# Crusade



## Mistwell (May 27, 2003)

Just started watching this show, by the writer of Babylon 5.  The acting is really awful for many of the key characters, but the plots are pretty solid so far.  Anyone else watching this? Is it even on the air still, or am I watching the one and only season that will be made of this show?


----------



## Mistwell (May 27, 2003)

Ah, serves me right for not researching it before I asked...
I looked it up and found that it is two years old and was cancelled after 13 episodes.  Too bad, I am enjoying the stories, though I would not be surprised if the truly terrible acting played a material role in the cancellation.


----------



## Crothian (May 27, 2003)

It wasn't even a full season, the pluig got pulled after 13 episodes I think.


----------



## buzzard (May 27, 2003)

Basically the creator killed the show himself because the network wanted the show to go in a direction which he found to be unacceptable. Basically JMS said that TNT wanted to turn the show into WWF in space. This, of course, would have been horrific, so I'm glad he killed it. 

buzzard


----------



## Chun-tzu (May 27, 2003)

This article talks about the cancellation a bit. Here's a quote:



> As Straczynski's numerous Usenet posts have revealed, the problems began almost immediately upon filming. The story, which initially started up in the midst of the action, was deemed too obscure by the higher-ups at TNT, and the cast and crew were called back in to film entirely new setup episodes while those that had already been shot were reordered. Perhaps the most damning actions taken by TNT deal with a rumored memo (which has since been corroborated by Straczynski himself) that contained general orders to not only distance Crusade from Babylon 5 (from which it is a direct sequel), but also to up the ante on sex and violence. One preposterous suggestion entailed portraying a primary crew member as a "sexual explorer," who sought out intimate encounters with all forms of alien life, while another stated that all fight scenes should resemble those seen in professional wrestling.


----------



## Mistwell (May 27, 2003)

I'll be seeing him at an open lecture at the San Diego comic con in a month and a half...if nobody else asks the question, I will try to get in a question about the potential for a completion to this story at least.


----------



## Mallus (May 27, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *Too bad, I am enjoying the stories, though I would not be surprised if the truly terrible acting played a material role in the cancellation. *




Hey, some truly terrible acting didn't hurt Babylon 5 any... okay, so it did, but it didn't stop it from being one of the best SF shows ever televised.

Its a shame about Crusade. JMS has numerous faults as a writer, but I always got the impression that he loves SF/F. And it shows in his work. Mostly everything that good about SF found its way into B5 {along with a lot of whats bad...}, and I had no reason to doubt the same would have been true for Crusade. He's got a big SF imagination, and he knows how to work within the confines of the genre.

I wish he was working on Enterprise. I really do. Now that would be the shot in the storyline, err, arm, that Enteprise needs.


----------



## Viking Bastard (May 27, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *I'll be seeing him at an open lecture at the San Diego comic con in a month and a half...if nobody else asks the question, I will try to get in a question about the potential for a completion to this story at least. *



He has mentioned that he's working (very early stages) on a 
maxi-comic-series that would be published by WildStorm which will 
tie up the storylines of both Crusade and Legend of the Rangers.

If it will happend though, I don't know.


----------



## WizarDru (May 27, 2003)

The funny thing about Crusade is that the stories TNT reallly screwed up come first....when you see what was obviously intended to be the real pilot, you can see how much was lost.  The show gets better and better, and JMS released the scripts for the season two-part finale (as well as the script featuring the return of Bester), which were outstanding.

The real crime is that a show full of possiblities got shot down so early...although I'm glad it died of it's own choice, as opposed to turning into something really crappy.

At least Jeremiah got renewed.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (May 28, 2003)

buzzard said:
			
		

> *Basically the creator killed the show himself because the network wanted the show to go in a direction which he found to be unacceptable. Basically JMS said that TNT wanted to turn the show into WWF in space. This, of course, would have been horrific, so I'm glad he killed it.
> *




Considering JMS's responses to criticism (as I observed on the BAB5 groups during 5th season) I have to take anything he says about what went wrong with Crusade with a healthy dose of salt.    Much as I enjoy his work overall, he... um... seems to have some ego problems...

Kahuna Burger


----------



## WayneLigon (May 28, 2003)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> *Considering JMS's responses to criticism (as I observed on the BAB5 groups during 5th season) I have to take anything he says about what went wrong with Crusade with a healthy dose of salt.  *




Eh, Considering he plotted and almost single-handedly wrote the best SF show put on TV to date, I'd say he's warned any ego he has.


----------



## Villano (May 28, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *Just started watching this show, by the writer of Babylon 5.  The acting is really awful for many of the key characters, but the plots are pretty solid so far.*




Actually, I felt the opposite was true.  I hated the stories.  It seemed to me to become exactly what B5 was not, Star Trek.  I'm not sure how much was the result of executives or JMS.

I did find Galen to be very annoying, though.  He's currently on the History Channel show, Conquest.  He seems likeable enough there and the show is pretty interesting (although I prefer Mail Call).

But, it was nice seeing Marjean Holden on the show (she was the doctor).  I've been a fan of her's since I first saw her on an episode of Tales From The Crypt.  A very beautiful woman.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (May 28, 2003)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Eh, Considering he plotted and almost single-handedly wrote the best SF show put on TV to date, I'd say he's warned any ego he has. *




BAB5 was a great show, but there is no way in my book to earn the right to say (in almost as many words) "If you don't like what I've done, its because you aren't smart/mature/peceptive enough to understand it." 

JMS, and a couple of other writers have taught me not to impart any feelings I have about an artists work to them personally. I liked the crusade pilot/movie and would have watched the show had I had cable at the time...  but as I said, any of his personal commentary on the creative process and such is taken with a bit of salt.

Kahuna Burger


----------



## Kahuna Burger (May 28, 2003)

*Re: Re: Crusade*



			
				Villano said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Actually, I felt the opposite was true.  I hated the stories.  It seemed to me to become exactly what B5 was not, Star Trek.  *




I thought it was supposed to be Star Blazers? Or was that just the pilot?  

Anyway, my dream for a followup series was that he would go the exact thematic opposite of bab5. He'd done the 5 year plot, I wanted to see an anthology show. The Babylon 5 Universe, or something. There were so many stories that were only touched on, or only seen in their connections to the station and its people that could have been the fodder for years of contained episode stories. I'm looking forward to the d20 system coming out, but I just hope it allows for that variety of storytelling, rather than forcing the various organizations into universal roles based on how they got along with sheridan and delen. 

Kahuna Burger


----------



## Umbran (May 28, 2003)

Mallus said:
			
		

> *I wish he was working on Enterprise. I really do. Now that would be the shot in the storyline, err, arm, that Enteprise needs. *




Hm. Having JMS work on Enterprise would be sort of like having an orange farmer working in an apple grove.


----------



## Mallus (May 28, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *Hm. Having JMS work on Enterprise would be sort of like having an orange farmer working in an apple grove. *




Why do you say that?


----------



## Hand of Evil (May 28, 2003)

Wonder if we will ever see anything else for B5, such as Legend of the Rangers?  TNT had issues from the start and I am sorry that they did not let JMS do what he wanted.


----------



## WayneLigon (May 28, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Crusade*



			
				Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> *I thought it was supposed to be Star Blazers? Or was that just the pilot?  *




I've never even _seen_ and episode of Star Blazers, but that was the first thing I thought of when I saw the 'big giant gun'.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (May 28, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Crusade*



			
				WayneLigon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I've never even seen and episode of Star Blazers, but that was the first thing I thought of when I saw the 'big giant gun'. *




I haven't seen it either, but there were some pretty compelling comparisons sited on the usenet groups when the pilot came out. (and some very weak rebuttals.  )

Kahuna Burger


----------



## Umbran (May 28, 2003)

Mallus said:
			
		

> *Why do you say that? *




Because the two franchises are quite different.  They may be in the same genre (sci-fi/fruit), they are about as similar as apples and oranges.  

JMS does what he does very well.  But what he does is _not_ Star Trek.  I wouldn't ask an orange-grower to grow apples for me.  I wouldn't ask a sculptor to do a painting for me.  I wouldn't ask JMS to do Star Trek for me.  

In addition, JMS _hates_ being tied to other people's rules.  This nearly killed B5, it did kill Crusade.  Whether or not this was for the better is aside the point.  There is no franchise in the history of TV that is more tied to other people's rules than Star Trek.


----------



## WizarDru (May 28, 2003)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> *BAB5 was a great show, but there is no way in my book to earn the right to say (in almost as many words) "If you don't like what I've done, its because you aren't smart/mature/peceptive enough to understand it." *





Well, since I was watching rastB5 during most of it's run, I saw a lot of the "insightful" commentary he put up with while doing the rest of us a favor by being available.  JMS may have strong opinions, but I've never interpeted that as being arrogant.  In point of fact, he's spent a large amount of time being the opposite.  What often occurs though, is that someone will broach something as fact, and then JMS will shoot them down.

A classic example was an actor who guested in a B5 episode in 5th season.  Several people loudly commented on what a terrible makeup job the show had done on the character, who was a veteran of the Earth-Minbari war, and bore a scar across his face and deformed part of it.  JMS then unsubtly pointed out that they hadn't put ANY makeup on his face, that he was a vietnam veteran who had been wounded during the war, and you could see him in several other movies with the same scars.

JMS doesn't respond to poorly-voiced and rude criticism well, it's true.  But he's reacted in much better temper when someone does come at him with a desire to start a fight, IME.


----------



## Mallus (May 28, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *JMS does what he does very well.  But what he does is not Star Trek.  I wouldn't ask an orange-grower to grow apples for me.  I wouldn't ask a sculptor to do a painting for me.  I wouldn't ask JMS to do Star Trek for me.   *




But I don't see Babylon 5 being that far removed from Star Trek, not from classic Trek at any rate. Both have big, bold characters who don't shy away from melodrama or speech-making, both feature mixing it up with false Gods, alien races that are just stand-ins for historical Earth cultures. Both are often as subtle as a hammer to the reproductive bits. Both embrace a kind of humanism {and human triumphalism} that later Treks try to deny. Both can be pro-military yet anti-authority at the same time.

Its a pipe dream, sure, and even if it weren't I don't think JMS would make a good team player. But you don't think JMS writing the Klingons and Rolumans would be interesting {and faithful to the spirit of TOS}? And wouldn't it be swell if JMS worked on a show where someone else wrote the bulk of the mundane dialogue, and God help him, the attempts at humor?

I always thought of Babylon 5 as a kind of refuge for Trekkies that didn't like the direction the franchise went during/after TNG. The fans of good old-school SF.


----------



## Kesh (May 29, 2003)

Mallus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> But I don't see Babylon 5 being that far removed from Star Trek, not from classic Trek at any rate. Both have big, bold characters who don't shy away from melodrama or speech-making, both feature mixing it up with false Gods, alien races that are just stand-ins for historical Earth cultures. Both are often as subtle as a hammer to the reproductive bits. Both embrace a kind of humanism {and human triumphalism} that later Treks try to deny. Both can be pro-military yet anti-authority at the same time.*




It's not the theme, so much as the style of story-telling.

Star Trek has always been fast & loose on the storytelling. Enterprise seems to have an overall arc to it, but judging by the new direction it just took (and the creator's commentary), that arc can change on a whim. ST shows have always been more free-form with their stories.

On the other hand, Babylon 5 was written very, very specifically. It was made for 5 seasons, no more. The timeline was plotted out for a thousand years in the past and future by JMS. In short, the entire series was one long story, with a few flexible spots in the first and last seasons for unrelated episodes.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (May 29, 2003)

Kesh said:
			
		

> *
> 
> On the other hand, Babylon 5 was written very, very specifically. It was made for 5 seasons, no more. The timeline was plotted out for a thousand years in the past and future by JMS. In short, the entire series was one long story, with a few flexible spots in the first and last seasons for unrelated episodes. *




At the risk of igniting Ye Olde B5 Flame War, there were unavoidable changes made to the story due to actor issues, and the rush to tie things up in 4th season if neccassary. Now the church of joe can huff and puff as it wishes, but that will not make it so that the sinclair/sheridan switch, the dead space at the begining of season 5 or ivonnava's replacement with the Worst Character Ever  were all part of the orriginal plan.

Also, I'm not so sure that the Big Plan method of series TV is so hot all the time. While we may mock a series that is the slave of market research, I find it just as annoying when a writer says "this is the sympathetic character, damn it" and keeps trying to shove him or her down our throats rather than adapting to how the audeince reacts to them.

As a ST for instance, I have heard it said that the ferengi were orriginally planned as the Big Bad Guys of next gen. Yeah, that comic relief was planned to be the new klingons. But when the reactions to them were so non serious, the ST people wisely realized that a mistake had been made, and rather than desperately sticking to their plan (Lets have an episode where a lot of characters _say_ they're afraid of the ferengi so the audience will know how to feel about them!) They went back to the drawing board and the series had an actually scarey main enemy. 

Now we can say JMS is sowonderful that he'd never make a mistake like that to begin with, but I think that the willingness to adapt characters and even 'arcs' makes a better story overall, as long as you avoid either extreme of rigidity or multiple personality characters.

Kahuna Burger


----------



## Kesh (May 30, 2003)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> *
> 
> At the risk of igniting Ye Olde B5 Flame War, there were unavoidable changes made to the story due to actor issues, and the rush to tie things up in 4th season if neccassary. Now the church of joe can huff and puff as it wishes, but that will not make it so that the sinclair/sheridan switch, the dead space at the begining of season 5 or ivonnava's replacement with the Worst Character Ever  were all part of the orriginal plan.*




Down, kitty! 

I never said anything like that. Yes, things happen, actors leave, budgets are cut, renewals might not happen... my point was simply that there was a plan for the whole show. There had to be the occasional reshuffle to fit reality, but overall, the story arc remained intact.

Whereas most shows don't stick to that level of plot. It's more of an overall idea, which can be changed easily since the stories themselves are only loosely related.

I'm not saying the ST method is _bad_. I just prefer the B5 style of "epic" storytelling.

That being said, I'd love to catch up with DS9 sometime. I missed the last three or so seasons, just when the plot apparently took off in the direction I wanted.


----------



## Villano (May 30, 2003)

*B5 VS Star Trek*

The best example I've heard concerning the differences between the writing of B5 and Trek came from Peter David.  David is primarily a comic book writer, although he's written a few scripts and several novels, including a few Trek books.

I remember an article he wrote in his column Comic Buyer's Guide about his experience writing for B5.  When he submitted his first script, he was told to rewrite it because it was "too Star Trek".  He had no idea what that meant, but he tried a rewrite.  Again, he was told the same thing.

Finally, it dawned on him.  By the end of his script nothing had changed.  The characters were the same as they were in the beginning and all the problems were resolved by the end.  

I think that this really sums up Trek well.  With few exceptions, each episode is self-contained and things established in one episode don't necessarily have any effect on any future ones.

Of course, DS9 maintained its own continuity very well (even though I felt the Dominion was nowhere near as interesting as the Cardassians).  However, Next Gen and Voyager (never saw Enterprise) rarely did anything that built upon their own pasts.

And while they may have not taken pains to establish continuity, at least they didn't rewrite it each week like other shows (cough * Xena * cough).


----------



## S'mon (May 30, 2003)

Mallus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> But I don't see Babylon 5 being that far removed from Star Trek, not from classic Trek at any rate. Both have big, bold characters who don't shy away from melodrama or speech-making, both feature mixing it up with false Gods, alien races that are just stand-ins for historical Earth cultures. Both are often as subtle as a hammer to the reproductive bits. Both embrace a kind of humanism {and human triumphalism} that later Treks try to deny. Both can be pro-military yet anti-authority at the same time.
> *




That's an excellent point - B5 was written in the spirit of classic '50s-'60s sf and consequently shares a lot with TOS Trek.  Of course Paramount ripped JMS' original B5 proposal off and called it 'Deep space 9'.

It's very noticeable that modern 'Trek seems to be almost the opposite of this - subdued characters, little melodrama, new-age mysticism rather than TOS' scientific humanism, anti-military but pro-authority - no one ever questions 'the system', which is held to be unquestionably all-good, all-perfect.  I read a nice critique of modern (DS9 & VOY) Trek which commented that it comes across as if it were 24th century Federation propaganda rather than an objective presentation of a universe.


----------



## Mallus (May 30, 2003)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *It's very noticeable that modern 'Trek seems to be almost the opposite of this - subdued characters, little melodrama, new-age mysticism rather than TOS' scientific humanism, anti-military but pro-authority - no one ever questions 'the system', which is held to be unquestionably all-good, all-perfect.  I read a nice critique of modern (DS9 & VOY) Trek which commented that it comes across as if it were 24th century Federation propaganda rather than an objective presentation of a universe. *




I hadn't thought of the corollary; Trek being authoritarian yet anti-military. That works perfectly. By the time of Voyager it really seemed as if all conflicts between an individual and "Starfleet Protocol" was resolved in favor of the protocols. What a bland and propagandist way to treat material that should to be dramatic.

One gets the feeling that the Starfllet of Voyager's era had an official news publication called Pravda... 

I disagree that DS9 often fell into that trap. I hold the two big offenders were TNG and VOY. DS9 did attempt question the infallibility of the Federation's ethics/actions; clumsily {though entertainingly} with Section 31. Better with the Maquis. Perhaps best in the actions of Benjammin Sisko. 

This all gets back my thesis; which I should have stated explicitly. What JSM does well constitutes the fundemantals of drama {even if his execution frequently falters}. And what has become the trademark of later Trek; the blandness, the bland multiculturalism that serves to homogenize every alien race while at the time subtely trumpting human superiority, its lack of real ethical connumdrums {because they can't show the Federation position to ultimately be wrong}, constitutes the opposite of drama. And it shows...


----------



## RangerWickett (May 31, 2003)

P.S., never try to joke with JMS through email by pretending to be a good friend of his just so he'll read your email.  He'll get pissed off at you, threaten you with legal action, and then four months later sign a comic book cover saying "Apology accepted."


----------



## S'mon (May 31, 2003)

Mallus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I hadn't thought of the corollary; Trek being authoritarian yet anti-military. That works perfectly. By the time of Voyager it really seemed as if all conflicts between an individual and "Starfleet Protocol" was resolved in favor of the protocols. What a bland and propagandist way to treat material that should to be dramatic.
> 
> ...




Hi Mallus - you're right about the X-Files-inspired Section 31; I haven't seen enough of DS9 to see if the episodes genuinely question the Federation power structure, but I doubt it -  in Trek elections & even the concept of democracy seem to be as dead as capitalism, moreso really in that capitalism survives on the fringes of Federation society, as in the USSR, and we occasionally see merchant types like Quark operating in Federation territory, while I don't think democracy has ever even been mentioned since TOS.

From what I've seen of the Maquis, they've always been presented as noble-but-misguided.  There to demonstrate that The Federation Knows Best.

Villains within Starfleet in current Trek have ceased to be nincompoop admirals, now it's gung-ho field officers who are presented as the bad guys, as in a Voyager episode where they meet another Starfleet ship with a 'rogue' leader - Captain Ransom, I think his name was (although I keep thinking Captain Carnage!) 

I don't think Voyager's Starfleet would publish an organ called 'Truth' - I get the impression they don't publish _anything_, and the existence of a newspaper called 'Truth' would imply there could be such a thing as 'Lies'.  Starfleet-Federation seem careful never to enter into any kind of self-justificatory debate that could cause doubt in people's minds.  Rather they must simply be accepted as the Only Possible Way.  The system aims to make dissent literally inconceivable.  I expect that dissenters are not argued with, or punished.  They are, rather, _treated_ - as the mentally ill ought to be, for their own good...


----------



## S'mon (May 31, 2003)

Re JMS and B5, I agree that drama (tending to melodrama, but there's a place for that) and plot are his greatest strengths, while his weakness arguably lies in characterisation.  G'kar and Londo are good characters, possibly because they represent their entire species (in more ways than one!), possibly because the actors are good ones.  By contrast JMS' human characters have always tended to be very wooden and flat - perhaps it's the casting that's poor, but I suspect it's more than that.

Characterisation tends to be one of the strengths of Trek, a successful Star Trek series usually manages to produce some interesting/engaging characters, although there seem to be worryingly less in the recent (post-TNG) series.   For me, Enterprise only really has Skip, but that's better than Voyager which had no one until Seven of Nine.  I didn't like DS9 (hate the Trill*, hate the Bajorans and what they stand for, like the Cardassians though), so can't really comment on it.

*Actually the Trill Hosts seem to exemplify the perfect Federation citizen.  Their only purpose in existence is to serve and obey, even their minds are/were largely under the control of their 'symbiote'.  And they LIKE it.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jun 1, 2003)

Mallus said:
			
		

> *
> trademark of later Trek; the blandness, the bland multiculturalism that serves to homogenize every alien race while at the time subtely trumpting human superiority, its lack of real ethical connumdrums {because they can't show the Federation position to ultimately be wrong}, constitutes the opposite of drama. And it shows... *




you know, again, I LIKED bab5 but I'm not sure you have a case here. The trumpeting of human superiority in B5 was not terribly subtle at times. There was a very blunt first season ep where the alien races each demonstrated their (one, race wide) religion. At the end, Sinclair showed all the mirdrid religions of earth. If the trek races were homogonized, at least you copuld hope it was a mistake or omission...

Another very disapointing thing JMS did that just screamed 'trek' was presenting alien religions or superstitions as analogies for problems with real life ones (the family who killed their child after surgery, the race that died off in superstitious response to a plauge), but sucking up to the real thing. After the "miracle" of sheridan's rescue, all these wacky alien pilgrims are showing up to seek the "holiness". Zack tells one to "touch the plant" that was nearby, and he does so with a look of brainless awe. Moments later a group of monks come to join the station. Are they here to "touch the plant"? They seem to be some flavor of catholic, would it be reasonable to assume that a church on earth which officially believes in miracles might have sent someone to investigate? Oh no, they just happen to be here at the same time in a scholarly, religious humanist sort of mission, and have many secular skills and abilities which make them invaluable to the station... Any rift in alien religions is a cause for a genocidal war, but later a nice group of protestants, muslims et al show up and are all good friends with the monks, working together for the greater good... 

(breath ... breath)

OK, rants and essays aside, my point is that the criticisms you are making of trek can be fairly applied to B5 just as easily. JMS might have pushed the envelope a little more, but in the end we are talking about a television series that toed all the common lines that both old and new trek did. Make the analogies with another race, subtlely show the equality of the future, but make it good and clear that humans in general and a culture that looks strikingly western is just good to the bone, despite some bad apples...

Kahuna Burger, who was never a member of the Church of Joe...


----------



## Staffan (Jun 1, 2003)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> *you know, again, I LIKED bab5 but I'm not sure you have a case here. The trumpeting of human superiority in B5 was not terribly subtle at times. There was a very blunt first season ep where the alien races each demonstrated their (one, race wide) religion. At the end, Sinclair showed all the mirdrid religions of earth. If the trek races were homogonized, at least you copuld hope it was a mistake or omission...*



In the interest of fairness, it was shown in other episodes that at least some of the alien races had religious diversity as well. For example, I recall Na'Toth mentioning to G'Kar that she followed another religion than G'Quan. The Centauri polytheism seems to leave some room for varying opinions as well. Sure, Minbari religion seems rather monolithic (if open-minded), but that's to be expected of the race that exemplifies Lawful Neutral in D&D terms.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jun 1, 2003)

Staffan said:
			
		

> *
> In the interest of fairness, it was shown in other episodes that at least some of the alien races had religious diversity as well. For example, I recall Na'Toth mentioning to G'Kar that she followed another religion than G'Quan. *




Did she follow another, or just none? But yes there was some diversity aluded to. However my main point was that the comment that Trek homogenized the other races and B5 was different from this is quite suspect. 

Kahuna Burger


----------



## Staffan (Jun 1, 2003)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> *Did she follow another, or just none? But yes there was some diversity aluded to. However my main point was that the comment that Trek homogenized the other races and B5 was different from this is quite suspect. *



Some other, IIRC. It's been a while since I saw that particular episode however.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Jun 1, 2003)

It was often alluded to that the B5 aliens often had more than 
one religion. The Narn one was the only one that was ever gone 
into detail though. It was revealed that that whatever-ya-call-em-
blue-all-look-alike race had several religions in the episodes after 
the Vorlon/Angel sighting, although the differences between them 
were never discussed (they were just fighting amongst themselves
over those differences). The Minbari used to have multiple religions
in the ole' days, but they had all merged into one official 'The 
Galaxy's a Sentinent Being' Zen Jedi Code cosmology which is also
divided into different philosophical orders. The ruling culture on 
Centauri Prime were originally just one of many nations, that 
conquered the rest of the planet and forced their culture and 
beliefs down their brethren's throats (never revealed on-screen I 
think, just from JMS's comments on the subject). Etc.

For me, the main difference between B5 and Trek on this subject 
is that although it may not be gone into the multi-cultural aspects
of the B5 universe in detail, it is strongly again and again implied 
that we know nearly nothing of the many races, that what we see
is only the outer shell of a very complex society, which the goverment
of said society wants to project to the outer world while I never
get the feeling that there is any more to any of the alien-of-the-
week Trek aliens, even if there really is.

Y'know. Did that make sense?


----------



## S'mon (Jun 1, 2003)

As an atheist myself, like JMS, JMS' treating of Earth religions with respect - including future-fictional ones, presumably - never bothered me.  The Minbari and some other alien religions In think get a fair amount of sympathetic treatment in B5, also.  Of course, none of them are being presented as literally 'true' - and there's a strong if sometimes subtle implication that many or all of the more revelatory/transcendent ones are works of Vorlon psycho-historical manipulation, also.  

He could have created a world where future real-world religions were engaged in blood-crazed jihads against each other, but that wouldn't make much sense for the B5 universe where for plot purposes the humans need to be capable of the role of neutral mediators - ie humans _need_ to be more tolerant & reasonable than most other species, or the plot doesn't work.  I agree this is a similar notion to Trek's; and the differences in seeing how it's handled are one of B5's interesting features.  Note that in B5 humans, while apparently developing a greater degree of mutual tolerance/respect than now, don't seem nearly as homogenous as in Star Trek.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 1, 2003)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *He could have created a world where future real-world religions were engaged in blood-crazed jihads against each other... *




Of course, such a show might not have made it to air, being too controversial perhaps for most TV networks.  About the only genre TV show I've seen in the past several years that dealt at all with religious themes was Witchblade, set in an overtly Christian universe where from what I saw there appeared to be considerable question whether God was even a good guy or not...

Buffy the Vampire Slayer's resolute refusal to deal with (non-Wiccan) religion AT ALL, even when it's hammering on the door to be let in, is one of the few things I find annoying about that excellent show.  The only character in priest's garb who wasn't already a corpse when encountered, turns out to be both 
1) evil, and
2) atheist!


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jun 1, 2003)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> * The ruling culture on
> Centauri Prime were originally just one of many nations, that
> conquered the rest of the planet and forced their culture and
> beliefs down their brethren's throats (never revealed on-screen I
> think, just from JMS's comments on the subject). *




wow, that is completely different than the impression I got of the centuari. They struck me much more as a roman style "Nice god, I can use that one too" kind of people. There's one episode where londo is bemoaning his state of affairs to Vir and he says "How many gods to we Centauri have?" which vir answers with some very large (in the hundreds?) but precise number, and londo says "and how many of them must I have offended to deserve this?" (to which the reply is of course "uh, all of them?")

Londo also makes regular references to the "Great Maker" when feeling serious... leading me to believe that the centauri culture keeps their gods around as conversation peices and never throws one out, but reserves any actual spiritual feelings for a less flashy force.

Kahuna Burger


----------



## Viking Bastard (Jun 1, 2003)

Ah, yes, but the Centauri Republic we saw was the Centauri 
Republic after a millenium (or somthing) in space. It used to be 
a fearsome empire ruled by the great Centauri royal family.

By the time of B5 they've been taken over by Bureocrats.

.

EDIT: Ah, sorry, misread your post.

I wouldn't be surprised if they did some cultural adjusting too. 
Sure, they crammed their culture down other people's throats but
they probably picked up quite a bit too.

.

EDIT, THE RETURN: My above answer still stands though. The 
Centauri used to be a fearsome race of conquest. In the B5 era
they're merchants that pick up any trinket or interesting lookin'
piece of junk they can find. Why not collect Gawds too? Also, by 
cramming their culture on others, they might not have necessarily
disallowed their religions, bur rather forced them to adjust it to 
their previously established religious structure.


----------



## WizarDru (Jun 1, 2003)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> *wow, that is completely different than the impression I got of the centuari. They struck me much more as a roman style "Nice god, I can use that one too" kind of people. There's one episode where londo is bemoaning his state of affairs to Vir and he says "How many gods to we Centauri have?" which vir answers with some very large (in the hundreds?) but precise number, and londo says "and how many of them must I have offended to deserve this?" (to which the reply is of course "uh, all of them?")*




Several things are made clear about the Centuari: 


They exterminated (i.e. Genocide) every other culture and a second race they shared Centauri Prime with (known as the Xan)
The Centauri believe in 'house gods' and the ability of ancestors to rise to divinity.  On several occasions, mentions are made of relatives or powerful individuals becoming revered dieties (again, simliar to medieval Japan)
The Centauri, like the colonial Deists, believe in a Great Maker, essentially a 'great clockmaker' who doesn't actually affect daily lives...that's what the house gods do.
The worship of individual gods is similar to the Romans, where you pay them respect, more than actively worship them, per se.
[/list=1] 

The Narn have several religions, although only one is detailed beyond lip-service...by necessity.  The Minbari are the victims of so many other races abuse (from the Vorlons to the One himself), they just want to find some sort of stability.  The Vorlons...well, they're the Vorlons.  We know they revere the old ones, but that's about it.  The concept of 'gods' may be something they don't accept.


As for humans, well...B5 was lauded for it's even-handed treatment of religion multiple times, particularly for things like standing shiva (sp?), and showing multiple religions in a positive light, as opposed to letting them fall into classic stereotypes.  YMMV.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 2, 2003)

The big difference in B5 religions seems to be between the Vorlon-created/influenced revelatory ones with 'angelic' figures (like that of the Minbari, Narns, & Earth Christianity, Islam & Judaism) and those created without Vorlon influence, like the Centauri religion and by inference Earth polytheist faiths like that of the Romans.  This actually says something very sinister about religion - 'good' religions are Vorlon tools, adherents of 'neutral' ones are susceptible to Shadow influence, none are 'true' - but B5 did it subtly enough not to cause much offense.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 2, 2003)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> *The trumpeting of human superiority in B5 was not terribly subtle at times.*



Yes, that's true. But that's a characteristic of a lot of SF. Its a genre that trades in both anxieties about the future and an overall hopefullness about it. 

But I still think that B5 is substantially different in its assessment, and frequent celebration of human {well, Western} cultural values. A fascist cabal takes over the dominant democratic Earth government. Even  before that the governments treatment of its colonies, not to mention its telepathic citizens bordered on abhorent. Even technologically, Earth was backwards compared to the other spacefaring races. Our saving grace was consensus building, an openess to new ideas, the sense of wonder at the universe {which wasn't shared by the majority, not by a long shot}.


> *
> Another very disapointing thing JMS did that just screamed 'trek' was presenting alien religions or superstitions as analogies for problems with real life ones (the family who killed their child after surgery, the race that died off in superstitious response to a plauge)*



Using alien cultures in an allegorical fashion is one of the pillars of SF. I think its a strength shared by Trek and B5. Casting these issues in term of made-up cultures gives a safe, comforting sense of distance from the actual. It keeps people's tempers in check.

And what I took away from the kid/surgery ep. was that Frankin {and with him human rationalism} was dead wrong in that case. The parent's had no logical way to know that the surgery had been performed. But they did. And I was left believing the kid's soul was really gone. It was one of my favorite scenes in any SF show. 


> *
> OK, rants and essays aside, my point is that the criticisms you are making of trek can be fairly applied to B5 just as easily.*



Sure. I agree. But my central complaint is that the Star Trek franchises have become dull, lifeless, as dramatic as empty space. And this goes beyond the characters into the universe they inhabit.


> *snip...subtlely show the equality of the future, but make it good and clear that humans in general and a culture that looks strikingly western is just good to the bone, despite some bad apples...*



But human culture isn't good to the bone. Neither are alien cultures. The human created Alliance collapses, and it certainly begins fraying a scant few decades after its inception. The shows basic point is a heroic take on history: at critical moments the actions of a few individuals can shape the tide of history --a tide in a sea of prejudice, fear, greed, and naked grabs for power...

You know, I'm not a orthodox member of the Cult of Joe, either. In the end I think DS9 is a better show. But I do think there's a lot to admire in B5.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 2, 2003)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> *wow, that is completely different than the impression I got of the centuari. They struck me much more as a roman style "Nice god, I can use that one too" kind of people. There's one episode where londo is bemoaning his state of affairs to Vir and he says "How many gods to we Centauri have?" which vir answers with some very large (in the hundreds?) but precise number, and londo says "and how many of them must I have offended to deserve this?" (to which the reply is of course "uh, all of them?")*



I think the number was something along the lines of 50, plus various household gods. There was also mention of one god whose divinity was disputed.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 2, 2003)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *As an atheist myself, like JMS, JMS' treating of Earth religions with respect - including future-fictional ones, presumably - never bothered me. *



JMS has recently mentioned in various USENet posts that his own spiritual beliefs are relatively close to those of the Foundationists on the show (or rather, vice versa).


----------



## Mallus (Jun 2, 2003)

Staffan said:
			
		

> *JMS has recently mentioned in various USENet posts that his own spiritual beliefs are relatively close to those of the Foundationists on the show (or rather, vice versa). *




That's pretty interesting. I never got the impression that Franklin's Foundationist views were presented in a particularly positive light. I thought the Jesuits came off much better.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 2, 2003)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *...snip... in Trek elections & even the concept of democracy seem to be as dead as capitalism, moreso really in that capitalism survives on the fringes of Federation society, as in the USSR, and we occasionally see merchant types like Quark operating in Federation territory, while I don't think democracy has ever even been mentioned since TOS.*



I'm embarrassed to admit I'd never thought of that... That's great. Not only is the Federation post-capitalist {which is fine given they've all but licked the problem of scarcity --terms of both energy and materials}, but they're vaguely post-democratic as well. I can't recall a single mention of a Federation election. Sure, there's Starfleet Council, but there's the loya jirga in Afganistan. For all the actually evidence there is Starfleet is an enormously wealthy military dictatorship which provides ample comfort and personal liberty {to most}. 


> *I don't think Voyager's Starfleet would publish an organ called 'Truth' - I get the impression they don't publish _anything_, and the existence of a newspaper called 'Truth' would imply there could be such a thing as 'Lies'.  Starfleet-Federation seem careful never to enter into any kind of self-justificatory debate that could cause doubt in people's minds.  Rather they must simply be accepted as the Only Possible Way.  The system aims to make dissent literally inconceivable.  I expect that dissenters are not argued with, or punished.  They are, rather, _treated_ - as the mentally ill ought to be, for their own good... *



The Federation as the end of the dialectic, as well as the end of history... that's just great. Cold, but great.

 I suppose you could read it as a canny, if somewhat dull exploration of Marx's workers paradise fused with the West's capitalist material paradise.  Work has largely gone away do to technological advances. Lots of people have lots of neat toys. I guess if the base standard of living is high enough, democratic institutions become largely irrelevant, if not non-existant.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 3, 2003)

Mallus said:
			
		

> *
> The Federation as the end of the dialectic, as well as the end of history... that's just great. Cold, but great.
> 
> I suppose you could read it as a canny, if somewhat dull exploration of Marx's workers paradise fused with the West's capitalist material paradise.  Work has largely gone away do to technological advances. Lots of people have lots of neat toys. I guess if the base standard of living is high enough, democratic institutions become largely irrelevant, if not non-existant. *




They don't seem to have that many toys, though - no privately owned starships, or even private holodecks.  There's no sign of any 'media' entertainment.  Civilian life within the core of the Federation is very rarely examined, but doesn't seem particularly pleasant* unless you like growing grapes for fun - there's no money, so Picard's brother presumably can't sell the wine he makes.  I did see the DS9 episode where Bashir's parents are tried by a Federation military-Starfleet court (is there any other kind?) for using genetic engineering/therapy on their son.

*Partly this depends on whether replicators are available to pivate citizens.  If so, at least they can make nice things to play with.

Is the Federation a military dictatorship?  Functionally it seems to be run by a self-selected elite, something like the later USSR.  Officially in TNG+, Starfleet is 'not a military organisation', a bit of Orwellian Newspeak if ever there was one.

I guess I'd classify it as a bureaucratic totalitarian oligarchy - you can achieve membership in the ruling elite through rising in the ranks of Starfleet.  It's totalitarian because there's no private ownership in the sense of property rights, indeed individuals seem to have little or no rights vs the State.

I find B5's depiction of future human society (still democratic, still trying to get it right) much less scary than Trek's.  Only the lack of overt brutality against its citizens really distinguishes it from the Federation of Blake's Seven.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 3, 2003)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *-  in Trek elections & even the concept of democracy seem to be as dead as capitalism, moreso really in that capitalism survives on the fringes of Federation society, as in the USSR, and we occasionally see merchant types like Quark operating in Federation territory, while I don't think democracy has ever even been mentioned since TOS.*




Hm, and come to think of it, I don't think they've ever mentioned liverwurst, maple trees, or the city of Frankfurt, either.  Must be that those don't exist on Earth in the Trek universe, either.

You've fallen into one of the oldest traps in the book - lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.  The fact that the details of Federation governance don't get mentioned does not imply anything specific about those details.  All it says is that the writers and producers chose not to tell stories about those details.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Jun 3, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Hm, and come to think of it, I don't think they've ever mentioned liverwurst, maple trees, or the city of Frankfurt, either.  Must be that those don't exist on Earth in the Trek universe, either.
> 
> You've fallen into one of the oldest traps in the book - lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.  The fact that the details of Federation governance don't get mentioned does not imply anything specific about those details.  All it says is that the writers and producers chose not to tell stories about those details. *





There is plenty of evidence.

1. Bashir's parents are tried and convicted by a Starfleet JAG officer for using gene engineering on their son. When did it become the militaries job to try civilians for breakingt he law?

2. When Earth was threatened by the Dominion you only saw Starfleet personel. There was not a single civilian leader anywhere being briefed on the situation. 

3. Starfleet officers quite often acted as police on Federation worlds often acting to put down the Maquis.

4. No one owns private ships except people who turn out to be smugglers and operate outside of Federation territory.

5. Federation money is useless outside of the Federation. EVeryone instead uses Gold Pressed Latinum as barter. 

6. Several times it has been mentioned that Starfleet has imposed news blackouts about this or that event. How could they do this if there was democracy and a civilian government?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 3, 2003)

Just some notes:

I can´t remember everything about the Bashir Incident, but maybe it was a Starfleet Officer that handled the case because it also was a Starfleet Officer who was more or less the subject of the case?

Citizien can have Replicators. Picards brother complained that his wife wanted to get one - he thought the replicated meals wouldn`t taste as well as home-made ones.

According to Startrek 8, Starfleet does not use money. Maybe noone is worried that he is in disadvantage, even when he worked an hour longer than his neighbour, but still has the same replicator meal and the same kind of flat than his neighbour.
(Remember, Startrek is an optimistic Universe, an Utopia, that is meant to show us what we might be able to achieve, if we just take the right path.)
It seems as if most unpleasant jobs that nobody would ever want to do are gone (be it because they are no longer needed, or that they are automated, or that now some people like these jobs) and so, everybody can do what he likes. Or, maybe, people who do these jobs don`t have to do them as long as today, and have more free time to do their own thing.
Picards Brother probably grows his grapes because he really likes the job, and he does not sell it, but just gives it away, so Federation citizens all over the world (and galaxy) can get it, if they want. (Or they can`t, and it is only locally available, and sometimes used in exchange for other products that are needed, like dilithium crystals or high-resistant-rice-plants)

Is is possible that the Starfleet does take the job of the interstellar police within the Federation, since it is costly (even without money, they still need resources for their ship) to have two, independent, space-faring organization. 
There are no police officers following a bank robber (which, naturally, they don`t have without money) from Earth to Epsilon Eridani. 
And if they have problems with Organized Crime, these guys probably have armed starships, so Starfleet is far better suited to fill the job.
Anyway, there seems to be a local kind of police: Wasn`t the guy that tries to save the Crushers from the "plasma-sex-ghost" a policeman on that colony?

Not many people seem to own starships, but this might only prove that building and maintaining these ships is to costly and needs to much personal that everyone does have its own.
Instead, they use transports that travel within the Federation (even non-Federation worlds have it, like the shuttles that move between Bajor and DS9 - they probably cost some latinum, but the infra-structure is existant.)

The Starfleet blackouts do not mean anything, since it can just be some kind of collection from official source. Or Starfleet just does also make these reports for their own officers.
We know that Jake wrote some articles for a civilian organization.

Finally, you should not forget: We are seeing the Startrek Universe mostly from Starfleet View. Believe me, military organiziations can seem very independent, and if you are in it, and don`t get out sometimes, you never see more than other soldiers (and, regarding the police question: Most military organizations have also a Military Police...)

Mustrum Ridcully


----------



## Viking Bastard (Jun 3, 2003)

From what I've always understood, the Federation _isn't_ democratic, but many of the memberworlds 
are. We have the Federation Council (only seen in TUC, different from the Starfleet Council) and the 
Federation President (who was clearly not part of Starfleet). I've always seen it as the Fed Councillors (or
 whatever you'd call 'em) are chosen individually by each world, some which might use democratic election 
to do so, while others would get chosen differently (heredity, fight to the death or you only apply for the job, 
et cetera).

I think it's quite clear that Starfleet seem to take care of the policing on Earth, but Earth is the HQ of both the 
UFP and Starfleet so maybe it's not surprising, They also seem to be federal cops, ala FBI. But that doesn't 
mean that the other member worlds don't have police systems of their own. 

The thing is just that we don't know much about the UFP, just about Earth and Starfleet.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Jun 3, 2003)

Just a note: It was never stated in FC that the UFP didn't have money, just that 
it wasn't the goal of man to achieve it anymore. It was in DS9 that the absense 
of money came into play, but that may just as easily been seen as the absense 
of Gold Plated Latinum. Both in TNG and DS9 we see UFP citizens engaging in trade 
(usually by bartering though) or talking about buying a thing or another. In TOS 
there were numerous references to Federation money and that the Enterprise 
and everything aboard had cost Starfleet a lot of money.

So I'd say that the UFP had a credit system that's incompatible outside of the 
UFP but that Earth society (I dunno about other members) does not revolve 
around the pursuit of riches anymore.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 3, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Hm, and come to think of it, I don't think they've ever mentioned liverwurst, maple trees, or the city of Frankfurt, either.  Must be that those don't exist on Earth in the Trek universe, either.
> 
> You've fallen into one of the oldest traps in the book - lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.  The fact that the details of Federation governance don't get mentioned does not imply anything specific about those details.  All it says is that the writers and producers chose not to tell stories about those details. *




This might be credible if it was a new show and we'd only seen a few eps.  Most sf settings tell us a lot about their societies in a lot less episodes than Trek has had.  Do you actually think there _is_ an electoral system within the Federation?  I can see an argument that individual Federation worlds could have local democratic governments (like Traveller's Imperium), but if the Federation itself was a democracy I think we might have seen some hint of it in all those hundreds of episodes.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 3, 2003)

I agree with Mr Bastard - on the evidence presented, Earth appears to be a military/police state run by Starfleet, but other Federation worlds may be largely free to run their own affairs as long as they are purely domestic.  The important point about the Bashir incident is that Starfleet had jurisdiction over Bashir's civilian parents, not just Bashir.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Jun 4, 2003)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> *Just a note: It was never stated in FC that the UFP didn't have money, just that  it wasn't the goal of man to achieve it anymore. . *





In STNG there was an episode where 3 people from the past were thawed out.

One of the men made comment that he needed to talk to his brockerage company to see how his portfolio was doing.

Picard and the rest of the crew had no concept what so ever what the man meant when he said portfolio. The whole concept was completely alien to them. Once it was explained by Data I believe their ignorance actually turned to a degree of arrogant disdain. Picard and company felt the man was a primitive because of his capitalist background.

How far down the pinko commie path do you have to go to get to that point?


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Jun 4, 2003)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> *
> So I'd say that the UFP had a credit system that's incompatible outside of the UFP but that Earth society (I dunno about other members) does not revolve around the pursuit of riches anymore. *





1. The term is called banana currency and describes money from places like the Old Soviet Union. The money is completely useless outside the country because the government enforces an artificial exchange rate that makes the money meaningless outside the territory.

2. The pursuit of riches comment is just dumb coming from Star Trek. According to Troi there is no longer sickness, greed, war, or poverty. Yet time and time again we see all of those items. DS9 showed us criminal organizations full of humans, STNG showed us entire human colonies that degenerated into utter anarchy (Tasha Yar's homeworld). In DS9 we saw Starfleet officers join the Maqui and become terrorists and we saw a Starfleet admiral on Earth try to take over Starfleet.


Basically try looking at what HAPPENS in Star Trek as opposed to the statements (which are little more than propoganda) made by people on the show and are in fact quite often and quite easily contradicted by the show itself.

The Federation is a totalitarian communist state who gives little freedom to its people and holds absolute authority over everyone who lives under it, even people like the Baku in Insurrection were under the "authority" of the Federation even though they were not members of the Federation.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Jun 4, 2003)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *I agree with Mr Bastard - on the evidence presented, Earth appears to be a military/police state run by Starfleet, but other Federation worlds may be largely free to run their own affairs as long as they are purely domestic.  The important point about the Bashir incident is that Starfleet had jurisdiction over Bashir's civilian parents, not just Bashir. *





Not accurate. Star Trek Insurrection showed that Starfleet and the Federation Council feel they have absolute authority over anyone and anything within Federation Space. This even includes planets who are not members of the Federation.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 5, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> Not accurate. Star Trek Insurrection showed that Starfleet and the Federation Council feel they have absolute authority over anyone and anything within Federation Space. This even includes planets who are not members of the Federation. *




I started watching Insurrection on tv but had to turn off because it was so boring.  I got the impression the world was a 'primitive' one and that's why Starfleet felt they could do what they liked there?  I was thinking that Federation member worlds might be allowed to retain local systems of government (the Vulcans in TOS certainly did), which might include democracy?  I admit I can't think of any evidence of this from the recent shows.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Jun 5, 2003)

It is quite certain that the Federation is gettin' corrupt. That's what too much Utopia will 
do to you. DS9 dealt with it a lot (and not just with S31).



> Not accurate. Star Trek Insurrection showed that Starfleet and the Federation Council feel they have absolute authority over anyone and anything within Federation Space. This even includes planets who are not members of the Federation.



Actually, it only shows that they felt that the gain of destroying the Ba'ku homeworld 
outweighed the immorality of the action. Corrupt? All the way. That's what the movie 
was all about. Military dictatorship? No. Just people. Not everyone is as higher-than-thou 
as Picard. Not even in the 24th century.



> How far down the pinko commie path do you have to go to get to that point?



And that's a bad thing? So they don't have Wall Street? Doesn't mean there isn't some 
kind of money, just that they don't have a stock market. Probably all businesses are privately 
owned. We do know there are businesses.  The whole 'world-is-controlled-by-capitalism' 
is seen in negative light in the future? Gosh. It's seen as negative now.

Plus, I'm not saying they ain't socialist, to me, that's a good thing. I'm just saying that that
doesn't mean they're a dictatorship. Can you give me any real evidence of that? Really. 

The fact is just that we don't know enough about the workings of the UFP to really say. 
You are just jumping to conclusions. Maybe you're right. But you can't prove it.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Jun 5, 2003)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> *
> And that's a bad thing? So they don't have Wall Street? Doesn't mean there isn't some
> kind of money, just that they don't have a stock market. Probably all businesses are privately
> owned. We do know there are businesses.  The whole 'world-is-controlled-by-capitalism'
> ...





Do you have any idea how long Wall Street has been around? People have been investing in businesses for centuries.

In fact the name "Wall Street" came about because lots of business transactions happened at a Coffee Shop located on the street of Wall Street which was named because it was near a large wall.

Also to put it bluntly. YES socialism and communism are bad. End of story.


----------



## Eridanis (Jun 5, 2003)

This has been a very interesting discussion, and a level-headed one, so far. Please keep things calm and mature.

Or I'll be forced to un-derail this thread.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 5, 2003)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> *And that's a bad thing? So they don't have Wall Street? Doesn't mean there isn't some kind of money, just that they don't have a stock market. Probably all businesses are privately
> owned. We do know there are businesses.  The whole 'world-is-controlled-by-capitalism' is seen in negative light in the future? Gosh. It's seen as negative now.*




Actually, it is really a negative if all businesses are privately owned. That means that opportunities for investment and ownership will be limited to those individuals who have lots of disposable assets they can invest. Corporate ownership is simply a way for many people with modest assets to pool their wealth to invest in a business. If you get rid of corporate ownership and make all businesses privately owned, you are on your way to a modern version of feudalism.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Jun 5, 2003)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> *
> The fact is just that we don't know enough about the workings of the UFP to really say.
> You are just jumping to conclusions. Maybe you're right. But you can't prove it. *





FACT: Starfleet admirals can and do try civilians for breaking civilian laws. (DS9)

FACT: Starfleet can and does initiate news blackouts. (STNG)

FACT: Starfleet admirals have enough power to stage coups that only other Starfleet personel can oppose (DS9)

FACT: Starfleet controls ALL spaceborn traffic in the Federation. Or at least controls the human ones. Or do you really think when the Borg ship was sitting above Earth that not a single citizen decided to jump in their personal ship and make a run for it? (STNG)

FACT: Starfleet is the Pentagon, State Department, CIA, and just about every other Federal Agency you have ever heard of. (STNG, DS9, VOY)

FACT: When outside the Federation no one accepts Federation credits. People are reduced to using barter or actual gold standard type precious metals. That is an economic system even more primative then we used 100 years ago.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 5, 2003)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> *Plus, I'm not saying they ain't socialist, to me, that's a good thing. I'm just saying that that
> doesn't mean they're a dictatorship. Can you give me any real evidence of that? Really.*




Sure, this is all fun-with-criticism. It may not be accurate to call the Federation a military dictatorship, but it is fun to examine it in that light. I started off joking, but there really is a case to be made for the Federation as a {relatively} benign military dictatorship.

For a show that makes a great deal of the Federation's ethics/principles {which should undergird and flow out of its politcal system and civil society}, there is little functional exploration of them in action within the Federation.

Its a bit like a show about a couples great marriage where we never actually see any of the workings of the marriage. The couple spends all of their time telling their neighbors what a great marriage they have...

To try and bring JMS's universe back into this.... in Crusade and B5 created a dynamic setting with much more interesting politics {evil human government, lots of deal making, the need for ugly compromise, shifting allegiances and hard choice to make}. 

This was used to great dramatic effect. Its the stuff of good drama. Trek's setting has little of this. Whether that's good or bad can only be judged by the quality of drama that produced from the setting, and I for one find Trek's Federation lacking in that department, except for the dear, departed DS9.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Jun 5, 2003)

Mallus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> To try and bring JMS's universe back into this.... in Crusade and B5 created a dynamic setting with much more interesting politics {evil human government, lots of deal making, the need for ugly compromise, shifting allegiances and hard choice to make}.
> 
> *





Babylon 5 is more interesting because it has human beings we can relate to in it. They hav emotions, desires, strengths, weaknesses.

Star Trek though has evolved to a show with creatures that LOOK like humans but appear to have been crossbreed with rabbits to make them more docile. You cannot relate to them because they do not think, act, or emote like we do.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 5, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *Babylon 5 is more interesting because it has human beings we can relate to in it. They hav emotions, desires, strengths, weaknesses.*




Well, I agree with you, but to be fair Trek has its share of interesting characters; I like most of the DS9 crew, and Data and the Doctor are fascinating, largely due to their struggle to define themselves. They had the need and the opportunity to grow, which was lacking, or critically under-dramatized, in their fellow crewmembers... 

And that's the key; struggle. JMS created dramatic situations that defined characters; the Trek writers too often had characters wrestling with balky technology, poorly defined external threats, and barely examined Federation "principles".


----------



## Mallus (Jun 5, 2003)

*And another thing...*

...it really isn't interesting to debate the economics of Star Trek. The Federation is well into the post-scarcity period. The cost of energy production and material goods is next to nil. The physical realities {unrealities?} that underlay their economy make such labelling pointless.

Besides, private owernership doesn't seem to be forbidden. Its just business largely equals hobby. And nothing prevents Federation citizens from participating in the wild-and-wooly economies out its borders. You're free to be Harcourt Fenton Mudd if you like, you just can't peddle your space hussies hooked on dangerous anti-aging drugs to its mining colonies...

Now the subversive {and unintentional} suggestion that in a society of enough plenty, democracy becomes irrelevant, and wholesale rule by an all-pervasive military government becomes tolerable, that is interesting...

And its not like you can't mine drama from a Utopia... Iain Banks does a fine job with his Culture novels...


----------



## Umbran (Jun 5, 2003)

Mallus said:
			
		

> *For a show that makes a great deal of the Federation's ethics/principles {which should undergird and flow out of its politcal system and civil society}, there is little functional exploration of them in action within the Federation.*




Yes, but here's the thing - if the Federations actually is, by and large, a happy utopia, stories set within that utopia would be _boring_.  Gripping fiction is, by and large, about dysfunctional relationships.  How drawn would you be to a show that was even happier and sappier and more "everything ends up okay in the end" than the Trek shows already were?  

You said it yourself in talking about JMS' work.  The universe is only dramatically interesting when there are ugly things in it.  If there are few ugly things within the Federation, then they must look outside the Federation itself for their drama.

In addition, this is where we see a little bit of the differing purposes of the two shows.  Trek intends, for the most part, to be a morality play.  B5, for the most part, intends to be a soap opera. Both can be and are valid and interesting story-forms, but the different intents call for different structures.

This is one reason why I say JMS shouldn't write Trek.  JMS has proven his ability to write a soap opera,  His forays into morality plays, though, are lackluster.


----------



## Villano (Jun 5, 2003)

I don't think anyone's posted this, yet, but here's an interesting article examining the Federation as a communist state.  He makes a pretty good case, too.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Trek-Marxism.html

When you really think about Trek, it is a creepy place.  The military controls everything.  There's no money.  No popular entertainment.  

And the Kasidy Yates situation on DS9.  Refresh my memory, but didn't it go something like this:

Kasidy is a smuggler for the Maquis.

She and Sisko start a romance.

Sisko turns her in to Starfleet.

She serves time in prison (Or whatever they call it in the Federation.  There's no crime there, after all  ).

Kasidy returns, having seen the "error of her ways", and falls right back into Sisko's arms.

If that's what happened, does it strike anyone else as odd?  Maybe she spent some time in a Starfleet "re-education camp"?

Obviously, since this is a fictional world, the inconsistencies are a result of a multitude of writers (not to mention producers and others).  The original Next Gen team tried to present a utopian society.  It ended up becoming a Hollywood vision of communism (i.e., the way people who live in mansions envision it).

However, at some point, reality set it.  Someone realized that a world without crime, war, greed, etc., was *boring*.  And they tried to backtrack.

Unfortunately, that resulted in the world you see now.  A place where the militry tries civilians (because no writers thought to include a civilian government).  Where everyone speaks self-righteously about the lack of greed and crime while such things are occurring right before our eyes.

Then you end up in a spooky, double-speaking communist authority.

And the irony is that Trek has been accussed of being politically correct.  Do you know where that phrase originated?  Chairman Mao created it as his description of rewriting history; shaping reality so that it meshed with his dogma.  Sounds like the Federation, doesn't it?


----------



## Mallus (Jun 5, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *You said it yourself in talking about JMS' work.  The universe is only dramatically interesting when there are ugly things in it.  If there are few ugly things within the Federation, then they must look outside the Federation itself for their drama.*



Sure, drama itself is rooted in conflict; if Hamlet the man and his folks were happy and well-adjusted then Hamlet the play would bite... But drama, even the Utopian SF kind, is based on the notion that conflict is endemic to the human {and funny-bridge-of-the-nose alien} condition. My gripe isn't that Trek posits a Utopia, its that over the years its lost anything interesting to do with it. The conlict's between the Individual and the System have {almost} all been resolved in favor of the System in such as way as to rememble propaganda for the {fictional} state. And the conflicts between the Federation and the Not-Federation usually leave out all the juicy bits --like the relationsip between the Federation's ethics and its enormous wealth and technological prowess. 

Two interesting cases: the exchange between Sisko and Dukat where Dukat interupts Sisko's sermonizing by reminding him "It's easy to be a saint in paradise" . And Picard and the elderly God-guy who kept recreating his little house and dead wife on the blasted planet --Picard makes a telling point of telling him "I'm in no position to judge you..." Of course not, he's the product of a race with vastly greater material techology/magic who just made a race of 50 billion sentients extinct.

Again, there's lots of material to mine from the-Fed-as-Utopia... but too often what we saw was just the writers  failure of imagination.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 5, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *Trek intends, for the most part, to be a morality play.  B5, for the most part, intends to be a soap opera. Both can be and are valid and interesting story-forms, but the different intents call for different structures.
> 
> This is one reason why I say JMS shouldn't write Trek.  JMS has proven his ability to write a soap opera,  His forays into morality plays, though, are lackluster. *



I always took B5 to be as much a morality play as Trek, 5 years worth, in fact. B5 had the serial structure of a soap opera, but its entire run was shot through with big moral issues; sin, redemption, the role of duty {at times its practically Sheridan and Antigone...}, the conflict between Religion and Faith, tolerance in the face of bloody conflict {and tolerance that didn't result in homogenization}, the decline of democracy into fascism, the evils of blind adherence to doctrine/tradition...

In what ways weren't B5 a morality play? I'm not critizing you're take, I just really curious.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 5, 2003)

Mallus said:
			
		

> *In what ways weren't B5 a morality play? I'm not critizing you're take, I just really curious. *




Here's the thing - there's more to a morality play than addressing moral issues.

The "morality play" is an ancient dramatic form - stemmign back to medeival, and older greek theatre roots.  In a morality play, we examione and address moral issues by creating icons of philosophical concepts or positions that interact, usually for the purposes of making some statement (the "moral of the story").

People gripe that Star Trek characters lack depth and development, that the plots aren't particularly long or complicated.  Part of that is simple economic practicality.  But much of it is the morality play structure.  Your characters are icons, they stand in place of concepts and ideals.  If your characters change much, they cease to represent the same concepts.  Krusk just isn't krusk if he starts acting more and more like Nebin over time.  Kirk would not be the Hero, Man of Action, Leader if he started acting like Spock, the Voice of Reason.  Characters in morality plays lose effectiveness if they develop as people.

One of the strengths of the Morality Play is that it is easily accessible - everybody can jump in and figure out what the icons mean very quickly.  It also can examine a vast number of highly diverse issues with relatively few well-chosen icons.

The "soap opera", at it's best, takes a whole different track.  It examines the human condition by giving you a "worm's eye view" of people.  Now maybe there's a moral message to be delivered, or maybe not, but in either case the plan is to give the viewer someone he can understand and possibly identify with, and put him through his paces.  Doing this properly takes a while, because real life is complicated - thus the long and developed plots, and doing it full force requires lots o detail, because real people are complicated - thus the great character development.

The basic strength of the soap opera is that it is immersive and compelling.  Done properly, you can evoke strong reactions in the audience.  However, if the point is to explore morality, you're somewhat restricted in what topics you can address and where you can go - the characters have to stay in character, and the events must not diverge too far from the present path - or you risk breaking teh audiences suspension of disbelief, making it difficult for them to immerse themselves in your story.

Now, neither B5 nor Star Trek is a pure form of these things.  But Trek leans strongly to the first, and B5 strongly to the second.

Now, here's the thing with JMS - B5 wasn't a pure soap opera.  It had elements of the Morality Play within it, but you'll notice that they are the weaker moments.  Let us compare...

JMS strong morality play moment - the very end of the Shadow War.  Sheriden faces down the Vorlons and Shadows.  Law and Chaos, Parental Figures, with Humanity inbetween.  "Get the hell out of our galaxy!"  Rah, Rah, hooray for mankind.  Yea, team.

JMS strong soap opera moment - Garibaldi, falling off the wagon.  Tired, beaten, weak, he swirls the booze around the glass, looks at it, and takes it down in one swig....  

The first is an okay bit, but when stuck into the rest of the series, it's out of place.  There's very little actual interaction of the icons as icons - the moral is stated, rather than demonstrated.  As opposed to the second, which tugs at the heartstrings as you watch Garibaldi, all too human - a human you love, going to a very bad place...

But anyway, I'm rambling a bit now.  I hope this clarified some of my position for you.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 5, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *
> But anyway, I'm rambling a bit now.  I hope this clarified some of my position for you. *




I thought that was all very well put...

You're using a pretty strict definition of "morality play". But that's useful for these kinds of conversations. 

I still feel Sheridan's season's long struggle between his duty to authority and his duty to the truth {and humanity} fits into the classical Greek dramatic mode; I wasn't entirely kididng by referencing Oedipus and Antigone... 

I agree that the better a character represents a concept, an idea, the less well they represent an actual person. And vice-versa.

The problem that I have with Trek as morality play is that its a very difficult mode to work in week after, year after year. If we're talking about the classic Greek use of catharsis to alleviate the {audience's} pressure over dealing with pressing social/philosophical issues, then there is a constant need for the stories to be revelevant to the audience. Morality plays only work if they address current, thus meaningful, moral dilemas {or the current incarnation of age-old moral dilemas}. Wouldn't you agree?

Origial Trek did this in spades. The later series did not, with DS9 opting for the more "soap opera" approach. 

For the record, this is the same problem I have with the exploration of SF elements in SF television. Its mercilessly hard to write what amounts to a good, insighful SF short story for each episode. I think SF televison needs to fall back on the character development heavy soap opera approach as a matter pure practicality. Better good drama than the exploration of second-rate SF ideas...


----------



## S'mon (Jun 5, 2003)

Villano said:
			
		

> *I don't think anyone's posted this, yet, but here's an interesting article examining the Federation as a communist state.  He makes a pretty good case, too.
> 
> http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Trek-Marxism.html
> 
> *




This was the article that convinced me the Federation was essentially a communist state - although they don't use the word, the Federtion government type is never classified - it seems rather to be presented to its citizens as the only possible form of government.  It's also the writers' vision of utopia, of course.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Jun 5, 2003)

Mallus said:
			
		

> *
> Sure, this is all fun-with-criticism. It may not be accurate to call the Federation a military dictatorship, but it is fun to examine it in that light. I started off joking, but there really is a case to be made for the Federation as a {relatively} benign military dictatorship.*



Sure. I'm not saying that this isn't fun, I just don't really buy it. I 
mean, would it be as fun if everyone was on the same team?



			
				DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *
> Also to put it bluntly. YES socialism and communism are bad. End of story. *



Ah. That's that then. Socialism=Dictatorship? I can't really answer 
any of your comments without going into the forbidden lands of 
political discussion. Capitalism vs. Socialism and all that.

All I can say is that one of things I liked about the Utopian 
Trekverse is that it shows a seemingly Socialist system that 
seems to work. They perfected the process.

.

The basic problem with the UFP and how it's represented is that 
it's supposed to be a Utopia but the writers have no idea how to 
write one. I mean, if they go too far in one political way or 
another, they have the risk of alienating fans, so they stick in the
political correct speeches about how great the UFP is, while 
straying away from actually showing us _why_.


----------



## Orius (Jun 6, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> Babylon 5 is more interesting because it has human beings we can relate to in it. They hav emotions, desires, strengths, weaknesses.
> ...




A lot of the blame for that can be laid at the feet of Roddenberry's "vision" of Star Trek.  He envisioned a future where everyone got along, and no one resorting to violence and all that other hippie crap.   I remember reading about how some staff writers that were around during the early seasons of TNG got disgusted with everyone getting along all of the time that they ended up leaving the show.  They felt they needed some interpersonal conflict for the sake of drama, but Roddenberry refused to budge.  Even with DS9, back when it was first being developed, Roddenberry was initially opposed to the idea of cast members not always getting along, until a compromise with Pillar was reached: only non-Federation cast members would have conflicts.   As a result though, most Federation characters all seem boring and lifeless, all carbon copies of each other.  They all like the same types of things, they all blindly agree with each other.  Only a few, like Picard and Sisko ever get developed fully enough that they seem interesting.


----------



## Orius (Jun 6, 2003)

Villano said:
			
		

> *
> And the Kasidy Yates situation on DS9.  Refresh my memory, but didn't it go something like this:
> 
> Kasidy is a smuggler for the Maquis.
> ...




Yeah, IIRC, that was about right.  Also, don't forget that Paris from Voyager was also in "prison".  The intent I think is to show that crime is wiped out, people who commit crimes do so because they're unbalanced or  misunderstood or something.  Punitive measures are seen as backwards and barbaric, so everyone's rehabilitated.  Unfortunately, "rehabilitation" seems to be more a matter of re-education and brainwashing.

I think the Maquis are the true heroes in the Trek universe.  These guys basically left Federation space so they could live free lives, and yet the Fed turns around and shafts them by giving the planets to the Cardassians.  Then the Cardassians turn around and try to remove the colonists, by any means necessary.  The Federation doesn't seem at all concerned about their plight, in fact, some might even say the Federation allowed the Cardassians to attack the colonists as a way of silencing the opposition while keeping their hands clean.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 6, 2003)

> I think the Maquis are the true heroes in the Trek universe. These guys basically left Federation space so they could live free lives, and yet the Fed turns around and shafts them by giving the planets to the Cardassians. Then the Cardassians turn around and try to remove the colonists, by any means necessary. The Federation doesn't seem at all concerned about their plight, in fact, some might even say the Federation allowed the Cardassians to attack the colonists as a way of silencing the opposition while keeping their hands clean.





Maybe it is only Federation/Starfleet Propaganda we hear in Startrek, but as far as I understood, the planets the Federation gave the Cardassions were part of the Federation until the treaty. They were given away as the price for peace.
I believe the Federation forced the Cardassions to secure safety for the former colonies, but unfortunately, only on paper. 
The Cardassian gave (throuh non official means) money and weapons to Cardassian settlers to attack the Maquis planets, unfortunately the Federation or Starfleet could never really prove it and thus cannot act on this. On the contrary, the treaty with the Cardassions force them to fight their own former colonies to ensure the peace...


As a side note, even if it is a political thingie:
The founders of the communistic ideas, Marx & co did never really explain how it would look like, they only described the way it the history would develop on this matter - maybe they did not knew themselves how "true Communismn" would work. Maybe the communistic states we saw in the past and see in the present prove that Marx and Engels and whoever was else associated with these concepts were wrong, but on the other hand, many ( I believe even all) did not follow the historical course they described (going from Feudalismn to Capitalismn to Socialismn to Communismn. The sowjets, as an example, went from Feudalismn to Socialism/Communism without staying long in the Capitalismn "realm" - they claimed the few months between the two revolutions were their Capitalistic part of the history, but ...) Finally, it doesn`t matter for now - if we ever change our systems to whatever we will figure out to be better, it might be in a far future, and we know that the current or past systems were or are not perfect... 
In Startrek, the Far feature has "arrived" and the Federation is assumed to have a better system, even if we do not really know how it looks like. In fact, if the writers described the system so well, we would already know how it would like today and could change to the Federation system... To some extent, the Federation system is similar to the Warp Engines - we can use it as an element of our story, but we cannot really explain how it works, because than we could already have Warp Engines today...


----------



## Mallus (Jun 6, 2003)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> *To some extent, the Federation system is similar to the Warp Engines - we can use it as an element of our story, but we cannot really explain how it works, because than we could already have Warp Engines today...
> *




That's a very interesting take: the Federation system as Black Box... I'm not sure I agree, but I like it.

But to extend your analogy... if the Warp Engines are akin to the Federation as a whole, consider in how many episodes the Warp Engines get damaged, break down, have an anomoly put the kibosh on them... and the plot hinges on them being repaired. Dramatic, isn't it? Well, the same should hold true for the Federation/Star Fleet. We don't need to know how it works, but it sure as Hell ought to break down from time to time just to keep things interesting....


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jun 6, 2003)

Mallus said:
			
		

> *
> But to extend your analogy... if the Warp Engines are akin to the Federation as a whole, consider in how many episodes the Warp Engines get damaged, break down, have an anomoly put the kibosh on them... and the plot hinges on them being repaired. Dramatic, isn't it? Well, the same should hold true for the Federation/Star Fleet. We don't need to know how it works, but it sure as Hell ought to break down from time to time just to keep things interesting.... *




ah, but to extend the extension...  

The warp drives to not suddenly turn out to be flawed in design. As you say it takes damage (from terrorist attacks on a government) a break down (such as when colonists are stranded for so long their  interests become radically different from the federations) or an anomaly (like the invasion of parasitic nasties in high levels of power) to cause a problem, and many episode have in fact focsed on solving that sort of problem with the machine of the federation. But Gordi does not call up to the bridge one day and say "captain, I just realized that the whole warp drive design is flawed and we can expect star ships to start blowing up once they hit 80,000 light years" and ST does not tell stories about the failure of their entire system of government.  

I perfer the black box method to stories like starship troopers which do spell out a "perfect" system of government, with many asides about why it is perfect. Just like it gets silly when start trek tries to use real science (introns, anyone?) its detracts from the story when sci fi tries to show The Future of real politics.

Kahuna Burger


----------



## Mallus (Jun 6, 2003)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> *
> 
> ah, but to extend the extension...
> 
> The warp drives to not suddenly turn out to be flawed in design. *




OK, to be extra geeky {wow, mega-extra geeky, MC 900 Ft. Jesus's "If I Only Had a Brain" just came on}.

Anyway, recall that Warp Drive propulsion maybe in fact be fundementally flawed --it might just damage the fabric of spacetime itself {see the Space Speed Limit of TNG}.

So to stretch this analogy well past the breaking point; just as the Black Box object called "Warp Drive" might eventually precipitate disaster on a cosmic scale, the Black Box object called "the Utopian Federation" might eventually render dramatic storytelling impossible in the ST universe, thus precipating an equally cosmic disaster, this time in the metacritical sense...

Ah, best I could, I'm tired and getting sick...


----------



## Viking Bastard (Jun 6, 2003)

Which was a trouble that got fixed in either DS9, late TNG or VOY.

Y'know, Voyager's nacelles movin' when it goes into warp, that's 
the solution. Then later, it was said off-screen (by the producers 
when FC came out I think) that a better solution was designed 
that was retrofitted into older ships (which didn't need any nacelle
movin').

In other words, that's them sayin': "I wish we hadn't done that story!".


----------



## Mallus (Jun 6, 2003)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> *Which was a trouble that got fixed in either DS9, late TNG or VOY.*




One Black Box problem down, one to go...


----------



## Villano (Jun 6, 2003)

Orius said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yeah, IIRC, that was about right.  Also, don't forget that Paris from Voyager was also in "prison".  The intent I think is to show that crime is wiped out, people who commit crimes do so because they're unbalanced or  misunderstood or something.  Punitive measures are seen as backwards and barbaric, so everyone's rehabilitated.  Unfortunately, "rehabilitation" seems to be more a matter of re-education and brainwashing.*





I think there was an episode of NG that actually said that crime was a mental disease that needed to be treated (or words to that effect).  But it does come off as being scary in the real world.  Anyone who does something illegal is taken away and "treated".  

I think most people would rather spend a few years in prison than having someone go into their head and "fix" their way of thinking.




> I think the Maquis are the true heroes in the Trek universe.  These guys basically left Federation space so they could live free lives, and yet the Fed turns around and shafts them by giving the planets to the Cardassians.  Then the Cardassians turn around and try to remove the colonists, by any means necessary.  The Federation doesn't seem at all concerned about their plight, in fact, some might even say the Federation allowed the Cardassians to attack the colonists as a way of silencing the opposition while keeping their hands clean.





I thought I was the only one!  No matter what the writers did, the Maquis always came off as more sympathetic than the Federation.

And, IIRC, the Maquis situation began when the Federation basically gave the Cardassians Federation territory as part of a treaty.

But, here's the thing, what was the treaty about?  The war had been over for years, so it couldn't have been part of a peace agreement.  What was the Federation getting in return?  Seriously, has an explanation ever been given?


----------



## Viking Bastard (Jun 6, 2003)

As I understand it, the peace talks had been goin' on for years
/decades.  These were the systems they were finally able to 
agree on.

I too always found the Maquis more sympathetic than the Feds.

And from what I can gather from interviews with the writers 
through the years, is that the Maquis were made sympathetic for
a reason, that they had a good valid case for saying that they 
were mistreated. The idea was that they were not supposed to
be 'wrong' but reacted to it 'wrong'. That is, resorted to Terrorism
instead of other more peaceful ways.

Personally, I feel that the writers screwed it up royally by never 
showing us the Maquis doing really bad things. Like blowing up 
restaurants an' stuff. We were told that they were doing some 
bad things, but never shown any. All it needed was some kids
crying over the scarred bodies of their parents or the burned 
remains of toddlers, but this being Trek, nooooooooo.


----------

