The Big Divisive Question, Part Two

[mikespoff]

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).

 

[Azaradel]

*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...

 

[FaceFaceFace]

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).

 

[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).

 

[Tahmoh]

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.

 

[RelexCryo]

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.

 

[Overmind78]

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.

 

[TIMESWORDSMAN]

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.

 

[Sheinen]

Hmmmm, a mighty fine pondering point there. A lot of people like to compare Star Trek to Star wars for some reason. The only one I can find is that they both have Star in the name and are set in space. To be honest that's the only thing tying these 2 together. By that logic we should start arguing over whether American Pie is better than American Beauty...

Both good, both different. You don't watch Star Trek for a thrilling journey of action-packed mythology just as you don't watch Star Wars for the intriguing social analysis, scientific possibilities and character led drama.

I like's both, but Star Trek is deeper (in my opinion) because of the huge range of characters and the variety of situations we see them in. You get to know them a lot better. Didn't like DS9 though. Got kinda dull, like when the X-Files started paying too much attention to the 'government conspiracy' and not enough on the freaky shizzle that turns people into spooge and such.

 

[Admiral Stukov]

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

Oh? Have you seen this [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Warhammer40000] page?

OT: I think Star Trek wins over Star Wars for me, narrowly.
It's not hard Sci-fi in any way, shape or form, and some of it is far worse compared to the rest, yes I'm looking at you Enterprise.

 

[Sabartooth101]

SCREW STAR WARS AND SCREW STAR TREK!
STARGATE FTW!!!

Nah jk, love em all but Wars is definatly my fav.

 

[Vohn_exel]

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

I grew up watching ONLY A New Hope and it turned me into a Star Wars fan. However, I grew up also watching Geordie on TNG and Reading Rainbow, which turned me into a fan of Star Trek. I prefer Star Wars out of the two, but I love both series for different reasons.

 

[BlueInkAlchemist]

An interesting pair of articles.

A more in-depth discussion of the Prime Directive can be found here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_ZbVk_Dh9E

 

[carpathic]

I still think the inherent appeal is still more of a hearkening for the unknown. The hope that there is some place out there where, if you are sufficiently brave/talented/lucky you could make a difference.

This is, I think what is missing in our society lately - and might help explain the popularity of games like WoW or even Fallout 3. We have not had a new frontier for a long, long time and I think that this to a great extent is what we want so much.

The appeal for me with both of these franchises is that hope, that "what is around the next corner". The basic feeling that drove columbus across the ocean (pursuit of riches, desire to explore).

yeah.

 

[Rad Bracket]

Just thought I'd mention that Star Trek didn't feature the first scripted kiss on TV, just American TV.

Four years earlier British medical drama "Emergency Ward 10" had features a full interracial relationship between two doctors.

Also the first kiss on American TV period was between Nancy Sinatra and Sammy Davis Jr. However it was unscripted and the result of a plan by Sinatra and Davis.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

I'd like to think that being a fan of a television or movie series doesn't define who you are as a human any more than the colour of your eyes. I can't stomach this sort of psychoanalysis.

 

[DTWolfwood]

So heres a Star Wars and Star Trek conundrum i would like to tell.

If a Red Shirt in Star Trek always dies on a mission.
And a Storm Trooper from Star Wars can never hit anyone with their blasters

What happens when you put the Red Shirt and a Storm Trooper in a cage and have them fight it out?

XD

 

[Deathlyphil]

The Stormtrooper misses the Red Shirt, hits a reflective surface and kills himself. The Red Shirt, overjoyed by this, jumps up and down in celebration. However the floor is slippy from the blood of the last combatants, and he falls over and cracks his head off the floor. Double wipeout.

 

[Bubb9]

The poroblem with Star Trek vs Star Wars argument is that you are arguing over ultimately fantasy vs sci fi. Star Trek is a Science Fiction 'story' and Star Wars is a fantasy story. Science fiction is usually more focused on the plausible, while fantasy usually focuses on character interaction.

My point being your not comparing apples and apples here. You are comparing an apple and an orange.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

I used to really love TNG when I was growing up. Then, after it ended, I left Trek for while. When I came back, I realized just how adolescent it was. Moral issues were handled with great fists of ham. Technobable often replaced adequate plotting. Entire alien races were created by taking a sterotype and mass producing it. There's still some good writing here and there, but I've left the franchise behind and haven't felt the desire to look back.

Starwars, meanwhile, has never been more than a series of popcorn action films to me, save for one entry: KOTOR. Bioware did more with the series than I've seen anyone else do.

Right now, I am solidily in the 40k camp. The Horus Heresy novels are really good, more Greek tragedy than space opera.