Spoilers Does the _____ really need to be restored?
- Thread starter Ketrick
- Start date
Or maybe they were just disloyal cowards who chickened out rather than face the truth.
And let's face it, how "centralized" can you hope to get with hundreds of member worlds? There comes a point beyond which no more centralization is possible.
So, instead of working together out of mutual cooperation its via of threat punishment for leaving?
It wouldn't have to go that far. I'm thinking more along the lines of having sector governors who under certain specific circumstances could overrule the decisions and/or laws of planetary governments in a more direct and less distant way than the far away Federation government on Earth.
What makes you think such things did not exist in the old Federation?
There has never been a mention of them unless they were created in the centuries between Picard and The Burn. I would also point out that their existence would make it difficult for planets to just walk away even in the aftermath of The Burn.
In an age where interstellar communication is instantaneous, the concept of how "distant" the Federation government may or may not be, becomes largely irrelevant.
The Federation' governmental structure has been presented in pretty broad strokes. We've little info on what's between the Federal and local level.
True, but one would think there'd be at least a reference made in passing.
But do we even know if there were flaws?
What felled the Federation was basically, post-Dilithium or some such analogue. Not complaints over abuses of power, or human imperialism, or maybe the Xindi and Klingons hijacking the Federation. The Federation just couldn't exist as a polity. Interstellar unions with STL tech is, by and large, impossible.
Strong disagree. It is good for systems to be self-reliant and able to survive on their own if need be. This is what we saw happen. The Federation couldn't reach systems in time, trade faltered, so why stay a part of it? We've seen the inverse: when colonies are too small, or systems on the egde of collapse, that just means a bad time for everybody.
The universe isn't awash with blood. People just can't get anywhere quickly, and it seems to be near universal. Everything is back to a pre-warp era level. Nothing wrong there.
What felled the Federation was basically, post-Dilithium or some such analogue. Not complaints over abuses of power, or human imperialism, or maybe the Xindi and Klingons hijacking the Federation. The Federation just couldn't exist as a polity. Interstellar unions with STL tech is, by and large, impossible.
Strong disagree. It is good for systems to be self-reliant and able to survive on their own if need be. This is what we saw happen. The Federation couldn't reach systems in time, trade faltered, so why stay a part of it? We've seen the inverse: when colonies are too small, or systems on the egde of collapse, that just means a bad time for everybody.
The universe isn't awash with blood. People just can't get anywhere quickly, and it seems to be near universal. Everything is back to a pre-warp era level. Nothing wrong there.
Not if it wasn't in service of the plot. The Federation of government is only basically sketched out. There's a lot of assumptions that the Federation "needs fixing" because it failed to anticipate a galaxy wide cataclysm.
Why? It's fiction. We get the information we need to the tell the story.
Once something falls, it's never the same again even if it returns.
After VOY, they could've moved forward. What did they do? They gave us two prequels on the TV side and a reboot on the film side. They resisted going passed Nemesis for almost 20 years. It took almost 20 years to change that mindset among the people who have the power to make these things happen.
I think this is why they resisted as long as they did: they thought moving forward would just create more of the same. And, by appearances, it seems for 700 years after Discovery left the 23rd Century it was all basically just the same thing but more advanced.
Part of the reason why I think they did The Burn was to shake things up so when Discovery arrived in The Future, it wouldn't be more of the same. On a related tangent: with Picard, they just switched gears to make it about a personal story about someone no longer in Starfleet. In both DSC's third season and PIC, they made sure that it wouldn't be Just Another Starfleet Ship that just happened to be in a different century. Discovery is now completely unlike any other Starfleet ship in the time it's ended up in and La Sirena isn't a Starfleet ship at all.
So, underneath this mindset, we might see the Federation rise again like a phoenix from the ashes, but they'll never make it like it was before again. It'll be something else, with a different set-up, and doing things a different way.
If they want to show the Traditional Federation in a series, they'll have it take place before The Burn.
After VOY, they could've moved forward. What did they do? They gave us two prequels on the TV side and a reboot on the film side. They resisted going passed Nemesis for almost 20 years. It took almost 20 years to change that mindset among the people who have the power to make these things happen.
I think this is why they resisted as long as they did: they thought moving forward would just create more of the same. And, by appearances, it seems for 700 years after Discovery left the 23rd Century it was all basically just the same thing but more advanced.
Part of the reason why I think they did The Burn was to shake things up so when Discovery arrived in The Future, it wouldn't be more of the same. On a related tangent: with Picard, they just switched gears to make it about a personal story about someone no longer in Starfleet. In both DSC's third season and PIC, they made sure that it wouldn't be Just Another Starfleet Ship that just happened to be in a different century. Discovery is now completely unlike any other Starfleet ship in the time it's ended up in and La Sirena isn't a Starfleet ship at all.
So, underneath this mindset, we might see the Federation rise again like a phoenix from the ashes, but they'll never make it like it was before again. It'll be something else, with a different set-up, and doing things a different way.
If they want to show the Traditional Federation in a series, they'll have it take place before The Burn.
Last edited:
The more detail that gets piled on in an episode, boxes writers in later on down the line. It can force them to worm their way out of uncomfortable lines or ignore them altogether. If Star Trek V had suddenly started enumerating the 67 Articles of the Treaty of Organia and the bilaws concerning the allotment of mining claims to persons interested in settling on Nimbus III, apart from making it an even worse movie, it would have further required screenwriters to become Memory Alpha historians more than they already are if they ever wanted to revisit that time period. It's better to leave things vague as possible and let the viewers imagine as they like, post youtube videos about it or discuss here.
I'm kind of glad I don't have to know how the Federation runs.
The "Litverse" I suppose is the exception to that as those details do appeal more to a good deal of the readers, and as they are not canon anyway, any details set down are not concrete, nor should they be expected to be.
Restored yes for those who want to it back. However only the long lived species born before The Burn will remember the Federation. As Earth said they are doing fine without it, so why need it? Once warp or whatever is restored, alliances between planets can take place without a formal 'Federation.'
(I hope Kronos never joined the Federation)
(I hope Kronos never joined the Federation)
Excellent points. I agree. This is why I don't get that there's so much disagreement with recognizing this and giving the new entity a new name even if it is simply the New Federation or the Federation of the Milky Way Galaxy or some other name.
You wouldn't need much in the way of details. All you would need is a line or two of dialogue by a planetary leader or high ranking Starfleet officer mentioning a sector governor/leader over a sector. That's all that would be required and yet there has been nothing.
It's the sort irrelevant detail that only trivia junkie fans care about.
In over 50 years of Star Trek tv and movie, I have seen one starfleet toilet. One. And it was in a brig.
I will be concerned with whoever the shadow minister for the federation department of colonial ladder safety is when I see toilet number 47.
There are different political terms that can be used.
Union : e.g, Europrean Union, Soviet Union, Planetary Union.
Commonwealth : e.g, Commonwealth of Nations, Commonwealth of Australia, Systems Commonwealth.
Dominion : e.g, Dominion of Canada.
Confederation : e.g, Swiss Confederation.
There are also plenty of interesting political names of governments in Star Trek as well.
Union : e.g, Europrean Union, Soviet Union, Planetary Union.
Commonwealth : e.g, Commonwealth of Nations, Commonwealth of Australia, Systems Commonwealth.
Dominion : e.g, Dominion of Canada.
Confederation : e.g, Swiss Confederation.
There are also plenty of interesting political names of governments in Star Trek as well.
I don't see the need from a story point of view.
