Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt?

[enterprisecvn65]

I'll admit first that I don't know all the Admirals that have appeared over the years so I'm not acting like the definitive source.

But why does it seem, to me at least, that a disproportionate amount of Starfleet Admirals are complete assholes, extremely corrupt or both?

I know not all of them were like that. I didn't think Morrow was a jerk for not letting Kirk go back to Genesis, the Federation council had set policy and Morrow was doing his job. He seemed kind of sorry he couldn't let Kirk go and he even bought him a drink (Which if you notice Kirk doesn't even take a single sip of and it's completely full when he leaves the table).

Hanson seemed like a good guy too, other than his slightly creepy "fantasy" he had towards Shelby. So I'm not throwing a blanket statement on every flag officer. I'm also not counting Kirk because we never really saw him as an Admiral.

I also understand that Admirals have to make big decisions and tend to be no nonsense people and "warm and fuzzy" don't generally apply. Also that military leaders have to make decisions that might be morally ambigious at times because the military, and war, are dirty businesses and it's difficult to keep your hands clean at all times.

But ST really seemed to like to portray flag officers in general as total jerks that were incapable of being friendly or courteous at any time, and/or people who were often involved in shit that went beyond the moral challenges of the job right into being just flat out illegal or immoral by almost any standard.

I'm not saying the US military has been free from these type of characters, but I think we'd be in real trouble if they were a prolific as they are in Starfleet.

 

[DimesDan]

Re: Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt

Because it makes for a good story?

 

[Kilana2]

Re: Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt

The admirals are simply not out there at the very front. They act on hearsay. That's why Picard is better off as captain. He can make a difference. I wonder what happens to admirals who refuse to work with Section 31 for instance. Grandchildren disappearing, wives having odd accidents....... No one can blame an organization that officially doesn't exist.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

Re: Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt

It's a means of introducing conflict into the story. If every character who interacted with the regular cast were friendly and accommodating, there wouldn't be much to for the writers and producers to work with.

I also think admirals are depicted in ways that mass audiences can relate to. Visiting flag officers are viewed as outsiders; they're not part of the crew, so the regulars don't accept them as readily as they do their shipmates.

--Sran

 

[Cyke101]

Re: Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt

I love DS9 to death, but I remember slapping my head real hard in the 90s when it turned out that the otherwise reasonable and capable Admiral Ross turned out be a Section 31 sympathizer. Come ON.

 

[FormerLurker]

Re: Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt

Re: Hanson's 'fantasy' about Shelby

One, he described as "Just an old man's fantasy." Meaning, he wished he were twenty/forty years younger, then he'd be of an age where it wouldn't seem 'creepy'. Two, and more importantly, the remake of Sabrina for example. Harrison Ford, almost sixty, Julia Ormond, not yet thirty, yet still cast as a plausible couple. And finally, Three, Maggie Gyllenhaal recenty revealed she had been passed over as a love interest for a 55 year old man because at 37 she was deemed 'too old to be believable.'

So why is it 'creepy' for an older man to find a younger, but full grown and mature, woman attractive? Some older men have never been in relationships before, and want children. Are they supposed to give up on the dream of being a father because being in a relationship with a younger woman is 'creepy' to someone not part of the relationship?

 

[Cyke101]

Re: Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt

Re: Hanson's 'fantasy' about Shelby

One, he described as "Just an old man's fantasy." Meaning, he wished he were twenty/forty years younger, then he'd be of an age where it wouldn't seem 'creepy'. Two, and more importantly, the remake of Sabrina for example. Harrison Ford, almost sixty, Julia Ormond, not yet thirty, yet still cast as a plausible couple. And finally, Three, Maggie Gyllenhaal recenty revealed she had been passed over as a love interest for a 55 year old man because at 37 she was deemed 'too old to be believable.'

So why is it 'creepy' for an older man to find a younger, but full grown and mature, woman attractive? Some older men have never been in relationships before, and want children. Are they supposed to give up on the dream of being a father because being in a relationship with a younger woman is 'creepy' to someone not part of the relationship?

I really have no issue with Hansen's "old man fantasy" with Shelby. Everyone has fantasies; acting upon them is different (and even then, how they're acted upon is another factor). Stewart and Hetrick (Vash) have an almost 20-year difference between them, and it went farther than Hanson/Shelby.

It's also funny when Lwaxana hit on men half her age, but to be fair, she hit on every man. But though it was for comedic purpose and playful flirting, older women flirting with younger men is a real thing, and nothing wrong with it inherently; people are people, and we get attracted to whatever.

As long as everyone's an adult, believes in the power of consent, and doesn't take advantage of the power dynamics that come with the hierarchy, then it's fair game. And with that said, Hansen to me is just fine.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Re: Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt

Kirk was one of the biggest jerk Admiral's I've seen.

The first time we see him with his new promotion he uses it to throw his weight around (some might say literally ) to oust a highly capable officer out of command simply because he wanted a ship again. He could have gone along to advise and observe Decker, command the mission and oversee first contact with V'Ger with the authority of Starfleet behind him, he didn't have to assume command of the ship.

The one thing that annoys me are fans who complain about Nechayev and call her a bitch, even though all she did was issue Picard a few orders they didn't like--which is her job, given what was at stake.

 

[FormerLurker]

Re: Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt

Interesting observation about Kirk. If we'd gotten the series that had first been proposed, going along to advise and observe is exactly what he would have done, especially with Shatner being given the option of dropping out after the first season or so. The intended original relationship between Kirk and Decker was brought back for Picard and Riker, at least at the beginning of TNG.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Re: Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt

Most admirals are neither jerks or corrupt, but the ones that are get all the attention (and most of the screentime) as they serve the role of "the bad guy" in a particular story using the abuse of power trope.

 

[JWPlatt]

Re: Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt

Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt?

Great question. I've seen a lot of threads pointing it out, but I've never seen the question asked.

I'll say it comes from our deserved mistrust of authority figures, especially those in the business or career of conflict or war. We try to protect ourselves from those who seek it out. Star Trek Admirals are a caution about those who do.

 

[T'Girl]

Re: Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt

Also that military leaders have to make decisions that might be morally ambigious at times because the military, and war, are dirty businesses and it's difficult to keep your hands clean at all times.

There's also the Admiral's position is clean and moral and well reasoned, but for time or security considerations they not at liberty to fully disclose to our hero crew exactly what's going on. The heroes are just going to get their particular piece of the puzzle and nothing more. And the Admiral might not require their input, the decision has already been made.

When Picard told Admiral Ballbreaker that he had ethical problems with evacuating colonists, forcefully if necessary, the Admiral politely inquired if Picard wanted to be relieved of command.

Picard's input wasn't needed.

 

[Christopher]

Re: Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt

This isn't unique to Star Trek. Fictional authority figures in general have a pattern of being obstructionist, blind, or corrupt. Look at all the cop movies where the captain takes the cop heroes to task for not playing by the rules. Look at Nick Fury in The Avengers defying the World Council when it tried to nuke New York -- and Fury's boss in The Winter Soldier turning out to be working for HYDRA (along with the smarmy senator from Iron Man 2).

The heroes of a story generally have to be the only ones who can get the job done. If their superiors are equal in competence, then it would be the superiors making the decisions that solve the problem. But the heroes need to be the ones to do that, and ideally they need to face many obstacles along the way; hence, their bosses tend to be either useless, actively obstructionist, or actually evil.

And it's not just superiors, but equals. Most of the other starship captains we met in TOS were either crazy, evil, or just plain dead because they weren't as good as Kirk. Picard dealt with Ben Maxwell, Sisko with Cal Hudson, Janeway with Rudy Ransom. And in any given show where the veteran hero is reunited with their beloved first partner or mentor, the partner or mentor virtually always turns out to be corrupt.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt

This isn't unique to Star Trek. Fictional authority figures in general have a pattern of being obstructionist, blind, or corrupt. Look at all the cop movies where the captain takes the cop heroes to task for not playing by the rules. Look at Nick Fury in The Avengers defying the World Council when it tried to nuke New York -- and Fury's boss in The Winter Soldier turning out to be working for HYDRA (along with the smarmy senator from Iron Man 2).

The heroes of a story generally have to be the only ones who can get the job done. If their superiors are equal in competence, then it would be the superiors making the decisions that solve the problem. But the heroes need to be the ones to do that, and ideally they need to face many obstacles along the way; hence, their bosses tend to be either useless, actively obstructionist, or actually evil.

Bingo. There's a reason that "Damnit, Detective, you're off the case!" is a cop-show cliche.

And it's not just Star Trek and cop shows. Look at, for example, the old NIGHT STALKER tv show. Not an episode went by where Kolchak's blustery editor Vincenzo didn't order Kolchak to drop whatever crazy news story he was working on , , , ,

"Damnit, Carl! Enough with this crazy poltergeist nonsense. Go cover the annual flower show instead!"

But do our heroes ever listen to their long-suffering superiors? Of course not . . ..

 

[Kilana2]

Re: Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt

The heroes of a story generally have to be the only ones who can get the job done. If their superiors are equal in competence, then it would be the superiors making the decisions that solve the problem. But the heroes need to be the ones to do that, and ideally they need to face many obstacles along the way; hence, their bosses tend to be either useless, actively obstructionist, or actually evil.

And it's not just superiors, but equals. Most of the other starship captains we met in TOS were either crazy, evil, or just plain dead because they weren't as good as Kirk. Picard dealt with Ben Maxwell, Sisko with Cal Hudson, Janeway with Rudy Ransom. And in any given show where the veteran hero is reunited with their beloved first partner or mentor, the partner or mentor virtually always turns out to be corrupt.

Sisko also dealt with Admiral Leyton who wanted to establish military rule on Earth in response to the Dominion threat. Sisko is obviously the only one who can handle the Dominion issues without forgetting what Starfleet stands for. Even Admiral Ross was influenced by Section 31, followed up on in the litverse.

No surprise that Leyton supports such a questionable elite like Red Squad.

 

[Cyke101]

Re: Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt

For the most part, according to TVTropes, Starfleet admirals tend to fall into three categories:

The Insane Admiral -- which is probably more of the corrupt kind
The Obstructive Bureaucrat -- who still have to hamper the heroes, even if they're not insane/corrupt
The Spear Carrier -- the admirals who pop up only to give orders and disappear

Funny enough, Janeway probably has one of the more unique twists on these tropes: in Endgame, Admiral Janeway qualifies as the Insane Admiral; but from her perspective, Captain Janeway might qualify as the Obstructive Bureaucrat with all her rules and regulations. And then modern-Admiral Janeway appeared as the Spear Carrier in Nemesis!

 

[enterprisecvn65]

Re: Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt

Because it makes for a good story?

Thanks Einstein for something that could be the response for 99% of the threads in here.

Use "It's not real" next time. That one is good too.

Basically if everyone used those as responses the whole point of a message board would be moot.

Thanks for your valuable insight all the same.

 

[enterprisecvn65]

Re: Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt

Re: Hanson's 'fantasy' about Shelby

One, he described as "Just an old man's fantasy." Meaning, he wished he were twenty/forty years younger, then he'd be of an age where it wouldn't seem 'creepy'. Two, and more importantly, the remake of Sabrina for example. Harrison Ford, almost sixty, Julia Ormond, not yet thirty, yet still cast as a plausible couple. And finally, Three, Maggie Gyllenhaal recenty revealed she had been passed over as a love interest for a 55 year old man because at 37 she was deemed 'too old to be believable.'

So why is it 'creepy' for an older man to find a younger, but full grown and mature, woman attractive? Some older men have never been in relationships before, and want children. Are they supposed to give up on the dream of being a father because being in a relationship with a younger woman is 'creepy' to someone not part of the relationship?

It was a joke......Not a damning commentary on age gaps in relationships.

You really can't tell the difference between a off the cuff light hearted quip vs. if I had gone on for 3 paragraphs about how wrong that kind of thinking was and it's a total reflection of the morality of our society today, there should be a strict age limit of no more than 10 years difference in romantic relationships and anyone who violates that is taking the express train to hell.

I know it's a message board and all and sometimes it can be difficult to tell the intent behind some comments...but good Lord.

What's next? That because I mentioned Kirk didn't sip his drink Morrow bought him and left the glass completely full being my way of saying that Kirk was being racist because I was implying that Kirk refused to take a drink of something bought for him by an African American (I guess he was from America) Get mad over that assumption as well if you want to. I guess Morrow could have been Canadian and now I'm making slanderous remarks against Canada.

 

[enterprisecvn65]

Re: Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt

Kirk was one of the biggest jerk Admiral's I've seen.

The first time we see him with his new promotion he uses it to throw his weight around (some might say literally ) to oust a highly capable officer out of command simply because he wanted a ship again. He could have gone along to advise and observe Decker, command the mission and oversee first contact with V'Ger with the authority of Starfleet behind him, he didn't have to assume command of the ship.

The one thing that annoys me are fans who complain about Nechayev and call her a bitch, even though all she did was issue Picard a few orders they didn't like--which is her job, given what was at stake.

You know....you're right. Kirk did throw his weight around to get Decker unfairly removed. I guess that makes him fair game too.

Although Bones did call him out on it in the meeting after the wormhole incident.

Kirk did kind of acknowledge it too later in the film when Decker made a suggestion and Kirk got pissed and Decker pointed out it was his job to offer alternatives. Kirk then paused and said "You're right" like he realized he'd been treating Decker like crap all along.

 

[enterprisecvn65]

Re: Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt

This isn't unique to Star Trek. Fictional authority figures in general have a pattern of being obstructionist, blind, or corrupt. Look at all the cop movies where the captain takes the cop heroes to task for not playing by the rules. Look at Nick Fury in The Avengers defying the World Council when it tried to nuke New York -- and Fury's boss in The Winter Soldier turning out to be working for HYDRA (along with the smarmy senator from Iron Man 2).

The heroes of a story generally have to be the only ones who can get the job done. If their superiors are equal in competence, then it would be the superiors making the decisions that solve the problem. But the heroes need to be the ones to do that, and ideally they need to face many obstacles along the way; hence, their bosses tend to be either useless, actively obstructionist, or actually evil.

Bingo. There's a reason that "Damnit, Detective, you're off the case!" is a cop-show cliche.

And it's not just Star Trek and cop shows. Look at, for example, the old NIGHT STALKER tv show. Not an episode went by where Kolchak's blustery editor Vincenzo didn't order Kolchak to drop whatever crazy news story he was working on , , , ,

"Damnit, Carl! Enough with this crazy poltergeist nonsense. Go cover the annual flower show instead!"

But do our heroes ever listen to their long-suffering superiors? Of course not . . ..

Yeah but in cop shows it's often the opposite where the "by the book" boss won't do anything he sees as breaking the rules even if it means the killer remains free and can murder more. It's the subordinate like Dirty Harry who has to take things into his own hands to stop the bad guy with his ends justify the means attitude.

In Trek is often, not always, but often the superior who is mixed up in some shit that is illegal and/or immoral and they're the ones who have the ends justify the means attitude. And it's Picard or Kirk that have to be the one who has a code and acts to stop Admiral.

If that one episode with the Pegasus and the special cloak had been Top Gun Maverick would have been the one using the cloak and his superiors would have been screaming "Damnit Maverick you're too dangerous and don't respect the rules" (Yet they would have let him keep flying anyway because he's the "Best")

In TNG it was the Admiral who was breaking a treaty and Picard and Riker had to stop it. That role reversal from the rebel underling who gets results vs the pencil pushing superior is often reversed on ST.