Show me the money!!!!
- Thread starter rahullak
- Start date
The thing with predicting what the future looks like is that if you could do it in a believable manner, you would be a visionary, you would be thousands upon thousands of geniuses in 1 person, you would be the inventor of everything.
So my point is, you cannot explain how a future world without money works in a believable manner just like Ryan says, you cannot explain how the Warp drive works, because if you could, you could build one right now -- and the show is set in the 24th century, not in 2015.
It's enough that there's the idea that there is no money in the 24th century, in fact, that's what makes it good because if you start explaining it it's just gonna come over as silly, because again, if you can invent a way that would work, you are an economic visionary that will change the way the world works in 2015 (instead of 2315), and not a writer for some TV-series.
Well, to be fair, I think there's a lot of room between technological/economic visionary and TV show writer. Good writers are good writers because they have good ideas. Maybe they're not completely accurate to what the future may be, but they can make something that's at least somewhat believable instead of something that's just straight up fantasy. Star Trek isn't the latter completely, but it does have a lot of fantasy. It would be difficult to inject a lot of science or accuracy into that mix without significantly changing a lot of the fundamentals.
Thing there is they did explain to a degree how the warp drive works, sure it was in-universe techno-babble, but info was dished up.
The writers went to Roddenberry and asked about how no money worked so they could incorporate it into scripts, Roddenberry was unable to explain. They couldn't even come up with some kind of economic-babble.
If it does in some way come up in the new series, My wish is that they simply go with credits like like TOS, and just drop the no money idea completely.
It's true that the warp stuff probably had more thought put into it, but the end result is the same, it comes down to dilithium and subspace; fantasy stuff that can't be explained. They could try and explain the economy, but eventually it would come down to something like quatloos or something made up to explain how it's even possible because it's not.
It really just depends on how deep they want to make the rabbit hole.
there are (bullshitty-ish) theories out there about how a moneyless world would work. they could be modified into something that would work for a sci-fi show. it doesn't matter that these theories don't really work in the real world (just like the techno-babble stuff), but it can give a basis for some economics-babble to explain it.
for example:
https://www.thevenusproject.com/en/
no need to go in-depth into it, but explaining some of the economics can work as nice world building.
or they can just use money too, as long as they're consistent with it.
for example:
https://www.thevenusproject.com/en/
no need to go in-depth into it, but explaining some of the economics can work as nice world building.
or they can just use money too, as long as they're consistent with it.
The economy? If the stories are good, Trek could probably get by with rare mentions.
And also how close to the real-world it is. Lithium exists in real-life and the idea of subspace was invented for FTL signals. FTL itself was invented to serve the needs of the show, so there is some explanation for how you travel light-years in a few hours.
Choosing to break or modify some of the real-world physical contraints serves to be called sci-fi. Whereas, something that's so far removed from reality (like magic) and can't be explained as an increment from the existing reality would just be fantasy.
Now having said that, I know Trek could get by without mentioning the economy. But why not mention it, and have some few bits of dialogue explaining it with some realistic-appearing eco-babble? No previous show ever did, and we are talking about a new show that needs to come up with new material and no rehashes. And it could be one of those contraints that you can't just wish away with some tech or magic doodad.
Another reason they should continue to have something like the credit is that it's better for story telling purposes, the presence of money can introduce a level of complexity to the story.
Because people's eyes gloss over when there's babble. Ultimately, not having money brings you down to the questions of what the incentive is to make people work and do the jobs that need to be done. No amount of babble is going to make that bit seem real. It's just going to make things tedious.
I disagree. If done right, all those questions can be answered. We take FTL and warp drive babble without anyone's eyes glazing over today. Just because you and I cannot conceive of something doesn't mean it can't be done, if only in the creative sphere. The whole idea of creativity and originality is that you do something that hasn't been done before (instead of sticking to something that "doesn't glaze my eyes"). What can get more Trekkie than that?
Not everyone takes babble. Most people don't really want a lesson on how the warp drive works anyway. Why would they want an economy lesson either? Neither of these things are what most people really look for in a show.
Yes, writers can be creative, but not enough to make people believe that a moneyless culture actually works by lecturing them about the details. Most TV writers are not going to concern themselves with such things except at the most superficial level.
Yes, writers can be creative, but not enough to make people believe that a moneyless culture actually works by lecturing them about the details. Most TV writers are not going to concern themselves with such things except at the most superficial level.
How many people are going to watch because they are interested in economic theories?
We don't need a lecture class. But we can certainly have attempts to explain it through dialogue or an interesting episode that comments on it.
By the way, without the technobabble, it's not science fiction at all. Just because they are on a star ship in space doesn't automatically make it science fiction. There has to be some attempt to connect with science, to lightly explain the workings of the Trek universe and it's restrictions, which in turn drive the story. Otherwise it's just soap opera in space, with weirdly dressed people and big guns.
By the way, without the technobabble, it's not science fiction at all. Just because they are on a star ship in space doesn't automatically make it science fiction. There has to be some attempt to connect with science, to lightly explain the workings of the Trek universe and it's restrictions, which in turn drive the story. Otherwise it's just soap opera in space, with weirdly dressed people and big guns.
Re: technobabble
Why bother trying to explain the economic system? What does that have to do with telling a good story?
Why bother trying to explain the economic system? What does that have to do with telling a good story?
Last edited:
It has to do with "universe building." Which is a integral part of any good future scifi/fantasy show, story or novel.
Finding out how the economic system works would not have to come as part of a protracted lecture by a character, better (imho) as bits and pieces over the course of the series. Little things like simply show a character (like Beverly) buying something in a market, or a remembrance of a purchase (by Janeway) that comes with a funny anecdote, or having a character (like Picard) unknowingly buying a "I want sex" statue.
We didn't have to have a episode where Picard visits his brother's family, but it increased our knowledge of the character, and of the universe he lives in.
Similar threads
