• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Why does Kira wear a Starfleet Uniform in later seasons?

Thanks for the explanation.
You have picked a few episodes that are widely regarded as some of the best, and I see where you are coming from.

That said, without needing to watch the entire show, there are quite a few episodes that would fit your criteria of what’s you are looking for in Trek, and I would recommend seeking them out.
They might balance out your overall opinion or they might not. But they would be a great watch in their own right.
 
I can understand not wanting to watch DS9, even though I personally like watching drama where there isn't an easy answer. But I don't understand why anyone would care why some character in a show they don't watch changed uniforms...
 
I can understand not wanting to watch DS9, even though I personally like watching drama where there isn't an easy answer. But I don't understand why anyone would care why some character in a show they don't watch changed uniforms...

I just kept seeing pictures of Kira in a Starfleet Uniform in news articles, ads for Star Trek, even the Diamond Select action figures from roughly ten years ago. I knew I had seen the only episodes I wanted to, and she wasn't in a Starfleet uniform in any of those. I guess I was just curious to see if she ever actually joins Starfleet.
 
Then again, Memory Alpha thinks there's a rank of Field Colonel in the Bajoran militia.

Generally, entries claiming to refer to a single episode are fine: you can check that episode (transcripts at Chrissie's site or TrekCore, screencaps at latter or, say, Cygnus X-1, full dirt at Netflix or whatever) to see for yourself. But if a pseudo-fact is attributed to a number of episodes, odds are that it won't really be found in any one of them...

Timo Saloniemi
 
Then again, Memory Alpha thinks there's a rank of Field Colonel in the Bajoran militia.

Generally, entries claiming to refer to a single episode are fine: you can check that episode (transcripts at Chrissie's site or TrekCore, screencaps at latter or, say, Cygnus X-1, full dirt at Netflix or whatever) to see for yourself. But if a pseudo-fact is attributed to a number of episodes, odds are that it won't really be found in any one of them...

Timo Saloniemi

What are you even talking about? What does anything you have just written have to do with the topic at hand? Kira getting a uniform isn't some piece of background production information, it's a key plot point of the series final arc.
 
Yeah, but that's in the TV show first and in the fan wiki only second, and pointing people to the wiki with a condescending "Memory Alpha exists" ignores the fact that Memory Alpha is wrong about as often as Noonien Soong. Especially when trying to answer the question "why?" on any given topic, including big ones.

Timo Saloniemi
 
Yeah, but that's in the TV show first and in the fan wiki only second, and pointing people to the wiki with a condescending "Memory Alpha exists" ignores the fact that Memory Alpha is wrong about as often as Noonien Soong. Especially when trying to answer the question "why?" on any given topic, including big ones.

Timo Saloniemi
Is it wrong in this case?
 
  • Like
Reactions: kkt
I've seen several episodes which just felt very gloomy and depressing in general, as well as being morally ambiguous, which I find is very un-Trek like. When I watch Star Trek, I want optimistic escapism. Our world is generally a horrible place, and I want to get a feeling that someday it won't have to be that way. Episodes such as "In the Pale Moonlight", for example, seemed to say that even if we achieve a better future for humankind, the whole thing is built on lies. It's a concept I don't particularly like, that in order to even maintain a footing in the war against the Dominion, the Allies had to manipulate the truth. This flies right in the face of my favorite Captain's stance on "The First Duty" of every Starfleet Officer in TNG. When the writers of Star Trek VI decided to end the war with the Klingons, they didn't make Kirk lie or cheat to achieve peace. And Sisko here is presented with no choice except to be all of the things he admitted to doing in his Captain's log, all to preserve the Federation. Asking big moral questions is a HUGE part of Star Trek, but in my humble opinion having the Captain basically abandon his morals not to definitively end the war, but just to give them a slight chance of success, makes me wonder if this is a Federation that SHOULD be saved at all. What other unspeakable crimes have been committed then covered up to preserve the name of the Federation? I shudder to think. And this is just ONE episode. I've seen many more. "The Jem'Hadar", "The Search", "The Changing Face of Evil, "Paradise Lost" and even the first episode of the show, "Emissary", ALL had story aspects I just couldn't stomach. But I've written a whole essay on just one episode, so that's probably more than anyone needed to know. As an aside, I don't blame Sisko for what he did. The poor man had been through enough. But I don't know about you guys, but I don't watch Star Trek for the tortured souls. I watch for the people who have built a society that I would want to live in myself, one that isn't built on lies.

I am well aware that some Trek fans have a problem with DS9's darkness and grey morality (although I believe it's not quite as grey as people think it is). But I'm surprised to hear that kind of speech from you, as you seem to be an Archer fan.

Archer took some very questionable (may I say un-Trek-ish) decisions: he basically let a whole species die by choosing not to provide them with a cure (granted, under the influence of Dr. Phlox) in Dear Doctor, he refused to grant asylum to the third-gender alien in Cogenitor, he stole a ship in Damage... Sisko really has nothing on Archer.

Plus, you hate DS9 but Enterprise's season 3 (the Xindi arc) was very DS9-like.
 
I am well aware that some Trek fans have a problem with DS9's darkness and grey morality (although I believe it's not quite as grey as people think it is). But I'm surprised to hear that kind of speech from you, as you seem to be an Archer fan.

Archer took some very questionable (may I say un-Trek-ish) decisions: he basically let a whole species die by choosing not to provide them with a cure (granted, under the influence of Dr. Phlox) in Dear Doctor, he refused to grant asylum to the third-gender alien in Cogenitor, he stole a ship in Damage... Sisko really has nothing on Archer.

Plus, you hate DS9 but Enterprise's season 3 (the Xindi arc) was very DS9-like.
That was kind of my curiosity too with the OP. The Xindi arc was very much a darker approach to Trek, but in line with DS9's approach. So, not sure what the big difference would be. Though, Sisko does his own questionable things too.
 
But I don't know about you guys, but I don't watch Star Trek for the tortured souls.
I do. I want people I can connect with, identify with, and watch them strive to do better, make mistakes, and keep trying. I can't stand being told that Trek's humanity is better/more evolved and never bother to show me how they came to be that way. Kirk's stance is more my view on watching Trek: "We're killers but we're not going to kill...TODAY."

Sisko's choices always weigh heavily on him as a person. He can't live with it, no matter what he says, and the end of the war shows the cost it has brought on him and Ross and Starfleet as whole. Far from being depression I find it honest, and interesting and engaging. No, I don't for one single second believe that the Federation is built on a lie. I think it is built by humans who make mistakes, who can't always see the big picture and don't realize just how much of an impact their choices could potentially have, and have to move forward with those consequences.

Again, I'll go back to Kirk and his speech to Mirror Spock that one man could alter the fate of an empire.
 
... Data says in TNG that in order to wear a Starfleet uniform you need to attend four years at the academy (although we have seen enlisted personnel wearing uniforms as well). So does she join as an enlisted crewmember? I'm just not sure why she wears a uniform. ...

I can't remember when Data said that, but such a statement shouldn't be taken so literally.

In the episode "When it Rains," Kira received a battlefield commission in Starfleet as an officer with the rank of Commander. That's not an enlisted rank. This happened because Kira was going to be leading a joint mission with Cardassian rebels against the Dominion, as she was the best person for the job, but there was some concern that having a Bajoran militia uniform at the lead would offend the Cardassians (or something like that). Apparently among the allied powers of the Alpha quadrant, there are certain situations in which an officer in the 'uniformed services' of one power can become an officer in another.

Kor
 
Data said it to Lore in DataLore
Ah yes, so this is the exact line (as transcribed at Chakoteya.net): "If you get one the way I did, Lore, it will mean four years at the Academy, another three as ensign, ten or twelve on varied space duty in the lieutenant grades."

Strictly speaking, Data is describing the way that he obtained that uniform. That doesn't rule out alternate paths to becoming a Starfleet officer.

Another example is Leonard McCoy, who apparently attended civilian university and medical school and later went into some kind of shorter Starfleet program that commissioned him as an officer, instead of actually going through four years of Starfleet Academy. Real-world uniformed services typically have this kind of path to becoming an officer.

Kor
 
Data says in TNG that in order to wear a Starfleet uniform you need to attend four years at the academy (although we have seen enlisted personnel wearing uniforms as well).

While that might have been the question that he was asked ("Will I soon have a uniform like that, brother?"), Data's answer assumed that Lore was asking about the uniform of (Operations) Lieutenant Commander.

DATA: If you get one the way I did, Lore, it will mean four years at the Academy, another three as ensign, ten or twelve on varied space duty in the lieutenant grades.
 
Another example is Leonard McCoy, who apparently attended civilian university and medical school and later went into some kind of shorter Starfleet program that commissioned him as an officer, instead of actually going through four years of Starfleet Academy. Real-world uniformed services typically have this kind of path to becoming an officer.

My dad was in the Army Medical Corps. He was commissioned directly as a Captain (later promoted to Major) - he didn't have to attend West Point. Apparently this is standard practice with doctors in the U.S. military, they are commissioned at O-3 rank. So I assume Starfleet does something similar to that.

Although in the Kelvin timeline, McCoy clearly did attend Starfleet Academy. FWIW.
 
Data was speaking generally, about how most people get to wear the uniform. Lore hadn't served in any uniformed service, as I remember.
 
My dad was in the Army Medical Corps. He was commissioned directly as a Captain (later promoted to Major) - he didn't have to attend West Point. Apparently this is standard practice with doctors in the U.S. military, they are commissioned at O-3 rank. So I assume Starfleet does something similar to that.

Although in the Kelvin timeline, McCoy clearly did attend Starfleet Academy. FWIW.

Bashir attended Starfleet Academy too. Cue the Salutatorian story Bashir keeps telling although it's never actually seen to get a babe. Starfleet Medical might have been a separate campus and a separate program.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top