>>116636333>because other societies had problems humanity had to help solve through philosophy and negotiationNot only did more than a few of those conflicts NOT get solved by the Federation, several were actively caused by the Federation. Philosophy and negotiation are integral to Trek but not its entirety; TOS and TNG actively recognize that these principles fail the Federation and its utopian ideals often enough to be concerning. Even, sometimes, not entirely unexpected.
Seriously, Kirk just fucking gives up in Let That Be your Last Battlefield and lets the two aliens he was trying to save murder eachother. Guinan and Q point out to Picard multiple times that he is vastly underestimating the Borg and overestimating his enlightened ways, and the Federation pays for it at Wolf 359. The Federation's enlightenment is not perfect. Trek is not a universally sunny and cheery place to live. This should not be controversial.
>>116636354>You can't seriously not understand that the guy moaning about Kurtzman and action shlock and family guy is talking about Discovery and Lower DecksI got the references, thank-you. But this idea that Trek is somehow above Flash Gordon schlock adventure, or explorations of violence, or cosmic horrors. I'll happily state for the record that Discovery and Picard shat the bed hard and lost the point and spirit of Trek. But to say that the best visions of Star Trek were totally free of influences like violence and darkness and futility is just factually incorrect, and I have no idea why people are so resistant to that idea. Episodes like Best of Both Worlds and The Ultimate Computer are still masterpieces in their own right, and it's hard to call them singularly bright or hopeful about our place in the galaxy. As
>>116635949 pointed out, there has to be a balance between that utopian spirit and mean reality, otherwise its a toss-up between trite fanwank or a wannabe mil-sf space opera with Trek clothing.
