Another Lit Wish List Thread

[DrBashir]

It also means that you don't have to ignore something just because somebody else can't/won't figure out how it fits.

It's a new universe, why can't things be different in it? We already have no Vulcan, no Amanda, a larger ship, a younger crew. Why must the Federation be exactly as it was portrayed in the past?

Spock has realized that his Vulcan heritage was a milstone around his neck that he's lucky to be rid of. That he's free to love a human woman. That the surviving Vulcans will get along just fine without him. Embrace change people.

 

[JD]

Except a Federation is not an armada, and to call it one doesn't make sense. Now, a Starfleet on the other hand, could be an armada.

 

[captcalhoun]

the Federation had already been around for what, 70 years?, before Nero dropped in to the nu universe so it's pretty freakin obvious the Federation is going to be really goddamn similar to the other timeline Federation.

 

[DrBashir]

How similar is the government of Japan if you compare 1935 & 1960? Or The Soviet Union and Russia/Ukraine/etc after the fall of communism?

A lot can change in 25 years regardless of how long a particular government has been around.

 

[JD]

Yeah, but it's still not going to change the meaning of the words Federation, and Starfleet. I find it alot easier to believe that it was mistake, than I do that Federation could suddenly refer to an armada instead of

Definition of FEDERATION

1
: an encompassing political or societal entity formed by uniting smaller or more localized entities: as a : a federal government b : a union of organizations

(from Meriam-Webster.com)

 

[DrBashir]

hu·man·i·tar·i·an
1.having concern for or helping to improve the welfare and happiness of people.
2.of or pertaining to ethical or theological humanitarianism.
3.pertaining to the saving of human lives or to the alleviation of suffering: a humanitarian crisis.

Ar·ma·da
1. Also called Invincible Armada, Spanish Armada. the fleet sent against England by Philip II of Spain in 1588. It was defeated by the English navy and later dispersed and wrecked by storms.
2. ( lowercase ) any fleet of warships.
3. ( lowercase ) a large group or force of vehicles, airplanes, etc.: an armada of transport trucks.

So, either way, what we have is a large group of vehicles of some sort dedicated to protecting human beings. And/or a fleet of warships dedicated to imposing peace. If Starfleet is the main or major component of the Federation then calling it an armada would work. This is a Federation in decline as evidenced by Pike takling about how Starfleet needs people like Kirk. "In my opinion it's something Starfleet's lost." A Starfleet that got it's nose bloodied and started building bigger and bigger ships.

And what exactly is the primary fleet doing in the Laurentian system? A little "peace through superior firepower"? There's a planetary distress call from a founding memebr of the Federation and none of the ships can be recalled? It's not like they're just on an exercise then. The admiral does say that they're "engaged"

 

[Sci]

How similar is the government of Japan if you compare 1935 & 1960? Or The Soviet Union and Russia/Ukraine/etc after the fall of communism?

A lot can change in 25 years regardless of how long a particular government has been around.

Japan is still Japan, not a collection of boats.

Just like the Federation is still the Federation, not a collection of starships.

 

[DrBashir]

Not according to Abrahms.

 

[JD]

If Starfleet is the main or major component of the Federation then calling it an armada would work.

No, because even if it's a major component, it's still not the whole thing, and if it was the whole thing then it wouldn't be The Federation anymore, it would just be Starfleet. An armada is a group of ships, a Federation is a government. Ships can work for the government, but they can not be the government. It just doesn't make sense to refer to a group of ships as a federation, because it goes against the definition of the word. I guess the government could operate from the ships, but it would still not be the ships. Armada refers to a physical group of ships, while federation refers to the abstract government. No matter how you try to work around it, it still goes against the definitions of the words.

 

[Christopher]

Except a Federation is not an armada, and to call it one doesn't make sense.

Well, that depends on which definition you use. Let's go to the dictionary:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/armada

One of the definitions is a fleet of warships, yes, but another is "a large group or force of vehicles, airplanes, etc." Okay, it's probably meant to refer only to vehicles, but if you take that "etc." broadly enough, could it perhaps extend to anything, including planets? Who knows? Perhaps by the 23rd century the meaning of the word has blurred even more than it already has.

 

[JD]

Ok, I admit I screwed up there, I only looked up Federation when I should have looked up both. I apologize.
And there is a slightly different definition on the Merriam-Webster website:

: a fleet of warships
2
: a large force or group usually of moving things <an armada of fishing boats>

And if anything, that actually works against my ideas even more, since technically a planet us a moving thing. But I still don't think it's appropriate the refer to the Federation as we know it, it just sounds way to militaristic for me.

 

[Avro Arrow]

So, either way, what we have is a large group of vehicles of some sort dedicated to protecting human beings. And/or a fleet of warships dedicated to imposing peace. If Starfleet is the main or major component of the Federation then calling it an armada would work.

Well sure, in the sense that calling the United States of America an armada because it has a large Navy "works".

Just for the novelty of posting something related to the topic: I also wish that the Crucible omnibus, with all the extra stories originally announced, could somehow see the light of day.

 

[JD]

Yeah, or at least the new content.

 

[Sci]

How similar is the government of Japan if you compare 1935 & 1960? Or The Soviet Union and Russia/Ukraine/etc after the fall of communism?

A lot can change in 25 years regardless of how long a particular government has been around.

Japan is still Japan, not a collection of boats.

Just like the Federation is still the Federation, not a collection of starships.

Not according to Abrahms.

Who's Abrahms? I've never heard of this person.

I have heard of someone named J.J. Abrams, who directed the 2009 Star Trek film. But since you're so insistent that we cannot simply decide that Abrams made a mistake by having Pike call the Federation an "armada" rather than Starfleet, I can only conclude that I therefore should not decide that you made a mistake by mentioning someone named "Abrahms" rather than J.J. Abrams.

 

[Kertrats47]

Not according to Abrahms.

Who's Abrahms? I've never heard of this person.

I have heard of someone named J.J. Abrams, who directed the 2009 Star Trek film. But since you're so insistent that we cannot simply decide that Abrams made a mistake by having Pike call the Federation an "armada" rather than Starfleet, I can only conclude that I therefore should not decide that you made a mistake by mentioning someone named "Abrahms" rather than J.J. Abrams.

Sci wins the thread!

Seriously, though. Yeah, I think it was a mistake in the film. I'm pretty sure Starfleet was the implication rather than the Federation.

 

[Sci]

Not according to Abrahms.

Who's Abrahms? I've never heard of this person.

I have heard of someone named J.J. Abrams, who directed the 2009 Star Trek film. But since you're so insistent that we cannot simply decide that Abrams made a mistake by having Pike call the Federation an "armada" rather than Starfleet, I can only conclude that I therefore should not decide that you made a mistake by mentioning someone named "Abrahms" rather than J.J. Abrams.

Sci wins the thread!

Thank you. You are too kind.

 

[JD]

Japan is still Japan, not a collection of boats.

Just like the Federation is still the Federation, not a collection of starships.

Not according to Abrahms.

Who's Abrahms? I've never heard of this person.

I have heard of someone named J.J. Abrams, who directed the 2009 Star Trek film. But since you're so insistent that we cannot simply decide that Abrams made a mistake by having Pike call the Federation an "armada" rather than Starfleet, I can only conclude that I therefore should not decide that you made a mistake by mentioning someone named "Abrahms" rather than J.J. Abrams.

I almost commented on that myself, but now I'm glad I didn't, because nothing I wrote could have come close to the awesomeness of that post.

 

[DrBashir]

Japan is still Japan, not a collection of boats.

Just like the Federation is still the Federation, not a collection of starships.

Not according to Abrahms.

Who's Abrahms? I've never heard of this person.

I have heard of someone named J.J. Abrams, who directed the 2009 Star Trek film. But since you're so insistent that we cannot simply decide that Abrams made a mistake by having Pike call the Federation an "armada" rather than Starfleet, I can only conclude that I therefore should not decide that you made a mistake by mentioning someone named "Abrahms" rather than J.J. Abrams.

Yes, you're entirely correct because someone getting one letter wrong in a name on an internet message board should carry exactly the same weight as the producer/director/script tweaker of a $150 million dollar movie adding a line in post production that is intended to clarify the story of said movie. I'm sure J.J. just jotted it off and when it was pointed out that it didn't make any sense just shrugged his shoulders and said "Who cares? It's not like it HAS to make sense anyway. It's just a multi-million dollar movie. It's not like we actually have to put any sort of effort into making sure we're doing our best here."

Yeah, that must be it...

 

[Sci]

Not according to Abrahms.

Who's Abrahms? I've never heard of this person.

I have heard of someone named J.J. Abrams, who directed the 2009 Star Trek film. But since you're so insistent that we cannot simply decide that Abrams made a mistake by having Pike call the Federation an "armada" rather than Starfleet, I can only conclude that I therefore should not decide that you made a mistake by mentioning someone named "Abrahms" rather than J.J. Abrams.

Yes, you're entirely correct because someone getting one letter wrong in a name on an internet message board should carry exactly the same weight as the producer/director/script tweaker of a $150 million dollar movie adding a line in post production that is intended to clarify the story of said movie. I'm sure J.J. just jotted it off and when it was pointed out that it didn't make any sense just shrugged his shoulders and said "Who cares? It's not like it HAS to make sense anyway. It's just a multi-million dollar movie. It's not like we actually have to put any sort of effort into making sure we're doing our best here."

Yeah, that must be it...

That, or people just make mistakes sometimes and we should accept that and get over it.

 

[DrBashir]

Or that he meant exactly what he wrote and people should simply accept that things are different now.

Whatever floats your boat.