[peckinpah]

Originally Posted by benbess

Outside of Star Trek, probably the most common type of science fiction is dystopian. Sordid and pessimistic visions of the future are maybe more realistic, if you can call any sci fi realistic, but that's what sets Star Trek apart. So probably you're more attracted to something like the new BSG, which is fine, but that's not what Trek is all about. A certain optimism, even if it's unrealistic at times, is part of Trek's DNA.

But even with that, your idea that all Starfleet people are "boy scouts" is not accurate. In fact, in TWOK Dr. Carol Marcus specifically says that Kirk "was never a boy scout!" And examples of flawed and power-hungry Starfeet people, with questionable agendas, are pretty common in the Star Trek universe.

That's why in STID when Admiral Marcus, following the Section 31 MO, wants to use drones to remotely take out the terrorist *and* start a war with the Klingons, it makes sense—even within Star Trek's optimistic vision.

Here's another example. In Star Trek: Voyager, in the two-parter Equinox, a Starfleet captain has gone way wrong, and the crew of his ship is cruelly harvesting the life force of an intelligence species for their own ends, killing quite a number of these aliens.

There are other examples, but seemingly one thing that is maybe bothering you is the idea of a multicultural and multiethnic earth where different people get along and work together. In large parts of the US, and in some other parts of the world, that's obviously already happening. I get that for you the idea that that's going to happen all over the globe, and that all the conflicts in the middle east and elsewhere will resolve themselves, does seem overly optimistic. I get your point, and I don't really disagree with it. But within a sea of often negative sci fi, Trek is different in part because of this positive vision of the future. In "real life" I tend to be pessimistic (or just realistic) about some things, but perhaps ironically that's one of the main reasons why I'm a fan of Star Trek.

So, I guess I'm agreeing with you to a degree, but also saying that that's just what makes it Star Trek.

I'm specifically talking about Trek when Roddenberry was in control. The franchise became more shaded when he was forced out, then went back to being a preachy morality play when TNG first aired, then once again corrected itself when Roddenberry retired. The non-Roddenberry stuff is what I find interesting (to varying degrees), but his stuff leaves me cold. It's too didactic, heavy-handed, and dramatically inert for me. (And for the record, I find BSG inconsistent, overextended, and often laughably glum [in other words, it's too extreme in the other direction]. My idea of sci-fi-with-a-brain is something like Dan Simmons's Hyperion series.)

I might be a little less critical of old Trek if some reasonable explanation had been provided as to how we came to collectively better ourselves. That sort of pendulum-swing isn't something I can just accept. I'll swallow the pseudoscience and whatever else is required to make certain plots and situations work, but I prefer a strong foundation. I want/need to know how things got to a certain point. I'm weird that way.

But I'm genuinely glad that you can love it the way you do; I've been on the other side of the fence enough times not to recognize the value of a well-meaning contrary opinion. And I'm genuinely glad we could continue the discussion this long without resorting to insulting each other's mothers. That's refreshing.