SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
dalek (15489)
I hate to say it, but Star Trek needs to go back into hiatus. I say this as someone who's watched virtually all of the 700+ episodes and movies spanning TOS all the way to Enterprise, many of them several times over. CBS is actively ruining the franchise with greed and poor quality.
CBS is not renewing licensing agreements for classic Star Trek to stream on other platforms, eventually making it exclusive to Paramount+. More recently, CBS is now selling Star Trek NFTs at extremely high prices. Both of these cannot be explained as anything other than pure greed.
I get that CBS wants to maintain exclusive rights to Star Trek content that they create. Fine. But the ubiquity of Star Trek on streaming platforms was a great opportunity to get new fans interested in the franchise, and for long-time fans like me to easily watch classic episodes. I already paid for Amazon Prime and was happy to watch Star Trek there. Instead of being satisfied with the royalties from services like Netflix and Amazon Prime, CBS thinks I should have to pay for Paramount+ to watch Star Trek. This probably drives away potential customers who might be introduced to Star Trek on another streaming platform, then might subscribe to Paramount+ for shows like Discovery and Picard.
Don't even get me started on NFTs. I understand owning physical items that are collectible, and the value that is associated with such things. Instead, these are just randomly generated starships that only exist virtually, and can only be purchased at high prices. There's obviously no need for fans to buy NFTs, but it's a clear effort to extract more money from people foolish enough to pay for one of these. Perhaps the CEO of Paramount Global ought to change his title to Grand Nagus.
Gene Roddenberry had rules for how Star Trek was written, things like making the character interactions believable, and avoiding melodrama. This gave Star Trek a unique feel as a science fiction show instead of being a futuristic drama. Those rules are now gone, and we've ended up with feels more like a generic drama set in the Star Trek universe.
CBS Trek also relies too heavily on plots that involve existential threats as a way to get the viewer interested. This is a massive departure from classic Star Trek, in which most episodes were self-contained and involved a problem that might involve a threat to the ship or a conflict on some planet. When there was an existential threat like the Borg invading Earth, it genuinely felt serious because it was so much larger than the threats faced in every other story. The stories just aren't believable when every story is an existential threat, but we know that the threat will be predictably defeated at the end of the season. It's also lazy writing, creating an existential threat instead of hooking the viewer with an interesting premise and getting them invested in the fate of the characters involved.
Rick Berman attributed the cancellation of Enterprise nearly two decades ago to franchise fatigue, saying that one Star Trek series or another had aired continuously since 1987, and that it was hard to keep fans interested at that point. When Manny Coto took over as the showrunner for the final two seasons of Enterprise, he brought a lot of fresh ideas, but the damage was already done. Creating more Star Trek series is a great way to accelerate franchise fatigue, particularly when the writing isn't all that great. CBS doesn't seem to have learned anything from Rick Berman's mistakes.
For all of the hate Rick Berman gets, he did a lot right, things like bringing in talented writers like Michael Piller, Ira Steven Behr, and Ronald D. Moore, and mostly letting them do their jobs. As I understand it, Berman didn't really want to create lots of Star Trek series, but Paramount pushed for this to have more content for UPN.
Replace UPN with Paramount+ in my last paragraph and it sounds a lot like what CBS is doing now. The writing is less interesting now and the greed is worse. As a Star Trek fan, I hate to say it, but it's time for the franchise to go back into hiatus. Bring it back in a few years or a decade and write good, interesting stories that actually feel like Star Trek.
One last thing: I have zero issues with Star Trek being woke. TOS was quite woke. DS9 openly supported progressive views, particularly in many of the stories about the Ferengi. Star Trek has been woke from the very beginning. This is a feature, not a bug. Star Trek that's not woke just wouldn't be Star Trek. The problem is that being woke doesn't fix extreme greed and lazy writing.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Monday April 11 2022, @04:26AM
Being woke can offer additional opportunities for even mildly creative writers [youtu.be] to produce something. They might have problems getting a risk-averse corporation to distribute the final product, but I bet they could make a show about that too if they wanted.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 11 2022, @04:45AM
The one time TOS was not woke, Spock wore a goatee. A lot of punching in the face, as I recall.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 11 2022, @05:16AM (33 children)
Old Star Trek was not woke, it was liberal. These two things are very much not the same (if fact I would say they are, in a lot of ways, opposites).
(Score: 5, Informative) by dalek on Monday April 11 2022, @06:12AM (24 children)
The typical definition is being alert to social justice, especially about race. Star Trek has always had stories about social justice issues. If anything, TOS was perhaps more overt about social issues than later series. Two episodes that come to mind quickly are Let That Be Your Last Battlefield and The Cloud Minders. The latter might have been more about class issues, but it definitely had social justice elements. For that matter, race was a central theme in the classic Balance of Terror, where Crewman Stiles expresses some very direct racism toward Spock because he looks like the Romulans. Kirk immediately tells Stiles to leave any bigotry in his quarters, and the episode ends up humanizing the Romulan commander, portrayed by Mark Lenard (the Klingon captain in TMP, and better known for portraying Sarek). TNG dealt with issues of gender rather overtly in The Outcast and earlier in The Host, which introduced the Trill. DS9 wasn't subtle at all about gender issues, with multiple episodes addressing the role of women in Ferengi society. As I see it, classic Star Trek was woke, and it wasn't subtle about it.
You're correct that it was also very liberal, and that it's not quite the same thing. But from Kirk's speech about contraception in The Mark of Gideon to progressive reforms of the Ferengi economic system in DS9, it's quite liberal, and often isn't subtle at all about its message.
Star Trek has promoted progressive ideas, and I believe it's always been woke. My point is that this isn't a bad thing, but it also doesn't relieve the writer of the responsibility of telling a compelling story. And I do believe the writing in CBS Trek leaves much to be desired.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 11 2022, @12:08PM
Star Trek (1966 - 2005, RIP) promoted liberal values, Mussolini promoted social justice. [econlib.org] "They" always do! [nih.gov] The question is, will you listen to your Uncle Tom [youtube.com] or are there "a lot more important problems than Sri Lanka to worry about"? [youtube.com]
(Score: 0, Insightful) by The Vocal Minority on Monday April 11 2022, @01:26PM (6 children)
No the typical definition is being awoke to "Social Justice" :). "Social Justice" is not what a liberal would mean by social justice. It is concerned with "structural" inequality (see Marx's substructure and superstructure), critical consciousness (see Marx's false consciousness) and intersectional positionality (a collectivist view of how power operates). Woke is a Marxian ideology through and through. The old trek approach to social justice is through an appeal to common humanity (sentianity???), not divisive collectivist nonsense. Note that I'm not making a case that new trek is woke. The only thing I've seen of new trek is an OK movie and a really terrible movie, neither of which were woke.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 11 2022, @07:06PM (4 children)
I imagine you identify as a recovering Republican aka Libertarian. Being woke is purely being aware of the systemic prejudices that have haunted society. Collectivist nonsense says absolutely nothing except that you're a die hard individualist that likely supports pro-biz liberalism and thinks people complaining about oppression should bootstrap themselves. You mention common humanity, but we've seen time and again that there is no inherent morality. Teach a human that being horrible to someone else is a good thing and they'll believe they are righteous. Libertarianism is a philosophy dependent on all previous human civilization that has built a decent foundation. Apply strict libertarianism and civilization will quickly deteriorate, or people will patch things up till we're roughly back where we started.
Woke is good "common humanity" awareness, and "cancel culture" has been a conservative thing since forever, they just mad that demographics are changing and conservative white christian is no longer a magic shield against criticism. Freedom is good, until it lets people reject conservatives, then freedom is BAD. The irony is huge.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 11 2022, @08:55PM
Being a Borg is purely being aware of your fellow Borg and assimilating knowledge.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12 2022, @12:36PM (2 children)
Well you have a pretty terrible imagination because not everything is about your partisan American politics. Neither am I the straw man version of me that exists in your head.
I would also say that if you think that people are fundamentally immoral, you are not very woke either!
VM
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12 2022, @08:25PM (1 child)
Then you shouldn't be connecting social justice issues to Marxian ideology even if they have similarities. Being woke can be summarized as "don't be a bigoted jerk." Referencing Marx is rightwing narrative. No one said humans are inherently immoral, but we see they are easily brainwashed into doing immoral acts. I shall now mark you as yet another propaganda troll.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 13 2022, @01:15AM
The common term is neo-Marxist.
Except Wokes are (at best) bigoted, uneducated jerks!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 11 2022, @11:57PM
Shut up, Vocal! You are an ill-informed nincompoop! You are confusing your own current living situation with Marx's economic theory. Marx never lived in his mom's basement. Admit it, "woke" is just the stupid Republican label for people who justifiably call them racist, sexist, and loosers.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday April 11 2022, @04:59PM (14 children)
Good lord, it had the first televised interracial kiss!
The GOP is calling the first black female Supreme Court justice wokeness run wild in 2022! You think Kirk kissing Uhuru in nintein-sixty-fucking-eight wasn't woke?!?!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 11 2022, @09:04PM (4 children)
Star Trek wasn't even the first televised interracial kiss for William Shatner. [wikipedia.org]
No, it was a demonstration of a Liberal ideal. 12 months after interracial marriage was legalized and 7 months after Martin Luther King was assassinated.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 12 2022, @03:23PM (3 children)
Martin Luther King was murdered less than a year ago but all that racism stuff had totally already been solved!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12 2022, @09:16PM (2 children)
That wasn't the point being made - and you know it!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12 2022, @09:58PM (1 child)
Liberal ideals == woke
What was your point then, just arguing word choice while saying the same thing??
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 13 2022, @12:49AM
No, Wokeness traces it's origins to the post Gramscian neo-Marxism of the Frankfurt School. You'll not see Wokes citing the Cato letters, Adam Smith or John Locke!
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 11 2022, @09:44PM (2 children)
Broke: forced telekinesis 1968 interracial kiss
Woke: bringing back racial segregation in the 2020's
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Monday April 11 2022, @10:10PM
Joke: Pretending you haven't been complaining about "forced diversity" on TV as some kind of scourge against humanity for the last 50 goddamn years.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 11 2022, @11:04PM
Gaslight
Obstruct
Project
Wow, a rightwing twofer! Actually pretty close to a hat trick, could argue obstruction is the result of the gaslighting projection. Conservatives after 8 years of racism against Obama: we're not racists, you're the real racists!
Just because Trump faced no backlash from Republicans and his corrupted DOJ doesn't make such tactics viable. It just means they'll work on your fellow morons so you can jerk each other off in your little red hats.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Monday April 11 2022, @10:28PM (5 children)
Someone obviously thinks I'm exaggerating about Judge Jackson's confirmation being called wokeness but that's literally what Runaway's journal about her claims. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 11 2022, @11:07PM
Their racism is now worn on their sleeves, hard to imagine they are truly unaware. The emperor has no clothes!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 11 2022, @11:20PM (3 children)
They pre-announced they'd be nominating an African-American woman which you'll not square with Title VII. Then Jackson couldn't even define the word "woman" during the confirmation hearings, so Biden actually nominated an "African-American self-declared undefined". Welcome to Clown World!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12 2022, @12:07AM
For most alt-right incels, the definition of "woman" is purely theoretical, anyway.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 12 2022, @03:26PM
Yep. We knew it would trigger the shit out of you and it worked swimmingly.
And then we found someone who was so goddamn super-qualified the best burn you could come up with was reading a children's book at her!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12 2022, @03:58PM
Where on the lust would you put McConnel saying the GOP would obstruct everything the dems do? How about blocking Obama's appointment with a lame excuse, then violating that excuse himself a few yesrs later? See this is what happens when you support shitty people, slowly but surely everyone figures out that you're not worth spitting on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 11 2022, @08:12PM
Can't believe you forgot Mudd's Women
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 11 2022, @07:01PM (7 children)
There is an active campaign to cause division by re-branding "liberal" as strictly business friendly globalism, probably to make "libertarian" the label for pro-human freedoms. Aside from the globalist aspect those labels are backwards. Ask yourself, why must you push a twisted interpretation of words? Too much rightwing media influencing your grasp of cultural issues? Or just incorporating the divisive political science arguments that groups use to keep others isolated and infighting.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 11 2022, @09:08PM (6 children)
Liberals are by definition civil libertarians, any other use of the word is incorrect.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 11 2022, @11:13PM (5 children)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_libertarianism [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism [wikipedia.org]
No amount of whinging changes reality, but thanks for confirming the point.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 11 2022, @11:28PM (4 children)
Then what are you whinging about? Let's take a look at the opening paragraphs of your links.
Why don't you explain how someone can be a Liberal without being a Civil Libertarian?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12 2022, @04:43AM (3 children)
Maybe you should write an essay on the differences between the two, should help clear things up for you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12 2022, @02:18PM (2 children)
I should prefer to write an essay on the difference between Liberals and Social Democrats who mistakenly think themselves Liberal so as to clear things up for you!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 13 2022, @01:13AM (1 child)
The thread was pulled long enough for you to make a fool out of yourself. Top notch fren!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 13 2022, @01:17AM
Something else you're not clear on.
(Score: 2) by Mojibake Tengu on Monday April 11 2022, @07:48PM (3 children)
ST already transcended beyond limit of saveability long time ago. I still remember well, in 60's, the Klingons were a role model of Soviets, as brutal enemies with incomprehensible and incompatible bloody culture, and that was the original indoctrination goal which was the ST propaganda purposed for.
In funny coincidence, after dissolution of Soviet Union, Klingons began to socialize, groom and serve as officers on Federation ships, yet perceived as traitors by their more orthodox traditional kin. Maghwl'! Natlh!
Though one escape direction towards additional wokeism is still available: Q and Borg happily living together, making Love, with the Universe united under their control reaching sustainable advancement...
Is that what you wanted?
The edge of 太玄 cannot be defined, for it is beyond every aspect of design
(Score: 4, Informative) by dalek on Monday April 11 2022, @10:29PM (2 children)
You're correct that TOS-era Klingons were an allegory for the Soviet Union. After that, I'm not sure we watched the same Star Trek series. I'm not sure what you're referring to.
For one, TNG premiered in 1987, with Worf already as part of the main cast, and the Klingon Empire an ally of the Federation. The Soviet Union dissolved four years later in 1991. Star Trek actually did a story about the fall of the Soviet Union, what Leonard Nimoy described as if "the [Berlin] Wall came down in space." That was Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. Your timeline doesn't make sense.
There are two Klingons we see serving on Federation ships: Worf and B'Elanna Torres. The latter isn't relevant because Torres dropped out of Starfleet Academy and joined the Maquis, and nobody in the Alpha and Beta quadrants would have known she was serving on a Federation ship until season 4 of Voyager. This is really about Worf. Let's talk about what actually happened.
The story begins with TNG's Sins of the Father where Worf's brother Kurn comes aboard the Enterprise as part of an exchange program to inform Worf that their father, Mogh, is being framed for betraying the Klingons and aiding the Romulans at the Khitomer massacre. Mogh is being framed by Duras, whose father actually betrayed the Klingons, and who was also being supported by the Romulans. But to avoid civil war in the Klingon Empire, Chancellor K'mpec persuades Worf to accept discommendation instead of challenging Duras.
In Reunion, K'mpec reveals that he is dying due to being poisoned, and that he suspects one of the two individuals who could succeed him, either Gowron or Duras, is responsible. When the Klingon Great Hall is bombed, it's revealed that one of Duras' guards was responsible, and the bomb was Romulan in origin. Worf kills Duras, and Gowron becomes the next chancellor. There's a recurring theme in TNG where the Romulans are trying to weaken the Klingon Empire either by starting a civil war, installing a puppet as chancellor, or at least breaking apart the alliance with the Federation. An example is The Mind's Eye, where the Romulans brainwash Geordi into attempting to assassinate a Klingon, which would have ended the alliance.
In short, Worf's discommendation isn't because he serves on a Federation ship, but because of corruption on the High Council. It's politically expedient to back the Duras family and their Romulan influence than to tell the truth about what happened at Khitomer. This actually leads the Klingon Empire to the brink of civil war in Redemption, where Worf's honor is restored for helping Gowron to defeat the challenge from the Duras family and to actually become chancellor.
Gowron does become drunk on power and perhaps a lot of blood wine. We see the beginnings of this when he declines to personally answer Picard in Unification because he is trying to rewrite history to omit the help he received from Picard and Worf to become chancellor. In DS9's The Way of the Warrior, Gowron is leading an invasion of Cardassia on the basis of the false premise that the Cardassian government was replaced by Changelings. Worf's friendship with Gowron ends here because Worf declines to accompany Gowron on the invasion. However, a lot of what happens is not necessarily due to Gowron's desire for glory but the result of Dominion subversion. General Martok is alongside Gowron during the battle of Deep Space Nine, but it's not actually Martok. The real Martok is already in a Jem'Hadar internment camp, having been replaced by a Changeling. The real issue here isn't that Worf is in Starfleet but the Dominion's effort to incite war between the Alpha quadrant powers.
Worf isn't viewed as a petaQ for serving in Starfleet. The Klingon Empire generally views the Federation as honorable and has since the battle of Narendra III. A lot of the turmoil is driven by external forces seeking to break the alliance between the Klingon Empire and the Federation, first the Romulans, then the Dominion. Gowron's personal issues with Worf in DS9 are due to Worf not joining him in battle, not because of his service in Starfleet. Even so, Worf still has friends in the Empire.
I just don't think we watched the same Star Trek after TOS.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Mojibake Tengu on Tuesday April 12 2022, @04:24AM (1 child)
It was a Reagan-Gorbachev summit in Reykjavik, October 11-12, 1986, (after previous Cold War Peace summit, Geneva, November 19-20, 1985), where a dissolution of Soviet Union was agreed and the whole process started.
My Soviet/Klingon timing and your ST:TNG timing perfectly fits each other.
The edge of 太玄 cannot be defined, for it is beyond every aspect of design
(Score: 2) by dalek on Tuesday April 12 2022, @06:16AM
The Reykjavik summit didn't produce an agreement to dissolve the Soviet Union. Gorbachev was only willing to discuss arms reductions.
Your understanding of Star Trek is also flawed. Let's revisit how Klingons viewed Worf. He wasn't an outcast for serving in Starfleet.
In TNG, Worf voluntarily accepted discommendation to avoid a civil war in the Klingon Empire. Duras didn't blame Worf's father, Mogh, for the Khitomer massacre because Duras frowned upon Worf serving in Starfleet. Duras thought that Worf had lived among humans for so long that he wouldn't care about losing his honor. Worf wasn't aware of the situation until his brother, Kurn, came aboard the Enterprise to tell him. Other members of the High Council sided with Duras because it was politically expedient for them to do so, not because they actually had a problem with Worf serving in Starfleet. The Romulans were the puppet masters in all of this and were providing support for Duras.
In DS9, Gowron's friendship with Worf ends, but that's also not because of Worf serving in Starfleet. It's because Worf declined to join Gowron in battle to invade Cardassia. But this was between Gowron and Worf. Other respected Klingons didn't seem to have a problem with Worf. The House of Martok was a very respected house. If Worf was generally viewed as a petaQ, there's no way Martok would have allowed Worf and Jadzia Dax to join the House of Martok. For that matter, Worf wouldn't have been welcome in battle on other Klingon ships, and certainly not to fight a dangerous battle to get Jadzia into Suto'vo'kor.
I think you're misremembering both what the Reykjavik summit was about and how Worf was portrayed in TNG and DS9. As Kirk asked Chekov at the beginning of The Trouble With Tribbles, is the rest of your history that faulty, Ensign?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 4, Informative) by dalek on Tuesday April 12 2022, @12:03AM (4 children)
I actually hoped this discussion would focus on the writing of Star Trek and/or Paramount's greed. Everyone's instead focused on my last paragraph, which I hoped wouldn't be the direction of this discussion. Since that's happened anyway, let's look at racial issues in Star Trek and how that was a theme throughout classic Star Trek. I'll mostly skip over TOS because I've already provided some examples.
The one element of TOS I haven't addressed is the movies. TOS Kirk views the Klingon Empire as a threat to the Federation because it's expansionist and despotic. In STIII, it becomes personal, when Kirk's son is killed by a Klingon. Instead of hating that Klingon, he hates all Klingons because "Klingon bastards killed my son." This is a plot point in STVI, where Kirk initially agrees with Admiral Cartwright's opposition to negotiating a peace treaty with the Klingon Empire, and would put him on the same side as General Chang. Kirk's racism is confronted and he has to put it aside in favor of peace and the best interests of the Federation, preventing Chancellor Gorkon's daughter from being assassinated like Gorkon was.
Racism among humans isn't really a big issue in TNG, but there's overt racism between Klingons and Romulans. Worf is actually pretty racist in episodes like The Enemy and later in Birthright. The latter is more blatant when he is clearly attracted to a young Klingon woman until he realizes she is half Romulan and rejects her. For their part, Romulans have a low opinion of Klingons, particularly in The Enemy and to an extent in The Defector.
Race is a central element of DS9. Let's look past Far Beyond the Stars, which literally deals with racism in 1950s America. Humans generally distrust Changelings, believing them as less than genuine because of their ability to change form. For their part, the Founders view "solids" with distrust and as fundamentally inferior because they're limited to a single form. This is the fundamental reason why the Dominion is so xenophobic, not because a few colonies in the Gamma Quadrant and a few ships actually threatened the Dominion. The crew of DS9 didn't really show bigotry toward the Founders, but others in Starfleet certainly did. Michael Eddington was assigned as security chief of DS9 because Starfleet didn't trust Odo. Both Garak and Section 31 also attempted genocide against the Founders.
Let's not forget how the Cardassians enslaved the Bajoran people during the Occupation, and the lasting effects of resentment. Major Kira has a bit of bigotry against Cardassians that she has to confront, but other Bajorans have a much deeper hatred of Cardassians. Let's not forget about Duet where Aamin Marritza, who wants to expose the horrors of the Occupation, is murdered by a Bajoran for the sole reason that Marritza is a Cardassian. Race was a central element of DS9 and really was the underlying cause of the Dominion War.
Admittedly, I never thought Voyager dealt as much with issues of race. But Enterprise began with a deep distrust between Vulcans, Andorians, and Humans. Archer particularly resents Vulcans, but has to put that aside both in his professional relationship with T'Pol and to build the trust that leads to the Federation being founded. It might not have been quite as overt as DS9, but Enterprise definitely addressed racial issues. Canon had already determined that the Federation would be formed, but the distrust between Vulcans, Andorians, and Humans wasn't part of Star Trek before Enterprise. This was a creative decision made specifically for Enterprise, not inherently baked into the series because of existing canon.
While my understanding is that the Borg weren't really written to address issues of race, some of what they say is interesting. The phrase "you will be assimilated" could be viewed in a racial context, particularly when Locutus said things like, "We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us." I don't believe Michael Piller wrote the Borg that way to address racial issues but the words sure are interesting.
Throughout its history, race was a central theme of Star Trek and the stories that were told. Star Trek didn't just start being woke and telling stories about race with Discovery. This has always been a big part of Star Trek.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12 2022, @06:23AM
Shoulda left that paragraph out, you know the haters can't resist.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12 2022, @08:26AM (1 child)
The Borg did away with race and culture in their pursuit of enforced equality, which they termed 'perfection'. They were group-think writ large, true equals in their bland mediocrity, and utterly intolerant of difference, deviation, or dissent. Erasure of identity so as to better serve the Collective was the first thing they did to every new member, and as they said, resistance was futile. Locutus was just a face they wore, crudely mimicking the man he'd once been. A cruel mockery to more efficiently bring new victims into the fold, but in the end just as expendable as any other drone. That's why Hugh experiencing individuality was so destructive to them. The moment that drones started thinking for themselves the Collective fell apart, and many died because they had nothing to replace it with. They simply couldn't function without the group doing the thinking for them.
That's why I was so annoyed when Voyager introduced the Queen. They took one of the most terrifying monsters in fiction and nerfed it almost beyond recognizability in a failed attempt to make up for weak writing.
(Score: 3, Informative) by dalek on Tuesday April 12 2022, @10:28PM
Voyager did explore what happens to Borg who are separated from the collective. Unity was about a colony of Borg who were assimilated at Wolf 359, then were separated from their collective when their cube was damaged. They force Chakotay to re-establish their collective, forcibly removing the individuality of the former Borg in the colony.
Survival Instinct is about three former drones who were separated from the collective along with Seven of Nine. Instead of embracing individuality as the three other drones did, Seven of Nine panicked and assimilated them into a miniature collective. Even when the three former drones were liberated from the Borg, they still heard each others' thoughts. It's an outstanding story that examines Seven of Nine's past with the Borg. The primary difference between Seven of Nine is that she was assimilated at a very young age instead of spending much of her life as an individual. It explores some of the themes from Unity and that TNG did with Hugh, but it's an outstanding episode in its own right.
Voyager did tell a couple of great Borg stories. While I despised the introduction of the Borg Queen, I think the bigger issue is that she was poorly written. TNG originally planned for the Borg to be the aliens from Conspiracy, but budget constraints made it easier to abandon that idea and replace them with cyborgs. Those aliens effectively had a queen, which took over Remmick. The Borg was responsible for destroying the outputs in The Neutral Zone, and those aliens were originally going to be responsible. Instead, Q Who strongly implies that the Borg destroyed those outposts just like what they did in system J25. But the original Borg did have a queen, which was Remmick.
In my opinion, Scorpion is what ruined the Borg. I have no problem with the idea that the Borg might negotiate when faced with an existential threat, then not keep up the deal once the threat had passed. Species 8472 was a far greater threat to the Borg than anything from TNG. The problem was that the Borg in Scorpion were unable to analyze and adapt like TNG Borg would. TNG Borg were scary because no weapon would be sufficient against the Borg. After two or three shots, the Borg would adapt and render the weapon useless. By comparison, the Borg in Scorpion were complete idiots, unable to analyze anything they couldn't assimilate. The solution to defeat Species 8472 involved a fairly small modification to Borg technology, but they couldn't figure it out because they couldn't assimilate Species 8472 and apparently weren't capable of analyzing sensor data.
After that, if the Borg hadn't assimilated a particular technology, they could be defeated by it. Fighting a Borg cube was effectively about having superior firepower that the Borg hadn't yet assimilated. Blood Fever's premise of going underground and masking life signs to hide from the Borg didn't diminish the collective in any way. Neither did Unity, which didn't involve the actual collective. The problem, as I see it, was when Scorpion took away the Borg's ability to understand anything they couldn't assimilate. It's a entertaining two-part episode and a really fun story in its own right, but the Borg were never the same after that.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12 2022, @04:30PM
-William Shatner
(Score: 3, Interesting) by owl on Tuesday April 12 2022, @03:06PM (1 child)
USENET/Bittorrent -- problem of "locked behind Paramount+" solved.
Additionally, no lead-in unskippable commercials attached to the episodes either.
(Score: 2) by dalek on Tuesday April 12 2022, @10:39PM
Indeed, that is the logical solution. CBS' greed will drive people back to piracy. The irony is that the success of TNG and DS9 was because Paramount immediately pushed them into syndication and tried to make them easily available for people to watch. TOS was very popular in syndication at the time. Paramount used this as leverage, only agreeing to let local stations carry TOS if they also picked up TNG. TNG got a huge audience because Paramount wanted to get it on as many over-the-air stations as possible, making it available to the widest possible audience. It worked extraordinarily well, making TNG hugely successful and profitable. Later seasons of TNG had one of the largest per-episode budgets of any TV show at the time. Despite this being incredibly successful, Paramount is now doing the exact opposite, only making Star Trek available through a single streaming service. It's a bit like a band getting its first success by people bootlegging their music, then later suing fans for pirating their music online. The correct response is, as you note, more piracy.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RamiK on Wednesday April 13 2022, @12:04AM (2 children)
If you go episode-by-episode through the original series, following into next generation and especially all the way to the recent runs, you'll find there's a gradual shift from resolving conflict through study and dialog towards deus ex technical magic and finally, straight up photon torpedoes showdowns.
Same thing happened with police procedural as they went from being almost entirely about interviews and drama to 95% fire fights and CSI magic... Romance-drama became more and more soap focusing on betrayal... Even sitcoms also went full throttle around Married with Children...
I do believe the Original Series stood out as more peaceful compared to other shows of its time. But, I the red shirts jokes had to start somewhere... Right?
compiling...
(Score: 2) by dalek on Wednesday April 13 2022, @02:36AM (1 child)
DS9 did have a lot more space battles than its predecessors, but that's not necessarily because of changes in the writing. The budget for TOS was particularly prohibitive. Exterior shots in TNG were filmed with models, which also made space battles very expensive. The Enterprise looks different in later seasons of TNG because of switching to a smaller model that was easier to film with. The Best of Both Worlds was originally going to be a three-part story and actually show the Battle of Wolf 359, but it was too expensive and the story was reduced to two parts. In some respects, Family was a continuation showing the aftermath of the Borg attack, but nothing like what was originally planned. That said, the transporter did seem to have almost magical powers at times in TNG.
It's not that Gene Roddenberry didn't want to show more space battles, but it was too expensive. DS9 used a lot more CGI, which is what allowed them to show massive space battles that would have been impossible for TNG to do. The serialization of DS9 is a departure from prior series. But there's also a lot more character development than in any other series. It was different, but I never felt that the writing was lazy. I do agree that there was a tendency toward more technobabble solutions in Voyager. Later seasons of Voyager did use nanoprobes as almost a magical solution like TNG did at times with the transporter. However, even with all of the issues with the first two seasons of Enterprise, it still felt like Star Trek.
I think it's far more jarring to compare any of classic Trek with new Trek, where there's a clear preference for violence instead of diplomacy and logic. They tend to shoot their way out of problems instead of negotiating. The dialogue also really lacks the depth of earlier series. Here are a couple of great examples that I think would seem out of place in more recent series:
1) Spock and Data discuss being human: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YahVhEZ55FI [youtube.com]
2) Quark and Garak discuss Root Beer as a metaphor for the Federation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VhSm6G7cVk [youtube.com]
Also, new Trek's shorter seasons don't really allow for stories that focus on things like character development. There were a lot of great stories in classic Trek that would never make it into a 13-episode season
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Wednesday April 13 2022, @05:10PM
Well, if you keep doing procedurals then sure. But, if you dispense with the episodic stories, like Picard did, and then develop the story over 13 weekly episodes, I believe there's plenty of room for honest character development even with all the contemporary fire fights and melodrama.
I like to think this is the real reason why they have so many spin-offs queued up back-to-back: They understand the formula needs reworking and fleshing out so they're testing it on the audience to see what sticks.
Either way, I like Picard as is, if only for the hope it give with regards to a Farscape reboot once all these Trek stuff dies down a bit :D
compiling...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18 2022, @05:52PM (2 children)
Like the Enterprise finale, "These are the Voyages . . ."?
(Score: 2) by dalek on Tuesday April 19 2022, @03:33AM (1 child)
Yes, the Enterprise finale was awful. Rick Berman got a lot of things wrong as executive producer. One horrendous decision that comes to mind was firing Ron Jones during season 4 of TNG. Ron Jones was responsible for most of the memorable scores from Star Trek during that era. The Romulan theme used in episodes like The Neutral Zone and The Defector was Jones' work. A lot of episodes with distinctive soundtracks like Where Silence Has Lease, Q Who, Booby Trap, and Skin of Evil were scored by Jones. Then there's Jones' work for The Best of Both Worlds, including Borg Engaged (plays when they first encounter the cube) and Captain Borg (part 1 cliffhanger). Really, the only episode I can remember that had memorable music and wasn't scored by Jones was Voyager's Scorpion, which was scored by Jay Chattaway. TOS always had really dramatic music. Berman didn't want that for TNG so he fired Ron Jones. It was a huge mistake, for sure.
I'm definitely willing to criticize Berman when it's warranted. He made a lot of bad decisions, no question. I just think Berman did a lot more good than bad. It's easy to say that Star Trek was good in spite of Berman, except that he was responsible for giving a lot of creative control to people like Michael Piller, Ira Steven Behr, Ronald D. Moore, and Manny Coto. I'm not particularly a fan of Brannon Braga, but Berman did bring a lot of good producers on board as well. You'd think Berman ruined the franchise by how some people describe him. In reality, that was Star Trek's most successful era. Berman wasn't that bad.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @03:14PM
Late to this discussion, but it was obvious what was going to happen to Star Trek when Abrams did the movies with his so-called writers, it was dead to me from that point on, unfortunately. Those people are imbeciles. I had watched a couple of episodes of Lost when it was current and knew they were pathetic writers right away. It is sad the morons ended the ride, but we have all the shows with Enterprise included, even though I watched those episodes on sped-up playback most of the time, but they were Star Trek, even if silly, same as Voyager, but still fun. And some ST books are light fun, as well.
And the scripts that are on the net are fun, as well.