posted
To clarify: when I said ideal, I meant striving for perfection, not perfect; a "perfect" human being is impossible. An ideal human being is absent of the petty conflicts that plague many of us. Thus, I think The Mighty Monkey Of Mim and I are in agreement.
Also, "Starship Troopers," as someone suggested, seems to be a good example of Star Trek without the "stuff" that makes a show Star Trek. Lots of military overtones, Nazi-esque uniforms, and petty conflicts: everything fanboys wish Star Trek was.
posted
Actually,I meant that ST must be more social-realistic,like TMP era(more militarised,and characters really looks like what they supposed to be.).
-------------------- Fear is the ultimate enemy.And unreasoning is second that.
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
What does "social-realistic" mean? Star Trek is not supposed to be realistic; it is a presentation of a humanity at peace with themselves, and who strive to live peacefully with others.
Also, since Starfleet is not a military, I see no reason to make them "militaristic." The primary mission of Star Fleet is to explore strange new worlds . . . . Yes, defence is one of their responsibilities. But it is not the primary one, so I do not see why the organization should be oriented around a secondary, "last resort" responsibility.
posted
Hindsight being 20-20, I might perhaps establish and enforce a more rigid timeline for the writer's bible. Star Trek is ingenious in its portrayal of a Utopian Human society based on scientific innovation and exploration and peace. I might explore the precariousness of this situation a bit more fully. This was handled very well on several occasions in TNG (notably Conspiracy, Chain of Command, and Pegasus), but not so much in TOS.
-------------------- "Nah. The 9th chevron is for changing the ringtone from "grindy-grindy chonk-chonk" to the theme tune to dallas." -Reverend42
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
I would keep ideal-Earth, but by no means ideal humans.
I would write down a definite chronology (of when it takes place and - generally, not specifically - the history of how it got there, so that writers still have a little creative freedom.) and stick to it. However, the 21st century would be off limits when it comes to major history. Only because major developments like the Eugenics wars are constantly disproven and a source of controversy. Also, nuclear war is so depressing, and fits poorly into a 'utopian' evolution of our society. all-out WW-III will not lead to Star Trek, but instead to a second Stone Age.
I would write down the NCCs of 12 starships sequentially and post it in the background of some guys office. However, i would not limit the class to 12, so that writers could make their own if it was appropriate. But you better believe there'd be no 1017 or 956 in there except as old ass ships of a different class.
I would do away with the random-nonsequential stardate and make a system that follows the aforementioned chronology. Or at least is impossible to figure out, but sequential.
I wouldnt leave the graphics department in charge of writing the histories & encyclopedi�.. and i would make sure that everything was canon. The producers and licensing could never be as lazy as they are now to allow Trek publications to go out and be considered non-canon. Conflicts would still arise, but the publications of licensed material must be considered part of the franchise, carrying the brand name, and therefore be reviewed and collaborated on by the people who write the show.
Most of all, i would keep most everything the same so that Star Trek could live an evolve like it has, just without the growing pains ive mentioned. After all, STar Trek, the way it exists right now, is still a source of pleasure for all of us and i wouldnt want to stifle what has gone into it from all the writers and artists who contribute.. just guide them around their mistakes.
Oh, Neelix would be right the fuck out the door too. Goddamn asshole, he was.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
quote:Originally posted by Raw Cadet: Also, since Starfleet is not a military, I see no reason to make them "militaristic." The primary mission of Star Fleet is to explore strange new worlds . . . . Yes, defence is one of their responsibilities. But it is not the primary one, so I do not see why the organization should be oriented around a secondary, "last resort" responsibility.
I don't understand how people could view Starfleet as anything other than a blend of NASA and the Navy. Damnit, Starfleet basically *is* a military organization, no matter how you cut it. They can trumpet how their primary mission is that of exploration all they want, but when it comes right down to it, that's just propaganda. There's no way they're going to let blind idealism stand in the way of the preservation of the Federation. You can't really explore if some race is threating to wipe you out or enslave you or assimilate you or eat you. Starfleet will not actively invade or assault, but they'll be damned if they let the Federation be destroyed by a military force while they were busy studying nebulas and comets.
-------------------- "God's in his heaven. All's right with the world."
posted
I am afraid, David Templar, you may be missing the entire point of Star Trek. "Military." "Propaganda." These are not words that describe an organization of an "ideal" human race. Two Star Trek series have opened with " . . . to explore strange new worlds; to seek out new life, and new civilizations: to boldy go where no man/one has gone before." I take that as the theme of the series. How on earth do you call that propaganda? Should Star Trek really open with "Space, the last place untouched by the military (until now). These are the voyages of the Dreadnought "Enterprise." Her mission: to keep us safe from strange new worlds; to protect us from new life, and new civilizations: to boldly protect in the same manner we always have?"
Starfleet is not a military using exploration as a cover. It is not a military at all. Think beyond our twenty-first century institutions, which are usually limited to one purpose. Starfleet is an organization with a two-fold mission: first, to exlpore (strange . . . ); second, to defend the Federation. Yes, defence is an apparent responsibility of Starfleet. However, it is not the only, or even the most often engaged in, responsibility. Thus, I fail to see why Starfleet should be oriented soley (in an archaic manner, no less) around its defense responsibilities.
[ November 23, 2001: Message edited by: Raw Cadet ]
posted
I ultimately agree with Mike.Seems right to me.
Damnit,SF primary purpose must be defense,ultimately!You cannot let your race die only because your primary goal is to explore.I'm sure as hell that they must explore,but they must be able to show real force!
Also,I'd like if SF had some tactics and strategy.They must been just blast Bajoran Wormhole,instead of getting involved in such a war.(excuse for grammar)
That's my point.
-------------------- Fear is the ultimate enemy.And unreasoning is second that.
posted
Could we please think outside of the twenty-first century organization box? Starfleet has no real comparable organization in our time. It is not a military. It is also not an organization devoted soley to exploration. I think of it as an organization responsible for most space based activities of the Federation: exploration, defense, etc. Now, nobody is saying that Starfleet would, or should, let "bad guys" walk all over the Federation. However, that is just one aspect of Starfleet. Can there not be others? For the third time I am granting that defense is a responsibiliy of Starfleet. For the third time let me state that I fail to see why Starfleet should be oriented around what is but one of its responsibilities.
[ November 24, 2001: Message edited by: Raw Cadet ]
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
I can think of a real-world (& historical) parallel to Starfleet. In the 19th century, the American West was largely unexplored. A lot of the explorers later became de facto "defensive personnel"--the best examples being Davy Crockett & Jim Bowie.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Hey guys, is it just me or does "CaptainMike" seem to really dislike the Okudas and their reference work like the encyclopedias? This must be the tenth time I've read a complaint about the Okudas' work from him. It's not like I care...just an observation, Mike.
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
I think that Michael Okuda is a great graphic artist, and he has managed to make a name for himself that will last for a long time with his creations. And the fact that he can collaborate with his wife just makes them a powerful duo.
The problem i have is the fact that he pulled a lot of the Star Trek Chronology and Encyclopedia out of his ass, and most fans regard it as law when it comes to Star Trek. Even though a lot of the conjecture and supposition in there is unlikely and poorly worked out. And there is very little of the intentions of the story creators carried over into some of the conjecture. I mean, all true fanboys got excited when his graphics read off the registries of many of the ships we had wondered about, but then again why should everything he makes up be regarded as gospel when so much of it makes so little goddamn sense. Maybe I'm just a little angry over old arguments, but i wish that there was some force making Trek coherent, and a little committee work to make sure that the facts fit.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Printer-friendly view of this topic
