Getting the U.S./Yanks out of our sci-fi

[aramis]

The general public has very little concept of the difference between space fantasy and science fiction. What the movies label as the latter is usually the former. It doesn't make Space Fantasy good sci-fi even if it does sell... because good sci-fi doesn't sell nearly as well, but is occasionally done.

Alien Nation was real sci-fi. District 9 appears to have been, as well. 2001 and 2010. But there really isn't much of it out there.

 

[Riik O'Shae]

Trek was templated from the US navy. Space 1999 was just, well, awful. As for anime, one of the biggest franchises is Macross, and it ostensibly borrows heavily from the US Navy, and specifically carrier ops.

Actually much of the US Navy is based on the traditions of the British navy. Who had aircraft carriers before the US Navy did...

Riik

 

[aramis]

Actually much of the US Navy is based on the traditions of the British navy. Who had aircraft carriers before the US Navy did...

Riik

Indeed so... however, there are some rather distinct differences, and when push comes to shove, Trek is USN, not RN. Where it doesn't instead use NOAA as the baseline...

(NOAA's commissioned core has no enlisted... Filling enlisted jobs with a mixture of ensigns, midshipsmen, and civil service hires, and the occasional borrowed Navy or USCG man.)

 

[Riik O'Shae]

Please explain the use of the rank of Fleet Captain (distinctly British) in several episodes, then...

Sto lat'

Riik

 

[aramis]

Please explain the use of the rank of Fleet Captain (distinctly British) in several episodes, then...

Sto lat'

Riik

Actually, it's not a Rank in the UK. It's a posting. The rank is Captain either way. And it was used in the USN as well... but only rarely, as only Civil War and later was there a rank above Captain in the USN.

Likewise, Commodore was a Rank in StarFleet. Commodore in the US was technically a posting, but treated in most ways as a rank, during the age of sail. Then again, the US didn't have Admirals until shortly before the USCW... We see commodores in Star Fleet... And they're serving as captains with additional duty and insignia... like Stocker and Tracy... or Base commanders ... as Mendez... a very US age-of-sail use.

Then again, starfleet lacks the distinctions of Post-Captain, Ship's Captain, Flag Captain.

Noting that a Fleet Captain is used alternately in history for a rank of captain serving as a Fleet's 1st Officer, and for a Captain Commanding a Fleet but not entitled to a Commodore Title (in the USN, for lack of seniority or letters authorizing).

Flag Captain is not a separate title in the US, and unlike the UK, not noted as a position, since the Flagships weren't as tightly associated with the flag officers (and until WW I, the commodores were often the ship's captain, anyway). And unlike the UK, it's not used in Starfleet, either.

Post-Captain isn't used, either, in Starfleet. It's the lovely UK term for a captain not in a command slot.

In fact, we don't know what a Starfleet Fleet Captain is during TOS, but we do know what it is in TNG era - the head of each ship class's design/maintenance/Upgrade team. Very different from the UK use. During TNG, we meet two of them - both retired medically. Perhaps it's just the title for a retired commodore... perhaps it's a captain commanding a squadron, since commodore is a rank in Starfleet.

US Commodores pre-Civil War wore captain's shoulder boards with a star on one of them. Civil war and on, an extra stripe over a captain; grouped 3-1-3.

 

[Riik O'Shae]

Thanks, Aramis!

I thought you might have the answer.

Bravo Zulu!

Riik

 

[Garyius2003]

Commodore/Commodore Admiral was a US rank WWII, and then 78(?) to 85(?) at which point it was replaced as rear admiral lower half--which oddly enough has had real staying power.

Actually, it's not a Rank in the UK. It's a posting. The rank is Captain either way. And it was used in the USN as well... but only rarely, as only Civil War and later was there a rank above Captain in the USN.

Likewise, Commodore was a Rank in StarFleet. Commodore in the US was technically a posting, but treated in most ways as a rank, during the age of sail. Then again, the US didn't have Admirals until shortly before the USCW... We see commodores in Star Fleet... And they're serving as captains with additional duty and insignia... like Stocker and Tracy... or Base commanders ... as Mendez... a very US age-of-sail use.

Then again, starfleet lacks the distinctions of Post-Captain, Ship's Captain, Flag Captain.

Noting that a Fleet Captain is used alternately in history for a rank of captain serving as a Fleet's 1st Officer, and for a Captain Commanding a Fleet but not entitled to a Commodore Title (in the USN, for lack of seniority or letters authorizing).

Flag Captain is not a separate title in the US, and unlike the UK, not noted as a position, since the Flagships weren't as tightly associated with the flag officers (and until WW I, the commodores were often the ship's captain, anyway). And unlike the UK, it's not used in Starfleet, either.

Post-Captain isn't used, either, in Starfleet. It's the lovely UK term for a captain not in a command slot.

In fact, we don't know what a Starfleet Fleet Captain is during TOS, but we do know what it is in TNG era - the head of each ship class's design/maintenance/Upgrade team. Very different from the UK use. During TNG, we meet two of them - both retired medically. Perhaps it's just the title for a retired commodore... perhaps it's a captain commanding a squadron, since commodore is a rank in Starfleet.

US Commodores pre-Civil War wore captain's shoulder boards with a star on one of them.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

at which point it was replaced as rear admiral lower half

We always joked about the other choice under consideration being Lower Admiral Rear Half...........

 

[Blue Ghost]

Actually much of the US Navy is based on the traditions of the British navy. Who had aircraft carriers before the US Navy did...

Riik

Fine, but the Japanese take their cues from the US.

 

[Blue Ghost]

I don't think so. The public loves flash and glitz, and sci-fi themes offer boundless opportunities for flash and glitz. They always have. Even back in the day, the big draw of sci fi films for the masses wasn't cerebral plotlines. It was bizarre hideous monsters, people turned into skeletons by alien blasters, the Blob oozing through ventilation ducts to devour the occupants of a movie theater. It's been going on since Flash Gordon hit the theaters in 1936.

When Star Wars ads first hit the TV, my first thought was, "Oh my god! Flash Gordon sci fi! What have we come to?" And that's exactly what it was: blasters, light sabers, bizarre aliens, making the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs. Some farm boy heads off into space to oppose an evil personified in a black-armored magus who goes around throttling people with his mind, and our unlikely hero's able to destroy the magus' moon-sized mobile doomsday fortress by pumping a single torpedo through a tiny vent - one of the most dunderheaded engineering design failures in real OR fictional history. (One wonders if some low-level engineer on the design team wasn't in fact a Rebel sympathizer.)

But ... it was an immensely popular hit. It legitimized the science fantasy genre. Generated no less than 5 sequels/prequels, may just generate more, revived interest in sci fi, possibly responsible for persuading the studios to take a chance with Alien, a movie version of Star Trek, and other noteworthy projects - and also responsible for such lamentable copycats as Battle Beyond the Stars. (All I can say is, Robert Vaugh must have been pretty desperate for a role.)

Horror runs much the same way. There's Nosferatu, Alfred Hitchcock's multiple works, and other classics - and then there's Revolt of the Zombies and Abbot and Costello Meet (fill-in-the-blank). Cowboy movies, same. War movies, same. Sports movies, same. It's just a fact of movie-theater life: for every producer/director willing to put some quality into their work, there are ten looking for a quick buck and an audience willing to give that to them.

I think the flash and glitz won over some people who were on the fence when it came to the genre, but sci-fi has become more of a fast food commodity, than something nutritious for the brain.

"Superman" as an example. It's essentially a retelling of a classic myth with lots of interpersonal challenges for the character that makes us think "boy, I wonder if I would do that in his place..." You don't get that with modern iterations of other offerings. "Superman Returns" was valueless. Supes became a deadbeat absentee peeping tom of a father, the American way was not emphasized in this film, and Lois placated to the divorced Amazonian woman who was a hottie, didn't need a man, but wanted to titilate the man she effectively divorced by way of his absensce.

"Star Wars", the first, had strong elements too. But the sequels showing young Vader were specifically designed to placate to a younger demographic such that their parents, who saw SW, Empire and Jedi, could share in this filmic experience that essentially has an anti-war theme going for it. Okay, nothing wrong with that, but like I stated in my blog, when you consider who the evil-empire is supposed to be, the US, it should give you pause.

But that may be being a bit too hard on SW, because it's essentially addressing all power structures that have strong militaries, and how one risks becoming part of a well oiled military machine, and the dangers of letting that take over your being, as opposed to letting the Jedi resolve security matters verse a standing military.

I guess to encapsulate my personal feeling I should say that I miss the good old days. When you could turn on a film like a "Mysterious Island" or "Master of the World" and still have it in your mind that you were an American without having to visit that notion on the film you were watching.

Now I think it's imperative, but I also think I'm a lion shouting at the wind. Films are what they are these days, and I don't think there's every going back to "the good old days" for films of any genre.

Just me

 

[Dragoner]

...when you consider who the evil-empire is supposed to be, the US, it should give you pause.

Huh? The evil empire are the Germans and explicitly stated so: Vader's helmet, stormtroopers, the imperial march, the emperor's accent, etc. .

This all goes back to 1940's pulp, same as with Raider's. As far as sci-fi goes, I remember watch a plethora of super cheesy sci-fi from the 50's and 60's on the saturday afternoon "creature feature" shows like sammy terry; something we don't have too much of anymore, star wars definitely put the nail in the coffin of the low budget sci-fi.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Huh? The evil empire are the Germans and explicitly stated so: Vader's helmet, stormtroopers, the imperial march, the emperor's accent, etc. .

This all goes back to 1940's pulp, same as with Raider's. As far as sci-fi goes, I remember watch a plethora of super cheesy sci-fi from the 50's and 60's on the saturday afternoon "creature feature" shows like sammy terry; something we don't have too much of anymore, star wars definitely put the nail in the coffin of the low budget sci-fi.

Which is why I put a little disclaimer that the film addresses power structures. But in "THe Making of a Saga, from Star Wars to Jedi" Lucas states that he was inspired by a story he was working on about the Vietnam war, and how the Vietnamese withstood the onslaught of the modern US military and achieved victory. So, yeah, there're allusions to the national socialist regime the gripped Germany and all their evils, but the allegory is a little more encompassing than that.

I guess that's why as a kid I never really fell in love with Star Wars. I loved the energy, the art direction, just the film itself, but the overall theme of the film didn't really resonate with me. In Star Wars, wars in and of themselves are just purely bad. I mean, who really in their right mind wants one? But even "the rebel alliance" was pressed into a conflict it didn't want. And according the films that address the backstory, it's because the political leadership was feeling bad about itself. Well, historically that's not how wars start. You look at any bench clearer during a baseball or football game, and it's all about protecting your team mates. Water buffalo surrounding the young to protect their young from a lion, or caveman fighting over a waterhole, it's never about how you feel, it's about economic and physical survival. And that's where I part from Star Wars.

And I guess it's why I'm of the mind that sci-fi needs to get back to being sci-fi instead of armored personnel with ranks and a heirarchy fighting nasty aliens from outer space. That stuff's always been around, but there're other theme and stories to be explored. "At the Earth's Core", "Outland", "Journey to the Center of the Earth", "20,000 Leagues Beaneath the Sea", "The Time Machine" ... "Godzilla versus the Smog Monster"

 

[Dragoner]

It was the 70's, everything was about Vietnam.

As far as other films, did you see Prometheus?

 

[Blue Ghost]

I've seen piece of Prometheus, and have read enough about to know the basic story and plot.

 

[Dragoner]

You should check it out, it isn't military sci-fi.

 

[Blue Ghost]

I may see "Prometheus" eventually, but not at this time.

 

[Garyius2003]

Okay, I will jump in.

British style does not give enlisted enough latitude to make for a fun game. It would be great if all Travellers were Jr Os, but that isn't how the levels are structured. For a traditional British style, see the Drake RCN series.

I know the modern system is a little better for enlisted independence, but the British and former colony armies/navies are now down to very few assets, and not a good base for a game. 97 ships total in the British Navy, including support vessels. Depending on where you draw the line between seagoing boats and ships, the US Coast Guard is at least as large as the British Navy, and could be twice as big.

Middle east and Asian enlisted are serfs, so that style is out.

I guess it has to be the US as a base for the military units.

 

[Carlobrand]

Which is why I put a little disclaimer that the film addresses power structures. But in "THe Making of a Saga, from Star Wars to Jedi" Lucas states that he was inspired by a story he was working on about the Vietnam war, and how the Vietnamese withstood the onslaught of the modern US military and achieved victory. So, yeah, there're allusions to the national socialist regime the gripped Germany and all their evils, but the allegory is a little more encompassing than that.

Well, I don't see much in the way of rebels blowing up stormtrooper bars or killing off local leaders who disagree with them, so I think the allegory was more generic, an underdog-against-all-odds thing. Most of what I see in Star Wars actually echoes the American Revolution better than Viet Nam.

I guess that's why as a kid I never really fell in love with Star Wars. I loved the energy, the art direction, just the film itself, but the overall theme of the film didn't really resonate with me. In Star Wars, wars in and of themselves are just purely bad. I mean, who really in their right mind wants one? But even "the rebel alliance" was pressed into a conflict it didn't want.

Well, yeah, who the heck actually wants war. Besides, it was 1977, we were two years after the fall of Viet Nam, there was still a strong pacifist leaning in the culture and, anyway, historically the "good guy" of fiction never starts the fight - he finishes it.

And according the films that address the backstory, it's because the political leadership was feeling bad about itself. Well, historically that's not how wars start. You look at any bench clearer during a baseball or football game, and it's all about protecting your team mates. Water buffalo surrounding the young to protect their young from a lion, or caveman fighting over a waterhole, it's never about how you feel, it's about economic and physical survival. And that's where I part from Star Wars.

Until the rise of modern states, most wars were small tribes butting heads with each other for territory and pride, or some big despot getting his troops together and extending his power at the expense of his neighbor, who very often was some other big despot - or despot verses tribes, which didn't tend to end well for the tribes though there were exceptions. The folks in the border areas tended to be more worried about not getting sacked than about whether they were subjects of Pharoah or the Hittites.

Your "economic and physical survival" model tended to get left behind after a culture reached a certain size. When the guy in charge was some hereditary stranger in a strange city far, far away from the dirt-digging and horse-trading that you'd been born into, whose taxpayers came and took what you'd worked for for no obvious reason other than that he had spearmen to back him, and then some new set of taxmen and spearmen showed up demanding homage for a different stranger in a different city, your economic and physical survival often came down to the question of which of the two sets of spearmen were more likely to kill you.

And I guess it's why I'm of the mind that sci-fi needs to get back to being sci-fi instead of armored personnel with ranks and a heirarchy fighting nasty aliens from outer space. That stuff's always been around, but there're other theme and stories to be explored. "At the Earth's Core", "Outland", "Journey to the Center of the Earth", "20,000 Leagues Beaneath the Sea", "The Time Machine" ... "Godzilla versus the Smog Monster"

With the single caveat that I found the remade Battlestar Galactica to be marvelous, I will agree with that. However, Battlestar Galactica did manage to show that you could squeeze in a little sci fi around the blasters and the spacefighters if you were thoughtful about it. It's as much about how much brains someone's willing to put into it as anything else - and I will certainly agree that a whole lot of the current fair doesn't show much in the way of signs of intelligence.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Well, I don't see much in the way of rebels blowing up stormtrooper bars or killing off local leaders who disagree with them, so I think the allegory was more generic, an underdog-against-all-odds thing. Most of what I see in Star Wars actually echoes the American Revolution better than Viet Nam.

Well, what I cited were Lucas's own words. So there's no real argument about what he and others backing his film were after. It was essentially a social and political philosophy aimed at the film going audience to show the evils of armed conflict, and its origins.

The only problem with the Star Wars message is that it's wrong in assigning origins. Wars are always fought over resources and money; land, treasure, people as a labor resource, etc. That's not to say that because a nation is prosperous that it won't initiate hostilities, but the core reasons are again the same. From Saddam Hussein's Iraq taking over Kuwait, to the century of war that gripped medieval Japan before the advent of a modern army, or, more amply, Viking raiders who actually could not thrive were it not for their raiding practices. The leaders and people are going to fight because they want more, even though they have plenty they still see it as a matter of survival.

Shifting gears here; I always liked Dr. Who, because even though it was a children's program it was a smart and entertaining one. I think in some of the latter seasons they tried to mimic some of the US commercial model by including a bit more gun-play and the British Army, but it still remained a sci-fi series.

 

[aramis]

Okay, I will jump in.

British style does not give enlisted enough latitude to make for a fun game. It would be great if all Travellers were Jr Os, but that isn't how the levels are structured. For a traditional British style, see the Drake RCN series.

British does give Senior Non-Coms sufficient lattitude in Age of Sail era land forces... but then you run into the issue of, aside from the unit SNCO, you have no crossovers in terms of who deals with whom - the officers don't actually direct troops day-to-day, the senior NCO's do, but the officers don't talk with any NCO's except their senior NCO.

At least, that's what the historical texts seem to indicate to me.