Maybe the nuclear wessels at Alameda were really expensive
while sfx are expensive I think at the time shooting on location was more expensive....plus water tanks are expensive too
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Actually, there has always been a argument in Starfleet between the military types ala maco and the civvie side that pushed for the glorified Astronaut premise. (Pretty major plot point in the Enterprise series)
TOS Starfleet was certainty a military with hostile romulans and klingons on the border, it was pretty much a necessity. What happened in TNG was simple, between TOS and TNG the Romulans went into isolation (they did not return till the end of TNG Season one) and the of course the Khitimer accords made the klingons allies. The galaxy had become a safer place and so Starfleet was downsized and the glorified astronauts won control of starfleet. (Hence the Galaxy originally built as a luxury liner with families aboard.)
It was pretty much the return of the romulans, the apperance of the borg they got the military guys pushing for renewed military focus thus the Defiant Class project. But it was truely the dominion that brought starfleet back to military organization, lets not forget Admiral Leytons attempted Coup to bring full on Military doctrine back to the Federastion. Which pretty much did make a big return for the Dominion War.
This is all pretty clearly spelled out in the series.
As for Flagships, its been mentioned in the various series and movies plenty of times each Admiral had their own flagship (Sir, the Admirals Flagship has been destroyed et all), but the Ent D was the overall Flagship representing Both the Federation and Starfleet.
Actually, there has always been a argument in Starfleet between the military types ala maco and the civvie side that pushed for the glorified Astronaut premise. (Pretty major plot point in the Enterprise series)
TOS Starfleet was certainty a military with hostile romulans and klingons on the border, it was pretty much a necessity. What happened in TNG was simple, between TOS and TNG the Romulans went into isolation (they did not return till the end of TNG Season one) and the of course the Khitimer accords made the klingons allies. The galaxy had become a safer place and so Starfleet was downsized and the glorified astronauts won control of starfleet. (Hence the Galaxy originally built as a luxury liner with families aboard.)
It was pretty much the return of the romulans, the apperance of the borg they got the military guys pushing for renewed military focus thus the Defiant Class project. But it was truely the dominion that brought starfleet back to military organization, lets not forget Admiral Leytons attempted Coup to bring full on Military doctrine back to the Federastion. Which pretty much did make a big return for the Dominion War.
This is all pretty clearly spelled out in the series.
As for Flagships, its been mentioned in the various series and movies plenty of times each Admiral had their own flagship (Sir, the Admirals Flagship has been destroyed et all), but the Ent D was the overall Flagship representing Both the Federation and Starfleet.
Actually none of this is true.
Starfleets alignment has been very clearly stated from beginning to end. While TOS had more cowboy-ing going on I recommend you reading the lengthy post of darthmeow a few pages back which desscribes the situation pretty well. With TNG beginning the galaxy was far from safe which should be obvious to anyone watchign the series. Not only that they constantly evolve semi-omnipotent beings that want to murder their faces in deep-space, during the course of TNG the Federation is bound in several hot and cold wars which are mentioned in dialogue throughout TNG and DS9. There is no "peaceful times" and the Galaxy class is far from a "luxury liner", it's mission profile alone contradicts that.
No, Romulans and Borg and Dominion did not change what Starfleet is or how they operate. It's just that we see more pew-pew in the show (special effect wise).
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
No, because the creator of this IP made it pretty clear as to where he was comming from in terms of the evolution of Starfleet and the Federation. Even the infamous 'B & B' built upon that in ENT, that's why I love ENT - it displays the beginning of that evoultion into the Federation with multiple alien species and the role of Starfleet in the new organization.
Neither of those 'I's in IDIC stands for ignorance. Starfleet clearly fullfilled many roles for the Federation, including being the acting military of the Federation amongst many others. Roddenberry clearly made his point about his vision, but to some around here he was just a clown because his vision of the future doesn't fit their very narrow-minded version of reality. Mocking his vision because Starfleet wore "pujamas" and not camo. :rolleyes:
If someone is not accepting that the Oak in front of them is a tree and not the stripper pole they preferred and imagined - then that's their problem, and yes, potentially evidence of having less intelligence.
LMAO!!! "Strong anti-militarry bent" :rolleyes: Mate, I served in my country in what would be the analogue of your Navy Seals, assuming you're American. Voluntarily.
I don't have a "strong anti-military bent", however I'm bent against people trying to impose their vision on someone else's vision just because they don't happen to like it or agree with it.
If Gene imagined Starfleet as being full on military first, acting as a contemporary military in any.....let's say western country today, wearing camo uniforms instead of the "pujamas" you despise so much - I'd completely accept that. And I'd probably argue against the people who'd then be saying that Starfleet should wear "pujamas" and "Black & Decker dust busters" because it's the future.
I have no issues with Jack O'Neill being a U.S. military colonel, behaving like one and wearing the apropriate attire and using the apropriate equipment. On the other hand, you aparently have such issues in terms of this particular franchise.
It's not a thing of disagreeing or agreeing. It's about mocking the author of this franchise and trying to impose your views on his, when he is no longer with us.
But good luck with imposing your logic on a imaginary future sci-fi universe that spawned as a creative idea in someone else's head and only bound to follow the rules of their imagination.
I really don't know why I bother. Probably because it's maintenece time.
Even people who have served can develop a dislike for the armed forces for whatever reason. Just look at the number of anti-war protesters who came back from Vietnam. Or the number of former Cold Warriors and Gulf War vets that developed a distrust of anything Federal back in the 1990's. There are people I'm still in touch with, with whom I served with in Germany in the late 1980's and the Gulf in Desert Shield/Storm, Who fall into that category. If I mistook the tone of your posts, both past and present, then my apologies. It's hard to convey stuff with 100% accuracy from a keyboard. However, I can only call it as I see it as a result.
During the 1960's, Roddenberry originally created Star Trek for one reason, and one reason alone: To make money. Not as some grand statement of the Human condition, or a belief in a utopian tomorrow. Star Trek was an action adventure series. Any social commentary came from the episode writers, not from Roddenberry himself. As long as his checks made it to the bank on time, he didn't give a damn.
And Starfleet wasn't some sort of "militia", "coast guard in space", or "peace force". Roddenberry and some of his team, being ex-military, built the UESPA/Starfleet up as a military force with an exploratory role. Much like modern navies field research vessels and conduct peaceful research. And much like the great expeditions of history had military support and/or involvement.
Next, you are accusing me of "imposing" my views of Roddenberry's vision. The truth of the matter is that people like yourself, probably came on board, as it were, during the 80's and 90's with The Next Generation. Which offers a very narrow perception of the overall picture. You seem to forget that Star Trek has been wildly inconsistent. More so when the later series came about.
I've seen the evolution of Star Trek from a syndicated, short lived T.V. series with a small, but rabid fan following to what it is today with the Abrams re-boot. The truth of the matter is that Starfleet was portrayed (often contradictory) to suit whatever the whims of whoever controlled the IP at the time. It started out as a military and exploratory arm. Roddenberry, who became increasing humanistic and left-leaning in his views, tried to downplay that aspect in TMP. Bennett and crew turned it into a full blown military force. Roddenberry flipped it around again with the first two seasons of the TNG. After he lost control of the franchise for the last time, it evolved back into a slightly toned down version of the Starfleet of TOS.
And it's "pajamas" not "pujamas". Spare me the childish, 4chan-ish mockery. It's not appreciated, and it implies that I'm an ignorant idiot with no critical thinking skills. Plus, I never said anything about camo pattern uniforms. Not all military attire consists of such. That tired-assed line of debate doesn't cut it and misses the issue at hand.
Next order of business: I state facts based on the total history of the franchise. As opposed to your view, which appear to be very narrow in focus when taking the entire history of Star Trek into account. If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, walks like a duck, then it must be a duck. I don't subscribe to the old Japanese concepts of self delusion. If I look at something critically, and compile the facts, and it fits the definition, then I call it like I see it. I'm not so absent minded as to accept somebody else's definition as gospel if it doesn't fit what is presented. It doesn't matter if it's religion, politics, or a science fiction franchise with a giant nerd following.
Roddenberry was no saint, like you seem to be portraying him as. And I get burned as a heretic because I dare question his holy word because it doesn't fit the portrayal, as shown the majority of the time. Sorry, Hoss. I'm not such a rabid fan that I border on a cultist. Plus, he wasn't the only person that had creative control of the franchise over it's long history. And just because he's dead and gone doesn't absolve him of criticism or being a subject of debate. That's the mindset of a cultist.
In a word, what Roddenberry has said isn't some sort of ******ned holy canon. TRIBBLE changes in fictional franchises, often back and forth, and is often blurry/doesn't fit what is presented to the viewer/reader. In this case, it's the claim that Starfleet isn't a military force, when all evidence points otherwise, both in background history and what is shown. And people seem to consider that to be "the devil", despite the fact that it doesn't rule out the other fact that Starfleet is also an exploratory/diplomatic arm. Military forces do more than just "kill people and break things". To suggest otherwise ignores facts, IRL history, and is an insult to people like you and me who served.
Oh, in the future, if you ever wonder why you "even bother", then don't. Chalk it up as a case to "agree to disagree" and leave it at that.
Oh, in the future, if you ever wonder why you "even bother", then don't. Chalk it up as a case to "agree to disagree" and leave it at that.
And after this wall of text, that's exactly what I'll do.
P.S. Please don't take this as "can't be bothered with your post" or disrespect, but rather as "If we go on, I'll have to make a wall of text. And then you'll make another and so on and on..." which would probably be pointless as it seems hard that either of us will change his opinion.
If anything, I apreciate that you're one of the rare people around here that can articulate themselves and stay consistent with their ideas and thoughts. I apologize if I came off as arrogant or whatever in my initial reply, I don't even remember, probably was having "one of those days".
Starfleets alignment has been very clearly stated from beginning to end. While TOS had more cowboy-ing going on I recommend you reading the lengthy post of darthmeow a few pages back which desscribes the situation pretty well. With TNG beginning the galaxy was far from safe which should be obvious to anyone watchign the series. Not only that they constantly evolve semi-omnipotent beings that want to murder their faces in deep-space, during the course of TNG the Federation is bound in several hot and cold wars which are mentioned in dialogue throughout TNG and DS9. There is no "peaceful times" and the Galaxy class is far from a "luxury liner", it's mission profile alone contradicts that.
No, Romulans and Borg and Dominion did not change what Starfleet is or how they operate. It's just that we see more pew-pew in the show (special effect wise).
Actually all of it is true, have you ever listened to the people speaking on Star Trek? In the first season of TNG pretty much the most dangerous threat, or the occasional Cardassian border skirmish until the Romualans and borg poped up. For a long time after, the Enterprise itself at least was powerful enough to tear threw entire alien fleets, it was only the borg that gave Starfleet pause.
Sisko even goes on later to say in the episode about the Defiant that it was the beginning of a new starfleet battle fleet to fight to borg but the threat died down so starfleet abandoned it and went back to the status quo of peaceful exploration.
Comments
while sfx are expensive I think at the time shooting on location was more expensive....plus water tanks are expensive too
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Defending The Galaxy By Breaking One Starfleet Regulation After The Next.
TOS Starfleet was certainty a military with hostile romulans and klingons on the border, it was pretty much a necessity. What happened in TNG was simple, between TOS and TNG the Romulans went into isolation (they did not return till the end of TNG Season one) and the of course the Khitimer accords made the klingons allies. The galaxy had become a safer place and so Starfleet was downsized and the glorified astronauts won control of starfleet. (Hence the Galaxy originally built as a luxury liner with families aboard.)
It was pretty much the return of the romulans, the apperance of the borg they got the military guys pushing for renewed military focus thus the Defiant Class project. But it was truely the dominion that brought starfleet back to military organization, lets not forget Admiral Leytons attempted Coup to bring full on Military doctrine back to the Federastion. Which pretty much did make a big return for the Dominion War.
This is all pretty clearly spelled out in the series.
As for Flagships, its been mentioned in the various series and movies plenty of times each Admiral had their own flagship (Sir, the Admirals Flagship has been destroyed et all), but the Ent D was the overall Flagship representing Both the Federation and Starfleet.
Actually none of this is true.
Starfleets alignment has been very clearly stated from beginning to end. While TOS had more cowboy-ing going on I recommend you reading the lengthy post of darthmeow a few pages back which desscribes the situation pretty well. With TNG beginning the galaxy was far from safe which should be obvious to anyone watchign the series. Not only that they constantly evolve semi-omnipotent beings that want to murder their faces in deep-space, during the course of TNG the Federation is bound in several hot and cold wars which are mentioned in dialogue throughout TNG and DS9. There is no "peaceful times" and the Galaxy class is far from a "luxury liner", it's mission profile alone contradicts that.
No, Romulans and Borg and Dominion did not change what Starfleet is or how they operate. It's just that we see more pew-pew in the show (special effect wise).
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Even people who have served can develop a dislike for the armed forces for whatever reason. Just look at the number of anti-war protesters who came back from Vietnam. Or the number of former Cold Warriors and Gulf War vets that developed a distrust of anything Federal back in the 1990's. There are people I'm still in touch with, with whom I served with in Germany in the late 1980's and the Gulf in Desert Shield/Storm, Who fall into that category. If I mistook the tone of your posts, both past and present, then my apologies. It's hard to convey stuff with 100% accuracy from a keyboard. However, I can only call it as I see it as a result.
During the 1960's, Roddenberry originally created Star Trek for one reason, and one reason alone: To make money. Not as some grand statement of the Human condition, or a belief in a utopian tomorrow. Star Trek was an action adventure series. Any social commentary came from the episode writers, not from Roddenberry himself. As long as his checks made it to the bank on time, he didn't give a damn.
And Starfleet wasn't some sort of "militia", "coast guard in space", or "peace force". Roddenberry and some of his team, being ex-military, built the UESPA/Starfleet up as a military force with an exploratory role. Much like modern navies field research vessels and conduct peaceful research. And much like the great expeditions of history had military support and/or involvement.
Next, you are accusing me of "imposing" my views of Roddenberry's vision. The truth of the matter is that people like yourself, probably came on board, as it were, during the 80's and 90's with The Next Generation. Which offers a very narrow perception of the overall picture. You seem to forget that Star Trek has been wildly inconsistent. More so when the later series came about.
I've seen the evolution of Star Trek from a syndicated, short lived T.V. series with a small, but rabid fan following to what it is today with the Abrams re-boot. The truth of the matter is that Starfleet was portrayed (often contradictory) to suit whatever the whims of whoever controlled the IP at the time. It started out as a military and exploratory arm. Roddenberry, who became increasing humanistic and left-leaning in his views, tried to downplay that aspect in TMP. Bennett and crew turned it into a full blown military force. Roddenberry flipped it around again with the first two seasons of the TNG. After he lost control of the franchise for the last time, it evolved back into a slightly toned down version of the Starfleet of TOS.
And it's "pajamas" not "pujamas". Spare me the childish, 4chan-ish mockery. It's not appreciated, and it implies that I'm an ignorant idiot with no critical thinking skills. Plus, I never said anything about camo pattern uniforms. Not all military attire consists of such. That tired-assed line of debate doesn't cut it and misses the issue at hand.
Next order of business: I state facts based on the total history of the franchise. As opposed to your view, which appear to be very narrow in focus when taking the entire history of Star Trek into account. If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, walks like a duck, then it must be a duck. I don't subscribe to the old Japanese concepts of self delusion. If I look at something critically, and compile the facts, and it fits the definition, then I call it like I see it. I'm not so absent minded as to accept somebody else's definition as gospel if it doesn't fit what is presented. It doesn't matter if it's religion, politics, or a science fiction franchise with a giant nerd following.
Roddenberry was no saint, like you seem to be portraying him as. And I get burned as a heretic because I dare question his holy word because it doesn't fit the portrayal, as shown the majority of the time. Sorry, Hoss. I'm not such a rabid fan that I border on a cultist. Plus, he wasn't the only person that had creative control of the franchise over it's long history. And just because he's dead and gone doesn't absolve him of criticism or being a subject of debate. That's the mindset of a cultist.
In a word, what Roddenberry has said isn't some sort of ******ned holy canon. TRIBBLE changes in fictional franchises, often back and forth, and is often blurry/doesn't fit what is presented to the viewer/reader. In this case, it's the claim that Starfleet isn't a military force, when all evidence points otherwise, both in background history and what is shown. And people seem to consider that to be "the devil", despite the fact that it doesn't rule out the other fact that Starfleet is also an exploratory/diplomatic arm. Military forces do more than just "kill people and break things". To suggest otherwise ignores facts, IRL history, and is an insult to people like you and me who served.
Oh, in the future, if you ever wonder why you "even bother", then don't. Chalk it up as a case to "agree to disagree" and leave it at that.
And after this wall of text, that's exactly what I'll do.
P.S. Please don't take this as "can't be bothered with your post" or disrespect, but rather as "If we go on, I'll have to make a wall of text. And then you'll make another and so on and on..." which would probably be pointless as it seems hard that either of us will change his opinion.
If anything, I apreciate that you're one of the rare people around here that can articulate themselves and stay consistent with their ideas and thoughts. I apologize if I came off as arrogant or whatever in my initial reply, I don't even remember, probably was having "one of those days".
Actually all of it is true, have you ever listened to the people speaking on Star Trek? In the first season of TNG pretty much the most dangerous threat, or the occasional Cardassian border skirmish until the Romualans and borg poped up. For a long time after, the Enterprise itself at least was powerful enough to tear threw entire alien fleets, it was only the borg that gave Starfleet pause.
Sisko even goes on later to say in the episode about the Defiant that it was the beginning of a new starfleet battle fleet to fight to borg but the threat died down so starfleet abandoned it and went back to the status quo of peaceful exploration.