There’s a beautiful scene in an otherwise mediocre TNG episode called “The Dauphin.” Wesley Crusher is trying to show a girl (who is soon to be subjected to a forced marriage) the sights and sounds of the galaxy. He takes her to the Holodeck and shows her alien landscapes and asteroid belts and music created by solar wind. He says something like: “We’ve only explored 11% of our galaxy. There’s so much more to see! This is really a great time to be alive!” Even an unpopular character in a forgettable episode was able to produce a beautiful and moving scene, one which makes you wish to join their world and their time, or to make our time more like theirs. You’ll never see anything like that in Kurtzman’s FakeTrek.
That is an excellent example, Jason. My favourite episode of TNG is "I, Borg": the episode holds me from the first moment to the final instant, and that final instant is a moment of radiant beauty that I feel fortunate and privileged to have seen.
First of all you and Mauler are two of my favorite RUclips critics, so your mention of him made me smile. You put so much thought into your videos. You remind me of the movie First Contact, where Picard goes back in time to stop the Borg from preventing the first contact with an alien race, the Vulcans. Councilor Troi described the moment beautifully. "It unites mankind in a way no one thought possible." Personally, viewing the world through the tragic lense, I think it's hopelessly optimistic. But that was always part of the charm of Star Trek.
As a young boy, not even a teen yet - I loved Next Generation because it made me think and imagine, not to be depressed, engage in vulgarity or enjoy violence.
Exactly. Star Trek depicted a hopeful future that was worth aspiring to, in which humanity had matured, put its vulgarity and violence behind it, learned to solve problems with logic and diplomacy instead of big guns, and earned the right to mingle with the other advanced races - the "grown ups" if you will - in the wider universe. That was the whole point of the show. And then along came the various incarnations of Kurtman-Trek, every one of them completely missing that point.
The appeal of TNG Picard was that while he was a diplomat at heart with a level head and a love for culture, he had flaws. He didn’t like children, he was more introverted and introspective (not a “flaw”, but an odd characteristic for a captain), and on several occasions in the series failed to see beyond his own higher moral and ethical principles to understand those who would do wrong things for the right reasons. With better writers, this could have been a small series where Picard works on his vineyard, sees some old friends, and possibly resolves some hanging threads from his past.
"With better writers..." And there we arrive at the crux. Trek is doomed until "better writers" come along. And that won't happen while Secret Hideout is running the show.
@Ben Carlson I mean this w/ no unkindness, but I've always been baffled by the widespread affection for TNG. It's infinitely better than STD, to be sure, but it's also little more than Trek for Tweens. If you hold such as Shakespeare or just any of the century's better playwright's in active esteem, you'll understand how well written are the best 15-20 episodes of the original series, whereas even the best-loved TNG episodes are mediocre at best. There's little love for language in its scripts, the sets are drab, the direction is pro forma, the cast beyond Stewart is weak when it is not incompetent, and even when the plots are sound the writing is uninspired. I do not understand the fondness for it, at all.
@@johnstrawb3521 It continues the themes of TOS with a fresh face, it feels much less dated than TOS in my opinion, and it appeals to my general belief that there are always two or more sides to every problem. It makes me consider the ethical ramifications of the decisions being made. TOS, from my recollection, was primarily a quasi-horror series focusing on getting off a hostile world rather than a diplomacy-focused sci-fi series. There were episodes in TOS that were diplomacy and ethics focused, just as there were plenty of survival episodes in TNG, I just prefer TNG's overall approach a lot more. The scripts, the sets, and the actors are all about equal, I would say, I see no real separation between the two regarding the technical aspects.
I stumbled upon this channel a few weeks ago and I have been watching like a fiend. A toast to the sophisticated and unapologetically biting commentary. Keep it up, my friend. Excellent content.
Its less that Nu Trek is too political, it's that the political aspects are so poorly realized. In the old Trek they would, at least, bother to dress up the issues and thus allow the viewer to see them from the outsider's POV and making the story they're telling much more interesting than just spelling it out and beating us over the head with their take on subjects.
Thank you, Little Platoon, for your thoughts and this video especially. I know you through Critical Drinker's Open Bar (you're always an asset to the channel). As a man of faith with a passing familiarity of philosophy, this video nicely encapsulated why the older shows have retained so much of my love and respect while the newer shows just infuriate me... often beyond my ability to verbalize. So I just wanted to say "well done", and please keep up the good work.
Star Trek (original and next generation) were about heroes facing external threats to a unified (or rather unifying) peoples. In scope these shows offered a thematic message of "See what we can accomplish when we work together," thus promoting the vales of acceptance, tolerance, and merit based equality. Additionally, the format promoted these ideals prima facie. The very nature of solving problems as a group showed how discourse, rationality, and cooperative action ( even heroic action based on common goals) was the foundation of these shows. Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise introduced aspects of "the enemy within" where the lead characters were less "Heroic" but no less problem solvers. However, the nature of the problems shifted away from dealing with (mostly) externalized threats towards unifying a diverse people (with disparate goals/ desires) towards a unified goal. They were still under external threats, yes, but the stories evolved into how do we achieve our goal, (of unification), while still dealing with the threat. The story in Picard focuses on the conflict of internal threat, that of de-unification. So far it has offered a story arc in the form of "what should a man on conscience do when the society has failed in it's greater goal (city on a hill). Each show is emblematic of the times in which it was created (from the United States (or western nations in general) point of view). These are roughly the post-war (red scare), cold war (global domination struggle), and post soviet collapse, and reflect the societal focus shift from "fighting the commies" to "winning the hearts and minds" (economic/cultural colonialism/dominance) to Corporatizational profiting (the outcome of the western "winning the hearts and minds" campaign where corporations are give free reign and grow "to big to fail" i.e. "beyond the law". You offer the tragic side utopian/tragic dialectic as the core of your thesis stating that the utopian side is (essentially) wrong for having "the anointed forcing people to see how centralized decisions are better for them." A rational representational authority with powers based on mutual agreement (majority agreement) is just that. Anointed members give power to enforce centralized laws. I would offer that the current state of affairs, in truth it has been seen throughout history, that the authoritarian right has in times of peril (the cold war) allowed men motivated by self serving interests (corporations) to violate the society's best interests, in the name of furthering,the state interests, that have inevitably led to the state's/society's demise. Instead of utopian/tragic, (your left/right dialectic) I would look, as the source of conflict as the rational/irrational (thoughtful/emotional) and how decisions can (and are) manipulated. I find the interaction between the concepts of SOR (stimuli-organism-response paired with communications theory (sender-message-receiver,) including interference and feedback, to be of great value, but, have to seen it applied in philosophic studies.
A major oversight in your analysis is when you say TOS was about a unified people facing external threats and then claim each show was emblematic of the times in which it was created and what those societies were dealing with. Had TOS been made in the 40's or 50's perhaps there wouldn't be a problem. But it was made in the 60's, which was a very internally-tumultuous time for the USA. I also question your identifying "rational representational authority" as being "the anointed forcing people to see how centralized decisions are better for them." As you yourself acknowledge, in such systems the powers are "based on mutual agreement (majority agreement)." If the people are at regular intervals able to remove people from positions of power, you do not have a situation where the people are being forced to see how decentralized decisions are better for them. If the powers are making such decisions, and the people do not believe they are better for them, they are able to remove those leaders. In your paragraph about what the authoritarian right has allowed to happen in times of peril...I don't see how that does anything to undermine the CV/UV schema. The constrained vision posits that humans are flawed and not perfectible. Consequently there will be those from all political sides who will abuse power once they have it. The CV/UV does not 1 to 1 map to Right/Left. Indeed, one can believe humans are perfectible, but believe top-down control by the few wise is not the best way to bring about that perfection. And one can believe humans are not perfectible, and believe the best we can do to mitigate human failing is find the wise few and put them in charge of as much as we can. That being said, for the last several decades it has generally been the case, at least in the USA, that the Left speaks more the rhetoric of the UV (we can achieve utopia or close to it, particularly if you will let our wise people lead the way and manage all these bad people in all the ways we realize they are bad) and the Right speaks more the rhetoric of the CV (humans will always be imperfect so we should limit the power any individual or small group can have, and let decisions be made at local levels with people who have local knowledge and local stakes). The rational/irrational is an important consideration. But in some ways is that not a part of the CV/UV question (to what extent are humans capable of being rational, which presumably is better than making decisions based on emotions)? When it comes to questions of "can we achieve utopia or close to it, and if so by what means," the rational/irrational question does not itself tell us enough to know whether it can be or not.
Late to the party here but wanted to say that despite assuming we likely have different political standpoints more generally, you are the sort of critic that enhances and enriches discourse. I wish you all the best and will look forward to engaging with your content in future.
While you wrote this about critiquing Picard and a part 2 probably isn't coming, I came upon this because I was interested in the history of Star Trek and wondering what it was about the series that bred such love in the fanbase. Your breakdown of the themes and the atmosphere, tone, and ideals behind the original ST was very clear and conveyed what seemed to be special of ST ... while also conveying how jarring the new season's intentions were, considering your video's topic. Thanks for this video. I enjoyed the positive points of it a lot.
I am still hoping to do a second part - it’s just a little hard to keep on top of everything in the spare minutes the real world affords. Thanks for the kind comment, I’m glad you liked the video!
Well done. Bonus points awarded for using a new clip of Admiral Angry Librarian smacking down Picard instead of resorting to the stock hubris clip. Strength through discipline, young man. I wish you luck in fixing the story given it was, to borrow the Critical Drinker's insight, created by children. Well, in Picard I guess we have to modify that to "created by malevolent children". The plot holes span a galaxy. More seriously, I've always been a bit puzzled by the Brexit hysterics. From this side of the pond it seems to have involved lots of arm waving on economic/market issues, fishing rights, and whatnot, with dollops of impending Armageddon hysteria added for the media. But hearkening back to Sowell's perspective, it seemed to me the underlying issue for the left was hoi polloi having the temerity to reject the EU's authority. The New Star Trek regime's response in Picard seems to be similarly based in a love of authoritarianism, "You peasants refuse to agonize over the current state of the world as we, your betters, do with your foolish desires for optimism. You didn't take our hints from Discovery's virtual reeducation camp. The consequences are your fault. You have forced us to burn everything you love to the ground and salt the fields. Er, I meant subvert your expectations."
That last was, ultimately, the question. Do you think power should be invested as close as possible to the people, or placed as far away from them as possible. There were important economic arguments, too; the EU's regulatory model is absurdist, which is why it's so awful when it comes to start-ups and innovation. But the foundational argument was about political and legal sovereignty, and whether we have the right not to be assimilated by the Borg.
And now the hoi polloi has the temerity to cry "Wait!! We take it back! We want back in!" Maybe there was more than arm waving going on? I'm confident you can create some gymnastics to blame a shadowy "left" again.
@@mallninja9805 Who are these people recanting their criticisms of Discovery and Picard? I have so far missed them. As to blame there's the nothing shadowy involved. You can see the names of the no talent nitwits responsible every time the credits roll.
It's funny coming back to this now. I never got around to watching Picard so I missed the way it broke apart everything that made star trek what it was. With people muttering about World War 3 in today's current climate, my first response was: "One step closer to the future that is Star Trek," with hope that things will get better. The fact that they went and literally stomped all over that hope , actively dragging you in to the present and the horrors they want you to be disillusioned by is a true shame.
I grew up watching TNG on TV. Came home every day from school to watch. Loved it. When Picard was announced I was so excited. Then I heard what it was. Broke my heart. Especially that Patrick Stewart was behind alot of it. So sad.
I'm same; I had to be home ar 7:00 each night to watch TNG. I feel pretty certain that the Jean Luc Picard in _Star Trek Picard_ would have immediately said there are 5 light.
The sad thing is that likely no one has walked up to him and said, "You sabotaged your own legacy. You may value your stage acting career more than your role as Picard, but for 30 years you had both, as well as the admiration of those who would never willingly walk into a production of, say, King Lear. You destroyed something you were beloved for, and that is disrespectful to the thing itself, the people's love, and your own seriousness." There has been a modicum of redemption from Season 3, but it was not through Stewart's effort, I am sure.
Absolutely brilliant video. I look forward to the next parts. My only criticisms is maybe cut your introduction down a bit. I understand you want to give as much context to your viewpoint as possible, and it's very much appreciated, but I do think it could be streamlined a little. Beyond that, bravo on the top quality content 👍 keep it up
Definitely! I did consider splitting that off and doing it as a separate video, as it's the introduction to the whole critique and not specific to part one. Rest assured the intro to part two will be a fraction of the length!
@@TheLittlePlatoon I had considered that myself haha I was thinking "this would probably do well as a teaser video for what is to come later". But yeah seriously great work. Your ability to break things down by an intellectual, philosophical, moral and even political basis is very impressive. Been a long time since I've had that degree of "engagement" with those things even though I'm just a viewer and not a participant in the discussion.
I feel like a fair amount of people sort of got to know Patrick Stewart during the opening publicity tour(s), but I think A LOT of people “met” him during the Season 1 premiere and got a rude, rude surprise after all these years. Personally, not having that large stake in the character and show, I can say from my experience with STar Wars that it truly is heartbreaking watching this happen to beloved characters. To watch the actor themselves be the hand behind the writers’ pillaging and burning of a character that you might have innumerable beloved memories with is beyond heartbreaking, it’s beyond infuriating.
I think that the reason Star Trek is fondly viewed by those of us with a melancholy worldview is that it is our oposite. It is the world as we wish it could be. Therefore, while enjoy the bracing reality of Star Wars, the utopia of Star Trek reminds us that not all of the human condition is bleak and dismal, or that we mat at least imagine it to be so.
Found your channel last night, I've been enjoying your breakdowns of DIscovery and Picard. I particularly appreciate the distinction you make between political in touching on issues of politics through allegory and being political in the sense of actually endorsing specific politicians or modern political ideas. It gives me words to address that one argument you repeat, that Star Trek has always been political. By holding our modern times up to a warped mirror of sorts, Star Trek has always given us a way to discuss our own problems abstractly. Even the original series had allegories about things like Vietnam without having to overtly say so. They left it to the audience to discover the allegory and discuss it. They also represented multiple sides of the argument through the various crew members. Ahhh, those were the days. Anyway, I look forward to seeing more of your views on this, and looking for other series you have analyzed.
I found this channel quite by accident, but have loved hearing what I can only think to call, and to what I believed was long since banished to some unknown hell, reasonable thought. Well done and thank you. I listen while at work and enjoy, while not always agreeing, with the commentary. Nevertheless , I find your points well thought out and I find myself listening to some of the points over again to really chew on them. Once again, thank you for the enjoyable content and finding, as well as sharing, logical arguments on reasonable points.
I liked early seasons Picard, he was strong, fair and authoritarian. When his body was taken over, they had to proof that he is crazy or unwell, it gave the impression that the position of starfleet commander is not something easy to get
I've made this point before, but I think this is a good place to repeat it. Star Trek is often described as a "progressive" show, and I'm sure it was originally _intended_ to be one; however I don't think that's what was actually produced. The setting of Star Trek, as you pointed out, is very much aligned with the "vision of the anointed", a progressive future where a top-down government manages everyone's lives for their betterment. However, in actuality Star Trek is not a progressive show, but a _liberal_ show (yes, I'm using that word correctly). In fact, it regularly demonstrates the difference between progressivism and liberalism, and even cautions _against_ progressivism. Pick a handful of episodes at random from any Star Trek show, and you have a pretty good chance of seeing it in action, especially if the show contains any sort of representative of Starfleet. They will _always_ butt heads with our heroes, because the representative is by definition a bureaucrat who has way too much authority and way too little sense. A good deal of the episode will then be spent on showcasing why it's a bad idea to be ruled from top-down, and the heroes will solve the problems from the bottom up instead, using reason and common sense - the foundations of liberalism. In practice, the show is telling us why progressivism is a bad idea, as it always seems to lose out. You've pointed this out as being one of Picard's defining characteristics, but I think it's present in every Star Trek show and in every "good" character we meet, rather than being confined to just one captain. In fact, Starfleet itself might be the reason for the confusion: as a military organization (which it absolutely was, no matter how hard Roddenberry would protest that definition) it is by definition top-down and unaccustomed to reasoning. Had the show been focused on a more civilian facet of the Federation, the progressive angle might have been completely absent. In fact, Deep Space 9 showed us a _far_ more liberal society (albeit a small one, on board the station) than you'd see on a Starship - and that society was _often_ administrated in a much more liberal fashion. It's no coincidence that 99% of their interactions with the Federation were confrontations, in which they had to find ways to subvert the Federation's wishes in one way or another. And this shouldn't really come as a surprise, either. While Roddenberry was a firm believer in his progressive ideas, the writers for the show rarely were. Few people actually are progressive in the West, a society based on a strong liberal tradition, not a progressive one. It is only now, that progressivism has begun to supplant liberalism (up to and including stealing its name) that writers have actually begun implementing Roddenberry's original idea. The fact that it bears no resemblance to Roddenberry's vision is - as you've pointed out - a testament to how the "vision of the anointed" doesn't actually work in real life. Much as it failed in the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, a progressive Federation that's devoid of actual liberal thinking at the mid-level executive positions will quickly devolve into a dystopia - much like what is happening in the West today.
I just wanted to say I have loved your philosophical critiques of star trek, star wars, and marvel. Your part about the constrained and unconstrained visions was brilliant. Just one thing though when are the other parts coming?
Glad to hear it! I’m honestly not sure with Picard, however. I premised the idea of a multi-part review on the assumption season 2 would continue on the same path, ie having something uniquely bad and intelligently destructive behind it, as season 1 did. When it came out and was just bad in the boring, unintelligent way all modern media seems to be, it really destroyed what interest I had in it. I’ve got part 3 of the Discovery critique coming out in the next couple of weeks, but I don’t know yet whether I’ll be able to summon up the energy to revisit Picard. Might be something I come back to in a quiet week, or when season 3 launches.
@@TheLittlePlatoon well I really enjoy your critique and in depth philosophical take on modern media. It works be awesome to hear you're thoughts on the last of us part 2 (if your into video games)
@@joshuafears4123 Oh, I am! But I’ve never played The Last of Us, alas. I think there are probably people better able to comment on that than I am. But I’m definitely looking to branch into games coverage soon - I’d just be wary of jumping onto something about which so much has already been said, like TLoU part 2, and by people much more qualified than myself.
I love the description of ST philosophy. I am a fan of TNG and I have always appreciated Picard as a character, especially how they handled his trauma surrounding his experiences with the Borg. I am so, so glad that I don't have access to Paramount+ and I plan to ignore Picard (the show) completely regardless. If I want good Star Trek, I will stick to rewatching the older series as the nutrek has proven to be too disappointing. But I do love your channel and all the hard work and thoughtfulness you put into your critiques. Thank you! 💜💜💜💜
You’ve hit the nail on the head with this observation and critique. I used to be a huge Star Trek fan. I went to conventions, had uniforms, even had the Klingon dictionary. Now I don’t even bother watching except for Original, Next Gen and Voyager. New Trek just overlays spaceships and ray guns over modern issues and preaches “The Message”. I can’t imagine a ship being run the way it is on Discovery with people being routinely insubordinate, running yelling and getting into fights with each other. Maybe something will come along that goes back to an intelligent and thoughtful exploration of humanity.
Well illuminated, the beliefs and standards of the original concept of Trek. Man, I was thinking about the episode of TNG when Picard goes back home and has his fight with his brother, dealing with his trauma of being a Borg.... It really all comes down to the way you write, the experiences of those writers being conveyed, and the point of such writing to begin with. What is the message and where does it come from? "We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity.” - Captain Jean-Luc Picard, OT
Hello. I'm a massive fan of your videos. Not only do you keep educating me with little tidbits amongst your critiques, but your eloquence and masterful use of the Queen's English, King's I suppose now, is uplifting. However, I feel obliged to declare that I hate the way you pronounce 'genre' .🤣🤣 Anyway, please keep doing what you do in the face of this phase of wokeness and idiocy. Keep being a remedy for us. Thank you if you read this far into my semi-coherent blurb.
TNG is my fav Star Trek series and Picard has been always my hero. I was full of hope when they announced ST:Picard. After first 2 seasons of Discovery I was ready to drop it and concentrate on ST:Picard, but after seeing 1st season of ST:Picard I dropped Picard and gave Discovery another chance. And I don't regret it.
I'm surprised at how much philosophy I managed to absorb from what I expected to be a negative review of Picard. Sneaky bastards, tricking people into learning! 😉
The Constrained and The Unconstrained Vision segments of this video, perfectly sums up why I loved old star trek so much and hate the new star trek and what's it has become. Star Trek now and its current state has had its philosophy and weekly moral lessons cut out and by extension hallowed out by Hollywood to make room for there weekly P.S.A "woke" message of the week. I look forward to watching more. thank you!
I don't mind the idea of the Federation losing their way as a concept. The idea of challenging the sustainability of the Federation's utopia is a fundamentally interesting idea. But Star Trek is all about creating something to aspire to. An arc where the Federation as a whole loses its way, but finds it again builds up the durability of the concept of the Federation. It can be challenged, it can falter, but it will return to its ideals, better and stronger than ever. That said, it has to be executed with that in mind.
This is a brilliiant essay which easily surpasses in its originality and precision of argument anything one may read in legacy media vomitoria such as the Economist or The Atlantic. I can't get enpugh of these --not for long-- underrated brilliant young bastards! Ps The essays really should be committed to published form
We’ve been pondering a way to do that and have it linked in some way to the channel. We’ve spent years writing essays and sticking them here and there, so it’s a bit of a surprise to find ourselves in this position after four months on RUclips! It might end up being a Patreon thing. Scripts and bonus essays, etc. We’ll start exploring those options in earnest once we’ve hit 1000 subs here. Thanks again for the lovely words!
If you would like to see Star Trek done incredibly well, look at Star Trek Deep Space Nine. Though not without its faults, they series did quite well at looking at a Federation under existential threat, and the challenges of holding high ideals under said situation.
Amazing video. As are all your videos. I very much appreciate your analysis contained in this and your other videos. Thank you. Much appreciation and well wishes from Australia 👍🇦🇺
I wasn't able to put my finger on it, so I appreciate this breakdown. I watched Disco 1 and Picard 1, and I found Disco laughably bad. With Picard I felt like I was watching a cohesive story, but I ultimately disliked it, because I wasn't watching something that fit in the ST universe.
Kinda off-topic, but every time I hear someone telling me that Star Trek is pro-Communism, either with positive or negative connotations, I am immediately reminded of a scene from the episode "The Hunted", where a soldier, resisting his government's policy of confining him and his fellow soldiers to a penal colony after the war these soldiers were trained and augmented for ended, declares "to survive is not enough!", IMO basically rejecting Marxist notion of exchanging service for sustenance. Besides the portrayal of the Borg.
Great discussion on this. I too, more ascribe to the tragic vision, but I strongly loved Star Trek. Star Trek eclipsed Star Wars for me in my early 20s. I always just kind of ignored the overly utopian impulses, TNG season 1 was probably the worst of that trend, but the characters, and the episode to episode morality/philosophy tales were like cocaine to me. Thankfully, I’ve never watched Kurtzman ‘trek’ so Star Trek is one of the few franchises that hasn’t been ruined for me by JJ and his numerous acolytes.
Your videos are making me think, which is fun. As I absorb your ideas, one thing about JL Picard was his intellectual humility, the way he stepped back from judging to observing. That he could afford to do that was founded on a utopian vision of abundance. In that way ST made us think, 'what if' we could all afford to be philosophers. He came close to the Socratic ideal of the Philosopher King, never afraid because the bigger Truth inspired him. But in ST Picard, the bigger truth has been destroyed. And Picard is now a lost and vulnerable man (as shown very well in 'monsters'), still trying to live by his moral values which appear to be shaking in a confederation (but isn't that a reflection of modern day world?). Interestingly the character of Elnor has been killed upon arrival to 2024- Elnor represented candour, and I think he represented the group's capacity for truth. The fact that he is dead, itself shows that the luxury of candour is no longer available. Not sure where the writers will take the last 2 episodes, back to a free and abundant federation the way it was? or absorbed by the new Borg queen i.e., loss of freedom and autonomy or the world continues as a racist confederation. Can everyone get along and share power seems to be a question in ST Picard, whereas it was a truth in ST TNG.
Very nice. Thank-you for mentioning the mistake made by my countrymen make in equating liberalism and leftism. It bothers me every bit as much as our mistake in constantly conflating our system of government with democracy. Your take here was enjoyable and helpful. I liked TNG when it was new. I still like DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise. At some point, I watched the first episode of Picard (and the first episode of Discovery). I'm aware I'm very much of the constrained vision on my more pragmatic side, but I am also a classical romantic. There are plenty of ways in which the unconstrained vision is fun or uplifting to play with in literature and art.
Fantastic job on this video and on the videos covering STD. Your insight into the political shift from inspiration to being discussion to simply telling people what to believe is spot on. I watched the STD videos right before this one and your description of the tone differences was also poignant. Never have we had 2 trek series running basically in tandem with such opposing tones and world views. Both are so far away from the original concept of trek and over-simplified, it's no wonder they are unsatisfying. Looking froward to the meatier Picard videos.
Many thanks! Picard is honestly a struggle at this point, so it may be there’ll only be one more video after all. It might have been different had season 2 been interestingly malevolent, but it’s honestly so tedious I’m not sure I can cope with spending many more hours on it!
Excellent analysis. The one thing that always bothered me about Star Trek is the bad economics. Solving the food scarcity through the replicators is acceptable. But where did the starships and space stations come from? Were they replicated? No. There were shipyards. Who paid the workers, miners, engineers, etc? And once trade was seriously delt with in Deep Space 9, it is embodied by the repulsive Ferengi. Thank you for a sensible treatment of the subject. I'd love to see your view of Battlestar Galactica and The Expanse. At least those deal with more realistic problems.
I was raised on TNG. It was one of the few things I was allowed to watch when I was very young that wasn't purely educational and I think it Trek in general colors my opinions on many things. I do firmly believe that, as the quote goes, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one." That said I also recognize that humanity is a long way from becoming the Federation. Replicators are basically the only thing making the federation possible and are essentially magic. I am much more utilitarian when it comes to most things, but I wholly disagree with the idea that central planning would never work and that somehow "Organically Grown" local organization is superior. Every person who has ever tried to make something knows that is not how you get better product. You get better product through refinement. By figuring out what works and what doesn't. Sorta Free Market: Works. Privatized Fire Dept.'s: Do NOT work.
Bit late coming to check out the older videos but this one I quite enjoyed. To the full time philosopher sorts I find myself always thinking of my own assessment that philosophy is useless as long as it has no practical use.
I've seen people who got into Star Trek (old Trek) because they were intrigued by the way negative reviews about Picard made it sound. That's a strange legacy for a sequel show to have.
Very good explanation of why I was starting to get somewhat worried in DS9 with all the Section 31 stuff and the whole Sisko poisons a planet to make a point thing and why I haven't watched any of the modern Star Trek series. The Abramsverse was just silly in my mind but starting with Discovery, I felt like it was just ruining what I liked about Star trek (since the late 60s when I watched Star Trek as a new show). Though I have somewhat lost faith in mankind's nature, I still feel like some kind of aspirational TV show that tries to tell us that we COULD get better is (or should be) cherished. It's sad that the destruction of Gene Roddenberry's dream of a positive future is being destroyed intentionally rather than just by ineptness.
I too got confued in DS9. I didn't even get that far, but it started to bog down into, well, I won't even say it was bad, just not Star Trek, drifting so far away from the original intent.
Absolutely superb. The abstractness of this means it is a very good primer for the Culture Wars in general for NPC's and those stuck in the Boomer Truth Regime. Thank you very much indeed.
I appreciate your presentation for its sophistication, vocabulary, and erudition. Whenever a youtube video makes me question my own beliefs and understanding of the world, I applaud it. I agree that Picard ruined the vision of the Federation, and specifically Earth as a member of the Federation. Taking away the rights of AI was absolutely un-Rodenberry like. I'm now going to go read more about Brexit and its effect on the British economy.
I've really enjoyed this vid more than others.. it's pin pointed alot of my feelings of Modern art.. it's also pin pointed somewhat political point of view. I've have always considered myself a Libertarian even though that lable has a very broad stroke in the US. I've often hated the lable of liberal given to progressives. I understand there was a historical reason for it but today it's muddied the water.. I look forward to more of your videos.
It would be nice if at some point you could compile your various series of breakdowns into playlists that are easier to navigate than digging through your entire list of uploads every time I want to go back and rewatch a whole topic!
As what they call on 4chan a "TNGeezer" who saw the 60s show in early reruns or even when it first aired, I loathe Picard and everything it stands for. It is written by people who hate the idea of a good future and I am sorry Stewart had anything to do with it.
I found this channel three days ago and I think this video just white pilled me. With a philosophical rant about a show I complained was a poorly written reimagining of BSG's Caprica... Well done!
How does DS9 fit into this classification system? I wasn't an avid viewer of DS9 (unlike TNG) but I recall the show was noted for, among other things, the comparitively more pragmatic choices made by its captain. The way the Federation was presented was different too.
Brilliant summary of the 'Conflict of Visions' to borrow from the title of one of my favorite Sowell books. I always thought that the Prime Directive in TNG was in some small way a concession to the tragic vision. The idea of non-interference in lesser developed societies was necessary because those societies needed to suffer the tragedies and growth pains that humanity itself had to endure to reach the stage in TNG. It at least acknowledged that the quest for utopia was a struggle and a long path. It isn't simple or frictionless as is so often assumed by today's activists. In hindsight, it was silly because as, you correctly pointed out, it was a technological and not a moral or ethical revolution that allowed the pleasant vision of the Federation. Humans were no more ready or worthy of the benefits of the society altering technology than any primitive society the Enterprise encountered. TNG inverts the causal arrow.
I strongly disagree; they clearly WERE ready, and that's the entire point. Humans were no longer racist against those with different skin colors, for example, and even racism against Klingons or Romulans was treated as a backwards position routinely overcome. The Prime Directive is not a "small concession"; it is an absolutely massive aspect of Old Trek that disproves this notion that the show was anywhere close to utopian. It took massive amounts of work to get to where they were, and they continued to put in massive amounts of work to maintain it, all while respecting every individual culture they came across so long as it was not an active threat. If it was truly utopian, then Starfleet command would have been dictators micromanaging every planet in the Federation, and entire episodes would not have existed around the premise of trying to accomplish certain goals WITHOUT interfering in domestic development or politics, or even undoing damage they inadvertently caused.
Agree. Not to delve too deeply in lore, but Strange New Worlds came out and said it: conflicting ideas of liberty tore the world apart and led to World War Three, killing billions, Pike said. And ten years later, with civilization still in ruins, Zephram Cochrane got the Vulcans' attention with warp drive, one of their criteria for First Contact. But the Vulcans didn't reveal themselves to an equal; they saved humanity. They bootstrapped them to a post-scarcity society, then correctly put on the brakes for ninety years. How could a society that could not solve its problems without ghastly and widespread violence be expected to interact peacefully with alien cultures? Humans chafed at the restraint, of course, and were repentant for WW3, and thought the removal of scarcity, the removal of the reason for all the conflict that had gone before, indicated evolution. We see from the first episode of Enterprise that it didn't. Prejudice still existed, primarily against the Vulcans, which is ironic. Humanity was still warlike, competitive, prideful. It was less so in TOS, even less so in TNG, and then the tide turned in DS-9. Granted, the major plotline was the impending galactic conflict. Then Voyager toned that down somewhat. And Enterprise created the progression by showing the regression. All the while, characters were talking about humanity's evolution when it was technology all along.
I think Q was right. The problems, existential questions that plague us continue to exist even in the most ideal material, scientific, utopian society like the Federation. That was the fundamental basis for the trial. The importance is learning from mistakes and bettering ourselves, which ironically, is the goal set forth by Starfleet. "You just don't get it, do you, Jean-Luc? The trial never ends. We wanted to see if you had the ability to expand your mind and your horizons. And for one brief moment, you did."
Very well articulated. Had I anyone in mind that I felt the need to explain my relationship with current-Trek (and that I felt would be receptive), this is one of the things I'd point them to. My only issue is this notion of possibly redeeming the series (though that might be a matter of scale). I don't think there's anything you can do to fix anything current-Trek, short of Q snapping his fingers and declaring it to have never been. Not Discovery, not Picard, nor the other series. That isn't to say that Trek as a whole is beyond saving. We've seen abused franchises see new life (Ghostbusters Afterlife versus 2016). Heck, Kurtzman was behind the second Amazing Spider-man movie, and despite that, thanks to No Way Home (and Kurtzman being nowhere in sight), we're seeing some enthusiasm for more Garfield Spider-man. But I don't see any hypothetical Picard season 2 or 3 pulling Trek out of its darkness without completely cutting every tie to the misery they just so happened to call "Star Trek". Part (not all, but part) of current-Trek's crimes is its cavalier treatment and dismissal of the lore, and any new seasons of any series that have already violated that lore, even if they try to course-correct to restore Star Trek's message and how it's presented, are still perpetuating those misdeeds. I also don't see any obligation that we just accept it. Before TNG, we already had the pre-TOS Klingon-war era explored by the FASA games, later declared non-canonical and then respectfully re-visited by the fanfilm Axanar and (TheQuartering echo) "reimagined" disrespectfully by STD. If that can be Thanos-snapped away, current-Trek can be Thanos-snapped away. Maybe post-current-Trek can comment on the current fracturing of the franchise and fanbase and so acknowledge what current-Trek has done and move forward, but not from within current-Trek's history (probably need alternate universes for that, though it could just be one of Reg Barclay's long-forgotten holodeck programs, too).
I quite like the idea that everything that's happened since '09 is just a Holodeck simulation, but I think I'd feel a bit dirty and cheap resorting to that!
Balrighty 35 : "That isn't to say that Trek as a whole is beyond saving." Star Trek died in 1968 when it was cancelled after two seasons. It came back ... immediately. Star Trek died again in 1969 when it was cancelled after the third season. It came back ... as an animated series. Star Trek died again in 1974 when the animated series was cancelled. It came back ... as the proposed television series Star Trek Phase 2. Star Trek died again in 1978 when Phase 2 was aborted. It came back ... as Star Trek the Motion Picture. Et cetera, et cetera. Star Trek has had more lives than the legendary Phoenix ... and it will have more lives still. Nicholas Meyer called Star Trek "the thing that wouldn't die." I personally believe that rotten things (like NuTrek) die and decompose, while healthy things (like classic Trek) live and grow and reproduce. Currently, Star Trek has been kidnapped by a very bad robot and is being held captive in a secret hideout, but once that problem is solved Star Trek will return. Our heroes represent our values, and values are timeless: as timeless as Ulysses, Hamlet, and Sherlock Holmes, so timeless are Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Picard, and Data. Live long and prosper. 🖖
the opening argument of the reason the Federation exists as it does is missing a key part that many Trekkies don't think about as the majority aren't as well versed in the TOS era, but the Replicators didn't exist until the 24th Century, sort of mid-24th too. The main reason why Humanity embraced the idea of unity and acceptance of the personal growth of material is because of the Early and Mid 21st Century. At the start there was the Eugenics war, an era where despots created through Genetic Engineering became global threats (this was in the late 90s) and led to the large amount of social and governmental control in the West, which led to the Sanctuary Districts that just herded the poor and mentally ill into them so they weren't visible, which led to the riots of the early 21st Century, this then led to the governments of the world controlling all military and policing with drugs and controlling the population even more. After this the 3rd World War started where Nukes were used everywhere, where over 600 million people died in the conflict, all social order collapsed and led to the Mid 21st Century court system that punished all as if guilty already, where lawyers were all killed and society itself fell apart. Zephram Cochrain set about creating the first Warp Engine to sell it and get money, but attracted the attention of the Vulcans who - on seeing how bad Humanity had suffered - spent a century and change helping us out of self-destructive urges and desires. We gained a lot of their qualities in this century and began to stop caring about money in this century, officially dropping it around the mid-22nd century as the reason for gain was now to better yourself for your own sake rather than to better others. The story of the Trek 21st Century is that of Humanity facing the absolute worst moment in our history and deciding to never again go with what caused it, to strive for better.
Old Trek: Everyone we ask you; to think and use reason to come to a decision. New Trek: Everyone we demand you; you don't need to reason, we thought of the a decision for you.
I feel like I agree with at least half of what this guy says. The things I might not agree with, I still end up agreeing because he SOUNDS so convincing.
I can agree almost everything you say, except for the claim that STP was well written. It struck me as a mishmash of several undeveloped plotlines, none of which made any sense. Scenes within those plots seldom made sense either. And the show was so boring I found myself nodding off at the half-way point of every episode.
I think I said it "wasn't a badly written show", and did acknowledge that it "wasn't great"; but the point there was only to demonstrate that the truly objectionable thing about the series wasn't shoddy writing but deliberately crafted destruction.
@@TheLittlePlatoon IMO, both are true. It's thematic messages and deconstruction of the Star Trek universe were awful, but so was the writing. Ironically, if the writing had been competent, it would have done a better job selling the messages, and might have been more successful. So, as someone who loves the messages in classic ST, I'm actually glad the writing was poor.
One of the reasons I've always loved Star Trek was precisely the utopian nature of it's world. But the thing about that world was not Gene Roddenberry just being an optimist and saying here's the future, it's all bright and shiny because I like that idea. As in most things Star Trek (old Star Trek that is) it went much deeper than that. I'm sure he understood how the world works and the point you made about attempted utopian societies, thats why the founding principle behind his universe was actually extremely dark. Earth needed a third world war, Eugenics Wars as they called them in show, that decimated the population down to i believe only 10% survivors and left the Earth a post apocalyptic Mad Max styled barren wasteland. I guess it was Roddenberry's view that only that kind of future could impact humanity and human nature to such an extent that core changes could be made, leading to people and nations finally working together to create an optimistic utopian future he presented us with. Granted, those aspects of history were not very prevalent in the storytelling and it takes a high level of love for Star Trek to look that deep into the lore... but you touched upon a series I used to love deeply so guess I just wanted to share my 2 cents and hopefully get you more interested in expanding your knowledge of the Star Trek universe and lore. Sorry if that sounded patronizing, not used to forming my thoughts in english. But you make your videos very thought out and appealing and on a subject i care about so i felt a need to comment. Keep up the good work kind sir.
I could barely get through a single episode of Discovery, but I had high hopes for Picard. But now I wish I had never watched it. Such a terrible disservice to a great character.
Hi, love your work! Just a little bit of mercy please…can you please add the appropriate …part two/three/four to connected videos…as you have it now, it’s a real hassle to go looking for videos on the same show. They don’t come up with the next part in the suggested section like it does for other channels, I also don’t know after part 1 which video is next as there is no indicator some connected videos….the 5 obiwan videos weren’t in order and had to open multiple to find the correct order….and this Picard video has a part one, but is the next video the one that says season 2? Just please pop a part 2+ on each connected video…thanks very much
That was in-depth and articulates much of why Picard and NuTrek in general leaves me cold. The only thing about this series that made me frown was how you say you might "fix Picard" -as that answer is easy (but would have meant the series never getting made,) which is to deny Patrick Stewart any creative control of the show outside of how he would portray the character he defined. I recall back to that Star Trek con (SD I think it was) when Alex Kurtzman came out and announced Stewart who then made the official announcement about a future series featuring Jean Luc Picard... The crowd cheered for Stewart but my eyes were trained on hack Kurtzman standing to the side grinning from ear to ear... During this time, Discovery was being ripped apart by fans and CBS (in America) was mobilizing a social media campaign trolling and blocking fans critical of STD while funding "positive shill articles and sites" painting lies about us, the fans saying how much we "all loved STD"... Of course the reality was that mainstream America never heard of Star Trek Discovery and honestly still doesn't know or care much about it. But back then CBS was so taken aback by the reaction this massive fanbase had that no doubt, Kurtzman felt that heat and knew he needed to bring back an old favorite to bring the fans "back." It's why Pike, Spock and the 25% different Enterprise showed up at the end of season 1. Les Moonves was long gone from CBS and this task fell squarely on the shoulders of Kurtzman to save Trek from obscurity. He needed a hit and a Picard series was it, he thought... Of course the caveat to getting this show made was that Stewart would only reprise his roll if he had creative control in order to make it "different" -as you covered brilliantly. I think you might want to research what Akiva Goldsman admitted in an interview last year that they had no idea where the show was going and that somewhere towards the end, a massive re-write happened which is where Riker/Troi were added, Picard dying/being turned into an android was decided as well as the ridiculous robot tentacle creatures (ie, Control from STD) was chosen as the final boss. It's also where the incredibly anticlimactic generic STARSHIP FACE-OFF was written and clearly rushed to the screen featuring all those copy/paste generic Star Trek Online looking starships. What was the reason for the massive shift? We know Michael Chabon is no linger show-runner... Was there some political in-fighting that led to such a nihilistic train wreck? Was it always going to be this way? Was Kurtzman so desperate to get the character of Picard to the screen that he agreed to EVERYTHING Stewart wanted? -probably. Picard seemed like a show that started one way but then went off in another direction. I'm curious as to what and why that was... When Michael Chabon was hosting those Q & A's on Instagram while PIC aired week to week, many of us asked him why things were the way they were. His answers were always a bit of a deflection, especially when we were critical. One answer I recall specifically was when asked about why the starships at the end were all generic in the last episode and he admitted that he "had no say on that" and assured us he was told there were three distinct starship designs in that scene... but he later grew frustrated when people would site screen shots showing the ships were literally a cut & Paste job. The only reason I bring all that up is because Chabon seemed to indicate that beyond a point, he was no longer in charge of things. I think all of this has to be considered when talking about Picard. Season 1 wasn't mapped out or pre-written. They made it up as they went and the end result was deeply unsatisfying and dystopian. I look forward to the next installments!
![[Re-Up] A Critique of Star Trek Discovery - Part 1 #RIPStarTrek](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ftsRVQpfADY/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Re-Up] A Critique of Star Trek Discovery — Part 1 #RIPStarTrek](/img/tr.png)
There’s a beautiful scene in an otherwise mediocre TNG episode called “The Dauphin.” Wesley Crusher is trying to show a girl (who is soon to be subjected to a forced marriage) the sights and sounds of the galaxy. He takes her to the Holodeck and shows her alien landscapes and asteroid belts and music created by solar wind. He says something like: “We’ve only explored 11% of our galaxy. There’s so much more to see! This is really a great time to be alive!” Even an unpopular character in a forgettable episode was able to produce a beautiful and moving scene, one which makes you wish to join their world and their time, or to make our time more like theirs. You’ll never see anything like that in Kurtzman’s FakeTrek.
And you can create moments like that without splurging $8m per episode. Who’d have thought there was more to this business than special effects?!
That is an excellent example, Jason. My favourite episode of TNG is "I, Borg": the episode holds me from the first moment to the final instant, and that final instant is a moment of radiant beauty that I feel fortunate and privileged to have seen.
P
Not an arranged marriage. She was being sent to take leadership of a planetary government.
Love your comment and remember the scene.
Absolutely agree with your assessment!
Well written. 👍
First of all you and Mauler are two of my favorite RUclips critics, so your mention of him made me smile. You put so much thought into your videos. You remind me of the movie First Contact, where Picard goes back in time to stop the Borg from preventing the first contact with an alien race, the Vulcans. Councilor Troi described the moment beautifully. "It unites mankind in a way no one thought possible." Personally, viewing the world through the tragic lense, I think it's hopelessly optimistic. But that was always part of the charm of Star Trek.
As a young boy, not even a teen yet - I loved Next Generation because it made me think and imagine, not to be depressed, engage in vulgarity or enjoy violence.
Exactly. Star Trek depicted a hopeful future that was worth aspiring to, in which humanity had matured, put its vulgarity and violence behind it, learned to solve problems with logic and diplomacy instead of big guns, and earned the right to mingle with the other advanced races - the "grown ups" if you will - in the wider universe. That was the whole point of the show.
And then along came the various incarnations of Kurtman-Trek, every one of them completely missing that point.
The appeal of TNG Picard was that while he was a diplomat at heart with a level head and a love for culture, he had flaws. He didn’t like children, he was more introverted and introspective (not a “flaw”, but an odd characteristic for a captain), and on several occasions in the series failed to see beyond his own higher moral and ethical principles to understand those who would do wrong things for the right reasons.
With better writers, this could have been a small series where Picard works on his vineyard, sees some old friends, and possibly resolves some hanging threads from his past.
"With better writers..." And there we arrive at the crux. Trek is doomed until "better writers" come along. And that won't happen while Secret Hideout is running the show.
Riker: "Your Persian flaw..."
@Ben Carlson I mean this w/ no unkindness, but I've always been baffled by the widespread affection for TNG. It's infinitely better than STD, to be sure, but it's also little more than Trek for Tweens. If you hold such as Shakespeare or just any of the century's better playwright's in active esteem, you'll understand how well written are the best 15-20 episodes of the original series, whereas even the best-loved TNG episodes are mediocre at best. There's little love for language in its scripts, the sets are drab, the direction is pro forma, the cast beyond Stewart is weak when it is not incompetent, and even when the plots are sound the writing is uninspired. I do not understand the fondness for it, at all.
@@johnstrawb3521 It continues the themes of TOS with a fresh face, it feels much less dated than TOS in my opinion, and it appeals to my general belief that there are always two or more sides to every problem. It makes me consider the ethical ramifications of the decisions being made. TOS, from my recollection, was primarily a quasi-horror series focusing on getting off a hostile world rather than a diplomacy-focused sci-fi series. There were episodes in TOS that were diplomacy and ethics focused, just as there were plenty of survival episodes in TNG, I just prefer TNG's overall approach a lot more. The scripts, the sets, and the actors are all about equal, I would say, I see no real separation between the two regarding the technical aspects.
@@johnstrawb3521the 80s and 90s were a bit of a grim time for the New Left.
Escaping into adolescent optimism was appealing.
I stumbled upon this channel a few weeks ago and I have been watching like a fiend.
A toast to the sophisticated and unapologetically biting commentary.
Keep it up, my friend. Excellent content.
Its less that Nu Trek is too political, it's that the political aspects are so poorly realized. In the old Trek they would, at least, bother to dress up the issues and thus allow the viewer to see them from the outsider's POV and making the story they're telling much more interesting than just spelling it out and beating us over the head with their take on subjects.
Thank you, Little Platoon, for your thoughts and this video especially. I know you through Critical Drinker's Open Bar (you're always an asset to the channel). As a man of faith with a passing familiarity of philosophy, this video nicely encapsulated why the older shows have retained so much of my love and respect while the newer shows just infuriate me... often beyond my ability to verbalize.
So I just wanted to say "well done", and please keep up the good work.
Thank you for articulating so well the difference between old and new Trek. I feel the same way but couldn't have put it into words so well.
Star Trek (original and next generation) were about heroes facing external threats to a unified (or rather unifying) peoples. In scope these shows offered a thematic message of "See what we can accomplish when we work together," thus promoting the vales of acceptance, tolerance, and merit based equality. Additionally, the format promoted these ideals prima facie. The very nature of solving problems as a group showed how discourse, rationality, and cooperative action ( even heroic action based on common goals) was the foundation of these shows.
Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise introduced aspects of "the enemy within" where the lead characters were less "Heroic" but no less problem solvers. However, the nature of the problems shifted away from dealing with (mostly) externalized threats towards unifying a diverse people (with disparate goals/ desires) towards a unified goal. They were still under external threats, yes, but the stories evolved into how do we achieve our goal, (of unification), while still dealing with the threat.
The story in Picard focuses on the conflict of internal threat, that of de-unification. So far it has offered a story arc in the form of "what should a man on conscience do when the society has failed in it's greater goal (city on a hill).
Each show is emblematic of the times in which it was created (from the United States (or western nations in general) point of view). These are roughly the post-war (red scare), cold war (global domination struggle), and post soviet collapse, and reflect the societal focus shift from "fighting the commies" to "winning the hearts and minds" (economic/cultural colonialism/dominance) to Corporatizational profiting (the outcome of the western "winning the hearts and minds" campaign where corporations are give free reign and grow "to big to fail" i.e. "beyond the law".
You offer the tragic side utopian/tragic dialectic as the core of your thesis stating that the utopian side is (essentially) wrong for having "the anointed forcing people to see how centralized decisions are better for them." A rational representational authority with powers based on mutual agreement (majority agreement) is just that. Anointed members give power to enforce centralized laws.
I would offer that the current state of affairs, in truth it has been seen throughout history, that the authoritarian right has in times of peril (the cold war) allowed men motivated by self serving interests (corporations) to violate the society's best interests, in the name of furthering,the state interests, that have inevitably led to the state's/society's demise. Instead of utopian/tragic, (your left/right dialectic) I would look, as the source of conflict as the rational/irrational (thoughtful/emotional) and how decisions can (and are) manipulated. I find the interaction between the concepts of SOR (stimuli-organism-response paired with communications theory (sender-message-receiver,) including interference and feedback, to be of great value, but, have to seen it applied in philosophic studies.
A major oversight in your analysis is when you say TOS was about a unified people facing external threats and then claim each show was emblematic of the times in which it was created and what those societies were dealing with. Had TOS been made in the 40's or 50's perhaps there wouldn't be a problem. But it was made in the 60's, which was a very internally-tumultuous time for the USA.
I also question your identifying "rational representational authority" as being "the anointed forcing people to see how centralized decisions are better for them." As you yourself acknowledge, in such systems the powers are "based on mutual agreement (majority agreement)." If the people are at regular intervals able to remove people from positions of power, you do not have a situation where the people are being forced to see how decentralized decisions are better for them. If the powers are making such decisions, and the people do not believe they are better for them, they are able to remove those leaders.
In your paragraph about what the authoritarian right has allowed to happen in times of peril...I don't see how that does anything to undermine the CV/UV schema. The constrained vision posits that humans are flawed and not perfectible. Consequently there will be those from all political sides who will abuse power once they have it.
The CV/UV does not 1 to 1 map to Right/Left. Indeed, one can believe humans are perfectible, but believe top-down control by the few wise is not the best way to bring about that perfection. And one can believe humans are not perfectible, and believe the best we can do to mitigate human failing is find the wise few and put them in charge of as much as we can.
That being said, for the last several decades it has generally been the case, at least in the USA, that the Left speaks more the rhetoric of the UV (we can achieve utopia or close to it, particularly if you will let our wise people lead the way and manage all these bad people in all the ways we realize they are bad) and the Right speaks more the rhetoric of the CV (humans will always be imperfect so we should limit the power any individual or small group can have, and let decisions be made at local levels with people who have local knowledge and local stakes).
The rational/irrational is an important consideration. But in some ways is that not a part of the CV/UV question (to what extent are humans capable of being rational, which presumably is better than making decisions based on emotions)? When it comes to questions of "can we achieve utopia or close to it, and if so by what means," the rational/irrational question does not itself tell us enough to know whether it can be or not.
Late to the party here but wanted to say that despite assuming we likely have different political standpoints more generally, you are the sort of critic that enhances and enriches discourse. I wish you all the best and will look forward to engaging with your content in future.
While you wrote this about critiquing Picard and a part 2 probably isn't coming, I came upon this because I was interested in the history of Star Trek and wondering what it was about the series that bred such love in the fanbase. Your breakdown of the themes and the atmosphere, tone, and ideals behind the original ST was very clear and conveyed what seemed to be special of ST ... while also conveying how jarring the new season's intentions were, considering your video's topic. Thanks for this video. I enjoyed the positive points of it a lot.
I am still hoping to do a second part - it’s just a little hard to keep on top of everything in the spare minutes the real world affords. Thanks for the kind comment, I’m glad you liked the video!
Well done. Bonus points awarded for using a new clip of Admiral Angry Librarian smacking down Picard instead of resorting to the stock hubris clip. Strength through discipline, young man.
I wish you luck in fixing the story given it was, to borrow the Critical Drinker's insight, created by children. Well, in Picard I guess we have to modify that to "created by malevolent children". The plot holes span a galaxy.
More seriously, I've always been a bit puzzled by the Brexit hysterics. From this side of the pond it seems to have involved lots of arm waving on economic/market issues, fishing rights, and whatnot, with dollops of impending Armageddon hysteria added for the media. But hearkening back to Sowell's perspective, it seemed to me the underlying issue for the left was hoi polloi having the temerity to reject the EU's authority. The New Star Trek regime's response in Picard seems to be similarly based in a love of authoritarianism, "You peasants refuse to agonize over the current state of the world as we, your betters, do with your foolish desires for optimism. You didn't take our hints from Discovery's virtual reeducation camp. The consequences are your fault. You have forced us to burn everything you love to the ground and salt the fields. Er, I meant subvert your expectations."
That last was, ultimately, the question. Do you think power should be invested as close as possible to the people, or placed as far away from them as possible. There were important economic arguments, too; the EU's regulatory model is absurdist, which is why it's so awful when it comes to start-ups and innovation. But the foundational argument was about political and legal sovereignty, and whether we have the right not to be assimilated by the Borg.
And now the hoi polloi has the temerity to cry "Wait!! We take it back! We want back in!" Maybe there was more than arm waving going on? I'm confident you can create some gymnastics to blame a shadowy "left" again.
@@mallninja9805 Who are these people recanting their criticisms of Discovery and Picard? I have so far missed them. As to blame there's the nothing shadowy involved. You can see the names of the no talent nitwits responsible every time the credits roll.
@@tylersperry9164 Not recanting STD but the decision to leave Europe.
It's funny coming back to this now. I never got around to watching Picard so I missed the way it broke apart everything that made star trek what it was. With people muttering about World War 3 in today's current climate, my first response was: "One step closer to the future that is Star Trek," with hope that things will get better. The fact that they went and literally stomped all over that hope , actively dragging you in to the present and the horrors they want you to be disillusioned by is a true shame.
I grew up watching TNG on TV. Came home every day from school to watch. Loved it. When Picard was announced I was so excited. Then I heard what it was. Broke my heart. Especially that Patrick Stewart was behind alot of it. So sad.
You are not alone *hug
Right 😕 I completely understand and relate to what you mean
Same here. For me ST:Picard is a poor fanfiction, just like the SW sequel trilogy. They don't exist in my mind.
I'm same; I had to be home ar 7:00 each night to watch TNG. I feel pretty certain that the Jean Luc Picard in _Star Trek Picard_ would have immediately said there are 5 light.
The sad thing is that likely no one has walked up to him and said, "You sabotaged your own legacy. You may value your stage acting career more than your role as Picard, but for 30 years you had both, as well as the admiration of those who would never willingly walk into a production of, say, King Lear. You destroyed something you were beloved for, and that is disrespectful to the thing itself, the people's love, and your own seriousness."
There has been a modicum of redemption from Season 3, but it was not through Stewart's effort, I am sure.
My shopping list has more drama, and what I wipe on my toilet paper has better structure than whatever passes for that Picard show.
Absolutely brilliant video. I look forward to the next parts. My only criticisms is maybe cut your introduction down a bit. I understand you want to give as much context to your viewpoint as possible, and it's very much appreciated, but I do think it could be streamlined a little. Beyond that, bravo on the top quality content 👍 keep it up
Definitely! I did consider splitting that off and doing it as a separate video, as it's the introduction to the whole critique and not specific to part one. Rest assured the intro to part two will be a fraction of the length!
@@TheLittlePlatoon I had considered that myself haha I was thinking "this would probably do well as a teaser video for what is to come later". But yeah seriously great work. Your ability to break things down by an intellectual, philosophical, moral and even political basis is very impressive. Been a long time since I've had that degree of "engagement" with those things even though I'm just a viewer and not a participant in the discussion.
I feel like a fair amount of people sort of got to know Patrick Stewart during the opening publicity tour(s), but I think A LOT of people “met” him during the Season 1 premiere and got a rude, rude surprise after all these years. Personally, not having that large stake in the character and show, I can say from my experience with STar Wars that it truly is heartbreaking watching this happen to beloved characters. To watch the actor themselves be the hand behind the writers’ pillaging and burning of a character that you might have innumerable beloved memories with is beyond heartbreaking, it’s beyond infuriating.
I think that the reason Star Trek is fondly viewed by those of us with a melancholy worldview is that it is our oposite. It is the world as we wish it could be. Therefore, while enjoy the bracing reality of Star Wars, the utopia of Star Trek reminds us that not all of the human condition is bleak and dismal, or that we mat at least imagine it to be so.
Found your channel last night, I've been enjoying your breakdowns of DIscovery and Picard. I particularly appreciate the distinction you make between political in touching on issues of politics through allegory and being political in the sense of actually endorsing specific politicians or modern political ideas. It gives me words to address that one argument you repeat, that Star Trek has always been political. By holding our modern times up to a warped mirror of sorts, Star Trek has always given us a way to discuss our own problems abstractly. Even the original series had allegories about things like Vietnam without having to overtly say so. They left it to the audience to discover the allegory and discuss it. They also represented multiple sides of the argument through the various crew members. Ahhh, those were the days. Anyway, I look forward to seeing more of your views on this, and looking for other series you have analyzed.
I found this channel quite by accident, but have loved hearing what I can only think to call, and to what I believed was long since banished to some unknown hell, reasonable thought.
Well done and thank you.
I listen while at work and enjoy, while not always agreeing, with the commentary. Nevertheless , I find your points well thought out and I find myself listening to some of the points over again to really chew on them.
Once again, thank you for the enjoyable content and finding, as well as sharing, logical arguments on reasonable points.
I liked early seasons Picard, he was strong, fair and authoritarian. When his body was taken over, they had to proof that he is crazy or unwell, it gave the impression that the position of starfleet commander is not something easy to get
If I want dark and gritty tv, I can just watch the nightly news.
I've made this point before, but I think this is a good place to repeat it.
Star Trek is often described as a "progressive" show, and I'm sure it was originally _intended_ to be one; however I don't think that's what was actually produced. The setting of Star Trek, as you pointed out, is very much aligned with the "vision of the anointed", a progressive future where a top-down government manages everyone's lives for their betterment. However, in actuality Star Trek is not a progressive show, but a _liberal_ show (yes, I'm using that word correctly). In fact, it regularly demonstrates the difference between progressivism and liberalism, and even cautions _against_ progressivism.
Pick a handful of episodes at random from any Star Trek show, and you have a pretty good chance of seeing it in action, especially if the show contains any sort of representative of Starfleet. They will _always_ butt heads with our heroes, because the representative is by definition a bureaucrat who has way too much authority and way too little sense. A good deal of the episode will then be spent on showcasing why it's a bad idea to be ruled from top-down, and the heroes will solve the problems from the bottom up instead, using reason and common sense - the foundations of liberalism. In practice, the show is telling us why progressivism is a bad idea, as it always seems to lose out. You've pointed this out as being one of Picard's defining characteristics, but I think it's present in every Star Trek show and in every "good" character we meet, rather than being confined to just one captain.
In fact, Starfleet itself might be the reason for the confusion: as a military organization (which it absolutely was, no matter how hard Roddenberry would protest that definition) it is by definition top-down and unaccustomed to reasoning. Had the show been focused on a more civilian facet of the Federation, the progressive angle might have been completely absent. In fact, Deep Space 9 showed us a _far_ more liberal society (albeit a small one, on board the station) than you'd see on a Starship - and that society was _often_ administrated in a much more liberal fashion. It's no coincidence that 99% of their interactions with the Federation were confrontations, in which they had to find ways to subvert the Federation's wishes in one way or another.
And this shouldn't really come as a surprise, either. While Roddenberry was a firm believer in his progressive ideas, the writers for the show rarely were. Few people actually are progressive in the West, a society based on a strong liberal tradition, not a progressive one. It is only now, that progressivism has begun to supplant liberalism (up to and including stealing its name) that writers have actually begun implementing Roddenberry's original idea. The fact that it bears no resemblance to Roddenberry's vision is - as you've pointed out - a testament to how the "vision of the anointed" doesn't actually work in real life. Much as it failed in the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, a progressive Federation that's devoid of actual liberal thinking at the mid-level executive positions will quickly devolve into a dystopia - much like what is happening in the West today.
I just wanted to say I have loved your philosophical critiques of star trek, star wars, and marvel. Your part about the constrained and unconstrained visions was brilliant. Just one thing though when are the other parts coming?
Glad to hear it! I’m honestly not sure with Picard, however. I premised the idea of a multi-part review on the assumption season 2 would continue on the same path, ie having something uniquely bad and intelligently destructive behind it, as season 1 did. When it came out and was just bad in the boring, unintelligent way all modern media seems to be, it really destroyed what interest I had in it.
I’ve got part 3 of the Discovery critique coming out in the next couple of weeks, but I don’t know yet whether I’ll be able to summon up the energy to revisit Picard. Might be something I come back to in a quiet week, or when season 3 launches.
@@TheLittlePlatoon well I really enjoy your critique and in depth philosophical take on modern media. It works be awesome to hear you're thoughts on the last of us part 2 (if your into video games)
@@joshuafears4123 Oh, I am! But I’ve never played The Last of Us, alas. I think there are probably people better able to comment on that than I am. But I’m definitely looking to branch into games coverage soon - I’d just be wary of jumping onto something about which so much has already been said, like TLoU part 2, and by people much more qualified than myself.
I love the description of ST philosophy.
I am a fan of TNG and I have always appreciated Picard as a character, especially how they handled his trauma surrounding his experiences with the Borg. I am so, so glad that I don't have access to Paramount+ and I plan to ignore Picard (the show) completely regardless. If I want good Star Trek, I will stick to rewatching the older series as the nutrek has proven to be too disappointing.
But I do love your channel and all the hard work and thoughtfulness you put into your critiques. Thank you! 💜💜💜💜
Season Three is a welcome departure from the first two seasons...
You’ve hit the nail on the head with this observation and critique. I used to be a huge Star Trek fan. I went to conventions, had uniforms, even had the Klingon dictionary. Now I don’t even bother watching except for Original, Next Gen and Voyager. New Trek just overlays spaceships and ray guns over modern issues and preaches “The Message”. I can’t imagine a ship being run the way it is on Discovery with people being routinely insubordinate, running yelling and getting into fights with each other. Maybe something will come along that goes back to an intelligent and thoughtful exploration of humanity.
Well illuminated, the beliefs and standards of the original concept of Trek. Man, I was thinking about the episode of TNG when Picard goes back home and has his fight with his brother, dealing with his trauma of being a Borg.... It really all comes down to the way you write, the experiences of those writers being conveyed, and the point of such writing to begin with. What is the message and where does it come from?
"We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity.” - Captain Jean-Luc Picard, OT
Absolutely brilliant analysis! It explains how I feel about the series in eloquent terms with ample logical support. Thank you so much for this!
Hello.
I'm a massive fan of your videos. Not only do you keep educating me with little tidbits amongst your critiques, but your eloquence and masterful use of the Queen's English, King's I suppose now, is uplifting.
However, I feel obliged to declare that I hate the way you pronounce 'genre' .🤣🤣
Anyway, please keep doing what you do in the face of this phase of wokeness and idiocy. Keep being a remedy for us. Thank you if you read this far into my semi-coherent blurb.
The more French a word is, the more I struggle to say it - it’s an English tradition!
MAKE STAR TREK GREAT AGAIN!!!!
id buy that hat
God, now I'm trying to imagine what a Star Trek Trump would look like...
@@TheLittlePlatoon A Star Trek Trump would look like a Pakled. 🤣
@@TheLittlePlatoonKai Win and Gul Dukat from DS9 are essentially Star Trek Trump 😅
I love your deep insight into not just the plot, but the reasons behind why it is being made this way. ❤
I was unreasonably happy at the feature presentation transition. The secondhand nostalgia:)
TNG is my fav Star Trek series and Picard has been always my hero. I was full of hope when they announced ST:Picard. After first 2 seasons of Discovery I was ready to drop it and concentrate on ST:Picard, but after seeing 1st season of ST:Picard I dropped Picard and gave Discovery another chance. And I don't regret it.
Still enjoy hearing these a second time a year later
I'm surprised at how much philosophy I managed to absorb from what I expected to be a negative review of Picard. Sneaky bastards, tricking people into learning! 😉
Picard is the type of show the cenobites from Hellraiser would watch.
My gosh, what a gem of a content producer you are. Subscribed!
We aim to please. Welcome aboard!
The Constrained and The Unconstrained Vision segments of this video, perfectly sums up why I loved old star trek so much and hate the new star trek and what's it has become. Star Trek now and its current state has had its philosophy and weekly moral lessons cut out and by extension hallowed out by Hollywood to make room for there weekly P.S.A "woke" message of the week. I look forward to watching more. thank you!
I don't mind the idea of the Federation losing their way as a concept. The idea of challenging the sustainability of the Federation's utopia is a fundamentally interesting idea. But Star Trek is all about creating something to aspire to. An arc where the Federation as a whole loses its way, but finds it again builds up the durability of the concept of the Federation. It can be challenged, it can falter, but it will return to its ideals, better and stronger than ever.
That said, it has to be executed with that in mind.
I've been a Star Trek fan since the repeats of TOS in the late 70's, But ST:Picard looks too bleak for what Gene set out to do.
This is a brilliiant essay which easily surpasses in its originality and precision of argument anything one may read in legacy media vomitoria such as the Economist or The Atlantic.
I can't get enpugh of these --not for long-- underrated brilliant young bastards!
Ps The essays really should be committed to published form
We’ve been pondering a way to do that and have it linked in some way to the channel. We’ve spent years writing essays and sticking them here and there, so it’s a bit of a surprise to find ourselves in this position after four months on RUclips!
It might end up being a Patreon thing. Scripts and bonus essays, etc. We’ll start exploring those options in earnest once we’ve hit 1000 subs here.
Thanks again for the lovely words!
If you would like to see Star Trek done incredibly well, look at Star Trek Deep Space Nine.
Though not without its faults, they series did quite well at looking at a Federation under existential threat, and the challenges of holding high ideals under said situation.
This video needs more views. Good stuff.
Fortunately, they can never actually touch the brilliance of TNG with this destructive crap. It is inarguably one of the best TV shows ever created
Amazing video. As are all your videos. I very much appreciate your analysis contained in this and your other videos. Thank you.
Much appreciation and well wishes from Australia 👍🇦🇺
Never has the word “Tragic” sounded so appealing!
I can not believe I missed this video in your catalogue!
Brilliant. This entire channel is a cut above.
I wasn't able to put my finger on it, so I appreciate this breakdown. I watched Disco 1 and Picard 1, and I found Disco laughably bad. With Picard I felt like I was watching a cohesive story, but I ultimately disliked it, because I wasn't watching something that fit in the ST universe.
Kinda off-topic, but every time I hear someone telling me that Star Trek is pro-Communism, either with positive or negative connotations, I am immediately reminded of a scene from the episode "The Hunted", where a soldier, resisting his government's policy of confining him and his fellow soldiers to a penal colony after the war these soldiers were trained and augmented for ended, declares "to survive is not enough!", IMO basically rejecting Marxist notion of exchanging service for sustenance. Besides the portrayal of the Borg.
Great discussion on this. I too, more ascribe to the tragic vision, but I strongly loved Star Trek. Star Trek eclipsed Star Wars for me in my early 20s. I always just kind of ignored the overly utopian impulses, TNG season 1 was probably the worst of that trend, but the characters, and the episode to episode morality/philosophy tales were like cocaine to me. Thankfully, I’ve never watched Kurtzman ‘trek’ so Star Trek is one of the few franchises that hasn’t been ruined for me by JJ and his numerous acolytes.
Your videos are making me think, which is fun. As I absorb your ideas, one thing about JL Picard was his intellectual humility, the way he stepped back from judging to observing. That he could afford to do that was founded on a utopian vision of abundance. In that way ST made us think, 'what if' we could all afford to be philosophers. He came close to the Socratic ideal of the Philosopher King, never afraid because the bigger Truth inspired him. But in ST Picard, the bigger truth has been destroyed. And Picard is now a lost and vulnerable man (as shown very well in 'monsters'), still trying to live by his moral values which appear to be shaking in a confederation (but isn't that a reflection of modern day world?). Interestingly the character of Elnor has been killed upon arrival to 2024- Elnor represented candour, and I think he represented the group's capacity for truth. The fact that he is dead, itself shows that the luxury of candour is no longer available. Not sure where the writers will take the last 2 episodes, back to a free and abundant federation the way it was? or absorbed by the new Borg queen i.e., loss of freedom and autonomy or the world continues as a racist confederation. Can everyone get along and share power seems to be a question in ST Picard, whereas it was a truth in ST TNG.
Very nice. Thank-you for mentioning the mistake made by my countrymen make in equating liberalism and leftism. It bothers me every bit as much as our mistake in constantly conflating our system of government with democracy.
Your take here was enjoyable and helpful. I liked TNG when it was new. I still like DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise. At some point, I watched the first episode of Picard (and the first episode of Discovery). I'm aware I'm very much of the constrained vision on my more pragmatic side, but I am also a classical romantic. There are plenty of ways in which the unconstrained vision is fun or uplifting to play with in literature and art.
I've heard that season 3 is a big improvement over the first two, although I haven't watched it myself so I can't say for sure.
Having degrees in History and Philosophy, Politics, and Economics I appreciate this video so much!
Fantastic job on this video and on the videos covering STD. Your insight into the political shift from inspiration to being discussion to simply telling people what to believe is spot on. I watched the STD videos right before this one and your description of the tone differences was also poignant. Never have we had 2 trek series running basically in tandem with such opposing tones and world views. Both are so far away from the original concept of trek and over-simplified, it's no wonder they are unsatisfying. Looking froward to the meatier Picard videos.
Many thanks! Picard is honestly a struggle at this point, so it may be there’ll only be one more video after all. It might have been different had season 2 been interestingly malevolent, but it’s honestly so tedious I’m not sure I can cope with spending many more hours on it!
Excellent analysis. The one thing that always bothered me about Star Trek is the bad economics. Solving the food scarcity through the replicators is acceptable. But where did the starships and space stations come from? Were they replicated? No. There were shipyards. Who paid the workers, miners, engineers, etc? And once trade was seriously delt with in Deep Space 9, it is embodied by the repulsive Ferengi. Thank you for a sensible treatment of the subject. I'd love to see your view of Battlestar Galactica and The Expanse. At least those deal with more realistic problems.
I was raised on TNG. It was one of the few things I was allowed to watch when I was very young that wasn't purely educational and I think it Trek in general colors my opinions on many things. I do firmly believe that, as the quote goes, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one." That said I also recognize that humanity is a long way from becoming the Federation. Replicators are basically the only thing making the federation possible and are essentially magic.
I am much more utilitarian when it comes to most things, but I wholly disagree with the idea that central planning would never work and that somehow "Organically Grown" local organization is superior. Every person who has ever tried to make something knows that is not how you get better product. You get better product through refinement. By figuring out what works and what doesn't.
Sorta Free Market: Works.
Privatized Fire Dept.'s: Do NOT work.
Bit late coming to check out the older videos but this one I quite enjoyed. To the full time philosopher sorts I find myself always thinking of my own assessment that philosophy is useless as long as it has no practical use.
This is the one good thing that Picard has done: get people thinking in the absence of thinking
I've seen people who got into Star Trek (old Trek) because they were intrigued by the way negative reviews about Picard made it sound. That's a strange legacy for a sequel show to have.
Very good explanation of why I was starting to get somewhat worried in DS9 with all the Section 31 stuff and the whole Sisko poisons a planet to make a point thing and why I haven't watched any of the modern Star Trek series. The Abramsverse was just silly in my mind but starting with Discovery, I felt like it was just ruining what I liked about Star trek (since the late 60s when I watched Star Trek as a new show). Though I have somewhat lost faith in mankind's nature, I still feel like some kind of aspirational TV show that tries to tell us that we COULD get better is (or should be) cherished. It's sad that the destruction of Gene Roddenberry's dream of a positive future is being destroyed intentionally rather than just by ineptness.
I too got confued in DS9. I didn't even get that far, but it started to bog down into, well, I won't even say it was bad, just not Star Trek, drifting so far away from the original intent.
Absolutely superb. The abstractness of this means it is a very good primer for the Culture Wars in general for NPC's and those stuck in the Boomer Truth Regime.
Thank you very much indeed.
thank you for your analysis.. your work is always interesting and entertaining..
I appreciate your presentation for its sophistication, vocabulary, and erudition. Whenever a youtube video makes me question my own beliefs and understanding of the world, I applaud it. I agree that Picard ruined the vision of the Federation, and specifically Earth as a member of the Federation. Taking away the rights of AI was absolutely un-Rodenberry like. I'm now going to go read more about Brexit and its effect on the British economy.
I've really enjoyed this vid more than others.. it's pin pointed alot of my feelings of Modern art.. it's also pin pointed somewhat political point of view. I've have always considered myself a Libertarian even though that lable has a very broad stroke in the US. I've often hated the lable of liberal given to progressives. I understand there was a historical reason for it but today it's muddied the water.. I look forward to more of your videos.
It would be nice if at some point you could compile your various series of breakdowns into playlists that are easier to navigate than digging through your entire list of uploads every time I want to go back and rewatch a whole topic!
I agree with what you have stated (very well) so far. I, like many others, am looking forward to the next chapter on this.
Another sui generis review with welcome depth & genuine insight. I'm glad I discovered your channel & wish you the very best. Cheers 🍻
I know less than the average person about Star Trek, but I find your coverage of it fascinating.
As what they call on 4chan a "TNGeezer" who saw the 60s show in early reruns or even when it first aired, I loathe Picard and everything it stands for. It is written by people who hate the idea of a good future and I am sorry Stewart had anything to do with it.
I found this channel three days ago and I think this video just white pilled me. With a philosophical rant about a show I complained was a poorly written reimagining of BSG's Caprica... Well done!
How does DS9 fit into this classification system? I wasn't an avid viewer of DS9 (unlike TNG) but I recall the show was noted for, among other things, the comparitively more pragmatic choices made by its captain. The way the Federation was presented was different too.
DS9 mostly dealt with the consequences of choices and actions taken in TNG.
Brilliant summary of the 'Conflict of Visions' to borrow from the title of one of my favorite Sowell books.
I always thought that the Prime Directive in TNG was in some small way a concession to the tragic vision. The idea of non-interference in lesser developed societies was necessary because those societies needed to suffer the tragedies and growth pains that humanity itself had to endure to reach the stage in TNG. It at least acknowledged that the quest for utopia was a struggle and a long path. It isn't simple or frictionless as is so often assumed by today's activists.
In hindsight, it was silly because as, you correctly pointed out, it was a technological and not a moral or ethical revolution that allowed the pleasant vision of the Federation. Humans were no more ready or worthy of the benefits of the society altering technology than any primitive society the Enterprise encountered. TNG inverts the causal arrow.
I strongly disagree; they clearly WERE ready, and that's the entire point. Humans were no longer racist against those with different skin colors, for example, and even racism against Klingons or Romulans was treated as a backwards position routinely overcome. The Prime Directive is not a "small concession"; it is an absolutely massive aspect of Old Trek that disproves this notion that the show was anywhere close to utopian. It took massive amounts of work to get to where they were, and they continued to put in massive amounts of work to maintain it, all while respecting every individual culture they came across so long as it was not an active threat. If it was truly utopian, then Starfleet command would have been dictators micromanaging every planet in the Federation, and entire episodes would not have existed around the premise of trying to accomplish certain goals WITHOUT interfering in domestic development or politics, or even undoing damage they inadvertently caused.
Agree. Not to delve too deeply in lore, but Strange New Worlds came out and said it: conflicting ideas of liberty tore the world apart and led to World War Three, killing billions, Pike said. And ten years later, with civilization still in ruins, Zephram Cochrane got the Vulcans' attention with warp drive, one of their criteria for First Contact.
But the Vulcans didn't reveal themselves to an equal; they saved humanity. They bootstrapped them to a post-scarcity society, then correctly put on the brakes for ninety years. How could a society that could not solve its problems without ghastly and widespread violence be expected to interact peacefully with alien cultures? Humans chafed at the restraint, of course, and were repentant for WW3, and thought the removal of scarcity, the removal of the reason for all the conflict that had gone before, indicated evolution.
We see from the first episode of Enterprise that it didn't. Prejudice still existed, primarily against the Vulcans, which is ironic. Humanity was still warlike, competitive, prideful. It was less so in TOS, even less so in TNG, and then the tide turned in DS-9. Granted, the major plotline was the impending galactic conflict. Then Voyager toned that down somewhat. And Enterprise created the progression by showing the regression. All the while, characters were talking about humanity's evolution when it was technology all along.
I think Q was right. The problems, existential questions that plague us continue to exist even in the most ideal material, scientific, utopian society like the Federation. That was the fundamental basis for the trial. The importance is learning from mistakes and bettering ourselves, which ironically, is the goal set forth by Starfleet.
"You just don't get it, do you, Jean-Luc? The trial never ends. We wanted to see if you had the ability to expand your mind and your horizons. And for one brief moment, you did."
This is a remarkably accurate summation of all the inchoate thoughts i’ve had myself about entertainment ‘made for modern audiences’.
Well said and thought out. Couldn't agree more.
As an East-German i strongly endorse the constraint Vision 🖖
TNG was so good. its worth watching still. Season 1 was a bit campy, but everything after that was incredible.
Well articulated, thank you. 🧡💛🧡
Love your critique. Can you please do Strange New Worlds. It is not perfect but has felt very much like old Star Trek to me. Thanks.
Very well articulated. Had I anyone in mind that I felt the need to explain my relationship with current-Trek (and that I felt would be receptive), this is one of the things I'd point them to.
My only issue is this notion of possibly redeeming the series (though that might be a matter of scale). I don't think there's anything you can do to fix anything current-Trek, short of Q snapping his fingers and declaring it to have never been. Not Discovery, not Picard, nor the other series. That isn't to say that Trek as a whole is beyond saving. We've seen abused franchises see new life (Ghostbusters Afterlife versus 2016). Heck, Kurtzman was behind the second Amazing Spider-man movie, and despite that, thanks to No Way Home (and Kurtzman being nowhere in sight), we're seeing some enthusiasm for more Garfield Spider-man.
But I don't see any hypothetical Picard season 2 or 3 pulling Trek out of its darkness without completely cutting every tie to the misery they just so happened to call "Star Trek". Part (not all, but part) of current-Trek's crimes is its cavalier treatment and dismissal of the lore, and any new seasons of any series that have already violated that lore, even if they try to course-correct to restore Star Trek's message and how it's presented, are still perpetuating those misdeeds.
I also don't see any obligation that we just accept it. Before TNG, we already had the pre-TOS Klingon-war era explored by the FASA games, later declared non-canonical and then respectfully re-visited by the fanfilm Axanar and (TheQuartering echo) "reimagined" disrespectfully by STD. If that can be Thanos-snapped away, current-Trek can be Thanos-snapped away. Maybe post-current-Trek can comment on the current fracturing of the franchise and fanbase and so acknowledge what current-Trek has done and move forward, but not from within current-Trek's history (probably need alternate universes for that, though it could just be one of Reg Barclay's long-forgotten holodeck programs, too).
I quite like the idea that everything that's happened since '09 is just a Holodeck simulation, but I think I'd feel a bit dirty and cheap resorting to that!
Balrighty 35 : "That isn't to say that Trek as a whole is beyond saving."
Star Trek died in 1968 when it was cancelled after two seasons. It came back ... immediately.
Star Trek died again in 1969 when it was cancelled after the third season. It came back ... as an animated series.
Star Trek died again in 1974 when the animated series was cancelled. It came back ... as the proposed television series Star Trek Phase 2.
Star Trek died again in 1978 when Phase 2 was aborted. It came back ... as Star Trek the Motion Picture.
Et cetera, et cetera.
Star Trek has had more lives than the legendary Phoenix ... and it will have more lives still. Nicholas Meyer called Star Trek "the thing that wouldn't die." I personally believe that rotten things (like NuTrek) die and decompose, while healthy things (like classic Trek) live and grow and reproduce. Currently, Star Trek has been kidnapped by a very bad robot and is being held captive in a secret hideout, but once that problem is solved Star Trek will return.
Our heroes represent our values, and values are timeless: as timeless as Ulysses, Hamlet, and Sherlock Holmes, so timeless are Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Picard, and Data.
Live long and prosper. 🖖
the opening argument of the reason the Federation exists as it does is missing a key part that many Trekkies don't think about as the majority aren't as well versed in the TOS era, but the Replicators didn't exist until the 24th Century, sort of mid-24th too.
The main reason why Humanity embraced the idea of unity and acceptance of the personal growth of material is because of the Early and Mid 21st Century. At the start there was the Eugenics war, an era where despots created through Genetic Engineering became global threats (this was in the late 90s) and led to the large amount of social and governmental control in the West, which led to the Sanctuary Districts that just herded the poor and mentally ill into them so they weren't visible, which led to the riots of the early 21st Century, this then led to the governments of the world controlling all military and policing with drugs and controlling the population even more.
After this the 3rd World War started where Nukes were used everywhere, where over 600 million people died in the conflict, all social order collapsed and led to the Mid 21st Century court system that punished all as if guilty already, where lawyers were all killed and society itself fell apart.
Zephram Cochrain set about creating the first Warp Engine to sell it and get money, but attracted the attention of the Vulcans who - on seeing how bad Humanity had suffered - spent a century and change helping us out of self-destructive urges and desires.
We gained a lot of their qualities in this century and began to stop caring about money in this century, officially dropping it around the mid-22nd century as the reason for gain was now to better yourself for your own sake rather than to better others.
The story of the Trek 21st Century is that of Humanity facing the absolute worst moment in our history and deciding to never again go with what caused it, to strive for better.
Old Trek: Everyone we ask you; to think and use reason to come to a decision.
New Trek: Everyone we demand you; you don't need to reason, we thought of the a decision for you.
Great video. Thanks so much.
I feel like I agree with at least half of what this guy says. The things I might not agree with, I still end up agreeing because he SOUNDS so convincing.
I can agree almost everything you say, except for the claim that STP was well written. It struck me as a mishmash of several undeveloped plotlines, none of which made any sense. Scenes within those plots seldom made sense either. And the show was so boring I found myself nodding off at the half-way point of every episode.
I think I said it "wasn't a badly written show", and did acknowledge that it "wasn't great"; but the point there was only to demonstrate that the truly objectionable thing about the series wasn't shoddy writing but deliberately crafted destruction.
@@TheLittlePlatoon IMO, both are true. It's thematic messages and deconstruction of the Star Trek universe were awful, but so was the writing. Ironically, if the writing had been competent, it would have done a better job selling the messages, and might have been more successful. So, as someone who loves the messages in classic ST, I'm actually glad the writing was poor.
One of the reasons I've always loved Star Trek was precisely the utopian nature of it's world. But the thing about that world was not Gene Roddenberry just being an optimist and saying here's the future, it's all bright and shiny because I like that idea. As in most things Star Trek (old Star Trek that is) it went much deeper than that. I'm sure he understood how the world works and the point you made about attempted utopian societies, thats why the founding principle behind his universe was actually extremely dark. Earth needed a third world war, Eugenics Wars as they called them in show, that decimated the population down to i believe only 10% survivors and left the Earth a post apocalyptic Mad Max styled barren wasteland. I guess it was Roddenberry's view that only that kind of future could impact humanity and human nature to such an extent that core changes could be made, leading to people and nations finally working together to create an optimistic utopian future he presented us with.
Granted, those aspects of history were not very prevalent in the storytelling and it takes a high level of love for Star Trek to look that deep into the lore... but you touched upon a series I used to love deeply so guess I just wanted to share my 2 cents and hopefully get you more interested in expanding your knowledge of the Star Trek universe and lore.
Sorry if that sounded patronizing, not used to forming my thoughts in english.
But you make your videos very thought out and appealing and on a subject i care about so i felt a need to comment.
Keep up the good work kind sir.
Where are the rest of the parts of this series? We were expecting 4 and I can only find one.
Wow 9 months and I missed the perfect crystalation of the issues with new Star Trek Bravo
Hope you do lower decks after the part 2.
I’ve not seen any of Lower Decks but I could definitely take a look.
I could barely get through a single episode of Discovery, but I had high hopes for Picard. But now I wish I had never watched it. Such a terrible disservice to a great character.
Dude, you have my undivided attention, couldn’t have said it better myself 🙏😎
Many thanks! Apparently part two has a lot to live up to…
"Drumhead" The perfect Trek episode. TNG.
Hi, love your work! Just a little bit of mercy please…can you please add the appropriate …part two/three/four to connected videos…as you have it now, it’s a real hassle to go looking for videos on the same show. They don’t come up with the next part in the suggested section like it does for other channels, I also don’t know after part 1 which video is next as there is no indicator some connected videos….the 5 obiwan videos weren’t in order and had to open multiple to find the correct order….and this Picard video has a part one, but is the next video the one that says season 2? Just please pop a part 2+ on each connected video…thanks very much
Was there ever a part 2 of this? I can’t seem to find it?
No love for Babylon 5? LOL - working my way through your back catalogue - keep up the great work.
Your frustration at we Americans misusing the word "liberal" literally made my head explode. ;-)
Nice video Sir, thank you.
God how have I not known about your channel for so long?
That was in-depth and articulates much of why Picard and NuTrek in general leaves me cold.
The only thing about this series that made me frown was how you say you might "fix Picard" -as that answer is easy (but would have meant the series never getting made,) which is to deny Patrick Stewart any creative control of the show outside of how he would portray the character he defined.
I recall back to that Star Trek con (SD I think it was) when Alex Kurtzman came out and announced Stewart who then made the official announcement about a future series featuring Jean Luc Picard... The crowd cheered for Stewart but my eyes were trained on hack Kurtzman standing to the side grinning from ear to ear...
During this time, Discovery was being ripped apart by fans and CBS (in America) was mobilizing a social media campaign trolling and blocking fans critical of STD while funding "positive shill articles and sites" painting lies about us, the fans saying how much we "all loved STD"...
Of course the reality was that mainstream America never heard of Star Trek Discovery and honestly still doesn't know or care much about it.
But back then CBS was so taken aback by the reaction this massive fanbase had that no doubt, Kurtzman felt that heat and knew he needed to bring back an old favorite to bring the fans "back."
It's why Pike, Spock and the 25% different Enterprise showed up at the end of season 1.
Les Moonves was long gone from CBS and this task fell squarely on the shoulders of Kurtzman to save Trek from obscurity. He needed a hit and a Picard series was it, he thought...
Of course the caveat to getting this show made was that Stewart would only reprise his roll if he had creative control in order to make it "different" -as you covered brilliantly.
I think you might want to research what Akiva Goldsman admitted in an interview last year that they had no idea where the show was going and that somewhere towards the end, a massive re-write happened which is where Riker/Troi were added, Picard dying/being turned into an android was decided as well as the ridiculous robot tentacle creatures (ie, Control from STD) was chosen as the final boss.
It's also where the incredibly anticlimactic generic STARSHIP FACE-OFF was written and clearly rushed to the screen featuring all those copy/paste generic Star Trek Online looking starships.
What was the reason for the massive shift? We know Michael Chabon is no linger show-runner... Was there some political in-fighting that led to such a nihilistic train wreck? Was it always going to be this way? Was Kurtzman so desperate to get the character of Picard to the screen that he agreed to EVERYTHING Stewart wanted? -probably.
Picard seemed like a show that started one way but then went off in another direction. I'm curious as to what and why that was...
When Michael Chabon was hosting those Q & A's on Instagram while PIC aired week to week, many of us asked him why things were the way they were. His answers were always a bit of a deflection, especially when we were critical. One answer I recall specifically was when asked about why the starships at the end were all generic in the last episode and he admitted that he "had no say on that" and assured us he was told there were three distinct starship designs in that scene... but he later grew frustrated when people would site screen shots showing the ships were literally a cut & Paste job.
The only reason I bring all that up is because Chabon seemed to indicate that beyond a point, he was no longer in charge of things.
I think all of this has to be considered when talking about Picard. Season 1 wasn't mapped out or pre-written. They made it up as they went and the end result was deeply unsatisfying and dystopian.
I look forward to the next installments!