Star Trek's Fear or apathy toward politics was a huge weakenss

[Gotham Central]

I've never understood Star Trek's aversion to politics. To be more precise, when I say politis, I'm not talking about real world issues (though late Trek was weak on that to), I'm talking about world building and the need to take time an examine/develop the environment in which your characters exist. Compared to say, Babylon 5 or even Stargate, the folks making the series tended to avoid actually defining parameters of their universe all in the name of the nebulous concept of "creative freedom." I.e. we don't want to define things too specifically because some writer later on might want to do something that does not fit within those parameters. Thus lots of things get ignored.

Look at Babylon 5. The show was on the air for only 5 years. In that time you learn ALOT about the societies and cultures of each of the major races. The obvious exception being the Vorlons. Their mysterious nature was sort of the point.

Game of Thrones, while being based on a series of VERY detailed books, really takes its time to explore the many layers of life in Westeros and beyond. As the show progresses, we learn alot about how things work there and gives us quite a bit of back story providing insight into its history.

Stargate had things a little easier given than they didn't need to explain or dive too deep into the world of our heroes, since it was our world. Yet politics on Earth always impacted the storytelling. We also learn quite a good deal about the cultures and politics of the various Stargate galaxies.

Now look at Star Trek, which has been around for almost 50 years...How much have we actually been shown about the soceities and cultures that make up that universe. Much of what we do know is owed primarily to DS9 with some preliminary work done on TNG. Thanks to both shows we actually got to know the Klingons, Cardassians, Bajorians, Ferengi and even the Romulans to a degree fairly well. Despite this we know next to nothing about life in the Federation....which is strange given that our heroes all hail from there.

I've never understood Star Trek's aversion to the sort of world building that some many other universes take for granted.

 

[hux]

It's difficult to make paradise political or interesting (without undermining the fact that it is paradise). The Maquis (in DS9 especially) was at least an attempt to look at some aspect of the political side of Federation life (but they were outlaws from the off)

As far as looking at the politics of other worlds, I'm not sure how interesting that would be. DS9 (again) did shows us far more of another cultures political workings and landscape than we'd really seen before (Bajorans & Cardassians).

Other alien worlds are hard because they're not really full beings; they're just aspects of human culture enlarged as a means to differentiate them (honour, greed, logic etc). Humans are the only complex, whole beings and as I say, if you explore them, i think it would inevitably undermine paradise

 

[Starborn Dragon]

Star Trek is not afraid of politics.

There have been several episodes that are allegorical to political issues. Socialism, homosexuality and gender identity, genocide, radical feminism even a bit on abortion when Deanna Troi was pregnant with Ian.

The problem with allegory and metaphor is a lot of people can't see past that to see if there is a message that an episode is trying to present, in short, many people can't see past style to get through to substance.

Star Trek does not shy away from politics.

 

[TheGoodStuff]

I've never understood Star Trek's aversion to politics. To be more precise, when I say politis, I'm not talking about real world issues (though late Trek was weak on that to), I'm talking about world building and the need to take time an examine/develop the environment in which your characters exist. Compared to say, Babylon 5 or even Stargate, the folks making the series tended to avoid actually defining parameters of their universe all in the name of the nebulous concept of "creative freedom." I.e. we don't want to define things too specifically because some writer later on might want to do something that does not fit within those parameters. Thus lots of things get ignored.

Look at Babylon 5. The show was on the air for only 5 years. In that time you learn ALOT about the societies and cultures of each of the major races. The obvious exception being the Vorlons. Their mysterious nature was sort of the point.

Game of Thrones, while being based on a series of VERY detailed books, really takes its time to explore the many layers of life in Westeros and beyond. As the show progresses, we learn alot about how things work there and gives us quite a bit of back story providing insight into its history.

Stargate had things a little easier given than they didn't need to explain or dive too deep into the world of our heroes, since it was our world. Yet politics on Earth always impacted the storytelling. We also learn quite a good deal about the cultures and politics of the various Stargate galaxies.

Now look at Star Trek, which has been around for almost 50 years...How much have we actually been shown about the soceities and cultures that make up that universe. Much of what we do know is owed primarily to DS9 with some preliminary work done on TNG. Thanks to both shows we actually got to know the Klingons, Cardassians, Bajorians, Ferengi and even the Romulans to a degree fairly well. Despite this we know next to nothing about life in the Federation....which is strange given that our heroes all hail from there.

I've never understood Star Trek's aversion to the sort of world building that some many other universes take for granted.

Trek has created some diverse cultures [Bajoran, Cardassian, Klingons and Vulcans] which have transcended 50 years worth of story, which is remarkable by itself.

However, for me, Trek avoids going into such detail in order to better create ethical, moral and philosophical stories. Our heroes are 'good', they are not racist/ignorant/homophobic/bigoted, all the things that blight us now. To show how a random dude living in Ayr gets on with his life in 2375 isn't really the point.

Our valiant heroes get to go and meet hostile races and preach peace, they go out and find racism and muse how it is illogical and caused much suffering here on Earth, they respond to violence with plea's for calm. In many ways Earth, how it works, doesn't really matter. Our crews are a 'good' vehicle for exploring various issues [that are relevant to us now].

I also find it bizarre to claim Trek avoids politics. Trek is ALL politics if one looks at it in a certain way. It is a secular, socialist, free, scientific show that [as I have said] touches on racism, hatred, war, loss, bigotry, terrorism, oppression...many, many things. To explore the ethical, moral and political themes it does, Trek has to touch on politics to do so.

 

[C.E. Evans]

In Trek, the politics are between the Federation and various other nations like the Klingon Empire, the Romulan Star Empire, etc. But as the various Trek shows tend to focuses more on point men or "frontline soldiers" rather than backroom politicians, we usually see just the end results of earlier political decisions--which often are resolved by either a phaser or a photon torpedo.

 

[Nightdiamond]

I think Trek did dabble with politics or at least flirt with them. There have been some political episodes.

I think they may have avoided potentially controversial topics. The Host is good example.

Game of thrones is a good example--They did take time to casually talk about past dealings and political intrigue, in a way that made it interesting.

 

[T'Girl]

Part of the reason is that while we hear frequent mention of the Federation, it really isn't the point of most of the stories, it just kind of there in the bakground. Like a painted backdrop in a play.

There's vague Council of some sort, which occasionally issues instruction and orders. During TOS we never even knew where it was, because that wasn't important.

")

 

[Cyke101]

I just assume that there's always going to be at least one Evil/Corrupt Admiral influencing important policy decisions here and there.

 

[fireproof78]

TOS did it at least once, though the episode is not well regarded, so it gets missed.

"There are many who are uncomfortable with what we have created. It is almost a biological rebellion -- a profound revulsion against the planned communities, the programming, the sterilized, artfully balanced atmospheres. They hunger for an Eden--where spring comes."
"All do. The cave is deep in our memory." - Spock and Kirk, on why Sevrin's followers embrace the primitive lifestyle

 

[TwoJakes]

I wonder if "atmospheres" is literally the air that's inhaled, or is it the general aesthetics of the planned communities?

The architecture, the parkland, the gardens, the clothing, oh so perfecly uniform and completely dead.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

DS9 was very political.

DS9, B5, and Stargate all have the thing in common that they take place somewhere stationary. The other Treks take place on a ship and thus are more about going out and having adventures.

 

[The Wormhole]

I've never understood Star Trek's aversion to the sort of world building that some many other universes take for granted.

My understanding was it was Roddenberry's wish not to develop the Federation/Earth and that's why it's never been done. Which seems odd, most of Roddenberry's other sacred cows have been sacrificed yet we still cling to ones like this, denying Starfleet is a military and the no money thing.

 

[Starborn Dragon]

For instance, one common political theme of Star Trek, except for maybe the Abrams movies, is that Star Trek supports socialism. Spock is absolutely in love with it calling it a vey efficient system.



How can that NOT be political?

 

[T'Girl]

Spock is absolutely in love with it calling it a vey efficient system

Wasn't that Spock referring to "National Socialism?"

")

 

[PicardSpeedo]

I disagree with the postulation that Trek was not political - Gene Roddenberry injected his personal beliefs into multiple facets of the Trek universe, including (in no particular order):

- The socialist Federation
- Earth as a nudist paradise (overruled, with extreme prejudice, by CBS)
- Women relegated to secondary / support roles
- War doesn't exist

I'm sure there are more examples, but I'm out of time for now.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

I've never understood Star Trek's aversion to politics. To be more precise, when I say politis, I'm not talking about real world issues (though late Trek was weak on that to), I'm talking about world building and the need to take time an examine/develop the environment in which your characters exist.

I've always considered it a great strength of Star Trek that it did not spend a great deal of time on world building. It gave the bare bones of the way things work in the fictional universe and then let the audience fill in the gaps with our own imaginations. This is part of why it has been so successful, because that filling in the gaps is one of the great joys of fandom.

For instance, I found the world-building of Babylon 5 to be boring beyond belief. They were so concerned with building a world that they frequently forgot to tell a good story. Whereas that was Star Trek's main goal. I recall trying to get into B5 and being encouraged by people here on the SFF board, who would constantly tell me - I know, that episode isn't particularly good, but there's 2 minutes at the end that are going to be extremely important 3 seasons from now. I finally had to throw in the towel, explaining that if the stories aren't any good, why would I endure three more seasons of it just to see how that two minutes pays off - probably in another story that's just as boring.

I know some people love world-building and more power to you. It's just not my cup of tea. I really had to make myself get through Lord of the Rings - too much world-building, not enough character and plot. Personally I find too much world-building or continuity set up to be tedious. For instance, Avengers: Age of Ultron - that movie was so interested in carefully setting up the continuity of the Marvel-verse that it subverted the main storyline, which I found confusing and difficult to care about. I think the Abrams trek-verse just shot itself in the foot with the first two movies, wasting a lot of time that could have been put to better use building characters and stories that made some internal sense rather than twisting itself in knots to preserve a fictional continuity. I'd have much rather they simply started clean - here's Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise, new universe, new timeline, new adventures, let's boldly go!

One of the other great examples of this is the original Star Wars, meaning the very first movie. There are some hints as to the history of this universe, and it looks very well-lived in, but the concern of the makers is telling a good, fast-paced adventure story, leaving the details to the audience. Compare that to the tedious world-building that goes on in the prequel trilogy. Being forced to sit through the political machinations that brought Palpatine to power put me to sleep.

Give me a great story first any day. I'd rather let my imagination play in the gaps.

 

[Nightdiamond]

TUC is probably the most political Trek there is. But it was good because they mixed adventure and excitement with it, and the political elements were explained in easy to understand terms.

They kept it simple, but intriguing.

That's probably what Game of Thrones so popular now. The show is about 70% politics. But it's all easy to understand, and the crazy /weird characters is what drives the politics, so that's what keeps it so interesting.

 

[MacLeod]

I've never understood Star Trek's aversion to politics. To be more precise, when I say politis, I'm not talking about real world issues (though late Trek was weak on that to), I'm talking about world building and the need to take time an examine/develop the environment in which your characters exist.

I've always considered it a great strength of Star Trek that it did not spend a great deal of time on world building. It gave the bare bones of the way things work in the fictional universe and then let the audience fill in the gaps with our own imaginations. This is part of why it has been so successful, because that filling in the gaps is one of the great joys of fandom.

For instance, I found the world-building of Babylon 5 to be boring beyond belief. They were so concerned with building a world that they frequently forgot to tell a good story. Whereas that was Star Trek's main goal. I recall trying to get into B5 and being encouraged by people here on the SFF board, who would constantly tell me - I know, that episode isn't particularly good, but there's 2 minutes at the end that are going to be extremely important 3 seasons from now. I finally had to throw in the towel, explaining that if the stories aren't any good, why would I endure three more seasons of it just to see how that two minutes pays off - probably in another story that's just as boring.

I know some people love world-building and more power to you. It's just not my cup of tea. I really had to make myself get through Lord of the Rings - too much world-building, not enough character and plot. Personally I find too much world-building or continuity set up to be tedious. For instance, Avengers: Age of Ultron - that movie was so interested in carefully setting up the continuity of the Marvel-verse that it subverted the main storyline, which I found confusing and difficult to care about. I think the Abrams trek-verse just shot itself in the foot with the first two movies, wasting a lot of time that could have been put to better use building characters and stories that made some internal sense rather than twisting itself in knots to preserve a fictional continuity. I'd have much rather they simply started clean - here's Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise, new universe, new timeline, new adventures, let's boldly go!

One of the other great examples of this is the original Star Wars, meaning the very first movie. There are some hints as to the history of this universe, and it looks very well-lived in, but the concern of the makers is telling a good, fast-paced adventure story, leaving the details to the audience. Compare that to the tedious world-building that goes on in the prequel trilogy. Being forced to sit through the political machinations that brought Palpatine to power put me to sleep.

Give me a great story first any day. I'd rather let my imagination play in the gaps.

A certain amount of world building goes into many shows, even ST engaged in world building, over the course of the films and shows we have learned more about the Klingons, Romulans etc... With later stories relying on that world building.

As for SW, prequels have to fit into what was established in previous movies. I think the SW prequels really need a re-write by another writer to tighten the dialouge up.

B5 unlike some other more serialised shows was fairly well plotted out and wasn't really prone to the making it up as they go along which can happen.

Personally I like a mix of episodic and more serialised shows.

And just as filling in the gaps is a joy of fandom can't the same be said of trying to figure out where all this world building will lead to?

 

[T'Girl]

[TUC] They kept it simple, but intriguing.

I found it to be quite heavy handed.

"

 

[Lapis Exilis]

A certain amount of world building goes into many shows, even ST engaged in world building, over the course of the films and shows we have learned more about the Klingons, Romulans etc... With later stories relying on that world building.

What world-building that happened was almost always in service to a story. It's a matter of priority - story first, world-building secondary versus world-build first, story secondary.

B5 unlike some other more serialised shows was fairly well plotted out and wasn't really prone to the making it up as they go along which can happen.

Personally I like a mix of episodic and more serialised shows.

And just as filling in the gaps is a joy of fandom can't the same be said of trying to figure out where all this world building will lead to?

Like I said, it's a matter of personal preference. I think it's great that some people love world-building and thus you get The Lord of the Rings where many people have spent thousands of hours of imaginative enjoyment. It just doesn't happen to blow my skirt up personally. You can find great examples of stories with next to no world-building (Mad Max) and great examples of stories that are almost all world-building (Ringworld). There are many successful examples that hit a terrific balance - Harry Potter does a good mix of world-building and character/ plot.