Star Trek Message Forum

I can see and respect your points of view, Hammerhelm and Finn, but I must still disagree. Others might say the same one-dimensional quality exists in the original incarnations of Kirk and crew. They are, after all, somewhat iconic in nature, representing archetypes. Many of them seem to exist, at least at first, only to provide the cultural diversity Roddenberry was trying to promote in the Cold War atmosphere of the 60's.

Chekhov's Russo-phile wisecracks were a prime example of this, as Uhura's presence in the command structure was a nod both to the women's liberation and to the civil rights movements of the time. Kirk himself was the virile patriot-pioneer, the missionary for enlightened Federation society, who was himself struggling for sensitivity against his basic chauvinist nature, a reflection of the emerging preference for those same qualities as the ideal profile of the modern American man of the time.

I could go on with descriptions of how those archetypes were adapted to fit a more modern world, but I figure by now you probably are getting tired of my belaboring the point. To quote one of Roddenberry's contemporaries, Stan Lee: 'Nuff said.

Nonetheless, I agree that the Next Generation storyline has lots more grist left to grind, and of course other new branchings of the franchise would be welcome. To my way of thinking, there's room enough for all of these.

Best regards,
CeruleanSon

** Image ID #1742394 Unavailable **