Sfdebris.net

First, I've been a long time fan of SFDebris, but I finally nutted up and joined the forum.

Anyway, I saw Nerdrotic's rant about the new Picard series which seems to now be in the cross hairs of fans. Apparently, the want to discuss the attitudes that led to Brexit and the election of Trump as president with a Federation that has become more isolationist. They described it as the world of TNG no long existing. Starfleet has had a shift in moral character. Picard is also a much different man from we last saw in Nemesis, affected by Data's death and the destruction of Romulus.

Now this has apparently gotten people up in arms. The "Desecration of Gene's vision" cliche is being thrown out there. However, I find the direction they're going here to be fascinating and fitting for the history of Star Trek up to this point.

Yes, the Federation has been this paragon always willing to explore strange new worlds. However, that exploration led to a devastating war with the Dominion. And the Federation has always been queasy about entangling themselves in the affairs of other powers to the point they have the Prime Directive. So, I can see the people of the Federation questioning exploration and not wanting to get involved in the Romulan crisis. This would lead to the election of more isolationist members to the council and more isolationist Federation Council would support promoting more isolationist officers into the Admiralty while sideline explorer like Picard and force them into retirement.

So, I don't get the idea of attacking this concept. It will all come down to execution obviously. However, it seems like these people want the world of Star Trek to be static. And I personally find that unrealistic. A lot has happened in the universe of Star Trek since the end of TNG, and the world will be different.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on Star Trek Picard and the concept of the Federation becoming more insular?

I'm fine with that. It seems as if the Federation encountered an increasing amount of rather unpleasent happenings that left a lot of devastation in their wake, not to even talk about all the nearly world-ending scenarios that came about once a week it felt like. Rebuilding and focusing on themselves more, is only a logical conclusion at that point. Think alone about Betazed. Does one really expect that planet and that particular society to go back to status quo without any scars left, after the Dominion War? Doubtful. Plus, depending on how the Romulan Star Empire developed after the Hobus Nova, there's quite a lot of potential for conflict there, too, which might have contributed to allowing Federation Citizens see the Federation's more self-less nature as a problem, e.g. attacks on relief efforts.

My suspicion is that this will not be a balanced look at the pros and cons of a more isolationist approach. I think Stewart has a lot of control over the show, and he's quite leftist in his politics to the point where he seems to think of Brexit as not just wrong from a utilitarian point of view but a purely ethical one (though I may be taking him too literally in my inferences; I do that).

But being left wing is par for the course for Trek. I don't understand why people act like this is a shift for the franchise.

And there is a large part of the spectrum between interventionism and isolationism. When the United States adopted an isolationist stance, the League of Nations collapsed and it led to the rise of Hitler and the other fascist governments ultimately leading to World War II. Perhaps they will seek that balance where the Federation isn't getting out ahead of its skis, but also not withdraw from a galaxy that's seen it as a beacon of hope for centuries.

They also don't like the fact Stewart has never been a huge Trek fan and yet has so much creative control. I don't see this as necessarily a problem. This guy has a storied career as an actor and writer. This is also not going to be a typical Trek series, Picard is essentially a privateer (if not an outright pirate) and not a captain in Starfleet. The niceties of Starfleet are not going to be present, so we will be seeing a rougher life in space.

Also, this guy suggests they should handed Trek to MacFarlan among others, and that speaks volumes. Seth is a great comedy writer and The Orville is entertaining, but he's far to myopic to be an effective science fiction writer.

I guess we're just going to have to watch it and see. I might actually buy a year of All Access for it.

What they are doing with Picard makes sense to me. You can't really maintain status quo after everything that has happened in time line. Besides most of Galaxy isn't nice place to live in like Federation.

Looking forward to Picard. I just finished seeing TNG all the way through for the first time.

Also what was fun, Star Trek '78 was playing at the main movie theater downtown like 2 weeks after I finished watching TOS for the first time.

Trek was always kinda center left. Not full-blown left wing. It's a post-scarcity society, but that's par for the course. What concerns me is Kurtzman, who is still in charge, thinks that the Feds merely nationalized the companies, when that's not what post-scarcity is! He thinks it's like the USSR.

Trek has always been left-wing, but the left nowadays isn't the left that we used to have. The left used to include treating everyone the same regardless of sex or hue, and that isn't the case now.

Quoth Stewart:

I find myself thinking – why don’t we put an embargo on the number of places men can apply to be elected? Actually why not just ban men from running at all everywhere for 20 years? No more men in politics in city halls. Just thanks, it’s been great - good bye.

(source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/theatre/Patrick-stewart-and-wife-sunny-ozell-interviewed/ )

Darth Wedgius wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 5:17 am Trek has always been left-wing, but the left nowadays isn't the left that we used to have. The left used to include treating everyone the same regardless of sex or hue, and that isn't the case now.

Not really. There are shifting social attitudes on top of the general political trends. There have been some degrees of overlap from time to time but the right could make the same claim too. Often neither stack up very well of course, partially because of general human nature.

Quoth Stewart:

I find myself thinking – why don’t we put an embargo on the number of places men can apply to be elected? Actually why not just ban men from running at all everywhere for 20 years? No more men in politics in city halls. Just thanks, it’s been great - good bye.

(source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/theatre/Patrick-stewart-and-wife-sunny-ozell-interviewed/ )

Hope that quote's out of context because it makes Stewart look a bit gaga (worrying that anyone could say such a thing and not be away of the hypocricy). But I don't think it's inconsistent with a left-wing outlook either modern or old, just a rather stupid current way of thinking that sometimes seems to crop up on that side these days.

Well, even I disagree, and we all know the idea of a female Vice-President (to a really older male who's gonna be dead in eight years) offends me, so when that's your position, you've gone too far.