I think the show suffered horribly from Roddenberry’s silly ideas about how Humanity would ‘evolve’ beyond all of the negative aspects of our Humanity within just a few centuries and all be part of some insane idealistic communist society. It made the show smug, arrogant and unrealistic at times.
But at least it wasn’t buried under the anchor of FUCKING TIME TRAVEL that has basically destroyed the entire franchise since then.
Yes, it’s obvious that in WWIII, between the Communists and Capitalists, the US and Russia, that the Russians won. It’s the only thing that makes sense.
Communism does work, if you have free unlimited energy. And replicators.
Huh? Society has changed massively within just the last couple of generations, so I don’t think it’s too far an extrapolation to imagine things like there being virtually no conflicts (bear in mind the number of violent conflicts has been on a steady decline, violent crime has dropped steeply etc) and greater embrace of science and rationality in a few centuries time.
And yeah, with replicators you would be in a largely post-scarcity world. I wouldn’t necessarily call that “communist”.
And this is all assuming humans don’t engineer their DNA; I think in reality by the time of Star Trek we’ll almost certainly be doing that, so “boys will be boys” will be 100% out of the window.
Plus of course if you want negative sci-fi, that imagines humans still engaging in warfare with each other no matter what technological wonders may come, there’s not exactly a shortage of it.
There are even some films I hear, about wars happening among the stars.
What do the shirt colors mean?
Is the Prime Directive a plot device or some philosophical point? When does it stop applying?
I don’t believe the idea that people and society can be better than they are now is unrealistic at all. That in a nutshell is why I love Star Trek.
Slightly different meanings than the colors in the Original Series. Red uniforms are officers who are on “command track”, though this isn’t clearly delineated as to why someone is “command track” as opposed to operations (for example, at various times, Worf is seen wearing red as security chief, though Tasha Yar wore gold for the same post). Gold uniforms are “operations” officers. They are the officers who run the ship: helm, navigation, engineering, security, transport, etc. Blue uniforms are the officers involved in the sciences. The medical staff wear blue, so do people in biosciences, etc.
The Prime Directive is both philosophical point and plot device. It is quoted when needed as justification for not doing something the writers don’t want to do; it’s ignored when needed to do what the writers want to do.
It’s a left-over from the Original Series. As imagined at that time, it precluded the Federation from interfering in the affairs of other planets/cultures. As imagined for The Next Generation, it’s been modified slightly, and is mainly quoted as precluding interference in the culture of planets which haven’t joined the star-faring species of the galaxy. But it’s impossible at any point in ANY of the varies series to quote an exact formulation of the Directive. :smack:
You have improperly stated what was offensive about “Code of Honor”. It wasn’t that everyone was black; presumably that’s not impossible. It was how these people who were “black” acted: like really bad stereotypes of African tribes. Had the all-white Aryans acted like, oh, say, Nazis, the comparison might be applicable.
[the crew has traveled back in time and is now wearing TOS-style uniforms. Sisko is wearing gold, O’Brien red and Bashir blue]
Doctor Bashir: Wait a minute. Aren’t you two wearing the wrong color?
O’Brien: Don’t you know anything about this period in time?
Doctor Bashir: I’m a doctor, not an historian.
Sisko: In the old days, operations officers wore red, command officers wore gold…
Lt. Commander Jadzia Dax: And women wore less.
[Dax appears behind them, dressed in a revealing TOS miniskirt-style uniform]
Doctor Bashir: I think I’m going to like history.
Holy crap, so am I! But I have all my hair, so there!
All it does is compound some complex problems, I imagine.
Better? Absolutely. But the moralistic lecturing about Humans have ‘evolved’ past money, greed and conflict and how we all concentrate on bettering ourselves instead of competing with each other is pure horseshit.
Oh, I caught more than a few episodes every season, and saw some good stuff, to be sure. I even saw most of the movies. It just never lit me up the way TOS did. Some thrills can’t be reduplicated. I won’t even argue with those who assert TNG was a better show than TOS. While that’s not true for me, it is for someone else and more power to them.
You think that a world without money, greed, and conflict isn’t an improvement over the current version we live in? I gather you aren’t a Christian.
I miss optimistic Sci-Fi. All the current stuff is so dystopian. Depressing dystopian with very little hope. We’ll just grind you down, episode after episode, dystopian. It’s hard to watch. I love sci-fi, but I can’t handle depressing shows.
Star Trek, for all its flaws, was so hopeful. The future was a relatively good place to be and they were out to make it even better. I loved that. TNG captures that optimism perfectly. Picard is my captain.
You might have noticed that they look like pajamas.
Through biofeedback, the color is an indication of how sleepy the wearer is at that moment.
Christians can’t be realists? 
I presume you feel that this (TNG’s) state of affairs will never come to pass then, no matter how long our species persists?
A;though some find it stupid, Roddenberry’s hopeful future is what makes ST and TNG so good. After the Great Bird of the Galaxy passed, the optimism was toned down, and everything got darker. We went through all 7 seasons of DS9 this year, and now we are working on VOY. (We were overseas when these were on, so we didn’t get to watch them many times in reruns.) They have a lot darker stories, but they are still good storytelling.
I don’t think we are willing to pay for STD, and the reboot movies have just gone too far away from Roddenberry’s vision.
That’s not an appropriate reading of his criticism. He isn’t saying it can’t happen (or isn’t likely to happen). He’s saying it would be bad if it happened.