way. but then why not just teleport someone who's dying into his fully healthy state.
So, canonically, the "beam yourself into a younger you" problem is all but solved. Yes, with various minor environmental pokes and prods, but meh, they've demonstrated the ability to replicate those when necessary, so hardly a stopper.
That last one is one of the most egregious examples of how weird it is that nobody ever follows up on anything that happens in Star Trek. Whoops! Figured out how to turn an old man into a ~14 year old with all his memories! Ha ha, life sure is weird, but otherwise uninteresting, right? Unimportant! Move on!
[Minor nit: genes are insufficient to record someone's physical state.]
[Minor nit: I'd argue age 25-30 is probably a better physical peak to snapshot than age 20.]
Driving at 70mph down the road in a Jeep with no top and no doors, e.g.