ENT was basically watered down TNG for its first two seasons. Some of the time it was good (eg "Carbon Creek"), some of the time it was bad (eg "Precious Cargo"), but most of the time it was stultifyingly mediocre. Season 3 tried something different, but it was only in season 4 that ENT found its true voice.
And it was Manny Coto who was responsible for the upswing in quality. I'm generally skeptical of prequels, but at least Coto fully bought into the premise of ENT being a prequel show, and showed us how various aspects of Trek lore came to be. I think his stint running that final season may have been his best work.
Or watered down VOY. The first two seasons had its gems (Cold Front, Shuttlepod One, Carbon Creek, Minefield, Future Tense, Regeneration are a few) but the series imo didnt get good until its 3rd and 4th seasons, largely due to Coto and Sussman taking over.
I’ve enjoyed what I’ve watched from him. It’s just so strange that someone who claimed to be a lifelong Trek fan could be a conservative Trump supporter.
As someone who used to hang around TrekBBS back in the day, there are actually many conservative and libertarian Star Trek fans.
It always baffled me also, but I think many of them were/are TOS fans. Kirk's swashbuckling, individualistic, break-the-rules, throw-a-roundhouse-when-you-need-to style disguised Roddenberry's socialist utopia that existed in the more civilised parts of the Federation. Certainly more so than adventures of the tea-sipping, conference-chairing, "I think I'll surrender in my very first appearance" Frenchman who followed him.
As a TOS fan, I disagree with that. TOS might have had dated drapery, but it also had some flagrantly progressive elements, arguably more than many of the series that followed it. It’s just that the world has moved on, and many of those progressive things are either the norm, or seen as regressive, like the Miniskirts, Uhura being part of the bridge crew, or having an American, Russian, and Japanese man serve as part of the same crew, at the height of the Cold War.
Part of it might also be that they didn’t see Trek as anything more than “cool space show, with a whole bunch of scantily clad men and women”, and didn’t bother to look any deeper, not unlike Star Wars. It’s just guns, cool ships, and shooting, with the imperialistic allegory being ignored, or gone unnoticed.
many of those progressive things are [now] either the norm, or seen as regressive
Totally agree.
Part of it might also be that they didn’t see Trek as anything more than “cool space show, with a whole bunch of scantily clad men and women”, and didn’t bother to look any deeper
Again, I think we're actually in agreement. If you look past the cool space show and can avert your eyes from William Ware Theiss' gravity-defying outfits you should be able to discern that Roddenberry's future is largely socialist, some would argue even communist. Centralised world government, no private enterprise (pun not intended), and by the time TNG aired, even no money. (Note there were references to money in TOS.) Not that I'm trying to imply conservative Trek fans aren't smart enough to figure this out. But - like the diversity and inclusion in the TOS cast - TOS's liberalism (social, not economic) isn't something that the show hit you in the face with. It's treated matter-of-factly, as backstory or backdrop. Whereas a show like DIS basically grabs you by the lapels and shouts "I'm progressive! I'm progressive!!" (Exaggerating of course, but you get the idea.)
not unlike Star Wars. It’s just guns, cool ships, and shooting, with the imperialistic allegory being ignored, or gone unnoticed
Not much of a Star Wars fan, but I assume this is David Brin's critique?
But - like the diversity and inclusion in the TOS cast - TOS’s liberalism (social, not economic) isn’t something that the show hit you in the face with.
It absolutely hit you in the face with it, just in a different way.
Miniskirts, an icon of feminist freedom of the time, were blatantly worn, Uhura was always in shot, and Sulu and Chekhov were front and centre of the camera when on the bridge.
Consider the famous Uhura/Kirk kiss scene. That was less of a hit in the face, and more bulldozed with it at light speed, which threatened to get the show pulled in more conservative parts of America (ironically, the same state/s would threaten the same of Arthur, the children’s TV show, over Mr Ratburn’s gay wedding so many decades later).
You could not be any more flagrant with the rules of the time, and if Roddenberry had had his way, he might have broken a few and put an LGBT character in, since that was part of his plan for TOS.
Not much of a Star Wars fan, but I assume this is David Brin’s critique?
I’m not familiar with him, so probably more coincidental than not. But you do see some Star Wars complaining that the new show is “woke” and shoehorns things in, whilst treating the conquering Empire of the first few movies as nothing deeper than that.
Arrgh! I just wrote a detailed response to your post, acknowledging that you're completely right about how TOS's liberalism hit you in the face in a different way, explaining where I was coming from, and ending with how I actually doubt Roddenberry would have put a queer character in the show based on his nixing of "Blood and Fire", David Gerrold's early first season TNG script. But kbin ate it. sigh
Roddenberry nixed it? I’ve heard different tales of that, that it was either Berman or Paramount, but never heard that Roddenberry himself nixed it. I remember reading old quotes that Roddenberry promised a gay character in TNG, but guess he was lying?
Roddenberry was showrunner at the time, so surely it would have come down to him to make the call. I suppose it's possible that Paramount may have put pressure on him, but this is the same Roddenberry who did NOT nix the interracial kiss even though he was told it would cause NBC affiliates in the south to drop the show. I suspect he just may not have felt as strongly about LGBTQ rights as he did about other things. Which I'm kind of equanimous about. Not everyone has to feel equally passionately about every cause.
From what we’ve heard, about the only thing Roddenberry liked about the idea for Captain’s Holiday was that in addition to the heterosexual couples in the background , he could have gay couples. The writer thought it would get the episode dropped, and in Chaos on the Bridge, Berman was very direct about having to stop that in its tracks.
If it was Roddenberry and not his power tripping lawyer or Paramount who killed Blood and Fire, I expect he was being petty about how Gerrold went from adoring him to arguments and mutual disrespect during the calamity that was TNG season 1.
I know there's a perception that Leonard Maizlish was the power behind the throne, but even if he was meddling with the production and causing general mayhem, he was still there at Roddenberry's behest, especially in the first season.
You may have a point about Roddenberry spiking Gerrold's story for personal reasons. Star Trek was never the sole creation of Gene Roddenberry. Justman, Solow, Coon, Fontana and others arguably added as much to the franchise as Roddenberry as he himself did (though I don't dispute his was the most pivotal contribution). But one gets the sense he wasn't willing to be as collaborative during TNG as he had been during TOS.
It's a shame Gerrold left under such bad circumstances. There's a lof of his DNA in TNG. Some of the ideas - like the Captain not leaving the ship to go on landing parties (err, sorry, away missions) - came straight out of his book The World of Star Trek.
“Not much of a Star Wars fan, but I assume this is David Brin’s critique?”
I remember that critique. Funny because a lot of Youtube leftists now argue Star Wars is left-wing because it has rebels against an empire (because asymmetrical warfare is left-wing apparently? Lol) and because the prequels are about a democracy turning into an empire (An obvious roman imperial allegory, not limited to leftist thought).
Also hanging around Youtube’s and Reddit’s Star Trek communities (such as the now banned r/Star_Trek) has shown me that a lot of Star Trek fans simply don’t get the allegories and messages of Trek, and think liberal biases and allegories are something new in the franchise. It’s really bizarre. Same group of people were convinced The Orville was either apolitical or even conservative until it became aggressively pro LGBTQ in its last season, which pissed them off.
I think conservatives in general have trouble understanding what allegories are. For example, some conservative fans of The Orville think its blatantly pro trans episode “Tale of Two Topas” is actually anti-trans because its wrapped in an allegory.
The Orville literally had a gay couple of aliens as main cast from day one and had an episode with one of them in fairly graphic gay orgies. It was pretty friendly from the off. The trans allegory with the kid was McFarlane making amends for the Family Guy episode with quagmires dad.
You’re correct, but conservative fans didn’t get it until the third season (and even then some didn’t get it, read the Bounding into Comics reviews of the season for example).
Just an example that came to mind. It said that “Tale of Two Topas” was a message against treating trans children. Talk about a bizarre interpretation of an obvious allegory toward trans rights.
I can definitely see how a genuine libertarian could be a Trek fan.
The politics of Star Trek is all about individual dignity and fulfillment in a post-scarcity society. A lot of people try to call it socialist (as Pelia mockingly did in the most recent SNW episode) but the circumstances mean it's not any form of socialism anyone's encountered in real life on Earth, such as in the 20th century. After unfathomable levels of technological advancement eradicates the problem of scarcity, there's neither the need for a big state nor a market to allocate scarce resources - what we know as socialism and capitalism wouldn't be meaningful concepts. What we see instead is people doing what they do (joining Starfleet, undertaking research, conducting journalism, opening restaurants) out of a sense of personal fulfillment, and with neither a state nor a society nor a need to pay the bills particularly forcing them to do anything. They're free to live their lives as they see fit - infinite diversity in infinite combinations. I can see how a libertarian could look at that and call it their personal utopia.
I struggle much more with how a conservative could embrace Star Trek. So much of conservative politics is about the primacy of the norms of the collective over the rights and dignity of the individual - whether that's in moderate forms (e.g. wanting to manage the pace of social progress so as not to offend the sensibilities of the majority, wanting immigrants to integrate into host societies) or more aggressive forms (outright hostility to immigrants, denying the rights of women and minorities, denying the existence of LGBTQ people).
I guess what I'm saying is that once you remove economics from the problem of politics (as Star Trek has hand waved away via technology) then what's left of libertarianism looks a lot like Star Trek, whereas what's left of conservativism looks very different.
@tukarrs@ValueSubtracted
I think a lot of people vote Republican because of where they live. It’s what they are taught. Same reasons why they use inches and speak English. I’m guilty of all those things in the past. I never really thought about it. I have always loved Star Trek. It never occurred to me until about 2016 that none of the good guys in that universe are Republicans. Donny opened my eyes to what the Republicans are all about. I’ll never go back.
I considered bringing this up, but since his apparent conservative politics didn’t seem to impact his Star Trek and Odyssey Five scripts (the only things of his I’ve ever seen), it’s not a problem for me.
Wow. That’s really sad. He was responsible for the best of Enterprise. Everything I read about him was that he was a good, stand-up guy who had a true love for Star Trek. He’ll definitely be missed.
Add comment