Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 81
02-13-2012, 10:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aestu
TNG did a pretty good job of it.
Are you kidding? How many times in that series was the Enterprise caught in a life-or-death situation? Was everything all rainbows and songbirds when Tash Yar died? What about the constant Cold War-esque staring contest with the Romulans? And the Borg. Just the Borg.

TNG was a pretty upbeat series, but it wasn't a peaceful utopian starship doing routine charting missions the whole time. It had its share of conflict.

Quote:
Originally Posted by V-Mink
And yet that's more or less how every Trek series ended, didn't it?
At least until the next one started, which is my entire point. I imagine you didn't read my closing paragraph*.

*It's also possible I didn't sum it up well enough, either.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 82
02-13-2012, 10:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aestu
This I don't agree with. DS9 was as stereotyped, black-and-white comic book morality as it gets.

Honorable soldiers = good
Vorta and armchair admirals = bad
Male sex drive = bad
Female sex drive = good

Note how the entire moral cadence of the Klingons and Cardassians changes depending on whose side they are fighting on. Note how Sisko sends hundreds of thousands of young men and women to their deaths, but goes out of his way to protect his own family.

DS9 had Styrofoam morality. Superficial =/= ambiguous.
At the same time, though, DS9 brought us In the Pale Moonlight, arguably one of the most controversial Trek episodes ever. Hypocrite or hero? Superficial or ambivalent? People are still arguing this... and getting into fights over the Internet over it.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 83
02-13-2012, 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jexsam View Post
At least until the next one started, which is my entire point. I imagine you didn't read my closing paragraph*.

*It's also possible I didn't sum it up well enough, either.
Ah, I misunderstood what you said, actually. By 'sequel' I thought too fast for my own good and thought you meant 'the next episode.' (The 'weekly reset button' was another trope that TNG exemplified.) But if you mean 'the next series,' then yes, I see your point in that.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 84
02-13-2012, 10:54 AM
I keep on saying to myself everyday am lossing fate with the game storytelling. its very depressing indeed. before this game was release a promised was made that one can explore and even make a first contact with a civilization where no player have every seen and yet nothing like that in the game. so may thing are missing in the game which is very sad really. i when i play sto i see the luck of direction with storytelling. if this game didn't have the foundry to play with i don't think people will even bother playing sto. they really need to improved on their storytelling and make the game feel more realistic.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 85
02-13-2012, 10:56 AM
[quote=Jexsam;4018528]Are you kidding? How many times in that series was the Enterprise caught in a life-or-death situation? Was everything all rainbows and songbirds when Tash Yar died? What about the constant Cold War-esque staring contest with the Romulans? And the Borg. Just the Borg.[/qute]

The point of all of that was to analyze those kinds of dilemmas in a better moral context than the present day.

Death, as Kirk pointed out, is part of life. That Tasha died reinforces the morality of TNG over DS9, where wars happened but you never see anyone in the engine room immolated alive like in Wrath of Khan.

The Romulans, for example, were portrayed as antagonistic but not fundamentally evil. That was the point of the implied Cold War allegory - that it is, ultimately, their ideas and values that separate them from the Federation.

Personally, I think N'Vek was the best Romulan character ever - a real shade of grey. He's a "good guy", but he's very Romulan, both in his sense of moral clarity and his shrewd ruthlessness.

I also think Voyager could have actually been an amazing series if they made Toreth the protagonist and the Khazara the setting, and made the entire series about the Romulans' perceptions of the Federation and struggling with the limitations of their culture and society. That would have been a really interesting "grey" show. No pun intended.


The Borg. Again, the point was that their "perfection" isn't really so perfect...that their inability to think independently, to ask "why?" is their fundamental weakness.

TNG's moral environment made for some very interesting dilemmas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jexsam View Post
TNG was a pretty upbeat series, but it wasn't a peaceful utopian starship doing routine charting missions the whole time. It had its share of conflict.
A better world is all about managing conflict in better ways. And a creatively written MMO could give life to that. Of course, it's quite a bit more difficult - as in life itself, for all the same reasons - and that's why TNG had the spark of genius subsequent series lacked.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 86
02-13-2012, 11:01 AM
CBH: Yes, I'm well aware most of that was due to Roddenberry's influence, and the difficulty of portraying actual dramatic conflict under that sort of editorial mandate. I also agree with you regarding the character of the 22nd and 23rd century.

(That last season of ENT was so good - what it should have been from the start - but alas, the potential and goodwill had already been squandered.)
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 87
02-13-2012, 11:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by V-Mink
At the same time, though, DS9 brought us In the Pale Moonlight, arguably one of the most controversial Trek episodes ever. Hypocrite or hero? Superficial or ambivalent? People are still arguing this... and getting into fights over the Internet over it.
In The Pale Moonlight was pure histrionics. Sisko is portrayed as just an angry male ethnic stereotype. When he gets frustrated, he whacks Garak and threatens some lowlife, but he does what he does, his self-serving whining never leads him to change course.

As in Voyager - and this is a flaw in that show too - he gets his moral golden parachute. He gets the payoff for doing the bad thing, but that choice never truly tarnishes him.

Sisko's histrionics make him out to be a weaker and infinitely superficial person than someone like N'Vek who does that sort of thing but finds peace with himself.

When Troi complained about his casually killing fifteen people to get a box across the Zone, N'Vek observed, "Many people have died so that this plan could move forward. They won't be the last." Hmm, who was the last? Oh right.

The real man is the guy who accepts death with the same equivocality that he doles it out. That's not Sisko.

Sisko, though, never had to pay that price - never had to put it on the line. And we don't see his character changed by the decisions he made the way Picard was changed by his dealings with the Borg and Hugh. He's back to smiles and sunshine, Hogan's Heroes nonsense the very next day.

I see DS9's shallow and self-serving themes as a reflection of the moral decline of America. I agree with Eisenhower that it is a testament to the "yes, even spiritual...power of the military-industrial complex".
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 88
02-13-2012, 11:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jexsam View Post
"Happily Ever After" doesn't make a very good franchise.

Conflict makes good story. Without it, nobody will be interested in it.
  • Consider how often the various Heroes are put in situations of grave danger and dire consequences.
  • Now consider how boring it would have been if every episode was watching a science officer chart nebulae.
  • Consider the Dominion War.
  • Now consider how much more boring DS9 would have been in the entire series was Odo reporting to Sisko about the latest drunken brawl at Quark's for seven seasons.

Nobody wants to watch a utopia. Or at least not one that isn't somehow endangered and then saved later (only to be endangered and saved again in the sequel).

I agree, with one exception. DS9 brought in NEW ENEMIES. It wasn't the same old Romulans and Klingons from TOS and TNG, it was the Cardassians and later the Dominion. It can never be "Happily Ever After", but it doesn't have to be "same crap, different day" either. By this point in time, either the Romulans or the Cardassians AT LEAST should have joined the Federation. If you want a Klingon-Federation war, let it be about the Klingons' mortal enemies joining the Federation and not a rehashed DS9 shapeshifter story using Species 8472 instead of the Founders.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 89
02-13-2012, 12:06 PM
Not necessarily.

I remember when I first saw this game, I objected to the idea of the Federation and the Klingons going back to becoming enemies. To me, the Klingon alliance was the centerpiece of Roddenbury's imagined, peaceful future, showing that with enough persistence and by sticking to your principles that even the hardest of enemies can be made into an ally. That to me was the ultimate message of hope in the Star Trek universe.

Sure, there were bumps in the road (and one brushfire war in DS9), but at the end of the day, The Federation and the Klingon Empire were allies.

Then the game creators decided to make them enemies again. To me it completely ignored Roddenbury's vision.

But on reflection, it's only another hiccup. The Romulans are slowly being won over. So are the Cardassians. Bajor is a member world. And the Klingons, despite regressing back to being bloodthirsty conquerors, are at least displaying themselves as noble and brave warriors while they're at it. And hey, the Klingons are back to speaking terms with The Federation. So really, the message of peace is still there... it's just a bit muffled out by all the other stuff that's going on.

The Borg, Undine, Dominion and Iconians were always background enemies, that shadow lurking over the Star Trek universe that threaten to tear apart their carefully planned and strenuously labored utopia. What I take from that is not that this universe is full of doom and gloom. To me, it's a powerful message of responsibility, that nothing ever comes free... or cheap... in this universe. Utopia has to be tended to. Freedom has to be earned. People have to chip in to create their paradise, and it doesn't have to be at the expense of their personal freedoms. And somewhere out there, there's a group of people that want to take it all away, regardless of how you feel about it. So what are you going to do when that happens? Complain that utopia is gone? Or protect it?

So in conclusion, I disagree with your assessment. It's not all doom and gloom. 'It's always darkest before the dawn.' comes to mind.

I find it uplifting, the idea that there would be tens of thousands of people who could have stayed on Earth, lived in peace and quiet, but instead choose the challenges and ravages of space and all the enemies therein in order to protect their ideals and their life.

I've also noticed, especially with RP'ers, that their characters have started to question the whole idea of a Star Trek like utopia. That's good too. The first bit of Next Gen stank of hubris, arrogance and naivety. Always ask questions about your surroundings, your culture, your system so that you can make sense of it and come to your own conclusions as as to how it should work. Blind acceptance is just so... foolish.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 90
02-13-2012, 12:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1nONLY_DRock
Not necessarily.

I remember when I first saw this game, I objected to the idea of the Federation and the Klingons going back to becoming enemies. To me, the Klingon alliance was the centerpiece of Roddenbury's imagined, peaceful future, showing that with enough persistence and by sticking to your principles that even the hardest of enemies can be made into an ally. That to me was the ultimate message of hope in the Star Trek universe.

Sure, there were bumps in the road (and one brushfire war in DS9), but at the end of the day, The Federation and the Klingon Empire were allies.

Then the game creators decided to make them enemies again. To me it completely ignored Roddenbury's vision.

But on reflection, it's only another hiccup. The Romulans are slowly being won over. So are the Cardassians. Bajor is a member world. And the Klingons, despite regressing back to being bloodthirsty conquerors, are at least displaying themselves as noble and brave warriors while they're at it.
Day of the Dove, A Question of Honor and Way of the Warrior established Roddenbury's firm view that ethos is a dead end. And I agree.

I think a better way of looking at the Fed-Klingon war is like the World Wars and their relationship with feudalism and militarism - the last death cry of a doomed way of life. The Klingons may balk at serving gagh at novelty restaurants, but they will have to find a way to reconcile their beliefs with cultural progress, or wind up like those angry Balkan states that just don't get it.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:12 AM.