Would TMP have been better had they used the TOS uniforms?

[J.T.B.]

CaptainMurdock wrote:

---

Well TMP takes place in 2273 IIRC and TWOK takes place in 2285/86. Uniform trends and stuff can change with in that big gap of time.

Again, it's not just a fashion trend, it's a complete change in philosophy. Enlisted personnel were considered worthy of officer-style uniforms, and then they weren't. That's a drastic -- and many would say retrograde --change in recognition of their status.

[BillJ]

TOS style uniforms would've made TMP feel more familiar. But it wouldn't have made it a better or worse film.

[C.E. Evans]

J.T.B. wrote:

---

That's on the level of "a wizard did it."

More accurately, on the level of "we changed it because we could."

Organizations comparable to Starfleet do not historically make comparable changes "just for the heck of it." Was there a social, political or cultural revolution in the Federation between TMP and TWOK? Maybe, but it doesn't seem manifest in any other aspect of the world we see.

I would argue that Starfleet can indeed make changes "just for the heck of it"--and often does. I would also argue that Starfleet is not entirely comparable to organizations of centuries ago and can do things differently than they did periodically.

[Hartzilla2007]

J.T.B. wrote:

---

Again, it's not just a fashion trend, it's a complete change in philosophy.

Huh?

Enlisted personnel were considered worthy of officer-style uniforms, and then they weren't.

Or they wanted the Enlisted personnel more practical for what they were doing

That's a drastic -- and many would say retrograde --change in recognition of their status.

When has what they were wearing in Trek had an impact in their status.

[Maurice]

On the subjects of the TMP uniforms, Dorothy Fontana told me that Bill Theiss flew in to show his ideas to Robert Wise, but Wise wasn't impressed. Theiss went back to the movie he was working on, which was "Butch and Sundance The Early Years", and got an Oscar nomination for the costumes for it. Nuff said.

[Carcazoid]

Hartzilla2007 wrote:

---

Huh?

Or they wanted the Enlisted personnel more practical for what they were doing

When has what they were wearing in Trek had an impact in their status.

Exactly. Look at the evolution/devolution of the uniforms in the US Navy. The "crackerjack" was retired for years in favor of a uniform that more closely resembled what officers wore. Then it was brought back.

Duty uniforms these days vary by what the job at hand entails. It has nothing to do with "class." That's nothing but modern liberal social experimenting BS.

That statement may offend some, but so be it. I'm too damn old to care.

[Galileo7]

BillJ wrote:

---

TOS style uniforms would've made TMP feel more familiar. But it wouldn't have made it a better or worse film.

Agree.

[J.T.B.]

C.E. Evans wrote:

---

More accurately, on the level of "we changed it because we could."

Both have a similar amount of thought behind them. That may constitute believable justification for some; it definitely doesn't ring true for me.

C.E. Evans wrote:

---

I would argue that Starfleet can indeed make changes "just for the heck of it"--and often does.

This was explained onscreen? Because if it wasn't, I don't think we can be sure of why a fictional organization does anything.

C.E. Evans wrote:

---

I would also argue that Starfleet is not entirely comparable to organizations of centuries ago and can do things differently than they did periodically.

I agree, it may not be entirely comparable. But there are enough points of direct comparability to present or historical organizations that we can judge some choices as more likely than others.

Hartzilla2007 wrote:

---

Or they wanted the Enlisted personnel more practical for what they were doing

An impraticality that only presented itself between TMP and TWOK?

Hartzilla2007 wrote:

---

When has what they were wearing in Trek had an impact in their status.

Military uniforms represent status within the organization. Historically, people resent having indications of status taken away.

Carcazoid wrote:

---

Exactly. Look at the evolution/devolution of the uniforms in the US Navy. The "crackerjack" was retired for years in favor of a uniform that more closely resembled what officers wore. Then it was brought back.

That's true, there have been some back and forth steps like that. But the overall trend is clearly toward uniformity and fewer distinctions. Look at the USN duty uniforms of today: With the adoption of the khaki service shirt for E1-E6 a few years ago and the "sea camo" NWU, the differences betwen sailors, chief and officers are fewer than ever before.

Carcazoid wrote:

---

Duty uniforms these days vary by what the job at hand entails. It has nothing to do with "class." That's nothing but modern liberal social experimenting BS.

Call it what you like, but military organizations see benefits in eliminating highly visible distingtion between the officer class and enlisted and have consistently moved in that direction. In 1944 the British Army started allowing other ranks to wear their battledress with a shirt and tie. The US Army began phasing out the officers' pinks and greens in 1946. The US Air Force adopted a blue uniform that differentiated rank only by insignia in 1950. The US Navy extended the short-sleeve summer white shirt to E1-E6 in 1963, the winter blue shirt in 1973, and the khaki shirt in 2010. And so on.

At any rate, I've gotten a little far afield of what I intended, which was: I find the TWOK uniforms to be less consistent and therefore less believable than those in TMP.

[Kruezerman]

I like the TMP uniforms, they looked like something an astronaut would wear. I think it would've worked well even today.

Now the TOS uniforms are classic, but the quality of the costumes themselves wouldn't have been anywhere near up to scratch for a big movie like TMP. Also as others have said, it shows a change of time from TOS to the "present."

I'm kinda "meh" with the TWOK+ uniforms, they look great for dress uniforms but not duty. They look heavy and hot for a ship that will 1) go into combat, 2) have crews go down into possibly humid or heat intensive environments, and 3) be rather cramped what with ~400 people living in pretty close quarters. So really my critiques of the TWOK+ uniforms are that they're impractical.

I like the idea of a good military looking uniform for Trek, but those weren't it.

[C.E. Evans]

J.T.B. wrote:

---

Both have a similar amount of thought behind them. That may constitute believable justification for some; it definitely doesn't ring true for me.

But I believe it often is true.

This was explained onscreen? Because if it wasn't, I don't think we can be sure of why a fictional organization does anything.

Which in a real sense, is my point. Trying to adhere Starfleet to real-world organizations doesn't really work all the time, because Starfleet doesn't really have a real-world counterpart that is exactly like it. Starfleet can indeed have its own rationale for doing things--the look of its ships, the look of its uniforms, certain policies, etc.--and as such, the idea that it can do things because it simply wants to is likely valid (if not often the case) in many situations.

I agree, it may not be entirely comparable. But there are enough points of direct comparability to present or historical organizations that we can judge some choices as more likely than others.

Depending solely on how you view Starfleet. In fact, I think the majority of issues people might have with Starfleet is when there are points of direct incompatibility with present or historical organizations, and in such instances, the easiest way to reconcile them is by looking at Starfleet is as its own thing with frequently its own way of doing things.

[mos6507]

Relayer1 wrote:

---

Indeed Shatner says he ran and worked out frantically for TMP. Time well spent...

Although he didn't wax his body hair off the way he did in the TOS days, so you see his hairy arms in the short-sleeved shirt. Then you have Bones beaming aboard looking like a cross between a hippie and a pimp. TMP is the epitome of 70s leisure-suit sensibilities. No other live-action Trek has that 70s vibe to it, which is why I still like TMP, although I'm also glad they moved on afterwards. A little of that goes a long way.

[Lance]

mos6507 wrote:

---

Although he didn't wax his body hair off the way he did in the TOS days, so you see his hairy arms in the short-sleeved shirt.

He may not have had hairy arms in the TOS days, but he certainly had hairy armpits.

http://images.wikia.com/startrek/ima...irror_Kirk.jpg

[J.T.B.]

C.E. Evans wrote:

---

Which in a real sense, is my point. Trying to adhere Starfleet to real-world organizations doesn't really work all the time, because Starfleet doesn't really have a real-world counterpart that is exactly like it. Starfleet can indeed have its own rationale for doing things--the look of its ships, the look of its uniforms, certain policies, etc.--and as such, the idea that it can do things because it simply wants to is likely valid (if not often the case) in many situations.

I don't understand this point. An organization can't want to do anything, and when the people who run it make changes, they make them for some underlying reason. Making large-scale decisions based on personal whims is not realistic, no matter the century.

C.E. Evans wrote:

---

Depending solely on how you view Starfleet. In fact, I think the majority of issues people might have with Starfleet is when there are points of direct incompatibility with present or historical organizations, and in such instances, the easiest way to reconcile them is by looking at Starfleet is as its own thing with frequently its own way of doing things.

But my criticism wasn't based on incompatibility with the real world, but with its own established precedent.

[C.E. Evans]

J.T.B. wrote:

---

I don't understand this point.

I don't know why, it's real simple: Starfleet sometimes has its own reasons for doing things. It can't get any more simpler than that, truly.

An organization can't want to do anything, and when the people who run it make changes, they make them for some underlying reason. Making large-scale decisions based on personal whims is not realistic, no matter the century.

See above statement.

But my criticism wasn't based on incompatibility with the real world, but with its own established precedent.

The only established precedent about Starfleet uniforms is that they frequently change. In light of any onscreen explanation for why they change, all we can go on is speculation and change just for the sake of change is as valid an idea as any other.

[J.T.B.]

C.E. Evans wrote:

---

The only established precedent about Starfleet uniforms is that they frequently change. In light of any onscreen explanation for why they change, all we can go on is speculation and change just for the sake of change is as valid an idea as any other.

No, it's really not as valid as any other. Large organizations with vast assets and many thousands of personnel do not make large institutional changes just for the sake of change, that's just not realistic.