A clear example of Trek's Utopianism is the first season of TNG on the Enterprise-D.
What Amazes Me
- Thread starter Withers
- Start date
- Status
If anything was analogous to a "boat" it would not have been the Narada, but the infinitesimal Enterprise.
So let's compare the need for a brig on a cruise ship drunken, gambling, dancing, party-going, celebratory folk and having one on a ship full of drunken, gambling, lonely, unable to dance, largely sex-deprived, UNcelebratory miners.
I'll let you decide which captain needs a brig more...
You proceed from the false premise that this single aspect of Star Trek - it's supposedly significant utopianism - is congruent with its success as an entertainment franchise. After all, I didn't post that Star Trek was "dead and buried," now, did I?
You're saying that you don't understand the entirely separate definitions of the words? You know you're essentially asking how to clearly distinguish "needle" from "scissors" or "knife," right?
Withers
Captain
That's a fair enough point I suppose. It still doesn't fit that the brig would have been incorporated into the Narada's original design. If you extend that line of thinking it could've gone like... "Okay, now that we know where we are and that Romulus was destroyed, we're out for revenge." I could see them transforming an area into a brig... but, based on their flippant decision to murder people, I'd be sooner inclined to think they'd just kill anybody who dissented rather than build a prison to hold them for 25 years.
It's all in how one wants to interpret it I guess but, in the end, I don't think that Kirk's failure to try to transport hypothetical dissenters out of a hypothetical brig at the moment Enterprise was being dragged into a black hole was morally unjust, especially given the complete absence of any command experience on his part.
-Withers-
There reason for a brig on a cruise line is you have a massive amount of people from all types of life in a confined area, so naturally someone will have to be either confined because of what they did or try to do.
A brig on a mining ship does not make any sense. A cargo room that was converted into a brig because miner A attempted to or harm miner B makes sense. Ship designers are very conservative and all space are to be used in what ever capacity, especially on a working vessel.
A brig on a mining ship does not make any sense. A cargo room that was converted into a brig because miner A attempted to or harm miner B makes sense. Ship designers are very conservative and all space are to be used in what ever capacity, especially on a working vessel.
I'm told that brigs on submarines generally double as food storage lockers or somesuch.
I heard the same information and I had that in mind when I wrote my response.
I agree and it seems very much like the anti-aging planet society the Son'a were after. Yet, my read is that the EntD was provided as an exceptional environment in the overall society, where both your example and that Son'a world are clearly shown as special.
Thus, I'm not so certain we can be sure Trek aspirations to portray an ideal qualifies as utopianism when they go to great pains emphasizing the uniqueness, challenges, and mistakes that exist and occur when using them to say something about the nature of life and the human condition, can we?
The other thing that seems a bit out of place is citing a first season effort from 23 years ago on a pitiful budget as an example of what "killed" Trek. I agree that much of it is painful to watch, especially with today's standards, but at least I got a sense they were trying to do what they thought was the right thing to do with their artistic opportunity - and that counts heavily in my emotionally-biased evaluations.
Tee hee. I will admit that TNG era did lose some of TOS era's energy although Picard is by far my favourite captain. It worked well in the show but less so in the movies. This film has energy and pace in spades and it was a very enjoyable film.
I found the decision to quash any dissent among the crew or Federation members to be too limiting from a storytelling perspective. It produced the need to introduce a string of alien adversaries instead of mining the character potential that existed among the established races. However, if you go too far and wipe out Trek's idealism altogether, why even bother making a Trek film? The costumes?
My use of the Geneva convention was of course mischievous. Of course this is unlikely to survive until the 23rd century but we can assume that some equivalent exists under Federation law. We also know that war criminals such as Kodos are hunted 'interspacially' so war crimes do exist.
We can make all sorts of assumptions about Nero's crew but in a crisis, a Starship Captain shouldn't act on assumptions when he has a crew of 400 to provide him with information. Kirk spent time blowing the ship up (an unnecessary task since the ship was doomed anyway) when he could have beamed prisoners across. The writers made no attempt to justify his behaviour beyond implying that he was motivated for a desire for revenge. He went beyond that desire by actively blowing up a defenceless vessel. Call it assisted suicide if you will, but that's still a crime.
I found the decision to quash any dissent among the crew or Federation members to be too limiting from a storytelling perspective. It produced the need to introduce a string of alien adversaries instead of mining the character potential that existed among the established races. However, if you go too far and wipe out Trek's idealism altogether, why even bother making a Trek film? The costumes?
My use of the Geneva convention was of course mischievous. Of course this is unlikely to survive until the 23rd century but we can assume that some equivalent exists under Federation law. We also know that war criminals such as Kodos are hunted 'interspacially' so war crimes do exist.
We can make all sorts of assumptions about Nero's crew but in a crisis, a Starship Captain shouldn't act on assumptions when he has a crew of 400 to provide him with information. Kirk spent time blowing the ship up (an unnecessary task since the ship was doomed anyway) when he could have beamed prisoners across. The writers made no attempt to justify his behaviour beyond implying that he was motivated for a desire for revenge. He went beyond that desire by actively blowing up a defenceless vessel. Call it assisted suicide if you will, but that's still a crime.
Well then, it set Kirk up well for a career of violating local laws and customs and sometimes destroying whole societies pretty much on the grounds that they chapped his ass. 
Well the Enterprise really didn't blow up any vessel, the black hole crushed. The Narada was doomed even if the Enterprise just stood by, the Narada would have been crushed.
Another poster said that one of the writers gave the reason why Kirk fired on the Narada was to make sure that the Narada does not do another lightning storm in space and travel in time again. Given the information and experience in Kirk's POV, that makes sense. Is he guilty of assisted suicide, nope.
I agree with Dennis, Kirk is not only Dr Kevorkian but he is a destroyer of cultures as well, like the Spanish conquerors of Mexico or the late 19th Century American law makers in pertaining to the Native Americans.
Another poster said that one of the writers gave the reason why Kirk fired on the Narada was to make sure that the Narada does not do another lightning storm in space and travel in time again. Given the information and experience in Kirk's POV, that makes sense. Is he guilty of assisted suicide, nope.
I agree with Dennis, Kirk is not only Dr Kevorkian but he is a destroyer of cultures as well, like the Spanish conquerors of Mexico or the late 19th Century American law makers in pertaining to the Native Americans.
I think your telepathic grasp into my thoughts exceeds your telepathic reach. Unless I'm greatly mistaken about my own beliefs or your definition of "congruent", I didn't intend to draw any relationship between Trek utopianism (singly or otherwise) and entertainment franchise success.
Well it looks that way to me... but tags could have gotten mixed somewhere.
Wrong again. I understand the definitions, but also their vagueness and in this case interrelatedness, which does not seem compatible with your appeal to clear distinctions.
Withers
Captain
I can see this from two perspectives;
The first perspective is that the writers could have avoided all of this by giving a throw away line about transporting anybody being impossible. It could've been like a two second thing and this would all be solved. So, shame on them for not doing a better job (oh the irony.)
The second perspective is Kirk's. His first duty is to the crew. By trying to transport people he would put the ship itself in danger by remaining close to it, longer. Even if they managed a beam out of all the people who were willing to come they'd then have Romulans on board... potentially a lot of them. If nothing else that puts Mr. Clean (whoever the security guy was that objected to being called 'cupcake') and company in danger by introducing them to potentially armed enemies who have superior physical strength.
In a moment of crisis (which is what I'd call being sucked in by a black hole) I think he followed his first duty to a tee even if it was, perhaps, at the expense of a more diplomatic solution (or even just the attempt at having one.) It can be objected to as hasty... but anything further feels like a stretch given the circumstances.
The first perspective is that the writers could have avoided all of this by giving a throw away line about transporting anybody being impossible. It could've been like a two second thing and this would all be solved. So, shame on them for not doing a better job (oh the irony.)
The second perspective is Kirk's. His first duty is to the crew. By trying to transport people he would put the ship itself in danger by remaining close to it, longer. Even if they managed a beam out of all the people who were willing to come they'd then have Romulans on board... potentially a lot of them. If nothing else that puts Mr. Clean (whoever the security guy was that objected to being called 'cupcake') and company in danger by introducing them to potentially armed enemies who have superior physical strength.
In a moment of crisis (which is what I'd call being sucked in by a black hole) I think he followed his first duty to a tee even if it was, perhaps, at the expense of a more diplomatic solution (or even just the attempt at having one.) It can be objected to as hasty... but anything further feels like a stretch given the circumstances.
-Withers-
Re-read then:
Utopianism is not synonymous with Star Trek, however much devotees of superficial philosophy might want to think so; it's an occasional aspect of Trek's storytelling that got entirely out of hand and has mercifully receded.
Except that they established that transporter range is much greater in NuTrek than in previous versions of Trek. It would be a failure of the movie's own internal consistency (no snickering at the back) to argue this.
And seriously, a full security team can't take on some romulans but Kirk beamed over to the Narada with just Spock to help him fight these invincible foes?
Plus Kirk places his crew in as much danger by staying even closer than maximum transporter ranger to blow the c**p out of the Narada, an unnecessary action that takes at least as long as transporting people and, unless I'm much mistaken, they could have done both at once. The Enterprise has 3 Transporter rooms? Each capable of transporting 6 crew so 36 people if they did two runs and possibly more if they have a couple of emergency transporters for situations exactly like this.
I would also mention that the ship made no effort to use its many transporters to beam up any vulcans from the surface of the planet while Spock farted around in the katric arc looking for his own family. Yet another failure of Kirk and Spock's much heralded leadership.
I don't expect every fan to understand or agree with the utopian ideals of Trek. I don't want said utopian ideals to completely overshadow or neuter a good story. I DO expect the writers to show some awareness that 23rd century Trek ideals are supposed to be more utopian than 21st century ideals. I DON'T expect them to write the characters as if they support law-breaking, violence, revenge, and summary executions whenever it is convenient.
NuTrek was fun but it was dumb with a captial S.
Withers
Captain
I agree that firing on the ship was a time consuming dangerous task. But since we have no way of knowing how many people, exactly, were on the Narada there's no way of knowing if it would have been equally time consuming. They fired on the ship for less than a minute. Depending on how many people were on the Narada beaming people over could have been time consuming to the point of making escape from the even horizon impossible.
Either way, that nobody tried seems... negligent.
Isn't that really Spock's fault though? He tells them to send out the warning on all frequencies, takes the time to explain himself to Uhura, and then actually goes to the transporter room but doesn't think to tell anybody "and while I'm gone, try beaming people en mass from where ever you can. Energize." I think that's his fault. Not Kirk's.
Either way, that nobody tried seems... negligent.
-Withers-
Just the way it reads like spoken dialogue. And don't let them malign you for punctuation.
This aint your grampa's Star Trek forum.
Did we see the same film?
Attachments
I was glad to see Nero fry, so I don't have a problem with this.
That is scary. This statement is indicative of why the world is in the state it's in at this time.
The statement may be, but the corollary to that is that the movie is, too. 95% of viewers (at least, so says Rottentomatoes) wouldn't have liked this movie unless the characters and worldviews in it appealed to at least most of them.
In The World of Star Trek, David Gerrold discusses how Star Trek (the show) was, ultimately, 1960's people in a futuristic setting. Even though the writers did try to make them a little idealized, this is essentially true. And it's no less true that Star Trek (the movie) is about 2009 people in a futuristic setting. Whether it makes you happy or sad, I think it's clear that this movie contains an essentially accurate representation of the zeitgeist of today.
That anyone at this late date looks to Star Trek to serve as an example of what "the future" ought to be like rather than simply enjoying it as a movie, uh, "scares" me.
Pity. There was a time when the people in charge of this franchise were actually trying to show a better world than what we have now. Star Trek's idealized version of the future inspired a lot of people back then. Now, it's just today's world and people with future technology. Nothing to strive for, nothing to dream about.
This is why the movie appears sexist today. It features few women (even in the supporting cast) in prominent positions and in that respect it is MORE sexist than the sixties version, which featured female officers when there were none in the real world.
It might be tapping into the zeitgeist of the USA where bad boy anti-authoritarian attitudes are seen as 'cool' and righteous by many and bloody retalliation for terrotist acts is viewed as justifiable and desirable. I'm not sure that I agree that every other nation feels quite so in tune with that kind of behaviour.
The plots in 24 are built around similar attitudes and they're hilarious. Jack Bauer regularly tortures reliable information out of suspects (sometimes even his own girlfriends or family members - where's the tv remote - talk dammit, I don't want to hurt you!). The US President, who is fully aware that terrorists seeking to overthrow a foreign government are planning to set off a nuclear device told the foreign premier who is trying to help her catch them that she would have 'no choice' but to retaliate against his country if the bomb goes off. So terrorists bomb the USA and the USA bombs the citizens and legitimate government of that nation as a punishment! Nice country. Give me an idealistic Federation any day and Zeitgeist be damned!
The Israel/Palestine conflict is at the root of a lot of troubles exported from the Middle East and I think every objective analyst understands that the situation will not be resolved militarily and that repeated reltaliations by both sides just prolong the conflict.
- Status
Similar threads
