XPost: alt.startrek, alt.tv.star-trek, alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise   
   From: rgorman@telusplanet.net   
      
   wandering wastrel wrote:   
   >   
   > In article ,   
   > annmef1@att.net says...   
   > > It seems the writers are playing to the overall dumbing down of America.   
   > > Look at television in general. There is no respect for the audience.   
   >   
   > Television itself has arguably contributed to the dumbing down of   
   > America, the degradation of American politics, the trivialization of   
   > civic life and the overall bastardization of what some might call   
   > cinematic art. Each succeeding generation seems to further reflect the   
   > effects of cheap gimmickry and simple-minded, bottom line production   
   > techniques.   
   >   
   > > Today's youth are growing up on steady diet of violence without reason.   
   > > Go back 60 years and you will find a better rationale for violence. Sure   
   > > there have always been street bullies, but we didn't always invite them   
   > > into our homes through television and video games.   
   >   
   > Very good point. Violence was generally shown as something that the hero   
   > resorted to only reluctantly, and those who did engage freely in violence   
   > without good reason were usually punished.   
   >   
   > The appeal of violence seems to me an appeal to the frustrations of those   
   > who feel powerless and need some kind of outlet through which they can   
   > vent their pent-up feelings. This doesn't act as a true catharsis, though   
   > -- it just maintains the cycle of frustration and release. The powerless   
   > do nothing significant to empower themselves, they just play out these   
   > sick little fantasies.   
   >   
   > > So, what are we likely to see in the new and improved version of   
   > > Enterprise--more computer graphics, more warfare, more sex, less science   
   > > and more fantasy, and potentially more, more, more that results in less,   
   > > less, less than Gene Roddenberry could ever imagine?   
   >   
   > I often wonder what old Uncle Gene would think. And I also wonder how   
   > many who think ENT is so "cool" and "awesome" as it embarks on this new   
   > season to wreak vengeance can square the present state of things with   
   > Roddenberry's vision of peace, enlightenment, tolerance and all those   
   > other "wimpy" sixties values. If ENT is becoming more "Bushified" this   
   > upcoming season, I think it will have abandoned the original intent of   
   > Trek's creator. I wonder what the more hawkish fans of Trek think of old   
   > Gene and his quaint ideas anyway.   
      
   I tell you what I think about them.  I think they desperately needed   
   balance.  The original Star Trek was the best one precisely because   
   Roddenberry had to compromise his idealism.  The Federation was like   
   the United States, only better.  Improved, but still imperfect.   
   They still had to fight it out with the Romulans in a border skirmish,   
   or run flintlocks to a bunch of natives to keep their neighbours from   
   wiping them out with their own Klingon supplied flintlocks and letting   
   the Klingons take over the planet.  They still had criminals and   
   mental illness.  The Prime Directive was a statement of principle,   
   but one that sometimes had to take second place to other priorities.   
      
   That was good.   
      
   Then came TNG and for two years we saw what Roddenberry's utopianism   
   produced when he didn't have to compromise.  That wasn't good.   
   TNG's Federation started out as tedious, smug and implausible.   
   Poorly thought out.  Then Roddenberry got sick, and with other   
   people compromising his vision...it got better.  Now, you could   
   have a paranoid McCarthy-like admiral searching for anti-Federation   
   subversives on board...and that was damn good.  Nothing that   
   Roddenberry's principles would have allowed, of course, but   
   a hell of a lot better than what they did allowed.  The Borg   
   showed up, and they were kinda cool at first, before they were   
   driven into the ground.   
      
   Way better than Roddenberry's insulting parody of capitalist   
   villains, the Ferengi, who were just incredibly lame as opponents   
   and even more poorly thought out than the Federation.   
      
   But as time went by, Roddenberry's legacy started to weight more   
   and more heavily as people got nervous about violating his   
   precepts.  They put DS9 on and people complained about the   
   less than squeaky clean portrayal of the Federation that it   
   sometimes showed.  They escaped into the Delta Quadrant   
   and that really was an exercise in escapism.  No longer   
   was the starship an instrument of Federation policy.   
   Instead they'd just wander around in a self contained   
   bubble, passing from place to place without really   
   interacting, their only goal to get past each obstacle   
   as it presented itself.   
      
   Then they moved on to Enterprise, and an initially promising   
   concept fell at the gate just because they didn't have the   
   nerve to do something different.  It didn't matter that   
   Roddenberry only gave Star Trek the transporter because   
   the suits wouldn't approve a shuttle landing sequence,   
   they didn't have the nerve to totally abandon it or   
   any of the other original Star Trek technologies.   
   Nor did they have the nerve to abandon the Prime   
   Directive even though it didn't exist yet.  The   
   Enterprise would have to obey it and in every other   
   way act like they were straight from TNGs smugly   
   perfect 24th century.  Because that's what Roddenberry   
   wanted, right?  And it was crap.   
      
   And that's what this hawkish fan thinks of Roddenberry's   
   quaint ideas.  They're fine, but leaven them with the   
   occasional dose of realism...if you don't want crap.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)