It’s a little tough to explain without sounding glib, but the gist is that the purpose of Star Trek, when functioning properly, is to not just 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 precedent of darkness in the property that I don’t think subsequent showrunners have been capable of fully wielding, or even of fully understanding.
A major part of this, for me, 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 offender is the handling of Section 31 as an organization, and the subsequent reality of the movie.
Long answer woops!!
SteleTrovilo@beehaw.org 1 year ago
He asked you about SNW, and you forgot to talk about SNW.
tymon@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Oh, hush. My answer was about all of it.
SteleTrovilo@beehaw.org 1 year ago
The reason he asked about SNW is because SNW might actually not have the problems you’re describing. You mentioned two tropes of modern Trek - the galactic danger and Section 31 - but SNW doesn’t use those tropes. Did you misread his question?
As for the advancement of society (optimism vs aspiration) - TOS shows us a Federation that has moved beyond money and greed, sure. But war is still possible; Errand of Mercy established that there had recently been a war with the Klingons, decades before DIS and SNW portrayed it. The death penalty is still a possible punishment for Federation officers (maybe citizens too?) in The Menagerie. McCoy makes bigoted comments toward his ship’s first officer regularly. If anything, SNW shows a more advanced society than TOS did. (I can’t imagine SNW Pike expressing TOS Pike’s opinion about women on the bridge!) Surely it makes sense that SNW’s society should resemble TOS’s more than TNG’s.
But the bigger sense of advancement across the entire franchise is still here too. A key point in SNW S1E1 is that society has moved beyond partisan struggles and infighting - the ability to explore space and live in the stars is tied directly to this sense of social harmony which we still lack. This was also true in previous eras of Trek, and is exactly why warp travel is the criteria to be contacted by the Federation. SNW shows that these writers get it, and continue to get it.