Topic: Simple curious question: What's your favorite Star Trek era?

[Chris Johnson]

I think one of the object of Trek is to show the uniqueness of humanity, and how it can conquer against all else if we can overcome the demons within (and sometimes the demons save them as well).  To make every other race like humans detracts from what is supposed to make the Federation so great, and what makes it stand up against those other cultures who don't subscribe to their particular views.

Why would it detract from making the Federation great?  Why?  Why make the Federation a complete human-dominate empire and view a multi-cultural Earth as the greatest in the Universe and the monolithic members as if it were servant races then?  Why make it the 1930s/1940s eastern Europe?  Why a monoculture for other species?  Why only blue skins for Andorians?  Why one language only as if by some unrealistic fashion other aliens just kept one culture and language? 

Why make Trek as Flash Gordon and not something with a bit of realism and a hint of thought put into it that makes you think about this or that?  If I wanted Flash Gordon or SFC, I can turn on Flash Gordon or play SFC rather than turn on Trek and see an adventure, an optimistic take on our future, an exploration not just out there but from within, from our past and the benefits and consenquences of whatever Trek shines the spotlight on, be it militant, religious issues, politics, etc.

I could understand how a world uniting together can make it closer to becoming a monoculture, but I wouldn't see how it would wipe everything out and turn a whole world's species into blond-haired blue-eyed (insert choice of color) clothes-wearing people that all have the exact same views?

I thought of the Federation as a much-less corrupt and more-diverse, more united UN or US or something of the sort, embracing diversity.  I never thought Humans were above any other alien species and was the only diverse species in the entire galaxy while others always had one in their entire existance for the oddest of reasons.  I never thought of it as, "Oh, there's a pale-white-skinned Andorian there.  Kill it!  We must have blue Andorians only!  There's both ridge and plain-headed Klingons as our enemies!  Kill the plain-headed ones!  Romulans as spies?  We gotta experiment on them so they all have bone heads and are not different from one another so we can tell our Vulcans apart from Rommies!  All part of the human adventure of exploration!  Hey, we've got a bit of Japanese culture in ourselves!  Keep it from the viewers!  We can't have diversity even though we say we still have it!"

I'm sure I've likely missed the points people have made, but I hope you've got mine, and likely we'll just likely agree to disagree and leave it at that.

[EmeraldEdge]

But if everything becomes as the Federation, then what is unique about the Federation?  Why is it not possible that only one thing evolved on a planet?  Especially in the case of the Romulans who were just Vulcans leaving their homeworld.  I guess my point is that part of what makes the Federation is that it illustrates how diversity can be a boon.  If everyone is diverse, though, then that point is lost, isn't it?  I'm not just talking about members of the Federation (in Enterprise, the Andorians aren't part of the Federation, as there is no Federation, and at times are at odds with the humans, and at the throat of the Vulcans, so they qualify as an enemy).  Also, if you make all other races in the Federation, like humans, that also detracts from diversity too, doesn't it?  If you had a choice of a federation full of peopel who's individual groups were all diverse and of different thoughts from others in the group, or a Federation who some of it's individual groups were diverse and who's thoughts differ from one anothers, and some who come from a group of people people who are all very similar to eachother and who's thoughts may be similar as well.  Is not the second group more 'diverse' than the first, because they contain a group who has an understanding of life that is different from those who have lived in such wide open boundaries of 'acceptability'?

Personally I find it more realistic to think that there may be races out there who aren't diverse in and of themselves.  Aren't we always told of species that are so delicate that they can only live in one area (thinking of creatures like the spotted owl, etc.)?  If that is the case, then why can't it be so for a higher lifeform?  Why must every race be as humanity?

[Dracho]

TOS, or Deep Space 9.   I keep expecting the TNG crew to drop dead from terminal professionalism.  My god, they even brought an HR rep on their mission..

TNG - "Councilor, watching that green blob devour our crew mate was traumatic beyone belief". 

TOS - Son of a b*tch.. that thing just ate my security detail.  Mr. Spock, throw some phasor up whatever that thing uses for a rectum!

[Commander Maxillius]

Romulans didn't colonize the weird planet.  They landed on the one that rotates properly and took it over.

Remember that the Riann Empire was Vulcan's most warlike nation when they packed up and left so it stands to reason that they would've prepared to take whatever planet they landed on by force.

What doesn't make sense to me is why a planet full of Remans would allow a shipload of Romulans to kick them off their planet.

[Fedman NCC-3758]

TMP era.

Wrath of Kaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahn!!!   

[Overmind]

TNG Era.
Dreadnaughts. Borg. Picard.

[KBF-Crim]

TMP

[Lieutenant_Q]

I have to say that the TOS/TMP era is by far the best of all trek eras.  If you could have had TOS with the props and equipment that they had for TMP.  It would have been perfect.  I really can't forgive Star Wars for that.  Phase II had the BEST potential for a series, better than the spin-off DS9 even had. (DS9 didn't have much potential but look what it turned into to)

The races were believable, even if their make-up wasn't.  The writing, while not always top-notch (Spock's Brain anyone?) was competant enough to provide a gripping story most weeks, and while they didn't care about consistancy, they always told a story.  It was never, what could we do this week that's cool, it was what kind of moral can we teach today?

I was born too late to see TOS in any form on syndication (1980), the first Trek I watched was TVH. But my father had 40 of the original episodes on VHS, and I watched all of them at least once.  Once Paramount finally decides to bring them down to the $50 range, I'll consider buying the DVD seasons.

[J. Carney]

TNG Era.
Dreadnaughts. Borg. Picard.

What's the use of having huge warships that bristle with firepower if you have an enemy that can destroy 1,000 of them without sustaining any real damage- yet that same enemy can be defeated by a single, slightly undergunned explorer captianed by a man that acts like a social worker?

[Overmind]

Wars are not won by the technology or the numbers, but by the men that know where and if to use these technologies and numbers.
As for Picard, I have the highest respect for him, since he was the only one that could win a conflict withought fireing a single shot.
Think of this:
Men of war have long known that warriors must often abandon those verities they defend. Peace, human kindness, love... for they hold no meaning to the enemy. And so, to win, do we become what we despise... and despise what we become ?

[Sirgod]

War also Gives Honor to those who would Otherwise, Not have the chance to Gain such.

Stephen

[Overmind]

War is good for business. That does not mean it's the right thing to do. See what our 'nice guys', the US are doing now.
In the darkest of hours... in the greatest of battles... we must never forget who, or what, we are. If we do that, we have certainly lost everything.
As for the honor...where is the honor in exterminating a weaker opponent ?
Warriors may be forged in the fires of battle but heroes are discovered in the most unlikely of places.