So Cadet to Captain in what... a week?!

[Cary L. Brown]

Penta wrote:

---

Justin, what you say isn't wrong - indeed, it's a hallowed principle of the armed forces of any given time (at least Anglo-American armed forces) that, as a rule, should you refuse a promotion, your career effectively ends at that point: Never again will you be given a promotion or a significant assignment.

Not true at all.

People have been offered promotions which involved a significant change in direction for their career and have refused those and have had their career continue just fine. In real life. Say an intelligence officer, currently serving as the S-2 in an infantry BN, is offered the chance to become a company commander in that infantry BN (and yes, that does happen sometimes) by the BN Commander. Perhaps that officer would prefer to be in the division G-2's office and has no desire to be a tactical commander.

Sometimes it's just a matter of choosing a career path. And I can tell you, in those cases, it's most certainly NOT "career-ending."

[Cary L. Brown]

Captain Intrepid wrote:

---

I was thinking more in the duties and circumstances they'd find themselves in. But I'm thinking that a captain in starfleet would be trained specifically to command, instead of progressing up to command through different duties. Everything onboard a starship would be so specialized that there's no way a captain would be able to do most of the tasks on board. It seems like even with similar ranks, the organization of duties in Starfleet is unlike anything we have on earth.

A contemporary naval commanding officer need not know the intimate details of how to maintain the power and drive systems of his vessel (though he'd better have a more than passing familiarity with those systems). He doesn't need to be able to perform every step of preventative maintenance on the Phalanx canon system, or the missile launchers, or the depth-charge racks, or the hangar-to-deck elevator (if it's a carrier) or anything else.

But he'd damned well better know the basics of all of those, and he'd better know (from experience) how they all interact. There's no need to know how many threads are on every bolt in the ship, but that doesn't mean he doesn't need to know more about the ship and its capabilities as a whole than anyone else.

[Timewalker]

blaXXer wrote:

---

We do not know yet. For all we know the film could fast-forward, like it does already. or he could be acting-captain, when pike gets mutilated and then serve under garrovick and whats-his-face.

Since Kirk took over the Enterprise directly from Pike, he's definitely the genuine Enterprise Captain at the time of Pike's mutilation.

J.T.B. wrote:

---

In an organization with a finite number of positions, where an officer is allowed to occupy a preferred position indefinitely, as in the Riker example, the logical consequence is that some number of personnel could be stuck indefinitely in positions they don't prefer. That's just asking for trouble. There has to be a certain amount of flow through the ranks and positions, or the organization stagnates. From what I've seen onscreen, the people of the future are not ambition-less automatons that would be content in such a system.

--Justin

Yep. The prime example is Elizabeth Shelby, who fully expected to become the Enterprise's First Officer upon Riker's new captaincy. She was mighty pissed when he refused the promotion and told him that he was in her way (career-wise).

[Cary L. Brown]

Timewalker wrote:

---

Since Kirk took over the Enterprise directly from Pike, he's definitely the genuine Enterprise Captain at the time of Pike's mutilation.

It seems that in this version, Pike is either mutilated or killed as a result of his visit to Nero's ship, in the course of the film.

Again, I think it really sucks as a storytelling technique... but I'm praying for a reset button...

[Cary L. Brown]

Timewalker wrote:

---

Since Kirk took over the Enterprise directly from Pike, he's definitely the genuine Enterprise Captain at the time of Pike's mutilation.

Yep. The prime example is Elizabeth Shelby, who fully expected to become the Enterprise's First Officer upon Riker's new captaincy. She was mighty pissed when he refused the promotion and told him that he was in her way (career-wise).

FYI, I thought this was a horrible decision on the part of the TNG production staff.

Not to introduce Shelby... but to back away afterwards. It would have been unbelievable... incredibly cool... and would have given the show a much-needed increase in believability, had Picard not been the captain from that point forward, Riker become the captain, and Shelby become a permanent cast member.

Whether Picard remained Locutus, died, or was recovered but gave up command... it would have made oh-so-much more sense and given the whole "TNG-world" such a greater sense of danger, of realism, then it had when they wimped out and put him right back where he was before.

[urbandk]

Cary L. Brown wrote:

---

FYI, I thought this was a horrible decision on the part of the TNG production staff.

Not to introduce Shelby... but to back away afterwards. It would have been unbelievable... incredibly cool... and would have given the show a much-needed increase in believability, had Picard not been the captain from that point forward, Riker become the captain, and Shelby become a permanent cast member.

Whether Picard remained Locutus, died, or was recovered but gave up command... it would have made oh-so-much more sense and given the whole "TNG-world" such a greater sense of danger, of realism, then it had when they wimped out and put him right back where he was before.

Maybe that would have given TNG realism, but it would have also marginalized the best actor on TNG. You don't take the lead away from your marquee actor, unless you have something as compelling as captain to offer Stewart, and I don't think Locutus was going to cut it.

[Sharr Khan]

We're fairly sure that this movie has TIME JUMPS in it, isn't it likely the movie will pick up years later?

Sharr

[Cary L. Brown]

Sharr Khan wrote:

---

We're fairly sure that this movie has TIME JUMPS in it, isn't it likely the movie will pick up years later?

Sharr

I thought that at one point, but I don't anymore. I only see evidence of a single "jump" from the time that Kirk and Co, under the command of Pike, leave Earth.

Maybe I'm wrong... but as far as I can see, there's no evidence anymore to support that.

[PowderedToastMan]

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

Thanks...I just checked that out.

I STILL think Kirk has to be in some sort of Command School or something (hence he is "technically" a cadet)...I don't know. I'm just talking out my ass now.

If he IS truly a cadet, I hope there is a damn good reason for him to be taking temporary command of a ship full of senior officers.

I know trekmovie.com usually does their due diligence, but maybe they are simply speculating about this (and some other details) just like the rest of us.

I did notice that he is wearing gold when he says "Buckle up", so maybe he DOESN'T take command while in the "cadet" black shirt. Perhaps I made a wrong assumption and he only takes command later (when he is no longer a cadet).

There is no speculation in that article. As with all information we report it is 'double sourced' and where there is some question or a single source it is noted with a 'probably'

Things we are certain of include:
- Kirk is technically a cadet when in the 'black shirt'
- Enterprise is being built in Iowa
- Nero is being held at Rura Penthe

We have yet to get a spoiler wrong and the trailer and recent preview confirms many we have reported before

[Sharr Khan]

Cary L. Brown wrote:

---

I thought that at one point, but I don't anymore. I only see evidence of a single "jump" from the time that Kirk and Co, under the command of Pike, leave Earth.

Maybe I'm wrong... but as far as I can see, there's no evidence anymore to support that.

Sure there is, we see Kirk and Spock as kids and at least JTK's birth in the trailer - no reason not to think that there are not time jumps in this movie even without the aid of 'time travel' to introduce them. JJ Abrams is known for that in his storytelling.

Sharr

[J.T.B.]

AlanC9 wrote:

---

But if the qualities and abilities that are needed for higher command are not necessarily those that make for a successful junior officer, what exactly is being accomplished by making a possible future commander spend many years as a junior officer?

Because those qualities are not inborn, they are best obtained by a process of professional development that takes many years. A junior officer is learning to manage a small part of a much larger whole. The major command CO has to know how that small piece works with all the others, how to manage the people that manage the pieces, how to foresee potential problems and plan for the entire command, how the command works with others in the bigger picture, how to interpret all kinds of operational data to reach effective decisions, and on and on. It is not the kind of thing that can be learned in a few years of school and some OJT.

For some prime examples of military leaders bypassing the established professional development course, see the record of the "political generals" appointed in the early US Civil War. A few very successful individuals reached high command that way, but most provided difficult object lessons in the Peter Principle, sometimes with disastrous results.

Second, how does the organization know that its talented golden boy will be an effective major command CO? There is no way to know, and it's a pretty high stakes gamble. The safest and most effective route is to entrust the enormously complex and expensive command only to an individual that has proven his/her abilities at increasingly more complex and demanding duties over a significant period of time.

Straw man. Promoting highly-talented people without regard to seniority does not necessarily imply a system with no regard for seniority. It simply allows certain individuals to bypass the seniority system.

It's not a straw man, the earlier post referred specifically to a time when "seniority didn't matter." That kind of system has been discredited.

For a very thorough look at how they US Navy balanced seniority, merit and politics in a very difficult learning process, see Donald Chisholm, Waiting for Dead Men's Shoes: Origins and Development of the U.S. Navy's Officer Personnel System, 1793-1941 (ISBN: 0804735255).

My point was that the organizations of the future are simply not knowable. An argument that Starfleet can't do something a certain way because we don't do something that way has no force.

Quite right. However, the individuals and organizations depicted on screen are similar enough to today that if we had to make an educated guess, the organization would be more like a present-day navy than a turn-of-the-19th-century one.

--Justin

[Cary L. Brown]

Sharr Khan wrote:

---

Sure there is, we see Kirk and Spock as kids and at least JTK's birth in the trailer - no reason not to think that there are not time jumps in this movie even without the aid of 'time travel' to introduce them. JJ Abrams is known for that in his storytelling.

Sharr

Okay....

Two things, same term...

"Storytelling device - move forward to another point in time."

"Hypothetical technology - move yourself forward and/or backward in time."

Both - called "time-jump."

I was referring to the latter... you're referring to the former.

[Sharr Khan]

Cary L. Brown wrote:

---

Okay....

Two things, same term...

"Storytelling device - move forward to another point in time."

"Hypothetical technology - move yourself forward and/or backward in time."

Both - called "time-jump."

I was referring to the latter... you're referring to the former.

There might be both in this case - just saying
We could even end up with "Old Spock" as an eternal outside observer.

Sharr

[Captain Intrepid]

Cary L. Brown wrote:

---

A contemporary naval commanding officer need not know the intimate details of how to maintain the power and drive systems of his vessel (though he'd better have a more than passing familiarity with those systems). He doesn't need to be able to perform every step of preventative maintenance on the Phalanx canon system, or the missile launchers, or the depth-charge racks, or the hangar-to-deck elevator (if it's a carrier) or anything else.

But he'd damned well better know the basics of all of those, and he'd better know (from experience) how they all interact. There's no need to know how many threads are on every bolt in the ship, but that doesn't mean he doesn't need to know more about the ship and its capabilities as a whole than anyone else.

That sort of famming doesn't take years.

[Cary L. Brown]

Captain Intrepid wrote:

---

That sort of famming doesn't take years.

First off.. what the @#$* is "famming?" Do you mean "familiarization?"

If that is what you mean... what's the basis you're using to declare that? Have you served as the commanding officer of any form of military unit? Perhaps you've actually been a naval officer? I think that you'd have to be to make that sort of comment.

It's the folks who've never held real, significant leadership roles who are the least likely to get what's involved in the proper exercise thereof, I've found. It's often the "Key Club President" type who thinks that they get how it "really works" when they don't have a clue.

A better example... one that I'd hope everyone here could at least pick up on... would be in medicine. While few of us here, it seems, understand the military, most have some degree of familiarity with medicine.

The captain of a ship is like the Chief of Staff at a hospital. Ya'ever watch "Scrubs?" It's comedy but it does play with the "rank structure" idea in a reasonably believable fashion. "Bob" is the chief of staff. He has a lot of experience, and knows the hospital inside and out. Then you have "Perry" who is like a senior officer... someone at a position close to Scotty or McCoy, relative to "Bob" as Kirk. And the various "Scrubs" are new academy grads.

SO... imagine, if you will, one of those new "scrubs," right out of school, being made the Chief of Staff for the hospital.