Paramount hypocrisy in yanking FASA's license

[Sea Tyger]

Not necessarily "General." The title "colonel" may just be an honorary for West's position as the head of a special forces unit (as ET stated). He's probably an Admiral (on par with Kirk's rank in II-IV).

[byteknight]

>>Although they called him "Colonel," they never said he was a >>Marine nor did they say he was part of a separate service.


The rank of Colonel applies to non-Navy types, only. A Marine or Army or Air Force Colonel is equivalent to a Naval Captain. Starfleet would not call some officers Colonel and others Captain (both at the same equivalent rank ) unless they were part of a separate service.

In fact, when a marine captain (equivalent to a Naval Lt.) is onboard ship, he is addressed as Major because you can only have one captain onboard, the ship's naval captain.

Back to Colonel West.......,the character in the movie was talking of a commando-style operation, which is not in the domain of naval officers ( the line officers of Starfleet), but you-guessed-it Army or Marine types.

[Sea Tyger]

Originally posted by byteknight
Back to Colonel West.......,the character in the movie was talking of a commando-style operation, which is not in the domain of naval officers ( the line officers of Starfleet), but you-guessed-it Army or Marine types.

That's not true. The SEALs are all Navy, and very much elite commandoes.

[Ezri's Toy]

Originally posted by byteknight
The rank of Colonel applies to non-Navy types, only. A Marine or Army or Air Force Colonel is equivalent to a Naval Captain. Starfleet would not call some officers Colonel and others Captain (both at the same equivalent rank ) unless they were part of a separate service.

Not necessarily. In the Army, the rank of Specialist and the rank of Corporal are equivalent. (And, before the ranks were phased out, Specialist-5 was equivalent to Sergeant; Specialist-6 was equivalent to Staff Sergeant; etc.) But, those who are Specialists and those who are Corporals and Sergeants are all US Army.

Separate ranks do not necessarily mean separate services. In Starfleet, an Army/Marine style rank could merely indicate those servicemen who specialize in planet-side operations or, as I said before, be indicative of some elite Starfleet unit.

Titles aside, West's uniform is more indicative that he's "regular" Starfleet than anything else.

[REG]

Originally posted by byteknight

I think there was a marine character in Star Trek VI, a "Colonel West" (or something like that) played by the same actor who played Odo on DS9.


So, there as a precedent, even "back then." (seems like yesterday).

Well, IIRC, in the theatrical version of that film, that scene where West presented the Federation President an extraction plan for Kirk and McCoy didn't make it on the big screen.

I don't know if they restored it in the Director's Cut. But for all intent and purpose, that scene did not exist in the storyline, except in the novelization (usually based on the script, but not the final product).

[TheAntisocial]

I love the way the moderators of this site (if there even are any) allow you guys to go so far off topic, every other board I live at have strict rules on off-topic conversation.

[REG]

Well, the discussion did stem from one argument that Paramount didn't approve the "Space Marine" supplement that FASA wanted to publish and release, citing it was too militaristic and stand by their canon that a Starfleet or Federation marine did not exist.

Then again, it is a moot point since the "Colonel West" scene that did not make into Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (one of the main evidence those in the pro SF Marine camp uses), it happened long after FASA lost the license (around the end of TNG's first season). So we had about ... what ... seven-year(?) gap until LUG took up the mantle and started churning up new ST RPG products.

[AslanC]

I saw Undiscovered Country in the theatres (I was in college when it came out) and I distinctly remember seeing Col West, as I turned to my buddy and said "Hey it's Clayton from Benson!"

I have since seen the movie twice on VHS. One pan & Scan and the other the Widescreen version. Both have him as well.

I have yet to see the initial DVD release and the Collector's Edition has not come out yet, so I cannot comment on those.

I remember when I first heard that Col West wasn't in the theatrical version thinking that seemed odd since I knew I had seen him.

Regardless of which, has the Starfleet Marines Yay or Nay arguement not gotten to the point where everyone can let it go? It seems that fandom just won't let go of this one little thing and frankly it is a silly thing to argue about, especially in an RPG environement where if I want Klingons to have smooth brows or bumpy is up to me... Hell if I want they could have bananas for ears! It is your game and so long as your players are enjoying themselves, canon be damned.

Just my two cents on this issue.

Back ontopic. I would give my left... well you know... for a copy of the Starfleet Marines from FASA, which I have been lead to understand exists in a proof version or some such.

Does anyone know anything about that?

[REG]

Well, this board once hosted a few discussions about Starfleet Marines which was getting nowhere, as those in the camp adamantly believe it does exist but Paramount refuses to see it.

Then there are those moderates who says, "Let Paramount decide what is canon. I can decide if the SFMC exist in my own campaign."

I guess there is a part in all of us that want validation, including my moderate self.

It is probably why I take comfort when DS9's Robert Hewitt Wolfe decided to make a navy-marine counterpart in the OTHER Gene Roddenberry series, Andromeda. It's also a nice touch to call them Argosy and Lancers. He even included their nearly completed ranking system on the web site.

(Any comment regarding Andromeda show itself should be discussed in a different thread.)

[byteknight]

>>Regardless of which, has the Starfleet Marines Yay or Nay >>arguement not gotten to the point where everyone can let it >>go?

Actually, the argument about marines goes to the very heart of this thread (Paramount and FASA).

There has always been a tug-of-war between two opposing camps in Star Trek Fandom, the "Dreamers" and the "Militarists." These two camps have had different visions of Star Trek since the beginning and have never been able to reconcile their differences.

Different directors/producers subscribe to either of these camps and have fueled the debate by depicting or having a character say something that supports one or the other of the camps. Both sides are convinced of the truth and both sides have been guilty of hair-splitting in this endless debate, as we've seen with our discussion of our good friend Col. West.

FASA was a casualty of this endless tug-of-war in 1988/89.

At the risk of simplifying fandom, there are two camps that the most vocal of fans fall into. Moderates are somewhere in the middle, leaning one way or the other.

The Dreamers, who's spiritual head was Gene Roddenberry, believe that the Star Trek vision is one of peaceful exploration only. The typical stereotype (an exaggeration of course) of the Dreamer is that of a starry-eyed fan going around conventions spouting the Vulcan IDIC and Vulcan salute ad nauseum. The opposing camp hates their vision of starfleet, which has been described contemptously by my friend as "a bunch of phaser-toting greenpeace activists wearing slacker colour T-shirts." The Dreamer Camp's main strength is that the majority of great sci-fi stories (including thought-provoking humankind philosophical, ethical and what-is-our-place-in-the-universe type of questions) come from this camp. It's greatest weakness is that their vision sometimes sounds too good to be true (like no money in the future) and is difficult to translate visually (as you can see with Star Trek I and the first 2 seasons of TNG).

The Militarists believe in a more militaristic starfleet. These people are fascinated by the uniforms and potential destructive power of Star Trek's weaponry and ships. They are less interested in philosophy but in action. They won't admit it, but they are transposing our 21st century framework (having a standing army, political strife, rivalry between governments, etc) into the 23rd and 24th century. The typical stereotype (an exaggeration of course) of this person is that of a young male endlessly exulting over the best phaser pistol, endless fascination with ship minutae (deckplans, deckplans and more deckplans), obscure references to the Star Fleet Battles game, etc. They also won't admit that they quiver in excitement over the military touches seen in the movies, like the bosun's whistle in Star Trek II & VI. This camp's greatest strength is that it offers better excitement, appeals better to the casual fan, and has nice eye-candy (ship explosions, weapons, etc) that can be seen on the screen. The great majority of munchkins fall into this camp.

Anyways, these two camps have been at it for at least 30 years and neither side is prepared to budge.

Back in 1988/89, the Dreamers were on top (through Roddenberry) and managed to clamp down on FASA, who naturally was in the Militarist camp (only because games need conflict and the military camp offers conflict and lots of eye-candy through pictures for a game company to publish ).

Now the pendulum has swung the other way, and the militarist camp is dominant at Paramount/Viacom, who now are allowing PC games like Elite Force and the 3rd season of Enterprise (where we are at war with the Xindi). Enterprise fans who lean to the Dreamer Camp are not likely happy at the way the show is going.

I'm sure the pendulum will swing the other way one day. In the meantime, the struggle goes on.

I'm a moderate by the way. I likely would have find nothing wrong with FASA's marine supplement, but on the other hand, I don't think PC games like Elite Force are what Star Trek is about.

-------
Byteknight
Toronto, Ontario

[AslanC]

Well for those of you who haven't been following Trek for a while now, Byteknight has summed it up generally but fairly accurately.

I myself and simply not a fan of TNG. Or the lion's share of the 24th century (and now the 22nd).

Not because of "Hawk Vs Dive" or "Dreamer Vs Millitarist" but simply because I overall don't like the story telling or the lack of humanity in said stories (especially TNG). While there are exceptions, they only prove the rule by being so different from the other TNG eps that they stand out.

What does all this have to do with Marines in Starfleet? Well to be honest, I don't think there are Starfleet Marines, as we never see them doing guard duty anywhere on any ship we have ever seen. We see a lot of Red Shirts (come Gold Shirts) but not one Marine standing armed outside a room, etc.

Now since the 23rd (and 24th) century Starfleet are based less on 20th and 21st Century NATO navies and more on the Spanish Main and Caribbean Sea navies, I think Marines have become even less likely.

DS9 answered the question with the RRTs. Captain Kirk said it himself in the episode with Captain Christopher (Tomorrow is Yesterday) that he is part of a "Combined" service.

So other than Colonel West (which could very well be an honnourific that is given to the Commander of the Starfleet Blah Blah Blah) what other proof on screen exisits? I am curious as by my count we are 2 - 1 against.

P.S. Nice conversation so long as we can keep it civil no?

[REG]

Originally posted by AslanC

DS9 answered the question with the RRTs.

Well, to be honest, I don't recall the ground-based contigent force that wore a different uniform during the Dominion War specifically called Rapid Response Team. That was LUG's interpretation with Paramount blessing.

[AslanC]

Originally posted by REG
Well, to be honest, I don't recall the ground-based contigent force that wore a different uniform during the Dominion War specifically called Rapid Response Team. That was LUG's interpretation with Paramount blessing.

Fair enough

Still we saw the combined service.

So beyond that, what lends support to the seperate ground force (specifically Starfleet Marines?).

I am seriously curious about this

[REG]

Desperate time calls for desperate measure?

Remember how the real-world special forces unit began and evolved? Remember how it was once a rag-tag unit not belonging to the more disciplined military unit structure and later turned into something our own country are utilizing in today's modern warfare?

Starfleet must have been pulling out all the stops when it comes to the lengthy Dominion Wars. IIRC, they even accelerated training programs at Starfleet Academy, simply because they were losing officers and personnel in the battlefields.

Still we don't know if that combined service unit is only temporary creation and have been disbanded after the war or are undergoing further review and possibly establish as a new addition to the standing organization.

[Tobian]

With regards to Fasa - the way i see it is that it's Paramounts ball and if they want to take it home with them they can. it's the danger of being involved with any franchise PERIOD. If you look at it another way, this time it worked to our favour as Paramout pulling the plug from out of WOTC has meant we get to have a new Startrek product! Good or bad is personal opinion but it has to be better than nothing!

With regards to the marines - YUCK - it's a horrible debate and never likelly to be ever settled now. However the way i see it is that there is simply no mention of them on any of the shows. You could argue what the word 'colonel' could mean till you are blue in the face, but paramount pulled it because of the implication and how do you know what rank that signifies 300 years in the future. it's clear that the ranking system is only loselly based on today, as would be the organisational structure. 'Combined fleet' might mean exactly what it sounds like - all the previous military organisations are all run as one.

It all matters not: Paramount could publish a statement to the world clearly indicating what ranks, structures and organisations exist from a point in time from now till the end of Nemesis and 95% of the people would decide they didn't like it and chose to ignore what they didn't like - much as they do now! You can't please everyone.