ENT was pretty dark, too, you know. If we're not going to talk about "In the Pale Moonlight"'s argument that violating an ideal in a small way might be justifiable, if not respectable, to preserve it in the large, then can we talk about how Archer, in "Dear Doctor", refused to hand over the cure Phlox had developed for the Valakian plague, thus consigning an entire species to extinction, because the then-inchoate Prime Directive ideal meant more to him than saving the lives of millions of fellow sentients? Sure, the show portrays this as an uncomplicatedly virtuous choice, without the nuance that Michael Taylor brought to "In the Pale Moonlight". But I don't see why I need to take that portrayal at face value, when the supposed virtue in question is that of refusing to save millions of lives.
I think the core disagreement here may instead be that, where you see the Federation portrayed as a true utopia, I don't. I agree that in the B&B era it claims to be so, and that the claim is also often made on its behalf, but that's not the same thing at all. I think it's less interesting and less worthwhile to take those claims at face value, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, than to take them as a stepping-off point for a discussion of how utopian ideals are no less susceptible to failure in practice than any other sort of absolutism, and how, while idealism is certainly not lacking in value, it cannot alone serve as the foundation for a mature sense of morality.
Granted that this is a difference of interpretation. But, then again, we're talking about how we choose to appreciate works of art. In that context, what isn't?
I give ENT a pass because it my mind it works as "humanity halfway from now to TNG-era UFP". Taking baby steps both outwards and inwards. It was dark, particularly across the Xindi angle, but not that dark relative to everything else.
I mean, it's like TNG was #EEE, ENT went down to #AAA, but everyone else (including post-ENT Trek) seems to be made at #555 or below. There's a gap, and I'd love if someone was making more idealistic shows these days.
> where you see the Federation portrayed as a true utopia, I don't.
I used to, then I rewatched the whole series as an adult and it changed my mind a bit. But then, I probably used the wrong word. I don't see the Federation as a perfect, flawless utopia. Just a vision of a world as close to utopian as you can get without breaking your suspension of disbelief. A world that works much better than the real one, and not just because of matter replicators and near-infinite energy availability. A word where the baseline for humans is much higher than it is now. And maybe it's unrealistic, it's too out-there, but every time I watch it I feel inspired to do better, be better. It's not something I usually get from other shows; they're all too focused on.
> than to take them as a stepping-off point for a discussion of how utopian ideals are no less susceptible to failure in practice than any other sort of absolutism, and how, while idealism is certainly not lacking in value, it cannot alone serve as the foundation for a mature sense of morality
That's fair, but again - while I love talking about this, I think our media culture spends too much time talking about all the ways ideals fail and high standards don't work, and too little time about what good ideals or values could be and how to make them work.
There's a certain positivity about TNG-era Star Trek that I feel, that I try to refer to, but continuously fail to express in words.
EDIT:
And I forgot one thing: the curiosity of space, the exploration angle. I know that a lot of astronomy in Star Trek is bunk, and a lot of what was accurate at the time of filming didn't age well, but there was a way in which TOS and TNG made people curious about space. I got similar vibes from a few StarGate: SG-1 episodes as well. I don't see any of that in modern shows - just as if familiarity with real and sci-fi astronomy was table stakes these days. It works for me, but I wonder how the young audience, not exposed to TOS/TNG, responds to modern shows.
I think the core disagreement here may instead be that, where you see the Federation portrayed as a true utopia, I don't. I agree that in the B&B era it claims to be so, and that the claim is also often made on its behalf, but that's not the same thing at all. I think it's less interesting and less worthwhile to take those claims at face value, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, than to take them as a stepping-off point for a discussion of how utopian ideals are no less susceptible to failure in practice than any other sort of absolutism, and how, while idealism is certainly not lacking in value, it cannot alone serve as the foundation for a mature sense of morality.
Granted that this is a difference of interpretation. But, then again, we're talking about how we choose to appreciate works of art. In that context, what isn't?