Does anybody else dislike Roddenberry's "vision"?

Founder · **Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:38 am Does anybody else dislike Roddenberry's "vision"?**

Now, I know saying that will anger a lot of people or at least cause them to wonder what am I talking about.

Roddenberry created Star Trek and we all like him for that. I do. However, I feel some of his...complaints were really irritating. For example, he wanted a scene deleted from Star Trek VI, because he was uncomfertable with the scenes. The scenes were of Starfleet discussing how to save Kirk and McCoy from Rura Penthe as far as I know. Why is that bad?

Not to mention, he had numerous disputes over the direction of TNG, early on.

Many claim that he would abhor S31 and virtually all the religion of DS9 because that was not part of his "vision". Personally, I'm glad he had NO part in DS9. I'll always be grateful for that.

He had this really stupid vision that humanity was completely at peace, never did anything wrong and that everything was happy. While that sounds..."nice", it's unrealistic. Even if Humanity has "evolved" to the point of unity and peace, you can never truly get rid of evil. Evil will always be there. It's an idea and ideas are impossible to kill. In the words of V, ideas are bulletproof.

I think it's great that Humanity united and we are past stupid differences like skin color and nationality, but to make the claim that Starfleet does no wrong is just...dumb. Not to mention, boring.

I like Quark's interpretation of humanity better.

Voyager2004 · **Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:52 am**

Very true...I like his vision...but if he was REALLY pushing for what you claim he was, (I've never really read what you're talking about what he wanted, so I'm definitely not calling you a liar) but if he really was trying to say "Oh they're so peaceful and does nothing bad," Then I agree with you. It would be boring. It wouldn't have been realistic...people today need something to look forward to in our future...now granted, it's a LONG way off, by all means, but it's just an escape...

Now even so, you say that he said HUMANS did no evil....nothing wrong. That doesn't account for ANY of the other species still out there in the galaxy...what about them? Surely, that if the human race did NOTHING wrong, then they would be a week organization. They would have little to no weapons, or defensive capabilities...I would think at least...but it's too perfect. Humanity, like any other civilization, will always have it's dark side, it's evil, and it's imperfections. And frankly, I think it's about time that Trek took a slight turn with the next series and explored it a little more. Not too much to totally blaspheme what Roddenberry wanted, but still......and as ALWAYS, it would have to be very WELL written, otherwise it will flop easier than Enterprise...

And I've seen that episode of DS9 that you quoted...that was a funny scene. I liked it. So true...

Arellia · **Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:14 am**

I thought Roddenberry had a lot to do with the idea of DS9, didn't he...? I don't think he had "nothing" to do with it. From what I heard it was one last idea he left us with. But maybe I'm wrong?

Humans in Star Trek try very hard to do what's right, but at their core, they're like us. Just with a better style of living, better medicine, less suffering. There are many people of today who would fit in just fine in the Trek universe. So... yes and no for me as well.

Founder · **Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:50 pm**

Admiral Dani�l · **Mon Nov 13, 2006 3:33 pm**

Well I saw this nice documentary about this, and that said that people were interested in Gene's vision of the future, that would make sense why most people watched ST:OS and ST:TNG. and the director involved in Voy tried to show as much evil as he could, leaving Gene's message at nowhere, and what did you get, the ratings dropped massively...

Leo Wyatt · **Thu Nov 16, 2006 10:58 am**

in the original series they explored the dark side of humanity by doing the paralell universe episodes. i agree that gene vision of humanity and starfleet may be a bit too perfect but he did show its share of problems. Kirk did not always have the right ideas but he had bones and spock to always help him make the right decision. in st:VI kirk served romulan ale. a drink that is illegal on starfleet vessels, this was not a totally evil thing but shows that starfleet was not perfect.

Tuvok8917 · **Sun Nov 19, 2006 3:44 pm**

If Roddenberry didn't died, we would never meet The Borg or The Dominion.
I don't even think we would have Bajorans or any of those aliens who has been showed in TNG later in the show.
I think that we would've been stuck with the 2 big enemies: Romulan & Klingon.

Anyway, BTT:

I disliked his vision. It was good that he created Star Trek, but his vision to make Earth soo peacefull.. That was something i found disturbing.
That's why i like First Contact.
In that movie he showed us the humans like he should've done before: Oppressed & Rebelous. That woman.. uhm Lily was it. I think that she represented Earth the best after the war or Zephram Cochrane, he also showed us the opposite "gender".

My conclusion:
Star Trek should've been much more aggressiver, opressed, darker.
Like DS9. Not the: "Give up, cause you can't win from us" style like in TOS. (No offense to TOS fans)

Voyager2004 · **Sun Nov 19, 2006 4:20 pm**

Umm, as I recall, Gene Roddenberry created the Borg for TNG...

Tuvok8917 · **Sun Nov 19, 2006 5:02 pm**

Leo Wyatt · **Sun Nov 19, 2006 5:26 pm**

How would you know tuvok8917 that if Gene didn't die we wouldn't see the Borg or Dominion? Unless you can read his mind lol no offense.

Didn't mean that in a mean way so don't take it like it. Just a question. I like Gene's version better because after all he did create Star Trek.

I am not saying that I don't like it after he died either cause Trek was still good until they messed up with Enterprise and the 7th season of Voyager.

They did good in DS9 with the Dominion. But Berman and Braga wasn't too good with Enterprise. If they had written better storylines, Enterprise would still be going maybe. And the season 7 of Voyager wasn't good at all.

La Forge · **Sun Nov 19, 2006 6:02 pm**

Just to clarify, the Borg were created when Roddenberry was still alive. "Q Who?" Season 2. The Gene was still alive.

However, I see where you were going with that. The Borg wouldn't have been the same, if Roddenberry were still alive, today. And, sadly, I doubt that DS9 would have been the same if he had helmed it, all the way through.

Roddenberry was a great man, however, as everyone has said, humanity is and never will be perfect. And, frankly? I wouldn't want to live in a perfect world. Too boring.

Leo Wyatt · **Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:40 pm**

Tuvok8917, I think I misunderstood your statement above when I replied to it. Sorry.

There wouldn't be any Star Trek at all if it wasn't for Gene. That's all I am going to say on it til later. It is getting late.

Voyager2004 · **Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:18 am**

See, I'm not crazy! I knew that Roddenberry was alive when the Borg were created...and I swear I've read that he created them...

Now yes, I'll agree that the Borg may not be the same today if Gene had lived all the way through First Contact...and therefore DS9 would not have been the same either...just due to it's darker nature.

Ksim3000 · **Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:06 pm**

I am against completely of Roddenberry's vision. I am against a "Globalised Future" where there are no nations, no religions, just a "One World Government" in where all Humans will pretty much be "Global or World Citizens 0000".

I want to be "British", I want people to be "Japanese" or "American", even "African", not a "Global Citizen". That would destroy the true culture, culture that has established whom we are.

Keep all different cultures and individuals where they are and let's bring those individual cultures into space. Those individual nationalities. There's no need for "Globalisation". It is just one big system where the rich man gets rich and the poor man gets poorer.

Folks nowadays pretty much don't "care", though. As long as they get their luxuries coming, Globalisation or not, they'd go for whatever is availble.

A damned shame, if you ask me.

And, Roddenberry's "vision" wasn't entirely "peaceful". Section 31 was the secret order keeping the Human folks living under the Feds not a "problem". Midnight kidnappings, assassinations, you name it, Section 31 took part in.

Starfleet permitted them, too. I recall both Odo and Dr. Julian Bashir tried to put an end to Section 31.......but they failed, with the Fed senior officiers quickly "denying" their existance and covering it up. Mind you, I never watched any episodes with Section 31 in it, only read about them

Founder · **Wed Nov 22, 2006 2:35 pm**

Voyager2004 · **Wed Nov 22, 2006 4:28 pm**

They made the best Bad/Good guys, you mean! LOL...That's essentially what they were...

Ksim3000 · **Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:29 pm**

True, my good Founder, true. But seriously, StarTrek's future would be, well, it would be "The Sins of the Parents", I call it, with the child living out those sins. Economy, wealth and disrespect for culture has led to that type of future.

djlazerx · Lieutenant, Junior Grade Joined: 21 Dec 2006 Posts: 71

Although I am not against Roddenberry's vision at all. I must admit Star Trek would not have gone near as far series and movie wise if he was still working on it. Why Because fans like dark trek there are more variables and draw to the story. Its like the word sex was bad to say in the 50's now kids have sex. Its today's world we live in. Although with my next series idea that you can find on this forum posted. There is room to get back to the exploration phase of Star Trek more than the enemy's around each sector.

Founder · **Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:23 pm**

I wonder if the next show(if the make another one) will be even darker. I think ENT was a bit dark and so was Nemesis. They were just poorly done.

I'd like to think that Trek will continue to be serious, rather then so light hearted and problems being fixed easily while spewing Human mottos.

cmdrFelix · Ensign, Junior Grade Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 30

The darker side of humanity was one of the best things about DS9. If they make a new ST I hope they do more with section 31 because I love the idea of a Federation Tal shiar.

Avenger · Junior Cadet Joined: 26 Apr 2007 Posts: 19

In response to KSim3000's original post, the Earth depicted in Star Trek may have a united government, but I wouldn't go so far as saying that human characters are homogenized or robbed of their ethnicity as a result. After all, there's a whole running joke about Chekov's pride in his Russian heritage. Sisko cares a great deal about his African and African-American roots. O'Brien's Irish background is clearly an integral part of his character.

Kuro-chan · **Fri Apr 27, 2007 6:43 pm**

One thing to keep in mind. Roddenberry's "Vision" was a 1960's vision which sought world unity because the world was at the point of falling apart at the seams, and the looming possibility of a world-wide nuclear war existed. Star Trek dealt with a lot of issues concerning culture, racism and other things that were not popular to discuss.

As for eliminating "Culture" and creating a "Global Citizenship", I somewhat disagree with the notion. Chekov held onto a disticntively Russian heritage, and Sulu (Poor guy... didn't even have a proper Japanese name) still held onto a bit of Asian heritage, even though the show showed him having a number of hobbies and interests, including botany, fencing, guns, etc. Scotty managed to stay a Scotsman, and during one episode his dress uniform included a kilt. (Good thing there was no breeze through the ship ^_-) Uhura was a bit of a disappointment because we did not see much culture coming from her, unfortunately.

TNG seemes to focus a lot less on the human culture aspect and pushed more towards the alien cultures and having humans rubbing their noses into it, pushing their views against the aliens. Granted, TOS was pretty bad at that too, but after 20 years, I figure Roddenberry would have learned something from the Prime Directive he struggled to create.

Debra · Sweetest Angel Joined: 26 May 2007 Posts: 444

Without Roddenberry, there would not be no Star Trek and I don't think we would be sitting here now talking about star trek if it wasn't for him.
And I stick by my comment I made earlier in the post.

Shawn Cordell

lifeguide · **Tue Nov 27, 2007 10:29 pm**

I hope none of you who have written here ever write a story and someone elses takes it in an entirely different direction.

Star Trek is all about pointing out the things that make humanity a very noble species.

It was never intended to show you the crimes taking place on Earth or the pety disputes that I am sure existed when Gene was still alive.

I understand what you all say when you state that his vision was a little to perfect but that was the whole premise of the pitch, to show people in the 60's that the Vietnam War would be over, that all races would come together and that all people could live in relative freedom (we are always going to have rules and laws to abide by so no one is ever going to really be free to do what they want) and so it depends on your view/definition of freedom.

I liked the DS9 war arch and the darker elements of some of the recent trek stuff but if you want your fill of explosions and sex and other things then you should be watching something else.

I am quite happy with the level of complex, hard hitting stories and relationships so I think while everyone is entitled to thoier opinion we may be getting off the track with this thread.