Is SW in danger of becoming too Trekkie?

Don't forget, Communist, Utopian fantasy.

 

Actually upon examination, the Federation wasnt communist, all that stuff about no money (which isnt specifically communist anyway) was probably mis-intrepreted as the Federation had currency, etc - best way to find out would be to read the articles of the Federation constituion by Keith DeCandido. It probably operated like federated states on Earth do, i.e. like the USA or India, albiet with more welfare institutions than even the most socialist western European nations like Sweden.

 

The one thing that truely divided the Star Wars fans from the Trekkies was the focus on facts.

Trekkies, we love facts. We have this urge to know what things do, how they do them.

Star Wars fans, on the other hand, are more about the story. The why is more important than the how. Unless you're a Saxtonite. They're the Trekkiest Star Wars fans I've ever met.

 

I dunno about that - its not like Trek wasnt about the story - it used science to explore morality and philosophy, the way hard sci-fi does.

In comparison, Star Wars is an adventure of pure entertainment, not intellect - not to say that one is any better than the other.

 

Well, there are some fact-oriented people who don't focus on the technical stuff. People who write encyclopedias and timelines, and such.

And it's good to see you back, QM.

 

Pretty much everything outside the movies, early novels & comics has strayed dangerously close to "Trekkie" territory. Only a handful of novels or comics since the SW rebirth (early 90's) have had the guts to go crazy and have some fun..the majority take themselves FAR too seriously. Too much SCIENCE-fiction & not enough fantasy! While we're on the subject of Star Trek, my girlfriend made me watch the first 2 episodes of The Next Generation today..i've never seen an episode before..God what a snooze-fest! I'd rather watch Jar Jar Binks stepping in poop on a continuous loop than have to watch another episode of that garbage.

 

Vor'e.

Need I post this again?

 

There is some measure of contradiction in Trek, with some episodes suggesting soemthing more along the lines of libertarianism.

 

Libertarianism would seem to be the antithesis of the Federation's philosophy.

 

And exactly which would those be? Because the most frankly the most freedom I see in Trek is when they are preaching Marxism instead of Stalinism.

 

The Federation does have a free press as shown by Jake Sisko - the Federation has freedom of movement as show by how its citizens can pretty much go anywhere they want, i.e. the Hanson family - Federation starfleet neither conscripts or in theory imposes its will on other cultures (more than I can say for every military on the planet today) - its institutions are democratically elected - it is no more vulnerable to coup than say the united States or Galactic Republic, but mearly used that plot device for entertainment - the Federation seems to be secular, allowing any religious practice - I could cite many more reasons why your interpretations are a one sided rant.

Also why dont you just read the Federation constitution instead of deciding based on a bunch of episodes - it has afterall been published. Some of the alleged reasoning behind the large post above are astounding - the crews often happen to like Shakesphere and not listen to 20th century music (except Tom Paris, etc, obiously), so you theorise about how 'I wonder if the Federation has banned it' - it is frankly absurd Bill O'Reily style logic.

 

several years ago i saw the "chess" thingy that they play on the ST in a catalogue. is there a game that was invented in SW that now has a version in our world? if so that would lend it towards going trekkie

 

Not that I know of, but my fingers are still crossed for a Dejarik game as soon as holographic technology is invented and cheaply-produced enough to make it an economically sound consumer product to release.

Although I see where you're going with this, it should be noted that you could say pretty much anything in the constitution, it's how the Federation government works in practice. Granted, the apparent abscence of privately owned anything may imply communism, or simply that most people don't think they need their own USS (Your name here) when Starfleet's up their doing all the defending and exploring for them. For all we know, the Federation Constitution could mandate that everyone in the Federation must own a pony, but such an edict is clearly not enforced, and therefore a moot point. There's also all sorts of POV stuff, spirit-vs.-letter of the law debates, etc. Why would we take such a convoluted route when we're looking for evidence of what this government as or has/n't, can/'t, do to/for it's people?

 

Where?

Technically, they were working under the auspices of the government, on a government-sanctioned expedition.

Considering that by TNG, Starfleet is the Federation, that's not surprising.

Another of its failings.

In theory...

Must be why they install those unshielded matter/anti-matter warp cores on their ships- for entertainment.

With the notable exception of Earth religions, specifically Christianity.

You didn't read the cited material, did you?

I could read the EU constitution, however many months that would take me, but a more effective way of seeing it for what it is happens to be simply observing how the monstrosity works in practice.

Paging Sgt. Johnson.

 

Jake Sisko was able to publish material critical of Starfleet and the Federation - for example essentially exposing stimatisation of cowardice within the armed forces.

I thought they were infact conducting their mission without backing? Just one example of many - Federation citizens have been seen moving freely in just about every relevent episode.

The Federation has a democratically elected government, there is nothing that contradicts this beyond episodic plot device.

Why? It has maintained an ethical policy, launching full inquiries into incidents of violation, unlike every armed force currently in operation on our Earth.

Sounds like a general critique of democracy, not the Federation.

Unshielded? Since when? I dont see Federation crew members regularily dying of radiation posioning.

If you knew the setting you would realise this is nothing to do with the Federation - earth religions fell out of favor after WW3, and yet you have somehow arrived at the conclusion the Federation discourages religion based on precicely nil evidence. If you are religious, maybe you should judge Trek fairly instead of in some kind of anti-Roddenbury retribution.

I did, and you formed your own biased conclusions based on circumstantial evidence.

I get the feeling if you looked at our own Earth democracies in action you would find them 'monstrosities' too - but they are the best system we have. The Jedi Order isnt perfect either.

 

None of which has anything to do with the economic model. So tell me, how is it libertarian?

Because the published constiution is not canon, and the TV shows are, that's why we go of them.

 

Specifically, I meant "which episode", but regardless, "exposing stigmatization of cowardice" is nothing if not in step with the Starfleet/Federation party line, right up there with "counselors" and children on warships.

Wrong. According to Memory Alpha, they "petitioned the Federation Council on Exobiology to loan them the USS Raven and allow travel deep into unknown space to do independent research. Their petition was granted on stardate 32611, in spite of concerns about security issues."

Essentially, they were working on behalf of the Federation government, just like any other of its pyjama-suited peons.

Do tell.

That's a rather curious statement. The Genesis device, the Sword of Khaless and the Barion sweep are all episodic plot devices, to say nothing of Q, the transporter or the holodeck. Are we to arbitrarily dismiss them all as well?

That's debatable

That's ludicrous.

You would see it that way, wouldn't you? In any event, no, it isn't.

Not quite what I was getting at.

I disagree. Examine, if you will, the following:

The original Enterprise possesses a designated ship's chapel (as seen in "Balance of Terror").

Said chapel contains an alter with a cross on the wall behind it.

Angela Martine genuflects towards the altar at her wedding.

Christmas parties are celebrated onboard ("Dagger of the Mind").

Dr. Phlox mentions attending a mass at St Peter's Basilica.

All of the above testify to the fact that Christianity survived well beyond WWIII in the Star Trek Universe, and on the strength of the evidence provided, we can conclude that the "Earth religions falling out of favour" rubbish was either a temporary and/or localized event, or else a deliberate distortion of history to better serve the new Communist/Secular-Humanist regime of the 24th century Federation, in the classic mold of such governments.

That would really require some reciprocation on the part of Roddenbury.

That settles it. You didn't read it.

That was what I was inferring.

I'm a Mando. I hate Jedi on principle.

 

So, to sum it up, you are complaining about a show you ideologically hate, and expect a fan not to see it differently - I guess we can agree to disagree at this point.

 

Or, in other words, you have no good arguments left, yet you wish to flee the field without acknowledging defeat.

 

This is why I never get into arguements with nerds.

 

I wish I could say the same.

 

Heh. If you could move Coruscant to the ST universe, that'd be heaven for this little socialist geek.

 

Coruscant alone practically out populations and outguns the entire Federation...

 

As a kid, Star Trek was a show with a lot of bad special effects and a pompous *** of a captain making out with whatever alien chick he could find. Star Wars had special meaning because of the evil father thing and the metaphysics. It might have also had something to do with a certain totally reprehensible, nasty woman I knew being a big ST nut (ok, my dad's second wife, who once threatened us with a gun.)

When TNG came out, I eventually got into Star Trek. It was more a more political, more modern, more visually appealing show. (And that woman I mentioned hated it.) Then with DS9, I really got into it as I felt Captain Sisko was the type of leader that everyone would just stop and listen to, and I liked O'Brien from TNG (Sisko was almost, but not quite ST's very own Mace Windu before there was a Mace Windu - and I'm not talking race but demeanor. He somehow didn't get quite as much respect, though.) I got the technical books, many of the novels by Peter David and others, and even one of the RPGs.

Then I came back to Star Wars. I'm not even sure how. It was several years before the prequel series... certainly didn't have anything to do with the Special Edition. Talk about it might have spurred interest, but the movies themselves didn't.

To me, the differences were:

*Until Roddenberry died, they had a much tighter control over continuity. Then Berman or somebody said "continuity doesn't matter" (direct quote, said at a convention I think, man must have been suicidal) after which many ST fans suffered heart attacks and the survivors had to endure ST: Quantum Leap. Ugh. Now continuity is more or less out the window with Star Trek, while Star Wars is starting to seem tighter, as though Lucas is suddenly paying attention to the EU. Sometimes I like that, sometimes I don't, given that there's an odd love-hate thing going on with Lucas' decisions and judgment in making changes to his universe. Sometimes I wish they'd throw out more stuff as non-canon.

*Star Trek technology seems to evolve faster and more steadily than SW technology. For example, Kirk's cell phone communicator becomes Picard's com-badge becomes a subcutaneous transmitter during the Dominion wars. Kirk's clunky phaser becoming the modular phaser unit that is a hold-out "blaster" that can be fitted into a pistol grip or inserted into a rifle. The ships.... Until ST: Quantum Leap (Enterprise), which put even more advanced looking stuff into the time before Kirk.

In SW, most of the technology remains the same and the only improvements appear to be aesthetic... like the T3 astromech from 3,000 years before R2-D2 performing much the same way, but R2-D2 being generally more solid and polished in appearance. Blasters are blasters, but there are slight differences in the way they look that seems to go backward or forward. Starships... you see precursors to star destroyers that look just like star destroyers for thousands of years, same with orbital shuttles of KOTOR and the Imperial Lamba-class shuttles. The NR and NJO+ EU seems to have changed that, we typically see some new piece of technology with each series.

*Star Trek was more politically idealist and detailed. Star Wars was more politically simplistic in many ways, but also ironically more realistic in that conflicts between worlds and species are more likely. The prequel era changed all that, and I think they're more on even footing, with ST politics still being more idealist and SW politics being more realist (or at least cynical.)

*Star Trek metaphysics involved cosmic beings like Q and alien races like telapathic betazoids. Star Wars metaphysics seems to be more accessible to more people and species. It also involves a philosophy, while ST avoids religion and moral or spiritual philosophy except to make commentary on societies and gets more into the semantics and specifics of different issues.

*Big SW advantage: no time travel. (Curse you, Jacen Solo and Aing-Ti monks for your Flow Walking!)

I think that while it may seem like they're moving closer toget

 

Berman's not the only offender. Roddenbury already messing with continuity via his classification of the animated series as non-canon.

The thing is, ST tech gives the appearance of developing more rapidly than SW because there simply isn't much need for SW tech to continuously update itself, at least not in any dramatic way.