Fans are hotly debating its final episode, but HBO’s “Game of Thrones” is widely regarded as a cool show, a show that fans should be proud to publicly discuss as an example of their social kudos.
So as a fan, I have to ask: Why is “Star Trek” considered so uncool?
Yes, I am a big “Star Trek” fan. I believe that TV/movie franchise, which follows Earth-based explorers hundreds of years in the future, is better than “Star Wars,” and better-acted than “Game of Thrones.” “Star Trek” speaks to social and political themes in challenging but enjoyable ways. And contrary to common belief, “Star Trek” isn’t definitively liberal in its biases.
But neither is “Star Trek” regarded as a cool show. While the franchise’s recent incarnations have slightly buffered its marginal coolness, “Star Trek” continues to be perceived as a nerd preserve. In contrast, “Game of Thrones” is perceived as a show you need to watch or at least know about. Every “Game of Thrones” episode in recent memory has seen Twitter flooded with observations by millions of individuals. These individuals want people to know they are watching.
Why isn’t this the case with “Star Trek”? (I appear to be one of very few Twitter users who post “Star Trek” content.)
Yes, “Game of Thrones” has had bigger budgets, more extras, and a diversity of landscapes. These offer a sense of scale that fosters the imagination of viewers. But beyond that, “Star Trek” has it.
For a start, “Game of Thrones” is more simplistic. The HBO show is medieval mysticism involving dragons, frontal cavalry assaults on centrally massed troop formations (as Ney found at Waterloo, this is not a good idea), an abundance of underutilized magic, and violence for its own sake. History tells us that most of even the most brutal commanders viewed wars as means to strategic objectives and not ends in themselves. Yes, in 1258, the Mongol chieftain Hulagu Khan turned Baghdad to dust, but only after repeated refusals to surrender. He then used the destruction of the Abbasid Caliphate to strengthen his empire. He did not, as Daenerys did in the penultimate “Game of Thrones” episode, burn a city out of pure psychotic fury, and then pledge to keep burning for no discernible purpose.
Contrast this with “Star Trek.” While some of its technological claims are spurious, other major ones are not. Teleportation is theoretically possible. Energy-directed weapons already exist. And I am highly confident that human space-time manipulation (think warp speed) will eventually be shown possible.
On the political side of things, I think “Star Trek” is actually cooler. Its abiding political tradition is one of greater security, as its democratic tradition expands in form and territory. The story of American-led international order and basic human opportunity matches “Star Trek” here. But its enduring plot involves alternative political ideologies constantly challenging the margins of democratic power. The “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine” TV series, for example, offered three seasons of a compelling Cold War-style power struggle, which eventually became a war.
So if you ask me, I think “Star Trek” is cooler and more intellectually compelling than the chaos of “Game of Thrones.” I’m surprised more people don’t agree, but then, perhaps we’re a silent majority.
[Also read: ‘Game of Thrones’ and its greatest flaw: Dead-end plot points]
