Abramsverse 3-next movie in 2017 (?) Might Focus on War with Klingons

In an episode of TNG, Picard was faced with the pretty much exactly the same decision as Insurrection and took the opposite choice.

I think it was a legitimate dilemma that I might have come down on the side of Starfleet on. It would have been more interesting if that had been explored, rather than casting one side of the argument as black hat villains.

That's often the case in movies, if you think about it.

Not to mention the issue of the Maquis, and how Picard actively worked against them when all they were trying to do was defend their homes after being abandoned by the Federation.

We should just make Dayton happy and let Michael Bay do a "Star Trek" movie.

Wasn't going to happen.

There was EXTREMELY bad blood between the production staffs of DS9 and TNG that lasted for years.

Anyone remember where in First Contact, the writers and producers wanted to DESTROY the Defiant in the battle but the regular staff of DS9 screamed bloody murder.

There was no way that ST:TNG was going to use one of DS9s main ideas for THEIR movie.

Really? I was not aware that there was bad blood between the TNG and DS9 staff...

I assumed it was all the same people producing the various Trek stuff coming out at that time.

I know that Ron Moore and Brannon Braga had a falling out but I thought that was much later on.

Yes, I remember that. It was after DS9 left the air and Moore briefly joined the Voyager staff.

But I do remember the problems between the DS9 and TNG staffs being described as "just short of open warfare" (certainly exaggerated) and that it was still going on when First Contact came out.

They were not abandoned by the Federation, they voluntarily left the Federation after the Federation bent over backwards to try and help them. They knew before settling along the Federation-Cardassian border that the area was dangerous and under dispute with the Cardassians. After the war, the Federation offered to resettle them on similar planets in safer locations. In a post-scarcity society like the Federation, their settlements could have been recreated down to the self-sealing stembolt on another planet. They stubbornly refused and seemingly would have rather continued the war with the Cardassians, which would have put not only themselves in further danger but would have also cost the lives of many more Starfleet personnel. They were a bunch of whiny anti-government brats with a collective chip on their shoulders who then formed into a bumbling survivalist militia group and got most of their families killed.

Figures someone like you would see it that way.

Figures someone like you would sympathize with a right-wing terrorist organization.

Looks like someone didn't actually watch the show.

Hooray for left-right wankfests in media central

All five series are on Netflix now, you really have no excuse for not watching them.

And so we're back to how only someone life yourself could possibly have that interpretation of the Maquis.

"lack of money" comes to mind...


but Netflix ain't the only game in town

Feel free to point out where I'm wrong.

Or keep whining, I guess. That will accomplish a lot.

See how amazing the Maquis storyline is? You can have actual, meaningful disagreements about the Maquis! And both the characters and the viewers did.

That's DS9 for you.

Both are reasonable interpretations, so we're back to the CaptainX way is the only way to appreciate Star Trek. Sorry, art doesn't work that way. It stimulates thoughts and ideas that may or may not match what the author had in mind, and definitely will differ among viewers. You are incredibly narrow minded and naive. Although in this instance, my interpretation is closer to yours, I enjoy reading Chad's different take. You might try to open your eyes a bit. Life is better when you do that.

It's not that my way is the only way, it's that Chad's way isn't what's actually depicted in the show. It'd be closer to say that's the way Federation authorities were trying to spin it to justify hunting down the Maquis in the name of preserving a peace treaty that the Cardassians didn't seem all that interested in upholding themselves.

Yeah the Federation sold out it's own people to a murderous dictatorship who had just recently stopped enslaving Bajor.

Then Picard's dumb ass made things worse. Picard caught the Cardassian's arming their supposed "science" station in the area and he decided in the interest of peace and stability to keep it quiet. Then baldy tried to remover settlers by force.

The Cardassians had no intentions of letting Federation settlers stay on those planets and where oppressing and harassing and killing the settlers.

What a fucking pompous ass Picard was.

Then while the Cardie's where attacking settlements the Federation was sitting around playing patty cake while doing official "investigations". Oh boy they are investigating!!

Then when the settlers were defending themselves the Federation was outraged and treated them like terrorists.

The Federation dropped the ball on that part of space.

Damn that sounds like it could be real and in the Red Room. It's Bush's fault! Obama is a sell out!

The DS9 staff felt like the red-headed step-child of the Franchise since no one, not B&B nor Paramount, gave them the time of day. No one cared about DS9, they were too busy ramping up Voyager to launch the UPN network.

On the other hand, that's exactly why DS9 was far more creatively successful than any other TNG-era show. Since Berman didn't micro-manage them like he did every other show, they had the creative freedom to do practically anything they wanted. They broke the standing edict that there should be no long-term story arc by creating the Dominion War arc, and they weren't afraid to show at least parts of Starfleet and the Federation in a less than flattering light, something that both Roddenberry and Berman would never have approved of.

Then he makes all the opposite moves in "Insurrection", just because he wants to stick his honey-dipper into some space-hippie granola.

Good general points, but I don't remember a single person by the rank of Commodore or above in Roddenberry's Trek that wasn't corrupt, mad, or both.

To be fair, that space-hippie granola chick was pretty hawt!

True...but those are usually "one and done" characters/episodes. It's still an external conflict, not between the crew of the Enterprise. And frankly, even "Enterprise" was better at having internal conflicts between the characters than TNG.

Do you deny that these people knowingly settled in a disputed region and that the Federation offered to help resettle them to a safer location free of charge? Do you deny that they willingly left the Federation?

It's not like these were several generations of settlers, they only settled the region two or three decades prior. And they settled in the region, it basically provoked a series of deadly border wars with the Cardassians. Had these been people who spent their entire lives from birth to adulthood being forced out or mistreated by Cardassians and then making the decision to resort to terrorism (see: Bajor) I would have had a lot more sympathy.

But the adults making the decisions weren't born in the settlements--they moved to a disputed region, provoked a series of wars, refused to leave after the Federation said "hey we got our asses handed to us trying to defend you guys, can we help you move?", and got their butts kicked when they decided to turn towards terrorism. By no means do I agree with what the Cardassians did, but these settlers are not blameless, just stubborn.

The area wasn't disputed until the Cardassians got all uppity after losing Bajor.

If it was disputed then explain why the Federation allowed them to settle in the first place?

Even in the world of fiction you're a true leftist.

Wrong. The Cardassians ended the occupation of Bajor over 20 years after the various wars started over the Federation-Cardassian border. The wars ended two years prior to Bajor's independence. The border wars were a direct result of Federation and Cardassian settlements.

I don't know.

Yes, because supporting terrorism is a hallmark of the right.

Actually, according to the episode with the Natives, those people had settled there 200 years prior to then the episode took place. As for the other colonies, it's entirely possible those colonies predate any hostilities between the Cardassian Union and the Federation.

Nope. They spent 200 years searching for a planet to settle, having settled on that planet only 20 years prior to the events of the episode. Every other settlement that was given a time frame for how long settlers had been there was similarly around 20 years.

Phil Farrand, the writer of the Nitpickers Guides (to Star Trek mainly but he also did an X-Files one) commented on this "habit" of the Federation.

That is the Federation allows or sends people to colonize planets or establish bases in a remote part of space. When it turns out that someone lives there already (sometimes for millennia), the Federation insists on the rights of THEIR citizens to settle there and promises to defend them if necessary against all comers.

Farrand (who is a conservative Christian by the way and far from being a liberal) pointed out that this would seem to be why the Federation seems to have been at war with EVERY neighboring power it has every encountered at some point.