Honestly I feel like most of NuTrek is overseen by people who never really liked star trek in the first place and were tasked with watering down the IP into lowest common denominator mass market schlock instead of expanding on the series.
It didn’t help that when Discovery came out the majority of reviewers clearly knew extremely little about the Star Trek as a whole. I remember reading an article on how Discovery breaks ground for female characters in Star Trek, who previously have been stereotyped to caregiving roles.
I was not a fan of SNW season 1. It felt like it focused on visuals and recycled a bunch of low effort cliches for the plot. They also seemed to try to rush character development in a way that felt completely unearned.
However, I loved SNW season 2. It’s the first show I felt was a true modern successor for Star Trek. While not perfect, it managed to do a great job taking classic themes of star trek and updating them to the modern era. I consider “Under the Cloak of War” an all time Star Trek great. Also season 1 being bad actually makes it feel more like Star Trek.
So to answer your question: No. This is incredibly stupid. While the words were by a villain, it implied that there was a lot of truth to them. There are many ways to lead a fulfilling life without (romantic) love. There are many things in the galaxy beyond coldness. This has been well established by Star Trek and demonstrated by multiple characters in multiple series.
Also, they should give whoever writes lower decks a serious show. They clearly have an extremely deep understanding of Star Trek and have done a good job developing characters.
Q agrees
This is an entirely over the top interpretation of what is happening in the scene the OP shared where a villainous character is trying to exploit what they perceive to be a weakness in one of the protagonists.
However, if you want to get into it, the biggest factor in any tone shift from TOS to now was DS9. That’s where we see the Federation abandoning humanity to the whims of the Cardassians for the sake of a treaty. That’s where a Starfleet enforces martial law on Earth and an admiral attempts a coup of the Federation government. That’s where we learn it’s illegal to engage in genetic modification, even when it would reverse a person’s intellectual disability. And, of course, DS9 introduced the concept of Section 31.
The seeds were always there, though. Even in TOS we learn that the governor of the colony Kirk grew up on had half the population executed because there was a famine and not enough food for everyone. We see a Federation professor who taught at the Academy introduce fascism to a planet because he believed it to be the most efficient philosophy for advancement. We see a planet that’s heavily implied Starfleet maintains a base there strictly for sex tourism, and we hear Federation delegates debate the issue of whether or not they should allow a planet whose resources they’ve been exploiting to even join the Federation. Kirk and the Klingons fight a proxy war using the native population of a pre-warp world before Kirk gets sad and just abandons his side. It’s even heavily implied that women cannot rise to the rank of captain in Starfleet.
The only Trek that resembles your interpretation is TNG, but even there we learn of human colonies with roving “rape gangs” like the world Tasha Yar grew up on.
It’s ok that the whole world of Star Trek is not at the same level morally. I also understand writers are just people and they are influenced by the time and place they live in. But I appreciate it when they at least try to continue to elaborate the utopic aspects. I love thinking about what could be better in society and how it would work (and that’s what I like about TNG). Thanks for the analysis of DS9, by the way.
Someone’s never had garlic bread, I see.
What if love is the only thing that transcends the dimensions of space and time?
