Star Trek

Quote (Captain_Storma @ July 18 2009, 5:02 pm)

@ 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!

Same could be said for Kirk in "TVH." ¿All he did was become friends with Gillian and swam to release the whales.

Quote (Captain_Storma @ July 18 2009, 4:58 pm)

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.

McCoy was a doctor before he join starfleet so thats understandable but i agree with you on Kirk. there is no way in hell that Kirk we be promoted to Captain with get field experience. he needed to learn how things operated on a star ship. JJ Abrams did a shitty job putting that in there when he could of easily have shown Kirk graduating from starfleet academy and after the ceremony talking to Pike and Pike telling kirk that hed someday get his chance, then move to 6 years into the future with kirk on the bridge of the Enterprise. Now they cant talk about any of Kirks missions in the lower ranks because guess what they never happen. so i mean i think the writers just restricted themselves with doing that. Other than that it was a great movie but it could have been awsome. Hopefully in about 10 ears when this triology is over with they will get back to the prime Star Trek most likly.

Quote (LoganKaill @ July 19 2009, 6:48 pm)

Quote (Captain_Storma @ July 18 2009, 4:58 pm) 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. McCoy was a doctor before he join starfleet so thats understandable but i agree with you on Kirk. there is no way in hell that Kirk we be promoted to Captain with get field experience. he needed to learn how things operated on a star ship. JJ Abrams did a shitty job putting that in there when he could of easily have shown Kirk graduating from starfleet academy and after the ceremony talking to Pike and Pike telling kirk that hed someday get his chance, then move to 6 years into the future with kirk on the bridge of the Enterprise. Now they cant talk about any of Kirks missions in the lower ranks because guess what they never happen. so i mean i think the writers just restricted themselves with doing that. Other than that it was a great movie but it could have been awsome. Hopefully in about 10 ears when this triology is over with they will get back to the prime Star Trek most likly.

So totally agree with you. It should have been left at a Medal and Pike telling him he would make Captain one day.

It was the most far-fetched part of the film. I hope that what we saw was just Kirk being made 'actin-Captain' until Pike is back in Command and that the next movie shows him completingmore Command training and experience before becoming a full Captain. (That ending was the most 'Star Warsie' part of the film for me).

But none of this stopped me enjoying what was in effect a thrill ride of the same proportions as STIV.

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).

Well there are some slight differances in the situations.

In the voyage home there a few factors that speak in his favour:

- He violates his orders to save his friend from death and succeeds. A friend who is also a respected citizen of the federation and a Starfleet officer.
- The Enterprise was destroyed but if I remember correctly it was already waiting to be decommissioned anyway. Also he had little choice as otherwise the Klingons would have taken it over.
- Talking about Klingons. He stopped them
- He brought back home a Klingon warship and intell on how to operate it.
- He got demoted from admiral to captain. He lost his rank. (ok sure it wasn't much of a punishment but a punishment nonetheless.)
- Also he already had a long service record of solving many violate situations. He had proven his worth as a starfleet captain more then once. Note the more then once part...
- And of course he saved earth again.

Basicly Kirk had much more experience back then which would make it more logical. Also Starfleet isn't the american Navy either. They might be more forgiving in the future.

As for young Kirk. Fine he had served well in this one situation. He had saved the world. But let's be honest he got lucky running into old Spock. He had still much to learn. Making him an officer under captain Pike would have made more sence. And actually been more consistant with a movie like Star Trek IV I think. But putting him in charge alone of flagship? That is just irresponsible. That's my opinion about it anyway.

Quote (LoganKaill @ July 19 2009, 4:48 am)

McCoy was a doctor before he join starfleet so thats understandable but i agree with you on Kirk. there is no way in hell that Kirk we be promoted to Captain with get field experience. he needed to learn how things operated on a star ship. JJ Abrams did a shitty job putting that in there when he could of easily have shown Kirk graduating from starfleet academy and after the ceremony talking to Pike and Pike telling kirk that hed someday get his chance, then move to 6 years into the future with kirk on the bridge of the Enterprise. Now they cant talk about any of Kirks missions in the lower ranks because guess what they never happen. so i mean i think the writers just restricted themselves with doing that.

Yes, the writers, not Abrams.  

But why would he need to be talking about his missions in lower ranks anyway? I'm sure there could feasibly be plenty of missions for Kirk to discuss for the next movie, if, for whatever reason, they would need to do that (not sure why though.)

Quote

Hopefully in about 10 ears when this triology is over with they will get back to the prime Star Trek most likly.

I don't know that it is "most likely" or even "likely" at all. The writers have indicated that they would like to continue on with more than three movies, which means this timeline could be around for a while, if not the rest of franchise history.

I think whomever will want to jump on this bandwagon and stay with the timeline that is the most successful in a good long time with the franchise... the new one.

Quote (Captain_Storma @ July 18 2009, 5:02 pm)

@ 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!

I think it was more of a thankyou for saving us once again.  
The admiralty knew Kirk wasn't liking his job much at all.

Quote (Captain_Storma @ July 18 2009, 2:02 pm)

Quote

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

Their was a hierarchy on the Enterprise until nu-Spock threw it out the window by sending Kirk to Delta Vega IV.

If you understand how a team actually works you would find anyone could contribute at any time, provided the proper chain of command is in place. Since Spock clearly wasn't thinking straight the chain of command was out of order.

General Chang said it best....

This officer's record shows the accused to be an insubordinate, unprincipled career opportunist with a history of violating the chain of command when it suited him.

Quote (Captain_Storma @ July 19 2009, 8:02 am)

So.... Kirk2 = Wesley Crusher??? ? Did they make Wesley captain? No... they told him to "shut up". Yet they make nuKirk captain... for nothing.

Saving the Federation was hardly nothing!

Wesley wasn't made a Captain because at the time he was being told to "Shut up" he hadn't completed Starfleet Academy, had barely reached puberty, and had demonstrated no command competency, unlike Kirk.

Quote (Vorta_the_point @ July 18 2009, 2:17 pm)

Quote (Captain_Storma @ July 19 2009, 8:02 am) So.... Kirk2 = Wesley Crusher??? ? Did they make Wesley captain? No... they told him to "shut up". Yet they make nuKirk captain... for nothing. Saving the Federation was hardly nothing! Wesley wasn't made a Captain because at the time he was being told to "Shut up" he hadn't completed Starfleet Academy, had barely reached puberty, and had demonstrated no command competency, unlike Kirk.

Also, Wesley may have been a genius, similar to nuKirk, but the major difference is that Wesley lacks a personality trait that nuKirk has: leadership ability and confidence.

Wesley may have been super intelligent but he lacked confidence and leadership qualities.

Quote (Baantjer @ July 19 2009, 5:41 pm)

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). Well there are some slight differances in the situations. In the voyage home there a few factors that speak in his favour: - He violates his orders to save his friend from death and succeeds. A friend who is also a respected citizen of the federation and a Starfleet officer. - The Enterprise was destroyed but if I remember correctly it was already waiting to be decommissioned anyway. Also he had little choice as otherwise the Klingons would have taken it over. - Talking about Klingons. He stopped them - He brought back home a Klingon warship and intell on how to operate it. - He got demoted from admiral to captain. He lost his rank. (ok sure it wasn't much of a punishment but a punishment nonetheless.) - Also he already had a long service record of solving many violate situations. He had proven his worth as a starfleet captain more then once. Note the more then once part... - And of course he saved earth again. Basicly Kirk had much more experience back then which would make it more logical. Also Starfleet isn't the american Navy either. They might be more forgiving in the future. As for young Kirk. Fine he had served well in this one situation. He had saved the world. But let's be honest he got lucky running into old Spock. He had still much to learn. Making him an officer under captain Pike would have made more sence. And actually been more consistant with a movie like Star Trek IV I think. But putting him in charge alone of flagship? That is just irresponsible. That's my opinion about it anyway.

Mark irresponsible bold!!! Because that's exactly what it is...

A kid in command of Starfleet's best starship... Yeeehaaaa!!!!

Quote

A kid in command of Starfleet's best starship... Yeeehaaaa!!!!

26 is the new 16, I guess.

Quote (SpaceTherapist @ July 18 2009, 8:09 pm)

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

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

If you'll permit and forgive the arrogance of rephrasing you: What causes my willing suspension of disbelief to fail?

I think of a ficitonal story as a system. The parts work together to tell the narrative as a whole. And a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.

Within ST there's an entire universe of peoples, places, events, and rules that regulate it all. Same with any other ficitional universe. It has to be consistent for the overall narrative of the ST Universe to hang together.

You've got shows in it's history that talk about genetics and those genetics appear to mirror our own real ones.  You've got shows that deal with time travel and insist that repairing changes in the timeline can "reset the clock" just in time for the epilogue and next week's episode.

You've got these past stories that create these rules that are then just disregarded and thrown out in the new movie. Which I could go along with IF the writers/producers of the movie gave me just a nod that they were issues of consideration.

For instance: for years between TOS and TNG I'd seen articles decrying the transporter as unrealistic and far-fetched, used soley as a plot device to tighten up the stories (all true of course).

So what did the writers/producers of TNG give us? The 'Heisenburg Compensator' , that little piece of fictional magic that said, "Yes, the transporter's a cheat. You know it and we know it. Now here's a bone-please shut up *wink-wink* " And we gladly complied.

And what did it cost them? One line of dialogue. Less than 5 seconds of screen time.

Does the film do that? With: Transwarp beaming-Scotty invents it in the future, where when why? It's a deus ex machina dropped into the story to salvage it when the writer's hit a wall. I HATE the machine of the gods cheat. It's lazy.

Did they explain why Delta Vega at the edge of the galaxy in WNMHGB is suddenly a moon of Vulcan? 5 seconds of screen time.

Did the film explain why Kirk was a short hazel eyed man in the series and a tall blue eyed man in the movie? 5 seconds worth of screen time. Throw away dialogue. We know it's a cheat, but where's the 'Heisenburg Compensator please shut up" ?

This blue eyed Kirk is a pet peeve of mine. Even taking the many world's approach and trashing the TOS/TNG/DS9/etc... view of time travel stinks. It stinks in that it throws away all that history. That's one thing. But it truly reeks in that it doesn't even get the many world's thing right in that Kirk is conceived 9 flippin months BEFORE Nero's temporal incursion. How much 'spooky action' and 'time ripples' over how many parsecs are we supposed to accept on 'faith' because the writers were too lazy to get their 'Schroedingers Cat' science right. And don't get me started on 'black hoooooles" .

I suspend my disbelief right at the point of lazy writing with plot contrivences like the above to say nothing of relying on 'destiny' to explain away the convienence of Kirk,Spock Prime (who I.D.'s a tall young blue eyed stranger as James T. Kirk) , and Montgomery Scott all showing up on a planet that shouldn't be there in the first place.

I've always maintained that science fiction should have a HIGHER standard on the suspension of disbelief because you've got some tremendous hurdles to clear in getting the audience/reader to come along on a journey with warp drives/transporters/clones/time travel/etc... in the first place.

The writer is asking for a lot right up front. He's asking for the viewer to go along with all the wacky gizmos and far fetched situations. The least the writer can do is respect the reader/viewer enough to make the fantastic tale he's telling a 'tight' one without sloppy plotting and transparent cheats (and if it IS a cheat-to be honest about it) .

At least have enough respect for the people paying the freight not to insult their intelligence.

Quote (WkdYngMan @ July 19 2009, 2:08 pm)

Quote A kid in command of Starfleet's best starship... Yeeehaaaa!!!! 26 is the new 16, I guess.

They let 26 year olds fly fighter planes.

They don't let them command aircraft carriers.

Nothing wrong with being 26. It's an awesome age to be as I recall.

But there is such a thing as too much, too soon.

Quote (Cynic321 @ July 18 2009, 4:17 pm)

Quote (SpaceTherapist @ July 18 2009, 8:09 pm) 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 What I am wondering is if you can accept some far fetched ideas in Star Trek what stops you from accepting others? If you'll permit and forgive the arrogance of rephrasing you: What causes my willing suspension of disbelief to fail? I think of a ficitonal story as a system. The parts work together to tell the narrative as a whole. And a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. Within ST there's an entire universe of peoples, places, events, and rules that regulate it all. Same with any other ficitional universe. It has to be consistent for the overall narrative of the ST Universe to hang together. You've got shows in it's history that talk about genetics and those genetics appear to mirror our own real ones. ¿You've got shows that deal with time travel and insist that repairing changes in the timeline can "reset the clock" just in time for the epilogue and next week's episode. You've got these past stories that create these rules that are then just disregarded and thrown out in the new movie. Which I could go along with IF the writers/producers of the movie gave me just a nod that they were issues of consideration. For instance: for years between TOS and TNG I'd seen articles decrying the transporter as unrealistic and far-fetched, used soley as a plot device to tighten up the stories (all true of course). So what did the writers/producers of TNG give us? The 'Heisenburg Compensator' , that little piece of fictional magic that said, "Yes, the transporter's a cheat. You know it and we know it. Now here's a bone-please shut up *wink-wink* " And we gladly complied. And what did it cost them? One line of dialogue. Less than 5 seconds of screen time. Does the film do that? With: Transwarp beaming-Scotty invents it in the future, where when why? It's a deus ex machina dropped into the story to salvage it when the writer's hit a wall. I HATE the machine of the gods cheat. It's lazy. Did they explain why Delta Vega at the edge of the galaxy in WNMHGB is suddenly a moon of Vulcan? 5 seconds of screen time. Did the film explain why Kirk was a short hazel eyed man in the series and a tall blue eyed man in the movie? 5 seconds worth of screen time. Throw away dialogue. We know it's a cheat, but where's the 'Heisenburg Compensator please shut up" ? This blue eyed Kirk is a pet peeve of mine. Even taking the many world's approach and trashing the TOS/TNG/DS9/etc... view of time travel stinks. It stinks in that it throws away all that history. That's one thing. But it truly reeks in that it doesn't even get the many world's thing right in that Kirk is conceived 9 flippin months BEFORE Nero's temporal incursion. How much 'spooky action' and 'time ripples' over how many parsecs are we supposed to accept on 'faith' because the writers were too lazy to get their 'Schroedingers Cat' science right. And don't get me started on 'black hoooooles" . I suspend my disbelief right at the point of lazy writing with plot contrivences like the above to say nothing of relying on 'destiny' to explain away the convienence of Kirk,Spock Prime (who I.D.'s a tall young blue eyed stranger as James T. Kirk) , and Montgomery Scott all showing up on a planet that shouldn't be there in the first place. I've always maintained that science fiction should have a HIGHER standard on the suspension of disbelief because you've got some tremendous hurdles to clear in getting the audience/reader to come along on a journey with warp drives/transporters/clones/time travel/etc... in the first place. The writer is asking for a lot right up front. He's asking for the viewer to go along with all the wacky gizmos and far fetched situations. The least the writer can do is respect the reader/viewer enough to make the fantastic tale he's telling a 'tight' one without sloppy plotting and transparent cheats (and if it IS a cheat-to be honest about it) . At least have enough respect for the people paying the freight not to insult their intelligence.

Thanks for the response. I guess I am an easy forgiving person. My job asks me to have much understanding and compassion for the mistakes of human beings.

Therefore not too much will cause my suspension of disbelief to fail. I love movies and I can flow with the most hokey of premisses. What stops me from enjoying a movie is if the story doesn't engage or interest me.

Other than the muddled time theories in the movie I really don't find anything that bad nought to ruin my enjoyment of the movie.

Sure, Kirk becoming Captain too young and fast is far fetched but then again so are many things in Star Trek and it doesn't take away my enjoyment of the movie.