The Big Divisive Question, Part Two

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

The Big Divisive Question, Part Two

Does your answer to this question say anything about you as a person? In today's conclusion, it's Star Trek's turn, and Elizabeth answers the question that started it all.

Read Full Article

Nice article(s) but it's a crap personality quizz.

Treks main problem is that it feeds itself on tropes. It's one of the Tropiest Trope of all time.

44 of the TV Tropes are dedicated to Star Trek, and it's the series that brought us:
Mary Sue, Slash Fiction, Theiss Tittilation Theory, Big Bad Black Guys (that get beaten in by the girly characters), Universe Resets, Reverse the Polarity, Misquotes and so many many more.

Granted it did the first Inter-Racial Kiss. Granted it gave us Capt-Ain-Jean-Luc-Pic-Ard. Granted it gave us the Borg. But dear Roddenbury, for every step forward, there was a time shift that dropped you back two paces.

For every time Sisko punched out Q, you had a Decontamination scene. For every Garrick, there was a Wesley. And the scenery chewing...

"KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!"
"THERE. ARE. FOUR. LIGHTS"
"The Nuclear wessels"

Much as you brought some greatness to Science Fiction, Trek, you just conveniently forgot about it by the end of the series.

WOOO Star Trek Rules! internet high five anybody.

The_root_of_all_evil:
Treks main problem is that it feeds itself on tropes. It's one of the Tropiest Trope of all time.

44 of the TV Tropes are dedicated to Star Trek, and it's the series that brought us:
Mary Sue, Slash Fiction, Theiss Tittilation Theory, Big Bad Black Guys (that get beaten in by the girly characters), Universe Resets, Reverse the Polarity, Misquotes and so many many more.

Granted it did the first Inter-Racial Kiss. Granted it gave us Capt-Ain-Jean-Luc-Pic-Ard. Granted it gave us the Borg. But dear Roddenbury, for every step forward, there was a time shift that dropped you back two paces.

For every time Sisko punched out Q, you had a Decontamination scene. For every Garrick, there was a Wesley. And the scenery chewing...

"KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!"
"THERE. ARE. FOUR. LIGHTS"
"The Nuclear wessels"

Much as you brought some greatness to Science Fiction, Trek, you just conveniently forgot about it by the end of the series.

While i do see your point that star trek did produce a lot of bad stuff as well, my responce to that is what popular show/ movie hasn't? Franken vader, jar jar binks, porkins, terrible love plots. Star wars has added all that to our popular culture. The difference is that star trek has way more positives steps than negative. Name a bad returning character besides Wesley in TNG. You really cant, well maybe Dr crusher. Name a bad character in voyager, DS9 and TOS. They were all much more complete characters in star wars could ever offer. Most TV shows anyway.

Star trek all in all is much more thought provoking than star wars and thats why i like it better. Sure it had its bad ideas but name a show that hasnt (besides firefly).

I like both Star Wars and Star Trek (well, TNG anyway). So there.

Oldmanwillow:

While i do see your point that star trek did produce a lot of bad stuff as well, my responce to that is what popular show/ movie hasn't?

It's not that they created bad stuff, it's that they created so much bad stuff.

Franken vader, jar jar binks, porkins, terrible love plots.

Prequels don't count.*fingers in ears* La la la la la

Star wars has added all that to our popular culture.

You missed out the Holiday Special. How could you have forgotten that?

The difference is that star trek has way more positives steps than negative. Name a bad returning character besides Wesley in TNG. You really cant, well maybe Dr crusher.

Oh really?

Counsellor Troi. Yay, a Space Shrink. Empathic power? Zero. Use? Zero.
William Riker. Kirk+Beard.
Q: Oh dear god, Q.
Hugh: "Is this what you call Humanity?"
Lwaxana Troi: Did someone call for a Mary Sue?
Mot: THE SPACE BARBER!
Katherine Pulaski: Made Crusher look human.
Sarek: Spock - Charisma
Tasha Yar: Pointless

Name a bad character in voyager, DS9 and TOS. They were all much more complete characters in star wars could ever offer. Most TV shows anyway.

I note you left out Entreprise. That would have been too easy.

Ok. Voyager - Everyone except 7 of 9 and the Doctor.
DS9 - More difficult, but all the kids, Nod (strike that, all Ferengi apart from Quark), Ezri Dax, Bareil Antos ( although you do get points back for Bashir, Garak and Sisko)
Q AGAIN.
TOS? Kirk. I could go further but I'll just stay with Kirk.

Star trek all in all is much more thought provoking than star wars and thats why i like it better. Sure it had its bad ideas but name a show that hasnt (besides firefly).

Firefly was Blake's 7 redux. Bring it ;)

Highly serialized?

The Star Trek world is mostly static save for a few episodes here and there. It only became serialized when DS9 ripped off B5.

Star Trek Voyager featuring a female captain was bad-ass dude.

"Target that explosion and fire."

image

Akalabeth:
Highly serialized?

The Star Trek world is mostly static save for a few episodes here and there. It only became serialized when DS9 ripped off B5.

How can you rip off something that started 8 months later?

Or are you implying that DS9's later seasons were ripoffs of Babylon 5?

Voyager had horrible horrible characterisations, hell even the actors complained about that. The only having fun was Robert Picardo and don't get me started on that horrible episode with the evolved space newts... REALLY?! Don't get me wrong, the overall premise might was good, but the plot execution was just terrible

The_root_of_all_evil:

Son, I am disappointed, I was expecting the aliens from the first pilot with Captain Pike, the one with a bum for a head, THAT guy is just a puppet ;)

Oldmanwillow:
Name a bad character in voyager, DS9 and TOS.

This is too easy.

Voyager: Neelix
DS9: Julian Bashir
TOS: Pavel Chekov

Ravek:
I like both Star Wars and Star Trek (well, TNG anyway). So there.

This. Is it a crime to be one of those who dare to step back and say: "I love both equally"?

Actually, I've analyzed this one in school, and the conclusions the class came to were a bit differant. :P

Generally speaking Star Trek is more of a liberal neo-facist fantasy. The thing is that we mostly get to see the show through the eyes of "Star Fleet" who are basically the elite of The Federation. The selection process is such that only like the best person or two from a planet gets to attend the Academy each year, and out of those people graduation is not guaranteed (Wesley Crusher failed, and whatever you think of him, the character was a ridiculously smart genius... the "Davinci Of Matter and Energy" or whatever). Life in Star Trek for those who don't manage to make it into that elite is basically as a serf. Citizens of The Federation come in two major varities, one are the jumpsuited worker drones you see running around on the nicer planets like earth, living an almost 1984-utopian existance, and then people from fringe worlds like the one Tasha Yar was from (and like the planet Picard visited disguised as a mercenary) that do not play well with the rest of the federation.

Pretty much The Federation gives people a job, and sends them out as a good little drone to do it. If they don't, well typically they wind up in some dystopian hellhole, starving to death, and running from rape gangs and the like. It's very much a socialist "Human Hive" type society in the way it functions.

The whole "we are the world" vibe seen on Star Trek sort of glosses over the simple fact that there really aren't any diverse cultures. What basically happened was that there was a huge war on Earth, it was almost totally destroyed, a facist military goverment rose out of the remnants of the US, and using drug-enslaved soldiers proceeded to conquer and enslave the remnants of humanity (this is shown in "Encounter At Farpoint"). The society however softened over a period of time and turned into what we currently see as "The Federation". It's not really the descendant of any kind of peaceful merger and resolution of problems.

One fun fact is that apparently the "mirror universe" is a universe where the original facist goverment of The Federation never changed.

If you live in "Star Trek" pretty much your life is probably going to involve being a farmer (like Picard's brother), living in an infested ghetto, or acting as an administrator.

The Federation also has a bit less of a "live and let live" policy than it might at first appear. While the protaganists in Star Trek tend to view "the Prime Directive" in an ethical light, the bottom line is also that there is little to be gained by dealing with societies that are relatively primitive. The idea is to not waste resources on them, and then return when they have something to offer (so to speak). The standards for contact have been mentioned as when they develop warp technology, at which point The Federation (who observes them) sends an envoy and while perfectly diplomatic about it, usually winds up pressuring them into joining The Federation, which then pretty much takes access to whatever of worth it might develop from that point onwards, in exchange for some basic uplifting.

It's worth noting that while differant planets/species have their own goverments, you'll also notice that they get absorbed into the Federation meta-culture. Races like the Bajourn, Trill, etc... all also sport the same basic jumpsuits as other citizens (with rare exception) it's very much an anti-individualistic culture except for the elite.

Going on further would make this too long, and I'm getting a bit repetitive, but the point here is that from a lot of things I've seen, read, and discussed, there are reasons based on a lot of the details dropped, and notes left by Roddenberry, and other things why Trek tends mostly to focus on a specific type of people.

I understand how a lot of people perceive it, but I think quite a few people that have dug into it critically (like surprisingly when we did this in class) came to very similar conclusions.

I mean it can be fun to watch, but when you really think about it, it's probably one of the universes you'd least want to live in. By the numbers all the cool stuff isn't for you.

Also I believe there were some cracks in a few of the books (which are admittedly not the canon the TV series is) by third parties about how The Federation winds up assimilating people just as much as The Borg do. It's just that they do it socially.

CrystalShadow:

Akalabeth:
Highly serialized?

The Star Trek world is mostly static save for a few episodes here and there. It only became serialized when DS9 ripped off B5.

How can you rip off something that started 8 months later?

Or are you implying that DS9's later seasons were ripoffs of Babylon 5?

Because JMS, the creator of B5 pitched his story to Paramount first (ie showed them the goods, which probably included the whole plot outline since JMS basically wrote the story from start to finish before they started on the individual scripts).

Paramount rejected him.
Then they make DS9.

Then JMS gets funding somewhere else and finally gets his story on the air.

There are a lot of parallels.
The station commander survived a horrific battle (Sinclair the Line, Sisko Wolf359)
An alien race formerly under the yoke of another (Bajoran/Cardassians vs Narn/Centauri)
Station near a jump gate that's central to a large war.
etcetera.

DS9 did largely evolve in its own direction from the original starting point. But it's fairly clear what it's starting point was. Though personally I haven't seen most of DS9, I've just seen this comparison elsewhere. I've tried watching DS9, but instead of a show about a space station I got a show about a big eared retard running a bar. So I quit watching.

Anyway you can check this out for your own comparison:
http://www.firstones.com/wiki/Similarities_between_Babylon_5_and_Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine

Though I'd ignore the bit about "losing a wife before the show started" since Sinclair was supposed to marry and lose the asian woman who then comes back. Sheridan was just jury rigged as a replacement with his wife already dead since they didn't have time to introduce her.

Akalabeth:

CrystalShadow:

Akalabeth:
Highly serialized?

The Star Trek world is mostly static save for a few episodes here and there. It only became serialized when DS9 ripped off B5.

How can you rip off something that started 8 months later?

Or are you implying that DS9's later seasons were ripoffs of Babylon 5?

Because JMS, the creator of B5 pitched his story to Paramount first (ie showed them the goods, which probably included the whole plot outline since JMS basically wrote the story from start to finish before they started on the individual scripts).

Paramount rejected him.
Then they make DS9.

Then JMS gets funding somewhere else and finally gets his story on the air.

There are a lot of parallels.
The station commander survived a horrific battle (Sinclair the Line, Sisko Wolf359)
An alien race formerly under the yoke of another (Bajoran/Cardassians vs Narn/Centauri)
Station near a jump gate that's central to a large war.
etcetera.

DS9 did largely evolve in its own direction from the original starting point. But it's fairly clear what it's starting point was. Though personally I haven't seen most of DS9, I've just seen this comparison elsewhere. I've tried watching DS9, but instead of a show about a space station I got a show about a big eared retard running a bar. So I quit watching.

Anyway you can check this out for your own comparison:
http://www.firstones.com/wiki/Similarities_between_Babylon_5_and_Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine

Though I'd ignore the bit about "losing a wife before the show started" since Sinclair was supposed to marry and lose the asian woman who then comes back. Sheridan was just jury rigged as a replacement with his wife already dead since they didn't have time to introduce her.

Interesting. I have the opposite problem, having seen all of DS9, and only scattered parts of Babylon 5.

I can see how that kind of thing does raise suspicions.

Personally, while I like DS9 as a series, it feels very off for Star Trek.

And while I know some people complain about the unrealistic behaviour of people in other series of Star Trek, I found Sisko's morality quite messed up by comparison to any other starfleet captain.

The series also has religious overtones that just feel a little out of place.
On the whole, it's interesting in it's own right, but it fits rather uncomfortably into the other series set in the same period. (TNG and Voyager)

CrystalShadow:

Interesting. I have the opposite problem, having seen all of DS9, and only scattered parts of Babylon 5.

You should rectify that. It's certainly worth a watch. The first four seasons at least. You could probably give season 5 a pass or skip right to the final episode (which was originally the season 4 finale, but pushed to season 5 after they got a 5th season).

Personally, while I like DS9 as a series, it feels very off for Star Trek.

And while I know some people complain about the unrealistic behaviour of people in other series of Star Trek, I found Sisko's morality quite messed up by comparison to any other starfleet captain.

The series also has religious overtones that just feel a little out of place.
On the whole, it's interesting in it's own right, but it fits rather uncomfortably into the other series set in the same period. (TNG and Voyager)

The religious bits may be borrowed from B5. As there's a lot of religion represented in the various cultures. The thing that's cool about B5 is that there are very few throwaway episodes. Almost every episode advances the plot in some way. Heck there's dialogue in the pilot that references the original series finale. It's rife with foreshadowing. Not so with Ds9 from what I've seen. It's just "here's quark, and his former cardassian girlfriend, and some magic gambling machine that's screwing up the station, or whatever." I know they're different episodes, but yeesh.

Only Star Trek I can stand is probably TOS and TNG (and the movies). Enterprise was okay, but very boring in a lot of respects. Particularly the space combat. Almost none of the crew of VOY is likeable (maybe Neelix and 7of9) and I don't like the series handling of the Borg, and DS9 I've already stated my opinions. While it has a few characters who are interesting (Bashir, Dax, O'brien and Worf) they're rarely in the spotlight. Can't stand Sisko, Kira or Quark. I've heard the last few seasons are pretty good but I have no plans to watch it in the near future.

You forgot the crucial difference (and one that keeps me enamored with Star Trek), which is that Star Trek is us. I like Star Wars and its mythos as much as the next guy (and I'm really looking forward to SW:TOR), but the one thing that detaches the experience of Star Wars somewhat is that it's a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. Star Trek is a vision of our own future, which can be a lot more encouraging at times.

One other thing is the outlook of the two series. Star Wars is more fantasy. It's about a quasi-religious power (the Force) and plays more to Fantasy Tropes, even if it is in outer space. Whereas Star Trek is more about the science. Science causes the problems, and in the end, Science solves those same problems. Like the episode with the "Demon" woman from TNG. She turned out to be an alien using alien science to be worshipped (or feared) as a Goddess. The Enterprise outs her as a confidence-woman and shuts her down. Most, if not all Problems the Enterprise encounters can be overcome with some kind of science.

In Star Wars, it's all about the force, which comes pretty close to some people's ideas about God. (And the Devil, for the Dark Side of the Force). Look at the description of the Force from the first movie: "It surrounds and penetrates us and ties the galaxy together". Yes, the Jedi knights seem more Buddhist in action and philosophy than Christian, but it sounds to me awfully like the "God is everywhere" that some/many Christians espouse.

Akalabeth:

CrystalShadow:

Interesting. I have the opposite problem, having seen all of DS9, and only scattered parts of Babylon 5.

You should rectify that. It's certainly worth a watch. The first four seasons at least. You could probably give season 5 a pass or skip right to the final episode (which was originally the season 4 finale, but pushed to season 5 after they got a 5th season).

[quote] The religious bits may be borrowed from B5. As there's a lot of religion represented in the various cultures. The thing that's cool about B5 is that there are very few throwaway episodes. Almost every episode advances the plot in some way. Heck there's dialogue in the pilot that references the original series finale. It's rife with foreshadowing. Not so with Ds9 from what I've seen. It's just "here's quark, and his former cardassian girlfriend, and some magic gambling machine that's screwing up the station, or whatever." I know they're different episodes, but yeesh.

One of my favorite episodes from the first season of Babylon 5 was the episode where they had the religious festival on Babylon 5. All the races are showing off their religions, and all of them have these very monoreligious cultures- everyone follows the same religion- or seems to. Finally, at the end of the episode, it's time for the humans to show off their own religion, and Commander Sinclair takes all the Ambassadors to a huge space dock for his "display". And it's "This is Reverend Brown, he's a Catholic." Moves on to the next man, "This is Imam Gensader, he's a Muslim." Moves to the next person. "This is Akhi Darba, he's a Buddhist." And as the Ambassadors are greeting these people, the camera moves back to show this huge long line of people, each one of them representing a different religion. And it was wonderful. (Names made up because I don't remember the actual names used in the episode.)

LadyRhian:

One of my favorite episodes from the first season of Babylon 5 was the episode where they had the religious festival on Babylon 5. All the races are showing off their religions, and all of them have these very monoreligious cultures- everyone follows the same religion- or seems to. Finally, at the end of the episode, it's time for the humans to show off their own religion, and Commander Sinclair takes all the Ambassadors to a huge space dock for his "display". And it's "This is Reverend Brown, he's a Catholic." Moves on to the next man, "This is Imam Gensader, he's a Muslim." Moves to the next person. "This is Akhi Darba, he's a Buddhist." And as the Ambassadors are greeting these people, the camera moves back to show this huge long line of people, each one of them representing a different religion. And it was wonderful. (Names made up because I don't remember the actual names used in the episode.)

Yeah that's one example of what sets B5 apart from other shows.
In another episode, one of the main characters has a set of beliefs that contradict that of a set of alien characters. And in the end he ignores their beliefs and follows their own. In star trek, the aliens probably would have seen reason and been converted to the way the main character was thinking. In B5 though, they don't and the end of the episode is not at all a happy one. It's an interesting contrast to some of the other shows out there.

Star Trek is smarter, but I like Star Wars more.

Akalabeth:

LadyRhian:

One of my favorite episodes from the first season of Babylon 5 was the episode where they had the religious festival on Babylon 5. All the races are showing off their religions, and all of them have these very monoreligious cultures- everyone follows the same religion- or seems to. Finally, at the end of the episode, it's time for the humans to show off their own religion, and Commander Sinclair takes all the Ambassadors to a huge space dock for his "display". And it's "This is Reverend Brown, he's a Catholic." Moves on to the next man, "This is Imam Gensader, he's a Muslim." Moves to the next person. "This is Akhi Darba, he's a Buddhist." And as the Ambassadors are greeting these people, the camera moves back to show this huge long line of people, each one of them representing a different religion. And it was wonderful. (Names made up because I don't remember the actual names used in the episode.)

Yeah that's one example of what sets B5 apart from other shows.
In another episode, one of the main characters has a set of beliefs that contradict that of a set of alien characters. And in the end he ignores their beliefs and follows their own. In star trek, the aliens probably would have seen reason and been converted to the way the main character was thinking. In B5 though, they don't and the end of the episode is not at all a happy one. It's an interesting contrast to some of the other shows out there.

Couldn't agree more. B5 was great in that respect, and for that I enjoyed it fully.

Star Trek - and guess what, I'm not a liberal (name gave it away, right?). It was the explorer mentality and the technology that made the series interesting and to some degree compelling.

NTL, a good article(s). Reasonable minds can differ.

Selah

The_root_of_all_evil:

Q AGAIN.
TOS? Kirk. I could go further but I'll just stay with Kirk.

Yes, and thank Christ Ben Sisko (see what I did there?) punched him in his smug face. If Q is really God, then God is annoying, intrusive, obnoxious, and smug.

And thank you for mentioning Kirk. For the life of me I can't stand Kirk.

Well, I'm of the opinion that both Star Wars and Star trek are both equally awesome in their own ways. If pressed to make a decision between the two, I suppose I'd have to pick Star Wars, if only because the aliens in Star Wars look more like what it is probable that actual aliens look like, whereas in Star Trek the aliens just look like humans with extreme body mods.

Therumancer:
snippidy-snip

Thank God I'm not the only person to realize this. Interesting article here:
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Trek-Marxism.html

Taken to its logical extreme of course. Of course this guy is the epitome of a professed Star Wars fanboy and Trek hater. So take all he says with the recommended daily dose of salt.

Nah, still not convinced. Trek has some great themes in its static backdrop (the Borg, for instance), but it doesn't have a compelling overall narrative (for me, anyway).

Therumancer:
*snip*
The Federation also has a bit less of a "live and let live" policy than it might at first appear. While the protaganists in Star Trek tend to view "the Prime Directive" in an ethical light, the bottom line is also that there is little to be gained by dealing with societies that are relatively primitive. The idea is to not waste resources on them, and then return when they have something to offer (so to speak). The standards for contact have been mentioned as when they develop warp technology, at which point The Federation (who observes them) sends an envoy and while perfectly diplomatic about it, usually winds up pressuring them into joining The Federation, which then pretty much takes access to whatever of worth it might develop from that point onwards, in exchange for some basic uplifting.
*more snip*

I believe Michael Eddington said it the best;

"You know in some ways you're even worse than the Borg. At least they tell you about their plans for assimilation. You're more insidious. You assimilate people and they don't even know it."

You know you've watched too much Star Trek when you're quoting it. I'm sad now...

I agree with the point of the articles, if not necessarily the specific features attributed to each type of fan. I never saw this as a debate so much as simply something people have a preference for. It's like Coke and Pepsi. I prefer Star Wars and Coke, but that in no way means I think they are objectively better than Star Trek and Pepsi, respectively. (It would be interesting to compare Coke to Star Trek and Pepsi to Star Wars, though).

matrix3509:

Therumancer:
snippidy-snip

Thank God I'm not the only person to realize this. Interesting article here:
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Trek-Marxism.html

Taken to its logical extreme of course. Of course this guy is the epitome of a professed Star Wars fanboy and Trek hater. So take all he says with the recommended daily dose of salt.

His conclusions and reasons are better than mine, I haven't put that much time into it.

That said, I tend to think Star Trek is more along the lines of socialism than Communism. Communism is the idea of communal property and everything belonging to everyone. Socialism is the idea that the goverment pretty much controls everything and distributes it based on need.

It seems to me that their economy is based largely on Replicators and energy usage. Federation Credits are basially energy rations used for producing goods. It might have been something that I read somewhere, but "Gold Laced Latinum" is supposed to be something that cannot be created by replicators reliably (much like how they can't produce good alcohol, which is why guys like Picard's brother run vinyards and the like), is rare, and has intristic value, so it acts as a trade currency for races that don't want to be dependant
on their abillity to redeem an energy credit for goods.

Characters like Quark are selling non-replicated goods, food (which I am guessing is better if produced naturally), and of course alcohol. As well as access to holo technology that is apparently not all that common off of certain space ships (where you have to schedule time) as he trades with third parties for these sources he deals in the hard currency that they take.

The goverment seems to very much keep a handle on both energy and the replication technology however. It of course controls the Dilithium mines which power replicators, and also the replicator technology... and replicators are one of the big items they seem to transport to colonies and such or trade. Those systems presumably being worthless without access to enough power to run them which is relatively rare and finite (with crystals needing to be replaced) hence the energy credit system.

-

As far as TOS goes, I don't think there was some great communist takeover in the universe. I think it was always very left-wing socialist. I just think that when it first aired it was a lot closer to things like Senator Mcarthy and his communist witch hunts, so it glossed things over so as not to be targeted.

Indeed one nasty rumor about Star Trek is that the actual reason why it was cancelled was not due to lack of viewership, ratings, or popularity as was claimed, but simply because the networks were concerned about the philosophies of the creator, as well as how the envelope was being pushed by things like the famous interracial kiss and so on. I don't think a fan base as massive as the one Trek has materialized after the fact and unexpectedly like a lot of people present. Things generally don't work like that, and that's what gives these rumors credence.

I first heard about this around the time that they were releasing the TNG episode about Data building daughter and a Federation magistrate of some kind showing up to collect her as "Star Fleet Property", and playing loyalty games with the crew. Some stuff I was reading about the episode at the time (I think I'm remembering the details right) were claiming it was intended to be an analogy to Mcarthyism.

The thing is that by the time TNG came around the left wing was much further entrenched. While Mcarthy and his ilk were hardly correct in their methods, and it's a good thing they were stopped, I do think the way that played out opened the door for a lot of extremists to come out to play so to speak.

-

I think the big turning point for Star Trek was believe it or not during the pilot episode for TNG. In "Encounter At Farpoint" a very specific point about The Federation itself (though not the characters in the show) was being made when "Q" decided to hold his trial using the trappings and conventions of the group that began The Federation (who also bore the symbol of the Federation Equivilent from the mirror universe).

I think between that and showing the conditions on Tasha Yar's planet where the people were seemingly more individualistic (and perhaps being punished for it through those conditions) were intended to try and provide a more balanced view of the federation, and show the kind of philsophy Roddenberry was preaching in both it's good and bad elements.... but this was kind of glossed over.

-

In response to that link I'll also say that he is wrong about the personal ships bit. I don't remember the episode name, but they had an episode (it might have been a two parter) where Picard went undercover to infiltrate a group of mercenaries. I remember thinking the episode was kind of dumb because I didn't think that was the kind of mission a ship captain would be performing personally, no matter their record. I was thinking "isn't this why they have security dudes, and intelligence officers and such" though I guess that is irrelevent to the subject at hand... the point is those mercenaries had a ship, and also managed to do quite well against The Enterprise and it's crew (including kicking their butts in ground combat).

I do not think personal ships re common exactly, despite there probably being other examples, but apparently since The Federation didn't just arrest them out of hand for having a ship it's apparently not illegal in of itself, nor is packing armaments on a military level.... of course how this functions is unknown, and as a one time aberration as far as I can tell it could have just been bad writing.

-

On a final note I will say that I do not care for the elitist nature of Star Fleet, or the generally facist/anti-individualistic jumpsuit culture of The Federation.

*THAT* said, despite being a real world capitolist, with their technology I would have no objection to effectively ending capitolism as we know it now. Simply put with both replicators and plentiful energy (which they apparently have) there is no real reason why people can't have pretty much anything they want. If I understand what I'm seeing correctly the energy credits system seems to be more of a control mechanism than a reality. If there was an energy shortage I would of course be supporting a capitolistic approach to things.

It's one of those situations where the fantasy allows for a far differant logic than what exists in reality. It's one of those situations where on some levels I can see where they are coming from, but at the same time the apparent social engineering involved gives me the willies.

Of course then again, one of the things that first annoyed me about the show was that TNG seemed to be knocking the idea of free enterprise, trade, and capitolism all together. As well as bashing the US. I remember when The Ferengi first showed up they were compared to "ancient Yankee traders" and umm well... I'm a Yankee from an area around some of those ancient seaports. Seeing the first Ferengi I was hardly flattered, and later encounters hardly did more to change my opinion. :/

I think they were being intentionally offensive with the philsophy, rather than more politely pointing out how the development of technology that could pretty much provide for everyone endlessly changed things. But then again I suppose if they pointed that out it would have made The Federation seem overtly malvolent due to the goverment maintaining a tight grip on that tech to maintain control.

At any rate, thanks for the link. As you can see I had some thoughts on it, that was a pretty interesting read though even if my take is a bit differant (as I explained).

Meh they both have there good and bad points(star wars more than trek these days what with lucas being unable to leave them alone), i'd rather talk not have to pick and choose which i refer though as neither would win.

Sulu was gun enthusiast who liked revolvers, like me, even though he was born in San Franciso. That is pretty open minded. Star Trek wasn't imperialistic, but they also though hippies were unrealistic and childish. They weren't liberal or conservative, which is ultimately part of what I liked about them.

The_root_of_all_evil:
Prequels don't count.*fingers in ears* La la la la la

Word, brutha ;)

Ronald D. Moore is what made Star Trek much more enjoyable to watch than any other Sci Fi show out there. Thus, Battlestar Galactica was even better.

I love these articles, wouldn't it be great if this sort of personalty examination of fans of different games and series was a weekly thing?

What makes a Hitchhikers Guide fan?

Whats up with Sonic followers?

What makes a Doctor Who maniac tic?

I would certainly read them, even if they weren't always spot on.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here