[Captain Tom Coughlin]

Originally Posted by horatio

You mind that we did not see more of the rottenness of the Federation. Well, sorry, but that's how TNG worked!
In a dramatic context it is fairly natural to illustrate structural issues via a character. In Hamlet it were Polonius and Claudius that embodied the rottenness of Denmark, in TNG it is Satie, Nechayev (to a minor degree, she is obviously not a criminal but nonetheless an ideological opponent of Picard) or Dougherty that show the problems of the Federation or, to express it more poetically, the fragility of paradise, how you have to constantly struggle to maintain it.
Same in DS9. There as no Section 31 except via its dramatic representation in the form of the character of Sloane.

Ah, but Dougherty was a criminal. What he was doing was not simply a ying to Picard's yang on some point of logic as Nechayev was. He was willing to pull the trigger, so to speak.

But again, they didn't have the courage to really explore that.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by kevin

I would have been happier with a story that really looked at the notion of forced relocation of a small group for potentially greater good. At the ethics and morals that perhaps it can be justified vs the notion it never is in a manner that would let the viewer decide rather than be told.
That isn't quite how it went.

Of course it's also hard to argue for Insurrection when the main villain descends into someone just out to get back at his people for being kicked out for misbehaviour. One can't complain about Nero when the primary villain of something like INS is as thinly motivated and executed.

The issue in INS was not eminent domain, a conflict of interest inside of a society, it was plain theft, taking land and resources from another people. There is no ethical dilemma.

And once again we are at how much people care about the background of Trek, Federation principles and so on, and how this informs their preferences concerning single Trek stories.

Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin

Ah, but Dougherty was a criminal. What he was doing was not simply a ying to Picard's yang on some point of logic as Nechayev was. He was willing to pull the trigger, so to speak.

But again, they didn't have the courage to really explore that.

Dougherty might have lied to the Council but it approved murder and theft. What INS failed at was that it did not delve into how the Federation became ready to do such things during the Dominion War, how all the soul-searching happened in the background ... yet this isn't possible for the dramatic reasons I explored above and as the Dominion War is something you can hardly use unless you wanna make a niche movie for fans.

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

Originally Posted by horatio

The issue in INS was not eminent domain, a conflict of interest inside of a society, it was plain theft, taking land and resources from another people. There is no ethical dilemma.

And once again we are at how much people care about the background of Trek, Federation principles and so on, and how this informs their preferences concerning single Trek stories.



Dougherty might have lied to the Council but it approved murder and theft. What INS failed at was that it did not delve into how the Federation became ready to do such things during the Dominion War ... and it was hardly possible to tie so deeply into DS9 in the case of a Trek movie.

There was meant to be. One of the reasons that the TNG shows that you keep citing worked was that they always made sure that there was a strong counter argument to be made against Picard's position. That was what made it so good.

[kevin]

And taking from others has been a historical trait of large societies since their inception. The Federation has it's principles for sure. How often it actually abides by them is another matter.

There could have been a much better discussion of the realities of running a large society if someone had presented more of an argument against Picard's defence of principles. Picard is very much the 'theory' man, but people like Dougherty should have embodied the 'practical' day to day challenges of those principles. And where they sometimes fall by the wayside for expediency.

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

Originally Posted by horatio

The issue in INS was not eminent domain, a conflict of interest inside of a society, it was plain theft, taking land and resources from another people. There is no ethical dilemma.

And once again we are at how much people care about the background of Trek, Federation principles and so on, and how this informs their preferences concerning single Trek stories.



Dougherty might have lied to the Council but it approved murder and theft. What INS failed at was that it did not delve into how the Federation became ready to do such things during the Dominion War, how all the soul-searching happened in the background ... yet this isn't possible for the dramatic reasons I explored above and as the Dominion War is something you can hardly use unless you wanna make a niche movie for fans.

The idea that it approved murder and theft loses all weight when the solution to the problem is for Enterprise to contact the Federation for help!

They simply have to phone home and set things right. It's a cop out.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin

There was meant to be. One of the reasons that the TNG shows that you keep citing worked was that they always made sure that there was a strong counter argument to be made against Picard's position. That was what made it so good.

Dougherty and Satie, no, Nechayev, perhaps.
"I, Borg" showed the real difference between the Borg and the Feds, that the one values the collective whereas the other values the individual above all. That's also the way our laws are designed and Picard was simply a bearer of liberal human rights ideology.
Of course you can make the arguments that it is war, that you are allowed to force somebody into his death in order to save millions of your own people and so on but I do not think that this way the actual point of the story. It was fairly blunt IMO and while I totally agree with you that it is nice when Trek gives us these ethical dilemma stories they are usually twitched into one direction. Picard is right to not kill Hugh, Sisko is right to look away when Garak does his nasty stuff, killing Tuvix or torturing that pirate is basically OK and so on.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin

The idea that it approved murder and theft loses all weight when the solution to the problem is for Enterprise to contact the Federation for help!

They simply have to phone home and set things right. It's a cop out.

Briar Patch, communication are down. Furthermore Picard doesn't wanna home phone (he is not fu*king ET ) as the Council is behind Dougherty. He has to turn rogue which is the point of the story, that he has to abandon his career in order to stand up for Federation principles.
But, and this is valid criticism, it is of course a fake sacrifice. But then again so is Spock's in TWOK, the show has to go on.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by kevin

And taking from others has been a historical trait of large societies since their inception. The Federation has it's principles for sure. How often it actually abides by them is another matter.

There could have been a much better discussion of the realities of running a large society if someone had presented more of an argument against Picard's defence of principles. Picard is very much the 'theory' man, but people like Dougherty should have embodied the 'practical' day to day challenges of those principles. And where they sometimes fall by the wayside for expediency.

Again my tiresome argument about underlying ideology informing one's preferences. You want the Federation to be corrupt and cynical whereas I want it to be idealistic ... so naturally we love a story in which these traits we like appear.

[martok2112]

We will all have different preferences of what constitutes Star Trek. I'm sure we embrace them all.

Granted, I am much more of an action adventure/space battle lover, but I still love and appreciate the ideals that episodes like City on the Edge of Forever, or Inner Light, or Far Beyond the Stars espouse.

However, we also need to remember that there is no such thing as a "True Trek Fan". One fan might appreciate the things that Gene Roddenberry had in mind, another might appreciate the directions that were taken when he lost control of Trek, one might appreciate every aspect regardless of direction. No one fan or lover of the series of shows or movies is any better than another. Fans and lovers of the show always come to this particular quarrel whenever differences raise their ugly head to this point.

For the record, Star Trek 2009 is my absolute favorite Trek film out of any that came before, especially when I used to keep TOS and TNG era films distinct because of their ideological differences in eras. Quite honestly, ST 2009 is the Trek film I waited my whole life for....hopefully STID will surpass that longing.

Honesty has been asked for. Ok....here's my honesty: I truly do not believe in the "perfection of humanity" as Roddenberry does. There's always going to be evil in the hearts of men and women. There's always going to be divisiveness based on race, creed, color, gender, what not. It has been this way for thousands of years, and to expect it all to just end in a couple of centuries?...quite honestly, felgercarb. (That's classic Galactica-ese for "bulls***".) There are always going to be terrorists because Allah says this, or God says that , or Elvis says "uhhhh-huh!". Even in the best intended of ideologies, there's always going to be that one subversive asshat who will see loophole opportunities, and manipulate and seize power for himself and his/her selected few....if only to have lackeys to push around and extend his/her power. And most of the time, left unchecked, that asshat will succeed...at least, for a while. So, in that case, what are our options? Unify those who love freedom, and fight the regime that has seized power of the so-called "ideal state"? Assassination? Pretty ugly options, but likely the only ones left.

Vote him/her out of office? (Likely that particular option has been canceled out by the new regime's laws).

Yes, I am cynical. I trust very little, especially the current regime that sits in the White House. Cynicism, and questioning has kept me alive this long. (In fact, this is the oldest I have ever been.)

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

I, Borg works specifically because Picard has to weigh that decision. The entire episode is based on his coming to a decision.

And the counter argument is a completely valid one or he wouldn't have had to struggle with it. That's why it's a well written episode. The Borg destroyed countless lives after that moment. That blood is at least partly on Picard's hands. He had a chance to save those people.

It's the needs of the many argument. We're talking about a body count that may be in the tens of trillions. They destroy worlds wholesale.

Look back on the threads I start. I was always intrigued by the counter arguments in TNG. About Hugh, about Jellico and countless others. You made the arguement that I don't like Insurrection because we don't focus on what the Federation is about. That's not true. Those are often the best stories

They made it work on the show. Insurrection tried to be that, but it fell flat. That's the problem.