How do?

Yes, OK, it's a slightly click-baity title. See, if you've read any of my Trek related whimbreling, you'll know I love DS9, and not only consider it the best Trek series, but one of the finest Sci-Fi series ever.

And yet, I find it's sheer brilliance, and risk taking, left such an impression that it set an incredibly high bar for further adventures to meet.

I mean, DS9 wasn't about The Federation. It was rarely Forty Five Minutes To Save The Day. It was the first time we saw consequences in Trek. Where our heroes save the day in the nick of time, only to make things far worse in the long run. It's a show about the surprisingly tenuous political situation in The Alpha Quadrant. It's about the really hard choices a Starfleet officer can face in their career, and how, sometimes, there's only Bad Options to choose from.

For the first time, Trek broke free of Git Of The Week, and pushed beyond Git Of The Week You Might Recognise From The Previous Time They Were Git Of The Week. It's the series with the most pronounced character development. It beautifully and cunningly buddied up Miles 'when will the suffering end' O'Brien with Julian 'well, everything's a doddle when your a super genius' Bashir. The Everyman with the Ubermensch, in a friendship. A genuinely heartfelt friendship.

It had higher stakes than we'd ever seen. Not only the political status quo fracturing, but an outside threat with actual character (much as I like The Borg...man they got dull, and quite quickly). It even had multiple Mirror Universe stories which form their own little sub-arc - a fantastic way to let the actors of the more uptight characters chew the scenery (Kira....oh my)

The show developed everything. It took Trek to new and interesting places, without losing the distinct characteristics that make Trek so beloved. I mean, we even get non-Federation species offering critique of the Federation every now and then - at least an attempt to overturn the 'but everyone secretly wants to be in the best buds club' trope.

Sure it's not all wonderful. When it's bad, it's flipping awful. But hey, show me the seven season show that doesn't have distinct bum notes amongst its concerto.

And what did we get after that?

Voyager. Basically 'hey, remember that time we swept the writer's room floor when TNG ended? Found that binbag we chucked all the rejects in'. Just, utterly god awful. Poor characters, poor execution (note I'm not attacking the actors here). And worse? It squandered what DS9 had built up, by having it set over there. No follow up on the fall out of the Dominion War. Nope. Just 'here's a blank slate so we don't have to worry about continuity'. Vomit inducingly bad.

Enterprise. ARTOO DETOO YOU'RE GOING THE WRONG WAY. That's right! Having blown us off with Voyager, they doubled down with Enterprise. Hey! Want to know what happened between First Contact and ToS? No....not really.... TOUGH! Just utterly godawful to the point where I can't watch it. And for me, that takes real effort (I can ever sit through multiple episodes of Voyager. And Galactica 1980). And that theme song? uurrrrrrgggghhhhhhh. Awful in every way (Empress Hoshi does not make up for it)

Discovery? OK. I'm holding off judgement here myself. I see the criticism from others, and I can't say it's completely unjustified. But, unlike the others, it remains a work in progress. And with Season 3 at least being in the future? I'm hopeful we might finally get a DS9 worthy follow up. But hey, you do you and vent as you wish. I mean, you don't need my permission to do that or owt. Just saying it's fine in the context of this thread.

So, in summary?

DS9 set a high bar of expected quality. And the series since haven't so much not met that bar, as left me with the distinct impression they didn't even try! I mean, how can you go from a comparatively (within it's own peers) tightly plotted series to Voyager and Enterprise? Shows with absolutely no stakes (I for one didn't care enough about the crew of Voyager to give much of a monkey's about whether or how they got home. Enterprise? We can guess it turns out OK, because it's set in the past. Prequelitis).

So. Yeah. DS9 ruined Star Trek by being utterly brilliant.

Fight me.

Voyager had it's high points, but yea ST has definitely declined after the greatness that was DS9.

DS9 is one of the greatest Sci Fi shows ever, right up there with Babylon 5 (which I think was a bit better).

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

So. Yeah. DS9 ruined Star Trek by being utterly brilliant.

Fight me.

As you wish. DS9 did indeed ruin Star Trek, because it was a brilliant TV show that was terrible at being Star Trek.

It had potential to be all the things you seem to feel it was, a lot of the episodes in the first three seasons were solid Trek-but affairs that made good use of the Occupation and the static location, but as far as I'm concerned they were squandered with the attempt to make Band of Brothers: Primary Coloured Uniforms Edition. TOS challenged the norms and prejudices of its day and advocated peace. TNG challenged the norms and prejudices of its day and advocated peace. DS9 turned Star Trek into an apologia for contemporary "third way" American liberalism and the idea of justified war. DS9 deconstructed Star Trek, but you only deconstruct things that you disagree with on some level, and IMO you only have the right to deconstruct something that's at least moderately ubiquitous - DS9 deconstructed Star Trek, pretty much the only mainstream utopian sci-fi property in existence, and it did it for the sake of facile centrism.

DS9 took the "corrupt Admirals" trope-story to ludicrous new highs. It sanitised the Ferengi, taking them from avatars of the inherent barbarism of capitalist societies to sexist comic relief trolls. It created Section 31, a concept that not only completely and fatally undermines the moral authority of the Federation on which all prior Trek stories had rested, but has been a complete blight on the franchise ever since, acting as an easy vector of infection for writers who're incapable of creating anything but vacuously melodramatic "dark & gritty" garbage; DS9 is responsible for Into Darkness, DS9 is responsible for some of the most egregious moronic parts of STD.

Personally, I'll take a pale imitation of the better Treks like Voyager over the casual unthinking vandalism of DS9 any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

So, someone needs to make another Babylon 5 to "inspire" another great Trek series?

Or just watch the Orville?

My 2c has a lot of dependent variables. . .


So, I really started watching trek when TNG was first hitting the reruns (and on my local station, it was a TNG rerun that aired immediately before VOY), so I naturally have a soft spot for how "great" Picard and crew are.

At the time I started watching, I tried, really tried to like DS9, but just liked Voyager better. . . Maybe it had something to do with being 12-13 years old, and there's Jeri Ryan in a skintight suit, I dunno.



But as an adult in my 30s, I was finally able to force myself to watch DS9. And while I still don't really think of it as my favorite, it is definitely a great series. I think it is definitely more adult in its themes of politics and ramifications, such that even above average intelligence 13 yo me isn't going to appreciate (not saying younger crowds won't "get" it, but a certain level of appreciation may be missing)


But yes, ENT is fething god-awful, even if it had potential. . . Every time you start to like a character, they go and do/say something so out of character you wonder how these idiots ever left orbit.

And that theme song. . .

Can't watch The Orville.

It's written by and stars He That Shall Not Be Named.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
So, someone needs to make another Babylon 5 to "inspire" another great Trek series?

The Expanse is getting there... give it another few seasons and it will have a bit more in common with Babylon 5 even.

I think the problem is since DS9 they've tried to get "back to the old formula" and not really done it all that well. Voyager lacked a real sense of a greater continuity outside of the ship; which is great for a weekly "alien of the week" series; which honestly was probably wanted at the time after DS9 had mostly done away with that concept by the end.

However Voyager went a little too far and I feel like the idea of continually heading home might have been the wrong one; staying and settling and making it "Swiss family Startrek" would have been more interesting. Seeing them have to hammer out new agreements; having actual consequences in the long term of their actions and still encountering lots of new aliens.

 Overread wrote:
I think the problem is since DS9 they've tried to get "back to the old formula" and not really done it all that well. Voyager lacked a real sense of a greater continuity outside of the ship; which is great for a weekly "alien of the week" series; which honestly was probably wanted at the time after DS9 had mostly done away with that concept by the end.

However Voyager went a little too far and I feel like the idea of continually heading home might have been the wrong one; staying and settling and making it "Swiss family Startrek" would have been more interesting. Seeing them have to hammer out new agreements; having actual consequences in the long term of their actions and still encountering lots of new aliens.

That's a really good point I hadn't thought of. Kind of similar to Andromeda (which had some good ideas, despite some major issues), where Janeway decides to try to bring the ideals of the Federation to an entirely new quadrant, and form her own similar governing body with some new allies and enemies. Could have ended with them establishing a wormhole or something to bridge her new Federation with the Alpha quadrant.

Yup.

Voyager was a number of wasted opportunities. From the get go, the way the Maquis were basically ‘k guess we’re loyal starfleet crew then’, with minimal tensions? Wasted opportunity.

 Horst wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I think the problem is since DS9 they've tried to get "back to the old formula" and not really done it all that well. Voyager lacked a real sense of a greater continuity outside of the ship; which is great for a weekly "alien of the week" series; which honestly was probably wanted at the time after DS9 had mostly done away with that concept by the end.

However Voyager went a little too far and I feel like the idea of continually heading home might have been the wrong one; staying and settling and making it "Swiss family Startrek" would have been more interesting. Seeing them have to hammer out new agreements; having actual consequences in the long term of their actions and still encountering lots of new aliens.

That's a really good point I hadn't thought of. Kind of similar to Andromeda (which had some good ideas, despite some major issues), where Janeway decides to try to bring the ideals of the Federation to an entirely new quadrant, and form her own similar governing body with some new allies and enemies. Could have ended with them establishing a wormhole or something to bridge her new Federation with the Alpha quadrant.

Or leave them setup with a neat plot hook for a future series - when there are two starfleets separated by a few hundred years who then link up - a unification that could prove very tricky as the two might have diverged. The Voyager one might have kept truer to the ideals whilst the original might have changed many times over; perhaps going warlike; or falling into a dominant species situation or even falling into a decedent age.



After Voyager though I get the feeling that too many of the teams behind it have wanted to "remake it in their own image" hence why we keep getting all these alternative timeline plots. Which to me suggests that they don't actually want to make Startrek stories. They want to make their own, but inspired by Startrek, but they know they'll never get funding unless its got the ST logo on the front.

It made star trek more believable ... It added character to one sided races like the romulans and Klingons and yes it did set a high bar they have not achieved since, so sure I can agree DS9 ruined star trek, Picard will kill it off though.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Can't watch The Orville.

It's written by and stars He That Shall Not Be Named.

You're really just punishing yourself. The Orville is a fun, streamlined "highlights" version of TOS and TNG. Get past the first couple episodes, and the series takes off.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Horst wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
So, someone needs to make another Babylon 5 to "inspire" another great Trek series?

The Expanse is getting there... give it another few seasons and it will have a bit more in common with Babylon 5 even.

Hmmm. I'll keep my eye on it. How many seasons has it already?

The Expanse ran for 3 seasons on Sci-Fi and was cancelled... and was immediately picked up for season 4 on Amazon. If you have Prime, you can watch all 3 current seasons, and the next one should be coming out December 13th.

DS9 took the "corrupt Admirals" trope-story to ludicrous new highs. It sanitised the Ferengi, taking them from avatars of the inherent barbarism of capitalist societies to sexist comic relief trolls.

In TNG Ferengi were already sexist comic relief trolls in later seasons.

 Frazzled wrote:

DS9 took the "corrupt Admirals" trope-story to ludicrous new highs. It sanitised the Ferengi, taking them from avatars of the inherent barbarism of capitalist societies to sexist comic relief trolls.

In TNG Ferengi were already sexist comic relief trolls in later seasons.

Honestly it was probably good that they took the Ferengi in that direction considering the massive social changes that were to unfold for them as a side story to the main DS9 one. Plus I think had they been too serious the Ferengi would have lost all their charm as a faction and would have become darker than the Founders in the setting

I liked the last season of Enterprise. I thought its approach of retconning all the inconsistencies and plot holes from the series while also making lots of references to TOS made it feel kind of like a fan film - it was what fans argued about in internet forums for ages and what fans wanted to see. There was a bit too much of that, but at the same time, I did enjoy it. At the very least, it started to feel like a Star Trek show again.

I think if Enterprise had gotten another three seasons under the same leadership (how did Voyager get 7 seasons?), it could've been something really awesome. It wouldn't have been as philosophically interesting as TOS or Next Generation, nor as dark and complex as DS9, but it would've been a really nerdy show that rewarded obsessive Trek fans... which, you know, I am.

*reads title, prepares Bat'leth*

It is a good day to die, for my favorite entry in the franchise that has been ruined by hacks who look back at TOS with rose-tinted glasses and no conception of what makes good TV in the year not 1967.

 Horst wrote:
Voyager had it's high points, but yea ST has definitely declined after the greatness that was DS9.

DS9 is one of the greatest Sci Fi shows ever, right up there with Babylon 5 (which I think was a bit better).

B5 was indeed cool. DS9 touches my feelers more though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
*reads title, prepares Bat'leth*

It is a good day to die, for my favorite entry in the franchise that has been ruined by hacks who look back at TOS with rose-tinted glasses and no conception of what makes good TV in the year not 1967.

Infernos light?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:
It made star trek more believable ... It added character to one sided races like the romulans and Klingons and yes it did set a high bar they have not achieved since, so sure I can agree DS9 ruined star trek, Picard will kill it off though.

How can you of all people say that? LOL. I have high hopes for Picard. I literally have no idea what to expect though.

Probably 70% of TNG episodes are un-rewatchable IMO. Maybe more. So many same-y and boring stories.

While DS9 isn’t my favorite sci-fi or even Trek series ever (I see you, TOS!), it certainly wasn’t as boring and same-y. It was a much needed shot in the arm for a nearly calcified franchise.

Edit: Voyager is just a bizarre case. *By the end of the pilot*, they’d already started undoing potentially interesting twists they’d made on the ST formula.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Can't watch The Orville.

It's written by and stars He That Shall Not Be Named.

You're really just punishing yourself. The Orville is a fun, streamlined "highlights" version of TOS and TNG. Get past the first couple episodes, and the series takes off.

Agreed. I hate everything else he touches, but the orville is really good. It's best isn't as good as TNG at its best, but on average I think it's better. The first couple are rough though.

As you wish. DS9 did indeed ruin Star Trek, because it was a brilliant TV show that was terrible at being Star Trek.

It had potential to be all the things you seem to feel it was, a lot of the episodes in the first three seasons were solid Trek-but affairs that made good use of the Occupation and the static location, but as far as I'm concerned they were squandered with the attempt to make Band of Brothers: Primary Coloured Uniforms Edition. TOS challenged the norms and prejudices of its day and advocated peace. TNG challenged the norms and prejudices of its day and advocated peace. DS9 turned Star Trek into an apologia for contemporary "third way" American liberalism and the idea of justified war. DS9 deconstructed Star Trek, but you only deconstruct things that you disagree with on some level, and IMO you only have the right to deconstruct something that's at least moderately ubiquitous - DS9 deconstructed Star Trek, pretty much the only mainstream utopian sci-fi property in existence, and it did it for the sake of facile centrism.

DS9 took the "corrupt Admirals" trope-story to ludicrous new highs. It sanitised the Ferengi, taking them from avatars of the inherent barbarism of capitalist societies to sexist comic relief trolls. It created Section 31, a concept that not only completely and fatally undermines the moral authority of the Federation on which all prior Trek stories had rested, but has been a complete blight on the franchise ever since, acting as an easy vector of infection for writers who're incapable of creating anything but vacuously melodramatic "dark & gritty" garbage; DS9 is responsible for Into Darkness, DS9 is responsible for some of the most egregious moronic parts of STD.

Personally, I'll take a pale imitation of the better Treks like Voyager over the casual unthinking vandalism of DS9 any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Great post, I had something similar written but that'll do

 Bromsy wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Can't watch The Orville.

It's written by and stars He That Shall Not Be Named.

You're really just punishing yourself. The Orville is a fun, streamlined "highlights" version of TOS and TNG. Get past the first couple episodes, and the series takes off.

Agreed. I hate everything else he touches, but the orville is really good. It's best isn't as good as TNG at its best, but on average I think it's better. The first couple are rough though.

Same. The Orville feels more like star trek than any show I've seen in the past decade, and that includes Discovery.

They've gotten better at making the jokes land better in later episodes as well... Ed telling his security officer to buy more time with "inspections" for his guests, and her just pulling on some rubber gloves is hilarious. Or Ed flying outside in a shuttle just casually spying on someone, who then sees him, so he just flies away. Pretty funny stuff. The first episode or two was much rougher. It now seems like Star Trek with some humor sprinkled in, instead of a bad parody attempt.

Still cannot stick He That Shall Not Be Named.

That smug face. That stupid accent. The sheer ego.

But hey, that's reason for me not to watch the show, not anyone else. I'm not bashing it, just avoiding it like the plague on a poopy stick.

He does look smug most of the time, but you get to see him humbled enough to overcome that.

PS: I've worked retail; I don't even flinch at the plague on a poopy stick anymore.

 Ratius wrote:

It created Section 31

Great post, I had something similar written but that'll do

Wasn't Section 31 mentioned a few times in TNG?

and while I don't disagree with most of the rest of these posts, I think there's something to be said for the idea that a clean/sanitary utopia, as Trek portrays is rarely as clean as it looks.

I mean, history gives us plenty of examples of a clean/sanitary version of a story that is very different from certain realities. . . I mean, clean/sanitary WW2 history is "YAY!!! the allies won!", but the *real* history shows "ohh wait. . . the US was kinda, really gakky to POCs within its own country and the UK got up to some stuff with its colonials that it isn't very proud of"

So, I don't think of DS9 is so much of a "gakky centrist rebuttal" series pushing against the sterling ideals of TOS and TNG, I see it as more exploring what is the cost of attaining and upholding those ideals.

No, TNG never mentioned S13. They had Starfleet Intelligence.

Now if only a second character would mention Bureau 13 from Babylon 5 we'd really get somewhere.

I’ baffled by the notion that DS9 is the unthinking member of the Star Trek family. If anything every other Star Trek was unthinking, mostly falling on simple moral Aesops with little original thought in the mix (TNG and Enterprise imo were especially egregious in that way).

 LordofHats wrote:
I’ baffled by the notion that DS9 is the unthinking member of the Star Trek family. If anything every other Star Trek was unthinking, mostly falling on simple moral Aesops with little original thought in the mix (TNG and Enterprise imo were especially egregious in that way).

Yep... the simple cut and dry right and wrong of TNG and other treks can get a little tiresome, when the world is mostly shades of grey. In the Pale Moonlight is probably the greatest example of this from DS9... and probably one of the best trek episodes ever written.

Yup. DS9 delved into other cultures properly.

Federation stuff. Klingons, Ferengi, Cardassians and Bajorans in particular.

We saw them as more than antagonists and occasional allies. We were shown them as independent cultures, and explored how they interact with The Federation.

Part of the issue with the other series, which Voyager really showed, was that moral high grounds and such were easier when you didn't have to build the series with the after effects. We saw them appear, deal with issues around a world and people and then up and vanish.

With DS9 what happened has ramifications to the people and we had to see that in latter episodes. The Ferengi are a prime example where we see the continued erosion of their pure capitalist male dominated society starting to crumble into a more equal opportunities capitalist system.

Yup.

And for the Ferengi, it was how Quark of all people rationalised it whilst impersonating his Mam.

Women were an untapped resource. A market unserved. Assuming they’ve a similar 50/50 gender thing to humans? That’s a definite appeal to the purely greedy.

New fashions. New jewellery. New marketing campaigns for a market leader.

Yes the end result where Rom becomes Grand Nagus is a bit of a stretch, but the whole arc really works.

And since then? Sod it. Over There, or Back Then. That’ll do. No follow up at all. What. A. Waste. Like building someone a really nice summer house and pool, making the most of their garden, only to return and find it piled up with any old crap.

Which is why I’m hopeful for Picard. If it works, it might prove encouragement to continue pushing further forward in the timeline.

What I really liked and felt was very mature is that Quark of all the characters was very set in his ways but not in a malicious way. He never outright "hated" his mother and instead showed the very real emotions related more toward her causing trouble and upsetting the boat with her push toward change along with his resistance to change because it was change away from how thing were as he grew up.

I felt it was a really good display of how many people can often be in the face of change, esp major social changes within their country. People who weren't "evil or nasty" but who still resisted the changes all the same.

I always felt Quark was torn between sheer respect for his Mum, and sheer respect for The Rules of Acquisition.

He wasn’t a diehard as such, just someone who never questioned The Way Things Are.

He seems genuinely shocked when it turns out it was Ishka that masterminded his family’s fortunes. And whilst he complains and whines and mithers? He always did right by her. Always.

And the reforms Zeke introduced weren’t ‘now I are surshulist’, as a shrewd businessman seeing advantages in another approach. Employee loyalty, increased productivity, less chance of them ripping you off etc. Closer to have your cake and eat it than sweeping, selfless reformation.

But it’s the Klingon arc that really tweaks my nips. It builds on everything that came before, and feels organic. Like the stuff now being shown hasn’t been hammered into place, but is very much ‘oh they’ve always done this, we just haven’t had a chance to show it’.

Now, to tangent a bit, but within the topic? Voyager. Such a wasted opportunity. As others have said, it could’ve been a study in how The Federation, well, Federates. They offer warp capable species brotherhood, and share their technology. To see a lone Starfleet vessel hit a new, unexplored frontier, and start spreading the message of ‘hey, cooperation is good, everyone gets something of value’ to an otherwise conflicted quadrant could’ve been fascinating.

And, again without attacking the cast, we get ‘Captain Bellend and nobody advances for seven sodding years’.

Even if you included the Maquis part of the crew, to show a different Alpha Quadrant perspective on the proceedings? It could’ve been really, really good.

Instead? Floor sweepings of the TNG reject script room.

I mean, Harry Kim. Harry Bloody Kim. The Ensign Eternal. The Burger Flipper of Starfleet. He never advances. Never achieves a new rank. In seven years. Seven years of one of the toughest voyages Starfleet has ever know. That’s two years longer than the initial Enterprise mission! TWO YEARS LONGER.

How can you not get a rank up in that time? It’s not as if it’s a case of ‘he’s an incompetent boob, but he’s the only Ops Officer we’ve got, so guess we’re stuck with him, eh?’. He’s actually pretty good at his job, is put through hell (not as much as O’Brien, obvs) and not a single official recognition.

If I was Kim? And Janeway was my Captain? I’d have mutinied after three years, tops. And I’m pretty sure the rest of the crew would be with me on that.

 Overread wrote:
Part of the issue with the other series, which Voyager really showed, was that moral high grounds and such were easier when you didn't have to build the series with the after effects. We saw them appear, deal with issues around a world and people and then up and vanish.

With DS9 what happened has ramifications to the people and we had to see that in latter episodes. The Ferengi are a prime example where we see the continued erosion of their pure capitalist male dominated society starting to crumble into a more equal opportunities capitalist system.

A line I love more and more as time goes on:

"You're a philanthropist!"

*Qwark's look of horror*

Because there is nothing worse in Ferengi society than selling medicine to children at "slightly above cost." Truly, Qwark was Ferenginar's greatest monster

To be fair how can you advance up the ranks when there's not another ship to jump onto at a higher rank - plus I doubt there's any real perks or pay that you can get on Voyager for being promoted. It would purely have been lip-service to advance ranks for most of the crew at that stage when there was no where really for them to move onto.


I agree it would have been really neat to see them start anew, perhaps even ending up like the Vulcans were to humans. Seeing it from the other side of the coin and many generations removed from that time when Vulcans were mystically powerful to the early humans of the Federation. By the time we hit DS9 and Voyager the humble Vulcan is interesting but nothing really that special. A bit like the Klingons, they sort of stagnated as a people once they became involved with the Federation; though come the end of DS9 we start to see some of that old Imperial Klingon power wanting to rise up again

The other side that is only tangentially noted here, DS9 is the only series since STOS where humans are played as humans. In TNG, Voyager, and Enterprise they are, at best, two dimensional WASPs. They are what the body snatchers would have been had the body snatchers won, tea sipping and emotionless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
What I really liked and felt was very mature is that Quark of all the characters was very set in his ways but not in a malicious way. He never outright "hated" his mother and instead showed the very real emotions related more toward her causing trouble and upsetting the boat with her push toward change along with his resistance to change because it was change away from how thing were as he grew up.

I felt it was a really good display of how many people can often be in the face of change, esp major social changes within their country. People who weren't "evil or nasty" but who still resisted the changes all the same.

The actor who played Quark remarked in an interview that the Ferengi were us, 20th Century humans in the 24th century.

I rather liked the part in the episode where they're under siege on a planet and Quark explains to Nog that humans as they usually know them are pretty affable, but put enough stress on them, make them hungry and angry, and they're worse than the most bloodthirsty Klingon. Of course, we get to see that in O'Brian's virtual-lifetime prison sentence.

The episode where the Vulcan Captain and his baseball team beat the DS9 crew is good too.

 Frazzled wrote:


The actor who played Quark remarked in an interview that the Ferengi were us, 20th Century humans in the 24th century.

Which is funny, given the attitude he holds towards humans in some episodes. When he's captured at Roswell, and in the episode where Nog loses his leg, he remarks that humans are as savage as a klingon if they don't have all their creature comforts, and is surprised at how violent humans were in the past. He always states that Ferengi are superior, because they never engaged in the mass world wars of humans.

 Horst wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


The actor who played Quark remarked in an interview that the Ferengi were us, 20th Century humans in the 24th century.

Which is funny, given the attitude he holds towards humans in some episodes. When he's captured at Roswell, and in the episode where Nog loses his leg, he remarks that humans are as savage as a klingon if they don't have all their creature comforts, and is surprised at how violent humans were in the past. He always states that Ferengi are superior, because they never engaged in the mass world wars of humans.

Kind of wonder why he was even involved in anything against the Dominion. Ferengi would have made a killing if the Dominion controlled the Alpha Quadrant.

Presumably, because the Ferengi saw quickly in their dealings with the Karama how the Dominion exerts tight controls over economic activity. Such a level of regulation would be anathema to the Ferengi who fully embraced free enterprise. Even Zeke's reforms didn't extend to telling other Ferengi who they could and couldn't trade with and what they could trade-in, just how they managed their businesses and affairs.

Yeah, DS9 is the best Trek since TOS and it's because of Ira Steven Behr.

Butttttt Enterprise is an order of magnitude more enjoyable than Voyager. At least Enterprise has a sense of adventure, which Voyager - somehow - completely lacked, despite it being seven years of exploring the unknown. The characters in Enterprise are also eminently likable, unlike Voyager, whose characters with ultimately interchangeable. Even the few interesting story arcs in Voyager were entirely irrelevant to the actual plot (Year of Hell, for example).

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Can't watch The Orville.

It's written by and stars He That Shall Not Be Named.

Will Ferrell?

 judgedoug wrote:
Yeah, DS9 is the best Trek since TOS and it's because of Ira Steven Behr.

Butttttt Enterprise is an order of magnitude more enjoyable than Voyager. At least Enterprise has a sense of adventure, which Voyager - somehow - completely lacked, despite it being seven years of exploring the unknown. The characters in Enterprise are also eminently likable, unlike Voyager, whose characters with ultimately interchangeable. Even the few interesting story arcs in Voyager were entirely irrelevant to the actual plot (Year of Hell, for example).

The few enterprises I watched. It felt like I was watching seaquest...Which isn't exactly a bad thing. If I wanted to watch seaquest I would just watch seaquest you know?

Are you talking Roy Scheider Seaquest or Michael Ironside Seaquest?

I am going to give DS9 another chance, since I kind of get turned off by how whiny some of the characters are.

Though some of these Quark moments seem pretty epic, so maybe it'll be good.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Are you talking Roy Scheider Seaquest or Michael Ironside Seaquest?

Roy Scheider Seaquest ofc. The uniforms - the look of the ship - the film quality....Enterprise looks so similar.

Disclaimer, I actually REALLY like Deep Space 9.

However ... I think Yodhrin makes a very interesting point about DS9 and its connection to late 90s US culture. Yodhrin calls this “third way American liberalism” but the more accurate term is probably neoconservativism because the primary distinction between DS9 on the one hand and TOS/TNG on the other is political, and particularly in the sense of foreign policy and its impact on domestic politics, rather than economic.

But before further criticizing DS9, let’s keep in mind that TOS and TNG are not uncomplicated pacifist fantasies. To the extent that each show imagines peace, it does so in the context of “the end of history,” by which I mean the resolution of all important social and cultural and exonomic conflicts in favor of an allegedly unassailable conclusion that one way is objectively better than all others. In both TOS and TNG, the Federation is portrayed as either already substantially realizing this “correct way” or, at the very least, as more open to the “correct way” than its rivals.

The “correct way” is pretty obviously late 20th-century liberal democracy and especially the notion that the materialist “truth” traced out by Marx and Weber (among others) renders all cultural divisions irrational. There is also the IRL argument that liberal democracies do not make war on one another, which Rodenberry extended, with the shaky conceit that economy could be assumed away, to the conclusion that liberal democracies would in fact inevitably join together as a federation. From a Soviet perspective in the real world, this kind of thinking was just another form of Western imperialism, albeit not as paternalist as its previous form. From NATO’s perspective, this was simply “peace.” Once everyone adopts our assumptions, there will be no reason to fight. The fictional Federation of Star Trek definitely embraces this maternalist imperialism and it is never critically examined in either TOS or TNG. To be sure, the characters in these shows do sometimes run into murky situations. But they live on starships and, when a particular issue is not fully resolved, they can simply fly off to the next adventure.

That’s something the DS9 cast cannot do. They are stuck with and in unresolved, perhaps unresolvable, situations.

By the late 1990s, after nearly a decade after the collapse of the Soviet global rival, the West and America in particular found that it was likewise nonetheless “stuck” in history, i.e., the fall of the USSR had not actually ended history. Conflicts driven by ideological differences, up to and including war, did not come to and end. This is the realization that eventually saw the rise to power of neoconservative ideas, principally the notion that the conflict with USSR had been resolved not through liberal democracies simply existing themselves but rather through those powers, especially the US, aggressively leveraging the supposed superiority (especially economic, including via spending on arms and developing military technologies) of liberal democratic societies to pressure their rivals out of existence. Sanction regimes, military intervention, and ultimately even preemptive attacks became the accepted foreign policy tools of neoconservative government.

This is the attitude that came to characterize the Federation as portrayed on DS9 precisely because the challenges and threats in that series did not simply dissolve in the face of the presumptive superiority of Federation culture. Joining the Federation was not really a solution to the Bajoran trauma at the hands of the Cardassians, merely a (transparently neurotic) reaction to that trauma. The Founders had their own cultural presumptions that were not obviously inferior to the Federation’s, at least in terms of efficacy — which explains why the Dominion was ancient and unchallenged in the Gamma Quadrant.

More subtly, the DS9 show runners also realized that the real reason that the Federation had done so well in the last couple of centuries wasn’t about ethics and morals. It was actually a matter of geopolitical realism. Detente and eventual alliance between the Federation and the Klingon Empire essentially created a bloc that could not be realistically challenged by any other Alpha or Beta Quadrant powers. While the Klingon Empire declined during this period, the safety of the alliance allowed the Federation to thrive and expand. This unsettled the Romulans and the Cardassians to the point that the former were extremely hesitant to oppose to the invasion from the Gamma Quadrant and the latter ultimately welcomed it.

DS9 cleverly introduced non-Federation characters who realized all of this — that is, people who did not just assume everything assumed by the characters in TOS and TNG. And by the end, even some of the Federation characters were forced to consider these issues. They were not comfortable doing so, which was the “next level” of Star Trek’s relevance: if this is really a show about confronting ourselves then why pull punches just so we can end on a morally self-satisfying note?

I don't see STOS as a Pacifist fantasy. Its Wagon Train / Horatio Hornblower in space.

Manchu wrote:This is the attitude that came to characterize the Federation as portrayed on DS9 precisely because the challenges and threats in that series did not simply dissolve in the face of the presumptive superiority of Federation culture. Joining the Federation was not really a solution to the Bajoran trauma at the hands of the Cardassians, merely a (transparently neurotic) reaction to that trauma. The Founders had their own cultural presumptions that were not obviously inferior to the Federation’s, at least in terms of efficacy — which explains why the Dominion was ancient and unchallenged in the Gamma Quadrant.

Interesting point, and one that feeds nicely into Quark's Root Beer Hypothesis.

See, Bajor was shattered and vulnerable. And here comes Uncle Federation 'yeah, we'll look after you. As we not-so-silently judge your society by our own standards'. It is quite insidious.

Is there that much difference between The Federation and The Dominion? One uses force/the threat thereof. But both are extremely adept at imposing their own morals upon other cultures.

I think the key difference is that the Federation would like you to join but otherwise doesn't force you. It just won't help you out if you don't make moral and social changes to fit in with their views.

The Dominion though don't give you a choice, they march in and take over through military might and force your society to serve their interests without question.


Of course the Federation is capable of taking military action where needed, but otherwise unless you threaten it or others; its happy to sit by and trade with other races. The Ferangi are not part of the Federation and yet the Federation trades with them extensively. Meanwhile its more the isolationist polices of the Cardassians and Romulans that hinders heavier trade and exchange of ideas between them and the Federation.


In the end races like the Bajorians are sort of up against the wall; too small to stand on their own and thus forced to accept the Federation in order to survive even if it means they have to make changes. I actually liked that there was some hostility in the early series toward the Federation; that they weren't shown nor seen as the shining knights who came in to save the day.

It's just the 'Federation Is Always Right, And You Can't Join Until You Are Like Us'.

It's a trope we often see in Star Trek. The half human/half X character must choose between those two factors. And the human half is almost always shown to be the better choice.

Which is, kinda dodgy. I'm not saying this is intentional by the script writers, or some kind of hidden agenda.

But it helps show that The Federation is fairly insidious, even if that's not its intent.

I'm almost certainly reading too much into it though Of course, if it wasn't for DS9 being the besterest Star Trek ever, we wouldn't even have the info to have this conversation


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Consider the episode where Vedek Winn kicks off about Keiko O'Brien teaching of the 'wormhole aliens' rather than profits.

Yes, Wynn is a reprehensible religious extremist. One who seemingly only follows a given path for the promise of power and influence.

But she still actually has a point. Bajorans are a pretty religious society, and with good reason given their deities most definitely exist, and most definitely do interfere in the mortal plane. But The Federation is more 'no no no, strictly secular' - despite there being no real contradiction in discussing the wormhole aliens and Prophets as being one and the same. It's literally just a title to The Federation, so what difference should it make?

That's a sign of the Federation favouring it's own morals, over those to whom they are no more than guests. Yes, Winn deliberately blows it out of all proportion.

Indeed, Winn is possibly one of the undersung lynchpins of the entire series. Whilst The Federation and Starfleet put few barriers to an individuals Faith, this was the first time we saw a sustained butting of heads over the issue.

We're getting into a sticky moderation area here, as the next logical step would be to compare to modern religions. If we could avoid that, it'll save a thread lock and telling offs

They had money (or equivalent) in TOS it is just seems that the Federation didn't use it internally. There were a few episodes where Kirk said the Federation was willing to pay for something. There were other human, non-Federation organizations around then as well, like all those mining groups, it was just that the Federation was the 800lb gorilla in the area. By the time of TNG it seemed more homogeneous on the Fed side.

I have no doubt I'm forgetting something though.

There is a huge difference between the Dominion and the Federation, fundamentally.

The Dominion was founded because one species became obsessed with protecting itself from alleged, as well as hypothetical, persecution by all others. Its solution was to dominate every other species or else exterminate any that proved indomitable.

While the cultural imperialism of the Federation merits critique, especially if we want to understand non-Federation perspectives, the Federation doesn’t post the stark ultimatum Join Or Die to every other culture.

But for the sake of exploring new ideas, let’s consider the Dominion more closely: The Founders created the Vorta and Jem’Hadar to administer, expand, and secure their empire because they themselves have no interest in exerting power over others. The Dominion itself is just an incredibly extensive “home security system,” from their point of view. The Founders’ doctrine of bottomless racial paranoia holds that solids inherently want to eradicate Changelings and that, if Solids are left to their own devices, they will naturally attempt to do so. Therefore, the basic “foreign policy” assumptions of the Dominion are (1) that all non-subjugated Solids are racially hostile toward Changelings and (2) the only viable safeguard against this racial hostility is the subjugation of Solids. But what does this “subjugation” really entail?

Because Dominion policy is essentially a matter of countering a supposed existential threat to a single species rather than a matter of the usual political or economic considerations, one could reasonably expect that Dominion member cultures enjoy a great deal of practical liberty — Vorta and Jem’Hadar aside, of course. Those two races were genetically and socially engineered by the Founders as their instruments. And by implication, the role that each plays in the Dominion would necessarily be foreclosed to all other member species. So, no one but the Vorta are allowed to administer the political relationships among and between the other Solids of the Dominion and no one but the Jem’Hadar are allowed to organize as a military.

The Dominion forms a political constitution that, in its most fundamental sense, is ordered to the good of a “master race” served by “slave races.” But there are races apart from the masters and slaves; there are races which are merely members. The Founders don’t appear to require much specifically from Solids other than Vorta or Jem’Hadar. The basic ethos of the Dominion is certainly morally offensive to the Federation, inasmuch as the only beings that the Founders seem to believe have natural rights are they themselves. The Dominion is built entirely around the most extreme form of racism imaginable: that one people’s rights trump those of all others’, to the point that others have may have none.

But here’s the wrinkle: why offer an ultimatum at all? Join Or Die should just be Die. It may be difficult to exterminate every Solid one comes across but it is probably less difficult than administering a whole empire full of them over the course of millennia. Here we can see that the Founders believe that Solids do have conditional natural rights, something like how we humans view animal rights. As long as Solids exist they will potentially try to exterminate Changelings. But Changelings are willing to allow Solids to continue existing, from their perspective at great risk to themselves. Why? This is speculative, but I think it is because they have no external ambitions. They are content in contemplation within the Great Link.

Again, the Dominion as an interstellar state is first and foremost a “home security system” for the Changelings. They really just want to be left alone. But the only way they can be safe is to create a giant infrastructure of government, commerce, and war. This infrastructure itself is not even “of them” but rather is just another manifestation of the world of Solids. In other words, the Founders have no concept of Manifest Destiny. They do not in any sense believe that who they are is to be found “out there” — “out there” is a burden. The frontier is just dangerous, not exciting or wondrous.

This is the real sense in which we need to compare the Dominion with the Federation. The Dominion is expansionist in a self-contradictory manner. It has to keep spreading so that the Founders can be safely isolationist. By contrast, the Federation is willfully expansionist. The in ermost logic of the Dominion is un-imperial, yet paradoxically the goals of the Founders require empire building. The innermost logic of the Federation, however, is actually imperialist.

 Manchu wrote:
The innermost logic of the Federation, however, is actually imperialist.

I'm not really sure that's apt in that imperialism comes with a lot of insinuations the Federation explicitly rejects. The Federation in practical terms has few actual demands of members. The only one that really gets named in any part of the franchise even is opposition to caste systems. The Federation at no point expresses discomfort with Bajoran religion (only Sisko's position as a religious figure, which is something that I think reasonably concerns them).

The Federation system is expansionist, but I don't think it's imperial, at least not in the sense of all the connotations that come with that word. In the technical sense of being a "polity that expands its power and influence through diplomacy and military force" sure, they're imperial, but no one really thinks of that when the word "imperial" comes up in a conversation. Most people today implicitly link Imperialism with Colonialism, and the Federation overtly rejects the notions of Colonialism. They have an entire standing policy that is basically "no colonialism over anyone who can't reasonably tell us no." Federation members are all "as far as we know" equal under the law, are afforded the same commercial, educational, and professional opportunities by law, just by the act of joining the Federation. There is no apparent hierarchy of race or the dominance of one species over the others. The only things they explicitly disallow are legal discrimination, which isn't really enough to declare the Federation a culturally hegemonic system.

Even as DS9 explored the practical implications of Federation idealism in a world where you can't warp away at the end of the episode, it never really tore the fundamental idealism of the Federation down, merely subjected it to problems it needed to solve.

And for the Dominion, I'd point out that it's true of most oppressive regimes that average everyday people typically have a lot of practical liberty. I'm not sure that's a meaningful distinction to make (though I think your analysis overall is great). The purpose of liberty with regard to the state is fundamentally to tell the state "no." People in the Dominion can't do that.

This is backed up in DS9, though never given that much attention. The people in Shadowplay describes the annexation of their world by the Dominion as alienating and completely altering their way of life. The Karama are saddled with oppressive tax and trade regulations so extensive they have to "cheat" to trade even with neutral parties (arguably because the Dominion does not recognize neutrality outside of immediate practicality). We never get any confrimation of how the Dosi fit into the Gamma quadrant's politics, but they also seem to be heavily limited in what they can do by the Dominion. Resist the forced take over of your world, and the Founders unleash biological weapons to genocide your entire species (as seen in The Quickening).

I don't personally see much liberty in the "practical liberty" of do as your told or get genocided.

I certainly don’t mean to argue that the Federation and Dominion are morally equivalent. Rather, I hoped to point out the fundamental difference between coercive and persuasive power.

All the same, I maintain that the Federation is an imperial power. Imperialism does not necessarily entail colonialism or racial hierarchies. It does, however, entail a hierarchy of values.

I have an idea for a Star Trek show called “Frontier” that would follow the crews of three different ships, one Federation, one Klingon, and one Romulan. The ships would be jointly responsible for the safety of a reverse-neutral zone, a free territory where the three great powers which triumphed in the Dominion War would work together in colonization, exploration, and defense. I’ve daydreamed about the relationships between the characters and can imagine a conversation between a Romulan character and a Starfleet officer about these kinds of issues.

The Romulan would say, “There is a Romulan Empire. There is a Klingon Empire. But there is apparently no Human Empire.” The Starfleet officer would respond, “The Federation is a community of many species.” The Romulan would reply, “So is the Romulan Empire, but the vassal races are fully aware of their place. They are not invited to pretend otherwise.”

Now, this would be vastly overstating the point, for the sake of illuminating the Romulan perspective (which implicates a pretty severe superiority complex). But there is some truth to that perspective, nonetheless. The Federation is not really an assembly of many different cultures. It has its own culture. Many other cultures have influenced it, but it is nonetheless a unity in itself — and it is the dominant unity within Federation polity. Fully accepting it is not a requirement of joining nor is it violently forced on new members. But it dominates member cultures, nonetheless. Over time, the traditional priorities and perspectives of every member culture are supplanted by Federation culture in all aspects where there might be contradiction and, one supposes, in other areas besides.

In the Federation hierarchy of values, there are non-negotiables and there are incidentals. When Ensign Ro first beams aboard the Enterprise D, Commander Riker immediately reprimands her for wearing a d’ja pagh — this despite that Lieutenant Commander Worf is allowed to wear a Klingon sash. Clearly, Starfleet and the Federation more generally are not against some incorporation of ethnic costume into the duty uniform. And indeed, Captain Picard is authorized to dispense with regulation in Ensign Ro’s case (and presumably Worf’s). But note carefully how this goes: a human has the power to allow a non-human to express her culture. One could say, but there are non-human captains who have the same authority. Certainly so. But the issue is, the regulation uniform itself, the default, is a human cultural artifact — the ornaments, allowed by exception, are non-human.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As to “practical liberty” — all I mean is, there is in reality a certain amount of space for Dominion members to do as they please, although that space is merely practical and not conceptually guaranteed.

 Manchu wrote:
I have an idea for a Star Trek show called “Frontier” that would follow the crews of three different ships, one Federation, one Klingon, and one Romulan. The ships would be jointly responsible for the safety of a reverse-neutral zone, a free territory where the three great powers which triumphed in the Dominion War would work together in colonization, exploration, and defense. I’ve daydreamed about the relationships between the characters and can imagine a conversation between a Romulan character and a Starfleet officer about these kinds of issues.

Sounds better than anything CBS is currently throwing out.

One could say, but there are non-human captains who have the same authority. Certainly so. But the issue is, the regulation uniform itself, the default, is a human cultural artifact — the ornaments, allowed by exception, are non-human.

I find that less surprising in that, while undefined, Starfleet is ostensibly a human endeavor. It predates the Federation and it lets anyone join, and is the largest of many independent fleet organizations within the Federation and probably works most closely with the government owing to its size and weight of support. There's probably something to be said for how the human-based fleet came to be the most powerful, rather than the Vulcan Science Academy or the Andorian Guard, but I'm not sure Starfleet's status as a human artifact is sufficient to say much about the Federation as a whole, especially since pretty much all races in Startrek are humanoid, and the uniform is no more a distinct human artifact than any other unform. It's a unitarian, almost devoid of any personality, manner of dress.

As you say, Starfleet predates the Federation, including Starfleet uniform conventions (e.g., tricolor-coded branches). The uniform is definitely a human cultural artifact.

I like your theory that Starfleet is human-dominant, culturally as well demographically. That certainly fits with what we see on the shows. It has its own implications as to our discussion, however.

I should hope my idea sounds better than dog gak.

 LordofHats wrote:
" Federation members are all "as far as we know" equal under the law, are afforded the same commercial, educational, and professional opportunities by law, just by the act of joining the Federation. There is no apparent hierarchy of race or the dominance of one species over the others. The only things they explicitly disallow are legal discrimination, which isn't really enough to declare the Federation a culturally hegemonic system.

One of the things that has always sort of stood out to me in regards to this is that, one the one hand you have Starfleet Academy, which is integral to joining Starfleet. . . And yet, we have the Vulcan Science Academy, which is almost exclusively a Vulcan organization. I mean, you basically need to be born Vulcan to get in, and its a fairly major plot device for the few non- or not-purely Vulcan members of the shows. I mean, I guess we could make a rough comparison to MIT, however one merely needs to test in to MIT, whereas one needs to be Vulcan to get into the Vulcan Science Academy.

Obviously it never really came up in the shows, but we don't exactly have a "Tellerite Engineering School" that is the "exclusive" domain of Tellerites where only people from there are capable of entering it (except for a plot device half-Tellerite half-human character).

That's a good observation.

Starfleet lets anyone join, even non-Federation citizens if they can get a letter of recommendation. I think the Starfleet oath includes a pledge to defend the Federation, but in that sense Starfleet would be kind of like the French Foreign Legion.

I used to hate DS9 as a very boring show where nothing happened until the Dominion showed up, but meh, it's one of those shows that people like and I won't begrudge them for liking it, as I agree it did do the 'Federation taking the kid gloves off' very well. *Again near the end of the series*

Not for me, as I'll always love TNG and Voyager the most personally. Picard and Janeway are just awesome.

As far as the Maquis thing. Yeah the lack of tension once they were stranded with the regular crew is legit criticism but iirc there was the one guy that went straight up serial killer, which was unique in that I don't remember Trek tackling a mental illness and explaining why they didn't just off him. That said I think the big reason the crew and Maquis put aside their differences was the source of the tension (I.E. the Cardassians) was far removed and they needed bodies to run the ship.

I think one thing DS9 did really well was bridging TNG to Voyager and building a universe out more.

I will say DS9 is better than the new series though, and Enterprise.

Despite its human origin, Starfleet as we see it in TOS forward is not a human (historically, United Earth) organization. It’s THE military of the Federation state.

I think that's something that's always interested me though about Trek in general. You don't have traditionally 'unarmed' vessels. As even exploratory ships have phasers and torpedoes.

It makes me wonder what a show based around a 'civilian' ship would be like.

There was a mini arc of Enterprise that focused around that, a warp three transport that the Enterprise's helmsman came from and they fight off a band of Norsicans. Mostly it was centered around the tensions between the emergent Starfleet and the merchant marine but it was not too bad.

 ingtaer wrote:
There was a mini arc of Enterprise that focused around that, a warp three transport that the Enterprise's helmsman came from and they fight off a band of Norsicans. Mostly it was centered around the tensions between the emergent Starfleet and the merchant marine but it was not too bad.

It was honestly one of the better Enterprise episodes. Also, one of the few episodes where Mayweather was more than the token helmsmen.

Just thinking....

Another notable thing with DS9 was it's lack of reliance on TNG baddies.

Maquis? Set up by TNG, owned by DS9.

Q? He's in for one episode. And it's fun.

Borg? Nowhere to be seen.

Given how much Voyager chipped away at the Borg as a race, and made them rather dull (seriously, remember how pants fillingly scary they were, and then look at how Janeway just sasses her way out of trouble).

Introducing The Dominion was ace. We got to see a more scattered Alpha Quadrant come up against the Gamma Quadrant, so under the thumb they were pulling in the same direction.

And to go back to my original comments? That we've had to wait until Picard to see any kind of fallout following the end of the Dominion War is frankly criminal - especially when three series have squandered that opportunity so far (Voy, Ent, Disco).

Why! Why show runners! Why!

Honestly I think the writers felt they'd "done" so much with advancing the story that they didn't know where to go after Voyager. Even that series felt that they had to throw the ship into the other half of the galaxy to have meaningful exploration aspects. It's like the Alpha Quatrant has no more mysteries (and no boarder section with any other segment of course for some unbeknown reason).

Then again each series has often had new aliens - TNG never used many of the Original series beasties beyond a few of the most iconic. Although you could argue that Q like beings appeared several times, if of lesser power (generally limited to one planet's sphere of influence)

Voyager could've been so much more.

If it was done in the modern day, I think they could really push things with a relative ensemble approach.

Think Seasons 1 and 2 is the crew finding their feet, and beginning again, realising there's literally no realistic way home. They begin to put down the roots of a new Federation outpost - becoming the Vulcans of First Contact. Show some resistance etc, but winning cultures over via humanitarian efforts (including peace keeping).

Seasons 3 and 4, perhaps a time jump to things being a bit more established, and facing their first major threat (Borg, by all means).

Season 5 6 and 7? Adapt and change up depending on how the audience reacted to the previous ones. Let us see how Federation ideals adapt and change in the face of outright adversity and isolation.

But no. Instead we got Voyager. Blech.

I should note I didn't hate Voyager, I liked it as a series for what it was. It just felt not as deep as DS9 because Voyager was far more faithful to ST history and was slaved to its alien of the week system.

The ending also felt like a bit of a cop-out. Future Janeway not only saves them and gets them home but destroys all the Borg at the same time. A grand ending to be sure, but sort of felt like "Hey we wanted to do another 3 seasons but lost budget so here's 3 seasons of story in 2 episodes"



Also Voyager should have changed appearance! It should have lost parts, gained new bits - evolved due to the fact that they couldn't stop in at a SF space station for refitting and repair. Even subtle things like different metal plates on the outside. Though granted with replicators able to make almost anything they need that kind of loses some influence. Introducing a "replicator resource that we've got very little of out here" would have been a bit of a series lore retcon but would have at least let them bolt-bits onto a ship that gets itno a LOT of fights on its way home.

I have just started watching DS9 right from the start. I've seen bits and pieces of the Dominion war arcs, but never the entire show, and never in any real order.

It's weird seeing Sisko wit hair!

So far the thing that probably annoys me is that they're going to the well of "Odo pretends to be a random object to infiltrate something" a little too often. I'm 10 or 11 episodes into Season 1. Let's see how far I get.

There was just so mince in Voyager. Stories that went nowhere, and explored nothing.

I'll never forgive them for the Maquis crew just suddenly behaving themselves. Or the lamentable Kes and Neelix, who were just awful.

Or the god awful Naomi 'Captains Assistant' Wildman.

Vomit inducingly bad stuff. Again, I'm hesitant to blame the actors. They had dodgy scripts, bad plots, and quite possibly rubbish direction. Having beef with them would be like shouting at a Burger Flipper because McDonalds changed what goes into the burger.

Odo reminds me that I'm glad we didn't get 3 or 4 DS9 films all focused around how he wanted to be more normal! They did it in the series and that was all that was needed - unlike poor DATA who got brought out as the cornerstone of the whole "becoming more human" in every single film almost for The Next Generation. It sort of felt really flat because if you'd followed the series we'd already seen him tackle quite a lot of things and none of the films even went half as far such as his relationship with Tasha - a huge plot point and development for him as a character and it happened way back at the start of the ST series.


Was always kinda sad we lost Tasha in the series. I think she fit the confident powerful female character in a typical male role quite well.

I have had a much shallower relationship with ST than SW, only watching the shows as a kid.

DS9 struck me as far more world building than I was ready for at the time and far too little going on. I think the political situationw as beyond me, but SG1 was available at the same time where the badguys wore metal face masks and could be shot with long uncontrolled bursts.

I did like Voyager as a guy who appreciates the ships, but I could never empathise with any of the characters. Janeway was a stoic, Tuvac was a stoic, 7 was kind of stoic, and the rest weren't that engaging.

DS9 is definitely a series that grows on you.

If memory serves, it wasn't terribly well received when it first aired. I guess the wider audience just weren't used to arc based story telling, especially in Trek which was absolutely episodic.

But in the days of Netflix, when we can conceivably book a week off work, shun daylight and belt through a season a day? That's when the arcs really pay off. You can see the sheer amount of character development. Some is subtle, some not so much. And it varies for different characters at different times.

Quark and Garak are solid examples. In their focus episodes, we get to know them better. But, a lot of their development comes from 'also starring' episodes, where we get to see their take on events which otherwise don't particularly involve them. Hence why bingeing is recommended


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Come to think of it, Quark and Garak both serve as ciphers for their respective cultures.

For Quark? Brunt (FCA!*) serves as the stereotypical, greedy, backstabbing Ferengi. This is how we first meet Quark. Rom shows where the Ferengi could end up - still liking his profit, but with more of a conscience. The Grand Nagus (and what an arc he has!) represents the financial logic behind the steps between the two extremes - someone with the Lobes to see that, actually, change can be far more profitable in the long run than the tried and tested.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
*If I ever jump ship to the Financial Conduct Authority, I may well change my name, legally, to Brunt. Just because.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It's just the 'Federation Is Always Right, And You Can't Join Until You Are Like Us'.

It's a trope we often see in Star Trek. The half human/half X character must choose between those two factors. And the human half is almost always shown to be the better choice.

Which is, kinda dodgy. I'm not saying this is intentional by the script writers, or some kind of hidden agenda.

But it helps show that The Federation is fairly insidious, even if that's not its intent.

I'm almost certainly reading too much into it though Of course, if it wasn't for DS9 being the besterest Star Trek ever, we wouldn't even have the info to have this conversation


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Consider the episode where Vedek Winn kicks off about Keiko O'Brien teaching of the 'wormhole aliens' rather than profits.

Yes, Wynn is a reprehensible religious extremist. One who seemingly only follows a given path for the promise of power and influence.

But she still actually has a point. Bajorans are a pretty religious society, and with good reason given their deities most definitely exist, and most definitely do interfere in the mortal plane. But The Federation is more 'no no no, strictly secular' - despite there being no real contradiction in discussing the wormhole aliens and Prophets as being one and the same. It's literally just a title to The Federation, so what difference should it make?

That's a sign of the Federation favouring it's own morals, over those to whom they are no more than guests. Yes, Winn deliberately blows it out of all proportion.

Indeed, Winn is possibly one of the undersung lynchpins of the entire series. Whilst The Federation and Starfleet put few barriers to an individuals Faith, this was the first time we saw a sustained butting of heads over the issue.

We're getting into a sticky moderation area here, as the next logical step would be to compare to modern religions. If we could avoid that, it'll save a thread lock and telling offs

Wynn might have been an unlikeable character but she is great at being an unlikable character. She is a true believer but she also knows she is unworthy and still wants the power. Shes willing to kill to have that power. That makes here Evil. It is possible to be evil and be right about things. She did have some good points. She was just so corrupt that she could not be reasoned with.

Manchu wrote:Despite its human origin, Starfleet as we see it in TOS forward is not a human (historically, United Earth) organization. It’s THE military of the Federation state.

Which kind of always stood out weirdly at various points of certain captain's runs on screen. . . I mean, I can really only think of a couple times where Kirk says "we're not a military organization", or the more often than that-times that Picard says "we're not a military organization" or "we're explorers" or some such with a heavy handed hint of meaning away from militarism.

KingmanHighborn wrote:I think that's something that's always interested me though about Trek in general. You don't have traditionally 'unarmed' vessels. As even exploratory ships have phasers and torpedoes.

It seems to me that they take a view similar to organizations who operated on the oceans during the "Golden Age of Piracy" . . . Every ship was armed back in the day. . . Largely, what I've read most often is that, with the exception of stupid puritanical Calvinists on the Mayflower on their colony ships, even the most humble merchant would have at least a couple of guns/cannon on board. Ships operating the golden triangle/slave routes often swapped gun space for more slave bodies, but toward the end of that, that particular set of trade routes was quite heavily patrolled, and thus pirates tended to steer clear.

FF to the age of Kirk and Picard, and even to Janeway a bit, there are even a few episodes where the ship's erstwhile weapons are magically recalibrated to be beneficial to some space creature. Which I guess just goes to show that in the minds of the show writers and creators, that having purely energy based weaponry can have some positive impacts with the right thinking, whereas say. . . . 40k, a Nova Cannon does 1 thing and 1 thing only.

The impression I always got is that weapon systems commonly used by the Federation are practical security measures living off things they'd already have.

Torpedos are fired from the same tubes that launch probes. Phasers are just dedicated energy projectors and are while nominally weapons have been shown countless times to have pretty broad functionality.

It’s fairly easy to be skeptical of claims that Starfleet is not a military. Everyone goes around in military uniforms with military insignia and the whole thing is structured by military rank. I mean, this isn’t how NASA operates.

The key distinction is between a society that has a military on one hand and a militaristic society on the other. Most of the Great Powers of the Alpha and Beta quadrants are militaristic, especially in the sense that they tend to significantly blend civilian and military authority.

Even here, however, the Federation bears some criticism. One gets the impression that people (especially humans) who want to really excel in their chosen field try to do so via a commission in Starfleet.

Militarism is a sin Starfleet flirts with pretty often but, in contrast to the Klingons, Romulans. Cardassians, etc., the Federation pretty clearly identifies militarism as a sin in the first place.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Which kind of always stood out weirdly at various points of certain captain's runs on screen. . . I mean, I can really only think of a couple times where Kirk says "we're not a military organization", or the more often than that-times that Picard says "we're not a military organization" or "we're explorers" or some such with a heavy handed hint of meaning away from militarism.

It's best to view this as a self-serving propaganda much like "we're here to bring democracy to you and your oil". Of course Starfleet is a military organization. It deploys heavily armed warships with crews organized into a textbook military structure. The Enterprise (of any version) is not just a research ship with a couple of self-defense weapons, it's a capital ship capable of engaging and defeating the largest capital ships of the Federation's rivals. And all the "we aren't really a warship, we're here for peace" nonsense ends the moment the shooting starts. And it makes sense. The Federation may take pride in being a progressive democracy where the military serves civilian goals instead of a military dictatorship where any civilian government is little more than a branch of the military, unlike most of its neighbors, but when you're surrounded by hostile military dictatorships armed with fleets of warships you don't survive through noble ideals and love of science.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Which kind of always stood out weirdly at various points of certain captain's runs on screen. . . I mean, I can really only think of a couple times where Kirk says "we're not a military organization", or the more often than that-times that Picard says "we're not a military organization" or "we're explorers" or some such with a heavy handed hint of meaning away from militarism.

It's best to view this as a self-serving propaganda much like "we're here to bring democracy to you and your oil". Of course Starfleet is a military organization. It deploys heavily armed warships with crews organized into a textbook military structure. The Enterprise (of any version) is not just a research ship with a couple of self-defense weapons, it's a capital ship capable of engaging and defeating the largest capital ships of the Federation's rivals. And all the "we aren't really a warship, we're here for peace" nonsense ends the moment the shooting starts. And it makes sense. The Federation may take pride in being a progressive democracy where the military serves civilian goals instead of a military dictatorship where any civilian government is little more than a branch of the military, unlike most of its neighbors, but when you're surrounded by hostile military dictatorships armed with fleets of warships you don't survive through noble ideals and love of science.

That's our real-world cynicism talking, like 'Sheev did nothing wrong'. In universe, Starfleet are considered squares and idealistic fools by Ferengi and most 'cynical' factions. Corruption exists within Starfleet for sure, and they've done shady things with those heavily armed exploration ships. But by and large to buy into Trek you have to accept Starfleets mission as explorers and moral peaceniks at face value- otherwise you are watching Tau Empire, Gue'la edition.

I think the idea that its a military organisation sort of hits the wall when you consider how woefully unarmed most of their ships are compared to what they could be armed with. The Defiant, a tiny ship, has more torpedo bays than a Galaxy Class starship which is many many times its size. Similarly whilst the long laser banks are powerful, they are still only very lightly armed with two on the fore half and one or two on the rear.

I think the key is that Starfleet is based on military structure in terms of how they organise and train their staff. This prepares them for potential conflict whilst their ships are in deep space and far from any kind of support or easy escape. NASA doesn't operate like that, but then again when they send up a shuttle they are in no way expecting to have to fight the Russians or the Chinese for space; nor are they expecting to encounter aliens of unknown powers and intent who could be hostile. There's really no reason for them to be armed and no reasonable expectation of combat.

Starfleet has expectation of conflict with the unknown and also with the known. Therefore it makes logical sense that the bridge and key crew would be trained and organised for combat and that the ship would have suitable weapons to defend itself. They aren't looking to launch invasions or battle large fleets; heck just look how heavily beaten the Federation is by the Dominion. The Federation is one of the largest factions and yet it took a combined arms approach to battle the Dominion.

Look at the upgrades to DS9 in terms of its weapon capabilities between the start of the series and the end where they had weapon banks with multiple lasers and torpedo launchers.



Starfleet spreads itself not by military conquest nor threat of invasion. They don't even brandish their weapons unless they have to. I think the key is that they are peaceful explorers, but they aren't pacifist fools. Alongside that there's a general view to expansion of their own self interest by taking in more races and worlds into the Federation itself; thus promoting their way of life and their morals and ideals; whilst also ensuring that fewer and fewer races are poised to be against them because they become part of the Federation.

Perhaps my own cynicism of the show is just an artefact of budgetary limitations.

The vast majority of the crews we see are human. So to the casual 'not really thinking about it' eye, it can seem 'humans and their kooky pet aliens'. Which feeds into the 'it's pretty much just a human spehss empire'.

One thing Disco does do is overcome that somewhat.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Perhaps my own cynicism of the show is just an artefact of budgetary limitations.

The vast majority of the crews we see are human. So to the casual 'not really thinking about it' eye, it can seem 'humans and their kooky pet aliens'. Which feeds into the 'it's pretty much just a human spehss empire'.

One thing Disco does do is overcome that somewhat.

I think its both budget, but also one of those things that somewhere in management found a students paper on which says that audiences identify better with a human core cast than an alien core cast. Seriously outside of some kids TV shows; most teen to adult series tend to focus fully upon human casts in the key positions. There's a few where the lead isn't human (although things like chappi the lead is often trying to be more "alive/human"); but by and large if its humans in space then you can bet the humans are the good guys and the Xenos are not; even if its something where humans are in the wrong (Avatar) humans are often the core cast. Heck Avatar is one of the few where the lead isn't a human and that's only be a sort of technicality and he still spends a good half or so of the film being human.

It's likely that, even without budget, presenting a series to producers with a totally alien cast or even aliens justas the core characters would likely never get approved for live action. You might get it if its animated and aimed at kids; but adults no way.




It's probably like how there's theory that audiences love series with no development changes episode to episode. Again its "true" but its not the whole picture as many non-episodic series have proven.

 Overread wrote:
I think the idea that its a military organisation sort of hits the wall when you consider how woefully unarmed most of their ships are compared to what they could be armed with. The Defiant, a tiny ship, has more torpedo bays than a Galaxy Class starship which is many many times its size. Similarly whilst the long laser banks are powerful, they are still only very lightly armed with two on the fore half and one or two on the rear.

I think the key is that Starfleet is based on military structure in terms of how they organise and train their staff. This prepares them for potential conflict whilst their ships are in deep space and far from any kind of support or easy escape. NASA doesn't operate like that, but then again when they send up a shuttle they are in no way expecting to have to fight the Russians or the Chinese for space; nor are they expecting to encounter aliens of unknown powers and intent who could be hostile. There's really no reason for them to be armed and no reasonable expectation of combat.

Starfleet has expectation of conflict with the unknown and also with the known. Therefore it makes logical sense that the bridge and key crew would be trained and organised for combat and that the ship would have suitable weapons to defend itself. They aren't looking to launch invasions or battle large fleets; heck just look how heavily beaten the Federation is by the Dominion. The Federation is one of the largest factions and yet it took a combined arms approach to battle the Dominion.

Look at the upgrades to DS9 in terms of its weapon capabilities between the start of the series and the end where they had weapon banks with multiple lasers and torpedo launchers.



Starfleet spreads itself not by military conquest nor threat of invasion. They don't even brandish their weapons unless they have to. I think the key is that they are peaceful explorers, but they aren't pacifist fools. Alongside that there's a general view to expansion of their own self interest by taking in more races and worlds into the Federation itself; thus promoting their way of life and their morals and ideals; whilst also ensuring that fewer and fewer races are poised to be against them because they become part of the Federation.

If you think about it, Starfleet is a lot more like the US Coast Guard then US Navy or NASA. It does both paramilitary and nonmilitary missions, but has a navy structure.

 Peregrine wrote:
The Federation may take pride in being a progressive democracy where the military serves civilian goals instead of a military dictatorship where any civilian government is little more than a branch of the military, unlike most of its neighbors, but when you're surrounded by hostile military dictatorships armed with fleets of warships you don't survive through noble ideals and love of science.

Mind you, it seems like there are no other law enforcement agencies in the Federation other than Starfleet. For example, Julian Bashir's parents are both civilians, but are tried and convicted by Starfleet, not by any civilian judiciary.

 Frazzled wrote:


If you think about it, Starfleet is a lot more like the US Coast Guard then US Navy or NASA. It does both paramilitary and nonmilitary missions, but has a navy structure.

Or like the Royal Navy (and probably other navies) in the 18th and 19th centuries. Definitely built as warships, but used for exploration. HMS Beagle, for example.

That definitely was one model, and probably fit much closer in STOS. It was definitely a warship with exploration capabilities. STNG tended to push more of the "nonmilitary" schick. One gets images of Klingons guffawing behind their backs.

TOS is straight up American military.

I think that fits the two settings quite nicely.

Deliberately ignoring the woeful Enterprise, TOS shows Starfleet’s first proper forays.

They’ve no idea who or what’s out there, and how other species might react.

So you pack more heat etc. Better to have it and not need it etc.

TNG? Things are better known. I mean, at that point, it was only really The Romulan Empire that was openly hostile (and the Cardassians, but they come into ded late, with the war as a retcon). So you can be more focussed on the research and exploration, as you know your dakka is good.

 Frazzled wrote:
That definitely was one model, and probably fit much closer in STOS. It was definitely a warship with exploration capabilities. STNG tended to push more of the "nonmilitary" schick. One gets images of Klingons guffawing behind their backs.

I'm not sure if it was ever really pushed as an idea in the series, but the Federation strikes me as the sort of state with so much military might that it never really has to use it. They think they're non-military because most of the time they never shoot anyone, even while a ship like the Galaxy-class vessels can go toe-to-toe with the ships-of-the-line of the other powers, while still devoting half their capacity to civilian accommodation and research. The Enterprise goes into battle with one hand tied behind its back because it's like an MMA champion going up against some chav hanging round the bus shelter. It's Teddy Roosevelt's Big Stick theory in the 24th century. You can see that when they finally come up against someone they can't easily steamroller - the Borg - then the gloves come off and the Defiant turns up.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
That definitely was one model, and probably fit much closer in STOS. It was definitely a warship with exploration capabilities. STNG tended to push more of the "nonmilitary" schick. One gets images of Klingons guffawing behind their backs.

I'm not sure if it was ever really pushed as an idea in the series, but the Federation strikes me as the sort of state with so much military might that it never really has to use it. They think they're non-military because most of the time they never shoot anyone, even while a ship like the Galaxy-class vessels can go toe-to-toe with the ships-of-the-line of the other powers, while still devoting half their capacity to civilian accommodation and research. The Enterprise goes into battle with one hand tied behind its back because it's like an MMA champion going up against some chav hanging round the bus shelter. It's Teddy Roosevelt's Big Stick theory in the 24th century. You can see that when they finally come up against someone they can't easily steamroller - the Borg - then the gloves come off and the Defiant turns up.

I think DS9 series touches on this but this is a subject that doesn't really get raised in a big way until the Nemesis film. No matter your views on the plot of the film, the Romulan warship in that was a proper warship built for war with the tech of the setting. Dominion ships were heavily armed, but honestly were not hugely different to what the regular warships had. Even Klingons - the most warlike race of the major races - don't actually arm their ships all that heavily compared to what they could. The result is that Starfleet actually stands pretty well against the other factions even though their ships are not built with war in mind.

It's almost as if the other factions have only engaged in an arms race sufficient to meet standard with the Federation. Considering how many neutral zones there are it might be a little bit akin to nuclear weapons today - ergo everyone HAS super weapons and can build superwarships, but they mostly choose not to so that the other side doesn't push further - esp since the Federation - for all its peaceful overtones - does have a lot of potential allies to draw from and a very large resource base. Whilst the Dominion situation showed that they weren't really ready to mobilize for war in a very fast manner. I figure it was always a threat the other races never wanted to push too far with an arms race.

Costs and distribution could also be other aspects to consider. The Romulan warship was an epic warship, but at the same time it was a single warship not a fleet. It might well be that for the cost of that one ship, three, four or more Warbirds could have been built instead. One ship can only be in one place at a time whilst three or four ships can patrol in one group or can split up to deal with multiple threats. Considering the vast size of space the deployment of forces and not collecting all your eggs in one basket has to be considered by many of the races. It's not like most 4* games we play where most times a superfleet works best - in real wars you've got to hold multiple fronts; patrol; ensure that world and facilities are not chipped away at etc...

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
even while a ship like the Galaxy-class vessels can go toe-to-toe with the ships-of-the-line of the other powers, while still devoting half their capacity to civilian accommodation and research.

I've often thought of the Federation as much more advanced than any of its rivals technologically for this exact reason.

Their luxury liners are on par with Klingon and Romulan warships. Is that because the Federation is in denial about what Starfleet is, or is Starfleet so far ahead that they can boast rivaling military power without really trying?

 LordofHats wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
even while a ship like the Galaxy-class vessels can go toe-to-toe with the ships-of-the-line of the other powers, while still devoting half their capacity to civilian accommodation and research.

I've often thought of the Federation as much more advanced than any of its rivals technologically for this exact reason.

Their luxury liners are on par with Klingon and Romulan warships. Is that because the Federation is in denial about what Starfleet is, or is Starfleet so far ahead that they can boast rivaling military power without really trying?

I think it's more along the lines of the Federation has this innate sense that eventually all warfare will stop, and that the current fleet's combat capability is a necessary evil, which is why you had the Galaxy class that was basically a city with some guns on it. I think the lesson was learned, though, as the Sovereign class and onwards were much less about utilitarianism and more about "win a fight".

And that gets back to Yodhrin’s point that this is a fictional setting. The Dominion War isn’t a real thing that happened; it was a decision by some writers. And because of that decision, the setting went from “the flagship is a luxury liner” to “the Defiant is built to feth gak up the end” — this isn’t a “real life” lesson, that the world is a bad and violent place. The writers decided that a bad a violent setting would make for more interesting stories. This is kind of a problem going back to why Gene Roddenberry was muscled out of Star Trek. He pitched a setting with little to no conflict, which makes it hard to tell dramatic stories with space ships flying around shootin’ lasers and gak.

You can tell loads of dramatic space stories without lots of guns - heck the first Alien film hardly has any actual guns in it at all.


Also the Galaxy to Sovereign wasn't a huge upgrade in weaponry. If anything it was still a standard capital ship for exploration first even though it was the newest pride of the fleet in its day. Voyager was also not bristling with weapons and that ship went into service right after the Dominion War and its first mission was hunting Marquis in the Badlands.

This also reminds me of the Defiant's sister ship and the crew that trained for it and how they were different to regular Starfleet officers. Indeed one or two episodes dealt with the issue that the War caused a split, esp in the younger ranks inspired by a few of the older, in Starfleet between those who were still primarily in the exploration side and those who were being brought through the system almost purely for military training and deployment.

Indeed when you consider that the Sovereign, whilst strongly built, is not built with the same war focus that the Defiant is; one wonders if Starfleet, even after the Dominion War, is settling back into its old habits. Or perhaps Starfleet itself will steadily split into two distinct forces.

Both using the same tech, but one force focused on exploratory ends and the other focusing on military. The latter would likely be somewhat less numerous but designed to be the elite force; able to be called in as a proper show of force. With the Borg, the Dominion and continual general tensions between Klingons, Romulans and Cardassians (though this latter group was pretty much crushed during the Dominion war) a rise in Starfleet of even a handful of military focused vessels could be very much needed to enforce and restore peace.



Heck it would have been a really interesting twist to have played with Voyager and then a series after if Voyager had settled in the Delta Quadrant. Settling down and building a new Starfleet that might one day (in generations later) meet up with the original Alpha quadrant block to find them far more military focused!

Alien only had guns mentioned in the Directors cut iirc.

The original had no mention of them at all (well unless you count home made flame throwers as guns).

 Overread wrote:
You can tell loads of dramatic space stories without lots of guns - heck the first Alien film hardly has any actual guns in it at all.


Also the Galaxy to Sovereign wasn't a huge upgrade in weaponry. If anything it was still a standard capital ship for exploration first even though it was the newest pride of the fleet in its day. Voyager was also not bristling with weapons and that ship went into service right after the Dominion War and its first mission was hunting Marquis in the Badlands.

This also reminds me of the Defiant's sister ship and the crew that trained for it and how they were different to regular Starfleet officers. Indeed one or two episodes dealt with the issue that the War caused a split, esp in the younger ranks inspired by a few of the older, in Starfleet between those who were still primarily in the exploration side and those who were being brought through the system almost purely for military training and deployment.

Indeed when you consider that the Sovereign, whilst strongly built, is not built with the same war focus that the Defiant is; one wonders if Starfleet, even after the Dominion War, is settling back into its old habits. Or perhaps Starfleet itself will steadily split into two distinct forces.

Both using the same tech, but one force focused on exploratory ends and the other focusing on military. The latter would likely be somewhat less numerous but designed to be the elite force; able to be called in as a proper show of force. With the Borg, the Dominion and continual general tensions between Klingons, Romulans and Cardassians (though this latter group was pretty much crushed during the Dominion war) a rise in Starfleet of even a handful of military focused vessels could be very much needed to enforce and restore peace.



Heck it would have been a really interesting twist to have played with Voyager and then a series after if Voyager had settled in the Delta Quadrant. Settling down and building a new Starfleet that might one day (in generations later) meet up with the original Alpha quadrant block to find them far more military focused!

The de-militarisation post-Dominion war could be very deliberate. Most of the major Alpha Quadrant powers had taken something of a battering during the War, yet emerged with greater unity.

It's entirely possible that to preserve and possibly improve that unity, Starfleet decided to go back to their exploratory roots. Weapons for self defence only - make other powers less nervous, reassure colonists etc that the war was the exception, and not the new status quo.

 LordofHats wrote:
Is that because the Federation is in denial about what Starfleet is, or is Starfleet so far ahead that they can boast rivaling military power without really trying?

Something of a theme of TNG was that the federation had become arrogant and complacent due to their technological advantages in the quadrant, underpinning the Q arc somewhat.

Plus they appear (through humans) to advance technology faster than even their allies. Consider the Vulcans who are pretty much the closest allies humans and Starfleet have. When they started out the Vulcans had mystical levels of superior technology. In Enterprise it was a running theme that the Vulcans could do most of the stuff the crew were trying to develop - only better. Even the Warp engine - state of the art for Starfleet at that time - was still weaker than Vulcan ones.

By the time we hit even the Original series the Vulcan dominance in technology was dwindling to almost nothing; whilst in TNG Vulcans are very much on the back seat in technological terms.


Of course one could argue that as time passed the central government of Starfleet simply appropriated more of the Vulcan researchers.



Actually that gives me an idea of a theme they could have done which never have; which is to have a major faction leave the Federation. Klingons have always been pegged for that and they have taken moves toward it, but always gave up in the end. Seeing a faction go through with it - a major faction - and making it into a major story arc for a series would be really interesting to see. Both in how it affected the relationship between that faction and the Federation, but also how other races would react to it. Almost like how the loss of a few nations could start a potential tumbledown and how
starfleet would react. Both with whole worlds wanting to have their own independence, but then getting down to where you've got mixed race groups and generations of aliens raised on alien worlds or in space stations.

A powerful and complex look at real world situations and how the Federation might survive a time when its member factions might want to change their relationship and split away.

Interestingly, I think the only way Picard could disappoint me is if it glosses over the whole post-Dominion War thing.

As long as that's addressed, there'll be something to satisfy me!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Interestingly, I think the only way Picard could disappoint me is if it glosses over the whole post-Dominion War thing.

As long as that's addressed, there'll be something to satisfy me!

I think it depends greatly on the scale and location of the story as to how the Dominion War will influence it. Lets not forget that at least 10 years or more has clearly passed since the Dominion War. So that's already quite a significant chunk of time. Furthermore the war never pushed too far into Federation space itself. Though there were strikes to Starfleet and Earth, it was mostly contained around the Cardassian boarders. So if the story is set far away from there, with the passing of time as well, the Dominion War could be a thing of the past.

It would be the kind of thing that might rear its head if he were to visit the Badlands, or DS9 or any of those regions. Or even deal with Cardassians, who might still be dealing with the aftereffects - in fact when you consider how the war ended they felt the worst brunt of it all when their home world was torn apart and their people slaughtered. Not that they were ever greatly trusted even at the start of DS9, but they might well have fallen far further. Or perhaps they had a big change of heart and wanted to prove themselves after the war that they helped cause.


The other aspect is the scale of the story. If its getting down to a "Firefly" level of a crew and story then it could well be that what they interact with are the little people and that big things like the War and that whole political side are simply on another level.

I still expect at least some mention of it.

The Dominion War was the first time the Alpha Quadrant had a common foe. That increased diplomatic ties at the time. So what happened after?

Were the various allies too shattered from an exhausting, narrowly won war to start politicking among themselves? Were the ties developed at that point strengthened?

Just....don't ignore it is all I ask.

There's still the Borg in the Delta quadrant, and one has to wonder if those'll ever come into conflict with the Dominion. The Dominion is also supposed to be thousands of years old, so their stagnancy might be keeping the Borg at bay (or uninterested). Then there's those super-advanced dinosaurs in their city ships in the Delta quadrant too.

There are what now?

Also, Borg were seemingly squished when Voyager hand-waviumed their way home.

The Voth, from the Voyager episode "Distant Origin."

Also, I thought it was just that transwarp hub that got boomed.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
There are what now?

Also, Borg were seemingly squished when Voyager hand-waviumed their way home.

I think that's what the new Picard series will have a greater focus on: the aftermath of the Borg's defeat in Voyager and the fallout from the destruction of Romulus. The Dominion War will certainly be referenced, but given that Picard had little to no role in it (at least on screen), I doubt it will get addressed too much.

 Overread wrote:

.

It's almost as if the other factions have only engaged in an arms race sufficient to meet standard with the Federation. Considering how many neutral zones there are it might be a little bit akin to nuclear weapons today - ergo everyone HAS super weapons and can build superwarships, but they mostly choose not to so that the other side doesn't push further - esp since the Federation - for all its peaceful overtones - does have a lot of potential allies to draw from and a very large resource base. Whilst the Dominion situation showed that they weren't really ready to mobilize for war in a very fast manner. I figure it was always a threat the other races never wanted to push too far with an arms race.

Pax Federation - don’t cause too much trouble or you’ll be on the wrong end of a cloaked ship with. Genesis device ...

 Overread wrote:
Plus they appear (through humans) to advance technology faster than even their allies. Consider the Vulcans who are pretty much the closest allies humans and Starfleet have. When they started out the Vulcans had mystical levels of superior technology. In Enterprise it was a running theme that the Vulcans could do most of the stuff the crew were trying to develop - only better. Even the Warp engine - state of the art for Starfleet at that time - was still weaker than Vulcan ones.

By the time we hit even the Original series the Vulcan dominance in technology was dwindling to almost nothing; whilst in TNG Vulcans are very much on the back seat in technological terms.


Of course one could argue that as time passed the central government of Starfleet simply appropriated more of the Vulcan researchers.



Actually that gives me an idea of a theme they could have done which never have; which is to have a major faction leave the Federation. Klingons have always been pegged for that and they have taken moves toward it, but always gave up in the end. Seeing a faction go through with it - a major faction - and making it into a major story arc for a series would be really interesting to see. Both in how it affected the relationship between that faction and the Federation, but also how other races would react to it. Almost like how the loss of a few nations could start a potential tumbledown and how
starfleet would react. Both with whole worlds wanting to have their own independence, but then getting down to where you've got mixed race groups and generations of aliens raised on alien worlds or in space stations.

A powerful and complex look at real world situations and how the Federation might survive a time when its member factions might want to change their relationship and split away.

That's an old theme in sci fi and fantasy that the more advanced races who often have much longer life spans tend to stagnate in comparison to the humans who burn bright and hot for a short period and pack as much into there short lives as possible leading to rapid innovation.

My favourite if somewhat cheesy example is the alien federation who set off to conquer earth shortly after seeing the battle of agincourt and preparing as such as it's only a couple of hundred years to get there and arriving now to face modern mbt's f22's etc etc.

That’s a very interesting trope.

I mean, consider Warhammer.

Dwarfs first discovered black powder, and over their long, long lifespans, perfected it. They can take their time because they have it.

They then shared it with The Empire. Cue ‘look, I’m pretty smart and I’m sure this’ll work’ type approach. By Dwarfen standards, Empire Engineers are stupidly reckless. Yet, as a result, Empire blackpowder weapons can, on a good day, with luck, massively outperform their Dwarf equivalent. That such an occasion is rare doesn’t matter to humans. We’re prolific, and so one’s life is willingly sacrificed for the sake of this new super weapon actually working and the fame that comes with it.

After that? The Skaven nick it. Skaven. Who at 14 are often considered ancient (can’t remember where I read that, but I did!)? And breed in such numbers that life is literally a currency? Steal-steal man-thing weapon! Add more-much black Powder! Mix-stir Warpstone! If just one of them, just once, pulled it off, who knows the damage. But when you know your society only allows you to live so long? What’s the risk of testing your weapon, personally, as soon as it’s been built. Especially when you’re probably heavily indebted to another, higher ranking Skaven......what’ve you got to lose? If it kills you, at least it’s quick. If it works! KERCHING!

I am also in the camp of really liking DS9.

For me, it just felt like there was more to it because they didn't have to worry about exploring. They could actually look at the people who make up a small part of the universe and see how they act when they are not busy reacting. I wanted to see more, I wanted to know how they would deal with developing situations, and I wanted Miles to put Kiko in an airlock.

 ProtoClone wrote:
I am also in the camp of really liking DS9.

For me, it just felt like there was more to it because they didn't have to worry about exploring. They could actually look at the people who make up a small part of the universe and see how they act when they are not busy reacting. I wanted to see more, I wanted to know how they would deal with developing situations, and I wanted Miles to put Kiko in an airlock.

We could all dream of what could have been had DS9 gotten a season 8 XD Maybe the series finale wouldn't have gotten such a rush job.

 LordofHats wrote:

 ProtoClone wrote:
I am also in the camp of really liking DS9.

For me, it just felt like there was more to it because they didn't have to worry about exploring. They could actually look at the people who make up a small part of the universe and see how they act when they are not busy reacting. I wanted to see more, I wanted to know how they would deal with developing situations, and I wanted Miles to put Kiko in an airlock.

We could all dream of what could have been had DS9 gotten a season 8 XD Maybe the series finale wouldn't have gotten such a rush job.

All factions come to a peace agreement just to push Kiko out the airlock. Who would have known she was the one agitating force in the universe causing everyone to not get along? Without her, everyone was able to work on their relations and bettering the universe. That's how I imagine it ending.

I can't say Kiko ever bothered me that much, but we all have characters we hate XD

Let's push Eddington out the airlock to. So much wasted potential in that all over the place storyline...

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


After that? The Skaven nick it. Skaven. Who at 14 are often considered ancient (can’t remember where I read that, but I did!)? And breed in such numbers that life is literally a currency? Steal-steal man-thing weapon! Add more-much black Powder! Mix-stir Warpstone! If just one of them, just once, pulled it off, who knows the damage. But when you know your society only allows you to live so long? What’s the risk of testing your weapon, personally, as soon as it’s been built. Especially when you’re probably heavily indebted to another, higher ranking Skaven......what’ve you got to lose? If it kills you, at least it’s quick. If it works! KERCHING!

One Skaven (who I still argue has one of the best character models ever made), Ikit Claw, went far past black powder. He built a nuclear device! Well more a warp-nuclear device! Though I believe he never got to test it out, but yeah Skaven - building super weapons and laughing maniacally!

Manchu wrote:And that gets back to Yodhrin’s point that this is a fictional setting. The Dominion War isn’t a real thing that happened; it was a decision by some writers. And because of that decision, the setting went from “the flagship is a luxury liner” to “the Defiant is built to feth gak up the end” — this isn’t a “real life” lesson, that the world is a bad and violent place. The writers decided that a bad a violent setting would make for more interesting stories. This is kind of a problem going back to why Gene Roddenberry was muscled out of Star Trek. He pitched a setting with little to no conflict, which makes it hard to tell dramatic stories with space ships flying around shootin’ lasers and gak.

Overread wrote:You can tell loads of dramatic space stories without lots of guns - heck the first Alien film hardly has any actual guns in it at all.


Also the Galaxy to Sovereign wasn't a huge upgrade in weaponry. If anything it was still a standard capital ship for exploration first even though it was the newest pride of the fleet in its day. Voyager was also not bristling with weapons and that ship went into service right after the Dominion War and its first mission was hunting Marquis in the Badlands.

This also reminds me of the Defiant's sister ship and the crew that trained for it and how they were different to regular Starfleet officers. Indeed one or two episodes dealt with the issue that the War caused a split, esp in the younger ranks inspired by a few of the older, in Starfleet between those who were still primarily in the exploration side and those who were being brought through the system almost purely for military training and deployment.

Indeed when you consider that the Sovereign, whilst strongly built, is not built with the same war focus that the Defiant is; one wonders if Starfleet, even after the Dominion War, is settling back into its old habits. Or perhaps Starfleet itself will steadily split into two distinct forces.

Both using the same tech, but one force focused on exploratory ends and the other focusing on military. The latter would likely be somewhat less numerous but designed to be the elite force; able to be called in as a proper show of force. With the Borg, the Dominion and continual general tensions between Klingons, Romulans and Cardassians (though this latter group was pretty much crushed during the Dominion war) a rise in Starfleet of even a handful of military focused vessels could be very much needed to enforce and restore peace.



Heck it would have been a really interesting twist to have played with Voyager and then a series after if Voyager had settled in the Delta Quadrant. Settling down and building a new Starfleet that might one day (in generations later) meet up with the original Alpha quadrant block to find them far more military focused!

I was thinking less massive leaps in unbeatable war tech and more of the mindset to not stick a mass of kids in the front section of a ship. You know, the section that tends to eat the first torpedo shot.

While we're at it, though, the sleekness of the Sovereign design also lends itself to a much more military function. I'm betting the angles are there to make direct hits slightly less likely depending on the angle of approach.

Federation tech advancement makes a lot of sense in the setting for a lot of reasons.

-The Federation has members like the Zakdorn, who reputedly had a feared space fleet for thousands of years, as well as Deltans and Raandians and other aliens who had peaked with higher levels of technology than the current Federation thousands of years ago. Even the Vulcans once had psychic superweapons before their version of WW3 and the rise of Surak.

-The Federation values research into pure science more than most of its neighbors. This is how you get Genesis torpedoes or Soliton wave cannon.

-The Federation values Archaelogical research far more than their neighbors. Who needs to invent the next superweapons when you can download some dead super-empire's STC's?

-The Federation won the Time Game.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
This is how you get Genesis torpedoes

They weaponized the Genisis device from Star Trek II at some point? Or is it just a similar name?

I believe the Genesis device was originally a torpedo design wasn't it?

 Overread wrote:
I believe the Genesis device was originally a torpedo design wasn't it?

It was called the genesis device, but also IIRC when Carol Marcus is narrating the animation she calls it the genesis torpedo. I could be wrong.

 Overread wrote:
I believe the Genesis device was originally a torpedo design wasn't it?

My understanding is that the device could be mounted on a torpedo? Haven't seen the movie in awhile.

 Ahtman wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
This is how you get Genesis torpedoes

They weaponized the Genisis device from Star Trek II at some point? Or is it just a similar name?

Someone at some point used the phrase "Genesis Torpedo."


But everyone was thinking it.

Kruge correctly perceived that, whatever the intentions of the scientists working on the Genesis Project, the reality was that the Federation now had the power to near-instantaneously destroy all life on a planet. The political result was a Doomsday Weapon “gap” in the Federation-Klingon cold war arms race.

The fact that Carol Marcus and her team were allowed to work on this project not only implies a crisis in scientific ethics within the Federation but also either an absolutely astounding naïveté on the part of Starfleet Command or, more likely, a willingness to give super weapon R&D cover as legitimate research.

That or they were also looking at the future. Consider that whilst space is vast, habitable worlds are not highly common and the Federation offers a very high quality of life to its people. Furthermore they don't appear to aim to the ideal of living like rats in a den, all swarming atop each other. In fact whenever we see Federation worlds they show high standards of living coupled to low population densities.

With a high standard of living, long life etc.. its likely that the Federation faces a continually expanding population. Having a machine that could terraform worlds in moments; even totally dead worlds, would be an astounding thing. It would give them the ability to stave off population problems for a vast period of time.
Furthermore with refinement of the life generated it could even lower the period of time to adapt the world - for the tiny (comparative) cost of 1 Genesis device they could colonise new worlds far quicker, with reduced risk and investment and with a likely far higher success rate.

So you’re saying the Federation needs Lebensraum?

Ja, I’ve heard that one before. And I’m sure it also dawned on Kruge.

But I don’t think overpopulation is a problem for the Federation generally or humans specifically. I really doubt people in the Federation are having lots of kids. Federation culture seems to be very, very much about self-fulfillment. Plus there are apparently plenty of M-class planets with scarcely anything but nascent colonies.

Yes, but considering that their death rate is likely super low then chances are their populations are not going to stagnate easily. Plus that's just the humans and vulcan parts; there are many other species, some of which might breed far more so, esp with increased lifespan and survival that improved Federaiton medical care provides.

We can only go by what we have been shown, which very rarely is more than a very small family. Longer lifespans are also less of an issue because each life requires so much less space beyond the immediate conditions of one’s lifestyle. That is to say, vast tracks of land farmed or mined for resources to support the population — this is no longer any sort of factor. Yet nonetheless, we know very well that there are large areas of Earth itself that remain wilderness. The Picard family has to itself, a tiny little family, an entire vineyard. This is a lot of land to run for what amounts to nothing more than a sort of ethnic hobby if overpopulation is actually any sort of factor.

True, but don't forget most of our interaction is with the spaceforce. Whilst ships like the Enterprise were very spacious they were still spaceships at risk exploring. It wasn't the best of places to found a large family and like as not the workload and life (both parents on a spaceship are likely serving) meant that whilst it wasn't discouraged, large families were not encouraged.

You see a bit of a shift with DS9 but not a huge one but then its a subject area that the series never really focuses on.

Meanwhile back in the Original series days the ship didn't seem to have any kids on board. If anything it was more the Galaxy class edition that was more focused on that; the newer Enterprise seems to revert more twoard the original series, but it might also be that after the Bork, Dominion War etc....; families are not encouraged onto the capital ships (and might well be many family minded people don't want to serve on those ships because of the increased risk or at least not bring the family with them)

 Manchu wrote:
Kruge correctly perceived that, whatever the intentions of the scientists working on the Genesis Project, the reality was that the Federation now had the power to near-instantaneously destroy all life on a planet.

It seemed that it Khan, and Spock, also saw that possibility pretty quickly. IIRC Spock mentions its use as a weapon when first shown the info on the Enterprise; he thought it was interesting but saw the destructive potential fairly quickly. The Scientists may have been naive but I doubt that Starfleet was which raises questions about their intent, as has been pointed out.

 Overread wrote:
Meanwhile back in the Original series days the ship didn't seem to have any kids on board.

Darn tootin'! grumblegrumblegrumble

Actually it was McCoy who saw the destructive capability, which was why he was borderline in shock. Spock just illustrated the catastrophic power in an emotionless way.

It's also worth pointing out that Kruge saw it's use as an economic weapon right away. When his officer commented that it was impressive that they could make planets, Kruge's response was to sarcastically respond with how wonderful it would be to live on a paradise planet, with the flag of the Federation over your head. We've seen before in Star Trek how economic weapons can be valued very highly over simply destructive weapons.

I feel it’s a shame that Project Genesis was seemingly abandoned.

The theory is sound, but the alternative uses too much to ignore.

I wouldn’t mind a novel exploring the political side of that. I mean, which power wouldn’t want the ability to terraform planets in minutes? But how do you develop that tech, without the downside being exploited politically?

Crossing genres, but consider Sg-1, where a terraforming ship is adapting an fairly unique planet for its crypto-suspended species.

To be able to tailor a genesis probe for any species? That’s one hell of a tool of peace. Specific planets for anyone. What might that ability do for the Alpha Quadrant? Pick any non-M Class planet, squirt a prove at it. PRESTO BONGO! New planet for colonisation.

It could prevent wars, as a once scarce resource can now be made to order.

Heck, the ‘ideal world’ version is a simple concept. (Though good luck arranging it!). Collective, cross-power council. Representatives from each of the major powers, who solely produce the probes to order, with a mixed fleet to deliver the probe and oversee the terraforming.

In terms of minor powers, pirates/privateers trying to still a probe risk pissing off all the big boys at once. And with the major powers collaborating? Certain amount of safety.

So much of interest!

Heck, I’d settle for a series incorporating that (possibly post-Dominion war, given its unifying benefits) along with other relic projects.

I think Genesis is an example of where the films build something extreme that we never see much of again. Many of the films focus around very extreme situations or powerful entities that we don't see appear in the regular series. Take the Probe ship or Gensis or even the concept of travel to the centre of the glaxay - all things that happened and exist and yet vanish into the series after their respective films.

Of course we get things like the Borg and Q who are just as dangerous; but I was always a bit sad that we never found anything else out about the whale probe.

In Star Trek 3, we learn that Project Genesis is a failure, at least in terms of how its creators defined its purpose. The Genesis Planet self destructed because David Marcus used proto-matter as a short cut, and perhaps the only way to get Genesis to work at all.

The only remaining application was military and, absent any appearance of legitimacy, Starfleet Command would not be able to justify further development (much less use!) of this Doomsday Device. Even Federation hypocrisy has its limits.

 Manchu wrote:
In Star Trek 3, we learn that Project Genesis is a failure, at least in terms of how its creators defined its purpose. The Genesis Planet self destructed because David Marcus used proto-matter as a short cut, and perhaps the only way to get Genesis to work at all.

The only remaining application was military and, absent any appearance of legitimacy, Starfleet Command would not be able to justify further development (much less use!) of this Doomsday Device. Even Federation hypocrisy has its limits.

In a meta sense, it is notable they never deployed Genesis as a weapon against the Dominion or the Borg. It ever even comes up as an option.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
In Star Trek 3, we learn that Project Genesis is a failure, at least in terms of how its creators defined its purpose. The Genesis Planet self destructed because David Marcus used proto-matter as a short cut, and perhaps the only way to get Genesis to work at all.

The only remaining application was military and, absent any appearance of legitimacy, Starfleet Command would not be able to justify further development (much less use!) of this Doomsday Device. Even Federation hypocrisy has its limits.

In a meta sense, it is notable they never deployed Genesis as a weapon against the Dominion or the Borg. It ever even comes up as an option.

They probably buried it. Sometimes a weapon is so potentially horrific that you know your people won't accept its use. For a faction which is built on the backs of interspecies diplomacy such revelations could produce a shockwave sufficient to tear the Federation apart. It would be a case of winning a war through means that would lose them the war in the long run. Plus as powerful as the Dominion and Borg were, neither was honestly as grand a threat as would necessitate such a weapon. Both were defeated with losses, but use of conventional weapons.

In fact the Borg's direct threat to the Federation was defeated by a fleet of only Federation ships. One could argue that the Dominion, which required a full allied fleet of multiple factions, presented a far more real and direct threat. Of course the Borg threat has always been their vast resources outside of Federation reach; however save for the Queen making a one cube strike at the heart of the Federation, we don't actually see the Borg ever mobilise in great numbers. In fact I think the only time was potentially when they faced species 8472. Otherwise the Borg are quite cautious with their expansions. Even their Federation strike, had it worked and taken out Earth, might well have only caused local destabilising of the Federation. Ergo the Borg perhaps reacting to a long distance threat in advance ,but otherwise not committing large scale forces to cause total destruction/assimilation.
Even in the Delta Quadrant, where they have their powerbase, they similarly appear to haunt space, but not strike out in vast numbers. They take whole worlds, but nothing like what their potential numbers should allow them to take; esp when you consider that there's no unified single powerbase in that region of space to rise and oppose them.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
In Star Trek 3, we learn that Project Genesis is a failure, at least in terms of how its creators defined its purpose. The Genesis Planet self destructed because David Marcus used proto-matter as a short cut, and perhaps the only way to get Genesis to work at all.

The only remaining application was military and, absent any appearance of legitimacy, Starfleet Command would not be able to justify further development (much less use!) of this Doomsday Device. Even Federation hypocrisy has its limits.

In a meta sense, it is notable they never deployed Genesis as a weapon against the Dominion or the Borg. It ever even comes up as an option.

Unfortunately, Star Trek is full of mcguffins like that, though. Kind of the nature of an episodic tv series.

 Just Tony wrote:
Actually it was McCoy who saw the destructive capability, which was why he was borderline in shock. Spock just illustrated the catastrophic power in an emotionless way.

"My God Man you're talking about universal Armageddon!"



Automatically Appended Next Post:
If the Fed wanted to they could go back in time and hit the Borg, romulan, Klingon, and Dominion homeworlds with genesis torpedoes.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Actually it was McCoy who saw the destructive capability, which was why he was borderline in shock. Spock just illustrated the catastrophic power in an emotionless way.

"My God Man you're talking about universal Armageddon!"



Automatically Appended Next Post:
If the Fed wanted to they could go back in time and hit the Borg, romulan, Klingon, and Dominion homeworlds with genesis torpedoes.

Thing is Time Travel is never that simple. Who knows any one of a number of minor races could have risen to be worse than any of those races. Plus look at the Klingons, one time enemies and another the bastion of power that holds up the military end of the Federation (when pressed into service and not mourning the loss of their Empire)

 Manchu wrote:
So you’re saying the Federation needs Lebensraum?

The development of the Genesis device instantly meant that the Federation no longer needed lebensraum. Unlike the Klingon Empire a few years later.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the families on board the Enterprise D, that was a wasted story element in TNG. Not as terrible as Voyager ditching its premise almost instantly, but the idea was originally that as the Enterprise D was on a 12-year mission rather than the 5-year missions of the Constitution-class ships a couple of generations earlier it was decided that separating people from their families for so long wasn't viable. YMMV on balancing that with the danger of having your kids along while poking at this week's negative space wedgie, but there you are. Instead, because the separation idea turned out to be expensive and time-consuming, it was left mostly ignored except when they needed some children to scare Picard with.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
So you’re saying the Federation needs Lebensraum?

The development of the Genesis device instantly meant that the Federation no longer needed lebensraum. Unlike the Klingon Empire a few years later.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the families on board the Enterprise D, that was a wasted story element in TNG. Not as terrible as Voyager ditching its premise almost instantly, but the idea was originally that as the Enterprise D was on a 12-year mission rather than the 5-year missions of the Constitution-class ships a couple of generations earlier it was decided that separating people from their families for so long wasn't viable. YMMV on balancing that with the danger of having your kids along while poking at this week's negative space wedgie, but there you are. Instead, because the separation idea turned out to be expensive and time-consuming, it was left mostly ignored except when they needed some children to scare Picard with.

I mean, Siskos backstory shows exactly why having families on board is a horrid idea.
Hell, Star Trek itself is dangerous around every corner. Keiko couldnt even go to a cave without getting possed by a space alien.

To be fair, Keiko was an O’Brien, so her suffering should be viewed as exceptional, rather than the norm

Well, the exception for everyone else. For an O'Brien, just another Tuesday.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Actually it was McCoy who saw the destructive capability, which was why he was borderline in shock. Spock just illustrated the catastrophic power in an emotionless way.

"My God Man you're talking about universal Armageddon!"



Automatically Appended Next Post:
If the Fed wanted to they could go back in time and hit the Borg, romulan, Klingon, and Dominion homeworlds with genesis torpedoes.

Sorry, gotta go just a touch OCD nerd here...


"My God, do you thing we're intelligent enough? I mean, suppose this thing was used where life already existed..."

"It would destroy such life in favor of its new matrix."

"'Its new matrix'? Do you have any idea what you're saying?!?!?!?"


Later was:

"Logic?!?!?! My God, the man's talking about logic! We're talking about UNIVERSAL ARMAGEDDON here!!"

 Overread wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Actually it was McCoy who saw the destructive capability, which was why he was borderline in shock. Spock just illustrated the catastrophic power in an emotionless way.

"My God Man you're talking about universal Armageddon!"



Automatically Appended Next Post:
If the Fed wanted to they could go back in time and hit the Borg, romulan, Klingon, and Dominion homeworlds with genesis torpedoes.

Thing is Time Travel is never that simple. Who knows any one of a number of minor races could have risen to be worse than any of those races. Plus look at the Klingons, one time enemies and another the bastion of power that holds up the military end of the Federation (when pressed into service and not mourning the loss of their Empire)

If the Dalek has taught us anything, its that, thats not a problem either. Exterminate! Exterminate!
They could always just do the proper short term time loop thing. If they lose a fight, just go back six months or so, tell yourselves proper strategy, and win the battle. After all, thats how we won Midway. It took 27 tries!*

*Not how we won Midway. We borrowed some haggis bombs from the Brits. No one expects the Haggis!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
To be fair, Keiko was an O’Brien, so her suffering should be viewed as exceptional, rather than the norm

That is 100% true. I fear for molly, she might want to change her name later on.

But its more of my point that star trek is so infinetly dangerous because every week they needed to make a threat to the crew.
Think of it as a military vessel today, While having families onboard is a bad idea, for its infinetly more safer than it would be on the enterprise.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

But its more of my point that star trek is so infinetly dangerous because every week they needed to make a threat to the crew.
Think of it as a military vessel today, While having families onboard is a bad idea, for its infinetly more safer than it would be on the enterprise.

One thing that I think is important to keep in mind is the span of time between these super dangerous situations happen. . . The world of Trek is more like a modern military deployment than say, WW1. By that I mean that, if we turned my deployments into episodic adventures in a TV show, you'd undoubtedly skip a ton of "boring bits" . . . in my 2nd tour to the sandbox, the instances where my life was genuinely in peril, you could count on one hand easily, and 2 hands if you start expanding. In contrast, in WW1, if you were on the front you had the breakfast shelling, the 2nd breakfast shelling, the tea-time shelling, the dinner "rush" to counter the shelling you've been receiving all day, etc. (ie, the danger is much much more close together given the same timeline).


In the world of Trek its the same thing: the episodes are written and tailored to only show us glimpses of the "exciting" bits of a tour of duty in starfleet. You really don't ever see the day-to-day work that goes on for the vast majority of time.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

But its more of my point that star trek is so infinetly dangerous because every week they needed to make a threat to the crew.
Think of it as a military vessel today, While having families onboard is a bad idea, for its infinetly more safer than it would be on the enterprise.

One thing that I think is important to keep in mind is the span of time between these super dangerous situations happen. . . The world of Trek is more like a modern military deployment than say, WW1. By that I mean that, if we turned my deployments into episodic adventures in a TV show, you'd undoubtedly skip a ton of "boring bits" . . . in my 2nd tour to the sandbox, the instances where my life was genuinely in peril, you could count on one hand easily, and 2 hands if you start expanding. In contrast, in WW1, if you were on the front you had the breakfast shelling, the 2nd breakfast shelling, the tea-time shelling, the dinner "rush" to counter the shelling you've been receiving all day, etc. (ie, the danger is much much more close together given the same timeline).


In the world of Trek its the same thing: the episodes are written and tailored to only show us glimpses of the "exciting" bits of a tour of duty in starfleet. You really don't ever see the day-to-day work that goes on for the vast majority of time.

That episode where Data is going through a daily routine was one of my favorite episodes PRECISELY because of that.

I just finished DS9, and I want to respond to like, half the posts in this thread, but the main thing I want to share for now is my theory of how the federation (as distinct from star fleet) operates.

The Federation is pretty consistently portrayed as a damn near utopia for its citizens. Everybody is fed, safe, sheltered, educated, and given medical care. Nobody we meet from the federation knows want. Even explicitly "unsuccessful" people like Bashir's father have a high standard of living. Some of this is clearly due to being, if not completely post scarcity, at least able to replicate most consumer goods. Replicators also replace societies crappiest jobs: unskilled manufacturing, food service, and retail.

But... scarcity isn't the only reason utopias collapse. the other reason is greed or ambition from people that want to "advance." Hence, Star Fleet. I'm sure Star Fleet does important work, but it's also a place to stash all of your ambitious, enthusiastic, risk taking folks. If a person can't handle that level of militaristic discipline, you always have the freighter ships, or colonial life. I think the Federation succeeds because it takes virtually all of it's most driven people, and pushes them into star Fleet. It's enough like a military to serve as the defense force and to provide discilpline and oversight, but it's also broad enough to pull in people from virtually every profession. They make a big deal of getting into the academy, but pretty much everybody we meet does.

Star Fleet, especially as an exploration and skirmish force, is the release valve for all of the Federation, to allow everybody else to be poets, chefs, etc.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So. Yeah. DS9 ruined Star Trek by being utterly brilliant.

You're god-damned right. DS9 is by far the best Star Trek and sadly nothing will come close to matching it from now on because people simply don't have the stomach for it.

Since were talking about doomsday devices...You really would have thought that the Romulans of all species would be okay with using one. Yet when they secretly invaded the dominion - they only brought plasma torpedoes - which I believe they said a 30 minute bombardment with 30 ships (I think) would have destroyed the planet. Realistically I find it hard to believe this was the best method. Destroying a planet cant actually be that hard when you have antimatter and subspace weapons and your ships are literally powered by mini black holes.

Lack of use of the Gensisis device as a weapon can be explained by the destruction of everything related to it.
The databases got wiped, Dr Marcus the Elder's team got wiped out including her son, [I believe she was the sole surviour?] the Reliant and the only example got blown up, and the planet it made imploded.

Carol would of had to rebuild the entire project from her notes herself, and I believe the expanded universe stuff makes it clear she wasn't willing to do that.



As for the 'Time Travel as a weaon!' We saw how that ended up in the Year of Hell in Voyager. You can't just keep deleting things till you get the perfect outcome.
[Unless you're talking about actual voyager episodes. You can delete a few of those and improve the outcome.]

Anyone else super hyped for Star Trek Picard?

Except it was used after by terrafomers (wasn't that a DS9 episode?).