To be fair gene only had creative control to rewrite and restrict scripts in the first few seasons of TNG and the first was arguably the worst In later seasons we actually see the interpersonal conflicts and flaws in the characters and that's when the show really gets good
@@rreagan007 He was less involved, not "he really wasn't very involved." That line makes it sound like he wasn't around at all. He stopped being show runner after season 1, but he was still the Executive producer for the show until his death. People went to him for everything during this time from approval to ideas to costume's. He was involved with Star Trek up until his last few breaths. Just days before Roddenberry died, he argued with Nicholas Mayor about Star Trek 6, because he hated literally Everything about it.
Good writers portray conflict in a way that makes sense in the context of the setting. Bad writers portray conflict for conflict's sake because that's the only thing they know how to write.
Also, bad writers portray conflict as physical, but most conflict is, in fact, not physical at all. People have different wants and needs, as well as different perspectives on the world, and that inherently generates opportunities for conflict. The lazy writer solves it with a gun. The thoughtful writer doesn't necessarily solve it, but explores it from multiple perspectives and lets the characters find outcomes they can both accept. And maybe most important of all, the good writer leaves the buyer with questions and ideas to think about.
We got gender conflict in star trek now, so that's pretty new. We never had one before since meeting a lot of species made them more accepting for it for hundreds of years. Its just... Today the starfleet is not that humble anymore, i guess. And we can blame the writer for that because it aint making sense.
About to say when I was learning screen play writing in the UK first thing learnt wasn't drama is your only tool and everything is a nail. Actually first rule I learnt was only use fade in and fade out at beginning and end of your screen play. But hey what do I know.
Also think alot of it, is cultural. That writers surround themselves in my experience with artistic types that are well more dramatic people. If they hung out with some doctors or engineers realise plenty people are motivated by other things other than conflict.
I guess this is what some people never got about Gene's Star Trek; it's a huge metaphor. The human beings in Star Trek are perfect because they are a metaphor for who we want to be. The aliens are a metaphor for what we are right now. And THAT"S where the conflict comes from. From the struggle between who we want to be and who we are now. Hopefully, a well written episode will leave the viewer seeing the humans (our better natures) overcoming our worse natures in a way that shows us how to accomplish it well. A decent writer should totally be able to tell a good story with these elements. Hardly a Wackadoodle idea, one as old as story actually...
"for who we want to be" for what Gene wanted people to be, with which some people might agree. Don't get me wrong, the plots are good but his vision isn't universal nor realistic. It's just his personal view which happens to be an interesting lore.
The humans in Star Trek have never been peddled as perfect. That's a myth on the best of days. What Roddenberry insisted on for his characters is that they weren't petty, they learned, and they always tried to be the best they could be. Perfection was never part of the formula.
@@ElevenEvilExes Which denotes on you the belief that other ideologies (for example the ones which accept war) are wrong. My point again, is that the ideal isn't universal. Now, personally, I do prefer the concept of "war" over "universal peace" mainly because the first is a reality and the second is just fantasy. The process of trying to achieve such a fantasy might be more problematic than just accepting the reality and dealing with it the best way possible. I don't "want" a world without war because I know it's not achievable. It's like blaming me for not wanting an unicorn.
I think the biggest problem facing society today is that we have given up on fantasy. When you use reality as your target, there's nothing to shoot for because we already have reality. Our society was a lot more optimistic (or at least trying to be) up through the 1980s. But then in the 1990s we were told that was a fool's lie, and we should instead be cynical and jaded. And now we live in a time of near unprecedented division and unrest. The difference between today and the past was that there was some common ground to work toward. For example, the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s wasn't about revolution but inclusion. But today each side wants to abolish the other. Hell yes, I'll strive for fantasy, rather than give in to the shitfest that is our reality.
You guys really should be more open minded. You sound like all the nay sayers of DS9 being on a station, or ent being a prequel. The new shows are good. I'm a fan of all eras of trek and I think you guys need to lighten up. The future doesn't have to be a fixed vision of what we thought it'd be 55 years ago.
@@jebiniv One of my favorite parts in new _StAr TReK_ is when the old characters get brutally murdered and have their eyes graphically gouged out of their sockets. I also like the decapitations and when the people say “Shut the fuck up!” The pew pew lazer battles and big explosions hold my 5 second attention span too!! That’s really what Star Trek is all about!!1!
@@jebiniv I was open minded when I watched the new shows....all of them. I tried (and wanted to like them). To be fair, they are not bad shows by themselves if you've never watched Star Trek before...but in the world of Star Trek, for me being original series through Voyager...even Enterprise, it just didn't feel right. I couldn't get on board with needless changes in the prequal series or how many of the characters now were all about casual violence. The heart of what made it Star Trek felt missing in most of the new stuff...and that is what bothers me most. I wouldn't say it is a family-friendly show now, whereas much (not all, granted) of the earlier Star Trek was.
@@scparker6893 I know TNG does, but the point is if a writer cannot imagine external conflicts and only focuses on inner conflicts then they need to broaden their horizons.
@@EpicNinjaShiro I fully agree. When we cannot imagine beyond who we are right now we have put constraints on ourselves based only on what we know. The magic of escapism is that we can, yes, take reality with us, but it is not a constraint. We can do more. Be more. Create an entire universe with it. Gene understood this concept to the fullest, and because of the very nature of escapism, he created something that is transcendental in many ways.
@@Hewioms I'd say that ToS had the most consistently thought provoking episodes, but that the Berman era shows gave us a lot of good episodes as well. Even though Berman didn't agree with Gene's approach, he at least took seriously his obligation to try and honor Star Trek's nature as much as possible. Kurtzman Trek is explicitly anti-Roddenberry.
The aliens are the flawed humans in Star Trek and the competent Star Trek writers -- those who understood this -- built wonderful stories involving the interplay among humans, Romulans, Vorta, Klingons, Vulcans, Borg, Changelings, Bajorans, Jem'Hadar, A.I.s, self-aware computers, self-aware holigrams, Ferengi, Breen.......
And the great Star Trek stories are about humans questioning if they have achieved their peak as a civilized species and what's ahead for their future, beyond just space travel.
I would add that many good episodes were also about flawed humans and their conflicts. The difference there was that humans, often realising their imperfection, were trying their best to solve the conflicts in more mature way. As much as they could. Humans in Roddenbery's ST were not really supposed to be perfect. But they were sincerely trying to become better, despite the difficulties, that usualy leads us to making mistakes.
I can't imagine what it was like, you, Major Grin, an expert on all things Star Trek, to have to sit through entire episodes of Star Trek: Picard. I honestly almost didn't make a full single episode. Pretty embarrassing all around, the whole project.
Giving a writer restrictions like that either makes them realize they can't do it or makes them realize they need to be a better writer and find ways to do it anyway.
@@aurex8937 Not necessarily. I do think that's the best Star Trek series, but not just because there's war in it. There's so much more that makes DS9 what it is, which if applied to other types of stories, would be just as good.
@@ODST_Parker Indeed, but I suppose without conflict at the heart of the series we wouldn't have had "Duet" or "In the Pale Moonlight." I do agree that the best things were the characters and the writing. Top notch stuff there.
They weren't even close to perfect people, but to shitty people, they are. Trying to do better and what's right in a Universe that is constantly making that near impossible gives the writers room to come up with very interesting stories.
@@aurex8937 There's a difference, though. In DS9, it was almost never the human, federation characters who were duplicitous, and the characters made a point of hewing toward their better selves more often than not. Consider the episode where Sisko, Quark and a few others fought some of the Dominion soldiers on a planet with some Klingons. At the end, the Klingons raise a toast and drink over the bodies of the fallen, but what does Sisko do? He pours out the drink and refuses to celebrate the massacre. Yes, they did the right thing and defended themselves, but they didn't see that as a reason to celebrate over the deaths of others. Conflict does NOT have to mean violence and bad ideas, and for the most part, DS9 kept to that. Discovery and Picard do not. And that's not even taking into account how AWFUL the writing on Picard was.
A vision without a well-written script is a dream. The product of imagination. A vision, well scripted can effect change. Not every writer is going to have the same vision of the future. This helps create a variety of stories that have kept the dream alive for decades. The vision has brought change. It's inspired kids to work in science. It's inspired a new generation of writers.
@@Euripides_Panz if a writer does not have a vision of a peaceful future without war, poverty and starvation (on Earth), then they should never be hired as a writer for STAR TREK.
STD: "Hey we got gender issue, gayness, physical confrontation, lots of war crime, and women with superiority complex. Greatest and very innovative conflict ever introduced to star trek. Oh and by the way, i will also claim everything innovative the old trek has ever done and make it ours. Its not like the old trek is still relevant anymore am i right?" Basically what they have done for the past few years.
@@StumpfForFreedom I watched all 3 seasons (no, I didn't subscribe). The first season was awful. Basically a generic sci Fi show with a star Trek sticker on the box. Season 2 was ok, and did a few interesting things with Pike, though it largely mishandled Spock and turned him into a lifelong pathological liar. Season 3 was Star Wars with a Trek badge. BORING. To be fair to Discovery, it'd take a seriously concerted effort to make it be as bad as Picard, which is so terrible it makes Knight Rider look deep.
I'm only an amateur writer, but I feel like the "no conflict, no story" idea is a copout. A good writer can tell a good story without conflict between the characters. How do we work together to handle this situation? I'm writing a Star Trek story, and there is going to be only minimal and minor conflict between them, played mostly for laughs. I would LOVE the challenge of writing an episode of Star Trek without relying on conflict between the characters.
I think the issue was that these people were TV writers. On TV all you write is drama around character conflict because all you have is a lousy set and a few people in it. At least on most TV shows before the 80s.
Google for "star trek writers bibles pdf". You will find the TOS and TNG writers bibles written by Roddenberry, in which he verbatim describes his artistic vision and guidelines for writing Trek. I would like to know what you think of them, and if the segment here truly reflects the content of these writers bibles.
The best kind of writing comes from authors imposing strict rulesets on themselves. Stop complaining about your limitations as a writer, and start drafting your art WITHIN the lines.
@Paul Thomas Johnson I actually agree, and would say DS9 is still the pinnacle of said "great heights". May seem contrary to what I said above, but the DS9 writing staff wasn't breaking through Gene's ruleset "just because"; they had a very grounded, in-universe motive: detractors to a utopian future. Not enemies, not malcontents, just people who couldn't share in the peace-loving vision. As such, the Maquis were a brilliant invention of Trek lore, with a VERY real heartbreaking reason not to ascribe to the Federation's (Gene's) vision of peace. Then to have Ben Sisko as their reluctant spiritual "savior" ...
That tag line "Think outside the box!" is so much bullshit. What you really needs is to think while being constrained by that box. What are the limits and how do you work around them to get what you want.
@@shawarden Exactly. "Think outside the box" gives us cockamamie writing conventions like "deus ex machina". Lack of constraint makes for shoddy, aimless writing.
This shows the sad truth that drama and conflict is seemingly the only thing writers (and people) can think of to make something interesting. And it has gotten even worse now. That's why shows nowadays suck and also why we can' develop as a society. Why not write about solving mysteries, discovering new phenomena, new civilizations, building relationships and growing as a person? That's at the heart of original Star Trek and why the old shows were so much better.
Conflict in writing is just punching and gunshots. Conflict is the problem within the story and are usually manifested in 4 catgorories. Man vs. Man: the most common one in western culture. Ex: Luke vs. Darth Vader. Doesn't have to be physical either. Man vs. Nature: typical bear gryills survival story. Ex: the Martian, gravity and every natural disaster movie Man vs. Society: the main character is against the world he or she lives in. Ex: Winston Smith vs. Big Brother in 1984 Man vs. Self: entirely internal like conquering your fears or getting over a loss. Ex: picard vs. His experiences with the borg in First Contact. The most important for character development The problem with Gene's vision is that it essentially gets rid of conflict entirely. Everyone is perfect so immediately that gets rid of man vs. Self. Because they are perfect that means there are no quarrels between people so bye bye man vs. Man. And the federation is a utopia(perfect world) so no more man vs. Society. Which only leaves man vs. Nature and that will get boring fast. You can't have a story without conflict. Cus without conflict you have no character motivation to move the plot forward let alone a likeable character. This problem really shows in season one of TNG. All the characters were shallow and uninteresting and the most human like character was Data. It wasn't until season three that the producers started to focus on character that it started to get good.
@@JK-gp2rh _"The problem with Gene's vision is that it essentially gets rid of conflict entirely."_ Gene never wrote a Star Trek episode without conflict. Nor was any Star Trek written without conflict. _"Everyone is perfect so immediately that gets rid of man vs. Self. Because they are perfect that means there are no quarrels between people so bye bye man vs. Man."_ Gene explicitly stated that humanity is *not* perfect in Star Trek. Rather, that humanity is no longer consumed by pettiness and bigotry. That doesn't imply "perfection". _"And the federation is a utopia(perfect world) so no more man vs. Society. Which only leaves man vs. Nature and that will get boring fast."_ 1. The Federation is not the only society. 2. Even TOS pointed out flaws in the Federation.
@@Idazmi7 Frankly Star Trek had plenty of Conflict. It mostly can from the situation or Alien Races. People think Conflict has to be like a fucking Soap Opera like Game of Thrones where rich asshole bitch slapping each other. We have enough of that shit on tv today.
@@JK-gp2rh conflict is not needed, obsticles is... Imagen finding something weird on a planet and now the crew needs to find out what it is and why its here... That alone is compelling.
This why I think DS9 was the best. It took Gene's idealized vision of the future and was always testing it, always putting it under stress to in very realistic situations and with very interesting outcomes.
Personally DS9 got to Soapy for me. Sure DS9 had some great episode. But most of those episode had nothing to do with the Long, Drawn out and Dull Dominion war. I just feel DS9 took a lot of ideas for Babylon 5.
And that's why the original series is so well love, because the conflict always came from the alien of the week, scientific conundrums, or space anomalies.
@@stewartmcminn7773 True but I assume there was no name calling and everything done in a professional manner. Unlike in Picard when he is cussed at by a female admiral soo professional! lol
@@RICOFRITO tbf they did establish that the woman was kinda insane and devoted to the federation, and when Picard basically destroyed her worldview by showing her that she was acting in violation of the most basic principles the federation was built upon, it definitely hit her hard
Honestly, looking at most TV drama, I can see why Gene would place a "no conflict between the main characters" in Star Trek: most writers seem to understand interpersonal conflict as the only way to write stories. Conflict doesn't exist as a natural consequence of the character's actions or traits, conflict only exists to drive the plot forward. In TNG, Worf's Klingon culture often clashed with the Federation's culture, and that was natural, as they're quite contradictory due to their nature. In DS9 The Sisko was always in conflict with the Bajorans due to his status and Odo wasn't always viewed favorabily due to his nature of shapeshifter and later his connection to his people. VOY had Seven of Nine, who, due to her harsh personality and attitude was always in conflict with the crew. Compare that to Burnham's "I am going to stage a mutiny because I know better than everyone how to deal with Klingons by using a tactic that was never mentioned before and in fact appears contradictory to previous Trek", where it's pretty clear that the writers had no idea what to do to create conflict so they just pulled stuff out of their ass, otherwise they'd have no story. This is even more blatant later in the shows, where, because the writers kind of forgot to give character development to most of the main cast, everything they do sticks out like a sore thumb: That robot-girl that dies in S2 of STD and then the next episode everyone remembers her even though she barely had any development? Yep, who is her and why should it matter? Detmer's PTSD comes out of nowhere and it's shown to be more of a panic attack than PTSD? She literally starts screaming at people out of blue, and then everyone starts screaming at everyone because up until then there was very little drama, so we really need drama. Oh and then her PTSD vanishes a few episodes later, because as any person who had or had PTSD, that's just a fluke, nothing important. Funny enough, the only character whose extreme personality would naturally create conflict with the main characters, MirrorGiorgiou, gets reduced to a plot device that always acts petty and childish with everyone not daring to talk back at her, like some "missing stair". Any "conflict" with her gets reduced to snappy one-liners and then they just move on. Instead everyone praises her, because clearly that's what people's natural reaction to living alongside cannibal Hitler would be like.
Plenty of conflict with the aliens and cultures they met. In some cases, some minor internal conflicts but not a lot. So write about our heroes taking on alien cultures or societies and you got conflict. (Or about the captains or factions that did not adhere to Starfleet rules which there were a few in some storylines.)
This reminds me of what one Trek Next Gen writer said. The confines due to Genes optimistic view ment she had the hardest time writing for it if all the shows she ever wrote for, and because of that she wrote the best scripts of her career. I.e. forced out of their comfortable petty cliches they had to do something new that actually meant something.
@@dandeliondown7920 No, it was said in a tv (or RUclips) documentary on Trek years ago. Can vaguely remember what she looked like, and that statement really stuck with me, but I can’t reminder her name or the show. Writers, and later producers, on Trek always whined about petty frictions and such are “real drama”, and Roddenberriys developed societies needing to deal with deeper questions was just to cerebral and boring. Hell they threw a fit over the replicators saying they killed all real conflict potential. Which explains a lot about the pour quality of a lot of fiction.
@@KellyStarks Thanks, Kelly. It reminds me of something that was said by Nicholas Meyer, the award-winning Star Trek writer, director, and producer. He said that art thrives on restrictions or limitations. For anyone interested, it can be quickly found by googling NICHOLAS MEYER ART THRIVES ON LIMITATIONS or NICHOLAS MEYER ART THRIVES ON RESTRICTIONS
The greatest enemy is the one we find within; it is a ceaseless, agonizing struggle to overcome one's doubts and fears. At times you are shocked at what you are capable of considering the circumstances. Many shows address these issues, but there is only one Star Trek. It urged us to do better, dream bigger, and love one another without shame or bias.
Wow complaining that the very heart of Star Trek is making it difficult to write. That's one of the things that's so great about Star Trek. It's not easy to write good Star Trek. It forces you to think outside the box in terms of conflict.
Easy for me to say, as I'm here on the outside looking back, but there's seven (I think) basic conflicts. Saying "You can't have this one type of conflict" (and even then a subset) should be a challenge in writing and serve as a way to expand beyond basic TV Drama.
The only way Season 3 of TNG and onward worked is that, secretly, Piller brought conflict back into Trek as a dramatic device. However, he did it by making all the main cast naive to the reality of life from living in a “perfect society”, and then shove the conflict into their face like a child learning about bullying or theft for the first time. In effect, Trek only works because it’s “Sesame Street” for adults.
to me they are describing absolutely fantastic teamwork: i wrote a script the guy with the vision read that script, it inspired revisions/rewrites actors turned it into a show that millions love so much they celebrate it through what they love to do (making costumes, wearing cosplay, holding conventions, paying the writers and actors to visit and talk to them about some of their favorite episodes) i can understand where a writer wouldnt like their script being re written, but thats the problem we are having with current movies, shows, comics, and even games. i write a script no one rereads it and makes corrections because i dont want you to change my thing actors turn it into a show that people watch and see the flaws in the writing and talk to other people that watched it about those flaws and i get mad cause i THOUGHT my writing was perfect. this is incredibly evident in cases where there are movies/shows from the past that people loved (star wars, star trek, she ra) because now instead of watching a new show and thinking "well this is kinda bad writing" it becomes "wow they went from good writing to bad writing, why would i keep watching this when i have old episodes i can go back and enjoy?" in a world over saturated with tv, movies, books, and games, why should someone settle for trash when there are works of art left unrecognized?
Gene is sorta like George Lucas; he had a decent vision, but needed better writers. There were times where the Star Trek writers actually had conflict in their stories without either compromising too much with the overall vision of the story, or in the case of DS9, actually tried looking at that vision from a different perspective and trying to see how well those values would hold up in a realistic vision of war. Frankly, I’d say DS9 struck the perfect balance between the gritty “conflict” that the modern series kinda obsesses over and the sort of vision that Gene had in mind for the future. It’s probably the most well-written and most rewatchable of the main shows honestly.
Gene deserves a lot of credit and our thanks for giving us Star Trek, but the best Star Trek was made after his grip on the franchise came loose. So was the worst.
Gene made the writers work "hard", without having every episode be about love affairs & troubles. If anything, it makes the show timeless. 25/26 episodes for 7 seasons and they still manage to entertain & make you think. Priceless. Anybody who wanted more emotional baggage got 'Discovery" & 'Picard', and we all know those 2 shows are diamond-encrusted turds. I'll take the dumbest TNG episode over any STD or STP one.
Gene's ideas were good at the start, we had good characters in TOS, great bad guys like Khan and Commodore Decker, and strong exploration of ideas. TNG has not withstood the test of time IMO because most of the stories felt too watered down, same with Voyager. DS9 caught my interest because they re-added strong conflict to their stories and also dealt with lasting consequences of decisions. Enterprise to me recaptured a little of the newness and sense of possibilities with mankind's entrance into the interstellar scene. None of the new Treks(JJTrek, STD, Picard, etc) have been able to replicate a single semblance of what Star Trek was about. Now we have a divided fandom because the fundamental ideas of no money, no property, and no consequences are so flawed that it has actually harmed humanity. Our sense of freedom is threatened by the freeloaders who think that in the future you don't have to work and that everything is free from a replicator.
The reason why DS9 is superior to TNG is because TNG naively treats utopia as an achieved goal, while DS9 who was at the frontlines acknowledged that you HAVE to compromise, you HAVE to fight for your beliefs, you cant just put your feet up and wag your finger at the rest of the galaxy when youve achieved your "ideal society" Now this isnt a detriment to TNG, it had its own vision and its still a 9/10 show. But DS9 with all its complexities and flawed real characters are just a bit better.
@@MagikarpBeast I also like DS9 because it tackles utopia in a realistic outside perspective. It doesn't take place on Earth where it is paradise as Sisko says, but outside that perfect world and how even though humanity is mostly grown up, they are not without real flaws
Star Trek never had a "no property" ethos, and until Star Trek IV, it never had a no money concept, either. There are FAR more examples of Star Trek characters having money than not. Hell, the first episode of TNG showed Beverly Crusher shopping, and when she bought some fabric, she said "Charge it to my account on the Enterprise". You can't charge someone or have an account if there's no money. In ST: Generations, Kirk tells Picard, "This is my house...or at least it used to be. I sold it years ago." You can't sell something without money. You can't own a house without property rights. In ST III: the search for Spock, when McCoy tries to charter a flight to Genesis, he tells the ship owner, "Price you name, money I got!" Doesn't get more clear than that. On DS9, in season 7, Sisko explains that he bought a house on Bajor. Again, you can't do that without money or property rights.
@@JasonWardUCLA Most of those examples were dealing on non federation worlds and with non federation individuals. And on the other side of the coin Picard was quoted in First COntact as saying we were beyond the accumulation of posessions and material wealth. My main point is that a lot of fans believe that everything in Trek was free and use that to promote a socialist agenda and that it is very divisive to the fandom.
@@michaelsasylum Actually, we have plenty of examples where everything was NOT free. Sisco said that when he went to Star Fleet Academy his spent his entire ration of transporter credits from the moon to his fathers restaurant because he was home sick. Rations are another word for Money. Worf in TNG told his son to go to the replicator stations and get new cloths but only what he needed. This implied a limit which means accounting and means money. I believe the First Contact statement is miss leading. It was meant to express that Picard does not own the Enterprise and that Picard does not spend his live accumulating possessions even though Picard has many possessions. In the TNG series finally, Picard is shown at his ancestral home which is a vineyard. You cant have ancestral home if money or property rights or general principle of ownership does not exist. I believe what TNG was trying to show is human beings no longer having an economy of scarcity. This leads to human's no longer having to accumulate wealth as a protections from scarcity. Diana Troy (Meeting the Vulcans changed everything, poverty, war all gone in 20 years) This summation shows that mastery of the Anti-Matter allowed unlimited energy which led to limitless food and no longer a need to fight wars for resources. In the end, TNG, DS9, Yoyager, Enterprise, and TOS all had money in a sense. It was just cloaked in a shroud of practicality. Later.
I'm loving Shatner's pained expression while listening to some of these people- possibly remembering that the writers on *his* show had managed to adhere to Gene's vision for several seasons, and then into a number of movies.
I am afraid you are (partly) right. Stewart has no real understanding of the artistic vision behind the Star Trek that made him this household name, but unfortunately he is too narcissistic to see his inability.
@@TheTuubster You don't have to be like that, Gene had a huge ego and he even stole credit from others. Also, Patrick Stewart has been one of the few actors who hasn't gotten involved in anything illegal or harmful to damage his reputation, something Gene didn't do.
@@TheTuubster Of course, ignore it if you want, gene was the one who tried to modify the scripts of other writers to take their credit, something that is true.
@@darioestebaneliztrado4641 As show runner it is within his right to change scripts to his liking. That happened with all Star Trek series and all their show runners and head writers. It is a showrunners job to oversee the production and that the scripts/stories submit to his artistic vision. I suggest you inform yourself about how the production process of a series works. Fun fact: Sometime accusations of wrong doings are only a documentation of a lack of understanding of certain processes.
Anyone who ever served in the military, especially during a conflict is pretty much aware that you can experience loads of drama and conflict while the crew/the unit is not ridden by interpersonal drama. interpersonal drama is the one thing you cannot afford at all if you want to come out alive. No idea where these bloody writers came from, probably just angry they could not pull out their cookie cutter soap opera episodes with the usual main story arc being: the series ends when everyone pissed off everyone and everyone slept with everyone.
Even with Gene's later idea of no supposed conflicts between humans, just look at TOS and the TOS movies, and look carefully at TNG, DS9, VOY, even ENT -- You can have story conflict, nuance, good guys and bad guys who can both be right or wrong at times can both have valid points, and a number of other things that make good drama, comedy, etc., without painting everything as horribly debased, fatalist, nihilist, gloom-and-doom, super-violent, or other faults of the JJ and DIS takes on Trek. The vision of optimism, of inspiration and of attainability, that if we work at it, we can improve, that many people want good to happen, these are part of that spirit of Star Trek,that vision. I don't know why current JJ and DIS Trek don't understand this Of course, Gene was not perfect. He had real flaws. But he also aspired to greater things. He wanted us (and himself) to be better than we often are. That isn't wacky-doodle. That's hope and hard work, to reach something better. Wallowing in misery and violence like JJ and DIS Trek too often do, the idea that we can't overcome our lesser natures, is what's so noxious about that current trend.
"I don't know why current JJ and DIS Trek don't understand this" They understand this. They just dont want to do it, because it is too difficult. They are about the easy paycheck and bullshitting their way through, as long as the sweet Trek money is filling their bank accounts.
NuTrek does not care. JJ Abrams and Alex Kurtzman have both made public statements saying that they did not like Star Trek. I suspect they despise Star Trek's optimism in the same way that a criminal despises a law-abiding citizen ... IMO.
@@MazeThePlaya In terms of structure and approach to storytelling, it's actually a LOT more like Trek than either Picard or discovery are. Those are just generic science fantasy shows with a star Trek tag attached for marketing purposes.
"Seth Trek" is authentic because it understands the heart of Sci-Fi: **Exploring the social implications of technology.** The dumb action schlock of STD and STP are fucking clueless about respecting the intellect of the viewer. When you have 5 year olds writing for 5 year olds of course you are going to get garbage.
Gene Roddenberry might have been a real pain in the ass to work with, but at least he cared. All this new Fake Trek is spineless, gutless, soulless tripe made by people who don't give a crap FOR people who don't give a crap.
OldTrek Writers, given a stringent creative mandate: Take it as a challenge for their craft, and/or seek ways where it can be modified, evolved, or there might be room for compromise that would not undermine the work as a whole, mindful of the fact that the mandate, while noble, may not always be practical, or even possible, to satisfactorily execute in it's originally conceived form. NuTrek Writers: "HEH HEH HEH! FIRE! FIRE! FIRE!"
That “wackiedoodle” guy seems like a big baby who just can’t deal with continuity constraints in a show. He probably isn’t but these clips do not give me the best impression of him.
Gene's vision didn't have a problem, the star trek writers did because they could only use the conflicts from the aliens around the humans to create drama. There's nothing wrong with that. I suppose they'll say that Seth MacFarlane's vision of the future of mankind is problematic as well since he too shares in the positive view of humanity's future!
It is ironic that "Seth Trek" aka _The Orville_ is **more authentic** then the dumb action schlock of _Star Trash: Disaster_ and _Star 'Tard: Picard; those "writers" are completely fucking clueless about what makes great Sci-Fi: **Exploring the social implications of technology.** Maybe someday they will figure out how to respect the intellect of the viewer instead of lying and beating their chest saying they first to do X in everything. At least "Seth Trek" understands the heart and mind of Star Trek.
@jshowa o Actually there was plenty of conflict there available, what the writers didn't like is that humanity didn't have conflict so they actually had to think about what they were writing. I've read and watched it all about this.
@jshowa o Conflict will always exist, but it doesn't mean your characters need to be at each other's throats. It didn't mean they need to be assholes, or all the dark and gritty nonsense. That's just lazy writing.
It's been said, but they missed a huge (and very obvious) opportunity to explain why the Federation of ST:Picard era had deteriorated so much: The Dominion War. Think of World War II, but on a galactic scale. Whole planets laid waste, death tolls in the millions or even billions. They even had the Changelings as false/secondary antagonists.
Roddenberry didn't say "write drama without conflict." He said under most circumstances there would be no conflict between the main Federation characters. So the conflict had to come from outside. But there was still plenty of conflict in the episodes he produced. Writers who understood that and worked within that framework wrote some absolutely brilliant and compelling drama. Writers who didn't were unable to succeed on TNG. But posthumously throwing Roddenberry under the bus like that, as though he didn't understand drama or caused bad writing, is tacky at best.
Regardless of how "utopian" Gene's vision was or wasn't, there is a fundamental and enduring appeal to TOS. The word "utopia" was invented by Thomas More, and his use of it was satirical: he was literally mocking the idea of a perfect world. However, Trekkies almost universally agree with the philosophy that we can make the world a better place. Even if only one day at a time, one friend at a time, one small gesture at a time, it is possible to help each other in an infinite number of ways. History proves this to be true. In spite of terrible mistakes (war, genocide, slavery, etc), humanity is totally better placed now than 12000 years ago. Nobody - - NOBODY - - is going to go back and live the way we lived before agriculture and civilization, before plumbing and electricity, before medicine and an extra 40 years of life.
Gene's ideas are not universal nor realistic but are the base of the lore. They should be followed as such. It's funny how much people care about it. With that out of the way, I don't think the problem with NuTrek isn't "vision", I think this is arguably a very bad argument. It's just not written well and not respectful to the lore, plain and simple. It's the same with doctor who. Every single Doctor has a different tone to their stories but generally (contrary to what some people say and think) it doesn't actually contradict itself on purpose. The problem with Who right now is the same: absolutely shit writing.
I see a lot of comments here about how Roddenberry's restrictions on interpersonal conflict nevertheless produced a good series (The Next Generation). I don't think it's a coincidence that many of the show's worst episodes are in the first two seasons, when Roddenberry was most involved with the writing. With his health declining, he had to dramatically reduce his involvement after the first season and had all but stopped writing and rewriting scripts by the end of the third season. Without Roddenberry there to restrict them, the writers were able to really hit their stride and make some of the best Star Trek ever, some of which contained interpersonal conflict within the Federation and humanity in general. Yet, they also brought along most of Roddenberry's vision of a far grander human existence. Not perfect, but certainly elevated and enlightened. DS9 ratcheted up the ideas that the Federation couldn't avoid all conflict, internal and external, but it still conveyed the concept of the Federation ideal society. Not in that the Federation was perfect, but that it was a far better society for us to aspire to, and the characters in that aspirational society aspired themselves to be better than they already were. Progress for us, progress for them, progress together, always striving forward.
That was painful to watch. STP is the worst thing called Star Trek, even in a world with STD and Short Treks. It’s almost like nobody making it gave two shits about Star Trek...
Yup. Gene’s way was too hard to write for the new Trek producers. That’s obvious. I don’t like any of the new trek. I can watch the fast and the furious for that ⏰🤠
For all of Gene's insistence and preachy tone on how Humanity will be perfect in the future, the man himself was anything but and he preferred it that way. 1. When Star Trek: The Original Series was on the edge of cancellation during Season Two, Gene chose to write the season's last episode himself. This was a big deal since this could been the very last Star Trek story ever told and Gene knew that the show had a dedicated fanbase. So what did he do? 'Assignment: Earth', a backdoor pilot that not only has nothing to do with Star Trek, but completely goes against the very concept of Star Trek. 2. Gene had a knack for ripping off talent. In creating the original theme for Star Trek, Gene and Alexander Courage signed a contract where if the main theme should include lyrics, the writer of said lyrics will get half the royalties. Gene, seeing an opportunity to get more money, wrote lyrics for the theme even though he and Alexander Courage NEVER INTENDED the theme to have lyrics outside of Kirk's monologue. As a result, Gene has to be credited as a co-creator of that theme even though nothing of what he did has ever been available in an official capacity. And he also gets half the royalties. 3. He's petty and unprofessional. When Gene Roddenberry was replaced as producer on the Star Trek films, he got angry. So much so that during production of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, he leaked the film's script. He figured that having Spock's death leaked would create anger amongst the fans and they would want to boycott the film. How did the studio know it was him? Each script handed to personal had their own unique system where if you were to find any errors or details, it would tell you who's script that belonged to. 4. You CAN have a story set in the future where Humanity has solved it's problems. If you give Star Trek: Deep Space Nine a look, Benjamin Sisko is really top notch. He's open-minded, reassuring and has an optimism about him that just makes him so likable. For me, he represents my idea of what Humanity would be like in the future. But if you watch Star Trek: The Next Generations' first two seasons where Gene was in charge, this so-called 'enlightened' Jean-Luc Picard is one of the most pompous and arrogant Star Trek leads you'll ever come across. He preaches to others about how awesome Humanity is while vocally stating how much he hates children. He belittles 21st century humans for thinking about money and wealth when they have had no time to adept to their current setting and even tells Q that he believes Humanity will be compared to angels and gods. The problem with perfect characters isn't just about the lack of conflict. It's also about the lack of drive to be better. Why would anyone want to be better if they think they're already perfect?
Agreed. However, can you really blame Picard for hating children? I mean... sure, we need them to keep the species alive, but they really are quite annoying overall.
@@BioGoji-zm5ph Here's the thing. After Gene Roddenberry passed away, Picard was allowed to grow up a bit. In the episode 'Inner Light', Picard actually laments about not wanting anything to do with children and realizing that they do bring about a certain joy to life he never experienced before. And one could argue this is even further cemented in Star Trek: Generations where one of his fantasies is, as SFDebris put it, fathering enough children to jump start his own race.
This pretty much sums up my feelings on Star Trek and the Gene fanboys pretty well to be honest. I don’t like the current Abrams and Kurtzman Trek at all myself, but at the same time, Gene frankly needed better writers for the time. Some of the stories from earlier on have aged like milk.
The greatest art comes about as a result of limitations. Working around limitations and letting them guide your artistic creation is how you get good content.
I miss the aspirational example of a possible future that TNG, DS9 and Voy had in them, there was still room for Drama, not everything has to be Grim Dark or Grim Derp....
here's my question, if our sun was going supernova in a few months, would the romulans help? and also if nobody in the galaxy wanted to help them, inst that their own fault?
Wow I wish I've never seen this video. It makes me despise one of my favorite captains. Literally what Patrick Stewart says in those lines applies to him directly. How f****** back ass words. You're doing good work here it just makes me sad. 🤔😟😒😥😢
It's easy to make heads turn to watch a trainwreck. All you need is two objects colliding and one of them being a train. It's hard to make heads turn to watch a performance. You'd need to write a good one.
Crappywood mentality. Take example on some(or all) astronaut teams. Yeah you DO HAVE to not have conflict between yourselves because something greater is at stake (plus your lives). Even on a military ship, you have to have stability and harmony so that everything functions as it should. Its bad enough when a unexpected thing happens and you have to work it out with your peers. This new crappy behaviours are a byproduct of tv-made content made to shock and create conflict - like those writers like so much. Seeing how less and less people is watching it, makes me have hope.
Gene was a visionary, truth. But he noticed and replicated the same positive human behavior patterns on the armed forces that has to be in place so that great things are made. That's why federation people, although they don't seem at first sight, are soldiers (in pajamas). New trek is the decadent post-modernist crap trying to capitalize on Gene's masterpiece.
But you can have tension and drama without having it amongst the crew. I think TNG did it smashingly. Though, well, there are quite a few where the crew have issues with each other too 😅
You know what I hate about this? Some of the people sitting around and dumping on Roddenberry made a very, very good living because of his creation. Was he perfect? Obviously not. He was riddled with flaws, some of which make me cringe. That being said, how many of the people we associate with Star Trek would be as well known or as well off if ST had never been put on the air? Probably very few. I prefer to focus on how he and so many talented people came together to create something hopeful, that made me want to be a better person and excel at what I did.
Limitations are often more interesting than abilities and capabilities. Because it makes you think. You have to get creative. Necessity is the mother of invention, after all. The writers complaining and quitting were the cheap hacks who couldn't cut it, who didn't have what it took at the end of the day to write truly great scripts. You want proof? Star Trek TNG and DS9 are some of the most BELOVED sci-fi TV ever written. EVER WRITTEN. THERE's your proof!
Good writers can figure that out... This is obviously true because the good ones in the TNG era stayed and were successful... A perfect society may not have conflicts, but they still have "challenges" that they need to negotiate a positive outcome for... Look at the "challenges" Picard had with the Romulan Commander Tomalak... A perfect example. 😉 Now, with the "Kurtzman" era of Star Trek, the emotional responses, and quick judgement decisions usually lead to a negative outcome, and these initial reactions based on emotions makes a "Captain" appear much less experienced and resourceful... 🤔🤨
TOS hadn't really eliminated conflict even in Federation and Starfleet officials...and there was conflict on the ship. Spock and Bones was nearly constant argument about the fundamentals of ethics, morality and good sense. There was plenty of conflict in the Enterprise crew of Galileo. GR had removed racism on Earth, but it had just morphed into planetary racism and elitism even within the Federation. There was conflict between officers in Starfleet with old grudges, favoritism, jealousy. Some of it amounted to backstabbing frameups and outward hatred. The Earth colonies were no utopia either...at least not 20 years before. Genocidal governors, poverty, hard labor, there were penal planets (Scotty was threatened with one). TNG watered a lot of that down, then it returned with DS9 and later TNG. I considered early TNG dull, because the characters seemed flat. After Picard got kidnapped and Borgified the character writing of everyone got better.
How do you write stories around 'perfect people'? You mean like Superman stories? Being good means remaining vigilant, because there's always temptations; and there are inevitably no-win situations. There's the ever creeping threat of nihilism, over-reach of power, losing sight of nuances, over bearing and soul crushing responsibilities, the shrinking of freedom. At the end of the day, the message was about self-improvement: To be the best version of yourself possible. To willingly do things that made you less of a person: to be petty, selfish, and cruel... just for the sake of drama, gets you modern entertainment.
what is that bullshit they are talking about humans being perfect? Star Trek was not based on humanity being perfect it was based on humanity having realised it's flaws and embarked on a journey of constantly learning and overcoming them. What a grotesque misunderstanding: I pity gene Roddenberry, it seems he was surrounded by intellectual dwarves, incapable of grasping his vision. And frankly his vision wasn't even that "whackadoodle" as the complete idiot in the clip claims. Nor was it unheard of or novel. Utopian literature about humanity maturing or utopian science fiction is basically around since the 17th century. And sold many a great adventure book.
Oh, cry me a river, Star Trek writers! So your job was harder. Roddenberry's vision was more grounded in the realities of serving on a closed social order aboard a ship literally BILLIONS of miles from home. They had only each other to rely upon to complete their mission and come safely home. They couldn't engage in any prolonged interpersonal conflicts.
Whackadoodle writing restrictions led to some of the greatest written television I've ever seen.
Hell Yes!
To be fair gene only had creative control to rewrite and restrict scripts in the first few seasons of TNG and the first was arguably the worst
In later seasons we actually see the interpersonal conflicts and flaws in the characters and that's when the show really gets good
@@scparker6893 First 5 seasons. So almost the entire show. He just wasn't show runner after the first season.
@@pepperVenge By season 3 his health had deteriorated to the point where he really wasn't very involved with the show.
@@rreagan007 He was less involved, not "he really wasn't very involved." That line makes it sound like he wasn't around at all. He stopped being show runner after season 1, but he was still the Executive producer for the show until his death. People went to him for everything during this time from approval to ideas to costume's. He was involved with Star Trek up until his last few breaths. Just days before Roddenberry died, he argued with Nicholas Mayor about Star Trek 6, because he hated literally Everything about it.
Good writers portray conflict in a way that makes sense in the context of the setting. Bad writers portray conflict for conflict's sake because that's the only thing they know how to write.
Also, bad writers portray conflict as physical, but most conflict is, in fact, not physical at all. People have different wants and needs, as well as different perspectives on the world, and that inherently generates opportunities for conflict. The lazy writer solves it with a gun. The thoughtful writer doesn't necessarily solve it, but explores it from multiple perspectives and lets the characters find outcomes they can both accept.
And maybe most important of all, the good writer leaves the buyer with questions and ideas to think about.
We got gender conflict in star trek now, so that's pretty new.
We never had one before since meeting a lot of species made them more accepting for it for hundreds of years. Its just... Today the starfleet is not that humble anymore, i guess.
And we can blame the writer for that because it aint making sense.
About to say when I was learning screen play writing in the UK first thing learnt wasn't drama is your only tool and everything is a nail.
Actually first rule I learnt was only use fade in and fade out at beginning and end of your screen play. But hey what do I know.
Also think alot of it, is cultural. That writers surround themselves in my experience with artistic types that are well more dramatic people. If they hung out with some doctors or engineers realise plenty people are motivated by other things other than conflict.
I long for the day when the iyashikei genre in the US is more than just Peanuts.
I guess this is what some people never got about Gene's Star Trek; it's a huge metaphor. The human beings in Star Trek are perfect because they are a metaphor for who we want to be. The aliens are a metaphor for what we are right now. And THAT"S where the conflict comes from. From the struggle between who we want to be and who we are now. Hopefully, a well written episode will leave the viewer seeing the humans (our better natures) overcoming our worse natures in a way that shows us how to accomplish it well. A decent writer should totally be able to tell a good story with these elements. Hardly a Wackadoodle idea, one as old as story actually...
"for who we want to be" for what Gene wanted people to be, with which some people might agree.
Don't get me wrong, the plots are good but his vision isn't universal nor realistic. It's just his personal view which happens to be an interesting lore.
@@Joleyn-Joy if you don't want a world without war, poverty and starvation, you're simply on the wrong side of everything.
The humans in Star Trek have never been peddled as perfect. That's a myth on the best of days. What Roddenberry insisted on for his characters is that they weren't petty, they learned, and they always tried to be the best they could be.
Perfection was never part of the formula.
@@ElevenEvilExes Which denotes on you the belief that other ideologies (for example the ones which accept war) are wrong. My point again, is that the ideal isn't universal.
Now, personally, I do prefer the concept of "war" over "universal peace" mainly because the first is a reality and the second is just fantasy. The process of trying to achieve such a fantasy might be more problematic than just accepting the reality and dealing with it the best way possible. I don't "want" a world without war because I know it's not achievable. It's like blaming me for not wanting an unicorn.
I think the biggest problem facing society today is that we have given up on fantasy. When you use reality as your target, there's nothing to shoot for because we already have reality.
Our society was a lot more optimistic (or at least trying to be) up through the 1980s. But then in the 1990s we were told that was a fool's lie, and we should instead be cynical and jaded. And now we live in a time of near unprecedented division and unrest. The difference between today and the past was that there was some common ground to work toward. For example, the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s wasn't about revolution but inclusion. But today each side wants to abolish the other.
Hell yes, I'll strive for fantasy, rather than give in to the shitfest that is our reality.
I remember how excited I was when I heard Star Trek was coming back. Now I only wish it never had.
You guys really should be more open minded. You sound like all the nay sayers of DS9 being on a station, or ent being a prequel. The new shows are good. I'm a fan of all eras of trek and I think you guys need to lighten up. The future doesn't have to be a fixed vision of what we thought it'd be 55 years ago.
@@jebiniv One of my favorite parts in new _StAr TReK_ is when the old characters get brutally murdered and have their eyes graphically gouged out of their sockets. I also like the decapitations and when the people say “Shut the fuck up!”
The pew pew lazer battles and big explosions hold my 5 second attention span too!!
That’s really what Star Trek is all about!!1!
@@jebiniv The new shows are hot trash, but if you like them good for you I guess.
@@jebiniv I was open minded when I watched the new shows....all of them. I tried (and wanted to like them). To be fair, they are not bad shows by themselves if you've never watched Star Trek before...but in the world of Star Trek, for me being original series through Voyager...even Enterprise, it just didn't feel right. I couldn't get on board with needless changes in the prequal series or how many of the characters now were all about casual violence. The heart of what made it Star Trek felt missing in most of the new stuff...and that is what bothers me most. I wouldn't say it is a family-friendly show now, whereas much (not all, granted) of the earlier Star Trek was.
@@pyriph well that's a legit criticism. I see where you're coming from.
When you complain that you can't make humanity fight against itself and don't try to imagine writing concepts against other spacefaring races....
Conflict is inevitable, even if it's as simple a thing as a dog marking a sacred tree of an alien world.
@@Euripides_Panz That episode of ENT was great.
TNG does have humans against themselves and conflict between humans. Even in the earlier seasons Picard butts heads with the federation
@@scparker6893 I know TNG does, but the point is if a writer cannot imagine external conflicts and only focuses on inner conflicts then they need to broaden their horizons.
@@EpicNinjaShiro I fully agree. When we cannot imagine beyond who we are right now we have put constraints on ourselves based only on what we know. The magic of escapism is that we can, yes, take reality with us, but it is not a constraint. We can do more. Be more. Create an entire universe with it. Gene understood this concept to the fullest, and because of the very nature of escapism, he created something that is transcendental in many ways.
It might make for poor drama but I'd happily live in Gene's vision of the future anytime.
It actually makes for excellent drama--just not the kind that ends with blasting someone to smithereens every episode.
@@JasonWardUCLA werent the old treks the best.
@@Hewioms I'd say that ToS had the most consistently thought provoking episodes, but that the Berman era shows gave us a lot of good episodes as well. Even though Berman didn't agree with Gene's approach, he at least took seriously his obligation to try and honor Star Trek's nature as much as possible.
Kurtzman Trek is explicitly anti-Roddenberry.
The aliens are the flawed humans in Star Trek and the competent Star Trek writers -- those who understood this -- built wonderful stories involving the interplay among humans, Romulans, Vorta, Klingons, Vulcans, Borg, Changelings, Bajorans, Jem'Hadar, A.I.s, self-aware computers, self-aware holigrams, Ferengi, Breen.......
And the great Star Trek stories are about humans questioning if they have achieved their peak as a civilized species and what's ahead for their future, beyond just space travel.
I would add that many good episodes were also about flawed humans and their conflicts. The difference there was that humans, often realising their imperfection, were trying their best to solve the conflicts in more mature way. As much as they could.
Humans in Roddenbery's ST were not really supposed to be perfect. But they were sincerely trying to become better, despite the difficulties, that usualy leads us to making mistakes.
I can't imagine what it was like, you, Major Grin, an expert on all things Star Trek, to have to sit through entire episodes of Star Trek: Picard. I honestly almost didn't make a full single episode. Pretty embarrassing all around, the whole project.
I made it through the whole thing, and I won't be back. I gave discovery 3 seasons of opportunities, but I won't be back for that, either.
I managed to get through but Discovery season 3 will probably stay untouched forever.
@@Funaru That's wise. I thought season 2 was better than season 1, but season 3 was SO much worse than season 2. Hot garbage rolled in a tortilla.
i'd rather watch deep sleep 9, ten times, than that decadent thing once.
@@joaoc_PT Deep Space Nine actually has competent story writing, so I’d recommend it.
Giving a writer restrictions like that either makes them realize they can't do it or makes them realize they need to be a better writer and find ways to do it anyway.
DS9 showed us the franchise was better off with conflict and duplicity.
@@aurex8937 Not necessarily. I do think that's the best Star Trek series, but not just because there's war in it. There's so much more that makes DS9 what it is, which if applied to other types of stories, would be just as good.
@@ODST_Parker Indeed, but I suppose without conflict at the heart of the series we wouldn't have had "Duet" or "In the Pale Moonlight."
I do agree that the best things were the characters and the writing. Top notch stuff there.
They weren't even close to perfect people, but to shitty people, they are. Trying to do better and what's right in a Universe that is constantly making that near impossible gives the writers room to come up with very interesting stories.
@@aurex8937 There's a difference, though. In DS9, it was almost never the human, federation characters who were duplicitous, and the characters made a point of hewing toward their better selves more often than not. Consider the episode where Sisko, Quark and a few others fought some of the Dominion soldiers on a planet with some Klingons. At the end, the Klingons raise a toast and drink over the bodies of the fallen, but what does Sisko do? He pours out the drink and refuses to celebrate the massacre. Yes, they did the right thing and defended themselves, but they didn't see that as a reason to celebrate over the deaths of others.
Conflict does NOT have to mean violence and bad ideas, and for the most part, DS9 kept to that. Discovery and Picard do not. And that's not even taking into account how AWFUL the writing on Picard was.
It was the very thing that made Star Trek so incomparable. And it's desperately missing today.
without Gene's vision, STAR TREK would never have been anything special.
A vision without a well-written script is a dream. The product of imagination. A vision, well scripted can effect change. Not every writer is going to have the same vision of the future. This helps create a variety of stories that have kept the dream alive for decades. The vision has brought change. It's inspired kids to work in science. It's inspired a new generation of writers.
@@Euripides_Panz if a writer does not have a vision of a peaceful future without war, poverty and starvation (on Earth), then they should never be hired as a writer for STAR TREK.
@@ElevenEvilExes Which writer are you referring to?
@@Euripides_Panz all the "writers" on STD and STP.
@@ElevenEvilExes They are taking their cues from Alex Shortman.
STD: "Hey we got gender issue, gayness, physical confrontation, lots of war crime, and women with superiority complex. Greatest and very innovative conflict ever introduced to star trek. Oh and by the way, i will also claim everything innovative the old trek has ever done and make it ours. Its not like the old trek is still relevant anymore am i right?"
Basically what they have done for the past few years.
Does anyone actually watch STD?
@@StumpfForFreedom I watched 3 and half episode of the first season and stopped there.
@@StumpfForFreedom I watched all 3 seasons (no, I didn't subscribe). The first season was awful. Basically a generic sci Fi show with a star Trek sticker on the box. Season 2 was ok, and did a few interesting things with Pike, though it largely mishandled Spock and turned him into a lifelong pathological liar. Season 3 was Star Wars with a Trek badge. BORING.
To be fair to Discovery, it'd take a seriously concerted effort to make it be as bad as Picard, which is so terrible it makes Knight Rider look deep.
I'm only an amateur writer, but I feel like the "no conflict, no story" idea is a copout. A good writer can tell a good story without conflict between the characters. How do we work together to handle this situation?
I'm writing a Star Trek story, and there is going to be only minimal and minor conflict between them, played mostly for laughs.
I would LOVE the challenge of writing an episode of Star Trek without relying on conflict between the characters.
I think the issue was that these people were TV writers. On TV all you write is drama around character conflict because all you have is a lousy set and a few people in it. At least on most TV shows before the 80s.
Google for "star trek writers bibles pdf". You will find the TOS and TNG writers bibles written by Roddenberry, in which he verbatim describes his artistic vision and guidelines for writing Trek. I would like to know what you think of them, and if the segment here truly reflects the content of these writers bibles.
The best kind of writing comes from authors imposing strict rulesets on themselves. Stop complaining about your limitations as a writer, and start drafting your art WITHIN the lines.
@Paul Thomas Johnson I actually agree, and would say DS9 is still the pinnacle of said "great heights". May seem contrary to what I said above, but the DS9 writing staff wasn't breaking through Gene's ruleset "just because"; they had a very grounded, in-universe motive: detractors to a utopian future. Not enemies, not malcontents, just people who couldn't share in the peace-loving vision. As such, the Maquis were a brilliant invention of Trek lore, with a VERY real heartbreaking reason not to ascribe to the Federation's (Gene's) vision of peace. Then to have Ben Sisko as their reluctant spiritual "savior" ...
That tag line "Think outside the box!" is so much bullshit.
What you really needs is to think while being constrained by that box. What are the limits and how do you work around them to get what you want.
If I am not mistaken, Nicholas Meyer said that art thrives on limitations.
@@dandeliondown7920 Well that's because an actress is limited by her role
@@shawarden Exactly. "Think outside the box" gives us cockamamie writing conventions like "deus ex machina". Lack of constraint makes for shoddy, aimless writing.
This shows the sad truth that drama and conflict is seemingly the only thing writers (and people) can think of to make something interesting. And it has gotten even worse now. That's why shows nowadays suck and also why we can' develop as a society. Why not write about solving mysteries, discovering new phenomena, new civilizations, building relationships and growing as a person? That's at the heart of original Star Trek and why the old shows were so much better.
Conflict in writing is just punching and gunshots. Conflict is the problem within the story and are usually manifested in 4 catgorories.
Man vs. Man: the most common one in western culture. Ex: Luke vs. Darth Vader. Doesn't have to be physical either.
Man vs. Nature: typical bear gryills survival story. Ex: the Martian, gravity and every natural disaster movie
Man vs. Society: the main character is against the world he or she lives in. Ex: Winston Smith vs. Big Brother in 1984
Man vs. Self: entirely internal like conquering your fears or getting over a loss. Ex: picard vs. His experiences with the borg in First Contact. The most important for character development
The problem with Gene's vision is that it essentially gets rid of conflict entirely. Everyone is perfect so immediately that gets rid of man vs. Self. Because they are perfect that means there are no quarrels between people so bye bye man vs. Man. And the federation is a utopia(perfect world) so no more man vs. Society. Which only leaves man vs. Nature and that will get boring fast. You can't have a story without conflict. Cus without conflict you have no character motivation to move the plot forward let alone a likeable character. This problem really shows in season one of TNG. All the characters were shallow and uninteresting and the most human like character was Data. It wasn't until season three that the producers started to focus on character that it started to get good.
@@JK-gp2rh
_"The problem with Gene's vision is that it essentially gets rid of conflict entirely."_
Gene never wrote a Star Trek episode without conflict. Nor was any Star Trek written without conflict.
_"Everyone is perfect so immediately that gets rid of man vs. Self. Because they are perfect that means there are no quarrels between people so bye bye man vs. Man."_
Gene explicitly stated that humanity is *not* perfect in Star Trek. Rather, that humanity is no longer consumed by pettiness and bigotry. That doesn't imply "perfection".
_"And the federation is a utopia(perfect world) so no more man vs. Society. Which only leaves man vs. Nature and that will get boring fast."_
1. The Federation is not the only society.
2. Even TOS pointed out flaws in the Federation.
@@Idazmi7 Frankly Star Trek had plenty of Conflict. It mostly can from the situation or Alien Races. People think Conflict has to be like a fucking Soap Opera like Game of Thrones where rich asshole bitch slapping each other. We have enough of that shit on tv today.
@@Lone432345
Exactly. Well said.
@@JK-gp2rh conflict is not needed, obsticles is... Imagen finding something weird on a planet and now the crew needs to find out what it is and why its here... That alone is compelling.
This why I think DS9 was the best. It took Gene's idealized vision of the future and was always testing it, always putting it under stress to in very realistic situations and with very interesting outcomes.
Personally, I think even DS9 went a little too far in pushing those boundries. That's not to say it wasn't a great show regardless, though.
Personally DS9 got to Soapy for me. Sure DS9 had some great episode. But most of those episode had nothing to do with the Long, Drawn out and Dull Dominion war. I just feel DS9 took a lot of ideas for Babylon 5.
These writers lack vision. TOS writers didn't melt down
Those were TOS writers... D.C. Fontana and David Gerrold wrote on TOS. I think Maurice Hurley did, too.
Gene was a lot less strict on the "no conflict" rule in TOS
@@Eikinkloster conflict between crew members on TOS seemed to generally only happen as a result of some sort of alien possession though.
The vision of TNG doesn't remove conflict. It just removes pettiness
I felt DS9 always got it just right... just enough of that Gene vision but still room for drama/tension
And that's why the original series is so well love, because the conflict always came from the alien of the week, scientific conundrums, or space anomalies.
Court martial episode was conflict within the ship.
@@stewartmcminn7773 True but I assume there was no name calling and everything done in a professional manner. Unlike in Picard when he is cussed at by a female admiral soo professional! lol
@@RICOFRITO tbf they did establish that the woman was kinda insane and devoted to the federation, and when Picard basically destroyed her worldview by showing her that she was acting in violation of the most basic principles the federation was built upon, it definitely hit her hard
Honestly, looking at most TV drama, I can see why Gene would place a "no conflict between the main characters" in Star Trek: most writers seem to understand interpersonal conflict as the only way to write stories. Conflict doesn't exist as a natural consequence of the character's actions or traits, conflict only exists to drive the plot forward. In TNG, Worf's Klingon culture often clashed with the Federation's culture, and that was natural, as they're quite contradictory due to their nature. In DS9 The Sisko was always in conflict with the Bajorans due to his status and Odo wasn't always viewed favorabily due to his nature of shapeshifter and later his connection to his people. VOY had Seven of Nine, who, due to her harsh personality and attitude was always in conflict with the crew.
Compare that to Burnham's "I am going to stage a mutiny because I know better than everyone how to deal with Klingons by using a tactic that was never mentioned before and in fact appears contradictory to previous Trek", where it's pretty clear that the writers had no idea what to do to create conflict so they just pulled stuff out of their ass, otherwise they'd have no story. This is even more blatant later in the shows, where, because the writers kind of forgot to give character development to most of the main cast, everything they do sticks out like a sore thumb: That robot-girl that dies in S2 of STD and then the next episode everyone remembers her even though she barely had any development? Yep, who is her and why should it matter? Detmer's PTSD comes out of nowhere and it's shown to be more of a panic attack than PTSD? She literally starts screaming at people out of blue, and then everyone starts screaming at everyone because up until then there was very little drama, so we really need drama. Oh and then her PTSD vanishes a few episodes later, because as any person who had or had PTSD, that's just a fluke, nothing important. Funny enough, the only character whose extreme personality would naturally create conflict with the main characters, MirrorGiorgiou, gets reduced to a plot device that always acts petty and childish with everyone not daring to talk back at her, like some "missing stair". Any "conflict" with her gets reduced to snappy one-liners and then they just move on. Instead everyone praises her, because clearly that's what people's natural reaction to living alongside cannibal Hitler would be like.
Plenty of conflict with the aliens and cultures they met. In some cases, some minor internal conflicts but not a lot. So write about our heroes taking on alien cultures or societies and you got conflict. (Or about the captains or factions that did not adhere to Starfleet rules which there were a few in some storylines.)
This reminds me of what one Trek Next Gen writer said. The confines due to Genes optimistic view ment she had the hardest time writing for it if all the shows she ever wrote for, and because of that she wrote the best scripts of her career.
I.e. forced out of their comfortable petty cliches they had to do something new that actually meant something.
I love this comment. Kelly, can you remember who said it or where you found it?
@@dandeliondown7920
No, it was said in a tv (or RUclips) documentary on Trek years ago. Can vaguely remember what she looked like, and that statement really stuck with me, but I can’t reminder her name or the show.
Writers, and later producers, on Trek always whined about petty frictions and such are “real drama”, and Roddenberriys developed societies needing to deal with deeper questions was just to cerebral and boring. Hell they threw a fit over the replicators saying they killed all real conflict potential. Which explains a lot about the pour quality of a lot of fiction.
@@KellyStarks Thanks, Kelly. It reminds me of something that was said by Nicholas Meyer, the award-winning Star Trek writer, director, and producer. He said that art thrives on restrictions or limitations. For anyone interested, it can be quickly found by googling
NICHOLAS MEYER ART THRIVES ON LIMITATIONS
or
NICHOLAS MEYER ART THRIVES ON RESTRICTIONS
The greatest enemy is the one we find within; it is a ceaseless, agonizing struggle to overcome one's doubts and fears. At times you are shocked at what you are capable of considering the circumstances.
Many shows address these issues, but there is only one Star Trek. It urged us to do better, dream bigger, and love one another without shame or bias.
Wow complaining that the very heart of Star Trek is making it difficult to write. That's one of the things that's so great about Star Trek. It's not easy to write good Star Trek. It forces you to think outside the box in terms of conflict.
DS9: let's challenge Roddenberry's vision
Picard: let's piss on Roddenberry's vision
Yet somehow, Mr. Roddenberry's stubbornness helped produced a better Star Trek.
It sounds like those writers lacked imagination and humility.
they are bereft of passion and imagination, to be precise
@@rusalkin That too.
@@rusalkin ok blue picard lol
@@stewartmcminn7773 "blue picard" fucking sent me wtf lol
Brannon Braga's episodes were always my favorites.
Easy for me to say, as I'm here on the outside looking back, but there's seven (I think) basic conflicts. Saying "You can't have this one type of conflict" (and even then a subset) should be a challenge in writing and serve as a way to expand beyond basic TV Drama.
You’re the fourth Star Trek related channel I’ve subbed to lately, thank you thank you!
Well if you don't know how to write...learn how to. Be writers and be creative. That's the problem with understanding a vision.
I like how William Shatner ended that TNG Documentary with "..Not so Wackiedoodle after all."
Love Roddenberry's vision. Love how it forced writers to find new ways to tell stories and how it showed a future I want to live in. Can't stand STP.
The only way Season 3 of TNG and onward worked is that, secretly, Piller brought conflict back into Trek as a dramatic device. However, he did it by making all the main cast naive to the reality of life from living in a “perfect society”, and then shove the conflict into their face like a child learning about bullying or theft for the first time.
In effect, Trek only works because it’s “Sesame Street” for adults.
to me they are describing absolutely fantastic teamwork:
i wrote a script
the guy with the vision read that script, it inspired revisions/rewrites
actors turned it into a show that millions love so much they celebrate it through what they love to do (making costumes, wearing cosplay, holding conventions, paying the writers and actors to visit and talk to them about some of their favorite episodes)
i can understand where a writer wouldnt like their script being re written, but thats the problem we are having with current movies, shows, comics, and even games.
i write a script
no one rereads it and makes corrections because i dont want you to change my thing
actors turn it into a show that people watch and see the flaws in the writing and talk to other people that watched it about those flaws and i get mad cause i THOUGHT my writing was perfect.
this is incredibly evident in cases where there are movies/shows from the past that people loved (star wars, star trek, she ra) because now instead of watching a new show and thinking "well this is kinda bad writing" it becomes "wow they went from good writing to bad writing, why would i keep watching this when i have old episodes i can go back and enjoy?"
in a world over saturated with tv, movies, books, and games, why should someone settle for trash when there are works of art left unrecognized?
Gene is sorta like George Lucas; he had a decent vision, but needed better writers. There were times where the Star Trek writers actually had conflict in their stories without either compromising too much with the overall vision of the story, or in the case of DS9, actually tried looking at that vision from a different perspective and trying to see how well those values would hold up in a realistic vision of war. Frankly, I’d say DS9 struck the perfect balance between the gritty “conflict” that the modern series kinda obsesses over and the sort of vision that Gene had in mind for the future. It’s probably the most well-written and most rewatchable of the main shows honestly.
Gene deserves a lot of credit and our thanks for giving us Star Trek, but the best Star Trek was made after his grip on the franchise came loose. So was the worst.
Gene made the writers work "hard", without having every episode be about love affairs & troubles. If anything, it makes the show timeless. 25/26 episodes for 7 seasons and they still manage to entertain & make you think. Priceless.
Anybody who wanted more emotional baggage got 'Discovery" & 'Picard', and we all know those 2 shows are diamond-encrusted turds. I'll take the dumbest TNG episode over any STD or STP one.
Personally, I'd rather take the perfect balance between those that is DS9.
Gene's ideas were good at the start, we had good characters in TOS, great bad guys like Khan and Commodore Decker, and strong exploration of ideas. TNG has not withstood the test of time IMO because most of the stories felt too watered down, same with Voyager. DS9 caught my interest because they re-added strong conflict to their stories and also dealt with lasting consequences of decisions. Enterprise to me recaptured a little of the newness and sense of possibilities with mankind's entrance into the interstellar scene. None of the new Treks(JJTrek, STD, Picard, etc) have been able to replicate a single semblance of what Star Trek was about. Now we have a divided fandom because the fundamental ideas of no money, no property, and no consequences are so flawed that it has actually harmed humanity. Our sense of freedom is threatened by the freeloaders who think that in the future you don't have to work and that everything is free from a replicator.
The reason why DS9 is superior to TNG is because TNG naively treats utopia as an achieved goal, while DS9 who was at the frontlines acknowledged that you HAVE to compromise, you HAVE to fight for your beliefs, you cant just put your feet up and wag your finger at the rest of the galaxy when youve achieved your "ideal society"
Now this isnt a detriment to TNG, it had its own vision and its still a 9/10 show. But DS9 with all its complexities and flawed real characters are just a bit better.
@@MagikarpBeast I also like DS9 because it tackles utopia in a realistic outside perspective. It doesn't take place on Earth where it is paradise as Sisko says, but outside that perfect world and how even though humanity is mostly grown up, they are not without real flaws
Star Trek never had a "no property" ethos, and until Star Trek IV, it never had a no money concept, either. There are FAR more examples of Star Trek characters having money than not. Hell, the first episode of TNG showed Beverly Crusher shopping, and when she bought some fabric, she said "Charge it to my account on the Enterprise". You can't charge someone or have an account if there's no money. In ST: Generations, Kirk tells Picard, "This is my house...or at least it used to be. I sold it years ago." You can't sell something without money. You can't own a house without property rights. In ST III: the search for Spock, when McCoy tries to charter a flight to Genesis, he tells the ship owner, "Price you name, money I got!" Doesn't get more clear than that. On DS9, in season 7, Sisko explains that he bought a house on Bajor. Again, you can't do that without money or property rights.
@@JasonWardUCLA Most of those examples were dealing on non federation worlds and with non federation individuals. And on the other side of the coin Picard was quoted in First COntact as saying we were beyond the accumulation of posessions and material wealth. My main point is that a lot of fans believe that everything in Trek was free and use that to promote a socialist agenda and that it is very divisive to the fandom.
@@michaelsasylum Actually, we have plenty of examples where everything was NOT free. Sisco said that when he went to Star Fleet Academy his spent his entire ration of transporter credits from the moon to his fathers restaurant because he was home sick. Rations are another word for Money. Worf in TNG told his son to go to the replicator stations and get new cloths but only what he needed. This implied a limit which means accounting and means money. I believe the First Contact statement is miss leading. It was meant to express that Picard does not own the Enterprise and that Picard does not spend his live accumulating possessions even though Picard has many possessions. In the TNG series finally, Picard is shown at his ancestral home which is a vineyard. You cant have ancestral home if money or property rights or general principle of ownership does not exist. I believe what TNG was trying to show is human beings no longer having an economy of scarcity. This leads to human's no longer having to accumulate wealth as a protections from scarcity. Diana Troy (Meeting the Vulcans changed everything, poverty, war all gone in 20 years) This summation shows that mastery of the Anti-Matter allowed unlimited energy which led to limitless food and no longer a need to fight wars for resources. In the end, TNG, DS9, Yoyager, Enterprise, and TOS all had money in a sense. It was just cloaked in a shroud of practicality. Later.
Not enough Effing and Effing.
I'm loving Shatner's pained expression while listening to some of these people- possibly remembering that the writers on *his* show had managed to adhere to Gene's vision for several seasons, and then into a number of movies.
Patrick Stewart is a duplicitous man and his words are hollow.
I am afraid you are (partly) right. Stewart has no real understanding of the artistic vision behind the Star Trek that made him this household name, but unfortunately he is too narcissistic to see his inability.
@@TheTuubster You don't have to be like that, Gene had a huge ego and he even stole credit from others. Also, Patrick Stewart has been one of the few actors who hasn't gotten involved in anything illegal or harmful to damage his reputation, something Gene didn't do.
@@darioestebaneliztrado4641 Thank you for providing a text book example of the ad-hominem logical fallacy.
@@TheTuubster Of course, ignore it if you want, gene was the one who tried to modify the scripts of other writers to take their credit, something that is true.
@@darioestebaneliztrado4641 As show runner it is within his right to change scripts to his liking. That happened with all Star Trek series and all their show runners and head writers. It is a showrunners job to oversee the production and that the scripts/stories submit to his artistic vision. I suggest you inform yourself about how the production process of a series works. Fun fact: Sometime accusations of wrong doings are only a documentation of a lack of understanding of certain processes.
Genius comes from insanity, and insanity comes from genius.
Anyone who ever served in the military, especially during a conflict is pretty much aware that you can experience loads of drama and conflict while the crew/the unit is not ridden by interpersonal drama. interpersonal drama is the one thing you cannot afford at all if you want to come out alive.
No idea where these bloody writers came from, probably just angry they could not pull out their cookie cutter soap opera episodes with the usual main story arc being: the series ends when everyone pissed off everyone and everyone slept with everyone.
Even with Gene's later idea of no supposed conflicts between humans, just look at TOS and the TOS movies, and look carefully at TNG, DS9, VOY, even ENT -- You can have story conflict, nuance, good guys and bad guys who can both be right or wrong at times can both have valid points, and a number of other things that make good drama, comedy, etc., without painting everything as horribly debased, fatalist, nihilist, gloom-and-doom, super-violent, or other faults of the JJ and DIS takes on Trek. The vision of optimism, of inspiration and of attainability, that if we work at it, we can improve, that many people want good to happen, these are part of that spirit of Star Trek,that vision. I don't know why current JJ and DIS Trek don't understand this Of course, Gene was not perfect. He had real flaws. But he also aspired to greater things. He wanted us (and himself) to be better than we often are. That isn't wacky-doodle. That's hope and hard work, to reach something better. Wallowing in misery and violence like JJ and DIS Trek too often do, the idea that we can't overcome our lesser natures, is what's so noxious about that current trend.
"I don't know why current JJ and DIS Trek don't understand this"
They understand this. They just dont want to do it, because it is too difficult. They are about the easy paycheck and bullshitting their way through, as long as the sweet Trek money is filling their bank accounts.
NuTrek does not care. JJ Abrams and Alex Kurtzman have both made public statements saying that they did not like Star Trek. I suspect they despise Star Trek's optimism in the same way that a criminal despises a law-abiding citizen ... IMO.
The latest serie really butchered star trek. The Orville represents star trek a lot better nowdays.
Well it's not Trek, so it doesn't.
@@MazeThePlaya In terms of structure and approach to storytelling, it's actually a LOT more like Trek than either Picard or discovery are. Those are just generic science fantasy shows with a star Trek tag attached for marketing purposes.
@@JasonWardUCLA I totally agree
"Seth Trek" is authentic because it understands the heart of Sci-Fi:
**Exploring the social implications of technology.**
The dumb action schlock of STD and STP are fucking clueless about respecting the intellect of the viewer. When you have 5 year olds writing for 5 year olds of course you are going to get garbage.
@@MichaelPohoreski Don't insult 5 year olds like that! Peppa Pig is more thoughtful than STD or STP 🤣.
There are so many forces at work in any TV series let alone S.T. that there is no one or even no three people responsible for the outcome.
This might be the truest statement in this Comments section.
0:39 Ah yes, Captain Roddenberry
That's why old star trek was good and new star trek (discovery & picard) are absolute shit.
"It's made of our shit, you know."
Gene Roddenberry might have been a real pain in the ass to work with, but at least he cared. All this new Fake Trek is spineless, gutless, soulless tripe made by people who don't give a crap FOR people who don't give a crap.
Maurice Hurley was great in that shatner documentary
OldTrek Writers, given a stringent creative mandate: Take it as a challenge for their craft, and/or seek ways where it can be modified, evolved, or there might be room for compromise that would not undermine the work as a whole, mindful of the fact that the mandate, while noble, may not always be practical, or even possible, to satisfactorily execute in it's originally conceived form.
NuTrek Writers: "HEH HEH HEH! FIRE! FIRE! FIRE!"
That was an emotional broken roller coaster... flying high through inspiration and hope then ending with missing track over a garbage dump.
That “wackiedoodle” guy seems like a big baby who just can’t deal with continuity constraints in a show. He probably isn’t but these clips do not give me the best impression of him.
My take away from that is the end part - which is that Nu-Trek thinks Starfleet and The Federation are synonyms.
Gene's vision didn't have a problem, the star trek writers did because they could only use the conflicts from the aliens around the humans to create drama. There's nothing wrong with that.
I suppose they'll say that Seth MacFarlane's vision of the future of mankind is problematic as well since he too shares in the positive view of humanity's future!
I am really getting tired of the word "problematic".
The Orville is more Star Trek than anything else that came after Star Trek X.
Even ST Enterprise, it was already on the downwards slope.
It is ironic that "Seth Trek" aka _The Orville_ is **more authentic** then the dumb action schlock of _Star Trash: Disaster_ and _Star 'Tard: Picard; those "writers" are completely fucking clueless about what makes great Sci-Fi:
**Exploring the social implications of technology.**
Maybe someday they will figure out how to respect the intellect of the viewer instead of lying and beating their chest saying they first to do X in everything.
At least "Seth Trek" understands the heart and mind of Star Trek.
@jshowa o Actually there was plenty of conflict there available, what the writers didn't like is that humanity didn't have conflict so they actually had to think about what they were writing. I've read and watched it all about this.
@jshowa o Conflict will always exist, but it doesn't mean your characters need to be at each other's throats. It didn't mean they need to be assholes, or all the dark and gritty nonsense. That's just lazy writing.
I like Brannon Braga's attitude. He wrote some great scripts!
2:26 Liar!
It's been said, but they missed a huge (and very obvious) opportunity to explain why the Federation of ST:Picard era had deteriorated so much: The Dominion War. Think of World War II, but on a galactic scale. Whole planets laid waste, death tolls in the millions or even billions. They even had the Changelings as false/secondary antagonists.
Roddenberry didn't say "write drama without conflict." He said under most circumstances there would be no conflict between the main Federation characters. So the conflict had to come from outside. But there was still plenty of conflict in the episodes he produced. Writers who understood that and worked within that framework wrote some absolutely brilliant and compelling drama. Writers who didn't were unable to succeed on TNG. But posthumously throwing Roddenberry under the bus like that, as though he didn't understand drama or caused bad writing, is tacky at best.
Regardless of how "utopian" Gene's vision was or wasn't, there is a fundamental and enduring appeal to TOS. The word "utopia" was invented by Thomas More, and his use of it was satirical: he was literally mocking the idea of a perfect world. However, Trekkies almost universally agree with the philosophy that we can make the world a better place. Even if only one day at a time, one friend at a time, one small gesture at a time, it is possible to help each other in an infinite number of ways.
History proves this to be true. In spite of terrible mistakes (war, genocide, slavery, etc), humanity is totally better placed now than 12000 years ago. Nobody - - NOBODY - - is going to go back and live the way we lived before agriculture and civilization, before plumbing and electricity, before medicine and an extra 40 years of life.
Gene's ideas are not universal nor realistic but are the base of the lore. They should be followed as such. It's funny how much people care about it.
With that out of the way, I don't think the problem with NuTrek isn't "vision", I think this is arguably a very bad argument. It's just not written well and not respectful to the lore, plain and simple. It's the same with doctor who. Every single Doctor has a different tone to their stories but generally (contrary to what some people say and think) it doesn't actually contradict itself on purpose. The problem with Who right now is the same: absolutely shit writing.
When you win a golden ticket to enter my factory, remember to view paradise.
Gene's vision was great. These people... these writers were... and are idiots.
I don’t understand the “wacky doodle” of Roddenberry not wanting conflict between the main characters.
I see a lot of comments here about how Roddenberry's restrictions on interpersonal conflict nevertheless produced a good series (The Next Generation). I don't think it's a coincidence that many of the show's worst episodes are in the first two seasons, when Roddenberry was most involved with the writing. With his health declining, he had to dramatically reduce his involvement after the first season and had all but stopped writing and rewriting scripts by the end of the third season. Without Roddenberry there to restrict them, the writers were able to really hit their stride and make some of the best Star Trek ever, some of which contained interpersonal conflict within the Federation and humanity in general. Yet, they also brought along most of Roddenberry's vision of a far grander human existence. Not perfect, but certainly elevated and enlightened.
DS9 ratcheted up the ideas that the Federation couldn't avoid all conflict, internal and external, but it still conveyed the concept of the Federation ideal society. Not in that the Federation was perfect, but that it was a far better society for us to aspire to, and the characters in that aspirational society aspired themselves to be better than they already were. Progress for us, progress for them, progress together, always striving forward.
Conflict is supposed to come from the stars, which they're trekking through - not the humans themselves.
A society that has beaten greed and war isn't one where individuals don't face problems while living in the universe.....
That was painful to watch. STP is the worst thing called Star Trek, even in a world with STD and Short Treks. It’s almost like nobody making it gave two shits about Star Trek...
It's remarkably hard to model utopia.
One man's utopia is another's man's hell.
Imagine having standards?
Yup. Gene’s way was too hard to write for the new Trek producers. That’s obvious. I don’t like any of the new trek. I can watch the fast and the furious for that ⏰🤠
That's an insult to fast and furious, and fast and furious is an insult to all sentient life.
For all of Gene's insistence and preachy tone on how Humanity will be perfect in the future, the man himself was anything but and he preferred it that way.
1. When Star Trek: The Original Series was on the edge of cancellation during Season Two, Gene chose to write the season's last episode himself. This was a big deal since this could been the very last Star Trek story ever told and Gene knew that the show had a dedicated fanbase. So what did he do? 'Assignment: Earth', a backdoor pilot that not only has nothing to do with Star Trek, but completely goes against the very concept of Star Trek.
2. Gene had a knack for ripping off talent. In creating the original theme for Star Trek, Gene and Alexander Courage signed a contract where if the main theme should include lyrics, the writer of said lyrics will get half the royalties. Gene, seeing an opportunity to get more money, wrote lyrics for the theme even though he and Alexander Courage NEVER INTENDED the theme to have lyrics outside of Kirk's monologue. As a result, Gene has to be credited as a co-creator of that theme even though nothing of what he did has ever been available in an official capacity. And he also gets half the royalties.
3. He's petty and unprofessional. When Gene Roddenberry was replaced as producer on the Star Trek films, he got angry. So much so that during production of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, he leaked the film's script. He figured that having Spock's death leaked would create anger amongst the fans and they would want to boycott the film. How did the studio know it was him? Each script handed to personal had their own unique system where if you were to find any errors or details, it would tell you who's script that belonged to.
4. You CAN have a story set in the future where Humanity has solved it's problems. If you give Star Trek: Deep Space Nine a look, Benjamin Sisko is really top notch. He's open-minded, reassuring and has an optimism about him that just makes him so likable. For me, he represents my idea of what Humanity would be like in the future. But if you watch Star Trek: The Next Generations' first two seasons where Gene was in charge, this so-called 'enlightened' Jean-Luc Picard is one of the most pompous and arrogant Star Trek leads you'll ever come across. He preaches to others about how awesome Humanity is while vocally stating how much he hates children. He belittles 21st century humans for thinking about money and wealth when they have had no time to adept to their current setting and even tells Q that he believes Humanity will be compared to angels and gods.
The problem with perfect characters isn't just about the lack of conflict. It's also about the lack of drive to be better. Why would anyone want to be better if they think they're already perfect?
Agreed. However, can you really blame Picard for hating children? I mean... sure, we need them to keep the species alive, but they really are quite annoying overall.
@@BioGoji-zm5ph Here's the thing. After Gene Roddenberry passed away, Picard was allowed to grow up a bit. In the episode 'Inner Light', Picard actually laments about not wanting anything to do with children and realizing that they do bring about a certain joy to life he never experienced before. And one could argue this is even further cemented in Star Trek: Generations where one of his fantasies is, as SFDebris put it, fathering enough children to jump start his own race.
This pretty much sums up my feelings on Star Trek and the Gene fanboys pretty well to be honest. I don’t like the current Abrams and Kurtzman Trek at all myself, but at the same time, Gene frankly needed better writers for the time. Some of the stories from earlier on have aged like milk.
did the old tng edits get taken down again? can't find the playlist anymore
Star Trek proves that you dont need drama in order to make good, engaging shows.
The thing that makes Gene's vision for the future problem is that, while possible, we're far closer to getting to Blade Runner or Mad Max.
The greatest art comes about as a result of limitations. Working around limitations and letting them guide your artistic creation is how you get good content.
I miss the aspirational example of a possible future that TNG, DS9 and Voy had in them, there was still room for Drama, not everything has to be Grim Dark or Grim Derp....
What was this taken from? Did William Shatner do a series of interviews this is pulled from?
here's my question, if our sun was going supernova in a few months, would the romulans help? and also if nobody in the galaxy wanted to help them, inst that their own fault?
Wow I wish I've never seen this video. It makes me despise one of my favorite captains. Literally what Patrick Stewart says in those lines applies to him directly. How f****** back ass words.
You're doing good work here it just makes me sad. 🤔😟😒😥😢
A culture that has lost the ability to dream about a better future and tell stories about what could be, has lost its better future.
This vision forced the writers to be intelligent about their storytelling and sifted out the bad ones. Good for Gene.
It's easy to make heads turn to watch a trainwreck. All you need is two objects colliding and one of them being a train.
It's hard to make heads turn to watch a performance. You'd need to write a good one.
Chaos on the Bridge is fun.
Crappywood mentality.
Take example on some(or all) astronaut teams. Yeah you DO HAVE to not have conflict between yourselves because something greater is at stake (plus your lives).
Even on a military ship, you have to have stability and harmony so that everything functions as it should. Its bad enough when a unexpected thing happens and you have to work it out with your peers.
This new crappy behaviours are a byproduct of tv-made content made to shock and create conflict - like those writers like so much.
Seeing how less and less people is watching it, makes me have hope.
Gene was a visionary, truth.
But he noticed and replicated the same positive human behavior patterns on the armed forces that has to be in place so that great things are made. That's why federation people, although they don't seem at first sight, are soldiers (in pajamas).
New trek is the decadent post-modernist crap trying to capitalize on Gene's masterpiece.
But you can have tension and drama without having it amongst the crew. I think TNG did it smashingly. Though, well, there are quite a few where the crew have issues with each other too 😅
You know what I hate about this? Some of the people sitting around and dumping on Roddenberry made a very, very good living because of his creation. Was he perfect? Obviously not. He was riddled with flaws, some of which make me cringe. That being said, how many of the people we associate with Star Trek would be as well known or as well off if ST had never been put on the air? Probably very few. I prefer to focus on how he and so many talented people came together to create something hopeful, that made me want to be a better person and excel at what I did.
Limitations are often more interesting than abilities and capabilities. Because it makes you think. You have to get creative. Necessity is the mother of invention, after all. The writers complaining and quitting were the cheap hacks who couldn't cut it, who didn't have what it took at the end of the day to write truly great scripts. You want proof? Star Trek TNG and DS9 are some of the most BELOVED sci-fi TV ever written. EVER WRITTEN. THERE's your proof!
So, the Enterprise captains were effectively just Roddenberry's self-insert.
He didn't believe in no win scenarios. He saw past all the nonsense and said this is what we could be.
Good writers can figure that out... This is obviously true because the good ones in the TNG era stayed and were successful... A perfect society may not have conflicts, but they still have "challenges" that they need to negotiate a positive outcome for... Look at the "challenges" Picard had with the Romulan Commander Tomalak... A perfect example. 😉 Now, with the "Kurtzman" era of Star Trek, the emotional responses, and quick judgement decisions usually lead to a negative outcome, and these initial reactions based on emotions makes a "Captain" appear much less experienced and resourceful... 🤔🤨
TOS hadn't really eliminated conflict even in Federation and Starfleet officials...and there was conflict on the ship. Spock and Bones was nearly constant argument about the fundamentals of ethics, morality and good sense. There was plenty of conflict in the Enterprise crew of Galileo.
GR had removed racism on Earth, but it had just morphed into planetary racism and elitism even within the Federation.
There was conflict between officers in Starfleet with old grudges, favoritism, jealousy. Some of it amounted to backstabbing frameups and outward hatred.
The Earth colonies were no utopia either...at least not 20 years before. Genocidal governors, poverty, hard labor, there were penal planets (Scotty was threatened with one).
TNG watered a lot of that down, then it returned with DS9 and later TNG.
I considered early TNG dull, because the characters seemed flat. After Picard got kidnapped and Borgified the character writing of everyone got better.
How do you write stories around 'perfect people'?
You mean like Superman stories?
Being good means remaining vigilant, because there's always temptations; and there are inevitably no-win situations. There's the ever creeping threat of nihilism, over-reach of power, losing sight of nuances, over bearing and soul crushing responsibilities, the shrinking of freedom.
At the end of the day, the message was about self-improvement: To be the best version of yourself possible. To willingly do things that made you less of a person: to be petty, selfish, and cruel... just for the sake of drama, gets you modern entertainment.
what is that bullshit they are talking about humans being perfect? Star Trek was not based on humanity being perfect it was based on humanity having realised it's flaws and embarked on a journey of constantly learning and overcoming them. What a grotesque misunderstanding:
I pity gene Roddenberry, it seems he was surrounded by intellectual dwarves, incapable of grasping his vision. And frankly his vision wasn't even that "whackadoodle" as the complete idiot in the clip claims. Nor was it unheard of or novel. Utopian literature about humanity maturing or utopian science fiction is basically around since the 17th century. And sold many a great adventure book.
Excellent!
Oh, cry me a river, Star Trek writers! So your job was harder. Roddenberry's vision was more grounded in the realities of serving on a closed social order aboard a ship literally BILLIONS of miles from home. They had only each other to rely upon to complete their mission and come safely home. They couldn't engage in any prolonged interpersonal conflicts.
love your videos mate
And yet wasn't TNG the most popular of all the Trek serials?
It's clear now that Shatner understood and Stewart did not.