You Can't, You Won't And You Don't Stop
August 23, 2015 1:11 PM Subscribe
All Beastie Boys references are context neutral and awesome.
posted by echocollate at 3:34 PM on August 23, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by echocollate at 3:34 PM on August 23, 2015 [7 favorites]
In all the writings about Star Trek and philosophy, I've gotten to the point where I'm never surprised that the writers neglect to consider the elephant in the room -- Gene Roddenberry's military service and the impact it likely had on his thinking about Star Trek's ethical ideals. Roddenberry was a philosophy major. He was a bomber pilot and a police officer.
Roddenberry flew B-17s in the Pacific, and while he wasn't the most distinguished aviator, he flew combat missions. At this point in military aviation, there were real ethical struggles with strategic bombing. In the book Masters of the Air, the bomber pilots talked openly about their ethical struggles with being "baby killers," because while they could drop bombs from afar, they had little-to-no control over where the bombs would actually land. This was so very, very far from the dashing, silk-scarved mythos of WWI fighter pilots.
On the other hand, strategic bombing meant deliberately exposing bomber crews to anti-air defenses and the terror of having to slowly, deliberately wade into enemy fire without protection. The dilemma led to high abort rates, as crews retreated from enemy fire or otherwise refused to complete missions. That led to commanders like Curtis LeMay to threaten courts martial and accusations of dereliction of duty -- capital offenses.
You could say, then, that the military service of Roddenberry and his peers was something like facing a real Kobayashi Maru every single day.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 3:38 PM on August 23, 2015 [55 favorites]
Roddenberry flew B-17s in the Pacific, and while he wasn't the most distinguished aviator, he flew combat missions. At this point in military aviation, there were real ethical struggles with strategic bombing. In the book Masters of the Air, the bomber pilots talked openly about their ethical struggles with being "baby killers," because while they could drop bombs from afar, they had little-to-no control over where the bombs would actually land. This was so very, very far from the dashing, silk-scarved mythos of WWI fighter pilots.
On the other hand, strategic bombing meant deliberately exposing bomber crews to anti-air defenses and the terror of having to slowly, deliberately wade into enemy fire without protection. The dilemma led to high abort rates, as crews retreated from enemy fire or otherwise refused to complete missions. That led to commanders like Curtis LeMay to threaten courts martial and accusations of dereliction of duty -- capital offenses.
You could say, then, that the military service of Roddenberry and his peers was something like facing a real Kobayashi Maru every single day.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 3:38 PM on August 23, 2015 [55 favorites]
All Beastie Boys references are context neutral and awesome.
Sabotage would have had the advantage of being a description of what Kirk does, though.
posted by Artw at 3:42 PM on August 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
Sabotage would have had the advantage of being a description of what Kirk does, though.
posted by Artw at 3:42 PM on August 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
Though I have great respect for Janet Stemwedel, and essentially no respect at all for the Kirk character, saying "Kirk thought it was a test of whether in the circumstances you could succeed in saving everyone," seems like a gross misstatement.
It's clear from the film that Kirk knew what the test was about, and he rejected the framework (a world of known constraints) assumed by the test designers. Whether or not his approach was right or useful - and I'd claim both are true in specific contexts and disastrously untrue in others - he clearly didn't reprogram the simulation because he was confused about the fact that it was designed to be a no-win situation. One can claim, "the world is so full of possibilities that there's no such thing as a situation that is entirely unwinnable, and therefore your artificial scenario is flawed." They may be wrong (and also annoying), but that's not the same as being dumb. Kirk's objection can also be applied to most trolly scenarios, where the absolute knowledge of outcomes is so blatantly artificial it makes it impossible to consider the situation seriously. (Scenarios in which flamboyant criminal masterminds force one to press buttons of death are at least possible, it not plausible, and thus far more compelling.)
Also, does the Kobiyashi Maru really demonstrate "That logic and ethical formulae can only get you so far?" There are pretty clear ethical formulae that allow one to make the "correct" choice in this scenario. "Never violate treaties that are likely to start inconceivably horrible interstellar wars," for example, is a pretty concrete formula that can be readily applied to this situation.
posted by eotvos at 3:46 PM on August 23, 2015 [12 favorites]
It's clear from the film that Kirk knew what the test was about, and he rejected the framework (a world of known constraints) assumed by the test designers. Whether or not his approach was right or useful - and I'd claim both are true in specific contexts and disastrously untrue in others - he clearly didn't reprogram the simulation because he was confused about the fact that it was designed to be a no-win situation. One can claim, "the world is so full of possibilities that there's no such thing as a situation that is entirely unwinnable, and therefore your artificial scenario is flawed." They may be wrong (and also annoying), but that's not the same as being dumb. Kirk's objection can also be applied to most trolly scenarios, where the absolute knowledge of outcomes is so blatantly artificial it makes it impossible to consider the situation seriously. (Scenarios in which flamboyant criminal masterminds force one to press buttons of death are at least possible, it not plausible, and thus far more compelling.)
Also, does the Kobiyashi Maru really demonstrate "That logic and ethical formulae can only get you so far?" There are pretty clear ethical formulae that allow one to make the "correct" choice in this scenario. "Never violate treaties that are likely to start inconceivably horrible interstellar wars," for example, is a pretty concrete formula that can be readily applied to this situation.
posted by eotvos at 3:46 PM on August 23, 2015 [12 favorites]
On the other hand, strategic bombing meant deliberately exposing bomber crews to anti-air defenses and the terror of having to slowly, deliberately wade into enemy fire without protection. The dilemma led to high abort rates, as crews retreated from enemy fire or otherwise refused to complete missions. That led to commanders like Curtis LeMay to threaten courts martial and accusations of dereliction of duty -- capital offenses.
I hear a lot of them tried to claim mental illness to get out of flying these missions, but that strategy was susceptible to a certain catch...
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 3:46 PM on August 23, 2015 [28 favorites]
I hear a lot of them tried to claim mental illness to get out of flying these missions, but that strategy was susceptible to a certain catch...
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 3:46 PM on August 23, 2015 [28 favorites]
Roddenberry was a philosophy major.
Not a philosophy major, I mean. Just a dude out in the world.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 3:47 PM on August 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
Not a philosophy major, I mean. Just a dude out in the world.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 3:47 PM on August 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
I actually bought this leadership book based on Star Trek, complete with episode references and quotes: Make It So: Leadership Lessons from Star Trek, the Next Generation.
posted by amtho at 4:52 PM on August 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by amtho at 4:52 PM on August 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
Obviously, Kirk's favorite Beastie Boys song is "Rhymin' and Stealin'."
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 4:58 PM on August 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 4:58 PM on August 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
Yay, I love obsessing over Star Trek ethics! My two cents on leadership are that I'd want Picard as my immediate supervisor and Sisko in the position of highest authority. Kirk, on the other hand, should be locked up. (Sorry, still haven't gotten far enough into Voyager to place Janeway.)
posted by thetortoise at 5:06 PM on August 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by thetortoise at 5:06 PM on August 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
Sabotage would have had the advantage of being a description of what Kirk does, though.
I don't know if I would go as far as call it foreshadowing, but you saying that will now alter how I watch this in the future.
posted by AlonzoMosleyFBI at 5:14 PM on August 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't know if I would go as far as call it foreshadowing, but you saying that will now alter how I watch this in the future.
posted by AlonzoMosleyFBI at 5:14 PM on August 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
CANON
posted by Artw at 5:18 PM on August 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 5:18 PM on August 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
This is why after Kirk, Starfleet resolved to not imagine horrible treaties that wouldn't let you rescue disabled ships and wrote some better tests. As demonstrated in that episode where Troi takes the Bridge Officer exam (finally, after how many years of serving on the bridge?) and sends Geordie to his death. You could try to reprogram it so the ship doesn't explode, but then you'd be figuring out a way for the ship not to explode, which is another important part of the test.
posted by bleep at 5:38 PM on August 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by bleep at 5:38 PM on August 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
I've always loved that bit about Kirk and the The Kobayashi Maru scenario. It's what they used to call "never say die," a vital quality in any fictional hero that's better than people in the real world. We don't watch Star Trek or read escapist fiction to immerse ourselves in grungy, real world characters and situations. (At least not all the time.) We watch it to be inspired. And that's the main (but not the only) reason I hate the Man of Steel movie so much. It took the ultimate hero Superman and brought him down to the level of a typical Starfleet officer, with his own Kobayashi Maru situation where the lesser bad option was killing Zod to save innocent lives. He did it, and we were supposed to think that he won some kind of great victory.
posted by Kevin Street at 6:13 PM on August 23, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Kevin Street at 6:13 PM on August 23, 2015 [6 favorites]
My two cents on leadership are that I'd want Picard as my immediate supervisor and Sisko in the position of highest authority. Kirk, on the other hand, should be locked up. (Sorry, still haven't gotten far enough into Voyager to place Janeway.)
You want Janeway as CEO of your company, but then you want her forced out so that she takes her wounded pride, pragmatism, industry connections, and frightening internal drive and establishes scores of start-ups.
posted by greenland at 6:15 PM on August 23, 2015 [10 favorites]
You want Janeway as CEO of your company, but then you want her forced out so that she takes her wounded pride, pragmatism, industry connections, and frightening internal drive and establishes scores of start-ups.
posted by greenland at 6:15 PM on August 23, 2015 [10 favorites]
It's fascinating (captain) that Kirk gets so much analysis, when his actions and persona are those of a fictional character written by many people for immediate dramatic effect across so many episodes and so much time. My favourite aperçu about the character is 'can you see him being in charge of a nuclear submarine?'.
Oddly, I have some mildly relevant real life experience here, although I'm sure I'm not the only Mefite who hacked into a live military battlefield simulation system during training as a cadet.
The exact details aren't important, but I was one of a group of my peers on a training course in a specialist establishment where everyone wore green and had sworn fealty to a monarch. We were being taught basic computer skills on a minicomputer via a roomful of terminals, and it was rather boring. There were other computers elsewhere, doing things that weren't boring, and they were all interconnected, and the security was.. perhaps not thought through.
Anyway. I had gained the respect of my peers by locating and publicisng the GAMES area and its access requirements, and had furthermore learned how to link up the rudimentary user-to-user chat system from our training system to some of the others. There then came a moment when a chap with a posh hat burst into our classroom and said with a degree of urgency: "Who's Bravo Two Niner?". That being my account (for the purposes of this narrative), I raised my hand... and I was promptly taken off to a smaller room with more posh hats.
What happened next might surprise you. It gobsmacked me. I was quietly commended, I was also asked to be careful, as 'the brass are watching a battlefield simulation on that other system and we can't have "BRAVO TWO NINER IS A WANKER" popping up', but perhaps I might like to have a go at some other interesting things? A little while later, as I was trying and failing to get access to some senior bod's account, a wily NCO whispered in my ear "try his initials as a password", and, well... I changed his password to my initials. It seemed funny enough at the time.
We had a lot more fun after that, and at the end of the course I was given the "we think we have the career for you" talk. (They didn't.)
In short, if the Academy simulator system was sufficiently badly secured that a spod like Kirk could hack it, then plenty of people would be delighted to learn this - or to be able to take the opportunity to finally demonstrate to their superiors the truth of what they'd been saying all this time - and it is by no means impossible that despite subverting the nature of the test, Kirk's stock may have risen considerably and he may even have gained allies within the organisation.
Leadership ethincs pshaw. Practical office politics - yay.
posted by Devonian at 6:23 PM on August 23, 2015 [32 favorites]
Oddly, I have some mildly relevant real life experience here, although I'm sure I'm not the only Mefite who hacked into a live military battlefield simulation system during training as a cadet.
The exact details aren't important, but I was one of a group of my peers on a training course in a specialist establishment where everyone wore green and had sworn fealty to a monarch. We were being taught basic computer skills on a minicomputer via a roomful of terminals, and it was rather boring. There were other computers elsewhere, doing things that weren't boring, and they were all interconnected, and the security was.. perhaps not thought through.
Anyway. I had gained the respect of my peers by locating and publicisng the GAMES area and its access requirements, and had furthermore learned how to link up the rudimentary user-to-user chat system from our training system to some of the others. There then came a moment when a chap with a posh hat burst into our classroom and said with a degree of urgency: "Who's Bravo Two Niner?". That being my account (for the purposes of this narrative), I raised my hand... and I was promptly taken off to a smaller room with more posh hats.
What happened next might surprise you. It gobsmacked me. I was quietly commended, I was also asked to be careful, as 'the brass are watching a battlefield simulation on that other system and we can't have "BRAVO TWO NINER IS A WANKER" popping up', but perhaps I might like to have a go at some other interesting things? A little while later, as I was trying and failing to get access to some senior bod's account, a wily NCO whispered in my ear "try his initials as a password", and, well... I changed his password to my initials. It seemed funny enough at the time.
We had a lot more fun after that, and at the end of the course I was given the "we think we have the career for you" talk. (They didn't.)
In short, if the Academy simulator system was sufficiently badly secured that a spod like Kirk could hack it, then plenty of people would be delighted to learn this - or to be able to take the opportunity to finally demonstrate to their superiors the truth of what they'd been saying all this time - and it is by no means impossible that despite subverting the nature of the test, Kirk's stock may have risen considerably and he may even have gained allies within the organisation.
Leadership ethincs pshaw. Practical office politics - yay.
posted by Devonian at 6:23 PM on August 23, 2015 [32 favorites]
He did it, and we were supposed to think that he won some kind of great victory.
I seriously never get the Man of Steel dislike here on this point. The movie I saw had the hero pleading with the villain to stop, and then after he killed him, literally screaming in pain and despair that a) he had killed someone, when he spent his entire life trying very hard not to hurt people (and it would be so easy!), and b) wow, if he felt like an alien before, now he's really lost and alone, and he did it to himself. He had a glimmer of hope when he met Jor-El's recording. He said, "I have so many questions." Now he's certain he won't ever get them.
You saw that as being portrayed as a "great victory?"
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 6:34 PM on August 23, 2015
I seriously never get the Man of Steel dislike here on this point. The movie I saw had the hero pleading with the villain to stop, and then after he killed him, literally screaming in pain and despair that a) he had killed someone, when he spent his entire life trying very hard not to hurt people (and it would be so easy!), and b) wow, if he felt like an alien before, now he's really lost and alone, and he did it to himself. He had a glimmer of hope when he met Jor-El's recording. He said, "I have so many questions." Now he's certain he won't ever get them.
You saw that as being portrayed as a "great victory?"
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 6:34 PM on August 23, 2015
Maybe I'm remembering it wrong after all this time, but I do remember the movie having a triumphant note at the end, like now he can be Clark Kent and work at the Daily Planet and so on after he beat the aliens and saved the world. Because he's proven he can make the hard choices and is a man of steel. Could have just been my own bile rising, tho.
posted by Kevin Street at 6:41 PM on August 23, 2015
posted by Kevin Street at 6:41 PM on August 23, 2015
Kirk was the perfect captain for his era, and I say that fully acknowledging that he is a flawed and often dangerous leader. This is one of the great things that Star Trek does, or rather, that Star Trek stumbled backwards into over the course of the 20th century: Its captains create the Federation of their era and that Federation in turn creates the next captain we see.
Kirk was a cowboy and a boundary-pusher in ways both inspiring and utterly creepy, but I'd argue that this what the Federation needed at a time when it was still relatively new and encountering greater powers on a weekly basis. The Federation was, in essence, still establishing its tone and it benefited greatly from Kirk's Enterprise making alien races shake their heads and say, "Who was THAT guy?"
You jump to Next Gen and the Federation is well-established, comfortable, with processes in place for seemingly everything, and a network of assistance that stands ready to push back at any injustice. This Federation is a caretaker society and Picard is ideal for this era in that he maintains boundaries while being flexible enough to incorporate differences beyond his knowledge. Kirk's vanguard approach doesn't really work in this era, and you get a sense of that from just how ineffective Riker is in most situations.
Sisko is a perfect marriage between Picard and Kirk, really, and one hell of an interesting case study. He has the benefit of assistance from an established Federation but must deal with galactic upheavals the kind of which Picard never had to tackle. There is no certainty in any of the first contacts, wars, religions, and so forth that Sisko has to deal with. His captaincy is one of perpetual crisis, but he not only keeps everything upright, he arguably improves everything he deals with. Sisko is the only captain who can conceivably a leader of nations.
Janeway is...interesting. She's a Silicon Valley mogul who doesn't care that Voyager/her online payment company is shedding parts like a leper, she wants to build that quantum drive/Hyperloop dammit. She demands innovation!
posted by greenland at 6:46 PM on August 23, 2015 [29 favorites]
Kirk was a cowboy and a boundary-pusher in ways both inspiring and utterly creepy, but I'd argue that this what the Federation needed at a time when it was still relatively new and encountering greater powers on a weekly basis. The Federation was, in essence, still establishing its tone and it benefited greatly from Kirk's Enterprise making alien races shake their heads and say, "Who was THAT guy?"
You jump to Next Gen and the Federation is well-established, comfortable, with processes in place for seemingly everything, and a network of assistance that stands ready to push back at any injustice. This Federation is a caretaker society and Picard is ideal for this era in that he maintains boundaries while being flexible enough to incorporate differences beyond his knowledge. Kirk's vanguard approach doesn't really work in this era, and you get a sense of that from just how ineffective Riker is in most situations.
Sisko is a perfect marriage between Picard and Kirk, really, and one hell of an interesting case study. He has the benefit of assistance from an established Federation but must deal with galactic upheavals the kind of which Picard never had to tackle. There is no certainty in any of the first contacts, wars, religions, and so forth that Sisko has to deal with. His captaincy is one of perpetual crisis, but he not only keeps everything upright, he arguably improves everything he deals with. Sisko is the only captain who can conceivably a leader of nations.
Janeway is...interesting. She's a Silicon Valley mogul who doesn't care that Voyager/her online payment company is shedding parts like a leper, she wants to build that quantum drive/Hyperloop dammit. She demands innovation!
posted by greenland at 6:46 PM on August 23, 2015 [29 favorites]
NextGen was nearly 30 years ago. TOS was nearly 50. Get off my lawn old man!
posted by blue_beetle at 6:56 PM on August 23, 2015
posted by blue_beetle at 6:56 PM on August 23, 2015
STTWOK is about getting old. The Kobayashi Maru is "no one gets out of here alive." Kirk can't accept getting old gracefully, and always looks for a way around his inevitable demise. OTOH Spock accepts his fate with dignity.
You'll understand when you're old enough to be allergic to Reitlax 5.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:31 PM on August 23, 2015 [12 favorites]
You'll understand when you're old enough to be allergic to Reitlax 5.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:31 PM on August 23, 2015 [12 favorites]
I love all the Treks. But if you want to talk about ethics, you don't want TOS and Kirk—you want TNG and Picard.
I've been rewatching that show (for the billionth time) lately, and every single episode wrestles with ethical questions, often as the central conflict. I once lovingly mocked it on Facebook as Star Trek: Space People in Pajamas Arguing About Ethics. It's a unique show in that regard, and it's hard to imagine a show like that being made today.
In fact, I'd love to read a blog where a philosopher watches each episode and discusses the ethical issues raised therein.
The subsequent Treks had some of that, but they never quite matched TNG. And then the movie reboot came along and contemptuously shat all over the spirit of the entire franchise, not that I'm bitter.
Some of the Trek movies are fun, but it excels in episodic form.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 8:50 PM on August 23, 2015 [12 favorites]
I've been rewatching that show (for the billionth time) lately, and every single episode wrestles with ethical questions, often as the central conflict. I once lovingly mocked it on Facebook as Star Trek: Space People in Pajamas Arguing About Ethics. It's a unique show in that regard, and it's hard to imagine a show like that being made today.
In fact, I'd love to read a blog where a philosopher watches each episode and discusses the ethical issues raised therein.
The subsequent Treks had some of that, but they never quite matched TNG. And then the movie reboot came along and contemptuously shat all over the spirit of the entire franchise, not that I'm bitter.
Some of the Trek movies are fun, but it excels in episodic form.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 8:50 PM on August 23, 2015 [12 favorites]
Though the author makes some interesting points, I think she has forgotten something:
Spock: The Kobayashi Maru scenario frequently wreaks havoc on students and equipment. As I recall you took the test three times yourself. Your final solution was, shall we say, unique?
Kirk: It had the virtue of never having been tried.
Admittedly, it is forgotten even in the movie itself when David later mentions that Kirk really has never faced a death. Still, I think it is an interesting twist on the author's question - Since Kirk has taken the test, and failed twice, and refused to accept that failure. That is, in my opinion, the real essence of the Kobayashi Maru test: to face failure, accept it, learn from it, and move on. Young Kirk demonstrated that he could not move on -- he had to be the winner, had to get the last laugh.
Later, when Kirk has survived Khan but has lost his best friend in the process, he must consider the cost of his failure. Can he move on? Can he become better than he has been in the past? He seems to accept it by the movie's end. Unfortunately, the next movie renders this moot by resurrecting Spock, and the character growth possibilities are lost.
posted by Shibboleth at 8:55 PM on August 23, 2015 [6 favorites]
Spock: The Kobayashi Maru scenario frequently wreaks havoc on students and equipment. As I recall you took the test three times yourself. Your final solution was, shall we say, unique?
Kirk: It had the virtue of never having been tried.
Admittedly, it is forgotten even in the movie itself when David later mentions that Kirk really has never faced a death. Still, I think it is an interesting twist on the author's question - Since Kirk has taken the test, and failed twice, and refused to accept that failure. That is, in my opinion, the real essence of the Kobayashi Maru test: to face failure, accept it, learn from it, and move on. Young Kirk demonstrated that he could not move on -- he had to be the winner, had to get the last laugh.
Later, when Kirk has survived Khan but has lost his best friend in the process, he must consider the cost of his failure. Can he move on? Can he become better than he has been in the past? He seems to accept it by the movie's end. Unfortunately, the next movie renders this moot by resurrecting Spock, and the character growth possibilities are lost.
posted by Shibboleth at 8:55 PM on August 23, 2015 [6 favorites]
I'm pretty sure I recall Spock growing from a little kid to an adult again in that movie. It's like, how much more could a character grow? Unless Spock became a giant, or...
... Does anyone have JJ Abrams' phone number? No reason.
posted by No-sword at 9:52 PM on August 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
... Does anyone have JJ Abrams' phone number? No reason.
posted by No-sword at 9:52 PM on August 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's fascinating (captain) that Kirk gets so much analysis, when his actions and persona are those of a fictional character written by many people for immediate dramatic effect across so many episodes and so much time.
I think a lot of this is down to Shatner, really. The character stayed so consistent and vivid over the decades partly because of Shatner's singular performance (love it or hate it, it was certainly singular) but also because Shatner is a smart, quirky guy with a sense of humor and an ego, and he fought the writers if he felt like they were veering off course with his character. Nimoy was the same way with Spock. Those guys took their roles very seriously, they knew what they wanted and they wouldn't settle for less. Even if Star Trek 5 is pretty dire, Kirk and Spock are still unmistakably Kirk and Spock throughout. The actors inhabit those roles completely.
I can't remember ever seeing a Trek episode or movie with those guys where I thought, "What? He wouldn't do that!" (Until the Abrams reboot of course, which was nothing but moments like that.) When Shatner's Kirk did something, you didn't question if it was what Kirk would do, because he was Kirk and he was doing it. Whether the story was goofy and bad or inspiring and awesome, when Shatner was Kirk, Kirk was always resolutely himself and he was always fascinating.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 10:38 PM on August 23, 2015 [15 favorites]
I think a lot of this is down to Shatner, really. The character stayed so consistent and vivid over the decades partly because of Shatner's singular performance (love it or hate it, it was certainly singular) but also because Shatner is a smart, quirky guy with a sense of humor and an ego, and he fought the writers if he felt like they were veering off course with his character. Nimoy was the same way with Spock. Those guys took their roles very seriously, they knew what they wanted and they wouldn't settle for less. Even if Star Trek 5 is pretty dire, Kirk and Spock are still unmistakably Kirk and Spock throughout. The actors inhabit those roles completely.
I can't remember ever seeing a Trek episode or movie with those guys where I thought, "What? He wouldn't do that!" (Until the Abrams reboot of course, which was nothing but moments like that.) When Shatner's Kirk did something, you didn't question if it was what Kirk would do, because he was Kirk and he was doing it. Whether the story was goofy and bad or inspiring and awesome, when Shatner was Kirk, Kirk was always resolutely himself and he was always fascinating.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 10:38 PM on August 23, 2015 [15 favorites]
I'd love to read a blog where a philosopher watches each episode and discusses the ethical issues raised therein.
How about listening to a blog where two articulate fans watch each episode and discuss the ethical issues raised therin? They also discuss "messages, morals, and meanings, and try to figure out whether the whole thing stands the test of time." It's pretty good.
They started at the beginning of TOS, and are up to season 3 of TNG so far.
Mission Log Podcast
posted by LEGO Damashii at 11:16 PM on August 23, 2015 [8 favorites]
How about listening to a blog where two articulate fans watch each episode and discuss the ethical issues raised therin? They also discuss "messages, morals, and meanings, and try to figure out whether the whole thing stands the test of time." It's pretty good.
They started at the beginning of TOS, and are up to season 3 of TNG so far.
Mission Log Podcast
posted by LEGO Damashii at 11:16 PM on August 23, 2015 [8 favorites]
I've always loved that bit about Kirk and the The Kobayashi Maru scenario. It's what they used to call "never say die," a vital quality in any fictional hero that's better than people in the real world. We don't watch Star Trek or read escapist fiction to immerse ourselves in grungy, real world characters and situations. (At least not all the time.) We watch it to be inspired. And that's the main (but not the only) reason I hate the Man of Steel movie so much. It took the ultimate hero Superman and brought him down to the level of a typical Starfleet officer, with his own Kobayashi Maru situation where the lesser bad option was killing Zod to save innocent lives. He did it, and we were supposed to think that he won some kind of great victory.
Yup, a hero finds a third way. The bad guy drops two hostages at the same time, and the hero finds a way to save both, and beat the bad guy. Because that's what heroes do.
And I think this is actually, really, really important. Sometimes real life resembles actual trolley situations. If you have a limited budget at your hospital then you have to make cold hard choices sometimes. But actually a lot of the time it's easy to view something as a no win situation, and then pick the best of your worst choices, rather than keep looking. The kind of blinkered thinking like this is the sort that leads to torture being approved, because we have to do it, it's the only way to stop the terrorist!
I actually have a great fictional example which seems to catch people out all the time. Spoilers for Watchmen here, if you care!
In Watchmen, Ozymandis determines that if nothing is done, the world will end in nuclear fire. He comes up with a method to unite everyone, by killing millions. It's a cold, utilitarian solution to an extremely dangerous problem. But here's the issue with it: even if Ozymandis' solution works, it's utterly predicated on him solving the problem. He's so obsessed with fixing the issue on his own that when he hits on a solution, it's the one he uses. Had he collaborated with others, maybe he would have found a better way, but his arrogance led him down a path where the world could be saved by him, and him alone.
The reason utilitarianism is usually the preserve of the villain is that we can't actually do the numbers. It's never as simple as people want it to be, and you can't always do the maths, because you don't know all the variables. So I am always pleased that we still have the Kirk's around to inspire us, because sometimes we have to reject the no win scenario.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 12:25 AM on August 24, 2015 [14 favorites]
Yup, a hero finds a third way. The bad guy drops two hostages at the same time, and the hero finds a way to save both, and beat the bad guy. Because that's what heroes do.
And I think this is actually, really, really important. Sometimes real life resembles actual trolley situations. If you have a limited budget at your hospital then you have to make cold hard choices sometimes. But actually a lot of the time it's easy to view something as a no win situation, and then pick the best of your worst choices, rather than keep looking. The kind of blinkered thinking like this is the sort that leads to torture being approved, because we have to do it, it's the only way to stop the terrorist!
I actually have a great fictional example which seems to catch people out all the time. Spoilers for Watchmen here, if you care!
In Watchmen, Ozymandis determines that if nothing is done, the world will end in nuclear fire. He comes up with a method to unite everyone, by killing millions. It's a cold, utilitarian solution to an extremely dangerous problem. But here's the issue with it: even if Ozymandis' solution works, it's utterly predicated on him solving the problem. He's so obsessed with fixing the issue on his own that when he hits on a solution, it's the one he uses. Had he collaborated with others, maybe he would have found a better way, but his arrogance led him down a path where the world could be saved by him, and him alone.
The reason utilitarianism is usually the preserve of the villain is that we can't actually do the numbers. It's never as simple as people want it to be, and you can't always do the maths, because you don't know all the variables. So I am always pleased that we still have the Kirk's around to inspire us, because sometimes we have to reject the no win scenario.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 12:25 AM on August 24, 2015 [14 favorites]
That's like the episode of Dr Who where Great Britain was torturing a space whale and the doctor was pissed off cause he felt like he had to put it out of its misery and Amy was like "Let's try just not torturing it first?"
posted by bleep at 12:35 AM on August 24, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by bleep at 12:35 AM on August 24, 2015 [6 favorites]
how much more could a character grow? Unless Spock became a giant, or. . .
Walter Koenig has / (had) you covered.
posted by Herodios at 5:52 AM on August 24, 2015
Walter Koenig has / (had) you covered.
posted by Herodios at 5:52 AM on August 24, 2015
You saw that as being portrayed as a "great victory?"
He cries out in anguish... then makes out with his girlfriend on top of the giant gravel pit that used to be downtown Metropolis. Then there's a series of cute scenes of him joining the paper and taking down a US military drone. The film wants to be dark and gritty or whatever but then doesn't seem to know what to do with it.
Worse than the killing of Zod in my eyes is Supes' seeming lack of interest in saving individual civilians (other than Lois) during the climactic action sequence. If nothing else it would have added some much needed texture to what was otherwise a dull, if impressively scaled, brawl. As is we have a horrifying level of destruction and the film doesn't seem to realize how horrifying it is.
posted by brundlefly at 9:35 AM on August 24, 2015
He cries out in anguish... then makes out with his girlfriend on top of the giant gravel pit that used to be downtown Metropolis. Then there's a series of cute scenes of him joining the paper and taking down a US military drone. The film wants to be dark and gritty or whatever but then doesn't seem to know what to do with it.
Worse than the killing of Zod in my eyes is Supes' seeming lack of interest in saving individual civilians (other than Lois) during the climactic action sequence. If nothing else it would have added some much needed texture to what was otherwise a dull, if impressively scaled, brawl. As is we have a horrifying level of destruction and the film doesn't seem to realize how horrifying it is.
posted by brundlefly at 9:35 AM on August 24, 2015
Young James T. Kirk reprogrammed the Kobayashi Maru because he didn’t grasp the point of the simulation. Kirk thought it was a test of whether in the circumstances you could succeed in saving everyone. On that basis, he thought the circumstances were unfair (since there was no way to save everyone), so he changed them.
No. No, no, no.
Kirk rejected the test not because he didn't grasp the point, not because he thought it was a test of whether, in the circumstances, he could save everyone. He took the test three times - I'm quite certain the point of the exercise was made clear to him after the first because the learning objective of the Kobayashi Maru is to see how the future officers and captains of Starfleet will react in a situation where there is no way to win. "A no-win situation is a possibility every commander may face." That is part of the debrief of the test; to make the cadets think about that moment, reflect upon how they felt and acting during a simulation of that moment, and then understand themselves better for their future actions. Star Fleet Academy apparently loves these kinds of ethical dilemmas, because Mr. Crusher and Counsellor Troi both face similar ones in their training exercises.
Kirk's rejection is of the entire framework. Kirk is essentially making the point - with both the Kobayashi Maru and his entire career - that part of being a Star Fleet commander is in rejecting the situation as it presents and finding an alternative frame to work from. That the choices you have are likely a false dichotomy and there are other choices. A few examples:
-The Corbomite Maneuver: "Not chess, but poker."
-Arena: Kirk refuses to kill his opponent, arguing for a third way
-Day of the Dove: Kirk investigates and discovers both they and the Klingons are being manipulated by a third party
That approach - of attempting to find an alternative way, of changing or challenging the conditions and mindset everyone is operating under, is one of the signatures of Kirk's leadership approach. The line that is important in his exchange with Saavik regarding his approach to the Kobayashi Maru is not "I don't like to lose" but "I don't believe in the no-win scenario."
["My God, Bones, what have I done?"
"What you had to do. What you always do. Turn death into a fighting chance to live."]
I would also argue that Kirk has faced the no-win scenario twice in his career: Amok Time (where it is McCoy who comes up with the alternative way out) and City on the Edge of Forever, where there is no way out without losing someone important to Kirk. (But then, it is interesting that loss only means something when it is someone dear to Kirk; the death count on the Enterprise is pretty damn high over time but Kirk spares little thought for the redshirts, even in Star Trek II: Kirk's Midlife Crisis - he's ok with sacrificing some of his crew to get the majority out of situations. Spock's sacrifice should be seen in that light and maybe make Kirk a bit more reflective on the danger he sometimes asks his crew to face - but at the same time, Kirk is an explorer and he knows that there is risk and expects everyone under him to know that too. And at times, the only way to find a "win" condition may involve sacrifice - in chess, Kirk must sacrifice a lot of pawns to try to get ahead).
I always find it interesting to think about what Kirk did in terms of hacking the KM scenario. The reboot version - cocky Kirk basically putting the game into god mode - is not what I envision (I think that is likely one of the worst scenes of the reboot, actually). "changed the conditions of the test" can mean so many things. I wonder if he changed it so that the Klingons would answer a hail and talk; or if he tweaked the scenario to the point where the right sequence of steps with the right timing would allow him to be successful; or (what I think/hope happened) created a third option in which the KM is saved, without the Enterprise entering the neutral zone via some handwavy tech deployment and perhaps a deep knowledge of the skills of those taking the test with him and what they might be able to do with them (because Kirk also demonstrated a knowledge of his ship and how it worked, along with knowing the strengths and talents of his crew). Because I think a commendation for original thinking for whatever he did reflects someone who brought forward a perspective that those who created the test hadn't considered and demonstrated that a Starfleet officer always looks for a solution, is always trying to think outside the box and push the limits of what is possible with the existing ship and people on hand. " As your teacher Mister Spock is fond of saying, 'I like to think there always are ...possibilities.'"
The reboots, sadly, have reduced the characters down to their shorthand versions of themselves (as well as making Spock a weird character who seems like he's not suppressing emotion as much as keeping a barely concealed rage in check). The Kirk of the reboots would cheat on the KM because he "doesn't like to lose"; the Kirk of Star Trek II: Kirk's Midlife Crisis is not that man. The only point in that film where he behaves unwisely (not heeding Saavik's advice regarding the approach of the Reliant) has huge consequences and Kirk rightly holds himself to account for that. But past that? This is not a man who is recklessly charging into danger and taking stupid risks; he finds a way to answer Reliant and make their first encounter a draw (and the director's cut has a fascinating subsequent scene between Kirk and McCoy where Kirk expresses a lot of self-doubt and the realization that he may be outmatched by Khan - that he "gave as good as he got" simply because he knew something about the ships and the technology that Khan didn't; and that now Kirk has no such advantage.). He takes risks, but not stupid ones; he seeks out advice and counsel, and then acts upon it; he finds a way to accept Spock's sacrifice (and yes, sadly, ST:III undermines that).
Kirk's ethical choices are a different matter; I don't think his choices are always very ethical, even keeping in mind the fact that he is a creation of a 1960s white male worldview. But his approach to the KM is not about defining success in terms of saving everyone (as noted above, Kirk was not above placing crew in dangerous or deadly situations if it meant giving a chance for the ship or the whole of the crew to survive); it is about demonstrating a willingness to keep trying to find a way for some type of "win" condition. Kirk is a huge example of a "fail forward" type of mentality in leadership.
posted by nubs at 9:53 AM on August 24, 2015 [20 favorites]
No. No, no, no.
Kirk rejected the test not because he didn't grasp the point, not because he thought it was a test of whether, in the circumstances, he could save everyone. He took the test three times - I'm quite certain the point of the exercise was made clear to him after the first because the learning objective of the Kobayashi Maru is to see how the future officers and captains of Starfleet will react in a situation where there is no way to win. "A no-win situation is a possibility every commander may face." That is part of the debrief of the test; to make the cadets think about that moment, reflect upon how they felt and acting during a simulation of that moment, and then understand themselves better for their future actions. Star Fleet Academy apparently loves these kinds of ethical dilemmas, because Mr. Crusher and Counsellor Troi both face similar ones in their training exercises.
Kirk's rejection is of the entire framework. Kirk is essentially making the point - with both the Kobayashi Maru and his entire career - that part of being a Star Fleet commander is in rejecting the situation as it presents and finding an alternative frame to work from. That the choices you have are likely a false dichotomy and there are other choices. A few examples:
-The Corbomite Maneuver: "Not chess, but poker."
-Arena: Kirk refuses to kill his opponent, arguing for a third way
-Day of the Dove: Kirk investigates and discovers both they and the Klingons are being manipulated by a third party
That approach - of attempting to find an alternative way, of changing or challenging the conditions and mindset everyone is operating under, is one of the signatures of Kirk's leadership approach. The line that is important in his exchange with Saavik regarding his approach to the Kobayashi Maru is not "I don't like to lose" but "I don't believe in the no-win scenario."
["My God, Bones, what have I done?"
"What you had to do. What you always do. Turn death into a fighting chance to live."]
I would also argue that Kirk has faced the no-win scenario twice in his career: Amok Time (where it is McCoy who comes up with the alternative way out) and City on the Edge of Forever, where there is no way out without losing someone important to Kirk. (But then, it is interesting that loss only means something when it is someone dear to Kirk; the death count on the Enterprise is pretty damn high over time but Kirk spares little thought for the redshirts, even in Star Trek II: Kirk's Midlife Crisis - he's ok with sacrificing some of his crew to get the majority out of situations. Spock's sacrifice should be seen in that light and maybe make Kirk a bit more reflective on the danger he sometimes asks his crew to face - but at the same time, Kirk is an explorer and he knows that there is risk and expects everyone under him to know that too. And at times, the only way to find a "win" condition may involve sacrifice - in chess, Kirk must sacrifice a lot of pawns to try to get ahead).
I always find it interesting to think about what Kirk did in terms of hacking the KM scenario. The reboot version - cocky Kirk basically putting the game into god mode - is not what I envision (I think that is likely one of the worst scenes of the reboot, actually). "changed the conditions of the test" can mean so many things. I wonder if he changed it so that the Klingons would answer a hail and talk; or if he tweaked the scenario to the point where the right sequence of steps with the right timing would allow him to be successful; or (what I think/hope happened) created a third option in which the KM is saved, without the Enterprise entering the neutral zone via some handwavy tech deployment and perhaps a deep knowledge of the skills of those taking the test with him and what they might be able to do with them (because Kirk also demonstrated a knowledge of his ship and how it worked, along with knowing the strengths and talents of his crew). Because I think a commendation for original thinking for whatever he did reflects someone who brought forward a perspective that those who created the test hadn't considered and demonstrated that a Starfleet officer always looks for a solution, is always trying to think outside the box and push the limits of what is possible with the existing ship and people on hand. " As your teacher Mister Spock is fond of saying, 'I like to think there always are ...possibilities.'"
The reboots, sadly, have reduced the characters down to their shorthand versions of themselves (as well as making Spock a weird character who seems like he's not suppressing emotion as much as keeping a barely concealed rage in check). The Kirk of the reboots would cheat on the KM because he "doesn't like to lose"; the Kirk of Star Trek II: Kirk's Midlife Crisis is not that man. The only point in that film where he behaves unwisely (not heeding Saavik's advice regarding the approach of the Reliant) has huge consequences and Kirk rightly holds himself to account for that. But past that? This is not a man who is recklessly charging into danger and taking stupid risks; he finds a way to answer Reliant and make their first encounter a draw (and the director's cut has a fascinating subsequent scene between Kirk and McCoy where Kirk expresses a lot of self-doubt and the realization that he may be outmatched by Khan - that he "gave as good as he got" simply because he knew something about the ships and the technology that Khan didn't; and that now Kirk has no such advantage.). He takes risks, but not stupid ones; he seeks out advice and counsel, and then acts upon it; he finds a way to accept Spock's sacrifice (and yes, sadly, ST:III undermines that).
Kirk's ethical choices are a different matter; I don't think his choices are always very ethical, even keeping in mind the fact that he is a creation of a 1960s white male worldview. But his approach to the KM is not about defining success in terms of saving everyone (as noted above, Kirk was not above placing crew in dangerous or deadly situations if it meant giving a chance for the ship or the whole of the crew to survive); it is about demonstrating a willingness to keep trying to find a way for some type of "win" condition. Kirk is a huge example of a "fail forward" type of mentality in leadership.
posted by nubs at 9:53 AM on August 24, 2015 [20 favorites]
Janeway never gave in to pragmatism, but the consequences of that ate at her. Her insistance on doing to right thing, even at the expense of the entire crew's likelihood of ever seeing earth again, was how they got stuck in the delta quadrant in the first place. And again and again she chose right over getting home: When that resort planet had super transporters but wouldn't give them up, she followed the prime directive. When the other alpha quadrant ship was killing sub-space lifeforms to power a super-warp drive that would have them home in months, she put a stop to it.
There are a couple of episodes where you see how it eats at her and the terrible guilt she feels over the can't-save-everyone nature of her choices. The episode in the Void she's obviously depressed and it's her guilt and second thoughts that are weighing her down. And of course in the finale we see that her guilt has been weighing on her for 10 years, but even when she goes back in time to force her past self to make the pragmatic choice, her past self refuses. It's not until they come up with a plan that she sees as moral that she finally goes along with it.
But it's not so much a save-everyone mentality that she has, more a save-others-before-ourselves. Another place you see this is when the ship splits and there are two Voyagers in two universes, both feeding off the same anti-matter supply (unsustainable). The two Janeways are each willinng to self-destruct their own ship to save the other, ultimately, the ship least likely to survey self-destructs on Janeways order.
I think Janeway takes the prize for principles over pragmatism, which means you probably don't want her in any position in your for-profit company.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 12:20 PM on August 24, 2015 [3 favorites]
There are a couple of episodes where you see how it eats at her and the terrible guilt she feels over the can't-save-everyone nature of her choices. The episode in the Void she's obviously depressed and it's her guilt and second thoughts that are weighing her down. And of course in the finale we see that her guilt has been weighing on her for 10 years, but even when she goes back in time to force her past self to make the pragmatic choice, her past self refuses. It's not until they come up with a plan that she sees as moral that she finally goes along with it.
But it's not so much a save-everyone mentality that she has, more a save-others-before-ourselves. Another place you see this is when the ship splits and there are two Voyagers in two universes, both feeding off the same anti-matter supply (unsustainable). The two Janeways are each willinng to self-destruct their own ship to save the other, ultimately, the ship least likely to survey self-destructs on Janeways order.
I think Janeway takes the prize for principles over pragmatism, which means you probably don't want her in any position in your for-profit company.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 12:20 PM on August 24, 2015 [3 favorites]
Star Trek II: Kirk's Midlife Crisis
you owe me a new keyboard
Star Trek III: Kirk Finds a Friend
Star Trek IV: Retired Kirk invites Spock for a dip in his new pool
Star Trek V: Kirk joins ein Kirche
Star Trek VI: Kirk's Still Got It
Star Trek VII: Kirk Bites It
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:25 PM on August 24, 2015 [2 favorites]
you owe me a new keyboard
Star Trek III: Kirk Finds a Friend
Star Trek IV: Retired Kirk invites Spock for a dip in his new pool
Star Trek V: Kirk joins ein Kirche
Star Trek VI: Kirk's Still Got It
Star Trek VII: Kirk Bites It
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:25 PM on August 24, 2015 [2 favorites]
No. No, no, no. . . . Kirk's rejection is of the entire framework. . . . rejecting the situation as it presents and finding an alternative frame to work from. That the choices you have are likely a false dichotomy and there are other choices. . . .
Nubs "gets" Star Trek.
posted by Herodios at 12:27 PM on August 24, 2015 [4 favorites]
Nubs "gets" Star Trek.
posted by Herodios at 12:27 PM on August 24, 2015 [4 favorites]
If only I had a penguin..., that post made this Voyager fangirl wanna stand up and cheer. I get so tired of hearing that show dumped on, over and over and over again. I think people got so hung up on what Voyager wasn't that they've never given it credit for what it was. It was a really good show, maybe a great one. (I'll have to do a rewatch one of these days.) And Janeway was a great character and a great captain.
If we were ranking the Trek captains purely as bosses and not as interesting characters, I might put Archer at the top. He's the blandest of the Trek captains, but he also seems like he's maybe the most easy-going generally. Then maybe Picard, because he's all about efficiency but he's not a robot or something. As long as you're doing your job, everything's cool. (And when I think about how pissed off Picard got about the crew calling Barclay "Broccoli" behind his back, it makes me think Picard is a boss with zero tolerance for office hazing or harassment.) Next I'd put Janeway. Janeway is compassionate and fair, a great boss in many ways, but if you fuck up she'll sass you and if you really piss her off her temper is terrifying. Then Sisco. Sisco is great, but he has this weird thing where he gets a kick out of assigning his employees shitty jobs sometimes. Like if you're stuck working all night on pointless paperwork, he'd chuckle about it. Also, he doesn't need to yell at you to make you piss yourself. His quiet angry voice is worse than yelling. And finally we have Kirk. Kirk is awesome in so many ways and he runs a great ship, but on the original series he would sometimes bark at his crew, he could almost be abusive. Given that I'm kind of a Barclay, I don't think I'd last a week on Kirk's ship. (Kirk does become a lot more relaxed and balanced by the time of the movies. But if we're talking TOS Kirk, he's a great sci-fi hero but a hell of a boss.)
posted by Ursula Hitler at 5:56 PM on August 24, 2015 [2 favorites]
If we were ranking the Trek captains purely as bosses and not as interesting characters, I might put Archer at the top. He's the blandest of the Trek captains, but he also seems like he's maybe the most easy-going generally. Then maybe Picard, because he's all about efficiency but he's not a robot or something. As long as you're doing your job, everything's cool. (And when I think about how pissed off Picard got about the crew calling Barclay "Broccoli" behind his back, it makes me think Picard is a boss with zero tolerance for office hazing or harassment.) Next I'd put Janeway. Janeway is compassionate and fair, a great boss in many ways, but if you fuck up she'll sass you and if you really piss her off her temper is terrifying. Then Sisco. Sisco is great, but he has this weird thing where he gets a kick out of assigning his employees shitty jobs sometimes. Like if you're stuck working all night on pointless paperwork, he'd chuckle about it. Also, he doesn't need to yell at you to make you piss yourself. His quiet angry voice is worse than yelling. And finally we have Kirk. Kirk is awesome in so many ways and he runs a great ship, but on the original series he would sometimes bark at his crew, he could almost be abusive. Given that I'm kind of a Barclay, I don't think I'd last a week on Kirk's ship. (Kirk does become a lot more relaxed and balanced by the time of the movies. But if we're talking TOS Kirk, he's a great sci-fi hero but a hell of a boss.)
posted by Ursula Hitler at 5:56 PM on August 24, 2015 [2 favorites]
Picard is pretty much an NPC, we're stuck with Riker for a Kirk-like player character.
posted by Artw at 6:33 PM on August 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 6:33 PM on August 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Ursula Hitler at 8:56 PM on August 24 [+] [!]
First of all, it's eponysterical that you're looking for an easy-going boss.
Second, I think Voyager is a great show, too. In fact, after a re-watch of TNG followed immediately be a rewatch of Voyager, I sent this out:
Though Picard is indisputably the best Captain, Voyager is a better series that TNG.
Arguments:
1. Character development is much better on Voyager. Though people are always talking about how characters on TNG started flat and then added depth, can you really tell me how any of those characters changed? No...gaining depth isn't changing, it's just getting fatter. They had no real lasting internal conficts (possible excepetion: Picard re: borg assimilation and living a lifetime on that planet). Maybe data gets to understand idioms and some basic human interaction better. On Voyager you have Kess' transformation from a scared child to an old woman terrified of her own power and grieving over the live she gave up; Seven-of-Nine from Borg to human (far better than Data's Pinnochio) and the doctor's "expanding beyond his programming;" Janeways struggles with her choices; Kim's insecurity and Paris' issues with his father, B'elanna's struggles with her Klingon side (in the episode where her klingon and human sides split into differnet people who each need each other, in her experience on the barge of the dead with her mother, and to the very end in her attempts to genetically de-Klingon her fetus, when we finally find out the source of her frustration (and it turns out, fear) with being klingon).
2. Voyager has an underlying yearning that TNG lacks. There's a motivation that binds the characters and the show together. TNG says it's all about exploration, but really it's just bureaucratic mission to bureacratic mission with no motivation holding it all together. The whole let's get back to the alpha quadrant thing gives the show a natural sort of arc without getting ridiculously can't-follow-if-you-miss-an-episode arc-y (e.g. Enterprise got way to arc-y).
3. Because of it's extreme long distance travel, Voyager strikes a good mix between carrying over themes across episodes and moving on to new things. Kazon -> Videan -> Hirogen, and yet tied together throughout by the Borg and yet again always encountering new species because they're going through unknown territory. Janeway surely has the record for most first contacts, even surpassing Captain Archer. Also because each new alien species is a new allegory, new ethical issue, new intellectual paradox (ok, I'll give you that they go a little overboard with the time travel), this gives Voyager freedom to explore many more issues.
4. Voyager did a much better job of sticking the landing. People say they like the TNG ending, but seriously, meh...what's so great about it? There's nothing resolved in that ending that didn't start in that very episode. On Voyager you get a resolution to learn how Seven of Nine will continue to evolve, you see the longterm emotional fallout of having been lost in the alpha quadrant. And the finale not only resolves an issue from the very first episode (The Doctor finally chooses a name!) but even an issue from TNG: Barkley finally seems to find his place and sense of self, however shakily.
Despite the fact that the entire existence of humanity is at stake, the TNG finale is not very emotionally gripping. Voyager's finale on the other hand has several moments of chills and throat lumps, and does it without getting maudlin about it. And it's not just the finale, the last several episodes have an air of denouement, again with some gripping moments (who can forget the first time the crew got to talk to their loved ones, or saw a live view of earth?).
Further, the Voyager finale has a great mix of not resolving the entire future of the characters exactly (as some shows and books do with epilogues fast-forwarding 30 years in the future) and yet giving you a sense what happens next. By having a future history that we know now never happens, we can use that to extrapolate what ore or less will likely happen but you never know exactly: e.g. Seven of Nine and Chakatay will probably marry (a huge indication of how Seven's struggles with her humanity will play out), but how will that resolve if Seven doesn't die and Chakotay isn't lost to his grief. You even get to find out not just how the characters may continue to evolve, but how the universe will -- it seems clear that even with its brief publication period, the doctor's holo-novel will spark a photonics-right movement in the mines where the holograms work and as Janeway herself predicts, photonic beings may achieve legal personhood soon after the finale. What does TNG give you? a two dimensional "Picard will move back to the Vinyard, Data will be a professor, Doctor Crusher will be a captain." Meh. TNG had a solidly Meh finale. I mean it was a perfectly good TNG episode, but it wasn't even close to the best episode and the finale needed to be epic.
So, for all these reasons, Voyager, is a better series than TNG.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 6:42 PM on August 24, 2015 [4 favorites]
First of all, it's eponysterical that you're looking for an easy-going boss.
Second, I think Voyager is a great show, too. In fact, after a re-watch of TNG followed immediately be a rewatch of Voyager, I sent this out:
Though Picard is indisputably the best Captain, Voyager is a better series that TNG.
Arguments:
1. Character development is much better on Voyager. Though people are always talking about how characters on TNG started flat and then added depth, can you really tell me how any of those characters changed? No...gaining depth isn't changing, it's just getting fatter. They had no real lasting internal conficts (possible excepetion: Picard re: borg assimilation and living a lifetime on that planet). Maybe data gets to understand idioms and some basic human interaction better. On Voyager you have Kess' transformation from a scared child to an old woman terrified of her own power and grieving over the live she gave up; Seven-of-Nine from Borg to human (far better than Data's Pinnochio) and the doctor's "expanding beyond his programming;" Janeways struggles with her choices; Kim's insecurity and Paris' issues with his father, B'elanna's struggles with her Klingon side (in the episode where her klingon and human sides split into differnet people who each need each other, in her experience on the barge of the dead with her mother, and to the very end in her attempts to genetically de-Klingon her fetus, when we finally find out the source of her frustration (and it turns out, fear) with being klingon).
2. Voyager has an underlying yearning that TNG lacks. There's a motivation that binds the characters and the show together. TNG says it's all about exploration, but really it's just bureaucratic mission to bureacratic mission with no motivation holding it all together. The whole let's get back to the alpha quadrant thing gives the show a natural sort of arc without getting ridiculously can't-follow-if-you-miss-an-episode arc-y (e.g. Enterprise got way to arc-y).
3. Because of it's extreme long distance travel, Voyager strikes a good mix between carrying over themes across episodes and moving on to new things. Kazon -> Videan -> Hirogen, and yet tied together throughout by the Borg and yet again always encountering new species because they're going through unknown territory. Janeway surely has the record for most first contacts, even surpassing Captain Archer. Also because each new alien species is a new allegory, new ethical issue, new intellectual paradox (ok, I'll give you that they go a little overboard with the time travel), this gives Voyager freedom to explore many more issues.
4. Voyager did a much better job of sticking the landing. People say they like the TNG ending, but seriously, meh...what's so great about it? There's nothing resolved in that ending that didn't start in that very episode. On Voyager you get a resolution to learn how Seven of Nine will continue to evolve, you see the longterm emotional fallout of having been lost in the alpha quadrant. And the finale not only resolves an issue from the very first episode (The Doctor finally chooses a name!) but even an issue from TNG: Barkley finally seems to find his place and sense of self, however shakily.
Despite the fact that the entire existence of humanity is at stake, the TNG finale is not very emotionally gripping. Voyager's finale on the other hand has several moments of chills and throat lumps, and does it without getting maudlin about it. And it's not just the finale, the last several episodes have an air of denouement, again with some gripping moments (who can forget the first time the crew got to talk to their loved ones, or saw a live view of earth?).
Further, the Voyager finale has a great mix of not resolving the entire future of the characters exactly (as some shows and books do with epilogues fast-forwarding 30 years in the future) and yet giving you a sense what happens next. By having a future history that we know now never happens, we can use that to extrapolate what ore or less will likely happen but you never know exactly: e.g. Seven of Nine and Chakatay will probably marry (a huge indication of how Seven's struggles with her humanity will play out), but how will that resolve if Seven doesn't die and Chakotay isn't lost to his grief. You even get to find out not just how the characters may continue to evolve, but how the universe will -- it seems clear that even with its brief publication period, the doctor's holo-novel will spark a photonics-right movement in the mines where the holograms work and as Janeway herself predicts, photonic beings may achieve legal personhood soon after the finale. What does TNG give you? a two dimensional "Picard will move back to the Vinyard, Data will be a professor, Doctor Crusher will be a captain." Meh. TNG had a solidly Meh finale. I mean it was a perfectly good TNG episode, but it wasn't even close to the best episode and the finale needed to be epic.
So, for all these reasons, Voyager, is a better series than TNG.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 6:42 PM on August 24, 2015 [4 favorites]
Voyager is a better series that TNG.
I'm sorry, If only I had a penguin..., where you have gone, I can not follow. They're both great shows, but they're so different in some ways that it's hard to compare them. (Not as different as TOS is from everything that followed, but still really different.)
It's true, the characters on TNG don't feel as messily human as the characters on Voyager. But they're not supposed to be. They are heroes, straight up. They do have some flaws, but generally they are supposed to be role models and our avatars. They are supposed to be awesome, and I think they succeed! Picard is a great captain, Crusher is a great doctor, Riker is a great big lunky space man who plays jazz and charms the ladies, Data is a compelling mix of ice-cold genius and sweet, fumbling child. When we get a deeper look into their personalities, it feels exceptional. When we see Picard break down at the family vineyard, when he hollers at David Warner about the FOUR LIGHTS, it hits hard because Picard is a cool hero and falling apart is just not his way. Their stories, generally, are more about the stories than the people. They encounter a cool anomaly or some freaky alien race, and they explore what it's all about and they talk about the moral course of action. That is exactly what Roddenberry intended Trek to be, right there.
If you want deeper characterization, I think DS9 easily beats TNG and beats Voyager too. Elim Garak was a creepy yet endearing former space Nazi spy and torturer, a killer with a broken heart, an exile and drug addict who could hardly admit to himself just how badly he longed for redemption. He could tell you lies that were true and truths that were lies, and somehow it all made sense because Garak was just that complicated. And he was just a freaking recurring character.
Voyager is my 4th favorite Trek show, and it's a testament to just how much I love Trek that even at #4 Voyager is still one of my favorite shows ever. (I can't even rank TOS, TNG and DS9, but I know Voyager is a proud 4th and then poor old Enterprise comes limping along at a distant 5th.)
Perhaps this will get into yucky gender stereotyping, but I've always felt like Voyager had a strongly female POV and a lot of the hatred directed its way was based in sexism. Janeway being the captain aside, most of the strongest characters were women and you had stuff like Janeway's holodeck romances and scenes where women scientists were running the ship and saving the day. When Torres and Paris finally get together it's in the middle of an adventure where they're stranded in space and running out of air, but the episode is ALL ABOUT Torres' internal struggles as she faces her mortality and conflicting feelings about honor and this annoying love she's feeling for this stupid smirky guy. I think the show was absolutely Trek from a female POV, and not trying to hide it. That didn't make it pink or girly-girl, it could go very, very dark. But it prioritized different things than a show like TNG.
I look at the horrified reaction to an episode like Once Upon a Time, with all this shit about Neelix and some little girl and a fucking cartoon tree man and some water guy, and that reaction only makes sense if you just can't deal with feelings and kids and some difficult real-life stuff. If you're scared of feelings, Voyager is not the show for you. Turns out, a lot of Trekkies are scared of feelings!
Jesus, this comment is turning into a goddamn dissertation. I'm gonna click post and go to bed before I start comparing and contrasting Spock and Tuvok or something.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 3:01 AM on August 25, 2015 [7 favorites]
I'm sorry, If only I had a penguin..., where you have gone, I can not follow. They're both great shows, but they're so different in some ways that it's hard to compare them. (Not as different as TOS is from everything that followed, but still really different.)
It's true, the characters on TNG don't feel as messily human as the characters on Voyager. But they're not supposed to be. They are heroes, straight up. They do have some flaws, but generally they are supposed to be role models and our avatars. They are supposed to be awesome, and I think they succeed! Picard is a great captain, Crusher is a great doctor, Riker is a great big lunky space man who plays jazz and charms the ladies, Data is a compelling mix of ice-cold genius and sweet, fumbling child. When we get a deeper look into their personalities, it feels exceptional. When we see Picard break down at the family vineyard, when he hollers at David Warner about the FOUR LIGHTS, it hits hard because Picard is a cool hero and falling apart is just not his way. Their stories, generally, are more about the stories than the people. They encounter a cool anomaly or some freaky alien race, and they explore what it's all about and they talk about the moral course of action. That is exactly what Roddenberry intended Trek to be, right there.
If you want deeper characterization, I think DS9 easily beats TNG and beats Voyager too. Elim Garak was a creepy yet endearing former space Nazi spy and torturer, a killer with a broken heart, an exile and drug addict who could hardly admit to himself just how badly he longed for redemption. He could tell you lies that were true and truths that were lies, and somehow it all made sense because Garak was just that complicated. And he was just a freaking recurring character.
Voyager is my 4th favorite Trek show, and it's a testament to just how much I love Trek that even at #4 Voyager is still one of my favorite shows ever. (I can't even rank TOS, TNG and DS9, but I know Voyager is a proud 4th and then poor old Enterprise comes limping along at a distant 5th.)
Perhaps this will get into yucky gender stereotyping, but I've always felt like Voyager had a strongly female POV and a lot of the hatred directed its way was based in sexism. Janeway being the captain aside, most of the strongest characters were women and you had stuff like Janeway's holodeck romances and scenes where women scientists were running the ship and saving the day. When Torres and Paris finally get together it's in the middle of an adventure where they're stranded in space and running out of air, but the episode is ALL ABOUT Torres' internal struggles as she faces her mortality and conflicting feelings about honor and this annoying love she's feeling for this stupid smirky guy. I think the show was absolutely Trek from a female POV, and not trying to hide it. That didn't make it pink or girly-girl, it could go very, very dark. But it prioritized different things than a show like TNG.
I look at the horrified reaction to an episode like Once Upon a Time, with all this shit about Neelix and some little girl and a fucking cartoon tree man and some water guy, and that reaction only makes sense if you just can't deal with feelings and kids and some difficult real-life stuff. If you're scared of feelings, Voyager is not the show for you. Turns out, a lot of Trekkies are scared of feelings!
Jesus, this comment is turning into a goddamn dissertation. I'm gonna click post and go to bed before I start comparing and contrasting Spock and Tuvok or something.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 3:01 AM on August 25, 2015 [7 favorites]
Nubs "gets" Star Trek.
There are four lights!
posted by nubs at 6:41 AM on August 25, 2015 [3 favorites]
Admittedly, it is forgotten even in the movie itself when David later mentions that Kirk really has never faced a death.
True. Going through Dr. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross's stages of grief is not what we ever see Kirk do. The iteration of this that always bowls me over was in Operation: Annihilate! when Kirk finds his brother, Sam, dead on Deneva, and his sister-in-law dies a tortured, painful death right before his eyes in Sickbay soon after. And Kirk looks sad for a minute, is cranky towards his crew, and just carries on with his mission of trying to beat the evil aliens. He is all business. We never actually see him mourn a loss, a la 60s era white male masculinity ideals indeed.
posted by hush at 11:07 AM on August 25, 2015 [1 favorite]
True. Going through Dr. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross's stages of grief is not what we ever see Kirk do. The iteration of this that always bowls me over was in Operation: Annihilate! when Kirk finds his brother, Sam, dead on Deneva, and his sister-in-law dies a tortured, painful death right before his eyes in Sickbay soon after. And Kirk looks sad for a minute, is cranky towards his crew, and just carries on with his mission of trying to beat the evil aliens. He is all business. We never actually see him mourn a loss, a la 60s era white male masculinity ideals indeed.
posted by hush at 11:07 AM on August 25, 2015 [1 favorite]
Spock: Space Tuvok
posted by blue_beetle at 12:03 PM on August 25, 2015
posted by blue_beetle at 12:03 PM on August 25, 2015
Operation: Annihilate!
Actually, that scene with the death of Kirk's brother is the one moment I can think of where Kirk acts in a way that seems out of character for him. He is obviously upset to see his brother die, but then he immediately goes right back to work and it just feels weird. I'm guessing the writers (and/or Shatner) were trying to make that very point hush suggests, that Kirk is all-business and badass even in the face of personal loss. But I contrast that scene in Star Trek 3 where he's gutted by the loss of his son ("You Klingon bastard, you've killed my son") and this scene, and the difference is bizarre... especially when you realize that Kirk didn't know his son nearly as well as he presumably knew his brother.
Given that we do see Kirk grieve a number of times on TOS, his much more muted response to his brother's death always made me think Kirk must not have liked his brother much, or that they were never close. Kirk seems to grieve more for lost redshirts than he grieves for his brother.
Spock: Space Tuvok
How is Spock more space-y than Tuvok? They're both space dudes.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 2:16 PM on August 25, 2015
Actually, that scene with the death of Kirk's brother is the one moment I can think of where Kirk acts in a way that seems out of character for him. He is obviously upset to see his brother die, but then he immediately goes right back to work and it just feels weird. I'm guessing the writers (and/or Shatner) were trying to make that very point hush suggests, that Kirk is all-business and badass even in the face of personal loss. But I contrast that scene in Star Trek 3 where he's gutted by the loss of his son ("You Klingon bastard, you've killed my son") and this scene, and the difference is bizarre... especially when you realize that Kirk didn't know his son nearly as well as he presumably knew his brother.
Given that we do see Kirk grieve a number of times on TOS, his much more muted response to his brother's death always made me think Kirk must not have liked his brother much, or that they were never close. Kirk seems to grieve more for lost redshirts than he grieves for his brother.
Spock: Space Tuvok
How is Spock more space-y than Tuvok? They're both space dudes.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 2:16 PM on August 25, 2015
But I contrast that scene in Star Trek 3 where he's gutted by the loss of his son ("You Klingon bastard, you've killed my son") and this scene, and the difference is bizarre.
Shortly after the moment of David's death, he's working out his next step. I always wonder how much of that moment is Kirk being genuine - which he is in the initial moments - and by what point it becomes part of Kirk's plan, and that he's trying to make the Klingon captain believe that he's overcome with emotion and making bad decisions, not setting a trap.
posted by nubs at 3:28 PM on August 25, 2015
Shortly after the moment of David's death, he's working out his next step. I always wonder how much of that moment is Kirk being genuine - which he is in the initial moments - and by what point it becomes part of Kirk's plan, and that he's trying to make the Klingon captain believe that he's overcome with emotion and making bad decisions, not setting a trap.
posted by nubs at 3:28 PM on August 25, 2015
I think it's a little bit of both, nubs. In his head he's trying to fool the Klingon, but he actually is deeply hurt and doesn't quite realize it yet. Losing one's son is (I imagine) a much deeper blow for a middle aged man than losing a brother when you're both still young. Kirk thought there was no one to carry on after him, then suddenly he had a son, and then just as quickly that son died. It's like getting gut punched by a photon torpedo.
posted by Kevin Street at 5:16 PM on August 25, 2015
posted by Kevin Street at 5:16 PM on August 25, 2015
I need to read this thread more thoroughly but first - thank you bleep for mentioning Troi's test in TNG! Riker specifically tells her that she's not going to find the answer to this problem in the ship's blueprints and specs. That's what helps her get it -- that she has to be willing to sacrifice one officer to save the ship, to sacrifice individuals to accomplish the mission. The lesson stuck with me. While I've never had to send someone to their death, I have had to help terminate people's employment. It's never easy but sometimes it's necessary, if my higher priority is the org.
posted by brainwane at 7:10 AM on August 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by brainwane at 7:10 AM on August 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think it's a little bit of both, nubs. In his head he's trying to fool the Klingon, but he actually is deeply hurt and doesn't quite realize it yet
I agree that it's both, it's just that I'm trying to figure out when it's fully real, and when it's a mix. Because Kirk is great at compartmentalizing/suppressing his emotions (the way a 60s man should be!) and so I am always struck by his initial anguish and fall to the floor and then his slow repetition of the phrase, and then he surrenders his vessel, slumps in his chair and turns away...and when McCoy goes over to console him, Kirk gently pushes him away, already moving to his next steps because he can't take the time right then to mourn. He does take a moment on the planet, but it is brief.
It's actually a very complex moment for the character and for Shatner, and I think it's well done because of the ambiguity of what he is thinking and feeling at each moment - Kirk has to show something because of the horror of the moment, but Kirk is also a man of action and of thinking on his feet, and the scene does both.
There's likely something to be said for an analysis of Kirk as a leader best situated to crisis - he doesn't have/allow time for emotional responses - and does he just keep precipitating crisis in order to shine?
posted by nubs at 8:57 AM on September 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
I agree that it's both, it's just that I'm trying to figure out when it's fully real, and when it's a mix. Because Kirk is great at compartmentalizing/suppressing his emotions (the way a 60s man should be!) and so I am always struck by his initial anguish and fall to the floor and then his slow repetition of the phrase, and then he surrenders his vessel, slumps in his chair and turns away...and when McCoy goes over to console him, Kirk gently pushes him away, already moving to his next steps because he can't take the time right then to mourn. He does take a moment on the planet, but it is brief.
It's actually a very complex moment for the character and for Shatner, and I think it's well done because of the ambiguity of what he is thinking and feeling at each moment - Kirk has to show something because of the horror of the moment, but Kirk is also a man of action and of thinking on his feet, and the scene does both.
There's likely something to be said for an analysis of Kirk as a leader best situated to crisis - he doesn't have/allow time for emotional responses - and does he just keep precipitating crisis in order to shine?
posted by nubs at 8:57 AM on September 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
Was watching Wrath of Khan again tonight and wanted to post (before this thread closed) how enjoyable it was after reading all the comments above. It does seem like the film is Kirk's Kobayashi Maru (and midlife crisis); I don't think it's coincidence that the film opens with the test. It's a Kobayashi Maru he can't game, though, because even after devising the best solution, he finds out that an essential part was Spock's sacrifice. There was an AskMe recently about works worth returning to in middle age, and ST II is absolutely one of those; I had always seen it as the best Star Trek action film, and it is that, but it's also a meditation on humility and acceptance. Anyway, thanks, all, for the insight!
posted by thetortoise at 12:57 AM on September 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by thetortoise at 12:57 AM on September 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
« Older "...because I have to." | Can Google Rig Elections? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Artw at 1:21 PM on August 23, 2015 [3 favorites]