>>4842Outside of Roddenberry's socialistic/left-liberal leanings (there is no way he didn't knew of Posada considering the story of the first contact), the writers on Trek were never socialist. During the TNG/DS9 era the showrunners were even conservatives. It's really a surprise that it turned out the way it did, largely I think because the fan community pressuring them. ST was the first show that actually a dedicated nerdy fanbase that would get really angry if they deviated from specific formulas.
While there is something endearing about late 80s need culture, the current generation in my view rather acts as a fetter for the creative renewal of Star Trek. There are no "trekkies" anymore than stand out from the cool kids, today everybody goes to fucking comic con, LARPs and soyfaces over franchises. Even chads and stacys now go to comic cons. So they don't have this unique relationship anymore between fanbase and writers that works reciprocally, but instead ST became another "franchise" where shows are produced inside the machine that is modern television mostly directed at consoomers.
Just look how many trekkies eat up all this STD shit. They don't care. The Kurtzman detractors are a small disgruntled minority.
>but the first seasons of the old shows sucked too! Yes, but even in those bad season you could see a kernel of potential, and the characters clicked. They also didn't write themselves into a corner like STD (31st century? Wtf) or Picard (Picard is a robot now????), they weaved some threads here and there but they remained flexible until they knew what worked. For example, TNG originally was supposed to have the Ferengi as the main villains but they looked too ridiculous to be taken seriously so they decided for a more menacing, mysterious enemy, which is where the Borg come from.