For general discussion on this episode, visit the TNG forum at The Trek BBS.
First Duty reference on Voyager?Edit
This line from the background section of this page:
- "The First Duty" is again referenced in VOY: "Fair Trade" when Captain Janeway is forced to discipline Neelix over some unauthorized, illegal transactions.
Is that accurate? Seems like a very odd thing for Janeway to reference. I'm not insisting it be deleted, but I am bringing it up as a talking point, because it seems... strange. Hossrex 22:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Ummm... bump? Hossrex 09:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I removed the note pending some clarification and justification. Is the note saying Janeway mentioned the events of this episode or the first duty to the truth? I haven't seen "Fair Trade" so I'm equally in the dark.– Cleanse 11:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- She says "The first duty of any Starfleet officer is the truth." which would seem to indicate that this is more of a policy that is taught at the academy than a reference to the TNG episode.
The Locarno/Paris Connection Edit
In Background information, it states;
"Robert Duncan McNeill (Cadet Nicholas Locarno) later played Tom Paris on Star Trek: Voyager, a character partly based on Locarno. It was hoped that Locarno himself would be a character on Voyager, but when it was realized that such a decision would mean that the writers of this episode would receive royalties for each Voyager episode, it was deemed cost-prohibitive and the character was adjusted to become Tom Paris."
There are actually two versions of this story. One was what was said above, and the other was that the producers felt the charcter was too far gone, and could never have evolved into the settled, kind-hearted character Paris turned into. The reason I bring this up is because this argument is far more plausible, since there's no reason why royalties would have to be paid to Moore for the use of Locarno.
Remember that Intelectual property laws are not designed to protect the writer, they're designed to encourage creativity. By taking the character to new places and giving him a complete re-design, the staff of Voyager were being creative, and Moore would not have been able to prove otherwise, and thus he would not be allowed to demand royalties. For this reason, I ask this line be removed, or amended to include what I have stated. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk).
- I seem to recall that the Voyager companion book actually stated that the character was changed due specifically to the royalities issue. Thus... the background note. -- Sulfur 19:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think your assessment of the copyright situation is accurate, but even if it were, you misunderstand the nature of royalties. Nobody decides in advance who is or is not "allowed to demand royalties" on what. *Anyone* can demand royalties and launch a court case over it; only after tons of money has been spent on both sides will it be determined whether they actually had the right to sue anybody. Thus, it is quite possible that they perceived this as a risk (Ron Moore was not on staff at Voyager at the start) and even if they KNEW there was no valid legal case for royalties being paid, they would still seek to avoid the risk of having to prove it. Happens all the time, unfortunately. 188.8.131.52 01:31, May 2, 2012 (UTC)
From Act Two: "During his deposition, Locarno says that while performing a maneuver, Admiral Brand asks the team navigator, Cadet Jean Hajar, if they had changed their flight plan after filing it with Starfleet." What about Locarno's manuever statement? Can someone fix this up?? As it's written now it means that while Locarno was (past tense) performing a manuever Admiral Brand got on the comm and asked Cadet Hajar if they changed their flight plan...ummm that's obiviously not what happend so we need a better sentence.--Obey the Fist!! 12:56, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
Short summary disagreement Edit
I recently reverted the short summary to one of its earliest versions, which I didn't write, but thought was well written and demonstrated the main point of the episode in a concise and elegant way. That edit was recently reverted to a version that is, at the very least, poorly constructed.
Option 1 Option 2 Following an accident during an Academy training exercise that leads to the death of one of his friends, Wesley Crusher must decide whether loyalty or truth is the first duty. Following an accident during an Academy training exercise that leads to the death of one of his friends, Wesley Crusher learns the hard way what the first duty of every Starfleet officer is.
So lets vote on it? ...
- Obviously, I prefer Option 1. Loyalty vs. Truth is the central conflict of the episode, with rather grand arguments made by both Picard and Lacarno. (See the audio quotes in Memorable Quotes) The background information even mentions the debate that existed among the writing staff as to which should actually win in the end. Also, Option 1 name checks the title of the episode in a clever way. --bp 03:05, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
- I wrote Option 2 as I believe it constitutes a more elegant and "over-arching" way of summarizing the episode without giving too much away. By saying "Wesley Crusher learns the hard way what the first duty of every Starfleet officer is" , the reader's interest is evoked without giving away the point. These are supposed to be teasers, not analyses. Crusher's specific struggle (truth or loyalty) is discussed in the summary and in of itself is more like a sub-header to the wbigger question of what is the number one value and quality Starfleet esteems above all. – Distantlycharmed 06:56, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
Courtroom bell Edit
I removed the following:
- The hearing bell used in this episode is the same as the one used in the Original Series episodes "Space Seed" and "Court Martial". (Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion) The call sheet for Friday 31 January 1992 lists it as "Antique ship's bell" in the set dressing section.