Star Wars / Star Trek Discussion (SciFi In General)

[Rath Darkblade]

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.

Ah! Got it. So any senior officers will listen/report to O'Brien while in Engineering, because he's the Chief Engineer. But once they're out of the Engineering department (e.g. on the bridge?), O'Brien has to report to them. That makes sense.

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.

Of course you do. I was just trying to understand them myself (and to ask for confirmation if I got them right).

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).

Whoops! I was basing this on the wiki-article, but obviously I screwed up. *blush* Sorry.

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.

Well, that makes sense. Thank you.

As for the Starfleet writers/costume department sometimes screwing up -- let's be thankful they didn't get into the different types of sergeants/petty officers. I was trying to understand those, myself, but it's bewildering how many sergeant/petty officer ranks there are.

[MusicallyInspired]

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 noticed it. It drove me crazy growing up lol. Apparently they were going to use a new uniform design similar to the Wrath of Khan uniforms, and action figures were even made with those uniforms. But they were cancelled last minute and they just went with going back and forth between the TNG/VOY uniforms for no logical reason whatsoever. Picard starts out wearing the TNG uniform, then wears the Voyager uniform when he beams down to confront Soran. Then at the end of the movie he's back to wearing the TNG uniform. So it's not even about slowly transitioning to the "new" uniforms. Absolutely no consistency. I never liked the Voyager uniforms (or DS9's later uniforms for that matter). I think the axed alternate uniforms could have been interesting though if given the chance. I guess they ran out of time and/or money? I do actually really love the "All Good Things" alternate future uniforms though (also later used in Voyager: Endgame). Those looked great.

Here is the cancelled uniform design for Generations. Looks like they combined aspects of the TOS, TOS film, and TNG uniforms all together. Including the bands on the sleeves.

[DeadPoolX]

As for the Starfleet writers/costume department sometimes screwing up -- let's be thankful they didn't get into the different types of sergeants/petty officers. I was trying to understand those, myself, but it's bewildering how many sergeant/petty officer ranks there are.

The US is unusual in this sense because it has so many enlisted and NCO ranks. Most other military forces across the world have far fewer.

For instance, look at the difference between the enlisted/NCO ranks for the British Army versus the US Army. To make matters more confusing, the British Army includes two grades of Warrant Officer within their enlisted/NCO ranks, whereas the US Army separates Warrant Officers into five grades within their own category.

Probably the thing that confuses more people than anything is when there's two or more ranks at the same grade level. People usually assume that ranks work in a simple vertical fashion, but that isn't always the case.

A good example in the US Army are the NCO ranks of Master Sergeant and First Sergeant, both of which share the same grade (E-8/OR-8), but do not enjoy the same level of authority.

BTW, the reason I keep writing "enlisted/NCO" is because soldiers in the US Army are considered enlisted men and women until they reach the rank of Corporal. When that happens, they officially become a non-commissioned officer. You might have also noticed that both Corporal and Specialist are the same grade (E-4/OR-4). While that's true, they are not equal in authority, not the least of which is because CPL is an NCO rank, whereas SPC is not.

Here is the cancelled uniform design for Generations. Looks like they combined aspects of the TOS, TOS film, and TNG uniforms all together. Including the bands on the sleeves.

d6cgh3q-4e934d63-a80f-4cfc-b738-05af5f4424d3.png

Huh. I like the way that looks. Plus, they actually show the correct number of stripes on the uniform's cuffs. That's something that always annoyed me about TOS.

Roddenberry purposefully altered the US Navy rank system (in terms of stripes to denote rank) for Starfleet in order to make it look "less militaristic." This is why two stripes in TOS equal the rank of Commander, whereas in the US Navy, two stripes equal Lieutenant, or why one stripe in TOS equals the rank of Lieutenant, but in the US Navy, one stripe equals Ensign.

TNG sort of fixed this with the pips on their collars (i.e. four gold pips equal Captain, just as four stripes equal Captain in the US Navy), so Roddenberry's argument in the end was silly because the rank system doesn't equate to a space-faring force being "militaristic" or not.

[MusicallyInspired]

Yeah, Roddenberry never liked the Wrath of Khan uniforms either because they were too militaristic. I guess he got a compromise when he made TNG to get back to the colours and jumpsuits (two-piece in season 3 onwards).

[Rath Darkblade]

Some cool news: Someone made a hoverbike!

(Well, it's much chunkier than the Star Wars-style hoverbike, and really really expensive ... but it's only a prototype. It's cool to see that it's possible. Now let's just wait until the price comes down a bit ...)

[Tawmis]

STAR WARS: SQUADRON is free on Epic games right now.

[DeadPoolX]

So Maia and I are watching all seven seasons of Star Trek: The Next Generation (we're currently nearing the end of Season 6), and I'm surprised just how much I'm enjoying it. I never sat down and actually watched TNG. I saw an episode here and there, and saw the TNG films, but this is the first time I'm actually watching the entire series (Maia had already seen TNG, but it's been years so she's forgotten many of the episodes), and I can see why it's so popular. I definitely like it a lot better than both DS9 and VOY, and in many cases TOS as well!

One thing I've noticed over time after watching the TNG-era shows is that Star Trek is obsessed with Shakespeare, Sherlock Holmes, and to a lesser extent, folk tales like Robin Hood or fairy tales. Additionally, the only type of music that exists is classical, big band, jazz, or Klingon opera (yeah, I don't get it either, but apparently it's a "thing" for Klingons).

My point here is that although I get how important and influential those works and genres are, a lot of other entertainment exists, yet never seems to appear in Star Trek. I know why the shows do this: if you only use copyright-free material, you never need to get permission or pay royalties! And while that's fine from a production point-of-view, I'd like to know if there is an in-universe reason for this, because if there is, I sure haven't found it, but I thought someone else here might have some idea.

[Tawmis]

So Maia and I are watching all seven seasons of Star Trek: The Next Generation (we're currently nearing the end of Season 6), and I'm surprised just how much I'm enjoying it. I never sat down and actually watched TNG. I saw an episode here and there, and saw the TNG films, but this is the first time I'm actually watching the entire series (Maia had already seen TNG, but it's been years so she's forgotten many of the episodes), and I can see why it's so popular. I definitely like it a lot better than both DS9 and VOY, and in many cases TOS as well!

(Side bar - I had the same effect with "Big Bang Theory" - two of my close friends said it was great, I'd seen an episode here and there and never got it... then I watched from Season 1, onward, and by the time I was done with Season 1, it made much more sense, getting a feel for each of the characters, their personalities, their stories, etc).

One thing I've noticed over time after watching the TNG-era shows is that Star Trek is obsessed with Shakespeare, Sherlock Holmes, and to a lesser extent, folk tales like Robin Hood or fairy tales. Additionally, the only type of music that exists is classical, big band, jazz, or Klingon opera (yeah, I don't get it either, but apparently it's a "thing" for Klingons).
My point here is that although I get how important and influential those works and genres are, a lot of other entertainment exists, yet never seems to appear in Star Trek. I know why the shows do this: if you only use copyright-free material, you never need to get permission or pay royalties! And while that's fine from a production point-of-view, I'd like to know if there is an in-universe reason for this, because if there is, I sure haven't found it, but I thought someone else here might have some idea.

If you mean, why those specific song genres - I wonder because those are ... how do you say it, ageless?
Like heavy metal would sound dated, disco would sound dated, whatever you call Taylor Swift, would - eventually - sound dated.

But classical, big band jazz, opera - these are always accepted as "timeless" pieces.

[notbobsmith]

And I just finished rewatching DS9. I've seen TNG many times over, from the original broadcast, to reruns for a few years after it ended, and more recently on Blu Ray. I haven't seen DS9 since its original broadcast, and I was pleasantly surprised as to how much I enjoyed it. I think maybe I enjoyed it more than TNG.

One thing I've noticed over time after watching the TNG-era shows is that Star Trek is obsessed with Shakespeare, Sherlock Holmes, and to a lesser extent, folk tales like Robin Hood or fairy tales. Additionally, the only type of music that exists is classical, big band, jazz, or Klingon opera (yeah, I don't get it either, but apparently it's a "thing" for Klingons).
My point here is that although I get how important and influential those works and genres are, a lot of other entertainment exists, yet never seems to appear in Star Trek. I know why the shows do this: if you only use copyright-free material, you never need to get permission or pay royalties! And while that's fine from a production point-of-view, I'd like to know if there is an in-universe reason for this, because if there is, I sure haven't found it, but I thought someone else here might have some idea.

If you mean, why those specific song genres - I wonder because those are ... how do you say it, ageless?
Like heavy metal would sound dated, disco would sound dated, whatever you call Taylor Swift, would - eventually - sound dated.

But classical, big band jazz, opera - these are always accepted as "timeless" pieces.

Voyager introduced classic rock. Then there's Abrams' Kelvin timeline which gave us the Beastie Boys.

[Rath Darkblade]

Now I can't help but wonder what Klingons would make of heavy metal ... or (just to pick one genre at random) punk rock.

I've heard quite a bit of classical and opera, but big band jazz is one genre that I haven't heard too much. I started listening to it in recent weeks; it's very enjoyable.

Another reason why they were selected, I think, is that in good performances of music from those genres, the singers are very careful about enunciation. So whenever you hear a song, the words are usually very clear. For me, that's a big plus.

I enjoy other genres (e.g. heavy metal) for other reasons, but if I listen to heavy metal, it's not because the singer has good diction. Lots of heavy metal is about raw power.

But coming back to DPX's point about royalties: it depends on when and where the music recording was made. In the US, any works published before January 1, 1927, are in the public domain (which is puzzling, because copyright laws in the USA date back to 1790). To put it more simply: a song from (say) a Mozart opera is in the public domain, and anyone can perform it; but if that song was recorded after 1/1/1927 (plus 70 years), then using it could break copyright law. So it's always a good idea to check.

I know this is probably common-sense, and I'm sorry if it is. I just did a whole bunch of research on copyright law when I started making videos, to make sure that the music/pictures/etc. I was using were OK to use. Better to be safe, right?

[DeadPoolX]

NOTE: When I write "contemporary" in this post, I'm referring to what might be considered modern in the 24th century (when TNG takes place), not what's modern today or what was modern when TNG aired in the late 1980s/early 1990s.

Okay, but what about visual media? It seems that there are no contemporary films, shows, plays, or books available. Like I said, they're obsessed with older properties, like Shakespeare and Sherlock Holmes, and again I understand the production reason (lack of copyright and royalties), but I've still never found an in-universe reason for this.

For the record, I'm not suggesting that they couldn't enjoy older works like Shakespeare or Sherlock Holmes, but I find it odd that their library of fiction seems more or less limited to those works. I'd expect to see more contemporary media as well, but I can't recall ever seeing anything like that.

[goatmeal]

That's something that always bugged me about futuristic sci-fi TV/movies -- whether it's set 50 years, 100 years, or 300 years in the future: invariably the main character (or one of the main characters) is always listening to some current-day contemporary pop/rock music from the second half the 20th century.

I can understand "why" from the perspective that it helps the audience relate to the character(s): "I know that song! They're just like us! They like the music we like!"

Also, it might be a non-so-subliminal message that "our" music is so terrific, it will be still around in the future -- essentially becoming self-anointed "classics" themselves.

However, that would be like people in the 10th-century imagining that the people of today would still be listening to Gregorian Chants, or fiction writers from 150-160 years ago thinking that we would all be listening to Civil War era music as the popular form of music in the 2020s...

[notbobsmith]

Fun fact: when they first used Sherlock Holmes in TNG, everyone thought the character was in the public domain. Well, he wasn't (from memory-alpha.org):

When "Elementary, Dear Data" was written and filmed, the producers believed that the Sherlock Holmes character was public domain. After the episode aired, the estate of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle notified Paramount that they still retained a percentage of the rights to the character, and would require a usage fee if the character was used again. This legal issue delayed sequel episodes for nearly four years, at which time an agreement was reached for use of the character in "Ship In A Bottle". (Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion (2nd ed., pp. 69 & 231))

One of the main reasons they stick with music and entertainment that people are familiar with is that the alternative is to create "futuristic" sounding art which someone has to create and, if done poorly, can be very off-putting. What if someone likes 22nd century music? What does that sound like? What do you even call it? The same goes with slang. The writers on TNG have said that they were very deliberate about not using it to avoid anachronisms. Or you end up with a situation like in Picard where "pro tip" is an expression still used in 400 years. The alternative is to create slang which can sound silly ("That's tachyon!") or at worst straight out of a sci-fi cartoon ("Jumping Jupiter!"). Although sometimes it can work like in Firefly.

As for an in-universe reason... This is some deep fan speculation, but I've read some people suggest that the utopian society that humanity has become is culturally stagnant and there is nothing new. And there is some truth to this. How much art is dedicated to shining a light on an injustice? What happens if there is no more injustice? Dickens growing up in poverty. What happens when there is no more poverty? Hemingway being influenced by his war experiences. What happens when there is no more war? There's a great quote from the Orson Welles movie The Third Man:

You know what the fellow said – in Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace – and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.

In a perfect society, what do people write about?

[MusicallyInspired]

There was a third world war before the events of the past in First Contact too. But mostly I just tended to believe there was no in-universe reason and they just did it to keep the show feeling credible while also showing their respect for the classics.

There was one episode I didn't watch until I went through the series with my kids when I got the Bluray collection. It was one I never got around to. It was an early season episode where Picard becomes responsible for a boy they find. His culture respects captains so he does too yet he's still an unruly adolescent that Picard has to teach and in doing so learns to become a father figure for the first time. In one scene Picard enters his quarters and the boy is listening to really loud (and I assume alien) music. It's not from Earth and it was kind of jarring to hear. Kind of a late 80s attempt at futuristic alien punk rock...yet you could hear the 80s in it. That's why they never usually did it. It just suddenly really dates the show in a way I'd never experienced before.

[Rath Darkblade]

That's something that always bugged me about futuristic sci-fi TV/movies -- whether it's set 50 years, 100 years, or 300 years in the future: invariably the main character (or one of the main characters) is always listening to some current-day contemporary pop/rock music from the second half the 20th century.

If you go backwards, it's even worse. I've seen "historical fiction" books - apparently serious, not parodies etc. - being sold on Amazon. Most of them have "Amazon read" (or whatever they call it when you can read a page or two). One is set in the middle ages ... and a knight lifts up his armoured visor ... and we see he's smoking a cigar.

Later on in this "book", two noble ladies are watching the jousting, and one says to another "Zounds, my dear, I'm having such a bad hair day." (At this point, I gave up).

Another book deals with aristocrats in ancient Rome ... who are wearing pin-striped suits.

*facepalm*

However, that would be like people in the 10th-century imagining that the people of today would still be listening to Gregorian Chants, or fiction writers from 150-160 years ago thinking that we would all be listening to Civil War era music as the popular form of music in the 2020s...

I tried listening to some Civil War-era music the other day - I'd never heard it before. Quite stirring.

But yes, most authors, music composers etc. write for the time they live in, not for some time in the future. It's only common sense. And this raises another issue that 'raises my hackles': this recent insistence on censoring past books and TV shows, on the grounds that they don't agree with the attitudes of today.

It's ridiculous. First, the BBC censored "Fawlty Towers" (made in the 1970s) because the Major character used the n-word to refer to West Indians and other racist language to refer to Greeks, etc. I get it, the n-word is taboo in every-day life; but a character in a book or a TV show isn't a real-life character. (For the record, the Major isn't racist; just very old and out-of-touch). Even so, in the 1970s, the n-word was far more commonly used than now.

But never mind that. Next on the banned list? "The Famous Five" by Enid Blyton. (If you're unfamiliar, it's a group of four primary-school-aged kids and their dog who go on adventures; written in the 1940s). Why was it censored? Because none of the kids was black.

If this goes on, next to be banned will be Raymond Chandler's Phillip Marlowe (P.I.) because he uses the occasional homophobic words ... because the books were written in the 30s and 40s. After that? The James Bond books, because Bond uses sexist language. (Heaven preserve us). We may as well ban Dickens's "Oliver Twist" or Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice", on the grounds of antisemitism (Fagin and Shylock, respectively).

I'm not saying that we shouldn't discuss such issues. Of course we should. But banning a book (or TV show, etc.) for such reasons is infantile and counter-productive. All it does is make people think:

1. "Why were these things banned (e.g. the "Lady Chatterley's Lover" ban and subsequent trials, or the "Lolita" ban in the 1950s)?" and
2. "Let's read/watch it ourselves, and make up our own minds!"

At least, that's how it should work.

There's a great quote from the Orson Welles movie The Third Man:

You know what the fellow said – in Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace – and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.

In a perfect society, what do people write about?

There is much in what you say (and I - slightly - disagree about this, because they also produced the Swiss Army Knife and Swiss chocolate).

More seriously, it also depends on how long a "perfect society" remains perfect. Perfection doesn't last. (Besides, how do you define "perfection"? One person's idea will differ from another's).

To come back to my earlier post, Nabokov wrote "Lolita" in Britain in the 1950s. (Of course Britain back then was far from perfect - no place ever is - but living there was preferable to living in the USSR, and in many ways).

After he wrote the book, he rated it highly because it was so difficult to write. From wikipedia (Nabokov on Lolita):

In an interview for BBC Television in 1962, he said:

"Lolita is a special favourite of mine. It was my most difficult book—the book that treated of a theme which was so distant, so remote, from my own emotional life that it gave me a special pleasure to use my combinational talent to make it real."

Perhaps in a perfect society (or as close to as possible), people would write escapist stories? Conflict is central, without it there is no story. Armed conflict, conflict of ideas, conflict of philosophies or plans - it doesn't matter. Perhaps some people would find the perfect society stifling, and seek to escape (see "1984", for example). Perhaps people would turn to post-apocalyptic science fiction (e.g. "I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream").

Since humans first evolved, they always told each other stories (like the earth mother, the moon god, or whatever). There are, and will always be, stories to be told.