Because, broad strokes, there are only two real options for how the new aliens feel about the Feds: They're good! They're bad! If they're good then where's the conflict? Why do we even care about...
Why not stop and see what some of those new civilisations actually think of them for once?
Because, broad strokes, there are only two real options for how the new aliens feel about the Feds:
If they're good then where's the conflict? Why do we even care about this show? We're just going to watch these aliens sign a bunch of treaties?
If they're bad then we're beyond the pale in terms of depicting the "soul" of the Federation. DS9 played with the idea of making the Feds the baddies on multiple occasions but ultimately the Feds win the war and free the Cardassians. In every other Trek, the Feds are "GOOD." In DS9, they're "Good*." But they're still good.
A Trek show from the perspective of non-Feds presumably has to 1) make you empathize with the aliens who the show is about about 2) provide us with some sort of conflict to drive the plot. As with all Trek there's a third implicit condition, which is that the Feds are also fundamentally good, even if they do some misguided or shady shit every once in a while. Adhering to all three of these conditions boxes in your narrative options real fast. In fact at that point, it just seems like we're rehashing DS9 itself: aliens are skeptical about the Feds but eventually see the light in the face of a common enemy.
I think we can learn about how other alien species feel about the Federation and their values while still retaining the perspective of the Federation. Switching the POV to anyone outside the Federation feels like an invitation to make the Federation the bad guys, and seems like a bridge too far for a Star Trek show.
Well... yes? Everyone is the hero of their own story and the Federation is a proxy for us. There is no shortage of Humans Are Bastards in sci-fi. The fact that humans (by and large) aren't...
Which is too bad. I've long argued that they are only portrayed as good because we see it from the angle of the federation and a select few "good" captains
Well... yes? Everyone is the hero of their own story and the Federation is a proxy for us. There is no shortage of Humans Are Bastards in sci-fi. The fact that humans (by and large) aren't bastards in Star Trek is arguably Star Trek's defining feature. And as arguments about the soul of Trek go, that's definitely one of the stronger ones.
Sure some individual people within the Federation are “Good” but the higher ups are ultimately just heartless bureaucrats who care nothing of the lives or livelihoods their policies and treaties...
Sure some individual people within the Federation are “Good” but the higher ups are ultimately just heartless bureaucrats who care nothing of the lives or livelihoods their policies and treaties destroy! Maquis for life! ;)
Eh. The admiral who got by far the most screen time wasn't a dick. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely dick admirals in Star Trek. A small number of them irredeemably so. For example I'm...
Don't get me wrong, there are definitely dick admirals in Star Trek. A small number of them irredeemably so. For example I'm definitely not going to defend Jameson. Arms dealing for personal gain is pretty black-and-white evil.
But things are a little fuzzier with, say, Nechayev. She was handed an essentially impossible task in balancing the Cardassians, the Maquis, and the Bajorans. I mean, the 2367 Cardassian armistice was garbage, not worth the PADD it was signed on. I don't for one second believe that the Federation actually needed to cede the territories it ceded, at the time the Feds were just running scared from the Borg and made concessions they didn't need to make, abandoning their citizens and creating the Maquis in the process. This was entirely avoidable. Possession is 9/10ths the law, as they say: any planet which had a majority human population in 2367 should have been Federation territory. You try being the admiral sent to oversee the implementation of this terrible treaty.
Or, how about Pressman. Pressman was right. Cloaking devices save lives. There's no need to put Starfleet personnel in jeopardy if they can perform their mission objectives undetected. A century earlier Starfleet command risked the Enterprise to obtain one, so obviously at one point the admiralty recognized the value here. Letting them be outlawed by the Treaty of Algeron is another example of a concession that the Federation probably didn't need to make. So while Pressman's methods left a lot to be desired, ultimately he was motivated by a desire to protect the lives under his command.
Dougherty? He just wanted Federation citizens to have access to the ultimate medicine, but even he had a line, and when Rua'fo crossed it, Dougherty took a stand and paid the ultimate price. Yet another Admiral doing the best he can in a shitty situation where there was a tangible benefit for all Federation citizens on the line.
It's not the admirals who are the bad guys in Trek. The civilian administrators in charge keep making terrible treaties and half-assed decisions, and the Admirals just get sent out to try and clean up the mess. Or put differently, in a situation where the decisions being made at the top are flawed, it's hard to discern if the person above you is genuinely a dick, or is just trying to make the best of a bad situation.
And don't forget that 3/5 series Captains became Admirals. Archer went on to become an admiral, ambassador and president of the world during his life. Kirk, despite later being lowered in rank,...
And don't forget that 3/5 series Captains became Admirals.
Archer went on to become an admiral, ambassador and president of the world during his life.
Kirk, despite later being lowered in rank, was an admiral for over a decade. During that time he saved Earth and/or the Alpha Quadrant three times.
Janeway also became an admiral, but I'm not convinced she isn't at risk of evil admiral syndrome.
Off the top of my head, Dr McCoy was also made admiral during his life. It's not a stretch then to imagine that most series' crews would also have admirals among their ranks - especially the likes of Riker, Tuvok, Geordi, etc.
A series about El-Aurians could be interesting. A long-lived species of "listeners" who are neither pro- nor anti-Federation, they have their own secretive agendas and a much larger perspective...
A series about El-Aurians could be interesting. A long-lived species of "listeners" who are neither pro- nor anti-Federation, they have their own secretive agendas and a much larger perspective than most of the other races. Also they have particularly interesting backstories with both the Q and the Borg that haven't been explored much on-screen.
Personally, I do not want to see a Trek series that is not from the human POV. There is a good reason we use humans as the main characters - Trek is supposed to be a mirror for us, and though...
Personally, I do not want to see a Trek series that is not from the human POV.
There is a good reason we use humans as the main characters - Trek is supposed to be a mirror for us, and though aliens can help shape the image in the mirror through their input, they do not and can not define it.
If Star Trek wanted to get dark, they could have a series focused on the Occupation of Bajor. It would strictly focus on Bajorans and Cardasians, and the slaughter than ensued. It could dig into...
If Star Trek wanted to get dark, they could have a series focused on the Occupation of Bajor. It would strictly focus on Bajorans and Cardasians, and the slaughter than ensued. It could dig into the politics of the whole situation, how the Cardasian's 'justified' it, etc. You could have a character like Dukat be the 'main' character, essentially the opposite of Picard with regards to ethics and such. A Star Trek show doesn't need to include the Federation.
Because, broad strokes, there are only two real options for how the new aliens feel about the Feds:
If they're good then where's the conflict? Why do we even care about this show? We're just going to watch these aliens sign a bunch of treaties?
If they're bad then we're beyond the pale in terms of depicting the "soul" of the Federation. DS9 played with the idea of making the Feds the baddies on multiple occasions but ultimately the Feds win the war and free the Cardassians. In every other Trek, the Feds are "GOOD." In DS9, they're "Good*." But they're still good.
A Trek show from the perspective of non-Feds presumably has to 1) make you empathize with the aliens who the show is about about 2) provide us with some sort of conflict to drive the plot. As with all Trek there's a third implicit condition, which is that the Feds are also fundamentally good, even if they do some misguided or shady shit every once in a while. Adhering to all three of these conditions boxes in your narrative options real fast. In fact at that point, it just seems like we're rehashing DS9 itself: aliens are skeptical about the Feds but eventually see the light in the face of a common enemy.
I think we can learn about how other alien species feel about the Federation and their values while still retaining the perspective of the Federation. Switching the POV to anyone outside the Federation feels like an invitation to make the Federation the bad guys, and seems like a bridge too far for a Star Trek show.
Well... yes? Everyone is the hero of their own story and the Federation is a proxy for us. There is no shortage of Humans Are Bastards in sci-fi. The fact that humans (by and large) aren't bastards in Star Trek is arguably Star Trek's defining feature. And as arguments about the soul of Trek go, that's definitely one of the stronger ones.
Sure some individual people within the Federation are “Good” but the higher ups are ultimately just heartless bureaucrats who care nothing of the lives or livelihoods their policies and treaties destroy! Maquis for life! ;)
I think we can all agree that Federation admirals are dicks, at the very least.
Eh. The admiral who got by far the most screen time wasn't a dick.
Don't get me wrong, there are definitely dick admirals in Star Trek. A small number of them irredeemably so. For example I'm definitely not going to defend Jameson. Arms dealing for personal gain is pretty black-and-white evil.
But things are a little fuzzier with, say, Nechayev. She was handed an essentially impossible task in balancing the Cardassians, the Maquis, and the Bajorans. I mean, the 2367 Cardassian armistice was garbage, not worth the PADD it was signed on. I don't for one second believe that the Federation actually needed to cede the territories it ceded, at the time the Feds were just running scared from the Borg and made concessions they didn't need to make, abandoning their citizens and creating the Maquis in the process. This was entirely avoidable. Possession is 9/10ths the law, as they say: any planet which had a majority human population in 2367 should have been Federation territory. You try being the admiral sent to oversee the implementation of this terrible treaty.
Or, how about Pressman. Pressman was right. Cloaking devices save lives. There's no need to put Starfleet personnel in jeopardy if they can perform their mission objectives undetected. A century earlier Starfleet command risked the Enterprise to obtain one, so obviously at one point the admiralty recognized the value here. Letting them be outlawed by the Treaty of Algeron is another example of a concession that the Federation probably didn't need to make. So while Pressman's methods left a lot to be desired, ultimately he was motivated by a desire to protect the lives under his command.
Dougherty? He just wanted Federation citizens to have access to the ultimate medicine, but even he had a line, and when Rua'fo crossed it, Dougherty took a stand and paid the ultimate price. Yet another Admiral doing the best he can in a shitty situation where there was a tangible benefit for all Federation citizens on the line.
It's not the admirals who are the bad guys in Trek. The civilian administrators in charge keep making terrible treaties and half-assed decisions, and the Admirals just get sent out to try and clean up the mess. Or put differently, in a situation where the decisions being made at the top are flawed, it's hard to discern if the person above you is genuinely a dick, or is just trying to make the best of a bad situation.
And don't forget that 3/5 series Captains became Admirals.
Archer went on to become an admiral, ambassador and president of the world during his life.
Kirk, despite later being lowered in rank, was an admiral for over a decade. During that time he saved Earth and/or the Alpha Quadrant three times.
Janeway also became an admiral, but I'm not convinced she isn't at risk of evil admiral syndrome.
Off the top of my head, Dr McCoy was also made admiral during his life. It's not a stretch then to imagine that most series' crews would also have admirals among their ranks - especially the likes of Riker, Tuvok, Geordi, etc.
A series about El-Aurians could be interesting. A long-lived species of "listeners" who are neither pro- nor anti-Federation, they have their own secretive agendas and a much larger perspective than most of the other races. Also they have particularly interesting backstories with both the Q and the Borg that haven't been explored much on-screen.
Personally, I do not want to see a Trek series that is not from the human POV.
There is a good reason we use humans as the main characters - Trek is supposed to be a mirror for us, and though aliens can help shape the image in the mirror through their input, they do not and can not define it.
If Star Trek wanted to get dark, they could have a series focused on the Occupation of Bajor. It would strictly focus on Bajorans and Cardasians, and the slaughter than ensued. It could dig into the politics of the whole situation, how the Cardasian's 'justified' it, etc. You could have a character like Dukat be the 'main' character, essentially the opposite of Picard with regards to ethics and such. A Star Trek show doesn't need to include the Federation.