Star Wars / Star Trek Discussion (SciFi In General)

[Rath Darkblade]

Meh. I just don't enjoy anything to do with space. I know enough about the science of trying to live in space, that if I tried watching SW or ST, I'd end up critiquing the thing (or rolling my eyes at it) and not enjoying it.

The only space-related things I've genuinely enjoyed were some of Asimov's locked-room mysteries (in spaaace! ) and "Spaceballs" (which I watched last year, and got all the little SW references). "I am your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate!"

Actually, I think I do remember watching TESB as a kid -- possibly as long ago as 1981, when it was on TV. I remember being terrified when Darth Vader cut off Luke's hand (hey, I wasn't in school at the time yet). But then David Prowse (sorry, Luke) falls hundreds of feet ---- and survives without a scratch. How does that work? IRL, he'd probably hit his head on something. (Yes, I know; if that happened it'd be the end of the franchise)

What I don't understand is how you can suspend your disbelief for fantasy, but not science fiction. How is conjuring fireballs out of thin air and hurling them at an enemy somehow okay, yet sci-fi not adhering to every realistic facet of space travel not okay?

Hey, I never said sci-fi was not okay. Let me explain:

1. Fantasy, to me, is an extension of mythology. Zeus or Thor hurl down lightning. Woden walks the earth in the guise of an old man, but he can do things that other old men can't. Hercules, thanks to his divine upbringing, can do things that other mortals can't. Fantasy is simply only one step further from that. If people can suspend their disbelief for gods, why not for wizards and fireballs?

2. Sci-fi, on the other hand, started its life (in the Asimov/Heinlein/Arthur C. Clarke/etc. era, i.e. 1940s and 50s) as an extension of science. It was a prediction of what life would be like in the generations after World War 2. In the wake of the Nuclear Era, anything seemed possible - and sci-fi writers (as well as everyone else) tried to imagine what it would be like, after years and years of rationing, making do, and mending things instead of buying new ones.

The difference between sci-fi writers and the average layman/advertising hack/etc. was that - mostly - sci-fi writers tried to stick to things that were mostly possible, within their own knowledge of science. They respected what science could do, and simply extended on that. I respect that. (Especially since it was a time where advertising men predicted nuclear-powered vacuum cleaners etc.) The emphasis was on science, with a tiny dollop of "fiction".

The problem is, to me, many so-called sci-fi films don't work like that. There's more "fiction" and less "science". (Think of "Starship Troopers", or "Battlestar Galactica" etc.) The original series of Star Trek was (mostly) science-oriented, with quite a big dollop of "fiction". But the later Star Trek films, and especially since Mark Abrams got involved, were nothing but "Pew pew pew! Lasers in space! Shoot shoot shoot! MORE explosions! BIGGER explosions!" <sigh>

Similar things happened in Star Wars. It's space opera. I get that a lot of people enjoy that, and that's fine. But I'd like to see more science involved, that's all.

Maybe I'm wrong about ST/SW? Please feel free to correct me if I am.

[DeadPoolX]

2. Sci-fi, on the other hand, started its life (in the Asimov/Heinlein/Arthur C. Clarke/etc. era, i.e. 1940s and 50s) as an extension of science. It was a prediction of what life would be like in the generations after World War 2. In the wake of the Nuclear Era, anything seemed possible - and sci-fi writers (as well as everyone else) tried to imagine what it would be like, after years and years of rationing, making do, and mending things instead of buying new ones.

The difference between sci-fi writers and the average layman/advertising hack/etc. was that - mostly - sci-fi writers tried to stick to things that were mostly possible, within their own knowledge of science. They respected what science could do, and simply extended on that. I respect that. (Especially since it was a time where advertising men predicted nuclear-powered vacuum cleaners etc.) The emphasis was on science, with a tiny dollop of "fiction".

Classic science fiction, like the kind you're talking about, is now more commonly referred to as "speculative fiction" to disassociate itself from common sci-fi. And I agree, speculative fiction (SpecFic?) can be absolutely awesome, but even classic science fiction writers wrote about things that weren't realistic at all, such as Frank Herbert's Dune series. So there's always been some overlap between what's potentially possible and what's just "weird" or "cool" with the definition of "weird" and "cool" changing over time.

The problem is, to me, many so-called sci-fi films don't work like that. There's more "fiction" and less "science". (Think of "Starship Troopers", or "Battlestar Galactica" etc.) The original series of Star Trek was (mostly) science-oriented, with quite a big dollop of "fiction". But the later Star Trek films, and especially since Mark Abrams got involved, were nothing but "Pew pew pew! Lasers in space! Shoot shoot shoot! MORE explosions! BIGGER explosions!" <sigh>

Okay, well...

1. Starship Troopers (both the 1959 novel and the 1997 movie) was never meant to be realistic. The book and movie were both negative commentaries that mocked fascism, albeit in different ways. Neither Robert Heinlein nor Paul Verhoeven meant for their work to be entirely accurate.

2. Which Battlestar Galactica series are we talking about here?

The 1978 TV series (BG1978) was a product of its time and meant to be somewhat campy in a Buck Rogers-like style. In contrast, the 2004 TV series (BG2004) was far more serious and a lot more realistic.

For instance, in BG2004, no ships had shields, there were very few windows on capital ships (and what few existed were small), there were no energy weapons (everything was ballistic weaponry), capital ship combat was very similar to submarine warfare, space flight modeled Newtonian physics, and at times the show depicted space combat without sound. Maia and I thought it was really cool when pilots would turn their fighters in one direction to fire at an enemy while moving in another direction.

This isn't to say that BG2004 was 100% realistic. It wasn't and it absolutely never claimed to be, but it handled a lot of things more realistically than most other sci-fi shows and movies.

3. I believe you meant J. J. Abrams, who directed the Kelvin-timeline Star Trek movies and directed two out of the three films in the Star Wars sequel trilogy. Mark Abrams was a British social scientist/market research expert who died in 1994.

Similar things happened in Star Wars. It's space opera. I get that a lot of people enjoy that, and that's fine. But I'd like to see more science involved, that's all.

Star Wars is not and has never been serious science fiction. It was designed to be like Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers, probably in an effort to differentiate itself from Star Trek and other "more serious" science fiction shows and movies.

A lot of people make fun of Star Wars and call out how "inaccurate" it is when it comes to science, but they're missing the point. Star Wars is really fantasy dressed up in sci-fi clothing. Yeah, that's a little weird, but it's also fun.

[Collector]

Star Wars is not and has never been serious science fiction. It was designed to be like Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers, probably in an effort to differentiate itself from Star Trek and other "more serious" science fiction shows and movies.

With a healthy dose of invented mythology, given the intensive discussions Lucas had with Joseph Campbell.

[Tawmis]

1. Fantasy, to me, is an extension of mythology. Zeus or Thor hurl down lightning. Woden walks the earth in the guise of an old man, but he can do things that other old men can't. Hercules, thanks to his divine upbringing, can do things that other mortals can't. Fantasy is simply only one step further from that. If people can suspend their disbelief for gods, why not for wizards and fireballs?
The problem is, to me, many so-called sci-fi films don't work like that. There's more "fiction" and less "science". (Think of "Starship Troopers", or "Battlestar Galactica" etc.) The original series of Star Trek was (mostly) science-oriented, with quite a big dollop of "fiction". But the later Star Trek films, and especially since Mark Abrams got involved, were nothing but "Pew pew pew! Lasers in space! Shoot shoot shoot! MORE explosions! BIGGER explosions!" <sigh>

But what is mythology - but stories?
Sadly Zeus, Thor, they're not real.
It's interesting about suspending belief about gods and wizards and fireballs...
But people using swords made of lasers, and doing warp drive - that's too much?

All kidding aside - different strokes for different folks.

I, personally, have never got into any of the Star Trek - until Strange New World. I am familiar with the original, through my father.
But Deep Space 9, Next Generation, etc?
I've watched a few here and there, but never "on purpose" - I was channel surfing or something, and caught an episode or two.
And none ever made me say, "Oh. I need to go back and watch those."
Despite my love of Star Wars, and many other "sci fi" type shows/movies.

It's like - based on what I know - you probably love opera, plays and theater.
For me, those don't interest me.
But I love music (and not just heavy metal, I promise - it just happens to be my preference). And just because I love music doesn't mean I need to love everything related to it.

So while I may razz ya about Star Wars, I get it. It's not for everyone.

[Rath Darkblade]

1. Starship Troopers (both the 1959 novel and the 1997 movie) was never meant to be realistic. The book and movie were both negative commentaries that mocked fascism, albeit in different ways. Neither Robert Heinlein nor Paul Verhoeven meant for their work to be entirely accurate.

2. Which Battlestar Galactica series are we talking about here?

The 1978 TV series (BG1978) was a product of its time and meant to be somewhat campy in a Buck Rogers-like style. In contrast, the 2004 TV series (BG2004) was far more serious and a lot more realistic.

For instance, in BG2004, no ships had shields, there were very few windows on capital ships (and what few existed were small), there were no energy weapons (everything was ballistic weaponry), capital ship combat was very similar to submarine warfare, space flight modeled Newtonian physics, and at times the show depicted space combat without sound. Maia and I thought it was really cool when pilots would turn their fighters in one direction to fire at an enemy while moving in another direction.

This isn't to say that BG2004 was 100% realistic. It wasn't and it absolutely never claimed to be, but it handled a lot of things more realistically than most other sci-fi shows and movies.

3. I believe you meant J. J. Abrams, who directed the Kelvin-timeline Star Trek movies and directed two out of the three films in the Star Wars sequel trilogy. Mark Abrams was a British social scientist/market research expert who died in 1994.

Fair enough. (And whoops -- yes, I do mean J. J. Abrams. I didn't like the direction he took Star Trek).

Star Wars is not and has never been serious science fiction. It was designed to be like Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers, probably in an effort to differentiate itself from Star Trek and other "more serious" science fiction shows and movies.

A lot of people make fun of Star Wars and call out how "inaccurate" it is when it comes to science, but they're missing the point. Star Wars is really fantasy dressed up in sci-fi clothing. Yeah, that's a little weird, but it's also fun.

Ah! OK, no worries. So, if SW is fantasy dressed up as sci-fi ... does that mean that Jedi are a bit like samurai, light sabers are a bit like katanas, etc.? Does that make "The Force" a bit like magic (and "The Dark Side" like "Black Magic" etc.? After all, no-one in the SW universe knows how either of them actually work, except people who use them.
------------

But what is mythology - but stories?
Sadly Zeus and Thor are not real.
It's interesting about suspending belief about gods and wizards and fireballs......

It's like - based on what I know - you probably love opera, plays and theater.
For me, those don't interest me.
But I love music (and not just heavy metal, I promise - it just happens to be my preference). And just because I love music doesn't mean I need to love everything related to it.

Fair enough. Mythology is, I think, the earliest attempt by the human race to tell stories. Ever since humanity looked up at the sky, or at stars, we've told each other stories about them. Humans are a story-telling animal. We don't know if there are any other animals that do the same.

I do enjoy opera and the theatre -- mostly for the stories they tell. (Fun fact: although I despise Richard Wagner for his anti-Semitism, and really don't like any of his operas, his "Ring" cycle tell early Germanic stories about heroes like Siegfried and his mythical sword Gram, etc.

The fun starts when you realise that Tolkien was inspired by the same stories to write "Lord of the Rings".

Wagner, by the way, has been described as the first heavy metal composer. His operas, though very long, do feature some metal moments. Take a look at this...)

[Tawmis]

Ah! OK, no worries. So, if SW is fantasy dressed up as sci-fi ... does that mean that Jedi are a bit like samurai, light sabers are a bit like katanas, etc.? Does that make "The Force" a bit like magic (and "The Dark Side" like "Black Magic" etc.? After all, no-one in the SW universe knows how either of them actually work, except people who use them.

Lucas admits, the original - the Jedi were supposed to fight like Samurai - and you can see it.
(Which is why, I personally, disliked when they went super bouncy with the prequels - I get the visuals are pretty, but it's too much).
Here's some stuff about it -
https://dorksideoftheforce.com/2021/09/ ... i-history/

Fair enough. Mythology is, I think, the earliest attempt by the human race to tell stories. Ever since humanity looked up at the sky, or at stars, we've told each other stories about them. Humans are a story-telling animal. We don't know if there are any other animals that do the same.

And what is Star Wars, but a story, about the sky and stars?

[DeadPoolX]

So, if SW is fantasy dressed up as sci-fi ... does that mean that Jedi are a bit like samurai, light sabers are a bit like katanas, etc.? Does that make "The Force" a bit like magic (and "The Dark Side" like "Black Magic" etc.?

Yes to all of those questions. Considering how much you enjoy fantasy, it's surprising you haven't watched all the Star Wars films.

[Rath Darkblade]

Ah! OK, no worries. So, if SW is fantasy dressed up as sci-fi ... does that mean that Jedi are a bit like samurai, light sabers are a bit like katanas, etc.? Does that make "The Force" a bit like magic (and "The Dark Side" like "Black Magic" etc.? After all, no-one in the SW universe knows how either of them actually work, except people who use them.

Lucas admits, the original - the Jedi were supposed to fight like Samurai - and you can see it.
(Which is why, I personally, disliked when they went super bouncy with the prequels - I get the visuals are pretty, but it's too much).
Here's some stuff about it -
https://dorksideoftheforce.com/2021/09/ ... i-history/

Very interesting. I've been getting into Japanese history (especially the Edo period) in a big way over the past few years, and did some research about Japanese lore of the time, and the samurai and ninja - what they did and didn't do, how they trained, their various weapons and tools, and so on.

So ... if the Jedi are samurai, and the Sith are ronin, does that make Yoda "the wise man on the mountain"? What about Princess Leia? Or C3PO, or R2-D2 - what role do they fall into? (Yes, the Love Interest, the Comic Sidekicks etc. But do they have an equivalent in Japanese lore, too?)

Fair enough. Mythology is, I think, the earliest attempt by the human race to tell stories. Ever since humanity looked up at the sky, or at stars, we've told each other stories about them. Humans are a story-telling animal. We don't know if there are any other animals that do the same.

And what is Star Wars, but a story, about the sky and stars?

Fair enough. I've been researching and writing stories, set in various ancient history settings, for a while now - for instance, the story of Perseus and Medusa (which I'm sure you're familiar with!) But, in contrast to the classic myth, my story features no supernatural help at all. Perseus has to figure it all out himself (well, most of it), and win on his own merits.

I also wrote similar stories - i.e. people who have to survive and win on their own merit, rather than with a god's help - set in ancient Rome, Babylon and Sardinia. (Tawm, you may like the Sardinia one; initially, I deliberately set out to write a D&D pastiche, but then I wrote an over-arching story around it. The Babylon one features a fun thieves' guild. The Rome/Greece one features a D&D-like Sphinx).

But never mind the gimmicks - they're all about normal people who, through no fault of their own, are facing huge dilemmas. The Sardinia 'hero' is trying to find out who his real family is. The Babylon 'hero' just wants to survive and get back to his farm. The Rome/Greece 'hero' wants to clear his name and get his business back. Naturally, there's lots of fun and challenges standing in their way.

Anyway, stories make humans who we are. I can't think of any other animal that tells stories. Maybe they do, and we just don't understand them or don't listen?

[DeadPoolX]

Here's an interesting explanation for the different uniform insignia seen on TOS.

Apparently, all Starfleet officers and crew aboard starships were supposed to have the same delta insignia that the Enterprise has, but communication got mixed up somewhere along the way because specific personnel (Merchant Marine service, Cadet duty, Starfleet Command, Starbase duty, etc) had different insignia for very specific purposes.

I could believe this explanation because Star Trek (not just TOS, but also TNG, DS9, and VOY) all had inconsistencies when it came to certain parts of the uniform, usually rank.

For instance, in TOS, Spock was always shown with two full stripes, which in TOS meant he was a full commander (McCoy and Scotty were lieutenant commanders and had one full stripe alongside one dashed-stripe), but for at least Season 1, Spock was referred to several times as "Lieutenant Commander Spock."

I also recall one officer (not a regular) in TOS having a single full stripe, which made them a lieutenant, but they were vocally referred to as "lieutenant commander."

Then of course there's the lack of distinction between "crew members" (presumably enlisted servicemen and women) and the commissioned officer rank of ensign in TOS since NONE of them have any rank insignia at all.

In Deep Space 9, O'Brien's non-commissioned officer rank pip kept changing in number and style, and eventually settled on something entirely different to set NCOs apart from commissioned officers.

Early on in Voyager, Tuvok had two gold pips and one black pip, which meant he would've been a lieutenant commander, but then he mysteriously lost that last black pip and was referred to as lieutenant. There was even a promotion ceremony where Janeway promoted Tuvok to the rank of lieutenant commander later on. This one could've been a mistake at the beginning and maybe Tuvok was meant to be a lieutenant from the start, but it could also be someone deciding "hey, we need to reduce his rank so we can later promote him" or some such nonsense.

(Inaccuracy when it comes to rank, or at least any body of work maintaining some level of consistency, is a major pet peeve of mine. It's one of the reasons why the Empire's rank insignia in the Star Wars films drives me crazy. There's absolutely no logic, consistency, or semblance of order to the way the ranks are represented.)

That said... there's a funny tidbit about uniforms. If you watch Star Trek Generations, you'll see that over the course of the film, the bridge officers slowly begin switching from their TNG uniforms to the then-current DS9/VOY uniforms. If you don't look for it, you probably won't notice it. I know I completely missed it for years until someone finally mentioned it to me.

[notbobsmith]

Here's an interesting explanation for the different uniform insignia seen on TOS.

Apparently, all Starfleet officers and crew aboard starships were supposed to have the same delta insignia that the Enterprise has, but communication got mixed up somewhere along the way because specific personnel (Merchant Marine service, Cadet duty, Starfleet Command, Starbase duty, etc) had different insignia for very specific purposes.

It was kind of amusing that in Enterprise (in the Mirror Universe two-parter) they still stuck to the convention that each ship had its own insignia. The insignia of the Defiant crew from "The Tholian Web" was never shown because all of the dead were face down, so the producers of Enterprise created a new, different insignia for the episode.

Then of course there's the lack of distinction between "crew members" (presumably enlisted servicemen and women) and the commissioned officer rank of ensign in TOS since NONE of them have any rank insignia at all.

In Deep Space 9, O'Brien's non-commissioned officer rank pip kept changing in number and style, and eventually settled on something entirely different to set NCOs apart from commissioned officers.

I think there have only been a handful of people in Starfleet who aren't officers. I never made much sense to have Ensign So-and-so guarding a door. It also begs the question why O'Brien isn't an officer given his experience and responsibilities. He had officers that apparently reported to him on occasion. I also think he had lieutenant pips early on in TNG for a while.

(Inaccuracy when it comes to rank, or at least any body of work maintaining some level of consistency, is a major pet peeve of mine. It's one of the reasons why the Empire's rank insignia in the Star Wars films drives me crazy. There's absolutely no logic, consistency, or semblance of order to the way the ranks are represented.)

One thing Star Trek was never consistent with was the admiral ranks. Characters are referred to as Rear, Vice or Fleet Admiral, but all the admirals seem to have the same rank insignia. For a while, they seemed to get a new uniform each time an admiral is shown. I think they may have gotten better at this towards the end of DS9 (which I am actually rewatching right now).

That said... there's a funny tidbit about uniforms. If you watch Star Trek Generations, you'll see that over the course of the film, the bridge officers slowly begin switching from their TNG uniforms to the then-current DS9/VOY uniforms. If you don't look for it, you probably won't notice it. I know I completely missed it for years until someone finally mentioned it to me.

I thought the introduction of the DS9 uniforms was odd. Why not have the same ones as everyone else? So, okay. Maybe station postings have a different uniform, but then, like you said, they were introduced in Generations (and I did notice them go back and forth. It was just odd. Why do that?) and it is what they wore in Voyager. So maybe there was a transition period from one uniform to another. Except that when Sisko visits Earth, he goes back to wearing the TNG uniform. And then everyone wears the same thing when they introduce the new uniforms in First Contact.

One thing I never noticed until years later is the slightly different TNG uniform introduced in Season 3. I didn't even notice the difference in the final episode where Picard is travelling through time and we see both the earlier and newer uniforms in the same episode.

[DeadPoolX]

I think there have only been a handful of people in Starfleet who aren't officers. I never made much sense to have Ensign So-and-so guarding a door.

Considering that Starfleet is loosely based upon the US Navy, I think the writers didn't want to get into the mess that makes up the enlisted and NCO ranks. Plus, some NCO ranks — such as petty officer and all variants thereof — sound really weird to the average viewer who knows nothing about military rank.

It also begs the question why O'Brien isn't an officer given his experience and responsibilities. He had officers that apparently reported to him on occasion. I also think he had lieutenant pips early on in TNG for a while.

In the US Navy, any NCO would need to go to OCS to become an officer. I have no idea what they'd do in Starfleet, but presumably it'd be something similar.

Many senior NCOs have FAR more experience than new or junior officers (although it still doesn't matter in the heirarchy as even a brand new ensign could give orders to an experienced chief petty officer).

Given that O'Brien was DS9's head of engineering (despite being an NCO) that position alone made it so officers who outranked him still had to report to him anyway. Position always takes precedence over rank.

One thing Star Trek was never consistent with was the admiral ranks. Characters are referred to as Rear, Vice or Fleet Admiral, but all the admirals seem to have the same rank insignia.

Yeah, they've never been entirely clear on admiral ranks. Starfleet still has two ranks (commodore and fleet admiral) no longer actively used by the US Navy. Commodore was replaced with rear admiral lower-half during the mid-1980s and no one's held the rank of fleet admiral since Chester Nimitz died in 1966.

I didn't know this until I looked it up, but Kirk was a rear admiral. They never specifically state his full rank in the films, where they simply call him "admiral" (despite there being a big difference between the ranks of rear admiral and full admiral).

One thing I never noticed until years later is the slightly different TNG uniform introduced in Season 3. I didn't even notice the difference in the final episode where Picard is travelling through time and we see both the earlier and newer uniforms in the same episode.

I think they changed it because Patrick Stewart's chiropractor warned Paramount that the original TNG uniform (which was made out of spandex and purposefully created one size too small for the actors) was injuring Stewart's back. In an effort to avoid a future lawsuit, the uniforms were redesigned out of a different material, be more comfortable, and actually fit properly.

[notbobsmith]

It also begs the question why O'Brien isn't an officer given his experience and responsibilities. He had officers that apparently reported to him on occasion. I also think he had lieutenant pips early on in TNG for a while.

In the US Navy, any NCO would need to go to OCS to become an officer. I have no idea what they'd do in Starfleet, but presumably it'd be something similar.

Many senior NCOs have FAR more experience than new or junior officers (although it still doesn't matter in the heirarchy as even a brand new ensign could give orders to an experienced chief petty officer).

Given that O'Brien was DS9's head of engineering (despite being an NCO) that position alone made it so officers who outranked him still had to report to him anyway. Position always takes precedence over rank.

One thing that we don't really know is just how big Starfleet is. The US Navy has about 350k active duty personnel with "480 ships, 290 of which are deployable" (from Wikipedia, not sure what this means). Starfleet lost 39 ships and 11,000 people at Wolf 359. During the Dominion War, they lost 100 ships in a single battle. 600 ships fought in the battle to retake DS9, but there was no word of losses. So the number of ships in Starfleet must be much bigger than the US Navy. So how many personnel are there? The US Naval academy graduates about 1000 a year (with ~250 going to the Marine Corps). How many new officers does Starfleet need each year? How many does Starfleet Academy graduate? There must be some sort of OCS to make up the difference. There might be something like an ROTC. An crew member on Voyager was a theoretical physicist who had to do a tour with Starfleet, but then got stuck in the Delta quadrant. We know of a few field commissions. Nog was given one during wartime. I think he only finished 2 years at the Academy. And Wesley Crusher was given one in peace time.

[Rath Darkblade]

It also begs the question why O'Brien isn't an officer given his experience and responsibilities. He had officers that apparently reported to him on occasion. I also think he had lieutenant pips early on in TNG for a while.

In the US Navy, any NCO would need to go to OCS to become an officer. I have no idea what they'd do in Starfleet, but presumably it'd be something similar.

Many senior NCOs have FAR more experience than new or junior officers (although it still doesn't matter in the hierarchy as even a brand new ensign could give orders to an experienced chief petty officer).

Given that O'Brien was DS9's head of engineering (despite being an NCO) that position alone made it so officers who outranked him still had to report to him anyway. Position always takes precedence over rank.

DPX, I'm confused. It makes sense that a senior NCO has to take orders from a brand-new ensign, despite having more experience - it's the hierarchy. But then you say that officers who outrank O'Brien still have to report to him.

So that means that Starfleet isn't based on the US Navy, then? Otherwise, O'Brien would have to report to the officers, instead of them reporting to him.

Do situations like this happen in the US Army, too - e.g. an experienced sergeant 'advising' a brand-new lieutenant, who then takes his advice? I'd never say that a lieutenant is dumb (not many dumb people would make it through OCS, I assume), but if the NCO has lots of experience, it makes sense to listen to that experience.

(The "Stupid Master, Smart Servant" is, of course, a very old trope. It's been one of the most popular tropes as long ago as ancient Greek and Roman comedy theatre. It also appears in the Italian Commedia Dell'arte, and more recently in "The Marriage of Figaro" - where Figaro, a low-class barber, helps a Count to to gain access to, and eventually marry, his sweetheart. There are many more recent examples, e.g. Jeeves, Blackadder etc.)

One thing Star Trek was never consistent with was the admiral ranks. Characters are referred to as Rear, Vice or Fleet Admiral, but all the admirals seem to have the same rank insignia.

Yeah, they've never been entirely clear on admiral ranks. Starfleet still has two ranks (commodore and fleet admiral) no longer actively used by the US Navy. Commodore was replaced with rear admiral lower-half during the mid-1980s and no one's held the rank of fleet admiral since Chester Nimitz died in 1966.

I didn't know this until I looked it up, but Kirk was a rear admiral. They never specifically state his full rank in the films, where they simply call him "admiral" (despite there being a big difference between the ranks of rear admiral and full admiral).

Hmm. According to wikipedia, the difference is simple: vice-admiral has two stars, rear admirable has three, and full admiral has four. (Fleet Admiral has five, but as you said, no-one's held that rank since Nimitz).

It seems like the equivalent Army ranks (i.e. two, three, four and five stars) would be Major-Gen., Lieut-Gen., General and General of the Army. (However, it seems that Gen. of the Army was last held by Omar Bradley, and not conferred on anyone else since Bradley died in 1981).

This is something that always bothered me: since a Major far outranks a Lieutenant, why does a Lieut-Gen. outrank a Major-Gen.? *confused* It seems to me, logically, that Major-General should be the higher rank. Any idea why it was reversed?

One thing that we don't really know is just how big Starfleet is. The US Navy has about 350k active duty personnel with "480 ships, 290 of which are deployable" (from Wikipedia, not sure what this means).

I've never been in any armed forces, but my guess - for what it's worth - is that the other 190 ships are in dry dock being refitted/repaired, or used only for exercises. *shrug* Obviously I don't know for sure. Does that sound reasonable?

[Rath Darkblade]

And since this is the Star Wars / Star Trek thread ...

[DeadPoolX]

DPX, I'm confused. It makes sense that a senior NCO has to take orders from a brand-new ensign, despite having more experience - it's the hierarchy. But then you say that officers who outrank O'Brien still have to report to him.

Position is ALWAYS more important than rank. So if O'Brien is the chief engineer on DS9, that means higher-ranking officers (which, technically-speaking, is ALL of them) have to report to him and listen to him in his capacity as chief engineer. In other words, O'Brien still needs to call a lieutenant "sir," but that same lieutenant would still need to take orders in engineering from O'Brien.

Here's another example: an officer whose rank is lieutenant commander, but is the captain of a ship (note: he or she would still be addressed as "captain" because that's their position, regardless of actual rank) does not have his or her authority overridden if a higher-ranking officer comes aboard.

Why? Because position takes precedence over rank.

Hmm. According to wikipedia, the difference is simple: vice-admiral has two stars, rear admirable has three, and full admiral has four. (Fleet Admiral has five, but as you said, no-one's held that rank since Nimitz).

It seems like the equivalent Army ranks (i.e. two, three, four and five stars) would be Major-Gen., Lieut-Gen., General and General of the Army. (However, it seems that Gen. of the Army was last held by Omar Bradley, and not conferred on anyone else since Bradley died in 1981).

I know how the ranks work in both the US Navy and US Army, Rath.

My comment about the "admiral ranks not being clear" was in reference to Star Trek and more specifically, Starfleet. The reason those ranks aren't always clear in Star Trek is because rank is something that the writers and costume department sometimes screwed up.

BTW, you got the US Navy ranks wrong: Rear Admiral (lower-half) is one star, Rear Admiral (upper-half) is two stars, Vice Admiral is three stars, Admiral is four stars, and Fleet Admiral is five stars. In Commonwealth nations, the rank of Commodore is used instead of Rear Admiral (lower-half).

And for reference, there's no hyphen in "Vice Admiral" in the US Navy, just as there isn't a hyphen in "Brigadier General," "Major General," or "Lieutenant General" in the US Army. I know Commonwealth countries write these ranks with a hyphen.

This is something that always bothered me: since a Major far outranks a Lieutenant, why does a Lieut-Gen. outrank a Major-Gen.? *confused* It seems to me, logically, that Major-General should be the higher rank. Any idea why it was reversed?

There's actually very little written about this, but from what I know, the ranks of General, Lieutenant General, and Major General were originally at some point (long before the US existed) known as "Captain General," "Lieutenant General," and "Sergeant Major General."

Somewhere along the line the "captain" part was dropped to make General, while the "sergeant" part was also dropped to form Major General, but the order of ranks never changed. Why did this happen? No idea, but since ranks (name and insignia) do change over time, I could easily imagine this happening and the the reasons for this occurring being lost to history.