Why Did The Stars Wars and Star Trek Worlds Turn Out So Differently? (marginalrevolution.com)

IT took me years to learn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 01:33 · Score: 1

that the Jedi are actually the bad guys, Vader, et al, discounted. My friend is heavily involved in the SW universe and he had to explain all of this time me. So many people think that Han Solo (RIP) and others are somehow "freedom fighters".

Re:IT took me years to learn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 02:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

Long before the phrases "political correctness" and "social justice warrior" existed, Gene Roddenberry created those exact concepts. The main characters of Star Trek reflect Roddenberry's idea of a perfect, politically correct world:
Sulu is the token Asian
Spock is the token alien
Uhura is a two-for-one deal, black and female
And Chekov, the token Russian, who constantly brags about the superiority of Russia, because the original series was written at the height of the U.S.-Russia cold war.
But then you have the other Trek series where suddenly everyone is grouped together in more stereotypcial ways. The Klingons are the violent, savage blacks. The Ferengi are the greedy Jews, The Bajorans are the religious extremists. The Cardassians are the Muslim terrorists. The Romulans are the Chinese -- a secretive dictatorship ruling over people who all look and dress the same.
Re:IT took me years to learn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 02:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

One person's terrorists are another person's freedom fighters. Even George Washington et al were terrorists in their day. But because they fought on our side, and because they won, they are instead considered freedom fighters.
Re:IT took me years to learn by Opportunist · 2016-07-02 02:45 · Score: 2

But they are!
After they won. Until then, they were "rebels". Whether you're a rebel, terrorist or freedom fighter mainly depends on the outcome of the war, not so much on your actions.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re: IT took me years to learn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 02:47 · Score: 0

In the Street Trek universe there was a period of time where there was poverty. There were Sanctuary districts which led to the Bell Riots in 2024.
Re: IT took me years to learn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 02:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

there is a very important distinction between a rebel and a terrorist to be made. George Washington et al never resorted to terrorising attacks on soft targets. Terrorists are more like ineffective rebels that then resort to horrible acts of violence on women and children because they
a) they are a bunch of faggots
b) they cant actually fight directly and win.
Re: IT took me years to learn by HornWumpus · 2016-07-02 03:00 · Score: 1

It was the redcoats that made war on women and children. Which they can't really be blamed for, it was how they were trained.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re: IT took me years to learn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 03:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's some nice 20/20 hindsight, but you're neglecting the impact of technology on warfare. When Washington fought, the terrorism that their technology supported was part of routine military operation - burning fields, looting, killing women and children indiscriminately, etc.
Re:IT took me years to learn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 03:06 · Score: 0, Insightful

Terrorists are indiscriminate. They attack civilian targets, including civilians who do not materially support the opposition. Their objective is to destroy peace of mind and the conceptual philosophies of the opposing civilisation. To cause people who pride themselves in freedom to assemble, associate, and travel to set up guards whose demands meet or exceed the oppressive regimes that they once mocked. To invest themselves in torture. A successful terrorist maximises pain and suffering.
Rebels, on the other hand, look to oppose a specific regime. Their assaults on civilian targets are limited to such things as military contracting firms. Their goal is to gain independence, and once gained, the actions and beliefs of their former masters are only of interest to the extent that their hard-won liberty would be threatened. A successful rebel isn't maximising pain and suffering, because military victory is what's important and efficient victory costs them less.
There are rebel terrorists and terrorist rebels, but the two fundamental concepts are not the same.
Re:IT took me years to learn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 03:16 · Score: 0

So, how is high school English going?
Re:IT took me years to learn by skids · 2016-07-02 03:21 · Score: 3, Interesting

Funny, but also pertinent -- perspective matters. While in a horrible disciplinary/authoritarian environment and despite being assholes, the empire's soldiers were well fed, well equipped, and probably had holodecks, where conditions were depicted somewhat worse on rogue Klingon vessels opposed to the federation, or on prison planets in ST. Just, less time was spent in those settings in ST. Not to say that the OP does not have a point nonetheless, but life could quite possibly have been more horrible for the larger population in ST because the larger population would have been civilizations that were pre-lightspeed and thus each suffering from their own private wars and atrocity, or not in federation space where some other large interstellar power was enslaving them.

--
Someone had to do it.
Re:IT took me years to learn by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2016-07-02 03:29 · Score: 0

I thought Klingons were the Soviets? Likewise, the TOS universe always seemed to me a little bit like "we've solved our local problems, now it's time to solve the global ones" (like the ones you mention).

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:IT took me years to learn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 03:48 · Score: 1

How is it 'token' when those people actually exist (Spock notwithstanding)? When you're looking to represent a global society, maybe you want to start by including people who live across the whole thing. Nigerian and Japanese people weren't figments of Roddenberry's imagination. The whole world isn't Iowa in terms of ethnic makeup.
Even given the broadcast standards in the 60s, he did a damn sight better than a lot of showrunners now.
Re:IT took me years to learn by The+MAZZTer · 2016-07-02 03:57 · Score: 1

I dunno man, blowing up entire planets might make you the tiniest bit evil.
Re:IT took me years to learn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 03:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

You missed by a bit...
Obviously Roddenberry purposefully populated his cast with a multi-racial/ethnic cast, but there is much more complex thinking going on, mostly relating to the politics, issues and attitudes of the TOS era:
Sulu isn't a 'token Asian' he is not by coincidence, Japanese. Just 20 years after WW2 it was all much more fresh in peoples minds: Pearl Harbor, Rape of Nanking Internment of Japanese American Citizens etc. This is Roddenberry addressing all that head on.
Uhura isn't a token Black Female either, she is an Officer. Back in the early mid 60's these types of characters didn't exist. The country was having race riots, the cities were burning. Much worse than Baltimore or Fergison today. Add these facts with the fact that Roddenberry staged the first interracial kiss ever shown on TV, and it becomes more clear she isn't there as a token. You cheapen her accomplishment and influence by labeling it token before there were even tokens.
And yes Chekov is a nod to the cold war mindset. Just a couple years after the Cuban missile crisis where we REALLY did almost blow our selves up. The cold war was a real thing and on peoples minds. His presence on the bridge was a loud statement. Also Chekov is always wrong in his Russian superiority, but his character is saying: there is still Russia after the Soviet Union, in the unified post racial/nationalist earth of the future, don't worry, we wont shed our unique cultures/histories.
The Klingons are not the 'violent, savage blacks' they are actually rather articulate in TOS and represent the Russians. the Romulans were the Chinese (this is before Nixon went to China, it was a secretive closed society, nothing like now). Also its easy to forget that even though they were both communist party oligarchies they were also opposed to each other, just like the show.
What all this really was: a vehicle for discussing the tensions, issues, and politics of the day, some of which were too taboo to be straight forward about on the TV of the day. Which itself was a simplistic 42 minutes of a very repressed medium.
This isn't to say star trek TOS had no flaws, especially regarding women: no women Captains in TOS (except the aliens) Women's 'Uniforms' were really just miniskirts. etc.
Overall you missed the original intent of these characters and the real world that inspired them by a Kilometer.
Re:IT took me years to learn by Gavagai80 · 2016-07-02 04:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's like dropping a couple of nuclear bombs on cities: it's okay if you're doing it to end the war and prevent a potentially much larger number of deaths. By blowing up Alderaan, the Empire hoped to end the bloody rebellion once and for all and thus save innumerable innocent lives that would've been lost if the rebellion were allowed to expand to an all-out galactic civil war.

--
This space intentionally left blank
Re:IT took me years to learn by Z80a · 2016-07-02 04:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually, that's not how a social justice warrior world would work.
They don't seek to make a "politically correct world", but a world where everyone is forced to be equal and repay for what your ethnical group did in the past etc etc etc, to not mention always defining people into "oppressors" and "oppressed".
It would be a insane world where people would be monitored 24/7 to stop any kind of oppression, and you would need to pray for your ethnical group to not be defined as "oppressors" that week, or well, its oven for you, even if you didn't actually did anything.
Re:IT took me years to learn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 04:34 · Score: 0

The main characters reflect the STUDIO's idea of a perfect, politically correct world. The original pilot had a female android captain, which the studio didn't accept (for both the facts, she was android and she was female). They added Kirk to be the captain (never wondered how the white male sexist got to rule that perfect world?) and they replaced the logical android of Roddenberry with the logical alien with cute elf ears that the Disney audience could accept. Roddenberry was very much against this and fought it until the day the show first aired, and beyond.
Re:IT took me years to learn by HiThere · 2016-07-02 07:32 · Score: 1

And that is why the series turned out differently. The authors had different goals.
You can't really say that either society would possibly work that way, too much is not revealed. (Hidden is wrong, when it probably wasn't even thought of.) And you can't say how to get from here to there. In either case.
Don't take fiction as a direct map of reality, it's a story composed to be dramatic, and entertaining, as well as to push the goals of the author. None of that requires an realism, except that drama doesn't work if you don't find it believable.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re: IT took me years to learn by HiThere · 2016-07-02 07:36 · Score: 1

Killing women and children indiscriminately isn't something you do when you're on a tight budget and you need to hand-craft every bullet. Except perhaps by starting fires and then shooting anyone who tries to get out.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re: IT took me years to learn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 07:55 · Score: 1

Thanks for your politically-biased garbage opinion there. I hope it made you feel better to broadly malign people that don't particularly like your view that the world is already a perfect meritocracy and has been for so long that everyone already has an equal chance to succeed. You might as well call yourself a racist or at least eugenicist since you must clearly believe white men are superior, having no other way to explain their dominance as a group in the world.
Asshole
Re:IT took me years to learn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 08:16 · Score: 0

Don't forget the "lightspeed" wouldn't cut down travel time NEARLY enough unless all the SW characters were nigh-immortals or something. They would spend dozens to hundreds to thousands of years traveling anywhere at light speed, per trip.
Re: IT took me years to learn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 08:20 · Score: 0

Don't be foolish - that's what bayonets are for!
Re: IT took me years to learn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 08:55 · Score: 0

Warp factor (or warp speed) 1 is light speed. You'll note they pretty much never go that slow.
Re: IT took me years to learn by C0R1D4N · 2016-07-02 09:11 · Score: 1

Every now and then something happens to warp drive and they continue on impulse, which is honestly moot. They may as well just stop until they fix it.
Re:IT took me years to learn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 10:05 · Score: 0

You made only one mistake, specifically in this part of your post:

a simplistic 42 minutes of a very repressed medium.
TOS was from a time when the FCC hadn't given up on keeping money-grubbing jackholes from abusing the public airwaves. Episodes of TOS are 53 minutes, not 42.
Re: IT took me years to learn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 10:21 · Score: 0

WARNING: Nerdsplaining ahead!
Warp Factor is not the same as Warp Speed.
Warp Factor is used mostly in TOS and relies upon a linear, unbounded scale. Warp Factor 1 is light speed. Essentially, WF 2 is twice the speed of WF 1, and WF 8 is 8 times the speed of WF 1. IIRC, the fastest Warp Factor ever used in the shows or movies was 14. On a related note, "impulse" is not any specifically defined speed in TOS or the early TOS-cast movies. The later TOS-cast movies use the TNG system.
Warp Speed (or just Warp for short) is used mostly in TNG and later shows, and is based on an exponential, bounded/calibrated scale. In this system, "full impulse" is light speed. Warp 1 is light speed, squared. Each successive Warp level is the previous level squared, up to Warp 9. Warp 10 is infinity, and due to the unspecified laws of spacetime, results in anything traveling at that speed to exist simultaneously in all points in the universe. This is also sometimes called "Transwarp", and supposedly requires infinite amounts of power to achieve. It's something of a "holy grail" for Federation engineers and factors into the plots of at least 2 movies and multiple episodes of TNG, DS9, and VOY. I never watched Enterprise, but I doubt they missed a chance to further destroy continuity and good sci-fi by pillaging "transwarp" for a plot or two.
The math of these systems intrigued me in my teen years, back when I gave a damn. The number of zeroes at the end of the number representing Warp 9 in something we currently use and understand is quite large.
These days, I just wish I could find a good price on a box set of TNG (and maybe DS9 or VOY if the price was right) so I could go back and watch them again. Unfortunately, Viacom keeps them at ridiculous prices.
Re: IT took me years to learn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 10:44 · Score: 0

Flimsy rationalisation to avoid responsibilty for the atrocities carried out by the US at the end of WW2 detected. By all accounts the war was ending, your brass just wanted to test their new toys before that happened.
Re:IT took me years to learn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 11:21 · Score: 0

cute elf ears? Those were devil ears. Even mentioned several times in-series.
Re: IT took me years to learn by colinrichardday · 2016-07-02 11:29 · Score: 1

George Washington et al never resorted to terrorising attacks on soft targets.
Tell that to the Iroquois.
Re: IT took me years to learn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 11:50 · Score: 0

Sub to Netflix or Amazon prime. All the television series are available to stream at your leisure.
Re: IT took me years to learn by Z80a · 2016-07-02 12:10 · Score: 1

Well, thanks for putting several, several words on my mouth based on your insane collectivist view of the world.
But to answer that, no, the world is not a perfect meritocracy, but its quite a lot more complex than just "racial group x oppresses racial group y", but most likely poverty and lack of access to a good education pay much bigger role than racial bias on making people living terrible lives, and the cult is doing nothing to fix it.
Actually it mostly use those people as stepping stones for power, ditching em as soon they're not useful anymore.
Re:IT took me years to learn by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2016-07-02 13:57 · Score: 1

Wrong. The original pilot had a human male captain, Christopher Pike, played by Jeffrey Hunter. Perhaps you should actually watch it sometime.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:IT took me years to learn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 14:00 · Score: 0

Still masturbating to lolcats?
Re:IT took me years to learn by Jason+Levine · 2016-07-02 14:40 · Score: 1

All of Star Wars is shown through the "good guys' eyes." Every action from the Empire is unspeakably evil. Every motive stopping just short of mustache twirling villainy. It's probably be done, but I'd love to read a story about Palpatine and Vader that depicts them as they likely saw themselves - as good guys trying to improve the lives of everyone in the galaxy. We saw a bit of this in the prequels (Anakin's not wanting to simply follow "the Jedi way"), but of course Lucas was too ham-fisted with them (and too distracted by shiny CGI technology) to give us any decent depiction.
The best villains are the ones who think they're the good guys. You could say that Palpatine saw the Jedi as enforcing a rigid, but broken system that was keeping He was trying to reform it, but knew that the Jedi would never willingly give up power. You could show reforms he attempted to make in the Senate that were shut down by pro-Jedi Senators. You could relay his frustration over the years as he exhausted all options and finally was forced to come up with a way to overthrow the Jedi. You might have to veer away from the prequels' story a bit but that might not be a bad thing - and you could write off the differing accounts as being due to point of view. ("Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly upon our own point of view.")

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re: IT took me years to learn by j33px0r · 2016-07-02 16:32 · Score: 1

That's why they had bayonets.
Re:IT took me years to learn by j33px0r · 2016-07-02 16:34 · Score: 1

And you sure as hell aren't going to ask your president (emperor) to apologize for a legitimate peace exercise decades later!
Re:IT took me years to learn by Maxo-Texas · 2016-07-02 17:17 · Score: 1

It's called science fiction.
One way you can cast light on our own society is by showing it as an alien society.
But I don't think we can agree on this because you are white on the right side but I'm white on the left side.
In this light, your point is kinda "conservative blog" dumb.
---
Okay, so second post...
Another thing that writers do is they DO use stereotypes and archtypes as a shorthand.
And unless it is serving the point of highlighting a problem, then it's racist itself.
Many other writers and creators of entertainment material rely on, are racist, and worse- cliched and stereotypical to quickly communicate a lot of information. It's also simplistic. And it also shows the potential for character growth (the klingon pacifist, the generous ferengi) and it also allows a sincere writer to explore the edges of a character and a culture and try to tease out something unique and cool (the honorable klingon who is at odds with her own people).
Your point in this light is pretty spot on. Yes- writers lazily engage in racism. Roddenberry did it and Lucas did it ( lotsa racism- better hidden in the original star wars trilogy- pretty blatant in the second star wars trilogy ).
---
And it's also reality. People are racist. And while the individual isn't a culture- certain cultures do value the individual over the group, or the group over the individual, or view lying as horrible or lying as not a big deal, or have all manner of unique customs and viewpoints.
---
I really feel like your post is a cliched cheap shot. And there's a richness and complexity beyond the simple internet cheapshot post which your post is just a tiny subset of.

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Re: IT took me years to learn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 17:56 · Score: 0

The motivation wasn't simply to test "toys". It was to get the Japanese to surrender to the USA before Russia got a piece of the action. We had a "toy" that had the potential to do that and we used it. Perhaps it was immoral to kill all those civilians just to keep the ruskies out of japan. Who knows? But maybe Japan should have just surrendered after Okinawa. What were they thinking?
The real tragedies in my mind were the "strategic" dresen and tokyo fire bombings. We were testing a new "toy" technique to create fire storms there and those events killed far more civilians.
Re: IT took me years to learn by bidule · 2016-07-02 17:57 · Score: 1

Warp Factor is used mostly in TOS and relies upon a linear, unbounded scale. Warp Factor 1 is light speed. Essentially, WF 2 is twice the speed of WF 1, and WF 8 is 8 times the speed of WF 1. IIRC, the fastest Warp Factor ever used in the shows or movies was 14. On a related note, "impulse" is not any specifically defined speed in TOS or the early TOS-cast movies. The later TOS-cast movies use the TNG system.
It's not quite linear. Looks like the light speed is the factor cubed: http://www.star-fleet.com/ed/w...
Even memory-alpha doesn't seem to agree with you.

--
ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
Re: IT took me years to learn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 19:41 · Score: 0

Killing women and children indiscriminately isn't something you do when you're on a tight budget and you need to hand-craft every bullet.
Quite the opposite - if you get into a shoot-out with an actual armed soldier, you'll need quite a few bullets until you finally beat him (*if* you do beat him). At the same time, you can kill an unarmed woman or child with just one bullet. The Nazi SS even "perfected" techniques to kill several unarmed people with just one bullet.
Re: IT took me years to learn by cusco · 2016-07-02 23:15 · Score: 1

I believe that you're referring to when he still reported to the British.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:IT took me years to learn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-03 01:13 · Score: 0

This is SCIENCE fiction, its main literary weapon is exactly to paraphrase reality. to look at a situation which exists in reality and present it removed from our common experience so that we may examine it without our social, personal, economic, blinders on.
Re:IT took me years to learn by GameboyRMH · 2016-07-03 01:24 · Score: 1

Add these facts with the fact that Roddenberry staged the first interracial kiss ever shown on TV,
First on American TV, two different British TV shows had them earlier.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:IT took me years to learn by hackwrench · 2016-07-03 02:06 · Score: 1

That's not what token means. Token in this case means that in a big group largely consisting of one group of people, there is little representation of other groups of people so when there are a few, they have a token presence. When you look at the bridge crew none of them are a token presence, the population is too small and the representation of people of one type is about the same as people of any other type. But when you look at the population of the Enterprise as a whole, that's where the impression that they are token members of their population comes in.
Re:IT took me years to learn by aquabat · 2016-07-03 02:41 · Score: 1

You forget to take into account the time dilation effect; when travelling at lightspeed, the journey is instantaneous for the traveller.

--
A republic cannot succeed till it contains a certain body of men imbued with the principles of justice and honour.
Re: IT took me years to learn by colinrichardday · 2016-07-03 04:15 · Score: 1

No, he also did it during the Revolution. Well, he ordered Sullivan to do it during the Revolution.
Re:IT took me years to learn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-03 05:46 · Score: 0

One person's terrorists are another person's freedom fighters. Even George Washington et al were terrorists in their day. But because they fought on our side, and because they won, they are instead considered freedom fighters.
George Washington was not a terrorist, nor were the other major Colonial leaders.
It's amazing how this bit of Communist Cold-War Era still lurks, despite being debunked numerous times.
It's almost as though the folks that were creating propaganda for Communism have found new employers.
Re: IT took me years to learn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-03 07:53 · Score: 0

'History is written by the victors.'
---Winston Churchill
Re:IT took me years to learn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-03 11:04 · Score: 0

How about the French who actually won the conflict for you ? What were they ?
Re: IT took me years to learn by Agripa · 2016-07-03 11:33 · Score: 1

Would that include Curtis Lemay?
"I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal."
Re:IT took me years to learn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-03 15:00 · Score: 0

Well,
Uhura's job is essentially pointless - unless you're working with '40s tech.
TOS and TNG Klingons really have nothing whatsoever in common except the name - best to think of them as two entirely seperate species.
The attempt to tie them together wouldn't have convinced a 5-year old
Re:IT took me years to learn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-03 15:20 · Score: 0

Er no, the problem was that Gee was pushing his then girlfriend Majel Barrett (Nurse Christine Chapel in several episodes) for the role and wasn't open to alternatives. The studio was not amused.
Re: IT took me years to learn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-04 01:03 · Score: 0

most likely poverty and lack of access to a good education pay much bigger role than racial bias on making people living terrible lives
Have you considered the "poverty and lack of access to a good education" could be the result of the racial bias and policies, past and present?
Re:IT took me years to learn by cwsumner · 2016-07-04 17:08 · Score: 1

Wrong. The original pilot had a human male captain, Christopher Pike, played by Jeffrey Hunter. Perhaps you should actually watch it sometime.
It was the XO that was a woman. And it did shock many people.
Re:IT took me years to learn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-04 17:46 · Score: 0

Huh? There were no androids on the crew, WTF are you smoking?
Re: IT took me years to learn by Z80a · 2016-07-04 23:26 · Score: 1

Past yes, present, not as much.
After all, Inheritance is a thing, and the terrible racial bias of the past and cultural factors etc did indeed created a gap.
But it's not with even more racial bias and cult-like shaming of people etc.. that you will solve that.
You simply treat everyone as equal, and combat poverty regardless of the color of the skin, past or anything, giving those actually chance to thrive and get a better life.
Also you avoid that funny side-effect of having this massive passive-agressive racist system socjus imposes, where you basically call people of different ethnicities as "inferior species that needs a crutch from the system to get in a equal stance to the CIS white scum".
Re: IT took me years to learn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-05 04:38 · Score: 0

there is a very important distinction between a rebel and a terrorist to be made. George Washington et al never resorted to terrorising attacks on soft targets. Terrorists are more like ineffective rebels that then resort to horrible acts of violence on women and children because they
a) they are a bunch of faggots
b) they cant actually fight directly and win.
I think you should keep thinking these things over in your head. Developing larger, more destructive weapons has left freedom fighters with fewer viable tactics outside of guerrilla warfare and terrorism. It sucks, but it's the way things are in a world with nuclear bombs, tanks, and automatic rifles.
Re: IT took me years to learn by alexandru_preoteasa · 2016-07-05 08:50 · Score: 1

Hey, you even signed yourself as what you are... an SJW "Asshole."
Good for you!
Re: IT took me years to learn by Coren22 · 2016-07-05 08:57 · Score: 1

By all accounts?
Perhaps you should reread those accounts, the Japanese refused surrender, not once, but twice. The two bombs weren't dropped in the same day, but three days apart after the Japanese government refused to surrender. They had women, children and the elderly trained to use sharpened sticks to defend the homeland from invasion. They were hardly ready to surrender, and in fact refused to surrender when already beaten.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

Good summary by C0R1D4N · 2016-07-02 01:34 · Score: 1

The summary might actually be longer than this "article". Next we'll be seeing summaries of a single tweet.

Re:Good summary by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 01:52 · Score: 0

Why must the "worlds" of the two series be realistic at all? The summary is just giving itself a political view.

Next we'll be seeing summaries of a single tweet.
That is annoyingly common these days -- "news stories" which are just interleaved tweets as graphics and text.
Re:Good summary by Insanity+Defense · 2016-07-02 01:55 · Score: 1

Insanity. Trek has it cured. No megalomaniacs in the Federation.
Re: Good summary by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 02:25 · Score: 1

I'm sure this topic is a college course somewhere, far far away
Re: Good summary by kellymcdonald78 · 2016-07-02 04:39 · Score: 1

That is until you get promoted to Admiral in Starfleet. Then you get the concentrated crazy pills
Re: Good summary by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 06:29 · Score: 0

Probably why captain Picard always turned down the admiral position. He knew his place was on the enterprise with his crew.
Re: Good summary by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-04 01:16 · Score: 0

That is until you get promoted to Admiral in Starfleet. Then you get the neck-breathing-tube never-mentioned-again alien brain parasites
FTFY

Orion by BlackusDiamondus · 2016-07-02 01:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yes, because slavery definitely doesn't exist in Star Trek...there's definitely no Orion Syndicate or Orion Slavers or slave girls.

--
Shit happens and it's usually caused by assholes

Re: Orion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 01:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

This. Also Star Trek artificially separates various human traits into separate species. Like the Ferengi all being the "greedy merchant" types. Bajorans are all super religious. The list goes on. I think Star Trek is also a way to show how Communism was supposed to work. I.e. that everything everyone needs is available anybody can do what they like and still we'd not all just sit around and do drugs because we're bored. It all works because theres the replicator and warp drives and such.
While I would love to live in that world I think Star wars is a much more realistic world where resources are scarce enough that people fight over them.
Re: Orion by C0R1D4N · 2016-07-02 01:55 · Score: 2

The best way to describe the Star Trek world is that everyone is retired at age 18. After that the jobs they do are more like hobbies that interest them. There's no money to work for, but prestige is still a limited commodity, and the Captain has nicer quarters than the yeoman.
Re: Orion by Timothy2.0 · 2016-07-02 02:09 · Score: 1

The greatest shortcoming for Star Trek, I think, was that there was no explanation for how we got from the "pre-Trek" ear to embracing exploration and science for the sake of exploration and science. Sure, poverty in the Federation is gone, generally speaking, but the day-to-day issues aren't explained. What if I want to move to a new city? How does one just "get" an apartment in a no-money society?

To be fair, this isn't exactly how it works for non-Starfleet staff; we see the introduction of currency between species (latinum) and it's used amongst Federation civilians on more than one occasion. Cash-based trade still occurs, but the economics of it aren't factored into the broader Star Trek universe. As such a thing will have a direct impact on interpersonal dynamics, Star Trek really pushes this element down to a hidden level so the audience doesn't question the larger plot devices.
Re: Orion by CAOgdin · 2016-07-02 02:38 · Score: 2

You "Get" an apartment with a larger replicator, of course.
And, in general, your "greatest shortcoming" is endemic to all stories, from those around the communal campfires of our far ancestors, to today's novels: The "backstory" is a set of presuppositions, evident to the participants in the drama itself. To me, it is that pattern of unstated presuppositions that makes a story great: You have to suspend your own belief patterns of what happened prior to your own birth, and adopt a different pattern of presuppositions to make sense of the narrative of the story. And, in Star Trek, Spock's pattern of presuppositions, for example, is quite different from Kirk's, 'tho they share those of the Federation. From that, rich storytelling emerges. I find that the people who don't appreciate science fiction are those who find understanding that principle beyond their ken.
Re: Orion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 03:10 · Score: 0

You "get" an apartment the same way you do now. People move. They vacate their old dwellings. Someone else moves in.
By 2050 Earth's population is predicted to be stable, so construction and land usage will be in maintenance mode, not growth mode. And of course, automated construction robots using replicated materials will be doing most of the work anyway.
Re: Orion by drinkypoo · 2016-07-02 03:11 · Score: 2

This is touched on throughout the various series. Almost everything is publicly owned. If you want to be in charge of some stuff, you have to prove you deserve it. A number of characters in the Trek universe complain that Starfleet is stifling. There are colony worlds out on the frontier which aren't crowded. Presumably, it's hard to get a spot back on Earth unless people are impressed with you, and population pressure keeps people emigrating. The only way ISTR ever seeing anyone get a place on Earth is through merit, e.g. Professor Data. Otherwise, it had to have been in their family, and they have to have kept it through the war...

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re: Orion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 03:35 · Score: 0

And still, everyone wants to live in Malibu. All 11 billion of them.
Re:Orion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 04:14 · Score: 0

Yes, because slavery definitely doesn't exist in Star Trek...there's definitely no Orion Syndicate or Orion Slavers or slave girls.
Although the Orion Slave Girl thing was eventually revealed to be a ruse, they were the ones running the show behind the scenes.
Re: Orion by Mr+D+from+63 · 2016-07-02 04:18 · Score: 1

This. Also Star Trek artificially separates various human traits into separate species.

Star Trek's vision of an alien is a human with a funny looking forehead. Star Wars vision of an alien varies quite a bit, more like mixed animal traits.
Re:Orion by Crashmarik · 2016-07-02 04:19 · Score: 2

The "Slave Girls" Actually run the syndicate.
Re: Orion by onepoint · 2016-07-02 04:38 · Score: 1

These are great questions in which I think we are starting to answer. here is a basic presumption I can answer from watching all the star trek series;
I think you are given the basic right to shelter, food, education. Then ( based on what I learned on STtNG ) you have the right to pursue other trades and crafts.
Now what I want to cite ( which I know someone here on /. will know asap ) We are starting something similar, universal allowance ( money given to you without strings attached ), Which I think is amazing. and maybe the start of something like a star trek lifestyle.
Just want to point something out: I'm 49 years old, and every day is amazing with new things to discover and create. 10 years ago, I wondered if we hit the limits of creativity ( some stupid post I did here in /. I stated are we near the end of creativity ) and now I'm asking why it's taking so long to do it LOL.
last point; take a walk instead of driving, stop and smell the roses.

--
if you see me, smile and say hello.
Re: Orion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 05:51 · Score: 0

Star trek is a dystopia. They claim its about peace and exploration but every episode is a battle and the captains are wreckless and fickle with lives. Its a fake world and doesn't exist with our humanity.
Re:Orion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 06:12 · Score: 0

PC retcon is all that is.
Re: Orion by drinkypoo · 2016-07-02 07:06 · Score: 1

And still, everyone wants to live in Malibu. All 11 billion of them.
A very Trek-plausible solution is to tie dwellings not owned by a family and held through inheritance (which clearly is possible; the Picards prove that) to a job, and locate the job someplace nice.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re: Orion by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2016-07-02 08:29 · Score: 1

This. Also Star Trek artificially separates various human traits into separate species.
Star Trek's vision of an alien is a human with a funny looking forehead.
I've stated that fact many times. Usually to some college-age person who thinks the various Star Trek series are the high mark of TV culture.

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Re: Orion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 10:15 · Score: 0

Why would you need to move to a new city when commuting is instantaneous?
Re: Orion by R3d+M3rcury · 2016-07-02 12:16 · Score: 1

There's no money to work for, but prestige is still a limited commodity, and the Captain has nicer quarters than the yeoman.
I'm not so sure about that...
In "The Enemy Within", the "Evil" Kirk attacks Yeoman Rand in her quarters. They look pretty nice.
There was some discussion about this in one of the "Making of Star Trek"-type books. According to what I read, Roddenberry pretty much decided that everybody had their own quarters on the Enterprise. On the other hand, I believe "The Undiscovered Country" showed the "crew quarters" as being a bunch of bunk beds.
Re: Orion by C0R1D4N · 2016-07-02 12:57 · Score: 1

Next Gen and Voyager also shared variance in living situations (some crewmen had roommates, even though they were short on crew in Voyager)
Re: Orion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 15:54 · Score: 0

The funny thing is we really have no idea how life in theFfederation (outside Star Fleet) is for ordinary people or how politics work.
We know far more about the actual inner workings of the Klingon Empire or the Romulan Empire that we do about the Federation
We have lots of coverage of life in Star Fleet, though it's almost exclusively off planet.
Lots of coverage of various alien planets, much on frontier planets, but only a few short sequences from core Federation planets, all of which deals with either Star Fleet or close relatives of Star Fleet officers.
There are statements about life in the Federation, mostly from senior Star Fleet officers, and frankly they sound suspiciously like official slogans
The most we ever get about politics is the existence of a Federation Council and it's president, no references to elections or issues.
The title President says nothing about how (s)he is selected (general election, "limited" election/electorate, lottery, hereditary) or the powers and responsibilities of the job, from a mere figurehead like the German or Austrian presidents (think elected First Lady) to absolute omnipotent tyrannical ruler.
** Yes, I know thare are books going into this, but that gets into the thorny multidimentional Gordian Knot called canon
For all we know the Federation could be a brutal tyranny where the great majority life in abject fear and poverty with daily executions to keep them in place, and Star Fleet is merely the icing on a giant shit cake, with luxury lives for Star Fleet personel and their close relatives.
Re: Orion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 16:14 · Score: 0

The rules are always different for the aristocracy / leading party members / the very rich / ...
Also the inherent danger of extrapolating from a sample size of 1
Re:Orion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-03 08:21 · Score: 0

Note the word 'widespread', most portrayed cultures don't have it.
Re: Orion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-03 08:22 · Score: 0

Which is a necessary evil on a TV series where there's a short time to produce each episode and a smaller budget. They weren't restricted to those characters though - some aliens were far more alien than any on Star Wars, see Tribbles or any of the pure-energy-conciousness aliens for example.
Re: Orion by Zxern · 2016-07-04 11:42 · Score: 1

Star trek has always been limited by budget. It's easy to show a variety of diverse looking aliens when you only have to show them for one scene. A recurring exotic looking alien would be cost and time prohibitive on a tv show.
Re:Orion by GargamelSpaceman · 2016-07-05 02:23 · Score: 1

I don't seem to remember any replicators in the original Star Trek from which those slaves originate. Also in the original, Harry Mudd was a thing. With replicators, why would someone like that exist? Also, the Ferengi make no sense with all powerful replicators. Anyway, the Holodeck would end human ambition and drive to explore forever.

--
...

Why I thought... by Lord+Crc · 2016-07-02 01:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why I thought it was because one was science fiction and the other was science fantasy.

Would have been more interesting to do a comparison between two science fiction universes.

Re:Why I thought... by Barny · 2016-07-02 01:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

This. One is about science and philosophy, the other is about sword-fighting space-wizards. Neither is bad, but like the parent said, they are comparing mandarins to pears.

--
...
/me sighs
Re:Why I thought... by sumdumass · 2016-07-02 01:56 · Score: 2

It is probably that one is set in the past while the other is set in the future. Starwars reflects our history or a vision of it and star trek reflects a vision of what someone wants our future to become.
Re:Why I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 02:04 · Score: 1

And I thought it was just because they were written by two different people with different stories they wanted to tell.
Re:Why I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 02:43 · Score: 0

Why I thought it was because one was science fiction and the other was science fantasy.
Oh, sure, because teleportation and replication are totally established science. :/
https://news.slashdot.org/story/16/07/02/0336254/why-did-the-stars-wars-and-star-trek-worlds-turn-out-so-differently#
Re:Why I thought... by AmiMoJo · 2016-07-02 03:00 · Score: 3, Informative

TFA is hopeless confused. For example, I calls Star Fleet an "armed forces", but it's not a military organization. It borrows some military structure but it's not a navy, it's a peaceful diplomatic and exploration organization that also handles defence when needed. At most you could say it's something like Japan's Self Defence Forces, the Federation being an entirely pacifist organization.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Why I thought... by HornWumpus · 2016-07-02 03:03 · Score: 1

No. One is space opera and the other is fantasy. Neither is science fiction.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Why I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 03:06 · Score: 1

Sorta. Star Wars is about myth and legend. It "happened" long ago in a galaxy far away. It teaches us about the dangers of pride, ambition, irrational emotion, etc. It, like all myths, teaches us something about ourselves. Star Trek is about the future. How we could become if we strive for that goal. The reason they are so different is because they were written with different goals in mind.
Re:Why I thought... by thinkwaitfast · 2016-07-02 03:39 · Score: 1

Which is which?
Re: Why I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 04:01 · Score: 0

The difference is that in Star Trek we pretend communism works, and in Star Wars we don't.
Re:Why I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 04:07 · Score: 0

Umm, no, it _is_ an entirely military organization, except that the Federation is extremely militarized, so the diplomacy and the science happen to a great extent within the military. And the Federation is as "Pacifist" as the USA is.
Re:Why I thought... by Z00L00K · 2016-07-02 05:01 · Score: 1

I think it's narrow-minded to not call them science fiction. A movie can be many things at the same time and there are science fiction elements in both.

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Re:Why I thought... by HornWumpus · 2016-07-02 05:05 · Score: 1

When a franchise just asks you to suspend disbelief at every turn, it's fantasy. Lazy fantasy.
Science fiction asks you to suspend disbelief about a few things, then constructs consistent stories in that world.
Space opera's are just adventure stories with special effects.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Why I thought... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2016-07-02 05:19 · Score: 1

TFA is confused, but for a different reason. There is plenty of slavery and conquest in Star Trek. Most other major species (Klingon, Romulan, Borg, Dominion, etc.) are based on conquest and dictatorship. The Federation was the US proxy in a world of huge communist blocks and smaller dictatorships.
In Star Wars, the speed allows direct continuous pacification of the entire galaxy. It fell from within, ala Hitler's Germany and other nominally free periods (ancient Greece and Rome) all of which gave up emergency powers to men who refused to give it back.
Both are excellent warnings.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:Why I thought... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2016-07-02 05:25 · Score: 1

You don't even need the prequels, BTW, to know that about Star Wars. They just flesh it out.
A New Hope opens with "The Emperor has just dissolved the Senate," recall.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re: Why I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 05:34 · Score: 0

Exactly. If Roddenberry wrote Star Wars it'd probably look more like Star Trek. And if Lucas wrote Star Trek it's probably look more like Star Wars.
Re:Why I thought... by FlyHelicopters · 2016-07-02 07:28 · Score: 2

TFA is hopeless confused. For example, I calls Star Fleet an "armed forces", but it's not a military organization.
Yes it is... if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck...
They have battleships (Enterprise), cruisers and destroyers (Voyager and Defiant), fighters, etc...
They are just a soft, pretty military that doesn't look scary, but the differences are minor...
Re:Why I thought... by original+bit+basher · 2016-07-02 07:41 · Score: 1

The difference between Roddenberry trying for serious science fiction with a better future and Lucas writing space opera. When Start Trek first came out I was to young to understand and grew deeper into it later. When Star Wars first came out my opinion was low-grade science fiction but fantastic, well crafted and executed, cinema. Looked at them differently while enjoying them both.
Use the force, Spock. Live long and prosper, Luke.
Re:Why I thought... by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2016-07-02 08:33 · Score: 1

Military rank structure, military weapons, military responses, etc.
How can anyone say the Starfleet isn't military?

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Re:Why I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 09:00 · Score: 0

General Order 24: a procedure that calls for the destruction of all life on a planet, sentient or not. Nobody argues against that. They go forward with it, classifying all targets military AND civilian for annihilation. Face it, Star Trek was written by one of those leftist authoritarians who would think nothing of murdering billions to further their idea of "paradise". Trekkies are at heart schutzstaffeln and hitlerjugend types. That's why they like uniforms.
Re:Why I thought... by narcc · 2016-07-02 09:30 · Score: 1

No, no it does not. Certainly not in the crawl or the early scenes. The crawl, for reference:

It is a period of civil war.
Rebel spaceships, striking
from a hidden base, have won
their first victory against
the evil Galactic Empire.
During the battle, Rebel
spies managed to steal secret
plans to the Empire's
ultimate weapon, the DEATH
STAR, an armored space
station with enough power
to destroy an entire planet.
Pursued by the Empire's
sinister agents, Princess
Leia races home aboard her
starship, custodian of the
stolen plans that can save her
people and restore
freedom to the galaxy...
Tarkin does say:

The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I've just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.
Which is pretty close, but certainly not a part you'd consider the opening.

--
Required reading for internet skeptics
Re:Why I thought... by FlyHelicopters · 2016-07-02 10:46 · Score: 1

That, and whenever the "bad guys" show up, who responds?
Starfleet...
And they show up with ships armed with shields, torpedoes, and phasers for ship-to-ship combat, and so on...
What is missing, of course, is the Army, but that is a reflection of "TV show" more than anything else... You would have ship security dressed nicely for casual times, but you'd have armored soldiers for real fighting, but again... "TV show"... :)
Re:Why I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 15:01 · Score: 0

That, and whenever the "bad guys" show up, who responds?
Starfleet...
And it'll almost always be the named ship in the title. Or the crew of DS9.
Oddly, they are ALWAYS there, it's almost as if the show was about them. Just like how it's always a crime for the homicide squad on CSI, or some sort of emergency for the Chicago Fire squad, not for sewer maintenance or parking tickets, and how ER is almost never set in a doctor's office.
You know, except when it's an episode about the Holodeck going haywire. Then the solution is usually shooting Broccoli.

And they show up with ships armed with shields, torpedoes, and phasers for ship-to-ship combat, and so on...
What is missing, of course, is the Army, but that is a reflection of "TV show" more than anything else... You would have ship security dressed nicely for casual times, but you'd have armored soldiers for real fighting, but again... "TV show"... :)
Nope, even in the war scenes (mostly in DS9), they don't have armor.
It's just not that kinda show.
Though when it comes down to it, DS9 is practically the only time they show a war going on. Well, except for that one time when there was.
Still, most of the time, it's the HMS Beagle on survey, not the Temeraire at Tralfalgar.
Re:Why I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 15:44 · Score: 0

Yep. A much better comparison would be Star Trek vs. Blake's 7.
Hint: B7 is Trek with the Federation as the bad guys.
Re:Why I thought... by j33px0r · 2016-07-02 16:12 · Score: 1

I will agree with you that both Star Trek and Star Wars are really more along the lines of a fantasy story (Star Wars in particular) but defining science fiction, that is, the traits commonly associated with the genre it a bit more complicated; you'd probably agree with that though as it would take forever to type up a more detailed response.
Star Trek, however, pretty much meets most criteria for science fiction if examined closely so while it may have some operatic qualities, especially with the recent reboots, it meets most of the basic principles, even if it doesn't have the same feel as a highbrow classic scifi movie/novel.
Re:Why I thought... by dbIII · 2016-07-02 19:27 · Score: 1

It's really not all that far away in any respect from the British Royal Navy of centuries back. Even the "five year voyage" of the opening titles is inspired by a voyage of H.M.S. Beagle. Outside of periods of war a Navy is "a peaceful diplomatic and exploration organization that also handles defence when needed".
That's what seems to be the model before it was tweaked a bit and took on some later U.S. Navy characteristics in various stories.
Re:Why I thought... by bn-7bc · 2016-07-02 20:55 · Score: 0

I nominate star-trek vs Babylon 5 those universes are different to put it mildly
Re:Why I thought... by AmiMoJo · 2016-07-02 22:47 · Score: 1

The Enterprise, at least by the TNG era, is an odd battleship. Crew families on board are not exactly likely to inspire bravery and risk-taking. The majority of the crew have science and diplomacy related jobs too, with only minimal training in the use of firearms and warfare.
That was the idea with the saucer section separation. When battle was required and there was time, a small subset of the crew could pilot the engineering section and the majority could stay out of harms way on the saucer. The engineering section even had a "battle bridge".
Defiant was one of the few craft built for warfare, and is an exception rather than the rule. The fighters seen in DS9 were never seen in any other series. Surely if the Enterprise was a warship it would have at least a few on board? Instead it has nearly defenceless shuttles, same with Voyager.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Why I thought... by FlyHelicopters · 2016-07-02 23:39 · Score: 1

Nope, even in the war scenes (mostly in DS9), they don't have armor.
You might read what I wrote again...
"What is missing, of course, is the Army, but that is a reflection of "TV show" more than anything else..."

It's just not that kinda show.
No shit... that is why I pointed that very point out. :)
Re:Why I thought... by FlyHelicopters · 2016-07-02 23:50 · Score: 1

The Enterprise, at least by the TNG era, is an odd battleship. Crew families on board are not exactly likely to inspire bravery and risk-taking. The majority of the crew have science and diplomacy related jobs too, with only minimal training in the use of firearms and warfare.
If you go nearly a Century without war and no real threats, you'd the same thing...
The Enterprise in Kirk's time was quite different, because, you know, Russians (er, I mean Klingons!)
Notice the families were taken off the USS Odyssey before it went into the Gamma Quadrant at the end of Season 2 of DS9? The Federation was slowly buying a clue that perhaps their plan to put families on battleships was stupid.

That was the idea with the saucer section separation. When battle was required and there was time, a small subset of the crew could pilot the engineering section and the majority could stay out of harms way on the saucer. The engineering section even had a "battle bridge".
Yep, again, a Century of no war and no threats does that to you... Stupid idea, not really useful or used all that much, but featured a few times in the show because they spent a lot of money getting ILM to do those shots...
Re:Why I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-03 02:03 · Score: 0

Nope, even in the war scenes (mostly in DS9), they don't have armor.
You might read what I wrote again...
"What is missing, of course, is the Army, but that is a reflection of "TV show" more than anything else..."

It's just not that kinda show.
No shit... that is why I pointed that very point out. :)
You don't seem to have read the link, that episode even showed the Federation troops fighting on the ground. I get it, you haven't seen all the episodes, so I linked to one you might easily have missed. That might be why you didn't finish quoting my material. Still, you are aware that somebody can point out your error in one aspect, and offering a different take on it? Wasn't missing, it's included in some episodes.
You won't see armor though (I think Babylon 5 had one episode where they did show armored troops in a brief scene on the ground), not because it's a TV show, but because of what kind of show Star Trek is.
But here's the rest of what you cut:
Though when it comes down to it, DS9 is practically the only time they show a war going on. Well, except for that one time [wikia.com] when there was.
Still, most of the time, it's the HMS Beagle on survey, not the Temeraire at Tralfalgar.
Why you removed them when they were the substance of what I was saying(at least in that section, I can forgive the exclusion of the initial part about the focus of TV shows, though I would have preferred a response to it), I don't know, but you really should read those parts. I don't feel like restoring those links, but they're still above. I suppose you wouldn't even need to check them, if you were familiar with the subject. Still, try to show you're paying attention to what I said, since despite your complaints, you show no evidence you understood what I said at all as you did remove part of what I said and I think you missed the meaning because of that. Yes, I can understand trying to be brief, but sometimes with selective editing, you actually reduce your own understanding of a post.
So, to explicitly put it out for you, you do know that the Star Trek series is mostly going to be about Expeditions of the Beagle, rather than Battles of Tralfalgar, right? Since you cut it, I can't even know if you saw it, let alone paid due attention to it.
Though in episodes like this one, you can see how the characters themselves see it. I suspect it's the filter of what you think it would be, as opposed to what it is, that matters. It's really hard to get out of your perceptual box to a new paradigm, and we all think that "Oh, it's a Navy ship, that means it's really all military" when obviously that's not the real intent.
I mean, if you want future space war, there's Legend of the Galactic Heroes, not Star Trek. And if you want depictions of technology, as opposed to a plot device, I think you need MacGuyver. Star Trek is about something else. The setting is just a dressing.
Which is why I personally think the recent movies are a fail, they're too conflict and action oriented. If only we could connect Gene Roddenberry to a turbine.
Re:Why I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-03 03:31 · Score: 0

The Enterprise, at least by the TNG era, is an odd battleship. Crew families on board are not exactly likely to inspire bravery and risk-taking. The majority of the crew have science and diplomacy related jobs too, with only minimal training in the use of firearms and warfare.
If you go nearly a Century without war and no real threats, you'd the same thing...
The Enterprise in Kirk's time was quite different, because, you know, Russians (er, I mean Klingons!)
Notice the families were taken off the USS Odyssey before it went into the Gamma Quadrant at the end of Season 2 of DS9? The Federation was slowly buying a clue that perhaps their plan to put families on battleships was stupid.
Oh no, it's not obvious in TNG, but there were plenty of threats during the "lost years" just not so much from the Romulans and Klingons, or even yet the Ferengi (let alone the Borg.). The Cardassians, for example.
The decision to offload the families in that episode was so they could justify losing a ship, but not look so stupid they sent them all in to what was obviously a military fight.

That was the idea with the saucer section separation. When battle was required and there was time, a small subset of the crew could pilot the engineering section and the majority could stay out of harms way on the saucer. The engineering section even had a "battle bridge".
Yep, again, a Century of no war and no threats does that to you... Stupid idea, not really useful or used all that much, but featured a few times in the show because they spent a lot of money getting ILM to do those shots...
Technically the idea itself was brought up in TOS, and even the seventies movie, but never happened for various reasons. aka budget. But by TNG, there was a desire to show the family side of things for characters while recognizing that they needed some way to get the civilians out of danger.
Couldn't just have the Enterprise go back to port whenever needed, and the absence of a real civilian presence in many episodes of the TOS was something of a problem. Other than one episode, they might as well all have been orphans and confirmed bachelors (even the Mirror Kirk was obviously in a longer-term relationship than the main one). Not that TNG got much better, they even killed off Picard's family, and Data's creator had the most appearances, except for Worf's son and Wesley. The latter who was so annoying, he got put on a Space bus three times. At least Alexander only suffered from a case of SORAS and got a good enough send-off. Poor Kurn though, they wiped his mind with never a question about it.
Still, they tried, as it was their only option. Well, except some weird Holodeck stuff, which would have had other questions.
Plus you know, having them on the same ship sets made it a lot cheaper. Which was actually the reason they ended up not using the Saucer Separation much at all, since it DID cost more money and even distracted from the story. Exceptions being cases where they could do it for more dramatic effect like the movie.
Trek, sometimes its budget limitations open up doors (the Transporters), sometimes they close them (see all the funny nose aliens and universal translators).
Re: Why I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-03 08:02 · Score: 0

both present critical implications of supposed 'good' and 'bad' and challenge what we believe is good or bad
Re:Why I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-03 08:37 · Score: 0

Is a tanker also a battleship? Just because ships are in the same weight class does not mean they have the same roles.
Notice the flagship enterprise, the pride and pinnacle of power in Starfleet is completely outclassed and intimidated by a run-of-the-mill common warship like a Romulan Warbird. The enterprise was as close to a battleship that Starfleet had, but was nothing in combat compared to the common ships of actual navies -plot armor aside of course.
Re:Why I thought... by metaforest · 2016-07-03 11:24 · Score: 1

Voyager is a cruiser. Defiant is a light cruiser. Enterprise (NCC-1701) was also a light cruiser. Enterprise NX-1 would be closer to a destroyer, or frigate. Enterprise NCC-1701-A was more like a heavy cruiser. 1701- B - D Are definitely battle ships, but not the largest ships in the fleet. The largest ships regularly depicted were in the 150m to 450m beam length. Engagement doctrines parallel earth navies pre-WW II. Relatively small numbers of vessels with heavy weapons intended to engage similarly fit opponents or fortified stations/planetary installations. Typical example: A few Klingon destroyers are enough to trump any of the Enterprise instances, if they gain initiative.
Star Wars ships especially the Imperial navy are comparatively much larger. The smallest 'star destroyer' class ships started at 450m and go up in size from there. They are all carriers, with multi-role support for every imaginable type of engagement. Engagement doctrines parallel post-WW II earth navies.
Where things get confusing is trying to map SW and ST into the same engagement. The Imperial navy has a wide range of tactical capabilities. But they do not have transporter tech, and their defensive screens seem to only be useful against large weapon types. So we can kind of classify Star Destroyers as being largely armor and practically speaking they are buffer tanked. Comparatively, ST ships are active shield tanked.
For the engagement classifications I'll draw on EvE Online, since it does a good job of depicting a large variety of engagement types. ST is shield tanked sub Caps (mostly cruisers and battle cruisers) with energy weapons and guided weapons(rockets to torpedoes) . SW is armor buffer tanked battle ships and carrier class capital ships with lots of fighters/drones with a mix of turret types, but very little use of guided weapons. Occasionally Imperial Navy has a shield buffer tanked super cap available for planet crushing duty.
I think The Federation and their Allies would have a tough time keeping their fleet numbers large enough to engage an Imperial Fleet successfully. But they could easily nab solo Star Destroyers or small battle groups. Star Fleet would be better off using their transporter tech to infiltrate star destroyers, crippling the capital ships from the inside, rather than engaging then directly.
ST would
Re:Why I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-03 13:37 · Score: 0

Enterprise (NCC-1701) was also a light cruiser. Enterprise NX-1 would be closer to a destroyer, or frigate. Enterprise NCC-1701-A was more like a heavy cruiser.
Enterprise 1701 and 1701-A (as well as all Constitution-class ships) were heavy cruisers.
Re:Why I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-03 16:34 · Score: 0
Military rank structure, military weapons, military responses, etc.
How can anyone say the Starfleet isn't military?
Easy, they're a trekkie idiot.
As for nobody running around with special group running around with special powers in their blood: Bullshit!
- Betazoids
- Platonians
- Q
- The Traveller
- Organians
And plenty more.
And Star Trek is still space opera.
Re:Why I thought... by FlyHelicopters · 2016-07-03 16:36 · Score: 1

Putting aside the "my pretend spaceship can beatup your pretend spaceship..." :)
http://www.daltonator.net/fanf...
Star Trek had some major size inflation going on there, Voyager is larger than the Enterprise from Kirk's time.
Take Enterprise-D, since we know the most about it...
You could just about dock it inside the Imperial Star Destroyer (not really, the hangers aren't that big, but it would fit into an empty shell).
It is powered by matter-antimatter reactors that provide a lot of power to travel at faster than light speed and power the phaser arrays.
However, the Imperial Star Destroyer is powered by a hyper-matter annihilator (whatever the hell that is) that can propel the ship from one side of the Galaxy to the other in a few days.
The Enterprise would take a lifetime to do that.
The Phasers on the Enterprise are probably stronger than the individual weapons on the Star Destroyer, but the Star Destroyer has a lot more of them. Its shields appear to suck however and it lacks transporters.
But what it lacks in tech, it makes up for in raw weight of numbers... The Empire has over 25,000 Imperial Star Destroyers by the time of the Battle of Endor...
And this ignores the Supers...
http://i49.photobucket.com/alb...
Find the Enterprise in that picture... Now consider that the Emperor built 8 Supers... (officially 4, but each were built twice using the same names and orders to hide the extra 4)
Now tell me the Federation would last 5 minutes against the Empire as it existed BBY 3
---
And also, lets not ignore the whole... Jedi/Sith thing... what really competes with that in the Star Trek universe?
Re:Why I thought... by metaforest · 2016-07-03 18:02 · Score: 1

Your comments support what I was trying to get to. But I don't think the outcome is as assured as scale and numbers of ships suggest.
The lack of a comparable jump-drive capability does indeed limit the reach of Star Fleet to a small number of adjacent systems. They clearly cannot engage freely across the SW universe.
However I think the Imperial Navy would have a huge headache trying to subdue Star Fleet, and here's why.
The jump capability of imperial SDs doesn't support changing destinations in mid-jump. ST ships gain a strategic and tactical advantage in controlling their engagements that the Imperial ships don't have. Once an SD fleet is in system it really isn't going anywhere fast. It stays put or it jumps. This is actually a big deal. Controlling engagement ranges and speeds makes up for a lot of asymmetry is scale and numbers. ST ships can quickly enter and exit warp at any time to establish position.. SD fleets cannot apparently do that.
The defensive screens on the SDs are weak and the armor, while tough, is ablative. SF ships use regenerative shields and they are capable of taking quite a bit of damage even from more powerful ships. This is also a big deal. They can disengage easily and restore shields, while the SDs have no choice but to stay put. If they try to jump after the SF ships they are going to miss every time. This gives SF a huge advantage in controlling the terms of engagement.
The relative weapon strengths also would tend to favor the fewer but more powerful SF weapons. SDs are fit with large numbers of weapons designed to attack frigate sized ( 300m targets. There is some effect in 'sand blasting' the target, but this really doesn't create a huge threat to SF vessels. They are not going to get stomped by a large weapon from the SDs... so SF has predictable interval to apply damage and get off grid before their shields fail.
SD tractor beams are only useful once an opponents engines have been damaged. I don't think it will prevent any class of SF vessel from warping off when it needs to assuming that it doesn't get too badly damaged before attempting to disengage.
Imperial fighters and support ships ( 50m) are not going to be a significant threat to any SF class of ship even in large numbers. The SF ships can easily kite them, and SF vessels don't have small unshielded systems that a fighter is going to be able to damage. The threat from fighters to an SD is very real as the fighters can take out enough turret weapons to make the SD toothless. Smaller SF classes can fill this role as basically over-sized fighters.
Canon-wise ST ships don't take significant damage until their shields are compromised, and that takes being hit with something big. Short of suicide frigates, and fighters, SDs don't have any weapons that are a direct threat to SF vessels. SD screens seem to be used to minimize damage, but are not themselves damaged. To compare it with something in EvE.... SD screens are more like armor hardeners than shields.
Jedi/Sith are only useful in limited contexts that can be countered by comparable talent in the ST universe. I consider this to be a push. No advange to either side.
TL;DR Imperial Navy vs Star Fleet would be a guerrilla war that Star Fleet would likely lose, and would be hideously expensive for the Imperial Navy to win.
Re:Why I thought... by metaforest · 2016-07-03 18:08 · Score: 1

>>The relative weapon strengths also would tend to favor the fewer but more powerful SF weapons. SDs are fit with large numbers of weapons designed to attack frigate sized ( 300m targets. There is some effect in 'sand blasting' the target, but this really doesn't create a huge threat to SF vessels. They are not going to get stomped by a large weapon from the SDs... so SF has predictable interval to apply damage and get off grid before their shields fail.
Should read:
The relative weapon strengths also would tend to favor the fewer but more powerful SF weapons. SDs are fit with large numbers of weapons designed to attack frigate sized and smaller ( 100m) targets. They have few weapons that are designed to do significant damage to anything bigger than 300m. There is some effect in 'sand blasting' the target, but this really doesn't create a huge threat to SF vessels. They are not going to get stomped by a large weapon from the SDs... so SF has predictable interval to apply damage and get off grid before their shields fail. This allows SF vessels to repeatedly engage and warp off with little threat of getting volleyed off the field... during a fleet scale engagement.
Re:Why I thought... by FlyHelicopters · 2016-07-03 19:45 · Score: 1

The jump capability of imperial SDs doesn't support changing destinations in mid-jump. ST ships gain a strategic and tactical advantage in controlling their engagements that the Imperial ships don't have.
While that is true, keep in mind that ST ships can be targeted while at warp, while SW ships cannot. When a SW ship jumps to lightspeed, it is completely invisible and invincible (short of flying into a planet or sun) until it reverts to realspace.

ST ships can quickly enter and exit warp at any time to establish position..
What we don't know is... would Interdictor cruisers pull a ST ship out of Warp and prevent the formation of a warp field?

The relative weapon strengths also would tend to favor the fewer but more powerful SF weapons. SDs are fit with large numbers of weapons designed to attack frigate sized ( 300m targets. There is some effect in 'sand blasting' the target, but this really doesn't create a huge threat to SF vessels. They are not going to get stomped by a large weapon from the SDs... so SF has predictable interval to apply damage and get off grid before their shields fail.
You're ignoring the ion cannons... :) Star Destroyers have an equal number of ion cannons to bring down shields. Of course we have no idea how effective they would be, but they likely would be better than turbo lasers...
You're also forgetting the basic rule that if you put enough fire out, you cannot dodge it all. This is how the M4 Sherman tanks beat German Mark VI Tiger tanks, with shear numbers... A standard Star Destroyer has 80 heavy weapon emplacements and a dozen or so missile and torpedo launchers, it can simply fire in 40 different directions and bracket the ST ships so there is no place to turn or go if it wishes to remain within range.
We also have no useful information on what is more powerful, a Proton Torpedo or a Photon Torpedo

Imperial fighters and support ships ( 50m) are not going to be a significant threat to any SF class of ship even in large numbers. The SF ships can easily kite them, and SF vessels don't have small unshielded systems that a fighter is going to be able to damage.
The Empire has over 1 million starships... what if they simply ram the Star Fleet ships? Shields or no shields, if you ram a 300m long ship into another 300m long ship, bad things will happen to everyone involved.

TL;DR Imperial Navy vs Star Fleet would be a guerrilla war that Star Fleet would likely lose, and would be hideously expensive for the Imperial Navy to win.
I think a lot depends on if Starfleet has anything to defend or not... If "Earth" exists and they are tasked with defending it, I think they would lose very quickly. If they are mobile and have no fixed bases, it would be a much different story.
Re:Why I thought... by metaforest · 2016-07-03 20:17 · Score: 1

You make really good points. I'm pleased that you took it seriously enough to address it as an exercise, as I have tried to do. I think your assessment is relevant. And looking at How EVE handles starship combat makes the issues tractable by mapping the capabilities of SW and ST vessels into EVE.
What makes or breaks the case it wether SW is defending SW space or SW is invading ST space. I think you make a good point. IF ST is defending Earth... they lose to SW hands down. Imperial fleet warps in and blockades Sol... done. But if ST is invading, there is more flexibility and SW has a rougher fight. This is all very silly on its face for a lot of reasons, but to explore thought experiments like this might lead to more interesting games in the future.
Neither the Imperium nor Star Fleet appear to have warp/hyper-space disruptors. So Interdiction vessels don't apply to either faction. Ion Cannons appear to be only possible on planetary platforms. From existing story arcs AFAIK there are no examples of a star destroyer mounting an ion canon on the scale that the Battle for Hoth depicted: That is head-shot to a star destroyer. So turbo lasers and limited guided weapons. For ST ships both energy weapons and guided weapons are primary, with guided weapons being more destructive than phasers. For SW energy weapons are primary, and guided weapons are secondary. Not sure if it matters as you point out we have no idea how they scale between the factions.
o7
Re:Why I thought... by GargamelSpaceman · 2016-07-05 02:31 · Score: 1

Star Wars: A space Opera.
Star Trek: wow space stuff is futurisic and cool man. Refreshing escapism without Cowboys and Indians.
Star Trek TNG/Voyager: A soap Opera. 15 year olds wanking it to tight uniforms pre-internet days.
Star Trek post 90s: You're still watching that? There is such a thing as internet porn ya know.
Star Trek 2010s: Keep mining for dollars: Will enough gratuitous cgi action attract new fans who are already jaded to CGI effects and rescue a dead franchise?

--
...
Re:Why I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-05 03:02 · Score: 0

Why I thought it was because one was science fiction and the other was science fantasy.
Now you know why I despise trekkies: too stupid, ignorant, arrogant and narrow minded to understand that Space Opera is a sub-genera of Science Fiction. And too stupid, ignorant, arrogant and narrow minded to realize that the both Star Wars and Star Trek are both Space Operas.
Re:Why I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-05 03:07 · Score: 0

Star Trek has time travel; that makes it Fantasy as well.
Re:Why I thought... by Totaku · 2016-07-05 05:33 · Score: 1

Star War's Interdictor-class Star Destroyer, which mimicks a gravity well to force a hyper-drive out of warp (ie: danger, don't crash into that sun):
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki...
Also, most capital ships in Star Wars sport ion cannons. Even the Y-Wing fighter had them (cockpit mounted top turret). Not to the level of the cannon on Hoth, so no one-shot kills, but enough to chip away at a target.

The differences are the effect, not the cause. by berchca · 2016-07-02 01:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

Episodes of Star Trek were quite often, if not always, morality tales, and a relatively peaceful, morally advanced society provided a good backdrop for those tales. Star Wars was a tale of high adventure, and those sorts of stories are best served by heroes dealing with unseemly characters and places, by power-mad leaders, and by huge imbalances of power.

Re:The differences are the effect, not the cause. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 01:51 · Score: 0

star wars is very black-and-white, brawny, not-sf (magic), and for kids.
Re:The differences are the effect, not the cause. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 02:50 · Score: 0

> star wars is very black-and-white, brawny, not-sf (magic), and for kids.
You're delusional if you think Star Trek is any different.
Yes, there is magic in Star Trek, from the very begining. Watch "The Cage" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before."
Re:The differences are the effect, not the cause. by Z00L00K · 2016-07-02 05:03 · Score: 1

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
-- Arthur C. Clarke

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Re:The differences are the effect, not the cause. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 09:02 · Score: 0

Any sufficiently understood magic is indistinguishable from technology.

The actual answer is simpler by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 01:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

The writer(s) made it so.

Re: The actual answer is simpler by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 02:17 · Score: 0

+1000. Can we stop now?
Re:The actual answer is simpler by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 12:01 · Score: 0

No kidding. What are these guys trying to "figure out?" There's nothing to figure out. The stories are made up.
Re:The actual answer is simpler by dinfinity · 2016-07-02 21:18 · Score: 1

Exactly. The writer somehow assumes that 'turn out' is the appropriate verb here, as if (the societies in) these universes somehow evolved into what they are instead of just being conjured up.
Re:The actual answer is simpler by jeremyp · 2016-07-03 22:34 · Score: 1

End of discussion. There's nothing more to it than these are the stories Roddenberry and Lucas chose to write.

--
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe

Is this a trick question? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 01:40 · Score: 0

Star Wars is a futuristic fantasy story.

Star Trek is much closer to science fiction.

Star Wars is about a galactic battle between Good and Evil.

Star Trek is about adventure and exploration.

These two different stories demand different settings.

Re:Is this a trick question? by SuneSpeg · 2016-07-02 01:42 · Score: 5, Funny

The main difference is that star wars actually happened, while star trek is science fiction.
Re: Is this a trick question? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 05:48 · Score: 0

But it was a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.
Re:Is this a trick question? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 07:38 · Score: 0

"Not the Future" Star Wars - https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Re:Is this a trick question? by RobinH · 2016-07-02 14:24 · Score: 1

Star Wars is a futuristic fantasy story.
I thought it was set a long time ago (in a galaxy far, far away).

--
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain

The Q by Jon+Abbott · 2016-07-02 01:40 · Score: 4, Interesting

There is no special group comparable to the Jedi or the Sith, with special powers in their blood.

What about the Q?

--
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware

Re:The Q by SpankiMonki · 2016-07-02 01:46 · Score: 2

Or, more commonly, the Vulcans with their "mind meld" and the Betazoid with their ESP?
Re:The Q by drinkypoo · 2016-07-02 01:53 · Score: 1

What about the Q?
They're NPCs, who exist to move the plot along. They have special rules that prevent them from interfering overmuch, unless it's important to the plot.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:The Q by HornWumpus · 2016-07-02 03:08 · Score: 1

Plot complications...the writers needed a way to tie up all the lose ends in the last 10 minutes of each episode. Take the 'tie it up' crap out of the ST universe and it makes slightly more sense.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:The Q by onepoint · 2016-07-02 05:15 · Score: 1

or that 1 being that destroyed an entire civilization because they killed his human wife.

--
if you see me, smile and say hello.
Re:The Q by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 13:33 · Score: 0

The alien that wiped out the Hushnok race. (not sure spelling, but it sounds like that).

putting the cart before the horse by aepervius · 2016-07-02 01:41 · Score: 2

or more simply 5) because the folk started with how the universes should look like, then applied their own preconception on what then should be the power, social, and military structure. After all this is not history but two made up stories.

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org

very different creators by Martin+S. · 2016-07-02 01:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

Gene Roddenberry and George Lucas have very different world views.

Re:very different creators by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 10:17 · Score: 0

Had, one is dead, and the other has no say anymore.

It's simple by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 01:45 · Score: 1

They were both made up, but by different people.

Re: It's simple by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 02:26 · Score: 0

Mind. Blown.

Prime Directive by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 01:48 · Score: 1

Star trek has slavery and all manner of social ills. But they also have a political ideology that makes all that somebody else's problem. The prime directive gives them an excuse not to do anything about slavery and injustice, unless they really want to. It isn't part of their society so it isn't their problem to the that the summary author failed to notice that it even exists. The claim that that makes them see all humans as the same is absurd - it's pretty much the exact opposite.

Re:Prime Directive by Tony+Isaac · 2016-07-02 03:20 · Score: 1

Yes, exactly. The Prime Directive is a principle that sounds like a high moral principle, but in reality it is absurd at best, and evil at worst. In the real world, no one thinks we should stand idly by while a bully nation invades its neighbors, or when a nation faces a severe disaster. And yes, Star Trek was always really about world politics.
Re:Prime Directive by ATMAvatar · 2016-07-02 04:06 · Score: 5, Interesting

Given the fallout from all our meddling in other countries' affairs (particularly the middle east), the prime directive is looking better and better every day.
The same reasoning was given for the prime directives several times in TNG -- the federation encountered several another species that weren't technologically as advanced, they interfered, and everyone was the worse for it.

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Re:Prime Directive by pr0fessor · 2016-07-02 04:28 · Score: 1

You might also notice that planets have to apply to become part of the federation and the criteria requires them to have a certain level of technology, single world government, and be willing to abide by the overall rules of the federation and that the planets similar to those in the star wars universe would be denied access they could almost exist in the same universe... the federation and those outside the federation. There are plenty of stories lines in the star trek universe that show how outside of federation worlds there is poverty, slavery, and wars.
Re:Prime Directive by Hognoxious · 2016-07-02 10:10 · Score: 1

In the real world, no one thinks we should stand idly by while a bully nation invades its neighbors

Doesn't it depend how much oil/dithilium they've got?

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re: Prime Directive by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-03 08:07 · Score: 0

eu... brexit

Lucas is a dick by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 01:49 · Score: 0

Yes, he is.

Um, they didn't develop as worlds by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 01:53 · Score: 0

In the Star Trek world there is virtual reality, personal replicators, powerful weapons, and, it seems, a very high standard of living for most of humanity, while in Star Wars there is widespread slavery, lots of people seem to live at subsistence, and eventually much of the galaxy falls under the Jedi Reign of Terror. Why the difference?

Because Gene Roddenberry was writing one story, and George Lucas was writing another story. As such, there is little to no reality to them, simple dramatic story choices for convenience.

Frankly, I could come up with a lot of reasons to criticize either story for the plausibility of their choices, but why bother pretending there is any real depth to it? It isn't like the narrative itself is consistent.

Technology vs. Magic by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 01:56 · Score: 1

Star Trek is sci-fi. Star Wars is fantasy.

Re:Technology vs. Magic by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 03:34 · Score: 0

Please describe the science behind teleportation, warp drive, common genetic ancestry between space species, etc...
Re: Technology vs. Magic by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 05:58 · Score: 0

They are both magic, but one gives a handwave to sciencey-magic, and the other to religiony-magic. The result is that one is an epic Manichean good/evil conflict, and the other is "stuff that happened while we were exploring the universe and banging green chicks".
Re:Technology vs. Magic by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 06:18 · Score: 0

They both play fast and loose with the laws of physics and do a lot of handwaving.
However, I see a difference in the approach.
Star Trek assumes that 'magic' is sufficiently advanced technology, and control of the environment is possible by scientific understanding of how nature works.
Star Wars is much more "man behind the curtain" magic, where a supernatural entity (the Force) reads your mind and follows your commands, exerting a power over the natural world that corporeal beings don't innately have.
Faith vs. science, it seems pretty simple to me.
Re:Technology vs. Magic by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2016-07-02 09:08 · Score: 1

Many episodes of Star Trek have mystical or supernatural elements. From psychics to telekenetics, Vulcan mind meld to on-demand time travel.
Or has the original Star Trek series been expunged from the official record?

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Re:Technology vs. Magic by Hognoxious · 2016-07-02 10:15 · Score: 1

The last one is because some aliens couldn't keep their dicks in their pants. It's explained in one of the episodes.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Technology vs. Magic by Blaskowicz · 2016-07-02 14:06 · Score: 1

The force is said to permeate the universe. It's unexplained in the way we don't even have a definition for what intelligence in mind is. That it arises from all life and only life, and travels FTL is a bit meaningless or doubtful but it at least works universally and consistently.
There are otherwise no deities, magic or wizards.
Where I draw the line is predicting the future, even just the very near future. That's bollocks, and the force fails there - The Matrix has the same issue. Unless Vader tricks Luke into coming to save his friends by very long distance telepathy. (Like Palpatine would plant the death dreams in his future apprentice's brain)

Why? by The+Grim+Reefer · 2016-07-02 01:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's pretty simple, because they both came from the imagination of two different people.

Gene Roddenberry imagined what he thought was as close to the most perfect universe as could possibly exsist. In the case of TOS, he also tried to use fictional races and themes to make people think about how silly we are as a species too. Basically to make its viewers think about being better people.

George Lucas created a universe out of themes from various genres he probaby enjoyed as a child. He wanted to create a universe full of awe and spectacle. The story was the framework for presenting it. George was more artistic and wanted people to leave the theater thinking, "wow, that was cool".

There's nothing wrong with either, they are just different. And both franchise had their ups and downs. The current Star Trek movies have been more about being shiny than they were in the past. And I don't think I need to say much about the prequel Star Wars trilogy.

Re:Why? by cold+fjord · 2016-07-02 11:53 · Score: 1

George Lucas created a universe out of themes from various genres he probaby enjoyed as a child. He wanted to create a universe full of awe and spectacle. The story was the framework for presenting it. George was more artistic and wanted people to leave the theater thinking, "wow, that was cool".

I can understand why you might think that, but the answer is quite different.
The Real History That Inspired “Star Wars”

“I love history, so while the psychological basis of ‘Star Wars’ is mythological, the political and social bases are historical,” Lucas told the Boston Globe in a 2005 interview. ...
There’s nothing subtle about this historical allusion in “Star Wars.” After all, the elite assault forces fanatically devoted to the Galactic Empire share a common name with the paramilitary fighters who defended the Nazi Party—stormtroopers. The Imperial officers’ uniforms and even Darth Vader’s helmet resemble those worn by German Army members in World War II, and the gradual rise of Palpatine from chancellor to emperor mirrored Adolf Hitler’s similar political ascent from chancellor to dictator. ... The final scene of the original 1977 “Star Wars” ... echoed the massive Nazi rallies in Nuremberg captured in Leni Riefenstahl’s 1935 propaganda film “Triumph of the Will.”
Although there are parallels between Emperor Palpatine and dictators such as Hitler and Napoleon Bonaparte, the direct inspiration for the saga’s evil antagonist was actually an American president. ... when asked if Emperor Palpatine was a Jedi during a 1981 story conference, Lucas responded, “No, he was a politician. Richard M. Nixon was his name. He subverted the senate and finally took over and became an imperial guy and he was really evil. But he pretended to be a really nice guy.” In a 2005 interview published in the Chicago Tribune, Lucas said he originally conceived “Star Wars” as a reaction to Nixon’s presidency. “It was really about the Vietnam War, and that was the period where Nixon was trying to run for a [second] term, which got me to thinking historically about how do democracies get turned into dictatorships? Because the democracies aren’t overthrown; they’re given away.”
The guerilla war waged by the Rebel Alliance against the Galactic Empire mirrored the battle between an insurgent force and a global superpower that was playing out in Vietnam as Lucas wrote “Star Wars”. . . .
While the elite Jedi—who guard peace and justice in the Galactic Republic—bear similarities to Japanese samurai and Shaolin monks, they also echo the medieval monastic military order of the Knights Templar. The Templars ... “were esteemed above other knights for their austerity, devotion, and moral purity. Like the Jedi, they practiced individual poverty within a military-monastic order that commanded great material resources.” A 12-member council of elders headed by a grand master governed both the Jedi and the Templars, and Jedi clothing even resembled the hooded white robes worn by the Christian warrior-monks who took vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. Much like the Great Jedi Purge ordered by Chancellor Palpatine in “Revenge of the Sith,” France’s King Philip IV annihilated the Knights Templar after arresting hundreds of them on October 13, 1307, and subsequently torturing and executing them for heresy.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:Why? by The+Grim+Reefer · 2016-07-02 16:24 · Score: 1

It's possible. But much like Lucas' revisionist versions of the original trilogy, his explication of reality in the past seems to change over time as well.
Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 20:56 · Score: 0

> Gene Roddenberry imagined what he thought was as close to the most perfect universe as could possibly exsist.
Unless you're wearing a red shirt.
Re:Why? by cusco · 2016-07-03 00:55 · Score: 1

Philip massacred the Templars because 1) they were one of the few organizations who loaned money (at what was then considered exorbitant interest rates),2) France owed them an enormous amount of debt, 3) the Templars were interfering in internal French politics, threatening Philips hold on power, and 4) the Templars owned an enormous amount of property in France (much of it acquired as debt repayment), which Philip seized. In one stroke he wiped out France's debt to the Templars, seized whatever treasure they had that he could find (location of which he tried to get through torture), eliminated their moralizing and criticism, and grabbed property that the crown could sell to pay off debt it owed to others. By and large the operation was a failure though as it scared off other lenders, increased internal criticism from other quarters and from the Church, didn't turn up as much treasure as estimated, and dumping that much property on the market all at once depressed prices. He wasn't France's brightest ruler.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin

The writers by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 01:58 · Score: 1

They are different because they were written differently. They are both works of fiction and therefore subject to the arbitrary manipulation of their creators. To argue anything different or to try to draw some sort of social evolutionary lessons is absurd.

Compare Uhura, Chekhov, and Sulu to Stormtroopers by SpankiMonki · 2016-07-02 01:59 · Score: 1

I can't - the Stormtroopers are all wearing helmets, so I can't tell their gender/ethnicity. But I'm sure Lucas put a representative sample of humanity in there. I bet he even has some transgendered Stormtroopers and you won't find that in Star Trek no siree. Man, that George Lucas thought of everything!

I'll take a shot at this by Dunbal · 2016-07-02 02:08 · Score: 2

Because they are different STORIES written by different AUTHORS. Anyone who reads any more than that into them is either a little crazy, a humanities major, or both.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.

Re:I'll take a shot at this by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 04:25 · Score: 0

Right! Why put thought into things? Who does that?
Re:I'll take a shot at this by Dunbal · 2016-07-02 10:34 · Score: 1

Think about it all you want, that doesn't mate it "news for nerds".

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.

Star Trek is political fantasy by readin · 2016-07-02 02:09 · Score: 5, Interesting

In Star Trek we see good government in the form of the Federation. Promotions are by merit. Large undertakings are done for the betterment of the entire Federation. But we never see how that is achieved. How is the leadership of the Federation selected? How incentives in place to prevent corruption, to prevent factionalism, to prevent special interests from gaining too much power? Why doesn't a Ferengi of questionable character ever become the leader and make himself a dictator? Roddenberry just wished those problems away! We see from most Star Fleet officers a certain desire to serve and to better themselves (there is the famous episode where Picard claims that people are no longer motivated by money). If that isn't limited to Star Fleet, then how are people's human instincts suppressed? Is it indoctrination when they're children? Drugs? Medical procedures? Again Roddenberry just wishes for it and it's there! Of course as a work of fiction, that's what we expect. Faster than light travel? Maybe some future technology will make it possible. A large happy prosperous communist society? Maybe some future technology will make it work. We suspend our disbelief so we can enjoy the story. That's why it's called 'fiction'.

--
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.

Re:Star Trek is political fantasy by mrbester · 2016-07-02 02:57 · Score: 1

The Ferengi still have a Grand Negus. The Federation doesn't interfere with internal politics (which is also part of the Prime Directive) so while there are rules to follow if you are a member, you can still be an unscrupulous business oriented society so long as you don't take the view that your ideology is superior to others. This is why the Romulans and Cardassians aren't members and the Klingons only "recently".

--
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
Re:Star Trek is political fantasy by AmiMoJo · 2016-07-02 03:12 · Score: 1

How is the leadership of the Federation selected?
I seem to recall that it is a democracy, somewhat like the European Union where member planets send representatives. It's not clear if they representatives elect a leader or if that is by a popular vote... Or it could even be a mix of the two, as some races might not practice that kind of democracy for various reasons.
Star Fleet leadership is presumably appointed, much like most current militaries, although it's not a military organization. It serves the elected government, anyway.

Why doesn't a Ferengi of questionable character ever become the leader and make himself a dictator?
Because they are not members of the Federation and probably wouldn't be allowed in. From what we see on screen of groups wanting to join the Federation, they have to meet certain standards (again, much like the EU) on things like freedom and human rights. The Ferengi oppression of women would likely block their entry, for a start. They would probably be expected to move beyond society based on personal wealth too, having eliminated poverty and disease with universal assistance and healthcare.

If that isn't limited to Star Fleet, then how are people's human instincts suppressed? Is it indoctrination when they're children? Drugs? Medical procedures?
You are begging the question there. Is it really human nature to want to amass personal wealth? Even today, many people have moved past that and prefer to be comfortable and happy rather than miserable but with a pile of gold. Anyway, the Federation offers citizens something much better than personal wealth, which isn't even that meaningful when poverty was eliminated long ago and replicators/holodecks can cater to almost every desire and whim. The Federation offers people the chance to do what they want, with the amount of commitment they want. If my needs were more than catered for and I could work on whatever I wanted to, I wouldn't care about wealth.

A large happy prosperous communist society?
Well, most of the best places to live in the world are socialist. Sweden and other northern European countries are very far to the left of the US and yet have a better quality of life, less poverty and more happiness. It seems to be the way the human race is heading as most societies become more socialist as they develop.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Star Trek is political fantasy by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 04:12 · Score: 0

> I seem to recall it's a democracy... it's not clear if ... representatives elect a leader..."
It's not clear since it doesn't matter. The military (= Starfleet) calls the shots anyway. That's why you rarely see any signs of any sort of civilian government, except for the occasional token ambassador.
> Starfleet ... is not a military organization
S-U-R-E it isn't. They only fight for peace. That's why all of their "non-warships" are armed to the teeth. And why they're at war half the time. Oh, I'm sorry, it's because the evil aliens attacked first.
Re:Star Trek is political fantasy by Gavagai80 · 2016-07-02 04:41 · Score: 1

There are Star Trek episodes that deal with corruption in the federation, and even with martial law and a dictator plotting to take control of the federation (DS9: Paradise Lost).

--
This space intentionally left blank
Re:Star Trek is political fantasy by johannesg · 2016-07-02 04:44 · Score: 1

A large happy prosperous communist society?
Well, most of the best places to live in the world are socialist. Sweden and other northern European countries are very far to the left of the US and yet have a better quality of life, less poverty and more happiness. It seems to be the way the human race is heading as most societies become more socialist as they develop.
Scandivia _had_ more happiness until it was overrun by Klingons. You know, a warrior race that believes the greatest honor is in losing your life while battling the enemy, whose most holy figure is a warrior, whose weapon of choice is the sword, and whose favorite tactic is attacking from ambush, without warning.
Re:Star Trek is political fantasy by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 04:49 · Score: 0

That's why all of their "non-warships" are armed to the teeth.
Except they aren't. 90% (a figured picked mostly out of my ass) are simple science ships with minimal shields and phasers. Much like Star Wars, we don't follow the vast majority of ships or people. We follow where the action is, which is one of the more elite ships.

And why they're at war half the time. Oh, I'm sorry, it's because the evil aliens attacked first.
Space is big. But it's also three dimensional and plenty of aliens are territorial or otherwise wish to expand (the Federation is guilty of this too, with their exploration often meant in part to find unoccupied areas and to recruit new members). It's little wonder that those on the front lines of the empire^WFederation would be in frequent conflict with new groups or to have old groups start fighting again.
Re:Star Trek is political fantasy by AthanasiusKircher · 2016-07-02 04:52 · Score: 1

If that isn't limited to Star Fleet, then how are people's human instincts suppressed? Is it indoctrination when they're children? Drugs? Medical procedures? Again Roddenberry just wishes for it and it's there! Of course as a work of fiction, that's what we expect.
I think a lot of what you call "human instincts" are profoundly shaped by society around you. Yes, people have natural urges, and many of them can be self-destructive or even destructive to an idealistic society if not "kept in check." But social mores can be powerful.
Yes, we all recognize that "human" traits like lust and envy and greed have always been around, but the kinds of behavior we view as acceptable in the pursuit of them have changed radically over time. Look back at the murder and violent crime rates of a few centuries ago. We tend to be myopic about history of such things, worrying about what's happening now vs. a decade ago, but if you take a long-term view, "civilization" has gradually tamed a LOT of "human instincts." It's no longer as acceptable to just beat a person to death as it was a couple centuries ago in "civilized" nations. Even the level of cruelty of punishments has decreased significantly -- we no longer saw people in half or disembowel them or whatever as part of a normal execution.
Does that mean we have NO murder or rape or whatever now? Of course not. But even a century ago it was commonly accepted that men should just be able to "have their way" with their women whenever they wanted, which was part of the reason for our complex moral code around marriage. Some people today think that code was mostly meant to be restrictive and demeaning to women (and it was), but it was also designed because social morality was much more permissive about what was acceptable behavior for men to do to satisfy their lust.
Does lust still exist? Of course it does. But despite the recent outcry over "rape culture" on college campuses, the incidence of forced sex today is probably significantly less than it was just a few generations ago. And that's because our social attitudes have changed.
We could talk the same way about money and greed, which seems your concern. The capitalist myth about the origin of money has done a lot of damage; in most "primitive" cultures, we don't tend to observe people bargaining in barter systems... instead, they tend to be built on elaborate systems of gift-giving and indebtedness. The natural human proclivity in many cultures has been to aid neighbors when needed, because the assumption in primitive societies is that "we all need to stick together," since otherwise you'll likely die of starvation or by wild animals or by neighboring tribes or whatever.
So you do things to help others, and they become indebted to you, and they later repay the debt. Humans are not necessarily naturally "bargainers" driven by capitalist greed. Can it happen? Obviously. But perhaps it's not as of an inevitable "human instinct" as we might think.
I agree that Roddenberry just ignored a lot of these issues. But I don't think they are as insurmountable as you seem to imagine. I mostly think the problems would occur in getting the Star Trek society set up in the first place -- but once it's in place, I don't necessarily think you'll need "indoctrination" or "drugs" or "medical procedures" to get rid of many undesirable social behaviors... I think once society has established new norms, it may be much more stable than you might imagine. (There obviously do need to be some protections with checks and balances to avoid people getting too much power, as you rightly point out, which is likely a much bigger issue that the "human instincts" of the general population.)
I used to be more cynical like you when I was younger. I certainly don't think it would be easy to solve all these problems. But I also don't think it's necessarily impossible or unsustainable.
Re:Star Trek is political fantasy by PJ6 · 2016-07-02 06:34 · Score: 1

I agree that how one arrives at the social and economic structure of Star Trek is left to the imagination, but some of the presumably enabling elements, namely, the technology, are shown front-and-center. What will happen when everyone has access to a replicator that can make all the necessities of life - food, shelter, clothing - in as much abundance as anyone would ever need?

Maybe that will result in disaster the likes of which would strain the imagination... but maybe not.

Whatever the outcome, I'm pretty sure such technology would render the notions of 'capitalism' and 'communism' somewhat useless. Star Trek's socioeconomic ideas don't seem to be so out there as to be implausible.
Re:Star Trek is political fantasy by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 10:35 · Score: 0

A large happy, prosperous capitalist society? Maybe some future technology will make it work.
Re:Star Trek is political fantasy by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 11:22 · Score: 0

Scandivia _had_ more happiness until it was overrun by Klingons. You know, a warrior race that believes the greatest honor is in losing your life while battling the enemy, whose most holy figure is a warrior, whose weapon of choice is the sword, and whose favorite tactic is attacking from ambush, without warning.
To paraphrase Tacticus (from Discworld): "It's good to fight an enemy who's prepared to die for their cause. It means both you and he have the same goal."
Re:Star Trek is political fantasy by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 16:22 · Score: 0

A large happy prosperous communist society?
Well, most of the best places to live in the world are socialist. Sweden and other northern European countries are very far to the left of the US and yet have a better quality of life, less poverty and more happiness. It seems to be the way the human race is heading as most societies become more socialist as they develop.
Scandivia _had_ more happiness until it was overrun by Klingons. You know, a warrior race that believes the greatest honor is in losing your life while battling the enemy, whose most holy figure is a warrior, whose weapon of choice is the sword, and whose favorite tactic is attacking from ambush, without warning.
You mean the Vikings? Because when I think Scandinavia, I think tall, pale people, not religious nuts, which is the Trumpian view.
Re:Star Trek is political fantasy by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 17:50 · Score: 0

"how are people's human instincts suppressed? Is it indoctrination when they're children? Drugs? Medical procedures?"- all of the above, and eugenics. The society shown in Star Trek is utterly implausible without serious manipulation of the population.
Admittedly, the Star Wars universe is pretty implausible too- we couldn't live on a uncountable number of planets without developing technology to the point that most slaves would simply be culled off- but it's not as stupid as Star Trek is.
Re:Star Trek is political fantasy by readin · 2016-07-02 18:47 · Score: 1

You are begging the question there. Is it really human nature to want to amass personal wealth?
It is human nature to want to amass the resources to help you get laid and help your offspring do the same. This means not just wealth but also power.

Even today, many people have moved past that and prefer to be comfortable and happy rather than miserable but with a pile of gold. Anyway, the Federation offers citizens something much better than personal wealth, which isn't even that meaningful when poverty was eliminated long ago and replicators/holodecks can cater to almost every desire and whim. The Federation offers people the chance to do what they want, with the amount of commitment they want. If my needs were more than catered for and I could work on whatever I wanted to, I wouldn't care about wealth.
Even if everyone has enough wealth to live comfortably, guys are going to struggle to get more wealth so they can impress the girls. If you live in a town where few guys have a care, you can be hot stuff owning an old Honda Civic. But if every guy has one then you'll want a Lexus or a Camero to make you hotter. Even in Star Trek there is not an infinit supply of women.

A large happy prosperous communist society?
Well, most of the best places to live in the world are socialist. Sweden and other northern European countries are very far to the left of the US and yet have a better quality of life, less poverty and more happiness. It seems to be the way the human race is heading as most societies become more socialist as they develop.
The good old few mono-ethnic examples made up of small norther European countries - quite the opposite of the Federation which is multi-ethnic, multi-species and huge.

--
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Re:Star Trek is political fantasy by readin · 2016-07-02 18:54 · Score: 1

We could talk the same way about money and greed, which seems your concern. The capitalist myth about the origin of money has done a lot of damage; in most "primitive" cultures, we don't tend to observe people bargaining in barter systems... instead, they tend to be built on elaborate systems of gift-giving and indebtedness. The natural human proclivity in many cultures has been to aid neighbors when needed, because the assumption in primitive societies is that "we all need to stick together," since otherwise you'll likely die of starvation or by wild animals or by neighboring tribes or whatever.
Are you talking about people within a single clan/village, or people within a large federation of villages? While a small communist society is certainly do-able, especially when everyone is pretty closely related, the willingness to sacrifice one's own desires for the good of the group tends to drop off pretty quickly when people are being asked to sacrifice for strangers and especially for strangers who are different.
I think pretty much every nuclear family is best run as a communist dictatorship (with two power-sharing dictators). But the solution doesn't scale easily.

--
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Re:Star Trek is political fantasy by AmiMoJo · 2016-07-02 22:41 · Score: 1

It is human nature to want to amass the resources to help you get laid and help your offspring do the same.
It's never really addressed on screen, except perhaps by the frequency with which the TOS crew get involved with people they only just met, but presumably STDs have been eliminated and birth control is perfect, so maybe sex isn't as big a deal as it is now. Maybe there is much more casual sex than there is today.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Star Trek is political fantasy by cusco · 2016-07-03 01:27 · Score: 1

A century ago? In the US it wasn't until the 1970s that it became *legally* possible for a man to rape his wife, the late '70s IIRC, and the whole concept was considered absurd by a large portion of the population (male and female). We've come a really long way in a short time, in that same time period I had an instructor go to jail for two weeks for getting caught having homosexual sex, and just a few years before that my aunt had to caution my cousin on a trip to DC that he and his girlfriend had to be careful not to run afoul of anti-miscegenation laws in states on their route.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:Star Trek is political fantasy by Lobachevsky · 2016-07-03 02:17 · Score: 1

I don't think he just wished it away. The end of money as the motivating factor was, as Picard delivered in his soliloquy, due to replicators and obtaining anything material of your desire. Pursuits moved away from material things and toward self-improvement, learning music, painting, achievement. This might sound like an impossibility, but, keep in mind something similar has already happened in our civilization with another resource that once was scarce: the calorie.
The scarcity of calories made us "greedy" toward sugars and fats. You can imagine a "wealthy" caveman from 30,000 years ago as being one who would kill his neighbor and steal their food. Food was everything, something you would toil for hours every day to get, go to war over neighboring tribes to secure your hunting areas. Today, food is a joke, we laugh at fat bastards who stuff their face and can't control their urges and desires for food. While Gordon Gecko famously said "greed is good" in the context of making millions on Wall St., when in the context of layering on the fat, no one thinks that's good. We admire people who don't overeat. We don't consider thin people as "poor". We don't consider fat people as "rich".
It's already started to happen with material goods. In the 1st world, many of us are moving to a post-scarcity world. I've already felt disgusted going to the apartments of girls I date and seeing multiple closets full of shoes, floor to ceiling. They brag about how they have 200 pairs of shoes. I just feel sorry for them. It's like seeing a fat person brag about how many tires they have on their stomach. Imagine a world of replicators. Imagine certain people hoarding thousands of shoes. Hoarding floor to ceiling of junk. Sure, they might be emeralds, rubies, diamonds, gold, but in a world where that stuff is abundant, it's junk. You just feel sorry for them. Then you see someone else who lives in a clean and barren apartment, doesn't fill it with jewels or other junk. They practice music, they sing in such a lovely voice, they have a friendly personality, always make you feel like a good friend, go into riveting conversations about multi-layered abstract ideas that have you pondering about our place and existence in the cosmos that even years later in the shower you drift back to and ruminate over once again.
You might say, well, money isn't just used to buy material goods, it's also used to gain influence, pressure and bribe other people. But, you see, that influence comes because at the bottom of the food chain are the poor who desperately would do anything for material goods. Why do people do the jobs they dislike? Ask any garbage man why he does what he does. Ask him if he would still do his job if he a had a replicator. People will do the jobs they enjoy. I don't think Star Trek advocates Marxism, but Marx definitely advocates replicators. In Marxism, he said communism would fail in any poor country. He never envisioned it for Russia, and he thought the rich countries were the closest to being able to implement it. It requires a post-scarcity society as a prerequisite. Just as we are presently at a level of civilization where we say "dying on the streets due to starvation is anathema and we are too rich collectively for that!", we are slowly but surely getting to the point where someone decades or centuries from now may say "living as a poor and destitute person without a replicator and solar energy is anathema and we are too rich collectively for that!"
I know you must be thinking, "whoa, hold on, won't that cause rampant inflation?!". Yes. On the path to money having no value will inevitably be a transition state where money has very little value. The reducing value of money is what inflation is a measure of, after all. When garbage men stop doing their jobs, you have to pay them more. As long as money has some small value, paying enough of it will still ensure people do things they don't like. But, eventually, money will have so little value, next to zero, that it will
Re:Star Trek is political fantasy by Blaskowicz · 2016-07-03 05:04 · Score: 2

The next step after verbal or tacit debts to your neighbors was recorded debt, i.e. you go to see a Sumerian king or high level official to get it written, as the stakes (10 bushels of wheat, oxen etc.) are bigger and law enforcement will be useful. That still exists, if today there exists a debt relationship between two private individuals they may go see an attorney and make it acknowledged that Alice owes $1000 to Bob.
This would be the origin of money. Later, money (as a simple treasure, stash of metals) would could as a very acceptable way to repay debts. Valuable and universally useful commodities like salt are to be considered as such a money. Later this was made into coins under the authority of more powerful kings ruling over bigger territories. Later still banknotes passed off as money but in fact embody debt (things were written on it, to the effect of something like "the bank owes you 1000 coins", a version of it is just a nobleman who writes "I, the Earl [or countess] of Whatbuckshire, need to pay 10 pounds so I in earnest gave this piece of paper to this guy. I urge you to please pay his due on my behalf. Signed, Earl John J. Watson of Whatbuckshire". Banknotes were even eventually defined as "legal tender" by powerful nations with assorted national/central bank that issued them.
Instead of a communism/capitalism dichotomy, I rather see a continuum. The early, low-civilization, low tech, unenforced way still exists as "You came to visit me and brought a pack of beer. Next time maybe I'll buy you a beer at the bar. And I don't even need to tell you. I keep this at internal monologue, if that".
The barter story was invented after the fact by some well off century man who lived in modern comfort, since in 7000 BC no one had something of enough value to give on the spot for a goat, and even if you give your knife in exchange for the goat, what are you going to do then? Cut things with your teeth?
Re:Star Trek is political fantasy by Blaskowicz · 2016-07-03 05:09 · Score: 1

* What I wrote in the Sumerian king story should even read as "as the stakes : 10 bushels of wheat, oxen, house, field etc. are bigger"
Re:Star Trek is political fantasy by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-03 12:48 · Score: 0

I seem to recall that it is a democracy, somewhat like the European Union where member planets send representatives. It's not clear if they representatives elect a leader or if that is by a popular vote... Or it could even be a mix of the two, as some races might not practice that kind of democracy for various reasons.
Except there are no references to elections on core Federation worlds or major political issues.
There's the Vulcan Science Council and the Federation Council and it's president - that's about all we ever get on Federation politics.
Are the councillors selected by elections, "limited" elections, chance (lottery), heredity og military/economic power ? We-Don-t-Know
And what are the duties and powers of the president ? Mainly ceremonial like the German or Austrian president (think elected First Lady) or all powerfull dictator for life, can have you killed on a whim type ? We-Don't-Know
In fact we know next to nothing about life in the Federation outside Star Fleet (ands even that is almost exclusively off planet)
** Yes, I Know certain books add detail
Oh, and please do not use the term democracy in reference to the EU

Star Fleet leadership is presumably appointed, much like most current militaries, although it's not a military organization. It serves the elected government, anyway
Except it most definitelt IS a military organisation
When you run around in top of the line battleships, have a military rank structure, incl military discipline (court martial, captains mast)...
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
And does Star Fleet serve the government (elected is not in evidence) or IS Star Fleet the government ?
Re:Star Trek is political fantasy by readin · 2016-07-03 17:58 · Score: 1

You seem very concerned that "The capitalist myth about the origin of money has done a lot of damage". I'm not sure why it matters to anyone whether money originated from people recording debts or from people bartering. Either way a medium of exchange was very useful. A medium of exchange is useful whether you are a capitalist or not. Even Russia and China while killing capitalists and millions of other people for the sake of communism still used the ruble and the renminbi. And money goes way back in time. When you talk about capitalism creating myths, do you mean 3000 years ago? I've never studied history but I do know the use of shekels goes at least that far.

But all that is beside the point. People are naturally selfish, greedy, and power-hungry. Whether it is sheep, money, cars, rank, influence, or whatever, people by nature seek advantage over each other. Creating a large-scale society of diverse peoples while ignoring those human traits simply doesn't work. In Star Trek Roddenberry claims to that humans solved those issues, but never says how.

--
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Re:Star Trek is political fantasy by readin · 2016-07-03 18:05 · Score: 1

I agree that how one arrives at the social and economic structure of Star Trek is left to the imagination, but some of the presumably enabling elements, namely, the technology, are shown front-and-center. What will happen when everyone has access to a replicator that can make all the necessities of life - food, shelter, clothing - in as much abundance as anyone would ever need?
Men will still compete for the sexiest women (of which there will still be a limited supply). Women will still compete for the sexiest men (of which there will still be a limited supply).

And as always, people will compete for luxury items. We do see on Star Trek that people don't simply get everything they want. You want to be captain of a starship? Do you just replicate one for free?

--
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Re:Star Trek is political fantasy by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-04 09:17 · Score: 0

Replicators are based on transporter technology, and as far as I can see, a transporter could easily re-make you as sexy as you want.
That's something they don't really explore on the show: the social effects of being able to modify your body in any way you like.
Re:Star Trek is political fantasy by Blaskowicz · 2016-07-05 04:20 · Score: 1

You're right, but with money viewed as bartering, maybe that enable simplistic representations. It's like, money is there so you can be a consumer at Walmart, Starbucks, or any goods or services. I give you money and you give me instant gratification. That's really what it's for most times.
The argument about origin of money, I guess it's there to denounce that or to point out that it misses some depth in the relationship. The relationship could be more human, fuzzy, longer term and money is there to settle accounts. E.g. some say, work so that you can repay your debt to society. That'll bring taxes, pay into social security, enable a little bit of economic activity for other people but it's as non-descript as you get. Even hard line capitalistic US types think of "welfare recipient" as the greatest insult although they get "robbed" of their money to support them very indirectly.
In some way, full employment capitalism e.g. some idealized US / Western Europe from the 60s or early 70s where almost everyone is middle class and you very rarely get robbed or ripped off, that's a society where lay people aren't jumping at each other's throat all the time. So it's big house vs small house or big car vs small car, big deal. I guess the Star Trek fiction is extrapolated from that, it would just about work if oil stayed virtually free and there was endless cheap, nice land to build on, and if magically the whole Earth was like that.
The greedy finance capitalists do know about endless forms of assets, money, loans, debt, and byzantines "securities" and "futures" and crap.

Both are fiction by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 02:09 · Score: 0

They didn't "turn out differently". They are different fictional stories, made up by different people.

Re:Both are fiction by Z00L00K · 2016-07-02 04:58 · Score: 1

Star Trek is...
...a sociological utopia where poverty is eradicated.
...multiple cultures, alien and human with different views on what's best.
...solving problems in unorthodox ways.
Star Wars is...
...a fight between good and bad.
...a fight between chaos and order.
...a fight between multiculturalism and monoculturalism.
Both universes have their place and as a viewer I can appreciate both. In Star Trek it's rarely a black and white situation that's encountered.

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Re:Both are fiction by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2016-07-02 08:47 · Score: 1

Star Trek is... ...a sociological utopia where poverty is eradicated.
except for all the episodes where poverty is featured.

...multiple cultures, alien and human with different views on what's best.
and they all try to kill or enslave their inferiors.

...solving problems in unorthodox ways.
Wait, when was talking through your differences considered unorthodox?

Star Wars is... ...a fight between good and bad.
With the stereotypical 'white is good, black is bad'.

...a fight between chaos and order.
Where order is totalitarianism that makes chaos look pleasant in comparison.

...a fight between multiculturalism and monoculturalism.
At least the aliens look alien.

Both universes have their place and as a viewer I can appreciate both.
Star Wars is my favorite movie, and the original Star Trek is among my favorite TV shows.

In Star Trek it's rarely a black and white situation that's encountered.
I really wish you hadn't put it in those terms.

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.

Physically vulnerable worlds by Blaskowicz · 2016-07-02 02:10 · Score: 1

I always tend to think that the levels of energy contained in a single seat spaceplane with hyperdrive or a teleporter are huge enough that everyone is carrying around machines that could blow up like a dinosaur-killing meteorite, if the energy were to be "accidentally" released.

The phaser ray even has interesting properties, in that in disintegration mode it can make an alien vanish in a close quarters, enclosed space. So, where it did go? Perhaps it turned into transparent or invisible matter, but it did so at 99.9999999999999999% efficiency so as to not kill the person who shot with heat or gamma rays or what have you.

As for Star Wars, perhaps they need to take inspiration from how Indiana Jones deals with sword fights. Perhaps gunning down the Jedis the old fashioned way would work better. Instead of deflecting your "blaster" shots they'll meet some hot lead from bullets that went through the plasma blade. Problem solved.

Re:Physically vulnerable worlds by pbhj · 2016-07-02 10:12 · Score: 1

Maybe phasers just shift the person to an alternate phase, so they can't interact directly with matter in our universe. Trapped between dimensions, or something. Scary!

both universes are authoritarian in different ways by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 02:10 · Score: 0

Star Wars is more true to human nature, which at sufficiently large scales is vile, violent, intolerant, authoritarian, and greedy.

Star Trek is trying to show what Roddenberry wishes humans to become, but is not reflective of our actual natures. However, it's notable that even the Trek universe is based on authoritarianism. Just a more accepted and tolerated version.

Babylon 5 was IMHO better than either of them at showing human nature as it actually is.

Because they're fiction. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 02:11 · Score: 0

They end up the way the authors want them to be, you imbecile!

Star Wars is racist by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 02:11 · Score: 0

We all know that Star Wars is racist. Don't get me started on that whole Darth Vader situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDFnrNtqAjo

Re:Star Wars is racist by Coren22 · 2016-07-05 09:00 · Score: 1

Yeah, kind of like those little black dresses the women wear to look pretty, it is so racist, they can only be pretty when wearing black?
Wow, the ignorance of that woman is pretty amazing to behold.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

They exist in different places and times by BanteringCTO · 2016-07-02 02:17 · Score: 1

Star Wars takes place "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...." Star Trek takes place in the relatively near future, right here in our galaxy.

--
The world of achievement has always belonged to the optimist. -- J. Harold Wilkins

You can't by pjbgravely · 2016-07-02 02:18 · Score: 1

...Compare Uhura, Chekhov, and Sulu to the Imperial Storm troopers...

You can't compare them. Uhura, Chekhov, and Sulu are officers and Storm troopers are foot solders. You have to compare TOS Red shirts with Storm troopers. They both die like flies and they both have terrible aim.

--
Star Trek, there maybe hope.

Re:You can't by MrKaos · 2016-07-02 03:21 · Score: 1

RIP Star Trek, You will be missed.
And Star Wars, Disney is flogging it to death. Time for some new _sci _fi_ universes - preferably ones that are creative commons from the outset so some corp like paramount can't use it's grubby influence to limit the possibilities in the stories.

--
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Re:You can't by javawock · 2016-07-02 04:25 · Score: 1

https://youtu.be/Vh0l00Y1760?l...
Re:You can't by Gavagai80 · 2016-07-02 04:43 · Score: 1

Red shirts don't have terrible aim. They usually hit their target, then discover their target isn't damaged by phasers, and then angry target vaporizes them.

--
This space intentionally left blank
Re:You can't by Areyoukiddingme · 2016-07-02 06:12 · Score: 1

RIP Star Trek, You will be missed.
And Star Wars, Disney is flogging it to death. Time for some new _sci _fi_ universes - preferably ones that are creative commons from the outset so some corp like paramount can't use it's grubby influence to limit the possibilities in the stories.
You might be interested in Orion's Arm. A collaboratively developed hard SF universe originally heavily based on Vernor Vinge's A Fire Upon the Deep, it has since branched out, picking up elements of Ian M. Banks' Culture universe and David Brin's Uplift Universe, plus generated new material. Two short story collections have been formally published in paper. Unfortunately, the main website is broken at the moment. Interest in the project has been waning for some time. Apparently it has reached a fairly severe nadir.
A Fire Upon the Deep was an incredibly broad setting with lots of room to grow and Orion's Arm pushed it right to the wall. Setting stories in that universe is actually difficult because it's so very big, but it's even worse for visual artists. The universe is so vast and complex in its writing that it doesn't attract many talented illustrators, let alone filmmakers. So it languishes in obscurity. You might investigate the domain and send an email to get the site back online.
Re: You can't by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 10:56 · Score: 0

I'd settle for The Culture done well, but the only people with the FX to do it justice are also guarenteed to ruin it completely.
Re:You can't by MrKaos · 2016-07-02 13:17 · Score: 1

Thank you, I'm checking it out now!

--
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Re: You can't by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-03 10:39 · Score: 0

Spot on !
Banks wrote the Culture novels as a direct response to what he saw as the plethora of right wing yeehaw American sci-fi authors who (possibly unconsciously) didn't possess the ability to imagine anything outside of the bounds of the social conditioning they received in the USA.
For instance, Banks was famously dismissive of American "libertarian" types, calling them infantile and hopelessly naive.
In this respect he was correct. There is very, very little depth of thought within American Sci-Fi. It's kids of like American cars, loud, brash, poorly built, unsophisticated and inexpensive. For what they are they're ok, but they're not all that much to begin with.

All we see are Federation propaganda films! by Nova+Express · 2016-07-02 02:18 · Score: 1

Remember: All we see are the myriad propaganda films that paint the Federation in the best possible light. We never see the vast slave gulags back in the Federation hinterland. "Look, our society is perfect! No one is ever jelous, enraged, power-hungry, greedy, or ambitious! Starship Captains never abuse their positions to accumulate vast wealth!"

It's set in a magic fantasy world where communism works and people never have personal conflicts with each other. It's Potemkin Villages all the way down...

Star Wars, on the other hand, is set in an imaginary hereditary monarchy where out of untold trillions of living beings, only a handful of intermarried power families seem to control everything, and true virtue and magic ability only comes from those favored by God who have inherited high midichlorian counts...

--
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

Re:All we see are Federation propaganda films! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 02:36 · Score: 0

. "Look, our society is perfect! No one is ever jelous, enraged, power-hungry, greedy, or ambitious! Starship Captains never abuse their positions to accumulate vast wealth!"
It's set in a magic fantasy world where communism works and people never have personal conflicts with each other.
It's like you've never actually watched Star Trek.
Every system of resource distribution has to deal with corruption. Grow up.
Re:All we see are Federation propaganda films! by drinkypoo · 2016-07-02 03:15 · Score: 2

Remember: All we see are the myriad propaganda films that paint the Federation in the best possible light. We never see the vast slave gulags back in the Federation hinterland.
There are no such slave gulags because the Federation enjoys cheap energy. There is a sleazy underbelly, though, which we see bits of in the least-popular series, Enterprise.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

The answer is very simple! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 02:18 · Score: 0

The (((writer))) injected Star Wars chock fulla ancient tropes from his personal cultural background.

Re:both universes are authoritarian in different w by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 02:18 · Score: 0

Authoritarian utopia vs authoritarian dystopia. The desirability of authoritarianism is in the eye of the beholder. The ST creators think it is should be aspired to, and the SW creators think it should be avoided.

Different angles by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 02:22 · Score: 0

The mythologist Joseph Campbell consulted on Star Wars. As trite and Disney-esque as it was, it also took the form of classic mythology: Good against evil. Personal stuggles of self-development. Star Trek was an idealistic conjuring of the future by technophiles without a mythological context. It struck a chord with viewers, but operated on a more mundane level. Kirk was the athlete. Spock was his bookworm sidekick. McCoy was the tagalong. An all-American team bringing Mom and apple pie to the galaxy. The 3 main characters were Jungian moving, thinking, feeling aspects, respectively. (Interestingly, in Next Generation the thinking function is boss and the physical type is his sidekick, while the feeling type -- the betazoid -- is still least important.)

The 3 types also accord with the Christian trinity and Buddhist definitions of human functioning. In other words, Star Trek makes sense to us on an everyday level.

Both stories featured futuristic technology, but in Star Wars it was merely the setting for a timeless epic. In Star Trek, staged in a more pedestrian milieu, technology is often the solution because the problems are "worldly".

Re:Different angles by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 02:56 · Score: 0

> The mythologist Joseph Campbell consulted on Star Wars.
No, he didn't.
Lucas never even met Campbell until Jedi was already finished.

Re: Compare Uhura, Chekhov, and Sulu to Stormtroop by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 02:22 · Score: 0

And that is exactly the point. The stormtroopers represent that diversity is NOT embraced but hidden. Yes there might be a Chekhov or Uhura underneath but we better not know, that might offend someone or make them offend someone.

Star Wars universe is "lived in" by NothingWasAvailable · 2016-07-02 02:22 · Score: 1

This was seen as a huge difference when Star Wars came out. I'm old enough to remember the reviewers talking about how the universe looked lived in and worn, unlike the "just from the factory" cleanliness of Star Trek.

There were many comparisons between the Millennium Falcon and the Enterprise.

Re:Star Wars universe is "lived in" by Luthair · 2016-07-02 02:34 · Score: 1

I think this is sorta it, in Trek they're still exploring the galaxy, in Wars its already been widely colonized and travel is cheap.

Special powers? by excelsior_gr · 2016-07-02 02:24 · Score: 1

The Jedi and the Sith don't have any special powers in their blood. Midichlorians, you say? Sorry I can't hear you, LA LA LA LA LA LA LA...

Neither science fiction by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 02:25 · Score: 0

Gene Roddenberry and George Lucas have very different world views.

Yes, exactly. And neither are science fiction.

At least Star Trek has adult themes in their stories.

Star Wars are children's action adventure stories. Entertaining but the theme and plots of a Nickelodeon movie.

Democrats are the Sith by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 02:27 · Score: 0

They are the special elite class that knows how to govern the lesser individuals with humanity and compassion. Rather than everyone being free and armed as in the star trek universe, in the star wars universe only the enlightened are capable of wisely wielding the power or the death star to expunge the dangerous white extremists existing on places like alderman.

Re:Democrats are the Sith by Opportunist · 2016-07-02 02:48 · Score: 2

Actually, Democrats are more like the Jedi. Claiming that they have to impose their view of the world on everyone for "the greater good for everyone". Sith are more akin to Republicans. Might makes right, and if you want a share of the cake, all you have to do is have the power to get some.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

swords and sorcery by PopeRatzo · 2016-07-02 02:29 · Score: 2

Star Wars is fantasy, with princesses and emperors and weapons mimicking swords. Star Trek is science fiction. That is the difference.

You might as well ask why the world of The Wizard of Oz turned out differently than the world of Joe Haldeman's Forever War.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Re:swords and sorcery by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 13:36 · Score: 0

The Forever War bummed me out because I loved it so much, I became worried that I'd never read anything I would enjoy that much again. Luckily for me, my next book was The Mote in God's Eye, and I stopped worrying.

A long time ago vs. a long time hence... by Black.Shuck · 2016-07-02 02:33 · Score: 1

...in a galaxy far far away vs. in our galaxy.

Stuff that matters by Opportunist · 2016-07-02 02:47 · Score: 1

Next up: Who's gonna win the fight, Green Lantern or The Flash?

Really, /.? Really?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:Stuff that matters by darnkitten · 2016-07-07 16:56 · Score: 1

Volthoom!

Since I wrote an academic paper on part of this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 02:52 · Score: 1

... Star Wars was the embodiment of the old movie serials, writ large: Adventure stories that took one into a grand battle between good and evil. (Something that doesn't seem to exist in reality, IMVHO. Your evil enemy is never the evil demon you portray he or she to be, in his/her own eyes, even if the works he/she does are evil.) Absolutely no care for scientific accuracy or fantasization based on reality, or explanations of how the far away galaxy works that have any relation to the mediocrity principle,

Star Trek is broken down into at least three distinct phases. Gene Roddenberry's control, which gave us seasons one and two of Original Series, the first motion picture, and the first season/season-and-a-half of Next Generation. In this world radical evil does not really exist, there are only conflicts which seem intractable at first. Many common problems have been solved through technology and energy production. The second era is defined as all the other television and movies Wrath of Khan through Nemesis. We get monsters-of-the-week which are truly evil, intentional fakers at godhood, and limited recognition that enemies may have redeeming qualities. Common problems which were declared to be solved in era I are shown to be alive and well in era II. Then you have the J.J. Abrams reboots, which effectively turn Star Trek into Star Wars. Since I like both, but am more a fan of Star Trek, enough said about that.

Examples of the Trek differential: In Space Seed, Khan and followers had to be segregated but it was obvious that Kirk bore him no hatred. By the second movie, "KHAAAAANNNNN!" Star Trek Into Darkness.... yeah, shots of Alice Eve in hear underwear and Benedict Cumberbatch must have been tapping into the Force to take out a whole Klingon squad. (And two minutes to Vulcan and ten to Chronos.. yeah. Plus "transwarp beaming" when era 2 had Scotty stating transwarp was equivalent to his grandmother having wheels and being a wagon. Look, I said don't get me started, right?)

One other: The Borg. Gene Roddenberry had a conception of a "sorg," social organism, which he was not convinced was evil. The Borg's first appearance in Q Who? - they were not evil, just unbeatable and incompatible with humanity. (And I stipulate that Roddenberry had a lot of influence on that first portrayal.) We get to era two and they are the scary bad guys who are evil and must be defeated. God help us if Abrams decides to take a swing at them.

Star Wars: entertainment and religion. Star Trek: entertainment and science leading to just entertainment.

Oh, and postscript: In Star Trek, novels and comics are definitely NOT canon except for the novelizations of the TV and movies. (Even though some of the best of Star Trek can be found in the early Pocket Books novels.) Once in awhile some book element gets incorporated as canon by replication. In Star Wars they can be (and often are.)

captcha: complex

because star wars is swords and sorcery fantasy by pezpunk · 2016-07-02 02:53 · Score: 2

not an attempt at sci-fi.

i mean if you want to accuse star trek of being pulpy or unrealistic or whatever, all i can do in defense is shrug my shoulders, but star wars wasn't even remotely interested in the future of humanity. it just wants to tell a story about wizards and knights and royal family lineage ... in space.

--
i could live a little longer in this prison

Re:because star wars is swords and sorcery fantasy by pezpunk · 2016-07-02 02:58 · Score: 1

addressing the article, it's pretty ridiculous to pretend the stories ended up the way they did because of the properties of the tech in those worlds. the truth is obviously the opposite -- the tech of each franchise was engineered to fit the narrative purposes of the story. this is such an obvious point i can't believe i'm even spelling it out.

--
i could live a little longer in this prison
Re:because star wars is swords and sorcery fantasy by HornWumpus · 2016-07-02 03:18 · Score: 1

Star wars would have been better if it was a court drama? A western? A soap opera?
I'm not defending Star Wars, but Trek was no more Science fiction then Wars. There were maybe 2 episodes of Trek that qualify as Science Fiction.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:because star wars is swords and sorcery fantasy by pezpunk · 2016-07-02 09:54 · Score: 1

i didn't make any value judgments on star wars, i was just saying it wasn't trying to be science fiction.
also i think it's hilarious that you want to pretend science fiction is some lofty thing that star trek failed to live up to. it's just a genre.

--
i could live a little longer in this prison
Re:because star wars is swords and sorcery fantasy by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 14:38 · Score: 0

News flash - your keyboard is most likely to have the ability to create capital letters.
If you can bother your precious and special self to use that feature, you'll look less retarded in the future.
You're welcome.
Re:because star wars is swords and sorcery fantasy by HornWumpus · 2016-07-03 11:58 · Score: 1

A genre the excludes 99% of ST.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Religion by duckintheface · 2016-07-02 02:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

Star Wars universe is dominated by religious belief and power, at least by those at the top. The Star Trek universe is diverse but most of our view is through the dominant power of the Federation, which is a pluralistic, tolerant, and non-secular.

This tells the story. The Federation is successful because it's guiding philosophy is humanism, not worship of Midi-chlorians.

--
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition

Re:Religion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 03:28 · Score: 0

> ... Federation, which is a pluralistic, tolerant, and non-secular.
Huh? Are you claiming the Federation is sectarian??
Re:Religion by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2016-07-02 03:31 · Score: 1

Non-secular but guided by humanism? Weird. I never noticed the "non-secular" part; Federation people don't seem to be outwardly religious or dragging their religion into administrative affairs.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re: Religion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 06:22 · Score: 0

Worf did. He was always bringing his Klingon baggage with him.
Re:Religion by fahrbot-bot · 2016-07-02 07:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

Star Wars universe is dominated by religious belief and power, at least by those at the top. The Star Trek universe is diverse but most of our view is through the dominant power of the Federation, which is a pluralistic, tolerant, and non-secular.
Put another way: Star Wars is the post Donald Trump universe, Star Trek is the post Bernie Sanders universe. One of those is better for the top 1%, the other for the remaining 99%. [ Not trolling, just making an overly broad generalization as food for thought. ]

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Re:Religion by Plus1Entropy · 2016-07-02 09:51 · Score: 1

non-secular
Is this a typo? I'm not that knowledgeable about Star Trek, but from what I have seen, this makes no sense. What religion in particular makes it so (heh)?

--
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Re: Religion by tgrigsby · 2016-07-02 10:27 · Score: 1

Not trolling at all. In fact, you nailed it. One is socialist, the other is capitalism run amok. Religious diversity vs. fundamentalists, equality and equal representation vs. class warfare and oligarchy, interracial kiss vs. incestuous kiss.
If you wanted to troll, this have asked what a post-Clinton universe would look like.
(ducks and runs away)

--
*** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
Re:Religion by Blaskowicz · 2016-07-02 11:41 · Score: 1

I'm sure he meant secular.
Although not much secular authority is shown either, except for a few simplified trials and putting Tom Paris in jail.
It may be an ideal anarchy. Even the pseudo-military is lax and has very few ranks (I don't know about TOS though)
Re:Religion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 11:45 · Score: 0

Then you completely missed Deep Space 9 and the Bajorans. No, not Federation members, but plenty of dragging of religion into administrative affairs.
Re:Religion by CohibaVancouver · 2016-07-02 14:49 · Score: 1

Star Wars universe is dominated by religious belief
I'm not sure you can all it 'religious beliefs' - Unlike religion here on earth, Jedi powers can be demonstrated, as can Jedi returning in 'spirit form' post-death.

This is further cemented by the fact that once the Jedi are gone, very few people believe in the 'religion' any more...
Re:Religion by VernonNemitz · 2016-07-02 16:14 · Score: 1

Regardless of what the Federation is or isn't, politically speaking, Star Trek clearly claims to be about a future world. Meanwhile Star Wars, every episode, begins by saying, "A long time ago...." Why is not that the obvious answer to the question in the Original Post?
Re:Religion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 16:32 · Score: 0

Star Wars universe is dominated by religious belief and power, at least by those at the top. The Star Trek universe is diverse but most of our view is through the dominant power of the Federation, which is a pluralistic, tolerant, and non-secular.
Put another way: Star Wars is the post Donald Trump universe, Star Trek is the post Bernie Sanders universe. One of those is better for the top 1%, the other for the remaining 99%. [ Not trolling, just making an overly broad generalization as food for thought. ]
The sad thing is that the top 1% are better off in both circumstances but few realize it. Picard is a captain, not an admiral, and yet he wields nearly unlimited power and discretion. Pretty much anyone can do anything they want almost anywhere is (Federation) space. See the poor archeology women gallivanting about the universe. Meanwhile, Star Wars is full of lethal hazards, monsters and is perpetually in a state of open rebellion.
Re:Religion by j33px0r · 2016-07-02 16:36 · Score: 1

Does that mean my great-great-great-grand children get light sabers if Trump becomes president? Win-Win!
Re:Religion by fahrbot-bot · 2016-07-02 17:18 · Score: 1

Does that mean my great-great-great-grand children get light sabers if Trump becomes president? Win-Win!
Depends on their Midi-chlorian count and, by extension, yours. More likely they'll end up being conscripted as low-level Storm Troopers, the Star Wars equivalent of being a Star Trek Redshirt. Best wishes to you and your progeny

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Re:Religion by Maxo-Texas · 2016-07-02 17:42 · Score: 1

Oh please, don't try to frighten us with your tales of sorcerer's ways, duckintheface. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the rebels' hidden fort-...
----
99.999999% of the universe really didn't think much of the jedi or the sith lords (probably because their were so few and they were secretive to boot). A lot did sorta worship the force, but I wonder if many knew it as more than a name with little associated dogma.
It looked like most idiot's didn't even have a clue how bad it was to get into a fight with a jedi.
I wonder where the Skywalker family gets off trying to tell the rest of the galaxy how to live.

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Re:Religion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 18:45 · Score: 0

> Star Wars, every episode, begins by saying, "A long time ago...."
People like to trot that out like it means something, but Lucas simply put the phrase in the intro to make it feel like a long-ago fairy tale. Knights, swords, castles, damsels in distress, etc. that he wanted to evoke.
The fact that it takes place "in a galaxy far, far away" makes the timeframe moot. An alien civilization could be thousands or millions of years ahead of us (or behind us) technologically regardless of where we are today.
Re: Religion by dbIII · 2016-07-02 19:07 · Score: 1

If you wanted to troll, this have asked what a post-Clinton universe would look like.
A real troll would point out that the Russians and Chinese are the ones doing manned space flight these days so post-Clinton or post-Trump isn't going to matter with a space spanning "Federation" or "Empire".
Re:Religion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 19:53 · Score: 0

Yeah, I think that was just a typo on his part...I think he meant "secular" or "non-religious"....
Re:Religion by GameboyRMH · 2016-07-03 01:17 · Score: 1

Also consider that the light saber is probably the most dangerous hand-to-hand weapon ever imagined, to both the target and wielder...it would take insane skill to not kill yourself with a massless blade that instantly vaporizes flesh on contact.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Religion by hackwrench · 2016-07-03 01:58 · Score: 1

That reminds me of how little training Starfleet officers must have gotten in the original series. Between red shirts dying due to things that training would have prevented (one got killed because he acted hostile to a Klingon on a planet that was entertaining offers from the Federation and Klingon), people having to explain things to each other that they should know, (for the audience's benefit, but still), McCoy not knowing how to medicine (Spock asks McCoy for something to alieve his sensitivity to the cold; McCoy says that he is not a magician and doesn't prescribe an appropriate pain medicine).
Re: Religion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-03 07:44 · Score: 0

they're glorified swords lucas liked swordfighting
Re:Religion by arglebargle_xiv · 2016-07-03 15:55 · Score: 1

I'm not that knowledgeable about Star Trek, but from what I have seen, this makes no sense.
Of course it makes sense, its Star Wars that doesn't make any sense. Consider this: Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this discussion thread? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this thread! It does not make sense!
Re:Religion by MercTech · 2016-07-04 04:48 · Score: 1

Or coming at it from the other direction... Star Trek is what you have after a social eugenics movement sterilized and re-educated everyone who didn't like the most popular flavor of kool-aid. Star Wars is what you get with a diaspora of diverging cultural preferences which conflict.

--
NRRPT/RCT
Re: Religion by Coren22 · 2016-07-05 08:35 · Score: 1

Clinton would just be a female Palpatine instead of a male one.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Re: Religion by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2016-07-06 08:21 · Score: 1

I don't think that's quite an accurate representation of either universe. In Star Trek, people are still allowed to own their own property and businesses (individual ownership of business = capitalism), but in a (largely) post-scarcity setting, there's not much need to actually exert effort if you don't want to.

Star Wars - at least, the movies - show us much more of the outskirts. They don't really have a government, so while the outskirts are largely capitalist, they're also pretty much in anarchy. It's not really an indictment of capitalism as much as it is an indictment of chaos and anarchy.

--
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Re: Religion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 12:37 · Score: 0

> (individual ownership of business = capitalism)
Not quite. It's certainly possible to have privately-owned businesses in a socialist economy.
Capitalism at its core is the use of money to make more money.
Re: Religion by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2016-07-07 02:13 · Score: 1

Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

Socialism: 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

So no, in an economy that's actually socialist (not just commonly called "socialist" by people, like the Nordic countries), you can't privately own a business. Capitalism allows one to use money to make more money, but it's not part of the definition.

--
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Re: Religion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-07 17:41 · Score: 0

> Capitalism allows one to use money to make more money, but it's not part of the definition.
Depends on whom you ask. Private ownership of the means of production came long before the economic term "capitalism," but a capitalist system is not just goods, markets, and trade, it also includes capital investment for profit.
As Marx saw it, "capital is money used to buy something only in order to sell it again to realize a financial profit. For Marx capital only exists within the process of economic exchange--it is wealth that grows out of the process of circulation itself."
Re: Religion by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2016-07-08 05:00 · Score: 1

I'm going to go ahead and ignore what Marx said about a system he despised and didn't understand all that well.

--
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Re: Religion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-09 09:33 · Score: 0

Fine. God forbid you should put down your dictionary and consider other points of view.
Re: Religion by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2016-07-10 06:14 · Score: 1

I've considered Marx, and rejected him already. He misunderstood capitalism pretty severely.

--
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.

Thank you. This. by ytene · 2016-07-02 03:04 · Score: 1

It's the most significant point of difference...

Why? by CAHutch · 2016-07-02 03:09 · Score: 0

I gotta say ... This is one of the dumbest posts I've ever seen on slashdot. The two universes are different because they are FICTION and they were written differently by different people for different reasons. Analyzing sociological factors in a work of fiction is pointless

Re:Compare Uhura, Chekhov, and Sulu to Stormtroope by HornWumpus · 2016-07-02 03:11 · Score: 1

Aren't stormtroopers clones in the later versions of the mythos? Not sure, I don't think I stayed awake through any but the first 3.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Resources it's all about resources by silas_moeckel · 2016-07-02 03:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

Star Trek if you notices they are not concerned about power in the ability to do work. Transporters and their replicator brethren make it practical to produce nearly anything at will coupled with abundant energy. If you notice the big driving issue for strife is expansion space for people to spread out.

Star Wars is a much more populated place with scarce resources.

--
No sir I dont like it.

Close... by denzacar · 2016-07-02 03:24 · Score: 1

It's because Lucas is a bigger hack writer who took bits from all over the place without giving it more consideration than "cause it's cool and I like it".
When he finally got around to try to consolidate all that stuff and make it make sense - we got midichlorians.
All Lucas knew was what it was supposed to be LIKE.
I.e. Like 1920s pulp serials, like Kurosawa's samurai movies, like WW2 dogfights, like the stuff Joseph Campbell wrote, like Buddhism...

Roddenberry on the other hand had strict guidelines for the Star Trek universe. He knew where he wanted the show to go and what it was supposed to be ABOUT.
E.g. "...assessing where we humans presently are, where we're going and what our existence is really about."
He made sure that the stories are about things that MATTER to humans.
Which is why even when his "Bible" wasn't followed (cause there are PAGES AND PAGES OF RULES - like "no stories with Vulcans") - the core idea was still there, holding it all together.

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens

Both exist in the real world by Tony+Isaac · 2016-07-02 03:25 · Score: 2

While the Utopian vision of Star Trek doesn't actually exist, there are many nations where people have good, stable lives, and where the government makes an attempt to do the best for the people. There are also places where tyrants reign, where bribes are normal, and the biggest bully wins. The difference is all in what lens you look through to see the world, and where you live.

Re:Both exist in the real world by AthanasiusKircher · 2016-07-02 05:02 · Score: 1

There are also places where tyrants reign, where bribes are normal, and the biggest bully wins.
TRUMP 2016
(...Okay, okay, both major party candidates are locked into the "bribes are normal" idea... and the U.S. seems to be heading down that inevitable Platonic path from democracy to tyranny. But Trump does seem to be running for the "biggest bully" award.)
Re:Both exist in the real world by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-03 13:04 · Score: 0

I would agree, except for one small change: Trump for Biggest Bully and Clinton for Most Bribable

different creators different times by wickedsteve · 2016-07-02 03:25 · Score: 1

The works say a lot about the authors and the culture or perspective of each time and place. Look at horror movies throughout the decades to see what americans feared at any time. That is one reason re-imaginings are so popular they take a new perspective on an old familiar work.

Another factor by MAXOMENOS · 2016-07-02 03:44 · Score: 2

Star Trek is a world of continual technological progress, whereas Star Wars is a world in technological and cultural decline.

--
Finding God in a Dog

Not cool BeauHD by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 03:48 · Score: 1

For starting this hypothetical fantasy bullshit! We fell for your last systemd click bait, but this is not cool man, not cool!

Simple economics by Theaetetus · 2016-07-02 03:51 · Score: 1

Star Trek has replicators and limitless power. At that point, everyone is effectively a billionaire, so concepts like poverty and hunger disappear. Instead, "wealth" is gained through recognition, military rank, etc.

Star Wars is a more realistic and traditional economy, albeit a very large one. Hence, there's an aristocracy, a middle class, a lower class, etc.

Re:Simple economics by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 08:39 · Score: 0

So 'realism' v. 'fantasy'
Re:Simple economics by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 17:47 · Score: 0

also, on star trek seems like they isolated capitalism in australia

Re:Compare Uhura, Chekhov, and Sulu to Stormtroope by SpankiMonki · 2016-07-02 04:01 · Score: 1

According to Wookipedia, You've got your clone troopers, (clones of Jango Fett), you've got your Imperial Stormtroopers (described as "the ultimate evolution of clone troopers") , and you've got your First Order Stormtroopers.

Imperial Stormtroopers were originally clone troopers, but their accelerated aging process caused their physical skills and abilities to deteriorate so they were replaced by non-clone volunteers and conscripts.

First Order Stormtroopers composed the army of the junta that arose out of the fallen empire, and were comprised of individuals taken from their parents at birth.

Long story short, it depends on where you are in the storyline as to the level of diversity in the Stormtrooper ranks.

Re:Compare Uhura, Chekhov, and Sulu to Stormtroope by iCEBaLM · 2016-07-02 04:01 · Score: 1

No, they're conscripted childen stolen from their parents.

Pluralistic and guided by Humanism? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 04:03 · Score: 0

Well, only if "Humanism" is the belief in Human supremacy. In the Federation, the inferior (non-Human) races do not for the most part enjoy all the technological advances Humans do; and are massively under-represented in the high-ranking positions in the military. Also, not sure if you've noticed, but the Federation is under permanent martial law, in that all official inter-stellar activity is controlled by the military (and the civilian government are not that influential).

Re:Pluralistic and guided by Humanism? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2016-07-02 04:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

In the Federation, the inferior (non-Human) races do not for the most part enjoy all the technological advances Humans do; and are massively under-represented in the high-ranking positions in the military.
That's what happens when you're shooting a series with a limited SFX and makeup budget. ;)

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:Pluralistic and guided by Humanism? by Blaskowicz · 2016-07-02 11:49 · Score: 1

Space is an ocean and the ocean is only ruled or patrolled by the navy. I'm not a great expert on the real world open ocean but even over here we mostly only have civilian cargo and military navies, not presidents, ministers, governors, senators, mayors, dukes etc. of the oceans.

Re:Compare Uhura, Chekhov, and Sulu to Stormtroope by SpankiMonki · 2016-07-02 04:03 · Score: 1

...weird, slashdot futzed up that link to first order stormtroopers.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Stormtrooper_(First_Order)

Special Powers? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 04:56 · Score: 0

The Founders, The Betazed, and on and on.

Star wars about "the future of humans"? by bspus · 2016-07-02 05:19 · Score: 1

Star Wars takes place "a long time ago in a galaxy far away".
It's not even about humans, all races are "aliens". Of course they are played by English speaking humans cause that's how they could get the majority of the audience to relate (and also...no alien actors are available)

Star Trek... well I get the arguments about it being science fiction and that it dabbles philosophy and morality, but I once read about it being described as a soap opera in space and I found it rather fitting description. At least as far as the 90's series goes

I'm not a fan of either universe. Their movies make for pleasant pastime but that's about it.

The real difference by YoungManKlaus · 2016-07-02 05:20 · Score: 1

... is how conflict resolution works in both worlds. In (at least classical) Star Trek, it's a process of diplomacy and negotiation. In Star Wars it's a process of suppression and force.

Re:The real difference by wonkey_monkey · 2016-07-02 09:10 · Score: 1

In (at least classical) Star Trek, it's a process of diplomacy and negotiation.
That, or making computers blow themselves up by befuddling them.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.

Entirely different fiction genres by Karmashock · 2016-07-02 05:48 · Score: 1

Starwars as anyone fucking knows is space fantasy. So its like the lord of the rings in space. Its elves, fairies, wizards, etc in space. You have a dark lord. You have a quest. There is some epic struggle between good and evil.

Star Trek whilst hardly being hard science fiction with technology that is viable in actual science... STILL takes from the cultural tradition of science fiction. Its about exploration... it has a flavor of the golden age of American science fiction in that its hopeful... there are big bad aliens... but the manner in which you defeat them is star ships... phasers... anti matter torpedeos... and guts.

Its like asking why a romance novel and a mystery novel turn out differently. They're totally different fucking genres.

That is the META answer. If you want me to look at the two worlds and try to peace out why one works out one way and the other works out the other... we have to look at the worlds and ignore the stories and main characters.

In Star Wars there is a galactic republic. Like... ONE big empire that controls everything. Good or evil that is what runs the show. In Star Trek there is no such thing. The federation at best controls a fraction of one quarter of the galaxy. Now in either world there are things that cause whole planets to be destroyed. The Borg might enslave an entire world and a NEW AND IMPROVED DEATH STAR!!! might blow up a planet. But in neither case is that harm spread around the entire galaxy. There is peace and prosperity happening somewhere.

Look at those big planet sized cities they build in star wars. That shit isn't cheap. And the federation or various other powers are doing stuff all the time that is useful.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.

Timeline by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 05:52 · Score: 0

Star Wars was "long ago in a galaxy far far away." Star Trek is in the future of our own planet. Different.

Depends on if I ou believe the unified star theory by dilvish_the_damned · 2016-07-02 06:12 · Score: 1

You see one happened a long. long time ago and the other happened in Gene Roddenbarry's fantasy land where people don't go out of there way to accentuate their differences to get control of resources. Both in this universe.

--
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.

Lame crap by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 06:18 · Score: 0

They're both fictional worlds that exist as a framework to tell stories. The difference being, "Star Wars" is actually interesting and fun.

Easy by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 06:38 · Score: 0

Star Wars and Star Trek were created by two different people. Each one trying to tell a story in their own unique way.

It's all make-believe, don't overthink it.

they happen in different galaxies by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 06:59 · Score: 0

star trek is about earth. star wars is about a galaxy far far away.

It's obvious! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 08:15 · Score: 0

Star Wars - set in the past.
Star Trek - set in the future.

(Tongue - set in cheek)

Science fiction vs fantasy by jgfenix · 2016-07-02 08:56 · Score: 1

Star Trek is science fiction. Star Wars is fantasy outside of a medieval setting.

Err, because they're different?-also headline typo by wonkey_monkey · 2016-07-02 09:09 · Score: 2

Why the difference?

Because they are two different works of fiction written by two different (groups of) people telling two completely different bunches of stories.

Why the hell would you expect them not to be different?

Next up: why are Canada and North Korea so different? Isn't that weird?

By the way it's "Star Wars", not "Stars Wars". Sheesh.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.

Nerd click bait. by jimbob6 · 2016-07-02 09:25 · Score: 1

The OP seems to be suggesting that these 2 universes exist in real life.
There fiction. Their circumstances are a product of the ideal not the other way around.
Also lets not forget that the events of Star Wars happen a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.
The characters involved aren't humans and the writers aren't even pretending to make a prediction about the future.
This is a bit like making the comparison why Robertson Caruso didn't turn out like Battle Star Galactica.

Because by Dirk+Becher · 2016-07-02 09:59 · Score: 1

Because Star Trek has a strong idealist humanistic message which means that every lifeform, even those with the most alien shape and morality, deep in their heart want peace and prosperity and can therefore be reasoned with.

This is why pretty much every conflict in Star Trek is really just a fantastic diplomatic dispute.

Star Wars on the other hand is full of irredeemly evil and powerful people (Palpatine, Jabba etc.) who are mostly motivated by their desire for power and who can only stopped by force.

Funny enough, the TNG movies are not much different from Star Wars movies with less diplomacy and more action.

Western vs Fantasy both dressed as SciFi by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 10:01 · Score: 0

"Wagon Train to the Stars" AKA "Star Trek" is a late-1950s/early 1960s western. Kirk is the good-guy (Lone Ranger) with his sidekick Spock (Tonto) from another culture more-native to the location (the rugged west, or space). There's Bones, the country doctor, and the local blacksmith who can fix anything (Scotty) etc.

"Star Wars" is "The Princess Bride" with spaceships.

Neither one is actually SciFi. They use the sets and gadgets of SciFi, but there the similarity with Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, etc ends. Trek had a dusting of SciFi with several stories actually derived from stories penned by actual SciFi writers (like "City on the Edge of Forever").

As for why the cultures of the two shows are different: It's NOT REAL! This is not some anthropological study of a couple of exotic cultures.... These are two works of dramatic fiction! The settings are what the creators of the works needed to setup the stories they wanted to tell.... and they wanted to tell different stories. It's really just that simple. It's like asking why the worlds of CSI:Miami and 20000 Leagues Under the Sea are different.

These stories that take Star Trek as a serious measure of ANYTHING real (like economics), or that try to compare it's internal fictions to other fictions are the continual brake on any tendency I might otherwise have to think that geeks are smarter than anybody else.

I'm no trekkie but by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 10:43 · Score: 0

Aren't we forgetting about the Cardassian occupation of Bajor? Where they turned the entire Bajorian species into slave workers and committed genocide against them.

Seems like Trek has more parallels to Star Wars than the uninitiated might otherwise believe.

You answered your question by undefinedreference · 2016-07-02 11:15 · Score: 1

Replicators.

I should also take this opportunity to point out (before anyone thinks I'm comparing apples:apples) that they're entirely different genres. The Star Trek universe is proper Science Fiction that is heavy on the science (Star Trek fans are almost invariably nerds.) while Star Wars is a fantasy series based in space (The fans are better described as geeks and are most closely related to fans of a mainstream fantasy series like Harry Potter.). The only similarities are that their names start with "Star", they're set in the future, and they include highly inaccurate portrayals of space travel.

Star Trek wouldn't exist without the replicator. Without it, it wouldn't have been possible to create a utopian communist society where the last bastion of competition was for position in a military type organization. The reason we followed a Star Fleet crew is that it's one of the last remaining outlets for social structure power plays and allows for exploration instead of mundane day-to-day bettering of oneself that you're free to do or ignore entirely. It says, "What if?", from a perspective of a socialist utopia.

Star Wars takes the positives and negatives of human nature, applying it in a fantasy world. They're more stories about people and a family line in this world. There's no actual science fiction involved, just a backdrop environment for these fantasy characters to live their lives. Star Wars is simply very mainstream fantasy that is pretty realistic about how things would go if the world existed.

Not quite by dougTheRug · 2016-07-02 11:27 · Score: 1

Star Trek is in the future... and Star Wars was long, long ago in the past!

Trek is optimistic sci fi by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 12:09 · Score: 0

Its the one sci-fi universe where mankind got it right & is not only benefiting from it, but showing other races how they can too.

Star Trek is what mankind should be striving for. It is a glimpse into a bright future that may well be within our grasp.

Star wars is a 2 hour toy commercial..

Duh! Because of WHEN they happened! by Tony+Isaac · 2016-07-02 13:03 · Score: 1

Star Wars happened "a long time ago in a galaxy far far away." Star Trek will happen in a couple of centuries from now. Way back then, people were barbarians, but in the future, they will grow beyond that.

Re:Duh! Because of WHEN they happened! by Tony+Isaac · 2016-07-02 13:06 · Score: 1

Regardless of when the stories happened, they all spoke English.

Because they were written. by nevlow · 2016-07-02 13:45 · Score: 1

These worlds didn't evolve, they were written. Get your head out of your ass. Star Wars was written to have an entire universe hinge around one guy and his magic powers.

Why did Ren and Stimpy and the Simpsons? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-02 14:14 · Score: 0

Y'all are fucking eeeeeeeeeeeeeediots.

Phasering dog's-been-here by Latent+Heat · 2016-07-02 14:33 · Score: 1

So you could phaser evidence of a dog in the neighborhood of having to clean it up?

But where did it go? Into the air? Ewww!

Because, SW=fate crap, magick and politics by TheRealHocusLocus · 2016-07-02 15:54 · Score: 1

Star Trek never dared to lop off its limbs by 'discovering' that they were all bound by some sort of 'fate' which is akin to magick, grabbing hold of that shite as a central plot theme. This idea does arise occasionally in episodes and they smartly deal with it then drop it again.

The only Star Trek franchise that got on my last nerve was DS9 when they developed a Ferengi Fetish for awhile.

My enjoyment of Star Wars 1977 was blunted in the final moment when the wookie did not receive a medal. That is the thing I was thinking as I left the theater. What followed in the saga was a series on war and the most childish cliche of politics. I simply did not care for those people, it is like daytime soap opera in space. I detested Yoda long 'before' he knowingly and maliciously demolished eager acolyte Anakin with fate-crap. But it did happen in an interesting place.

If they released a Star Wars set with all of the actors and their whiny affairs simply absent from the screen ... pan shots of worlds, extras, ships ... go ahead leave in Jar Jar Binks and his searchlight eyes I don't mind ... I'd watch it over and over. The battles would be surreal if they were presented with no boring human context whatsoever, it would be like ---- "Gosh, these things do happen." --- like frogs falling from the sky.

From now on Star Wars films should be completely done from beginning to end with green screen drop-ins so they can release a no-actors-whatsoever version, to see if it is more popular. That's a great idea anyway, like movie Karaoke, it would really encourage amateur productions and make intricate spoofs practical.

--
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>

The writers hadn't thought that far by rbrander · 2016-07-02 16:23 · Score: 1

Economist Manu Saadia recently wrote "Trekonomics" about the supposed economics of the ST Earth back home. There was a panel discussion at a con featuring Saadia's friend Paul Krugman and Chris Black, a writer for ST: Enterprise. He was asked what the writers were thinking the character's motivations were in a post-scarcity economy and begged off: in short, it never crossed their minds.
Neither set of writers gave a care for why the background they needed for their story was the way it was, any more than the guy painting a backdrop of a hilly landscape for a play cares about the geology that produced the landscape.

past and future by NotQuiteReal · 2016-07-02 17:20 · Score: 1

because one takes place "long ago" and the other is in the future... so no conflict at all.

--
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.

What do you mean "turn out"? by NotQuiteReal · 2016-07-02 17:22 · Score: 1

They are both works of fiction. When you are making up stuff, you can make up whatever you want.

--
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.

Let's take this point by point. by Maxo-Texas · 2016-07-02 17:36 · Score: 1

In the Star Trek world there is virtual reality, personal replicators, powerful weapons, and, it seems, a very high standard of living for most of humanity, while in Star Wars there is widespread slavery, lots of people seem to live at subsistence, and eventually much of the galaxy falls under the Jedi Reign of Terror. Why the difference?

Slavery was going away by the time of the second trilogy UNDER the empire.
Employment was high.
Standards of living were decent.
There's a big difference between subsistence and living as a rural farmer.
The rebel forces were tiny. Most people were happy with the empire.
The empire essentially was a large bureaucratic state.

Tyler Cowen writes about some of the factors differentiating the world of Star Wars from that of Star Trek: 1) The armed forces in Star Trek seem broadly representative of society. Compare Uhura, Chekhov, and Sulu to the Imperial Storm troopers.

Imperial Storm Troopers are clones. There's really no comparison.

2) Captains Kirk and Picard do not descend into true power madness, unlike various Sith leaders and corrupted Jedi Knights.

Reasonable point but also uncorrupted jedi knights. The jedi were really on their own trip there and they were mostly perpendicular to the rest of society which didn't care about them any more than performance artists.

3) In Star Trek, any starship can lay waste to a planet, whereas in Star Wars there is a single, centralized Death Star and no way to oppose it, implying stronger checks and balances in the world of Star Trek.

There were many star ships which were incapable of doing significant damage to a planet. There were less than two dozen starships with that level of power prior to next generation. And then, less than a couple hundred. Mostly, they could bombard an area the size of a city. I think the estimate is way off.

A single shot from a star destroyer a single turbolaser can vaporize an asteroid a hundred feet in in diameter. Turbolasers can essentially be fired continuously without a significant drain on the ship power supply. Compare that to phasers which can cut a 10' hole through an unshielded ship (multiple decks)..

All beside the point anyway since It's also been stated that a single ISD bombartment could destroy everything on a planet surface. It's really just a question of time. The sustainable output of an ISD (based on actions taken in the various shows) appears to be on the order of a dozen 50 megaton bombs per second.

4) Star Trek embraces egalitarianism, namely that all humans consider themselves part of the same broader species. There is no special group comparable to the Jedi or the Sith, with special powers in their blood.

All but some extremist humans and special humans (ala Khan) do fit this profile and see themselves of one people.

However, a significant percentage of Humans show PSY potential for powers to greatly exceed that of both Sith or Jedi. These demonstrated powers include telekenisis, pyrokenisis, instantaneous matter creation and manipulation (vastly exceeding jedi)mind reading and telepathy much more useful than jedi mind reading (tho potentially shorter range), etc. (see "Where no Man has gone Before"),

5) Star Trek replicators are sufficiently powerful it seems slavery is highly inefficient in that world.

There appears to be no equivalent to star trek replicators in the Star Wars universe. However, it's been shown that many cultures (including some star faring ones) do not yet have replicator technology.

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.

Laying waste to a planet... by Lendrick · 2016-07-02 18:24 · Score: 1

...is different from literally destroying the entire planet.

A starship from Star Trek can't *blow up* a planet the way the Death Star can. Presumably a single Star Destroyer could lay waste to a planet as easily as a starship. All you would need to do is carpet-bomb it with nuclear weapons, which are pretty primitive by Star Wars standards.

Blakes 7 by dbIII · 2016-07-02 18:58 · Score: 1

The Blakes 7 setting was a reaction to how fake the Trek Federation was.

Differences by brunnegd · 2016-07-03 04:32 · Score: 1

Star Wars occurs long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away.

Genre maturity by ebvwfbw · 2016-07-03 05:40 · Score: 1

Star Trek was made when we were still doing Westerns. In fact DeForest Kelley, some others were in Westerns and he nearly did a western instead of the Star Trek gig. Created by Desilu Studios - Desi Arnez and Lucielle Ball, it was a big gamble. What could it be like out there. Fold this into a weekly tv show.

Fast forward 10 years and we have Star Wars. A lot more time to imagine things. Not a TV show. Why are you wondering why there's such a big difference?

Unfortunately I think we've stopped, somewhere in the 1980s. Nothing new has really come out since then. Just rehashed off the old stuff.

Simple summary by twebb72 · 2016-07-03 06:39 · Score: 1

Star wars is the portrayal of a dystopian past, while star trek is the pursuit of a utopian future.

Star Trek is the present and the future by Ultimate+Statement · 2016-07-03 09:09 · Score: 1

I do not care too much about star wars, but Star Strek touches me, as so did the matrix movie, some of you will understand. Star Trek brings the message that humanity has made contact and taken its place in the concert of planets as an advanced civilisation. Not only that, but it will help other planets to evolve. I am not sure where Gene Roddenberry was taking all these ideas from but my guess is that quite a few concepts presented there (replicators, beams, energy, healing, wealth, lack of money, multiple races, etc, etc) aren`t just imagination of the writers. The metaphysical messages are there as parables for those who are able to understand (I recall the episode Janeway vs. the Archons https://www.youtube.com/watch?...). Listen folks: We are heading for a Star Trek future and there is nothing that will stop it from happening.

Just my opinion by peawormsworth · 2016-07-03 09:25 · Score: 1

I think the main difference is that Star Trek is about exploration of space, while Star Wars is about exploitation of space. In this way, I think Star Wars is far more realistic if we consider the history of human expansion across our own planet.

Star Trek is the way many people wish it would be, Star Wars is more likely how it will be. At least if the alien life forms have motivations that are anything like humans.

It's about power and conquest, not exploration.

It's simple by DrStoooopid · 2016-07-03 10:44 · Score: 1

Because Star Trek is written from the false premise that people do things for the good of all....
Star Wars is written from the premise that the universe has claws and teeth and wants to eat you, and some are prepared to take the reigns of power, and some are not.

--
There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.

what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-03 12:31 · Score: 0

this question is such a fucking waste of time....

A Long Time Ago In A Galaxy Far, Far Away... by kyjellyfish · 2016-07-03 18:39 · Score: 1

...versus THE FUTURE!! We've obviously learned from our mistakes by eliminating poverty, making working for a living optional, and loving our fellow species-mates!! And I can let you have this bridge on the Lower East Side for a REAL BARGAIN price!!

Time differences by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-04 02:00 · Score: 0

Why has no-one (in my quick scroll through anyway) pointed out that one is a long time ago whilst the other is a few centuries in the future, that must count for something?

Re:Time differences by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-04 09:20 · Score: 0

Are you kidding? It's been mentioned at least half a dozen times in the comments already.

Membership by phorm · 2016-07-04 04:48 · Score: 1

The federation also has what is pretty much a "non-interference" policy for undeveloped worlds (though this is violated right at the beginning of the second movie in the new series). That would mean that anyone else is out and presumably unaware of the Federation until they reach a certain level of technology, presumably after which they are "starting from scratch" in terms of joining the galactic village.

Terrorist VS FF by phorm · 2016-07-04 04:53 · Score: 1

There's a lot of aspects to both, but in reality I think that a big factor should as to what "side" of the list you end up on would be how you treat non-members or civilians. If you're willing to blow up a lot of civilians just to make a point, or murder anyone who doesn't follow your doctrine then you're a terrorist. If your aim is more to be able to "practice" your doctrine but not affect others, you may be more of a freedom fighter.

That said, I think a lot of the "western" nations seem to fall pretty close to the terrorist side of the page when you look at how they treat civilian collateral damage in foreign countries, especially with the advent of drone strikes.

David Brin's old essay on this by Sarusa · 2016-07-04 07:35 · Score: 1

I guess it's time to dig up SF Elder David Brin on this again - in 1999 he wrote an article on Star Wars's twisted setup where rulers are heriditary vs Star Trek's egalitarian approach.

http://www.salon.com/1999/06/1...

Part of this is because Lucas stole a lot from the Japanese, and that's their thing - true heroes and leaders aren't made, they're born. But that doesn't excuse it.

Re:Compare Uhura, Chekhov, and Sulu to Stormtroope by Zxern · 2016-07-04 11:55 · Score: 1

So they're Spartans with cheap armor?

Idealistic vs. realistic by DutchUncle · 2016-07-05 02:47 · Score: 1

If someone invents dirt-cheap power and replication, and if everyone could behave (or be medicated to behave), we get the ideal world of Star Trek (or Larry Niven's Known Space). Everyone can be comfortable, nobody needs to steal, any violent tendencies are obviously mental illness that needs "curing".

If we consider historical example, we get subsistence-level colonies like Star Wars (except for the Jedi, which are fantasy). Or, more realistically, big modern cities in the center of things and subsistence-level colonies like Firefly, which is itself a tramp steamer just like the "African Queen" in space.

It also depends how long it takes to get anywhere. If travel takes months or years, shipping is only worthwhile for durables like minerals and manufactured goods; and each colony has to become more independently technological. But if shipping is weeks, and perishables can be frozen like New Zealand lamb getting to the rest of the world, then colonies can remain more "backwards" farming suppliers.

Some differences by Bristol_92 · 2016-07-06 02:00 · Score: 1

First of all, Star Trek focused on space exploration. The plot based on planetary research and contacts establishment with other races. Star Wars tells us a story about confrontation between dark and light side of the force. SW universe is ruled by force and faith in it. Because of explosions and mass destructions, Star Wars films are more fascinating. Meanwhile Star Trek try to keep or build something new. Star Wars plays into our fantasy, while Star Trek is closure to reality.

Slashdot Mirror

Why Did The Stars Wars and Star Trek Worlds Turn Out So Differently? (marginalrevolution.com)

359 comments