Star Trek

I watched Star trek IV: The Voyage Home last night. I couldn't help but remember many of the criticism pointed at Star trek XI.

Many fans are upset because it isn't realistic that a young James Kirk would be come Captain at such a young age and with little experience in just a short time.

But I guess the argument could be made that Kirk being just slapped on the wrist after his crimes and being given command of a Star ship is equally implausible in the real world.


In Trek XI and Trek IV both Kirks, young and old, are responsible for stopping the destruction of planet Earth. In Trek IV it is an alien probe doing the destruction in Trek XI it is a renegade Romulan who has already imploded one planet and is aiming for Earth before he is stopped by Kirk and crew.

So both movies share something in common: James T. Kirk saves the planet.


But in Trek III we witness that Kirk violates orders, violently abducts McCoy out of a mental hospital, sabotages the USS Excelsior, steals the USS Enterprise and allows it to be destroyed. In Trek IV all of those crimes are forgiven except the one about violating orders and he is then rewarded for saving the earth by being given command of the new USS Enterprise A.


Now in the real world would a US Navy Captain who committed those crimes just be slapped on the wrist and demoted and then be given command of his own battleship?


So, if you like Trek IV and dislike Trek XI on the grounds that Kirk became Captain too quickly and how unrealistic that is, can you explain your inconsistency?


(Sorry for resurrecting this dead horse but it has been very slow lately).

That is interesting parallel and good thoughts ! I am also thinking he gets special treatment because his father was a very talented officer and had much lost potential. It can also be compared to Star Wars and the Skywalker family which is another dead horse ! I am thinking James Kirk was given special treatment in both time lines because he always had much promise and ability. His character also represents what it means to take risks and making yourself available to any opportunity and possibility.

Kirk was my favorite character in the new movie and I feel Pine was great. He very much captured the character of Jim Kirk ! I also like to see him taking risks and getting into fights because Captain Kirk was always doing this.

Hi SpaceTherapist. I enjoyed the movie, and I plan to get it on DVD. I have no problems with Kirk receiving command of the Enterprise. The movie had unusual circumstances and there were events that would allow officers of Starship captain caliber to shine and burn through the ranks. I acknowledge that Kirk's rise to Captaincy was quicker than I expected, but no matter what universe you are in Kirk will rise to be Captain of the Enterprise. Officers who play it safe or by the book too much may never get to be Captain of a Starship. Here is something Q said to Picard in Tapestry that made sense to me when I think about Starship captains.

Quote

"The Jean-Luc Picard you wanted to be, the one who did not fight the Nausicaan, had quite a different career from the one you remember. That Picard never had a brush with death. Never came face to face with his own mortality. Never realized how fragile life is or how important each moment must be. So his life never came into focus. He drifted through much of his career, with no plan or agenda, going from one assignment to the next, never seizing the opportunities that presented themselves. He never led the away-team on Milika III to save the ambassador, or take charge of the Stargazer's bridge when its captain was killed. And no one ever offered him a command. He learned to play it safe ¿ and he never, ever, got noticed by anyone." ¿ ¿- Q to Picard

Thanks guys  

Quote (SpaceTherapist @ July 18 2009, 2:14 pm)

I watched Star trek IV: The Voyage Home last night. I couldn't help but remember many of the criticism pointed at Star trek XI. Many fans are upset because it isn't realistic that a young James Kirk would be come Captain at such a young age and with little experience in just a short time. But I guess the argument could be made that Kirk being just slapped on the wrist after his crimes and being given command of a Star ship is equally implausible in the real world. In Trek XI and Trek IV both Kirks, young and old, are responsible for stopping the destruction of planet Earth. In Trek IV it is an alien probe doing the destruction in Trek XI it is a renegade Romulan who has already imploded one planet and is aiming for Earth before he is stopped by Kirk and crew. So both movies share something in common: James T. Kirk saves the planet. But in Trek III we witness that Kirk violates orders, violently abducts McCoy out of a mental hospital, sabotages the USS Excelsior, steals the USS Enterprise and allows it to be destroyed. In Trek IV all of those crimes are forgiven except the one about violating orders and he is then rewarded for saving the earth by being given command of the new USS Enterprise A. Now in the real world would a US Navy Captain who committed those crimes just be slapped on the wrist and demoted and then be given command of his own battleship? So, if you like Trek IV and dislike Trek XI on the grounds that Kirk became Captain too quickly and how unrealistic that is, can you explain your inconsistency? (Sorry for resurrecting this dead horse but it has been very slow lately).

Wow. Very good job with the comparisons and it was quite convincing too!
Nevertheless, I think that looking at one's long record of accomplishments one might make a person's punishment lighter and the good he did may outweight his wrongs. I did like how you listed all the crimes Kirk committed because they did seem like alot and were pretty heavy.
James T Kirk in Star Trek XI is a cadet with not alot of experience. And if he is facing punishment for something he did, one cannot look at his IQ scores as reason to outweigh his wrong and give more precedence to his good act, as with a longer serving officer. Yes what he did was pretty magnificent and I can see the logic in rewarding him rather than punishing him for wrongs that now seem small such as, tampering with the Kobayshi Maru program and sneaking aboard a Starfleet vessel. This young Kirk however was doing things more for hiself and was doing things quite selfiishly. Kirk in Star Trek III and IV committed crimes to help others: To save Spock and to rescue Bones etc.
?Now the most I would expect is a promotion, but jumping from cadet to captain? I'm sorry but it is just a little far-fetched to me.

And as for your reference to A Navy captain who could be in a similar situation, I am a little confuse as to whether you find such a thing unrealistic or not. Anyhow, I personaly feel that some soldiers have been getting lighter sentences for crimes committed. And would they promote such a Captain who committed crimes? Yes. Time may be allowed to pass and then that Captain may be promoted almost as close to getting his own battleship. ?

So what... he saved the planet (along with all the other people aboard the Enterprise, and let's not forget Spock and Prime Spock who contributed more than he did)... give him a medal of honor or whateever... and then send him back to class.

Archer was a seasoned Starfleet Officer, who contributed to the construction of the NX-Class... and he was actually the second choice for command of the Enterprise.

The real Kirk was working hard to become captain! We know that from TOS (it is mentioned in at least one episode in season 1! ).

At least in those aspects TREK has always been credible. Captains always had experience. Picard was in command of an old Starship before he got command of the Enterprise!

Sisko was a long-time commander, before he was promoted to captain... after countless "save the Federation" scenarios!

Yet THIS Kirk... disobeys orders, violates "I-do-not-know-how-many" Starfleet protocols, and they make him captain of their best ship??? ¿  For what exactly??? (Answer: The screenplay)

I mean, come on guys... you can like the movie allright, but that is plain ridiculous!

Would the US navy (JJ's Starfleet is more than ever based on it) promote a cadet to the captain of a nuclear submarine of the Ohio-Class?

Would a medical student in his 3rd year be promoted to Chief of a Hospital?

No matter how much you like that movie... at least that detail should bother you a little.

It was plain and simple ridiculous.

@ SpaceTherapist:

Kirk was Admiral. His punishment was to lower his rank. It WAS a punishment, which clearly would have been more severe, if not for that timetravel trip back to 1986... but remember that Kirk was in charge!

In nuTREK there was no hierarchy aboard the Enterprise whatsoever... anyone could contribute anything at any time.

And Spock and Spock prime did much more than Kirk did... all he was responsible for was the rescue of Pike.

Btw... I wonder: Where are all those cry-babies who hated Wesley Crusher??? (I did not like that character myself, but I kept it to myself)
If there actually are people who think that nuKirk's promotion was okay... what would you do with Wesley? Admiral? Fleet-Admiral? President? God?  

Good thread topic!

Quote

In Trek XI and Trek IV both Kirks, young and old, are responsible for stopping the destruction of planet Earth. In Trek IV it is an alien probe doing the destruction in Trek XI it is a renegade Romulan who has already imploded one planet and is aiming for Earth before he is stopped by Kirk and crew. So both movies share something in common: James T. Kirk saves the planet. But in Trek III we witness that Kirk violates orders, violently abducts McCoy out of a mental hospital, sabotages the USS Excelsior, steals the USS Enterprise and allows it to be destroyed. In Trek IV all of those crimes are forgiven except the one about violating orders and he is then rewarded for saving the earth by being given command of the new USS Enterprise A.

Let's analogize for a minute.

It won't be the most accurate analogy but considering the disparate eras involved, I'll do the best I can.

Suppose a nuclear submarine commander with 30 years of experience during the cold war, bold, intelligent, loyal, and with a crew who'd been through the fire with him and would follow him to the gates of hell; stole his own sub prior to decommisioning, kidnapped the only doctor who could save his 1st officer and ran off to France for some experimental treatment substance to save his friend.

He and the crew on the way back home to face the music, learn of a hair trigger nuclear threat to the county and break man's law and the laws of physics to defeat the threat, save the entire nation and return home-heroes.

Because the nature of the threat was so massive, it was impossible to conceal. Add to that, the the sub commander had many friends throughout the Admirlty, friendships cultivated over 30 years of shared service coming up through the ranks.

Those friends and public pressure might be enough to save the commander and crew from the gallows. Even reward him if the political climate were right.

I, for one, find that scenario much more acceptable (even if far-fetched) than one where a 3rd year midshipman on a emergency voyage who is instrumental in defeating a hair trigger nuclear threat then is rewarded with the command of the sub.

Polaris missles under the thumb of a man so young he'd only been of legal drinking age for 4 or 5 years?  A man who'd never commnaded anything larger than a shuttle until yesterday?  

Versus a man who'd been responsible for his men for decades and nukes for more than a decade? A man who'd received enough awards and ribbons to set off the airport xray alarms?  A man the Admirlty turned to when a dirty job (ala The Enterprise Incident) needed done?

Both scenarios are farfetched-it is science fiction, after all. But which one is MORE farfetched?

However, remember that Kirk was also an unusually gifted student, finishing Starfleet Academy a full year early; Pike goes as far to describe him as being genius level.

Had he been just some random cadet, his abnormally fast rise in the ranks would have been very strange, but Kirk already had an exemplary academic record, coupled with him demonstrating command competency in the battle against Nero and a reference to his command suitability from a senior Starfleet officer.

Far-fetched? Perhaps, but not completely outside the realms of possibility, especially when compared with some of things that Prime Kirk got away with...

("Seventeen separate temporal violations. The biggest file on record." "The man was a menace.")

Quote (Cynic321 @ July 17 2009, 6:39 pm)

Good thread topic! Quote In Trek XI and Trek IV both Kirks, young and old, are responsible for stopping the destruction of planet Earth. In Trek IV it is an alien probe doing the destruction in Trek XI it is a renegade Romulan who has already imploded one planet and is aiming for Earth before he is stopped by Kirk and crew. So both movies share something in common: James T. Kirk saves the planet. But in Trek III we witness that Kirk violates orders, violently abducts McCoy out of a mental hospital, sabotages the USS Excelsior, steals the USS Enterprise and allows it to be destroyed. In Trek IV all of those crimes are forgiven except the one about violating orders and he is then rewarded for saving the earth by being given command of the new USS Enterprise A. Let's analogize for a minute. It won't be the most accurate analogy but considering the disparate eras involved, I'll do the best I can. Suppose a nuclear submarine commander with 30 years of experience during the cold war, bold, intelligent, loyal, and with a crew who'd been through the fire with him and would follow him to the gates of hell; stole his own sub prior to decommisioning, kidnapped the only doctor who could save his 1st officer and ran off to France for some experimental treatment substance to save his friend. He and the crew on the way back home to face the music, learn of a hair trigger nuclear threat to the county and break man's law and the laws of physics to defeat the threat, save the entire nation and return home-heroes. Because the nature of the threat was so massive, it was impossible to conceal. Add to that, the the sub commander had many friends throughout the Admirlty, friendships cultivated over 30 years of shared service coming up through the ranks. Those friends and public pressure might be enough to save the commander and crew from the gallows. Even reward him if the political climate were right. I, for one, find that scenario much more acceptable (even if far-fetched) than one where a 3rd year midshipman on a emergency voyage who is instrumental in defeating a hair trigger nuclear threat then is rewarded with the command of the sub. Polaris missles under the thumb of a man so young he'd only been of legal drinking age for 4 or 5 years? ?A man who'd never commnaded anything larger than a shuttle until yesterday? ? Versus a man who'd been responsible for his men for decades and nukes for more than a decade? A man who'd received enough awards and ribbons to set off the airport xray alarms? ?A man the Admirlty turned to when a dirty job (ala The Enterprise Incident) needed done? Both scenarios are farfetched-it is science fiction, after all. But which one is MORE farfetched?

Excellent response and you win! I especially agree with your last comment that both scenarios are far fetched!!!

I do think Kirk becoming Captain after three years at the Academy is more far fetched.

But my main point is Star Trek as a science fiction show is going to have scenarios which are far fetched and sure some will be worse than others.

But the question then becomes how willing are you to go with the flow of the far fetched premise?

For myself they have never breeched the credibility to where I have hated a show or movie. Sure I may roll my eyes and shake my head at some of the implausible aspects of Star Trek (the entire franchise) but I do not get to the level of emotion that some people get to.

What I am wondering is if you can accept some far fetched ideas in Star Trek what stops you from accepting others?

Quote (Vorta_the_point @ July 19 2009, 4:25 am)

However, remember that Kirk was also an unusually gifted student, finishing Starfleet Academy a full year early; Pike goes as far to describe him as being genius level. Had he been just some random cadet, his abnormally fast rise in the ranks would have been very strange, but Kirk already had an exemplary academic record, coupled with him demonstrating command competency in the battle against Nero and a reference to his command suitability from a senior Starfleet officer. Far-fetched? Perhaps, but not completely outside the realms of possibility, especially when compared with some of things that Prime Kirk got away with... ("Seventeen separate temporal violations. The biggest file on record." "The man was a menace.")

So.... Kirk2 = Wesley Crusher??? ¿

Did they make Wesley captain?

No... they told him to "shut up".

Yet they make nuKirk captain... for nothing.