www.ditl.org

I can only agree with Atekimogus on this point.

This is where I do not understand the whole "it has to be dark and terrible or it's not real" additude. Of course it's not real, it's fiction.

I read fiction (hello) to get away from the usual dismal crap that the world seems to be in real life.

Something that is hopeful and bright is a really nice change from 'dark and gritty', which is what is out there all of the time (or so it seems). Don't get me wrong, 'dark and gritty' appeals from time to time, just not all of the time.

Atekimogus wrote:

Reliant121 wrote: I adore the Vanguard novels. There is a lot of darkness, thats true (MILD SPOILER)

lots of people die.

But I like that element of it.

I don't know, there is nothing wrong with being dark but in Star Trek? I found that Star Trek worked best for me when it depecited a bright, hopefull future I would like to be part of it and a crew dealing with the crisis of the week. Everything else nowadays is dark, vengeful, dystopian etc. I miss a bit the lightheartedness. I think thats the reason why - for me - DS9 didn't end well. I greatly enjoyed the Dominion War arc but they took far to long imho to resolve it. I think it should have ended in Season 6 with the last Season showing as how they deal with the aftermath and giving us a bit of joy and hope. (Bajor into the UFP, beginning peaceful exploration of the gamma quadrant etc.) That or they should have made an 8th season.

This.

How many dystopian franchises do we have?

Blade Runner.
Terminator.
Warhammer 40K.
Battlestar Galactica.
Neon Genesis Evangelion.
Current Star Wars.

One of Star Trek's appeal to me is that in it, humanity gets its collective shit together and decides, we will not kill today. Cheesy... but a message we sorely need.

RK_Striker_JK_5 wrote:This.

How many dystopian franchises do we have?

Blade Runner.

One movie released almost 30 years ago does not a franchise make.

Terminator.

I'd argue that Terminator is actually hopeful. Yes, there is a lot of really bad shit going down right now, but the whole point of the franchise is keeping the hope that John Connor represents alive. If it really wanted to be dark then the Terminators would eventually be able to kill him.

Warhammer 40K.
Battlestar Galactica.

Both dark, agreed. However I'd argue that being anything but dark in neoBSG's case would be ridiculous. The series opens with the nuclear apocalypse on a dozen worlds. Being happy and shiny after that would be a total disconnect.

Neon Genesis Evangelion.

Eva is niche. You'd have to seek it out. The others on the list are pretty much easily available.

Current Star Wars.

Current Star Wars EU. The films going 1->6 are not. The Clone Wars cartoon isn't.

One of Star Trek's appeal to me is that in it, humanity gets its collective s**t together and decides, we will not kill today. Cheesy... but a message we sorely need.

ToS was. ToS had a very optimistic message for its time but tempered with some realism. TNG went off the deepend with it, everyone was perfect, so was society, and their characters could not be tarnished. The Neutral Zone is a great example of this, they could not have looked farther down their noses at the people the pulled out of deep freeze. The Federation and it's people were a perfect society and these three were scum and that's what we're supposed to buy into as the audience. As for the we will not kill? Ask anyone on the planets the Federation has left to die due to natural disasters if the Federation still kills, they've made genocide a spectator sport.

Regarding Blade Runner: I don't count that, as it could hardly be otherwise. While it certainly took some liberties with Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? it was in fact based on a dystopian novel, so it could hardly be made otherwise. Besides, Rutger Hauer just has that aura.

In general, though, I think DS9 worked using that noir vibe simply because preceding 'Trek stuck so closely to Roddenberry's bright, hopeful ethos. DS9 worked because it was a departure - a much-needed change, and not just the setting.

Tyyr wrote:

Warhammer 40K.
Battlestar Galactica.

Both dark, agreed. However I'd argue that being anything but dark in neoBSG's case would be ridiculous. The series opens with the nuclear apocalypse on a dozen worlds. Being happy and shiny after that would be a total disconnect.

God was that serie depressing. I mean: Every. Single. Season. We get a frakking hope spot, just to have it crushed down savagely by the writers. I think the highest-moody moment of the serie was when they found the Tomb of Athena (?) and the map to Earth.

But then, we found Cain.. And then, there was New Caprica.. (even before the Cylon invasion, it was so depressing). And then, there was the Eye of Jupiter. And then, it was Starbuck's accident. And then Earth. And then.. ...

The serie was meant to show us how much of a beating the characers can suffer. Especially Tyrol. Universe just can't give Tyrol a break.

Tyyr wrote:ToS was. ToS had a very optimistic message for its time but tempered with some realism. TNG went off the deepend with it, everyone was perfect, so was society, and their characters could not be tarnished. The Neutral Zone is a great example of this, they could not have looked farther down their noses at the people the pulled out of deep freeze. The Federation and it's people were a perfect society and these three were scum and that's what we're supposed to buy into as the audience. As for the we will not kill? Ask anyone on the planets the Federation has left to die due to natural disasters if the Federation still kills, they've made genocide a spectator sport.

Never forget the whole Maquis affair. The Federation ain't as bright and shiny as some people might believe, even when nobody is acting stupid or selfish. It's all about different people having genuine difference of opinion about how they should be ruled.

(Was I the only one who got bad vibe out of Eddington's somewhat xenophobe statements: "Look at these people.. they are human, just like you and me. Do they deserves...."? I mean, why does the fact that the refugees are HUMAN makes it worse?)

This is a bit tangential to the main point, but...

SolkaTruesilver wrote:(Was I the only one who got bad vibe out of Eddington's somewhat xenophobe statements: "Look at these people.. they are human, just like you and me. Do they deserves...."? I mean, why does the fact that the refugees are HUMAN makes it worse?)

Really, dude? That's not xenophobic at all. Eddington was trying to strike an emotional chord within Sisko, and it's only natural to think that making that connection between the refugees and Sisko was the way to do it. Further, it's only natural that Eddington identifies with them as human. It's in no way xenophobic that identifying them with Sisko as "human" would engender a stronger visceral reaction than identifying them with him as "fellow sapient species."

Mikey wrote:This is a bit tangential to the main point, but...

Yhea, my bad. It's just that it something that always stroke a weird vibe in me, and I got thinking about it. Not threadworthy.

On a side note, nice new Avatar! (On a side-side note, maybe I should stop discussing Avatar-related )

Well, X-mess time and all that.

Tyyr wrote:

Terminator.

I'd argue that Terminator is actually hopeful. Yes, there is a lot of really bad s**t going down right now, but the whole point of the franchise is keeping the hope that John Connor represents alive. If it really wanted to be dark then the Terminators would eventually be able to kill him.

And you would be wrong. A future were pretty much everyone bites the dust EXCEPT John Connor makes me NOT want to be a part of it, considering that I am not John Connor. That and the whole nuclear holocaust thingy which doesn't paint a very utopian picture now, does it?

Tyyr wrote:

Warhammer 40K.
Battlestar Galactica.

Both dark, agreed. However I'd argue that being anything but dark in neoBSG's case would be ridiculous. The series opens with the nuclear apocalypse on a dozen worlds. Being happy and shiny after that would be a total disconnect.

As would be a pink spacemarine handing out flowers to Tyranids. Both franchises were designed to by dystopian, depressive and dark and that is perfectly ok. It is just that nowadays we pretty much have nothing else except grim, gloomy universes.

Tyyr wrote:ToS was. ToS had a very optimistic message for its time but tempered with some realism. TNG went off the deepend with it, everyone was perfect, so was society, and their characters could not be tarnished. The Neutral Zone is a great example of this, they could not have looked farther down their noses at the people the pulled out of deep freeze. The Federation and it's people were a perfect society and these three were scum and that's what we're supposed to buy into as the audience. As for the we will not kill? Ask anyone on the planets the Federation has left to die due to natural disasters if the Federation still kills, they've made genocide a spectator sport.

You don't have to like TNG or every stupid mistake they made to recognize that the outlook on the world of STar Trek as a whole is refreshingly positive. Therefore I am not quite sure what point you want to make by pointing out every stupid writers error. Just aks yourself this, if they today would make a STAR TREK IV The Voyage Home like movie, a fun lighthearted optimistic feature, it would probably utterly fail no matter what qualitiy. It is just a trend I noticed which I do not really like. (I wonder, for example, if reviews would have been better for the latest Indiana Jones, if he went noir, vengeful and murdering his way through the movie like the batman of archeology. As it is, it was a light fun movie in style of the 80s and I am ok with that)

Mikey wrote:In general, though, I think DS9 worked using that noir vibe simply because preceding 'Trek stuck so closely to Roddenberry's bright, hopeful ethos. DS9 worked because it was a departure - a much-needed change, and not just the setting.

I don't know....even DS9 wasn't that dark imho, sure they had the war and all that, but that is not enough to make it dark. They had enough episodes which lightended the mood consideralby even during the Dominion War. Sure they had the siege of AR-something, pale moonlight etc. but those were the exceptions adding considerable depth to the universe but not the rule. Idk. imho Voyager was far more depressing and hopeless, imagining being stuck on a ship, with zero hope of returning home and morons as command crew.......very depressing.

Tyyr wrote:

RK_Striker_JK_5 wrote:This.

How many dystopian franchises do we have?

Blade Runner.

One movie released almost 30 years ago does not a franchise make.

But still a landmark movie and still dark. Okay, franchise is a bad word here. Just movie.

Terminator.

I'd argue that Terminator is actually hopeful. Yes, there is a lot of really bad s**t going down right now, but the whole point of the franchise is keeping the hope that John Connor represents alive. If it really wanted to be dark then the Terminators would eventually be able to kill him.

If we ignored Terminator 3 and what goes after, then yeah. But 30 years or so of seemingly-inevitable robot war can be pretty damned depressing.

Warhammer 40K.
Battlestar Galactica.

Both dark, agreed. However I'd argue that being anything but dark in neoBSG's case would be ridiculous. The series opens with the nuclear apocalypse on a dozen worlds. Being happy and shiny after that would be a total disconnect.

Which is why I don't like them.

Neon Genesis Evangelion.

Eva is niche. You'd have to seek it out. The others on the list are pretty much easily available.

Niche or not, it's still dark. Which is why I dodn't like it and avoid it.

Current Star Wars.

Current Star Wars EU. The films going 1->6 are not. The Clone Wars cartoon isn't.

The PT got pretty damned dark-admittedly necessary, yes. Haven't seen the cartoon, so can't comment. And the EU-my primary SW-has gone off the deep end for dark and depressing.

One of Star Trek's appeal to me is that in it, humanity gets its collective s**t together and decides, we will not kill today. Cheesy... but a message we sorely need.

ToS was. ToS had a very optimistic message for its time but tempered with some realism. TNG went off the deepend with it, everyone was perfect, so was society, and their characters could not be tarnished. The Neutral Zone is a great example of this, they could not have looked farther down their noses at the people the pulled out of deep freeze. The Federation and it's people were a perfect society and these three were scum and that's what we're supposed to buy into as the audience. As for the we will not kill? Ask anyone on the planets the Federation has left to die due to natural disasters if the Federation still kills, they've made genocide a spectator sport.

TNG... they really aren't perfect. As to the Neutral Zone, Picard was the only one really hostile to all three of them. The housewife was actually pretty sympathetic. Offenhouse, okay, and the singer was comedic relief. And I'm not gonna judge a society on the actions of the senior staff.

Atekimogus wrote:I don't know....even DS9 wasn't that dark imho, sure they had the war and all that, but that is not enough to make it dark. They had enough episodes which lightended the mood consideralby even during the Dominion War. Sure they had the siege of AR-something, pale moonlight etc. but those were the exceptions adding considerable depth to the universe but not the rule. Idk. imho Voyager was far more depressing and hopeless, imagining being stuck on a ship, with zero hope of returning home and morons as command crew.......very depressing.

I think there's a differing idea of what we're discussing here. You're talking about individual eps and plot points; what the rest of us are describing is an overall feel or vibe. VOY's situation was depressing, of course, but that wasn't the feel of the entire show. DS9, I will readily admit, doesn't have the dystopian ambience of WH40k or A Boy and His Dog, - it is set in the ST universe, after all. It does, however, have a grittier feel; people die senselessy, and not just as plot points; the UFP can get its ass kicked sometimes; and people have to do bad things in the pursuit of an overarching good goal. Perhaps more importantly, people have to come to terms with the fact that they have done bad things, and even have to admit to themselves that they would again do such bad things.

So, yeah - DS9 had its fun, for sure. That doesn't change the overall ambient quality of the series.

Atekimogus wrote:And you would be wrong. A future were pretty much everyone bites the dust EXCEPT John Connor makes me NOT want to be a part of it, considering that I am not John Connor. That and the whole nuclear holocaust thingy which doesn't paint a very utopian picture now, does it?

Nope, good thing I never claimed it was utopian. I said it was hopeful. As in things are bad, but there's a bright spot. We keep this schmuck alive and we can win.

As would be a pink spacemarine handing out flowers to Tyranids. Both franchises were designed to by dystopian, depressive and dark and that is perfectly ok. It is just that nowadays we pretty much have nothing else except grim, gloomy universes.

Where you see grim and gloom I see reality. Not with WH40K, but in the case of NeoBSG I see something I find far more believable than the original incarnation.

You don't have to like TNG or every stupid mistake they made to recognize that the outlook on the world of STar Trek as a whole is refreshingly positive.

I do, I couldn't agree more that it is a very optimistic look into the future.

Therefore I am not quite sure what point you want to make by pointing out every stupid writers error.

Because it wasn't a stupid writer's error, it was the way TNG was. My point is that I liked ToS' restrained optimism. Things were good, even better. You had a cross section of the world on the Enterprise's bridge. Things were better, they were out exploring. It was great. TNG went off the deepend. They're the WH40K of optimism. You can take it too far to the point where it's not fun to watch but more of a lecture about how shitty we are and how awesome they are. Restrained optimism is great and I love it, TNG style optimism where there are ZERO social problems and everyone's farts smell like fresh baked cinamon rolls is just cloying.

Just aks yourself this, if they today would make a STAR TREK IV The Voyage Home like movie, a fun lighthearted optimistic feature, it would probably utterly fail no matter what qualitiy. It is just a trend I noticed which I do not really like. (I wonder, for example, if reviews would have been better for the latest Indiana Jones, if he went noir, vengeful and murdering his way through the movie like the batman of archeology. As it is, it was a light fun movie in style of the 80s and I am ok with that)

I don't think the trend is to make things dark so much as they are to make things more realistic and less cartoony. Yes, in some cases its all about making it dark and depressing but on the whole I think they're injecting more reality into things. Not everyone is going to like it.

RK_Striker_JK_5 wrote:But still a landmark movie and still dark. Okay, franchise is a bad word here. Just movie.

And I'll cop to being a bit of a pedantic dick there.

If we ignored Terminator 3 and what goes after, then yeah. But 30 years or so of seemingly-inevitable robot war can be pretty damned depressing.

No arguement, but I think that if you're wanting to call it dark and depressing then they would have let Connor die, probably at Arnie's hands. Letting him live and even be organizing the resistence is a bright spot. So long as he's alive all hope isn't lost.

The PT got pretty damned dark-admittedly necessary, yes. Haven't seen the cartoon, so can't comment. And the EU-my primary SW-has gone off the deep end for dark and depressing.

If you view the pre-quel trilogy on its own then I would agree to that. In the end everything good is dead and the heros are now the villians. It doesn't stand on it's own though. There are three more movies after it that are all about the bad guys being overthrown and the fallen being redeemed.

Now the EU, it just got stupid. I will agree that the EU took things to far to the dark and depressing and for a franchise that was built far more on optimism that was a huge change.

TNG... they really aren't perfect. As to the Neutral Zone, Picard was the only one really hostile to all three of them. The housewife was actually pretty sympathetic. Offenhouse, okay, and the singer was comedic relief. And I'm not gonna judge a society on the actions of the senior staff.

When the senior staff are the only examples of that society what else will you judge it on?

Mikey wrote: I think there's a differing idea of what we're discussing here. You're talking about individual eps and plot points; what the rest of us are describing is an overall feel or vibe. VOY's situation was depressing, of course, but that wasn't the feel of the entire show. DS9, I will readily admit, doesn't have the dystopian ambience of WH40k or A Boy and His Dog, - it is set in the ST universe, after all. It does, however, have a grittier feel; people die senselessy, and not just as plot points; the UFP can get its ass kicked sometimes; and people have to do bad things in the pursuit of an overarching good goal. Perhaps more importantly, people have to come to terms with the fact that they have done bad things, and even have to admit to themselves that they would again do such bad things.

So, yeah - DS9 had its fun, for sure. That doesn't change the overall ambient quality of the series.

All true, I was just pointing to individual episodes because I wanted to express that despite those my overall feel or vibe of DS9 was nevertheless rather positive. The setting didn't change much imho, what changed is that the people are acting more real again, which might feel somewhat grittier compared to the first TNG season but overall the people are still more idealistic than certain TOS ship mates imho.

Tyyr wrote:Nope, good thing I never claimed it was utopian. I said it was hopeful. As in things are bad, but there's a bright spot. We keep this schmuck alive and we can win.

Fair point. However, maybe a more accurate comparision of the two universes would be the Sarah Connor Chronicles and Star Trek and although excellent, Terminator as a series pretty soon lost much of the depressing setting and all the shock and horror which made the first two movies great. Understandable since who would want to tune in weekly for an hour just to leave the TV slightly depressed?

Tyyr wrote:Where you see grim and gloom I see reality. Not with WH40K, but in the case of NeoBSG I see something I find far more believable than the original incarnation.

That is true, neoBsG was rather realistic but to be honest, I digged the first season but at the end of season 2 I almost had to force myself to watch it. Not because it was bad but come on, give those poor bastards a break. It was almost painfull to watch and sometimes downright over the top (Dee's suicide, poor Geada etc etc.). Episode after Episode another personal epic drama...it was just to much, almost if everyone on that ship was called Hiob by second name.

Tyyr wrote:Because it wasn't a stupid writer's error, it was the way TNG was.

I admit that is true for the first and also the second season but imho things got better as they went along. I wouldn't say they were overly optimistic, it was just cheesy writing, lets not dwell to much on it. The 80s produced many other atrocities . But I get and agree partly to your point.

That realism, expressed most often as pragmatism, is what gave DS9 a grittier feel when contrasted with the rose-colored glasses of TNG.