• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

What changed federation?

It seems when I watch TOS that Starfleet, and even the Federation, were more hawkish in some regards. And yet, by the time we get to TNG, it seems as if the Federation's politics have become less 'involved' and Starfleet seems more like an administration arm when there are not wars going on.

Is there some conflict between TUC and TNG that starts this liberalism shift in Federation politics? Or, do we see the begining in TUC with how the Khitomer accords showed a more galactic 'congress' at work.

Rob
Scorpio
 
Starfleet always had some "boring" admin jobs back in TOS. Medical check ups. Transportation of asshole Bureaucrats. Guarding wheat. Exploring strange new worlds. Even Kirk admits to be more of an explorer than a soldier.

Not sure how hawkish the TOS Federation was. Kirk was alway going on about peace and love while willing fight if needed.

Though with the near collapse of the Klingon Empire and the withdrawl of the Romulans from Galactic affairs, the UFP might have grown a little complacent being the obnly "Super Power" left. There were wars with the Cardassians between TUC and TNG.
 
Starfleet always had some "boring" admin jobs back in TOS. Medical check ups. Transportation of asshole Bureaucrats. Guarding wheat. Exploring strange new worlds. Even Kirk admits to be more of an explorer than a soldier.

Not sure how hawkish the TOS Federation was. Kirk was alway going on about peace and love while willing fight if needed.

Though with the near collapse of the Klingon Empire and the withdrawl of the Romulans from Galactic affairs, the UFP might have grown a little complacent being the obnly "Super Power" left. There were wars with the Cardassians between TUC and TNG.

Yeah, I see it that way too. But it just seems to me that during TNG ere, but before the war with the Dominion, not much in terms are military action was happening at all. Even the Cardassians don't reallycome into the picture until the third season I think, and even then the war with them happened some time back...have there been books written about those times?? I mean, were Sisko-Picard-Janeway all active in that carddasian pre-TNG war or not?

Rob
 
there were the Cardassian Wars, the Galen Border Conflict with the Talarians, the Tzenkethi conflict Sisko served in and also at least one Tholian sneak-attack. So, the wars were either going on pre-TNG or off-camera.
 
Out-Universe you had GR's semi-pacifist leanings. the war factor picked up a bit after he was gone.
 
I think things felt a little more hawkish because there was always a little more danger on Kirk's Enterprise. It seems like they were always on the brink of war with the Klingons or the Romulans or of being destroyed by some hostile unknown lifeform. Kirk's Enterprise always seemed to be out on the edge of the frontier.

Picard's Enterprise seemed more confined to established Federation territory.

Furthermore, although there were quite a few wars between the 1st Khitomer Accords & the Dominion War, I don't think those were very big. I'm sure combat was fierce and many people died but I doubt that the Federation itself was in any great danger at the time. I doubt the Tholians, Tzenkethi, or even the Cardassians were quite on the galactic superpower level of the Federation. On the other hand, the Dominion and the Klingon Empire (in the 23rd century anyway) were legitimate superpowers in their own rights and had grandiose designs of galactic conquest.

Transportation of asshole Bureaucrats.

Amen to that. Hell, did they ever ferry a bureaucrat who wasn't an asshole? They should just make assholebureaucrat one word.
 
One would think that a pre-replicator UFP would be more desperate to get its hands on key resources than a post-replicator one. Also, a larger and stronger UFP would feel less need to grab strategically important star systems or enter into fierce contests about the friendship and support of a third party.

Also, a big and bad Federation could be so big and bad that even if it fought wars similar to those of TOS or worse, they would only involve a small percentage of UFP territory and Starfleet forces. Apparently, the 24th century was much more violent than the 23rd, as Kirk liked to insist that conflict was a thing of the past, while Picard was always bringing up military conflicts that had been ongoing during his earlier career. Yet the crew of a given exploration starship would see less conflict in the 24th...

Timo Saloniemi
 
It seems when I watch TOS that Starfleet, and even the Federation, were more hawkish in some regards. And yet, by the time we get to TNG, it seems as if the Federation's politics have become less 'involved' and Starfleet seems more like an administration arm when there are not wars going on.

Is there some conflict between TUC and TNG that starts this liberalism shift in Federation politics? Or, do we see the begining in TUC with how the Khitomer accords showed a more galactic 'congress' at work.

Rob
Scorpio

I think there's a retro-conservative aspect starting with TWOK, not TUC. By SFS, you've got political paranoia in an X-FILES vein permeating the FED and SF with the Genesis business, and you start getting these bureaucratic incompetent or martinet commanders that make Ron Tracey seem great by comparison (hey at least Tracey could fight!)

I've believed that Bennett got the idea to develop this from an unused Sowards idea for TWOK (discussed in Asherman's MAKING OF ST 2), that Starfleet has abandoned 'to explore strange new/to boldly go' in favor of just protecting what it already has, and that THIS is what brought Kirk to his midlife crisis, since he is questioning what he has dedicated his life to.
I thought this was a great notion, but without them explaining it a bit, it just comes off as an arbitrary change (esp in SFS), practically a retcon of the trek universe.

That's in keeping with what some of the screenwriters of TUC and/or TVH have said about Bennett coughing up 'new' ideas a year or so after they've been presented by other writers and rejected.

A lot of it may just be Bennett trying to do as much of the conventional movie thinking thing for Trek (as explained in an Alan Alda flick: defy authority, blow shit up, show tits) as he could do with a pg rating, but it is basically just presenting straw men as obstacles for Kirk & co. It's a bummer, because with an actor as good as Robert Hooks, the scene with Morrow and Shatner could have been dynamite if there was a real character for Kirk to play off of (sort of like the Picard/Dougherty scene in INS should have been, come to think of it.)

It is worth noting, though, that a lot of the GR utopia shit went away (or became unspoken) well before he croaked. I mean, they stopped being vegan/vegetarian (which was a major story point first season TNG) by season four with Picard talking about fish eggs and such (Jeri Taylor seemed to work eating meat in more than all the other writers put together.) And the TNG movies were, with the partial exception of INS, practically a repudiation of the TNG universe, where everything is gunboat diplomacy. Not saying that repudiating the TNG universe is a bad thing, just that if you're going to do it, do it WELL (make stuff at least as exciting as GALAXY QUEST ... the part where the shuttle almost crashed in GQ, and when the ship is revealed in GQ, is better than anything in the TNG flicks.)
 
Not saying that repudiating the TNG universe is a bad thing, just that if you're going to do it, do it WELL (make stuff at least as exciting as GALAXY QUEST ... the part where the shuttle almost crashed in GQ, and when the ship is revealed in GQ, is better than anything in the TNG flicks.)

I agree!! GQ is probably the best TREK movies of the 90s!

Rob
Scorpio
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top