Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt?

[Autistoid]

Re: Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt

I know it's tempting to look for in-universe rational explanations for everything, especially in the Trek universe because we want it to stand up as a single unified internally consistent fantasy. Sometimes the answer is just "Because that's how storytelling works".

No offense but the shows have been off the air for a decade.

Pretty much everyone here knows enough to understand the limits of production.


What is there to talk about other than the nit picky details of the in-universe.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Re: Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt

Because it's silly to reach for in universe explanations for things that have obvious production reasons.

Ok, I can make one up if it'll make everyone happy. Let's say, the Conspiracy parasites came back a second time, only they took over all the Admirals in Starfleet quietly without attracting attention, and then quietly slipped into their roles only making subtle changes. Yeah, that's right. Or maybe every time Picard encountered an Admiral, Q made them slightly more belligerent and irritable just to annoy him!

Why did you say 'No offense' in your post? I would not have interpreted any offensive intent in the post if you had not said 'No offense'.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt

And then there are the initially obstructionist superiors who later come around and become allies. There are a bunch of those in recent genre TV -- Captain Renard on Grimm, Captain Irving on Sleepy Hollow, Captain Essen on Gotham.

Also, the newer police captain on CASTLE, who initially had no patience with Castle and his hijinks.

Not to be confused with the first boss on CASTLE, who turned to be both sympathetic AND compromised.

 

[Autistoid]

Re: Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt

Because it's silly to reach for in universe explanations for things that have obvious production reasons.

Ok, I can make one up if it'll make everyone happy. Let's say, the Conspiracy parasites came back a second time, only they took over all the Admirals in Starfleet quietly without attracting attention, and then quietly slipped into their roles only making subtle changes. Yeah, that's right. Or maybe every time Picard encountered an Admiral, Q made them slightly more belligerent and irritable just to annoy him!

Why did you say 'No offense' in your post? I would not have interpreted any offensive intent in the post if you had not said 'No offense'.

Lol alright well offensively your idea is just plain old not interesting.

Of course were looking for silly explanations but thats the point , to find ones that work that can add a new dynamic or level of depth to In-universe.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt

I know it's tempting to look for in-universe rational explanations for everything, especially in the Trek universe because we want it to stand up as a single unified internally consistent fantasy. Sometimes the answer is just "Because that's how storytelling works".

No offense but the shows have been off the air for a decade.

Pretty much everyone here knows enough to understand the limits of production.


What is there to talk about other than the nit picky details of the in-universe.

Look at it this way. There are at least two ways to discuss any work of fiction or theatrical production.

1) You can take the immersive approach, pretending the story is real. "Why did Picard do that?"

2) Or you can examine it from a technical standpoint, as you would a sculpture or painting. "Hmm. Picard's actions in that scene would have been less confusing if they had been foreshadowed more effectively in the first act."

Both approaches are equally valid ways to discuss Star Trek.

Yeah, you can have fun dreaming up ingenious in-universe explanations for odd bits of Trek lore, but there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that, well, the Romulans wear helmets in "Balance of Terror" because the show didn't have the makeup budget to give them all pointed ears.

Talking about story structure and plot mechanics and behind-the-scenes stuff can be just as interesting and fruitful as playing the in-universe game, so I'm not sure why it should be considered out of line to dissect Trek from the outside as it were, as an artistic artifact.

Personally, I find how stories are told rather more interesting than debating the finer points of how make-believe warp drives work, but maybe that's just me.

 

[Christopher]

Re: Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt

Personally, I find the how stories are told rather more interesting than debating the finer points of how make-believe warp drives work, but maybe that's just me.

I think it's an occupational hazard of writers. I see other people analyzing what happens in movies and TV episodes on the basis of what motivated the characters' choices, but I'm always thinking in terms of what motivated the writers' choices. The downside is that, since we know the tricks of story construction, we can often predict where a story is going, and so we spoil ourselves on a lot of surprises.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt

Personally, I find the how stories are told rather more interesting than debating the finer points of how make-believe warp drives work, but maybe that's just me.

I think it's an occupational hazard of writers. I see other people analyzing what happens in movies and TV episodes on the basis of what motivated the characters' choices, but I'm always thinking in terms of what motivated the writers' choices. The downside is that, since we know the tricks of story construction, we can often predict where a story is going, and so we spoil ourselves on a lot of surprises.

I have a pet theory about this. Everyone processes fiction two ways simultaneously.

Immersive: "No, don't go in the basement!"
From outside: "Wow. Patrick Stewart is really killing it in this scene. And look at that cinematography!"

Our brains work both ways at the same time, but I suspect that there's a sliding spectrum where some people watch more immersively and others are more analytical.

And, yeah, those of us who tell stories for a living probably tend to the non-immersive end of the spectrum because we know, in our bones, that it's all just smoke and mirrors . . ..

For example, I'm always kinda bemused when people hold a grudge against a character for something they did in one episode. I'm always, "Don't blame the character. Blame the writer!"

 

[Autistoid]

Re: Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt

I know it's tempting to look for in-universe rational explanations for everything, especially in the Trek universe because we want it to stand up as a single unified internally consistent fantasy. Sometimes the answer is just "Because that's how storytelling works".

No offense but the shows have been off the air for a decade.

Pretty much everyone here knows enough to understand the limits of production.


What is there to talk about other than the nit picky details of the in-universe.

Look at it this way. There are at least two ways to discuss any work of fiction or theatrical production.

1) You can take the immersive approach, pretending the story is real. "Why did Picard do that?"

2) Or you can examine it from a technical standpoint, as you would a sculpture or painting. "Hmm. Picard's actions in that scene would have been less confusing if they had been foreshadowed more effectively in the first act."

Both approaches are equally valid ways to discuss Star Trek.

Yeah, you can have fun dreaming up ingenious in-universe explanations for odd bits of Trek lore, but there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that, well, the Romulans wear helmets in "Balance of Terror" because the show didn't have the makeup budget to give them all pointed ears.

Talking about story structure and plot mechanics and behind-the-scenes stuff can be just as interesting and fruitful as playing the in-universe game, so I'm not sure why it should be considered out of line to dissect Trek from the outside as it were, as an artistic artifact.

Personally, I find how stories are told rather more interesting than debating the finer points of how make-believe warp drives work, but maybe that's just me.

My point is, I admit that it can be both, however this thread is clearly a case of trying to explain a rather obvious decisions by producers.

It's like the whole forehead ridges on klingons issue. We know what happened, have known it for decades and after 20+ years of being a fan it get old.


Granted I could spend all day discussing production choices etc, just very rarely do they fit in the general section.


Aside from that, I feel like those kind of threads can be devisive.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt

No offense but the shows have been off the air for a decade.

Pretty much everyone here knows enough to understand the limits of production.


What is there to talk about other than the nit picky details of the in-universe.

Look at it this way. There are at least two ways to discuss any work of fiction or theatrical production.

1) You can take the immersive approach, pretending the story is real. "Why did Picard do that?"

2) Or you can examine it from a technical standpoint, as you would a sculpture or painting. "Hmm. Picard's actions in that scene would have been less confusing if they had been foreshadowed more effectively in the first act."

Both approaches are equally valid ways to discuss Star Trek.

Yeah, you can have fun dreaming up ingenious in-universe explanations for odd bits of Trek lore, but there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that, well, the Romulans wear helmets in "Balance of Terror" because the show didn't have the makeup budget to give them all pointed ears.

Talking about story structure and plot mechanics and behind-the-scenes stuff can be just as interesting and fruitful as playing the in-universe game, so I'm not sure why it should be considered out of line to dissect Trek from the outside as it were, as an artistic artifact.

Personally, I find how stories are told rather more interesting than debating the finer points of how make-believe warp drives work, but maybe that's just me.

My point is, I admit that it can be both, however this thread is clearly a case of trying to explain a rather obvious decisions by producers.

It's like the whole forehead ridges on klingons issue. We know what happened, have known it for decades and after 20+ years of being a fan it get old.


Granted I could spend all day discussing production choices etc, just very rarely do they fit in the general section.


Aside from that, I feel like those kind of threads can be devisive.

I'm curious. Why would that be divisive? Are people likely to take offense at being reminded that the show was a show? 'Cause it almost seems that way sometimes . . ..

Like I said, I think both approaches are perfectly valid. I mean, I can play the in-universe game, too, just for fun, but sometimes, after slogging through pages and pages of hair-splitting "in-universe" debate on the subject of Klingon brow ridges, I can't blame people for coming up for air and pointing out that, ultimately, it was really just a matter of art direction and makeup budgets.

If only to keep things in perspective.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

Re: Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt

^And as you've already pointed out, Greg, there's room for both points of view. I don't have a problem believing that the Romulans' lack of facial ridges in TOS was due to budget constraints, nor do I have a problem believing that some Romulans simply don't have the ridges--much as some humans don't have a widow's peak or the ability to roll their tongue.

Knowing that Luke Skywalker's replacement lightsaber was originally supposed to be blue like his father's weapon had been (as a Jedi, of course) but was changed to green because of problems filming the effects in Tatooine's background doesn't make me enjoy ROTJ any less; OTOH, I've also no problem with Luke (in-universe) choosing to honor both Obi-Wan (saber hilt diesign) and Yoda (green blade) in constructing his new saber. Both ideas make sense and represent valid reasons for the change.

--Sran

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt

^And as you've already pointed out, Greg, there's room for both points of view. I don't have a problem believing that the Romulans' lack of facial ridges in TOS was due to budget constraints, nor do I have a problem believing that some Romulans simply don't have the ridges--much as some humans don't have a widow's peak or the ability to roll their tongue.

--Sran

Exactly. In-universe speculation is fun, and out-universe discussion can be entertaining, too. I don't think we need to set up barricades proclaiming "this thread for in-universe chatter only" or get bent out of shape if somebody wants to talk about production issues or writing tricks instead.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

Re: Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt

Exactly. In-universe speculation is fun, and out-universe discussion can be entertaining, too. I don't think we need to set up barricades proclaiming "this thread for in-universe chatter only" or get bent out of shape if somebody wants to talk about production issues or writing tricks instead.

I agree. If anything, I've found that I appreciate the Star Trek universe more now that I know more about it's inner-workings; I've also enjoyed seeing how people have creatively reconciled small plot discrepancies--like your explanation for how Khan's followers' appearances changed between "Space Seed" and TWOK--and actually used them to make the universe more interesting.

Of course, there will always be details that can't be easily explained, but the majority of those are minor and aren't worth getting worked up over.

--Sran

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt

Exactly. In-universe speculation is fun, and out-universe discussion can be entertaining, too. I don't think we need to set up barricades proclaiming "this thread for in-universe chatter only" or get bent out of shape if somebody wants to talk about production issues or writing tricks instead.

I agree. If anything, I've found that I appreciate the Star Trek universe more now that I know more about it's inner-workings; I've also enjoyed seeing how people have creatively reconciled small plot discrepancies--like your explanation for how Khan's followers' appearances changed between "Space Seed" and TWOK--and actually used them to make the universe more interesting.

Of course, there will always be details that can't be easily explained, but the majority of those are minor and aren't worth getting worked up over.

--Sran

Thanks! Like I said, I'm certainly not averse to coming up with in-universe rationalizations, both for fun and profit!

 

[topcat]

most admirals are admirals because they are incompetent boot lickers that are too much of an embarrassment to leave in command of an actual ship and have access to something as dangerous as phasers and photon torpedoes.
Look at Janeway she was made admiral more from all her bad decisions and her bad behavior as from having achieved anything.

 

[Paradise City]

Admirals I presume are typically ex-captains. And they vary in temperament, experience and outlook. Some perhaps tended towards defence duties as captain. Others have tended more towards exploration, others, again, diplomats, so on and so forth. So they all have their biases and perspectives.

Anyhoo. The transition from captain and admiral is a tough one for most. It's cool though but inevitably there's some bad apples who don't manage the transition very well and go off their heads. And you only hear about the bad apples. Afterall who wants to hear about Admiral IDo A Goodjob?

 

[Greg Cox]

Anyhoo. The transition from captain and admiral is a tough one for most. It's cool though but inevitably there's some bad apples who don't manage the transition very well and go off their heads. And you only hear about the bad apples. Afterall who wants to hear about Admiral IDo A Goodjob?

And if Admiral Good Job is really on the ball, and the captains are just carrying out his orders and decisions, then he (or she) should be the hero of the show,not the captain. And we can't have that.

 

[JWPlatt]

On the topic of balancing in-universe explanations and production explanations, some things are so obviously a production reality that attempts to rationalize things like continuity errors in terms of in-universe story just get silly.

I equate it with saying software bugs are intentional. They're not. Software is changed or fixed later as necessary. Features are added that obviate prior code. Bugs are mistakes, or they manifest from an inability to see into the future to know exactly what should be done now to handle future development and technology. Future development and bug fixes change and evolve the software as a matter of course. The concept is easily extended to productions like Star Trek.

 

[Tracy Trek]

Re: Why are Starfleet Admirals often portrayed as jerks and/or corrupt

I'm sure we could come up with a long list of authority figures that are obstructionist, blind or corrupt etc...

Sen. Kinsey from SG-1 for example.

Ronny Cox who played Kinsey seems to be typecast as authority figures that are butting heads with the show's main characters. He played Jellico in TNG. I don't think Jellico was corrupt (just somewhat of a jerk) but Kinsey* certainly was. Also he was cast as a hospital administator that nobody liked on St. Elsewhere when the hospital was taken over by an HMO.

*I just watched the episode of SG1 last night where Kinsey is telling O'Neill he's going to launch an investigation. O'Neill says, "That's O'Neill with two L's" and he holds up 3 fingers as Kinsey's walking away (the ring and index finger with the middle finger in between).

 

[Scotchy]

I always thought they were stand-ins for studio execs, how the writers viewed their corporate masters.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I always thought they were stand-ins for studio execs, how the writers viewed their corporate masters.

Casting the rich, the boss or the powerful as "jerks" or corrupt is as old as fiction. They make good foils for our heroes and audience love to hate them because we all have bosses.