That said, everything I’ve seen of Strange New Worlds so far is excellent, it’s like the old Roddenberry vision reincarnated.
That said, everything I’ve seen of Strange New Worlds so far is excellent, it’s like the old Roddenberry vision reincarnated.
Berman took over basically near the end of season 2/beginning of season 3 when the original writers were slowly kicked out and Gene Roddenerry's health was in definite decline. This was also when the show got good.
Berman had many faults he brought to TNG (and magnified in Voyager, and you can see was Star Trek but with a looser Berman hand is like on DS9), but this wasn't one of them. If anything he stuck up too much for Gene's vision which sometimes struggled fitting into actual scripts that were compelling and made sense.
Season 3 started right after the Apollo 11 moon landing, when people had got a hint of how difficult and terrifying space travel really was. Aliens with bumpy heads weren't inspiring anymore.
Whether that one includes massive plot holes, I cannot say.
Mostly they were glad to have work.
Either way, SNW is fantastic and I agree with your comment.
Really? So you actually liked Season 1, and lost interest at the start of Season 3? You're a really rare person then. Most fans acknowledge that the first season was pretty bad (esp. the racist episode), and the second season was better but still rough (Pulaski was annoying), and that season 3 was when all the classic episodes started. You're the first person who's ever said they liked the first season the most.
> I think the reorientation around conflict actually began with Rick Berman after he took over from Roddenberry back 90s or early 2000s or whenever it was.
Well, I watched season 1 of Picard. So I can't do much with the comparison being requested.
But DS9 is completely oriented around military conflict (between the Federation and Cardassia, or between the Federation and the Changelings), and it throws TNG's notion of a communist society with no money out the window. (Jake does once remark that, as a human, he has no money, but whenever Riker shows up he has plenty of it.)
But TNG (and TOS to some extent) is a total post-scarcity society. Effectively infinite energy from anti-matter reactors combined with energy->matter conversion "replicators" solves scarcity totally. The only limit on what can be created is how complex it is, and how advanced the science and engineering of the reactors and replicators are.
Hence TNG society is totally oriented around science and discovery, rather than production, economic growth, and financial gain.
This part of ST doesn't really make sense. They're shown as having the tech to build enormous starbases (and with domed artificial habitats like "Running Silent" in the latest SNW episodes), so they don't need planets to colonize: they can just build O'Neil cyilnders.
Not unless they want to be wiped out.
The "who owns the means of production" problem was to be solved by socialism. Which then supposedly enabled the higher productivity and faster development that would lead to the true post-scarcity society - which would be communism. This is especially evident in Soviet sci-fi, which would often poke over that boundary - e.g. Yefremov's description of future communism in "Andromeda Nebula" and "The Hour of the Bull", or Strugatsky's in the Noon Verse series.
Whoever did that is completely ignorant about the meaning of the words "socialist" and "communist", as used in all the countries where communist parties have detained the power.
The comment above is perfectly accurate.
It’s not realistic because it’s fundamentally either autistic or straight up dehumanizing and authoritarian. People have deconstructed the Star Trek universe and themes ad infintum at this point, but I don’t think anybody is missing the point just because they find it distasteful.
Say what, now?
It's important to note that in STTNG, Star Fleet is not the entirety of the human population in the show. This concept is often overlooked. The idea that human interpersonal dysfunction is a psychological and maslow-dependent side-effect is abhorrent to some people. It's seen as dehumanizing because such an observer is not able to connect with any of the characters. The assumption is that the writers have somehow taken away their humanity for them to be psychologically stable, mature, and well-adapted individuals. Read into that what you will. This is supposed to be "utopian" despite the obvious conflicts that arise, nonetheless.
Orville does something similar, but magnifies the differences and interpersonal conflicts in a fun way.
Oh that’s right, they’re often comically overtly racist caricatures.
In any event Star Fleet specifically is a dystopian hell has been analyzed to death. And the genesis of DS9 is completely straightforward. You can use the idealized yet completely ridiculous portrayal of Star Fleet for a movie or two, some short stories. Stretching it out to 7 seasons was admirable (but even they had to make some concessions with story arcs post Roddenberry). Let’s not forget TOS only needed to last 3 seasons and the Roddenberry era TNG is pretty crappy overall at least outside the diehard fandom.
I didn't get the dystopian vibe at all when watching TNG, DS9, Voyager or Enterprise.
I did Google it, though, and found the expected handful of thinkpieces and Reddit posts. Obviously the shows have fallen short or aged poorly at times, and people have discussed that the same way they've discussed everything else about Star Trek. I'm not seeing evidence for your claim that "Star Trek is dystopian" is a settled conclusion.
Also, I'm still waiting to hear what "fundamentally autistic" means.
Analysis about the dystopian back-workings is fan fiction. It's all fiction, to be sure, but the topic is constrained. STTNG portrays a society, in good faith that it's harmonious. This article is about STTNG, not DS9.