The Big Divisive Question, Part Two

Elizabeth Grunewald

The Pope of Chilitown
Oct 4, 2010
1,096
0
0
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
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
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.

 

Oldmanwillow

New member
Mar 30, 2009
310
0
0
WOOO Star Trek Rules! internet high five anybody.

The_root_of_all_evil said:
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).
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
Oldmanwillow said:
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 ;)
 

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
Akalabeth said:
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?
 

TheBlackKnight

ESEY on the Kross
Nov 3, 2008
204
0
0
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 said:
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 ;)
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
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

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
Akalabeth said:
CrystalShadow said:
Akalabeth said:
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)
 

rsvp42

New member
Jan 15, 2010
897
0
0
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.
 

LadyRhian

New member
May 13, 2010
1,246
0
0
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 said:
CrystalShadow said:
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).

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.)