“So ultimately, I feel like what we’re saying is that in order for Starfleet and that beautiful vision that Roddenberry had of this optimistic utopia, in order for that vision to exist, in order for the light to exist, you need people who operate in the shadows.”
Alex Kurtzman continues to prove that he fundamentally does not understand the property that he’s helming, yet again making me want to puke
This is stupid and makes me angry. If you want to have a utopia then bad guys have to do bad things? GTFOH with that imperialistic nonsense. Star Fleet isn’t enslaving strange new worlds. They’re intergalactic homies.
Also: mirror universe exists so we can learn from it?!
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
Yes, and Georgiou is a lovable genocidal tyrant.
She’s a fish out of water, but she’s absolutely trying.
When the other crew members go to the mirror universe they hide.
So “section 31” is just a CIA recruitment ad?
So much of the mindset expressed by Kurtzman in this interview makes me sick and sad. I typed out these thoughts elsewhere before but I’m repeating them here:
In my opinion the purpose of Star Trek, when functioning properly, is not just to be optimistic, but aspirational; it’s to show us a vision of a future in which we’ve surmounted the problems that face us today.
TNG has so far been the keenest example of this, moreso than TOS or any of the Treks that followed. DS9 may be my favorite Trek, but it’s also responsible for setting a dubious precedent of darkness in the property that subsequent showrunners have been incapable of wielding, or even of understanding.
A major part of this is the nu-Trek focus on “optimism” over “aspiration.” Yeah, it might sound like arguing semantics at first, but I really don’t think it is. Regardless of the dictionary definition of those two words, we use them in specific ways in modern parlance.
I feel like most people understand optimism as a positive attitude, a glass-half-full outlook, or even just a sunny disposition. At best, it’s understood as personal traits adhering to a broadness of vision, generosity, and kindness. Yeah, these are good and virtuous characteristics; but they’re not really the same as something being aspirational.
A future we aspire to is a very different thing than a future containing positive people. There are positive, optimistic people all over the place in today’s world, and yet… just look around. We kind of live in hell!
I guess what I’m saying is that optimism is mostly an emotion, whereas aspiration is a goal.
Star Trek, when functioning as it should, is aspirational because it shows us what humanity and society could be like once we surmount the problems facing us today.
So I guess that this, for me, is the principal failing of Abrams and Kurtzman-era Trek; in this future, humanity still succumbs to the pains and pitfalls of present-day life in a way that suggests we won’t grow out of them. Sure, they contain positive, optimistic, kind, gentle, generous people, but society as a whole has simply iteratively progressed instead of having wholly transformed.
There are so many little specific cumulative examples I can give of this, but I know once I start listing them, I’ll forget to list ten more that are better. Maybe I’ll make that list someday when I have some time to kill; but for now, the biggest offenders are the constant tropes of The Galaxy Facing a Danger Unlike Anything We’ve Ever Seen, and the handling of Section 31 as an organization + subsequent reality of the movie.
Another major problem is that the seasons are all too short, so we rarely ever get any breathing room downtime with the characters! 20+ episode seasons are a vital, crucial, fundamental component of Trek as a property, and it’s really not adapting well at all to the modern format of shows.
I think what’s interesting about the conflicts that do arise in Star Trek is that while they often mirror issues we have today in some way, it’s being grappled with by people and a system that has purposefully turned away from greed and cruelty. They might not always get things right, but it’s not because of some special interests making it that way, it’s just because even in the future humans are humans and they make mistakes and have blind spots.
For example, I was thinking about that episode of DS9 that dealt with Bashir being genetically modified. Obviously it’s some mix of discussions about GMOs, steroids, and one of those imperfect fantasy/sci-fi racism analogies. You’d kind of hope we have stuff like that sorted by the future, but it’s kind of understandable why they have this quandary. The reasons for keeping genetically modified people out of star fleet isn’t entirely without reason and is clearly not coming from a place of cruelty, but it’s also hard to get around the fact that this is still discrimination based on something someone was born with. But nobody really specifically stands to benefit from the status quo. So you just have the matter at hand with no clearly perfect answer getting discussed honestly by well intentioned people.
Section 31 definitely doesn’t fit that mold. It’s some last vestige of a system that prioritized a self-serving order held up by force. I think to the extent that it has any place in ST, it’s something like how it was handled in DS9 where our characters were actively trying to uncover a rogue organization instead of it just kind of being a part of Starfleet like in Discovery.
This is pretty thoughtful, and I get where you’re coming from.
I do, however, think that the newer shows are frequently aspirational…but the focus has shifted toward doing the right thing in an environment that makes it difficult. There’s a lot more emphasis on struggle, in a way that hasn’t really been explored outside of DS9, and perhaps certain parts of ENT. That works for me, as I think it’s the more salient message for the times we live in: there are always going to be struggles, the greatest dangers often come from within, and doing the right thing can be incredibly hard.
we rarely ever get any breathing room downtime with the characters!
I definitely get this - it’s unfortunately something we’re going to have to learn to live with, because I don’t see longer seasons coming back any time soon (and honestly, they come with their own sets of drawbacks).
Honestly, I think this has more consistently been Star Trek’s approach. Early TNG was the exception. It really pushed for an “evolved humanity” model for Star Trek, where something has fundamentally shifted in our collected psychology. Examples like Dr. Crusher speaking like its remarkable that people used to fear death, or Picard dismissing religion as childish superstition come to mind as particularly strong hints that we’ve changed a lot.
But later Trek pushes against this: DS9 with it’s murky way arc, Voyager with episodes like Equinox and Scorpion, and even late TNG with Pegasus and Journey’s End. They are all more likely to see the “evolved human” as something to be tested by the story, with the drama coming from the possibility that it might fail that test.
And I think this is for the best. If humanity is too evolved and too perfect, the series can feel a bit heavy on U.S. exceptionalism - with the very American coded Starfleet going around to other worlds to fix and moralize about other peoples’ problems, but never needing to self-reflect or improve on themselves. I think a healthy balance is needed to actually model the qualities that allowed humanity to improve in the first place (and that we really need to see more of in the world now).
Starfleet going around to other worlds to fix and moralize about other peoples’ problems, but never needing to self-reflect or improve on themselves.
There are a few PTSD episodes that at least try : Picard at the chateau and Archer on shore leave after the Xindi adventure.
I feel these are the best episodes where a character realizes they have changed and not for the better, but I wish there were more.
Maybe trek is sleeping on the post-adventure recontextualization power of a shore leave coda?
I agree, thank you for putting this feeling into words
So ultimately, I feel like what we’re saying is that in order for Starfleet and that beautiful vision that Roddenberry had of this optimistic utopia, in order for that vision to exist, in order for the light to exist, you need people who operate in the shadows. And it’s a yin and yang. You can’t have one without the other.
I don’t like this sort of mother-goosery in my fully automated luxury gay space communism.
I prefer the assimilating power of root beer as the true defender of the federation.
Yeah, what’s a little light genocide and healthy war of aggression to keep people happy? 🥰
I understand that he thinks he has to do something different. That lies in the nature of storytelling. Hardly any author likes telling the same story again and again in the same way. It is the same thing nobody seems to understand when there is a reboot or remake of an old movie or show (but that’s another story). But I also have to strongly disagree that doing something different means doing it like every other drama series. Lower Decks of all things has shown that the original idea of Star Trek not only holds up but even transcends to other genres very well.
Absolutely. Ideological consistency =/= stagnation; my two favorite pieces of Trek are The Voyage Home and the Dominion War arc, and while they may not share almost anything on the surface, their core thrusts are wholly aligned!
The fundamental lack of understanding of the purpose and point of Trek as an idea that Kurtzman et al have consistently demonstrated clearly illustrates not simply a schism in taste, but one of worldview, politics, and values.
These guys just wanna be making Star Wars - and there ain’t anything wrong with that! It’s just that Star Wars and Star Trek are for, and accomplish, different things!
I really think we need another reference point - I wouldn’t say any of the “new” series seem particularly like Star Wars, aesthetically or tonally.
I also don’t think Star Wars should have a monopoly on certain types of storytelling, but that’s neither here nor there.
I guess what I mean by Star Wars is they want to be doing what Disney+ is doing; serialized Cinematic Universe that’s all boom boom pow pow?
That’s what the Kelvin Timeline was supposed to be about, yet they choose to bring this style to the prime timeline with Discovery instead of keeping it contained…
Can we get some Star Trek I can watch with my kids around? I have to stick with classic trek (everything from Enterprise and earlier) as there isn’t an option. Sure Prodigy does exist, but I don’t know if I can get into that show myself.
Rant over…
They can make Section 31 content all they want, I don’t care, just make it good enough to watch. Hell, just take the book series and make a mini series based on those stories.
Prodigy was fun for a kids show.
I have to stick with classic trek (everything from Enterprise and earlier) as there isn’t an option.
Is strange new worlds really that untenable for kids? Maybe a few eps? But surely not Lower Decks???
I agree Picard, section 31 don’t really fit into that box
Paramount is getting bought out. It will be interesting to see if the new management has any shakeups planned for the Star Trek franchise.
Is this in regards to the Skydance acquisition? I thought that had gotten canned!
It’s still on track to close within the next few months.
I have my doubts that the tv side of Trek will be affected too much, but maybe the new management will be able to remove some of the roadblocks on the theatrical side.
I really hope they put ST in the hands of someone who actually seems to like ST for what it is. I don’t think that’s what will happen, though.
