Public perception of Star Trek?

[Franklin]

No, Patton had the right motivation for his aggression against the Soviet Union: their imperialism. They had conquered Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bugaria, etc..

How easily people forget that to keep Hitler from getting a small piece of Poland, we gave all of Poland, half of Germany, all of Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary to Stalin.

Patton's words were "We have failed in the liberation of Europe, we have lost the war."

Well, those are the words of a warrior. The goal was to liberate Europe from Hitler, and that was achieved with the USSR as an ally. To "liberate" Europe as Patton intended would've required a declaration of war against the USSR.

You don't have to like Marcus's motivation, but he had one, and it wasn't really different than what motivates a Marcus in real life. Patton certainly would've understood what was driving Marcus.

To try to steer this back on topic (at least a little bit), maybe part of the problem with the popular perception of Trek, and maybe even some fans, that makes Marcus hard to take is the belief that men like him don't exist in the Trek world. No one would think that way anymore.

 

[AdmiralShran]

maybe even some fans that makes STID hard to take is the belief that men like Marcus don't exist in the Trek world.

That's kind of the point of Star Trek - the whole point. To show a decent people and decent government and how things should be done - not to twist it into your personal conspiracy theory allegory. They are in a post-scarcity economy which is generally assumed to be post-capitalist. They work because they want to work. The whole premise rests on the idea of a completely different economy that would be made possible by interstellar flight. The advent of light speed travel would literally transform the entire species and that is what Star Trek rests upon. This concept wasn't invented lightly - it quite literally is a consequence of the technology suggested by Star Trek. In that respect, it is a glorious fantasy - but - given these technologies - it is a given that many many sociological changes would be made - a natural consequence of post-scarcity civilization.

There's always been a rogue Admiral or so here and there in Star Trek (or the one episode where Starfleet gets infested by a bunch of parasites) but the whole thing sounds like an idiot's conspiracy narrative. It's cheap, and straw-manned leftist propaganda - far from a more mature liberalism presented in most of Star Trek. And is downright defamatory if it's supposed to be relevant to the US Government - which apparently it is.

What I find hard to believe is movies like "Star Wars" where every political system is a malevolent shadow government and governments don't even try to come up with nice euphemisms or even neutral terms for the WMDs calling them "the Death Star" and walking around in black capes and masks randomly blowing up planets.

 

[Franklin]

TOS never meant to present us a perfect world. Miners of dilithium crystals can become very rich, so there must be some kind of economic class distinctions and things not available to just anyone. There are con men like Harry Mudd and Cyrano Jones. Women can't be starship captains. Prejudice seems to exist. Top Starfleet officers conspire with the Klingons to start a war (STVI). And, and Kirk himself said, we admit we're killers with a million years of blood on our hands, but we just aren't going to kill, today. And, he pointed out we need our "ugly" half to be a complete human.

There was certainly an optimistic presentation of mankind and improvement, but our foibles were still there. The "enlightened human" point of view was in TNG.

 

[Jedi_Master]

The world of TNG Trek was presented as a utopia of peace, love, and mutual prosperity. The world of TOS Trek (which is where the reboots get their creative cues) was not quite so awesome.

 

[Gov Kodos]

TOS never meant to present us a perfect world. Miners of dilithium crystals can become very rich, so there must be some kind of economic class distinctions and things not available to just anyone. There are con men like Harry Mudd and Cyrano Jones. Women can't be starship captains. Prejudice seems to exist. Top Starfleet officers conspire with the Klingons to start a war (STVI). And, and Kirk himself said, we admit we're killers with a million years of blood on our hands, but we just aren't going to kill, today. And, he pointed out we need our "ugly" half to be a complete human.

There was certainly an optimistic presentation of mankind and improvement, but our foibles were still there. The "enlightened human" point of view was in TNG.

TOS gave us the concept of preemptive strike with Gen Order 24 in A Taste of Armageddon, a willingness to engage in proxy wars in A Private Little War, failed colonies and mass murder in The Conscience of the King, TOS was optimistic in mankind having a future, but it didn't pretend humanity was some paragon of virtue.

 

[AdmiralShran]

Miners of dilithium crystals can become very rich, so there must be some kind of economic class distinctions and things not available to just anyone. There are con men like Harry Mudd and Cyrano Jones. Women can't be starship captains. Prejudice seems to exist.

Fair enough. Frankly I think these are inconsistencies from not really flushing the world building out early on. I.E. the existence of "miners" as in actually people doing mining work should have been abandoned long long ago. We'll have fully automated mining in 50 years - it's not remotely science fiction. The fantasy is that there will be actual people mining in 200 years, very dubious.

That final episode where women can't be captains is so messed with by the studio that it's apocrypha and belongs on Memory Beta. We all know that the studio forced this nonsense upon the creators and it was done against their will.

The "enlightened human" point of view was in TNG.

That's not true - for example Kirk rescues the midget in Plato's Stepchildren and tells him where he comes from there's no poverty or discrimination or otherwise... But, yes, the "enlightenment" narrative was pushed more heavily in later series.

 

[AdmiralShran]

TOS gave us the concept of preemptive strike with Gen Order 24 in A Taste of Armageddon, a willingness to engage in proxy wars in A Private Little War, failed colonies and mass murder in The Conscience of the King, TOS was optimistic in mankind having a future, but it didn't pretend humanity was some paragon of virtue.

Humans have proxy wars, Gen Order 24 (sort of, Section 31 tries to kill all the changlings and Sisko poisons a planet), failed colonies, terrorism, and mass murder in DS9. It's different when Starfleet itself is compromised, however, as is suggested in Star Trek Into Darkness. Admiral Marcus is unbelievable as he somehow thinks killing 100's of Starfleet officers is justified to protect Starfleet. The reality is that he could just make his case for building up arms well enough without directly provoking war with the Klingons.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Whether or not a character is "believable" is really based on the subjective opinion of the individual viewer.

 

[AdmiralShran]

Whether or not a character is "believable" is really based on the subjective opinion of the individual viewer.

Holy god I couldn't care less what "omg it's all relative guyz" people think. Your view is really a red herring as it really isn't enlightening, has nothing to do with the merits of the discussion at hand, and serves only to assert that no discussion may take place because "it's all relative guyz!"

 

[BillJ]

Humans have proxy wars, Gen Order 24 (sort of, Section 31 tries to kill all the changlings and Sisko poisons a planet), failed colonies, terrorism, and mass murder in DS9. It's different when Starfleet itself is compromised, however, as is suggested in Star Trek Into Darkness. Admiral Marcus is unbelievable as he somehow thinks killing 100's of Starfleet officers is justified to protect Starfleet. The reality is that he could just make his case for building up arms well enough without directly provoking war with the Klingons.

Doesn't Admiral Leyton do exactly that when he sends the Lakota to destroy the Defiant?

 

[Gov Kodos]

Humans have proxy wars, Gen Order 24 (sort of, Section 31 tries to kill all the changlings and Sisko poisons a planet), failed colonies, terrorism, and mass murder in DS9. It's different when Starfleet itself is compromised, however, as is suggested in Star Trek Into Darkness. Admiral Marcus is unbelievable as he somehow thinks killing 100's of Starfleet officers is justified to protect Starfleet. The reality is that he could just make his case for building up arms well enough without directly provoking war with the Klingons.

That's not what you told us here where you called Trek a land of sunshine and sprinkles.

That's kind of the point of Star Trek - the whole point. To show a decent people and decent government and how things should be done

Marcus's motivation has been explained by multiple people in this thread, he's engineering a preemptive war to stop Klingon aggression. Your unwillingness to admit that doesn't change that he has a clear motive and motivation in the film. Your unwillingness to find it believable does not make it unbelievable or non-existent. In short, your opinion is not fact and it really doesn't hold up to the barest scrutiny.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Holy god I couldn't care less what "omg it's all relative guyz" people think. Your view is really a red herring as it really isn't enlightening, has nothing to do with the merits of the discussion at hand, and serves only to assert that no discussion may take place because "it's all relative guyz!"

Alright, let's switch this conversation to decaf. Settle down.

 

[AdmiralShran]

Marcus's motivation has been explained by multiple people in this thread, he's engineering a preemptive war to stop Klingon aggression. Your unwillingness to admit that doesn't change that he has a clear motive and motivation in the film. Your unwillingness to find it believable does not make it unbelievable or non-existent. In short, your opinion is not fact and it really doesn't hold up to the barest scrutiny.

No, I already conceded your "psychopathic admiral" motive and it doesn't make Orci's film any less stupid.

 

[BillJ]

No, I already conceded your "psychopathic admiral" motive and it doesn't make Orci's film any less stupid.

In your opinion. Many, many people like Into Darkness.

 

[AdmiralShran]

That's not what you told us here where you called Trek a land of sunshine and sprinkles.

That's a big misrepresentation of what I said. It's quite apparent given that there's wars, conflicts, borg, klingons, romulans, and otherwise that Star Trek isn't a paradise. But making Starfleet into le Evil Empire isn't really making a Star Trek movie but just dressing up Star Wars as Star Trek.

 

[Jedi_Master]

I find Admiral Marcus to be "believable."

 

[BillJ]

That's a big misrepresentation of what I said. It's quite apparent given that there's wars, conflicts, borg, klingons, romulans, and otherwise that Star Trek isn't a paradise. But making Starfleet into le Evil Empire isn't really making a Star Trek movie but just dressing up Star Wars as Star Trek.

Just like in "Homefront" and "Paradise Lost"?

 

[Jedi_Master]

I kind of thought that the fact that Admiral Marcus suffers from a fatal head injury, the Vengeance is destroyed, Khan is defeated, the plot of Section 31 or whatever is exposed, and the war is averted shows that nuTrek is devoted to the peaceful ideals of Star Trek.

 

[BillJ]

Marcus was another misguided Admiral with too much power, much like Kennelly, Leyton, Satie...

 

[Gov Kodos]

That's a big misrepresentation of what I said. It's quite apparent given that there's wars, conflicts, borg, klingons, romulans, and otherwise that Star Trek isn't a paradise. But making Starfleet into le Evil Empire isn't really making a Star Trek movie but just dressing up Star Wars as Star Trek.

Back peddling, now.