Steve Shives posted a video the other day about how more recent Star Trek properties are more willing to show flaws and failures; imperfections in the characters and institutions featured in the stories. But also, prominently; how they almost always “take it back” in the end. “Fall short of committing.” “Pull the rug out.” Most especially regarding Starfleet, which is the ultimate authority and representative of *all* humans and allied species and cultures in most Star Trek media. Shives pointed out three examples from the Picard series, Strange New Worlds, and most recently the first series of Starfleet Academy. The Picard example can to an extent be laid next to the blender the whole idea was run through at some point, and Strange New Worlds; being very episodic in nature, I would be willing to not take overly seriously because what’s true in one episode isn’t necessarily true in the next. (I want to be clear, this is based on taking things at face value and REFUSING to look even slightly deeper…my opinion changes once that is done.) But the Starfleet Academy example is very clear and unapologetic, as that series IS built on an overarching narrative with specific actions and a named and repeatedly featured villain. But in the end, despite creating an obvious and understandable story arc, the writers choose essentially to have the protagonist of the backstory NOT LEARN anything, or change because of events even though that is repeatedly shown throughout the series, but defend their decisions which they have regretted for two decades with “hey, everybody makes mistakes. You have to understand the context, blah blah blah.” I mean, it’s a choice; but the story naturally supported a different conclusion. It was sitting right there. The whole series was based on the idea. And I’m not gonna tell you about it because spoilers.
Continue reading 〉〉 “Some Thoughts on Star Trek Lore”
T w e n t y S i d e d