View Single Post
Old September 30 2008, 02:46 PM   #67
Christopher's Avatar
Re: Star Trek: Destiny: Gods of Night - SPOILER Thread

Raisor wrote: View Post
"The Arsenal of Freedom" was in the first season, so it would've made less than a year's worth of difference to when Rice got the captaincy. Where do you draw the line? Is six and three-quarters years acceptable but six years unbelievable? If so, why?
Well, we just don't know, do we? We don't really know anything about Rice's career. We don't have a clue about his political connections, inside or outside of Starfleet.
I don't get what that has to do with anything. The only reason I've heard for people objecting to the idea of Ezri being a captain is that it happened "too fast" or "too soon." So the only thing that matters here is elapsed time, pure and simple. Are there prior canonical examples of characters going from ensign to captain in a comparable amount of time? Yes, more than one. Everything else is splitting hairs. If you try to say, "Well, there are reasons why someone could become captain that quickly," then you're making my case for me. If there are reasons why it could happen in Rice's case, there are reasons why it could happen in Ezri's case. So why continue to question it?

Let me ask another way. Why wasn't Ezri XO of the Aventine in the first place? She had the job on Defiant at least for a major mission to the Gamma Quad, and perhaps longer then that (depending on what happens in those "missing" four years.) She's got to have major league political connections, being Dax and all.
There are any number of reasons why someone else might've gotten the nod for XO ahead of Ezri. You yourself brought up political connections; maybe the person who beat her out for the job had such connections, or maybe the original captain brought his/her longtime XO with him/her.

Or maybe she just didn't want the XO job for some reason. Riker was offered three captaincies that he declined because he preferred being Picard's XO.

There are many, many reasons why the situation could validly be as it was. And I still don't understand what the big deal is anyway.

As an aside, is Sisko the only on screen example of a ship's captain not holding the Rank of Captain (aside from short term assignments like Data/Sutherland and Worf & Dax/Defiant)? He was still a Commander when he brings the Defiant to DS9, right?
Technically Kirk was captain of the Enterprise in TWOK/TSFS while holding the rank of admiral. However, the filmmakers had the characters incorrectly refer to him as "Admiral" so as not to confuse the audience. Same with Sisko; if he was in command of a ship, then he was its captain no matter what his rank. An ensign in command of a ship would be properly addressed as "captain." It's confusing because there's a rank of the same name as that title, but that's the way it's supposed to work. Unfortunately, DS9 is the only onscreen Trek production ever to acknowledge that.
Written Worlds -- Christopher L. Bennett's blog and webpage
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote