I just finished watching Star Trek Discovery a day or two ago and it didn’t really hit me until I was reading about Calypso, but it feels like the show-runners are very pessimistic about the concept of a Federation. I am not sure if this is considered old news, but I would be interested in examining the show-runners’ outlooks more closely.
While the collapse of the Federation is in a way no fault of its own (the Federation didn’t cause the burn); the idea that all it would take would be a scarcity of gas to break up the interplanetary union feels counter to the original ideals of Star Trek’s optimism.
The idea that teamwork and ingenuity can overcome most adversity feels integral to Star Trek (at least to me), so the idea that running out of fossil fuels is all it would take to split up the Galaxy’s largest symbol of unity feels out of place.
This is an especially powerful slap in the face when in Season 5 they have developed the Pathway Drive after only a few years of working together again. It felt as though there was truly not a strong enough reason for the Federation to collapse and be on the brink of destruction than the fact the show-runners really like the Federation falling apart.
You could make the case that it also has to do with the destruction of most of their fleet, but in Season 1 basically all of Starfleet is destroyed, and that’s hardly even referenced again.
As an aside, in the five seasons of Discovery, I think the Federation has fallen (to varying degrees) four times.
- Reduced to a single star-base and a handful of ships by the Klingons
- Completely overtaken by Control
- The collapse after The Burn
- Becoming the V’Draysh in Calypso
In regards to the V’Draysh concept, I am willing to cut the writers a little slack, because from a meta perspective it feels like Calypso was originally intended to go between Season 2 and 3. This is fully a guess on my part, but I suspect at the time of writing/filming Calypso there might have been a more vague idea of what was wrong with the Federation in the future and the method of time travel to the future may not have been locked down yet. I would not be surprised if the V’Draysh was going to be the Federation in Season 3 and the crew would somehow find themselves on Discovery after it waited in place for 1000 years.
Having said that, though, the writers decided to canonize Calypso as taking place after Discovery ends, so it could be considered a fourth collapse (though technically the V’Draysh are never canonically recognized as the Federation, so there is some wiggle room).
While these are much more minor points by comparison, I would also like to address the phaser design in the future as well as the Progenitors philosophy differences between Season 5 of Discovery and TNG.
While a minor gripe, I thought returning the phaser form factor to a more gun-shaped form was also indicative of the show-runners’ head-space.
Phasers went from looking like futuristic laser guns in TOS to looking something like an electric razor in TNG. While this made them less “cool,” it signaled a priority on peace and diplomacy. While phasers were weapons, their presence was solely utilitarian and not for intimidation.
Discovery’s return to the gun-shaped phasers feels like an out of universe emphasis on “coolness” and action, and an in-universe departure from the emphasis on diplomacy.
You could make the case that this now scrappier Federation no longer had the luxury of diplomacy to rely on, but it still feels pessimistic to think the Federation would abandon their ideals in times of hardship.
As I said, I know it’s a comparatively minor gripe to put so much weight into a relatively small prop, but I feel like there is a lot to be said about design language and what it implies about the world of the show.
Finally, there is the issue of the Progenitors. I am positive I am not the first person to say this, but there is a definitive shift from the Progenitors wanting all their disparate species to come together in the unifying pursuit of knowledge to them saying “whoever gets here first is the best and can use this godly power however they want.”
This shift from the ideal being universal brotherhood to focusing on being the best species reflects the show-runners’ own lack of priority on the concept, which is reflected in their repeated destruction of the Federation.
I understand the idea of wanting your show/movie to be “gritty” and “realistic” (see every DC superhero movie after The Dark Knight), but it’s out of place in a show as optimistic as Star Trek.
I’m not sure such an open-ended question can be definitively answered, but why didn’t the Discovery show-runners believe in the Federation?
The idea of a Federation collapse went back to Gene Roddenberry, who wrote the basics of a story of a Federation starship that got pushed forward through time to a post-Federation future with the goal of rebuilding the Federation.
The first iteration of that idea was Gene Roddenberry’s Andromeda. Kevin Sorbo ruined that series.
They did better with the idea the second time around.
DS9 writers:
I think that as someone else pointed out, this is just a reflection of their tastes.
In a long running series like this, it’s not surprising that when every show is trying to find new conceptual territory, someone would go this way.
I disagree with the premise - I think the series as a whole stands as a testament to the Federation prevailing over adversity - it’s one of the prevailing themes of the series.
Even the Burn didn’t destroy the Federation as you suggest. It became smaller as travel and communication became difficult-to-impossible, but it still existed, and Starfleet was doing everything it could to maintain the peace.
This raises a more philosophical argument as to what signifies the fall of a body like the Federation.
The Federation is a union of other bodies who through the spirit of cooperation decide to work together. If the majority of the bodies that make it up decide to pull out, does that constitute the fall of the Federation?
If one body leaves, of course it has not fallen; and if they all leave, it no longer exists at all. How many planets still need to be in a union for the Federation to successfully exist?
The fact that Vulcan/Ni’Var and Earth both pulled out and are two of the Charter members is certainly notable (though it doesn’t prove the fall of the Federation).
If it felt like the Federation had been weakened but was slowly rebuilding, I would agree with your idea that the blow to the Federation was meant to show its resilience; but the fact the Federation was not picking up steam at all (and felt much more in decline), to me indicates that the writers intended for us to interpret this as the Federation in its death throws until the Discovery showed up.
Perhaps this speaks to my own mindset as opposed to how the writers intended it, but it’s certainly how it came across to me.
As an aside, it could be interesting to explore what a Federation not primarily influenced by human/Vulcan influence could look like, as well as explore the idea of what constitutes the Federation (for example, could you have a Federation with no planetary members made entirely of individuals who have left their planet in the name of galactic brotherhood?). I am not sure the Federation is still in a place where such concepts could be explored, but it could certainly be interesting…
The Androrians had left too, but the Tellarites hadn’t. It’s a fascinating thing for the writers to throw in there, considering that there aren’t any Tellarites involved with the story, and I’m intrigued as to what that says about their society and about the Federation in that time period.
the fact the Federation was not picking up steam at all (and felt much more in decline), to me indicates that the writers intended for us to interpret this as the Federation in its death throws until the Discovery showed up.
I agree with the basic fact - the Federation was struggling to maintain what it had in the face of the Emerald Chain and others, and it took Discovery’s arrival with unique technology to give it an edge.
But I think they framed it as a story of resilience and determination, mainly through Vance and Sahil.
If you are interested in content on massive sci Fi governments, consider reading foundation.
Despite some of its issues, it taps the topic of “how do massive organizations survive and morph, and possibly betray their own original mission” very well.
I get what you’re going for, but any in-universe question that asks “why did the writers choose to…” can be answered the same way: “because the writers chose to do it that way”. There is no evidence (as far as I know) that any of the writers were trying to communicate the idea that Federation ideals were not resilient to external forces. in fact, seasons 3 and 4 were explicitly about the Federation’s ideals being able to sustain after one cataclysmic event, and be necessary to thwart another.
I thought returning the phaser form factor to a more gun-shaped form was also indicative of the show-runners’ head-space.
With all due respect, I think this is more likely an example of you looking for concepts to support your preconceived notions. Example A:
Because they are Hollywood liberals and don’t believe in socialist collectivism like the FUP. It all about great individuals in their minds.
the characters get nice optimistic arcs, but the world sure doesnt
