WAHOO - FOUND THE SHIP - i think...
- Thread starter Stag
- Start date
What the hell has M*A*S*H got to do with a Star Trek movie?
While I deem most of the things CRA says to be vile spittle, here he is making a good analogy in terms of Doctor McCoy's commision in Starfleet (something that was argued up thread).
However, Starfleet may not have a seperate OSC facility like today's Navy or Army. There's "canon" (I loath to use this term) precedant. O'Brien, an enlisted man (CPO), stated in DS9 to Jake that he took courses at SFA when he enlisted against his father's wishes. Also, we saw several enlisted recruits in TWOK training alongside midshipman and command college candidates. Therefore, I don't think it much of a leap to infer that OSC, enlisted "boot camp," and regular Academy courses are all held at the Presido campus or, at the very least, within San Francisco.
Therefore, McCoy departing alongside other middies and graduates at a large shuttle facility in the City makes sense.
My point is that Star Trek is a fictional TV show from the fevered imagination of Gene Roddenberry, M*A*S*H is based on real life. Spot the difference?
Besides, who gives a rat's arse when McCoy graduates and where? This wasn't an issue when the series was airing, was it, with viewers on tenterhooks trying to work out when McCoy joined up?
It goes to the credibility of the story setup being presented. Same thing with the matters of where the ship was built and this bridge being believeable in the TOS setting.
All kinds of convoluted rationalizations can be conjured up to justify this crap, but the fact that we have to do a hoop jumping exercise worthy of Ringling Brothers tends to show that it's not terribly believable.
All kinds of convoluted rationalizations can be conjured up to justify this crap, but the fact that we have to do a hoop jumping exercise worthy of Ringling Brothers tends to show that it's not terribly believable.
The fact that you have to do a hoop jumping exercise worthy of Ringling Brothers to find "problems" with the movie is so far damaging your credibility, not the movie.
I have a BA in Journalism, a minor in History and an MFA in Creative Writing. I think that I am qualified to "spot the difference"* between "real life" and fiction. Although, I think that being a rational human qualifies me even more.
So let's see:
M*A*S*H was a satire based on the Korean War experiences of Richard Hooker, who was the author of the book which became the movie which became the television series. Here "real life" was fictionalized.
Roddenberry took the USN and the Nelson Royal Navy, both "real life" organizations, and adapted them into a fictionalized form in Star Trek. In fact, he purposely made Trek use Navy terminology in order to make it seem more familiar and "real" to a 1960s audience. As opposed to the space-based shows of the 1950s, which were mainly for children. Trek was labeled as the "first adult space adventure."
Yes, Trek takes place in space on a starship with fictional characters but how they interact with each other and the roles they play in the chain of command were based on a "real life" Naval structure. This gave Trek a sense of verisimilitude that had been previously lacking in the space adventure shows before it.
Fiction, whether true-to-life or realistic or naturalistic or complete fantasy, is often informed or inspired by "real life" things or events.
Better yet, let's look at another genre-- the Western. Now, this genre takes place in a period of history right? The stories are fictional. The details are not. Elmore Leonard when he wrote Western stories for the pulps kept a ledger that was filled with notes not on his monthly expenses, but on the various types of six-shooters, their manufacturers and year they appeared or disappeared. Fictional stories, historical ("real life") details.
What about contemporary literature? Okay. Let's look at that one too. 9/11 became a topic of fiction in various places. I didn't like this book but I'll use it as an example. Falling Man by Don DeLillo. Real event. Fictional tale of a survivor of the WTC attacks and how he and his family cope with it. One I enjoyed more-- Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close by Jonathen Safran Foer. Same event. Different fiction. This time about Oskar who lost his father in the WTC attacks. "Real life." Fictional characters. Kinda like M*A*S*H.
Oh, but how does this tie into Trek and SF? Glad you were wondering. The Forever War, a novel and soon-to-be motion picture, has been said to be based on Joe Hadleman's own Vietnam War experience filtered through the lens of Military SF. Sounds a bit like Richard Hooker and his book, M*A*S*H: A Novel About Three Army Doctors. Papers have been written suggesting that The Lord of the Rings was a WW I or WW II analogy. Papers have also been written to the contrary.
So fiction in any form, genre or medium can very much be informed, inspired and influenced by "real life." Taken and appropriated to make those fictional worlds seem a bit more "real" to the viewer or reader. Roddenberry knew this and applied it to his creation.
And that brings us to this...
Besides, who gives a rat's arse when McCoy graduates and where? This wasn't an issue when the series was airing, was it, with viewers on tenterhooks trying to work out when McCoy joined up?
Judging by the picture of McCoy in an Academy uniform, it appears that when McCoy graduated is part of the movie. It was not an issue in the series, but it is an issue dealt with in the picture. Hence, the discussion.
Star Trek has never been either consistent or believable. Please get over the design and wait for the movie - or at least the trailer - to come out before you judge. You can have old Trek and new Trek, too. They are not mutually exclusive.
Good for you.
Nice jab. A good portion of what I'm reading in this forum from the various movie bashers is very far from rational.
The point I'm trying to make is that M*A*S*H was very clearly based on real life. Star Trek is very clearly inspired by real life. To try and apply a real life career path from the Army/Navy to Star Trek doesn't seem to make any sense to me. But hey, you're the rational one.
Thanks. It was hard work and I'm glad you appreciate it.
Um... if you'd read any of my previous posts, you'd know that I am a huge supporter of this film and despise the things that the naysayers put out there, particularly CRA. In fact in my original post that started this exchange between us, I did state that I find most of what he posts "vile spittle" and is far from rational. However, he made a good point and I'm willing to concede to that.
Nevertheless, I'm glad you thought it was a "nice jab." I am to please.
I do understand the point you were making, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt and didn't complete all the little dots for you. My mistake. Let me try again.
An analogy* was being drawn between the "real life" career paths of the various military branches, particularly the Army as seen in M*A*S*H, and Starfleet. After all, Starfleet was an organization informed and inspired by "real life."
*Analogy: \ə-ˈna-lə-jē\ 1: inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others 2 a: resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : similarity b: comparison based on such resemblance
There is a similarity between Starfleet and today's military. Although, it isn't a one-to-one ratio. Starfleet has naval ranks, a chain of command, a similar training program, enlisted, officers and naval terminology. Officers in Starfleet under go a four-year academy program like the Army, Navy and Air Force. Enlisted recieve, based on O'Brien's comments in DS9, a form of "boot camp." Therefore, since there is more than one similarity to infer that there might be another is completely rational and logical based on the evidence presented in the various Trek series.
The use of M*A*S*H and its "based on real life" officers, who are complete fictions, help to create an immediate image in the reader's mind. That's how analogies and metaphors work. By drawing the comparison and highlighting the similarites, the reader can get a better idea or image of what the writer is trying to convey. Also, it helps to create discussion and debate. CRA did a fine job in that regards. His other posts, however... not so much.
Moreover, if the movie says McCoy went to the Academy, I'd have no problem with that. If it says he didn't, I wouldn't have a problem with that. As long as it makes sense within context of the story. If it violates perceived canon or "real life," I won't have an issue with it. As I've said in other posts, to hell with canon and how things once looked. I'd rather have a good story with Kirk, Spock and McCoy rather than a movie that slavishly tried to recreate every little detail of TOS.
the problem is we were given so little back story about bones beyond he visited a couple of planets and seemed to be friends already with kirk it is easy to speculate about a lot of stuff.
i mean on screen did it ever say how bones joined starfleet.
yeah there is stuff in books, fanon stuff but i am talking on screen.
Preach on brother.
I'm huge on canon and consistency, but I'm with you on wanting to see a FRESH story. Enterprise had it's moments, but so much of it seemed like I was watching a TNG, DS9 or VOY story retold. I don't want the same old same old. The newest Batman movies were great, but they redid and touched back on some old stuff. A LOT of heat was on internet message boards about "starting over" and "year one" stories, and look how that turned out for us all.
I don't think it's impossible to separate this movie as something new. I don't expect Smallville to adhere loyally, I watch it expecting it NOT to and it's greatly entertaining. If you don't want it to count, then it doesn't! Just watch it and hope for a great and entertaining story. And if it isn't come bash it on the boards. But CRA seems to wanna make sure EVERYONE doesn't give it even a remote chance of being good, which is surprising because he hasn't seen it (of course).
or heard the term and just forgot it.
can you imagine all the information a medical officer will have to learn
in that time period.
and i am still not sure if bones was at the academy he might have been an officer instructor and not a cadet.
Getting back on topic, I'm thinking that we're seeing the secondary hull and a piece of one of the warp pylons:
Last edited:
I have a BA in Journalism, a minor in History and an MFA in Creative Writing. I think that I am qualified to "spot the difference"* between "real life" and fiction. Although, I think that being a rational human qualifies me even more.
So let's see:
M*A*S*H was a satire based on the Korean War experiences of Richard Hooker, who was the author of the book which became the movie which became the television series. Here "real life" was fictionalized.
Roddenberry took the USN and the Nelson Royal Navy, both "real life" organizations, and adapted them into a fictionalized form in Star Trek. In fact, he purposely made Trek use Navy terminology in order to make it seem more familiar and "real" to a 1960s audience. As opposed to the space-based shows of the 1950s, which were mainly for children. Trek was labeled as the "first adult space adventure."
Yes, Trek takes place in space on a starship with fictional characters but how they interact with each other and the roles they play in the chain of command were based on a "real life" Naval structure. This gave Trek a sense of verisimilitude that had been previously lacking in the space adventure shows before it.
Fiction, whether true-to-life or realistic or naturalistic or complete fantasy, is often informed or inspired by "real life" things or events.
Better yet, let's look at another genre-- the Western. Now, this genre takes place in a period of history right? The stories are fictional. The details are not. Elmore Leonard when he wrote Western stories for the pulps kept a ledger that was filled with notes not on his monthly expenses, but on the various types of six-shooters, their manufacturers and year they appeared or disappeared. Fictional stories, historical ("real life") details.
What about contemporary literature? Okay. Let's look at that one too. 9/11 became a topic of fiction in various places. I didn't like this book but I'll use it as an example. Falling Man by Don DeLillo. Real event. Fictional tale of a survivor of the WTC attacks and how he and his family cope with it. One I enjoyed more-- Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close by Jonathen Safran Foer. Same event. Different fiction. This time about Oskar who lost his father in the WTC attacks. "Real life." Fictional characters. Kinda like M*A*S*H.
Oh, but how does this tie into Trek and SF? Glad you were wondering. The Forever War, a novel and soon-to-be motion picture, has been said to be based on Joe Hadleman's own Vietnam War experience filtered through the lens of Military SF. Sounds a bit like Richard Hooker and his book, M*A*S*H: A Novel About Three Army Doctors. Papers have been written suggesting that The Lord of the Rings was a WW I or WW II analogy. Papers have also been written to the contrary.
So fiction in any form, genre or medium can very much be informed, inspired and influenced by "real life." Taken and appropriated to make those fictional worlds seem a bit more "real" to the viewer or reader. Roddenberry knew this and applied it to his creation.
And that brings us to this...
Besides, who gives a rat's arse when McCoy graduates and where? This wasn't an issue when the series was airing, was it, with viewers on tenterhooks trying to work out when McCoy joined up?
Judging by the picture of McCoy in an Academy uniform, it appears that when McCoy graduated is part of the movie. It was not an issue in the series, but it is an issue dealt with in the picture. Hence, the discussion.
Sorry for quoting your entire post but it was necessary in order for me to ask the following question:
Are you related to Cary L. Brown?
Impossible; there are no words or phrases in all-caps.
Sorry for quoting your entire post but it was necessary in order for me to ask the following question:
Are you related to Cary L. Brown?
Now, if you would be so kind as to return to the topic?
Getting back on topic, I'm thinking that we're seeing the secondary hull and a piece of one of the warp pylons:
Ok now at least I kind of see it. Thanks.
