Which is nonsense.
What is your personal head canon?
- Thread starter AmandaSmith
- Start date
Is it? Names have A LOT of meaning & the Historical Baggage that comes with it.
Now multiply that across all the various species and their personal species Historical Baggage with the base word "Military".
For PR purposes alone, it's a smart move.
I'm sure there are plenty of misconceptions that will show up in a potential first contact situation if they called themselves the Military instead of Explorers.
If UFP doesn't want to call StarFleet the Federation Military or Federation Star Navy in name, what's the harm?
At the end of the day, they rise up and do what's needed when it comes time to do battle.
When they have to fight, they fight.
When there's war to be had, they show up and show out.
When there's a group of people that need saving, they get it done.
Yes.
People already hold Starfleet officers to ridiculous standards.
I have no reason to trust them then
I think he could be onto something to some degree. Also could be a defense mechanism against people wanting to come in and turn it into military fiction.
These are reasons that I can, if not agree with, at least grasp.
That's because people want "Perfection", the unattainable.
People have too high of an expectation.
Just because of a name?
Weren't you taught to not judge a book by it's cover?
I can potentially see it, but the standards applied to Starfleet officers is even more egregious than anything I expect from military members.
So, saying there are exceptions of behavior and we shouldn't want military expectations the standards for Starfleet officers by many different fan opinions I've seen around are more extreme.
Military Sci-Fi is fine in "Small Doses".
But Trek already does that well enough in "Small Doses".
We don't need the entire series to be Military Sci-Fi.
Trek is good as it is, a variety show.
I don't find their name to be "Dishonest", or their descriptor.
StarFleet claims to be a organization filled with Fleets of vessels that travels between the Stars.
Anything More or Less than that is up to the details that can be discussed later on once you talk to the rest of the organization first hand and see what they're up to.
So how does the UFP / StarFleet rate to you then?
You've seen their history, from the 22nd -> 32nd Century and some aspects of time periods after.
Eh, 70 percent. They've succeeded at many wars, and negotiations, and sometimes less successfully.
They're slow sometimes, difficult other times, and have a lot of leaders who go crazy. So, mixed bag at times.
Like any other government agency. Some good, some dishonesty.
So if we go by "School Letter Grade" ratings, a 70% would be equivalent to a "C-"
Can your organization fight as a matter of government policy for defense of its nation. That's a military.
Call it that.
Don't lie to me.
Go for it.
Tell that to the UFP PR team and how it presents itself.
That is on the writers of the various shows.
True.
The UFP boasts it's a utopian democracy with the freest citizens in the known galaxy yet quietly tolerates Section 31 and the attempted genocide of enemy species, both the Klingons in the war of 2256-57 and the Founders of the Dominion nearly 120 years later. PR over how they portray Starfleet is the least of their problems.
No, tell it to the writers to create some consistency.
Or not.
I am looking for entertainment and good stories not a government audit.
Absolutely. Though sometimes they can blow the illusion by not creating a “believable” background.
Similar threads
