• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

What are your opinions regarding Star Trek that are, shall we say, unorthodox?

What the hell, let's go with the history lesson again. In TOS, Starfleet was the military. Contrary to popular belief, TOS was not trying to reinvent the wheel. They knew they needed to present concepts the audience would understand. Making the show about the Space Navy and their adventures is something everyone would understand. Describing Starfleet as some sort of Future NASA which also has defense responsibilities is not. And at the time, military officers engaging in exploration was very common in the science fiction genre in general and on American television as well.

In the 1970s, attitudes towards the military in the US took on a negative light because of Vietnam. When Phase II, which later became TMP began development, they deemphasized the military side of Starfleet because of this attitude, which was also quite common in fiction of the time. Then in the 80s, Roddenberry tried to say Starfleet was never a military, though this only because Paramount removed him from authority over the movies after TMP and he decided to rage against that, lashing out against Bennett and Meyer's more overtly militaristic depiction of Starfleet was just a convenient means of doing so.

When TNG came along, Roddenberry decided he hated the military and strove to present Starfleet as non-militaristic as possible. He even went so far as objecting to novel author Diane Carey dedicating a TNG novel she wrote to a friend of hers killed in military service, claiming this was "glorifying the military" which he would not tolerate in Star Trek and arranged to have her banned from writing any further Trek novels, a ban which would not be lifted until after Roddenberry died. Ironically, a first season TNG episode written by Roddenberry does in fact refer to Starfleet as militaristic, though this often gets dismissed by both sides of the argument since the line was spoken by Q.

Since then the idea Starfleet isn't military has somehow become one of the franchise's holiest commandments even though no one can really square it with how it's been depicted on screen. Indeed, Ron Moore has admitted he's always viewed Starfleet as a military anyway but was always instructed to say it isn't. Now we've got this situation where this topic has become one of fandom's most heated arguments between Canon Literalists and Gene Loyalists arguing "Isn't" and everyone else arguing "Is." Even Lower Decks has made jokes about this. This argument will never be resolved, can never be resolved and will only ever result in heated debates which will tire out everyone involved.
 
I'm generally in agreement. I just don't see the use being that different.

The powers given to a starship captain are far wider than those given to modern military commanders. These folks command floating WMD platforms and can use those assets, in many cases, without any approval from the higher ups.

I can you imagine the modern-day captain of the USS Enterprise being able to decide to takeoff from his assignment and upend the Chinese government on a whim.
 
I'd be curious to know why this is more preferable?

It's obviously a matter of tastes, like chocolate versus vanilla, so I'm not sure I can fully articulate it. One objective reason is that "space army" is a trope that dominates many sci-fi franchises. It's nice to have an alternative to that. Also, I generally like the idea of explorers and scientists, both in fiction and real life, so seeing that aspect emphasized interests me.

Again, none of this is to say I don't like seeing any military aspects. I love a good space battle like anyone else. Being explorers doesn't preclude that. In real life, if you read about 18th and 19th century adventurers sailing the globe, they obviously brought weapons and got into skirmishes. Exploring is dangerous.

I thought TNG did a great job of finding balance and compromise. They obviously had a defensive role, but relative to the motives it was intentionally toned down.
 
The powers given to a starship captain are far wider than those given to modern military commanders. These folks command floating WMD platforms and can use those assets, in many cases, without any approval from the higher ups.

I can you imagine the modern-day captain of the USS Enterprise being able to decide to takeoff from his assignment and upend the Chinese government on a whim.
But that's breathed of authority not how they're used.
 
But that's breathed of authority not how they're used.

Yes. That authority creates quite a different feel to the organization. A military where there is trust in the people they hand power to. An organization where its members have quite a bit of latitude where their conscious is concerned.
 
When TNG came along, Roddenberry decided he hated the military and strove to present Starfleet as non-militaristic as possible. He even went so far as objecting to novel author Diane Carey dedicating a TNG novel she wrote to a friend of hers killed in military service, claiming this was "glorifying the military" which he would not tolerate in Star Trek and arranged to have her banned from writing any further Trek novels, a ban which would not be lifted until after Roddenberry died.

Which novel of Carey's was this?
 
Yes. That authority creates quite a different feel to the organization. A military where there is trust in the people they hand power to. An organization where its members have quite a bit of latitude where their conscious is concerned.
Ok. I guess that's a distinction I don't see very much different to me.

It's obviously a matter of tastes, like chocolate versus vanilla, so I'm not sure I can fully articulate it. One objective reason is that "space army" is a trope that dominates many sci-fi franchises. It's nice to have an alternative to that. Also, I generally like the idea of explorers and scientists, both in fiction and real life, so seeing that aspect emphasized interests me.
I guess I don't see the difference. I guess it's a matter of preference that is kind of a distinction to me without a difference. Exploration is one of my favorite things of the Age of Sail, but no one would say that it is less militaristic to explore.

At least, I don't see that.
 
The comparison isn't too fiction, but what a real military is and how Star Trek reflects that.
I mean, if we are looking at real world fiction, the entire crew of the USS ENTERPRISE should be discharged and charged with crimes.
 
I mean, if we are looking at real world fiction, the entire crew of the USS ENTERPRISE should be discharged and charged with crimes.

Which is what makes the Star Trek military different from our own. They take into account circumstance and personal conscious when considering the actions of their members.

At some point in the future, they simply grew up to some degree.
 
Which is what makes the Star Trek military different from our own. They take into account circumstance and personal conscious when considering the actions of their members.

At some point in the future, they simply grew up to some degree.
If that's a difference then it's one I find extremely convenient and undisciplined. It's less evolved to me to just let people get away with whatever they want to do.
 
If that's a difference then it's one I find extremely convenient and undisciplined. It's less evolved to me to just let people get away with whatever they want to do.

They don't always. But they take it into account. Which any legal body should do when enforcing the law. Watched a great episode of Star Trek last night about that very thing. About taking into account circumstances and personal conscious.
 
They don't always. But they take it into account. Which any legal body should do when enforcing the law. Watched a great episode of Star Trek last night about that very thing. About taking into account circumstances and personal conscious.
So I can do whatever I want, to hell if the consequences, if the circumstances are correct?

I can't fathom this world, even if a legal authority should take context in to account that's a system that leads to absuses we see by the admirals.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top