Starfleet Marine Corps

[Sci]

Nighthawk wrote:

---

Could be that Paramount know there were fan groups based on "Starfleet Marines" since the 1970's and did not want to use the same name for the M.A.C.O.s possible copy right issues and what not.

Why? Paramount at the time owned Star Trek lock, stock, and barrel. Anyone operating any Star Trek-based club or business without a license from Paramount was technically violating Paramount's copyright. Paramount would have no legal obligation whatsoever towards them.

[The Wormhole]

Nighthawk wrote:

---

I believe Starfleet has always had a type of Military Force that was trained and equipped to address specific situations.

Such a force could simply be Starfleet's special forces (which do exist in novels). They don't need to be Marines.

Could be that Paramount know there were fan groups based on "Starfleet Marines" since the 1970's and did not want to use the same name for the M.A.C.O.s possible copy right issues and what not. Or even acknowledging the established fan groups already in existence.
So "the powers that be" for Star Trek decided instead to use the none-desrcript word "Military" in place of Marines.
The personal of the M.A.C.O.s used a Marine/Army rank structure that was different from Starfleet. The uniforms and weapons were different too and showed that they were trained to provide military support above Lt. Reeds ship security forces.

The MACOs were always meant to be a seperate organization from Starfleet, which is why they were called "MACOs" as opposed to "Starfleet Marines." There are no coypright issues since fan groups can't own the copyright to anything related to Star Trek. Besides, if Paramount did feature Starfleet Marines, and such a group wanted to take legal action against Paramount, such group could then potentially face legal action from the USMC on the same grounds.

No, the real reason the name MACOs was used as opposed to Marines was to establish that they were completely fictional and therefore they could get away without researching military practices and protocols without having to adhere to real life precedents.

In fact, in the original planning stages of Enterprise, Malcolm Reed was meant to be a "Starfleet Marine" with the rank of Major. Although a reason was never given for why they didn't go through with this, I would imagine it was to avoid complaints about not knowing what Marines really are.

[Nighthawk]

Could be that Paramount know there were fan groups based on "Starfleet Marines" since the 1970's and did not want to use the same name for the M.A.C.O.s possible copy right issues and what not. Or even acknowledging the established fan groups already in existence.
So "the powers that be" for Star Trek decided instead to use the none-desrcript word "Military" in place of Marines.
The personal of the M.A.C.O.s used a Marine/Army rank structure that was different from Starfleet. The uniforms and weapons were different too and showed that they were trained to provide military support above Lt. Reeds ship security forces.

The MACOs were always meant to be a separate organization from Starfleet, which is why they were called "MACOs" as opposed to "Starfleet Marines." There are no coypright issues since fan groups can't own the copyright to anything related to Star Trek. Besides, if Paramount did feature Starfleet Marines, and such a group wanted to take legal action against Paramount, such group could then potentially face legal action from the USMC on the same grounds.

No, the real reason the name MACOs was used as opposed to Marines was to establish that they were completely fictional and therefore they could get away without researching military practices and protocols without having to adhere to real life precedents.

In fact, in the original planning stages of Enterprise, Malcolm Reed was meant to be a "Starfleet Marine" with the rank of Major. Although a reason was never given for why they didn't go through with this, I would imagine it was to avoid complaints about not knowing what Marines really are.[/QUOTE]

During the 1970-80's there was a Star Trek game called "Federation Games" or something like that that possible trade marked "Starfleet Marines" it could be possible some one owns the copy right name to Starfleet Marines.

If a fictional show depicts a Marine unit the real USMC or any other nation would not have a reason to sue on the grounds of copy rights. There have been a dozen of movies and shows that had characters depicted army or navy personal that were evil. It called creative freedom.

[The Wormhole]

Nighthawk wrote:

---

During the 1970-80's there was a Star Trek game called "Federation Games" or something like that that possible trade marked "Starfleet Marines" it could be possible some one owns the copy right name to Starfleet Marines.

It is not possible for anyone outside for Paramount/CBS to trademark or copyright anything related to Star Trek

If a fictional show depicts a Marine unit the real USMC or any other nation would not have a reason to sue on the grounds of copy rights.

My point is, you can't own the name "Marines." If someone in charge of one fictional franchise wants to get upset with another franchise over the name, the upset ones should be prepared to answer to the USMC for why they essentially took their name.

There have been a dozen of movies and shows that had characters depicted army or navy personal that were evil. It called creative freedom.

Actually, you'd be surprised how often the US military steps in regarding their depiction on TV shows or movies. Stargate SG-1 is set in the US Air Force. One of the original plans was to have corrupt officers causing trouble for the SGC. This plan was changed by request of the USAF, who wanted all its officers on the show presented as upstanding people. and so the renegade officers were then turned into the NID, a fictional civilian agency. Since the character Colonel Maybourne was already established before the USAF made its request, he stayed, although the character was evetually disnhounrably discharged (though likely as a result of the legitimate storytelling process than USAF pressure). Interestingly enough, nearly every Marine featured in the Stargate franchise have been at best jerks and at worse actual villains, and the show has even featured a villainous Army officer.

[Nerys Myk]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

In fact, in the original planning stages of Enterprise, Malcolm Reed was meant to be a "Starfleet Marine" with the rank of Major. Although a reason was never given for why they didn't go through with this, I would imagine it was to avoid complaints about not knowing what Marines really are.

Since Starfleet Marines would be fictional. why would they have to conform exactly to any real life Marine organizations?

[Star Wolf]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

Actually, you'd be surprised how often the US military steps in regarding their depiction on TV shows or movies. Stargate SG-1 is set in the US Air Force. One of the original plans was to have corrupt officers causing trouble for the SGC. This plan was changed by request of the USAF, who wanted all its officers on the show presented as upstanding people. and so the renegade officers were then turned into the NID, a fictional civilian agency. Since the character Colonel Maybourne was already established before the USAF made its request, he stayed, although the character was evetually disnhounrably discharged (though likely as a result of the legitimate storytelling process than USAF pressure). Interestingly enough, nearly every Marine featured in the Stargate franchise have been at best jerks and at worse actual villains, and the show has even featured a villainous Army officer.

However the military only has a say when they are providing support to the filming. Otherwise you get the fake looking stuff like the many "Army" officers on TV from the first year of Falling Skies to less military oriented shows who wore their insignia on the wrong side of their uniforms. I couldn't believe it when Captain Dale Dye who once made his living making sure such mistakes didn't happen when the military did not give assistance had his name tag on the wrong side of his ACUs.

Perhaps the main Marine on Stargate, Lieutenant Ford became a jerk as a side effect of being wounded in action.

[Nerys Myk]

I though there some sort of law that prevented using exact duplicates of US Military uniforms in movies and on TV.

[Star Wolf]

The US Supreme Court threw the law out in 1970. Notice I said the first year of Falling Skies, when the Colonel returned in the second season he wore the uniform correctly. Probably because people like me made such noise about Captain Dye being in such a production when his initial career after retiring from the Marine Corps was to make sure his clients didn't make those silly errors.

[The Wormhole]

Star Wolf wrote:

---

Perhaps the main Marine on Stargate, Lieutenant Ford became a jerk as a side effect of being wounded in action.

Well, it's not just Lt. Ford. There was also:
-Colonel Makepeace: Aside from being a condescending jerk to the SG-1 team, we find out he was working for the rogue NID.
-Sgt. Bates: An in-your-face jerk who was always stirring up trouble before getting his ass kicked by a Wraith leading to a medical discharge.
-Colonel Everrett: Declared himself in charge of Atlantis and gave Weir and Sheppard a hard time. Got fed on by the Wraith.
-Sgt. Greer: Was facing charges for assaulting a superior officer.
-Sgt. Spencer: Mentally unstable, was caught stealing rations, eventually committed suicide

Also, General Landry thinks Marines are "cocky sons of bitches" and says he can't stand them.

So, nearly all the USMC characters seen in Stargate are portrayed in a negative light, and a main character in the USAF openly shows his disdain towards Marines. Doesn't anyone else see a double standard in a show which the USAF requests its personnel be depicted as model human beings is apparentally allowed to show the USMC as anything but?

[T'Girl]

Santa Kang wrote:

---

Since Starfleet Marines would be fictional. why would they have to conform exactly to any real life Marine organizations?

Because the 1.5 million active duty military (Marines or not) would notice the difference. The 22 million veterans (Marines or not) would notice the difference. And tens of millions of military family members (of Marines or not) would notice the difference.

All these people are potential viewers.

Reverse the question, what possible reason could there be to not get it correct?

[Timo]

The same reason all police procedurals get the procedure deliberately wrong, despite an even greater demographic group (veteran police and veteran criminals) being able to tell the difference?

Realism is anathema to drama in too many cases. And nobody wants to watch real life when they tune in for entertainment. They want something better.

The uniforms and weapons were different too and showed that they were trained to provide military support above Lt. Reeds ship security forces.

Don't you mean below Reed's forces? Note that the guns of the MACO contingent were of a supposedly outdated type. The MACO sidearm was replaced by the more modern phaser sidearm aboard Archer's ship in the very pilot episode, say.

Timo Saloniemi

[Star Wolf]

Merry Christmas wrote:

---

Because the 1.5 million active duty military (Marines or not) would notice the difference. The 22 million veterans (Marines or not) would notice the difference. And tens of millions of military family members (of Marines or not) would notice the difference.

All these people are potential viewers.

Reverse the question, what possible reason could there be to not get it correct?

It does seem to me atleast that Starfleet Security does what those infantry battalions assigned to Royal Navy ships and later called Royal Marines did.

[Pavonis]

Merry Christmas wrote:

---

Reverse the question, what possible reason could there be to not get it correct?

Many reasons would justify not getting it correct.

If it didn't serve the plot, they wouldn't "get it correct".

If it didn't increase the drama, they wouldn't "get it correct".

If it wasn't cool, they wouldn't "get it correct".

If it didn't add humor, they wouldn't "get it correct".

[Nerys Myk]

Merry Christmas wrote:

---

Because the 1.5 million active duty military (Marines or not) would notice the difference. The 22 million veterans (Marines or not) would notice the difference. And tens of millions of military family members (of Marines or not) would notice the difference.

All these people are potential viewers.

Reverse the question, what possible reason could there be to not get it correct?

Since they aren't playing US Marines, why should they care? It's Star Trek, not Gomer Pyle USMC. That's like complaining about a show featuring the Royal Marines because they do things different than the USMC.