Enough literature centers around a dystopian view.

Yes, and after Gene Roddenberry died the showrunners turned away from his vision. They made the Federation much darker when they introduced Ro Laren and the Maquis. This tonal shift took centre stage in DS 9 and Voyager. From the low key lighting to the interpersonal conflicts, these shows marked a dramatic departure from Roddenberry's vision.

We saw how deep this rabbit hole really went when they introduced Section 31 and even went so far as to do an episode where the Federation imposed martial law on earth, something I never would have imagined Roddenberry doing.

They made the Federation, and humans, more realistic.

The problem with a utopian ideal is that utopias are, by definition, inhumane. Humans are not perfect, so you either have to make them perfect, or force them to conform to a perfect ideal which ignores and suppresses human nature. We war, we hunger, we lust, we hate, we fear... those aspects of our psyche aren't just going to go away because someone invents replicators and warp drives.

Humans that are like us struggling (and often failing, in their imperfection) to live up to an ideal in an imperfect universe are far more relatable and, ironically, more optimistic than simply having them be perfect to begin with and skipping over the messy details of how to get there from here.

Also, in practical storytelling terms, Gene Roddenberry's ideal humans evolved beyond a lot of the pathos that makes for compelling drama. Look at Wesley Crusher, whose character was basically Gene Rodenberry's Ubermensch, on one end of the spectrum , versus someone like Barclay on the other - which character would be more interesting to watch?

I agree with you that Barclay was far more entertaining to watch then Wesley. The only entertaining thing about Wesley was how much he annoyed captain Picard.

As for utopias, I've spent a lot of time thinking about them recently. I just finished taking a philosophy course on utopian and dystopian societies. The overall impression I got was that utopias are predicated on assumptions about human nature and they tend to marginalize or outright exclude anyone who doesn't fit in. This made for an interesting comparison with the dystopias.

I think Gene Roddenberry's argument is that we can develop a culture of excellence that overcomes the need for any sort of radical biological engineering to make people more agreeable. I don't know it's at all feasible but I find it interesting to imagine.

The Visitor episodes were some of the best. I loved the concept of his character about as much as the Q.

But then with the right acting and writing many different types of characters can become compelling - see Quark, for instance.

I thought you would mention Discovery. That show has strayed even further from Roddenberry's vision, but at the same time tries too hard to still be part of it via references. Enterprise, even with all its problems, managed to stay in spirit better.

>That show has strayed even further from Roddenberry's vision

I don't think Discovery was darker than DS9 at all. I thought it was a fantastic attempt to explore how a highly progressive society deals with a culture who doesn't share their ideals.

They vast majority of the characters are huge believers in the highest ideals of the Federation. Throughout the series they struggle with sticking to those ideals, but at the end they manage to do it. I actually thought that the ending of Discovery was very similar thematically to Picard's decision with Hugh.

I agree with you both. I wonder why the formula worked for Roddenberry and others left it. It doesn’t seem too hard to follow the general TNG formula.

>Yes, and after Gene Roddenberry died the showrunners turned away from his vision.

what is your take on Andromeda? I feel like in many respects it is really back to the original spirit.

I hope not. Humans have their inner demons, but historically, noble causes have revolved around reining them.