Coul Kirk have been Captain of the Enterprise in 2258

Now in the new movie when Nimoy Spock runs into Pine Kirk in 2258 of the alternate timeline he's suprised that Kirk isn't the Enterprise's captain, now this got me to thinking.

1) the only soild facts about Pike's captaincy we ever got were he was Captain of the Enterprise in 2254

2) Spock served with Pike for 11 years, but doesn't say if all 11 years were on the Enterprise.

3) In The Cage it seems Pike has been Captain of the Enterprise for awhile.

4) In the original (or at least what I think is the original) into to Where No Man Has Gone Before (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5Ym...D5B67865&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=48) Kirk seems to have been captain of the Enterprise for a while.

So could Kirk have taken command of the Enterprise sometime around 2258 in The prime timeline where TOS takes place.

P.S. Can we please not turn this into a debate about the new movie I just want to know if Kirk may have been captain of the Enterprise longer than we thought or not.

 

Well, TMP said that Kirk had been in command of the Enterprise for five years, which makes it pretty unlikely that he would've been its captain for nearly a decade before TOS proper. Plus he was a lieutenant on the Farragut 11 years before "Obsession," meaning 2257; it's highly doubtful he'd be a captain only a year later (since it doesn't seem that Prime Kirk did anything extraordinary like saving the Earth that early in his career). Also, if Spock had already been serving with Pike for 7 or more years as of 2254 (in order for the 11 years to be before 2258), then he would've had to begin that service while still a teenager, which is also unlikely.

It's more likely that Spock Prime was just confused about a few memories. After all, he was referring to events that had happened nearly 130 years ago for him, and he'd just endured an enormous psychological trauma, so even his redoubtable mind may have gotten a few details mixed up.

More to the point, it was poetic license, since it would've slowed the film down too much to establish Kirk's "destiny" to captain the Enterprise in a more detailed and accurate way.

 

I thought that Spock was simply referring to the fact that his younger self was Captain, rather than Kirk - a fact that apparently never happened in the original timeline (regardless of what year it was).

 

I would think another consideration is how old Kirk would have to be in TOS. Even if we ignore that Kirk was serving as a lieutenant aboard the Farragut some 11 years before "Obsession", how old we he have to be in TOS if he were a command-grade officer aboard any ship even in the waning days of the 2250's? It doesn't seem plausible that if he's in his 20's back then, he'd be commanding anything this side of a shuttlecraft.

 

Jesus, why they never did a full on reboot I'll never know.

 

Same here. It would have been aot less far fetched and confusing.Oh well.

 

Did Spock Prime even know what year he'd traveled back to?

 

Well, he's the same age in both continuities. He just had an accelerated path to the captaincy in the new movie.

Because many Trek fans are very protective of the continuity of the universe and wouldn't have accepted a full-on reboot as legitimate. Trek is kind of unusual among genre franchises in that all its different film and TV incarnations have purported to be a single continuity. It isn't like Batman or Spider-Man where the comics, films, and TV shows are all separate realities. The fanbase has gotten used to the idea that Trek is Trek, that it's all one universe. So the filmmakers chose an approach that would let them split the difference between doing something new and continuing what came before.

He did state that he came from 129 years in the future, so apparently he did.

 

A couple of nitpicks:

This is debatable. He says he's tired of being in command, but this could be because he's so new to that business, not because he's a veteran. He seems to have a longstanding working relationship with Dr. Boyce, but that need not be aboard the Enterprise.

And several of his other working relationships don't appear all that longstanding. Yeoman Colt is explicitly new. The whole ooh-women-on-bridge-how-novel business might mean that Number One was a recent addition to the mix, too. And Tyler is but a kid.

Perhaps "The Cage" was Pike's first command of the Enterprise, or any big ship for that matter? Other hero captains have been able to shrug off experiences similar that Rigel VII fight more easily than the brooding Pike, perhaps because they were more veteran to this command business.

Did it? Kirk in that movie stated that he had spent five years out there dealing with V'Ger-like unknowns. Doesn't mean that he wouldn't have spent ten years elsewhere dealing with other things, but still in command of important starships. Five years is just a minimum estimate for Kirk's total space career, although it probably is also a maximum estimate for his experience in deep space exploration.

Then again, Captain Pike also wore the rank braid that would have identified him as a Lieutenant (after all, Lieutenant #1 and Lieutenant Spock also wore it) when he commanded the Enterprise in "The Cage". Perhaps Lieutenant is a good rank for people trying their mettle in command of starships, and anything beyond that is just varying degrees of experience and favoritism? That is, very tiny differences in your service record may dictate whether you command your starship at LtCmdr, Cmdr or Captain rank.

Hmh? Does Spock in STXI make the claim that he'd have served with Pike for 11 years before 2258? I missed that one completely on my watching of the movie...

If you merely mean that Spock's statement of 11 years of service under Pike from "The Menagerie" should be fixed as ending in 2258 if command of the ship switched from Pike to Kirk at that point, I must counterargue that Spock could have continued to work under Pike elsewhere while Kirk commanded the Enterprise. The working relationship between Spock and Kirk isn't all that well established in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" yet - it seems Kirk has yet to learn about Spock's logical ways, touch telepathy and so forth. Hey, Kirk should have witnessed Spock's previous (even if half-hidden) pon farr if the two had been together since 2258...

I'm ready to buy this one. However, I'm even more inclined to think that Spock Prime was just teasing Kirk with his "Oh, you aren't the Captain yet?" feigned bedufflement. Another step in his program of grooming a Captain out of PineKirk...

Timo Saloniemi

 

I don't know about any of this. I just switch on and watch the pretty pictures...

 

I think you need to reread the initial post in this thread, because you seem a little unclear on what questions I'm specifically trying to answer. In fact, just read the thread title. The OP was asking whether Kirk could've taken command of the Enterprise itself in 2258.

Again, please refer to the original post. We're discussing the feasibility of the hypothetical premise of Kirk taking command of the USS Enterprise in 2258 in the Prime timeline. One corollary of that premise is that Pike would've had to stop being captain of the Enterprise prior to 2258. Therefore the 11 years, 4 months, 5 days Spock served under Pike according to "The Menagerie" (and remember, we're talking about the Prime timeline here) would've had to begin prior to 2247.

A valid point, one that did occur to me after I made my post. However, the fundamental premise of Kirk being captain in 2258, just one year after his lieutenancy and only three years after his graduation from the Academy, is one I still consider profoundly unlikely. I can live with Kirk getting a command that young due to extraordinary circumstances in one timeline. It would be ludicrous to propose it happened in two timelines.

Yes, it may be possible to argue through sufficient logical convolutions that it could have happened. But arguing possibility is meaningless, because all sorts of absurd things are at least theoretically possible. What's important is probability. It is far more probable that an aging, traumatized Spock had a slight memory hiccup about something that happened over eighty percent of his lifetime ago. After all, we know as a canonical fact from TVH that Spock's memories were impaired after his resurrection on Genesis. I've always thought it likely that Spock never recovered all of his memories of his original life. Between that, his age, and his extremely "compromised" mental and emotional state at the time, it stands to reason that his recall of dates from his early career might've been slightly off.

An interesting thought, but I think it's a stretch, since he'd only met young Kirk moments before. I wish it were true -- I wish the story had been structured so that their meeting was something Spock arranged as part of a plan to put history on track -- but I just don't see it in the context of the film as presented.

 

I'm more worried about the quality of the answers, really. Regardless of the question, it doesn't pay to base the answer on the idea that Kirk only commanded his ship for five years if this is not really supported by the source you indicate.

But that's just details; your explanation doesn't hinge on this possibly faulty evidence by any means.

One might argue that the meeting had to be prearranged, given how difficult it would be for Kirk to randomly stumble to the very cave where Spock was residing. We're basically talking about a Star Wars -level coincidence there, unless we evoke either destiny/Force/dramatic conceit or then preplanning.

Timo Saloniemi

 

I cannot see how that would have happened in The Prime timeline based on the references we have.
SOT, but the alternate timeline "trying" to realign itself to the Prime one seems not to be a unique to this movie concept.

 

Has anyone compared the Star Trek Chronology with the movie's timeline?

Wish I could remember what I did with my copy...

 

The movie's timeline is anchored in the ST Chronology's assumption that Kirk was born in 2233, and borrows its assumption that an Academy term is typically four years. It does, however, disregard the Chrono's conjectural birthdates for Sulu and Uhura, which isn't a problem since they were pure guesswork -- unlike Chekov's canonically established age, which the new film disregards, making him four years older.

 

"Amok Time" was Spock's first pon farr.

 

Yes, I know why they did their half-arsed version of a reboot but I don't know why they didn't have the guts to do a full reboot. It's not like Chris Nolan had Alfred coming back in time from Batman Forever to preserve the Batman movie continuity in Batman Begins.

 

I have a vague notion that Riker talks about how old Kirk was when he first took command in a TNG episode? Doesn't Riker say that he is still younger than Kirk was when he took command? I also thought that Willard Decker, aged 30, was Starfleet's youngest captain at the time.

WNMHGB is usually believed to take place 6 months into the 5-year mission so most of series 1 takes place in the second year, which would mean that Kirk was 32 or 33 when he started the 5-year mission - still very young. The Enterprise was refitted prior to the mission (the ship looks different from the original pilot) so it may also be that he oversaw the refit prior to shipping out, which could bring the age he took on the captaincy to 31 or 32 I suppose.

I think his comments in TMP suggest that he only commanded one 5-year tour as a captain.

Kirk's advanced promotion is one of the dumbest aspects of the new film. Loads of soldiers and naval officers perform heroically but being a Captain (in charge of the Federation flagship no less) needs more than heroics - it needs experience, diplomacy, tact, administrative skills etc. I'm appalled that the plot pandered to the Big Brother generation's notion of instant fame & instant rewards.

In Dragonlance, Laurana was appointed as an army commander as a publicity stunt and came good in the end. That could work for Trek if the Enterprise is sent only on safe missions with an experienced crew to nursemaid their woefully inexperienced figurehead captain. If it's a genuine posting then the top brass at Starfleet then they should all be retired pronto - maybe promote some women to the admiralty and get some common sense in there.

 

No such reference was ever made about Decker, and I don't recall Riker ever making such a reference. Maybe you're remember things you read in tie-in fiction or fanfiction. The only such reference I can think of from canon was in TNG's "Conspiracy," where Tryla Scott was said to be the youngest officer ever to make captain. But Picard may have had Kirk's record beat by that point anyway; if we accept that he was captain for his entire 22-year tour on the Stargazer (which is the generally accepted interpretation, though I'm not sure it was the original intent), then he would've been 28 when he took command.

Kirk's biography in The Making of Star Trek stated that he was 34 years old and had commanded the Enterprise for "more than four years." It was also the original source of the claim that he was the youngest starship captain ever.

And I don't accept that "Where No Man" is part of the 5-year mission. It struck me as a separate mission, a specific assignment to probe beyond the fringe of the galaxy. Just reaching the galaxy's edge would take months, let alone returning, so it seems redundant to put a single, months-long dedicated mission inside a broader, more generalized "5-year mission." And the ship clearly underwent extensive refitting between WNM and the first season, so there was probably an extended leave there too, and it doesn't really make sense to assume that such a big gap was within the so-called 5-year mission. People are too quick to define starship careers exclusively in terms of 5-year missions. It seems more likely to me that starship missions can take many forms and be of many durations. Indeed, we only have canonical evidence of a single 5-year exploration tour by a single ship; we can't assume from that single example that 5-year missions are the default or even commonplace. My take is that Kirk was given a specific mission of several months' duration to probe beyond the galaxy's edge, then the ship returned from that mission and underwent a refit, and then it was assigned to begin a 5-year tour of generalized "galaxy exploration and investigation" (to quote the original series format).

Indeed, the references in TMP make more sense if 5-year tours are not commonplace. Then, when people reference his "five years out there," they don't mean he only spent five years total in starship command, but are instead referring to the specific five-year-long stint that he's famous for, to the fact that he commanded a ship for five years straight as opposed to the usual, shorter missions.

 

I'll go with that because it's a much more preferable answer than "The writers are lazy whores."