I have a feeling a ship's name has more to do with the old traditions of tales of the name than anything about the uniforms since the uniforms are purely informational.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
It's not that crazy given that, here in the really real-world, the US Army has gone through multiple uniform variations over just the past 20 years (e.g., wearing berets, no berets, blue dress uniforms, brown/green throwback dress uniforms, multiple camo pattern BDUs, etc.).
Also, TNG, DS9, VOY and Lower Decks establish that multiple uniform variations are worn at the same time. So people serving in forward areas or ships-of-the-line wear either the TNG (season 3-7) variant, the DS9/VOY variant, the grey wartime ones, and those serving support roles can wear the Lower Decks uniform. Beyond just that, if Starfleet is like the US military, the commanding officer of a duty station can set the uniform that'll be worn. In a fleet spread across 8,000 light-years, there could be a lot of variations based on the preferences of those in charge.
Controversial Opinion: They’re not pajamas!I still prefer the pajama look of TOS
Even the TMP uniforms aren't pajamas, even though they're clearly inspired by the Disco Ballhugger line from Sears circa 1978.
Even early on in TOS there are extras that can be seen in the pilot uniforms, as well as the jumpsuits, the wraparounds, and variants for female officers, both skirt and pants.
I'm curious if there's an "official" answer to this, but .... Is there a specific reason Starfleet's exploratory missions are five-years in length?
In-universe, I would guess it's what Starfleet has reasoned to be the length of time a crew can stay in deep-space, without contact from home, and not suffer mental strain/damage?
However, even while on a five-year mission, the Enterprise was still making stops at Starbases and had regular contact with Starfleet. So that doesn't exactly track.
In the real-world, I wonder if the "five-year mission" statement was chosen because TOS was only expected to last 5 seasons at most?
In-universe, I would guess it's what Starfleet has reasoned to be the length of time a crew can stay in deep-space, without contact from home, and not suffer mental strain/damage?
However, even while on a five-year mission, the Enterprise was still making stops at Starbases and had regular contact with Starfleet. So that doesn't exactly track.
In the real-world, I wonder if the "five-year mission" statement was chosen because TOS was only expected to last 5 seasons at most?
I've always heard the latter.
As for in-universe I think five years is just the standard tour, which incudes the exploration stuff as well as the more mundane missions.
It's a nice number.
Some more reading for you @Citiprime (I dunno, have you seen it already - but don't reply, it hasn't been posted in since last year) https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/the-first-five-year-mission.314961/
Some more reading for you @Citiprime (I dunno, have you seen it already - but don't reply, it hasn't been posted in since last year) https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/the-first-five-year-mission.314961/
Star Trek: Qo'nos Creek
Star Trek: One Vulcan Hill
Star Trek:, Stardates of our Lives
Star Trek has a global audience. Especially now with streaming. And, honestly, when people say "less American" they really mean/could just as easily mean "less European" or "less White."
The thing is it would take minimal effort to shift the underlying texture to a more multi-cultural flavor. Instead of 'everyone' quoting Shakespeare, quote an Asian literary giant like Cao Xueqin from China or Chikamatsu Monzaemon from Japan. Instead of simply having a restaurant in New Orleans, have the character be completely Creole or Jamaican.
Give us Captain Rosenqvist and Lt. van Kalmthout
You would have to have writers that were aware of those folks, then you risk losing the largest audience, Americans. Trek may be more global, but its bread-and-butter is still the American viewer. That is still where it makes the most money.
TOS mentioned Spinoza and that was only in the second pilot.
Kirk: (looking at Gary Mitchell's Sickbay bed viewscreen) "You? Spinoza?"
Kirk: (looking at Gary Mitchell's Sickbay bed viewscreen) "You? Spinoza?"
In 1966, I imagine much of the audience probably figured it was a made up future name.
Hell, today a lot of people might not recognize the name of Spinoza.
Was this a foreshadow to Mitchell's desire to be a god?
The American audience would not care either way. I doubt there is a someone out there sayin I am not going to watch Trek because the characters quote made up writers. TNG survived the fictional books about Dixon Hill.
They should have made Janeway a Miss Marple fan.You mean the very American fictional gumshoe?
Similar threads
- Locked
