RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,693
Posts: 5,213,465
Members: 24,208
Currently online: 817
Newest member: meshman63


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 4 2009, 05:25 PM   #61
Jackson_Roykirk
Commodore
 
Jackson_Roykirk's Avatar
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

USS_Triumphant wrote: View Post
Babaganoosh wrote: View Post
AFAIK, he hasn't graduated yet. And even so, who have we ever seen graduate as a Lieutenant?
I was offered to graduate as a Lieutenant if I went into the real U.S. Navy, and that was mainly for testing well on the ASVAB. So I'm thinking it isn't that far-fetched.
Jackson_Roykirk wrote: View Post
Entertainment Weekly Magazine wrote:
"Black is apparently the color of space cadets in Abrams' universe"
Some here seem to be hanging an awful lot off of this, but Entertainment Weekly isn't a fanzine, it's meant for general consumption. For all we know, they meant "space cadet" as in "get yet head out of the clouds, space cadet", and not as in any sort of actual rank. Seems a lot more likely to me, in fact, since Starfleet cadets are "cadets", and not "space cadets".

Could it be that the black outfit is some sort of more temperature regulated uniform for hostile environments, like the cold area he is shown in in one scene in the trailer?
Yes -- Like I said, there has been no official word from anyone associated with the film that Kirk is in black because he is a "cadet" (I mean underclassman cadet). Kurtzman only said "there is a reason" he is in black, but he didn't give the reason...and EW magazine doesn't count as "official", nor was their comment straightforward enough to be meaningful.

As others have said, Kirk could be in black for many reasons -- Command School, Academy Instructor, its an undershirt (although Kurtzman would be a bit misleading if he meant 'undershirt' was a "reason")
__________________

...With shoes that cut, and eyes that burn like cigarettes
With fingernails that shine like justice and a voice that is dark like tinted glass...
Jackson_Roykirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2009, 05:32 PM   #62
The Mirrorball Man
Vice Admiral
 
The Mirrorball Man's Avatar
 
Location: Switzerland
View The Mirrorball Man's Twitter Profile
Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
If he really is a "cadet" who takes command... they'll be slapping the audience in the face by doing so... especially those of us who've served.
Did you serve in Starfleet?
__________________
Check out my deviantArt gallery!
The Mirrorball Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2009, 05:37 PM   #63
JonPaulWild
Ensign
 
Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

I'm fully aware that to properly judge things that we all must see the movie first and give it a chance. However, I was thinking that the 'new' Enterprise and stuff we've seen looks quite advanced to be honest and hi-tech. What I mean by that is that if the time line has been changed then surely it's been changed for the worst.

The attack on the Kelvin could severely injure or kill a member of the crew who had influence in future Enterprise and thus the design/technology used is different. So what if the Enterprise we've seen in the promos that of the proper time line, but Nero goes back and attacks the Kelvin...which then results in the changing of the future and the Enterprise and style of Enterprise (which due to the attack is now a inferior less advanced version of JJ's) we see in TOS and beyond.

Obviously, from what we know the Kelvin doesn't last long in the film so my above theory has a bit of a problem given that we have around 2 hours left and thus that would have to happen somehow at the end of the film. Unless the film is created in a way to Lost with flashbacks/flashforwards or even reversed in a sense.

I just think that going back in time and damaging anything in that period would surely lead to inferior technology not superior like we see with the 'new' Enterprise and very techy Enterprise bridge.
JonPaulWild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2009, 05:38 PM   #64
Jackson_Roykirk
Commodore
 
Jackson_Roykirk's Avatar
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

The Mirrorball Man wrote: View Post
Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
If he really is a "cadet" who takes command... they'll be slapping the audience in the face by doing so... especially those of us who've served.
Did you serve in Starfleet?
I'm not going to discount the possibility that Kirk really will be an underclassman cadet who takes command of the Enterprise...

...but if he does, I hope the writers/director give me a damn good and believable reason for his doing so. I personally can't think of a good enough reason (but then again I'm not a screenwriter)

JonPaulWild wrote: View Post
I'm fully aware that to properly judge things that we all must see the movie first and give it a chance. However, I was thinking that the 'new' Enterprise and stuff we've seen looks quite advanced to be honest and hi-tech. What I mean by that is that if the time line has been changed then surely it's been changed for the worst.

The attack on the Kelvin could severely injure or kill a member of the crew who had influence in future Enterprise and thus the design/technology used is different...
This could be. However, I don't need (nor want) an in-universe explanation as to why the Enterprise looks different. It's enough for me that this is a film made in 2008, thus the set design and art direction would of course be different than a TV show made in 1966.

I think an in-film explanation is unnecessary and may bog the film down.
__________________

...With shoes that cut, and eyes that burn like cigarettes
With fingernails that shine like justice and a voice that is dark like tinted glass...
Jackson_Roykirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2009, 05:44 PM   #65
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
gastrof wrote: View Post
Some have expressed concerns about the new timeline making impossible some of the experiences Kirk was said to have had when younger (and episodes that grew out of them), but I wonder how many have really been wrecked.

Some seem to be taking Kirk on Pike's Enterprise as a cadet with no real status at all with Starfleet, but something seems to be pointing in a different direction. What's that?

The fact he can apparently relieve Spock of command and take over the ship.

Would a cadet be able to do that with Uhura, Sulu, and the others present?

I suspect that Kirk is NOT a cadet at that point in the movie, and that at least some of what we know did already happen to him. (For example, him losing his captain on an earlier ship to the vampire cloud.)

Does anyone else get what I'm saying? Care to comment?
Broken record time again... I hate the fact that I keep having to repeat this point. But with so few people today having actually served, I guess few people understand this sort of thing.

Military careers aren't like civilian ones. You don't "go to college, graduate, and go get a job." Education is a continuing process, and each time you are being prepared to hold a higher level of responsibility, you're required to return for further training and education before you're permitted to do so.

In the US Army, today:

A cadet must graduate from the Academy (or, today, alternatively from ROTC) before becoming a junior officer.

A junior officer must graduate from Officer Basic (not the same thing as basic training, which is also required but while still a cadet) before being permitted to actually serve.

A serving junior officer must graduate from Officer Advanced before being promoted to a lower-level command (ie, a company commander role) and being promoted to a mid-level rank (ie, Captain).

A serving mid-level officer must attend another training program before being eligible to serve in a mid-level command (ie, Batallion command) and to be promoted to a senior-level rank (ie, Lieutenant Colonel... the equivalent in naval terms of Commander, by the way).

A serving senior-level officer must attend another training program before being eligible to be promoted to a the ranks of the Generals, and to hold the senior level roles reserved for those personnel.

The point? WHY, OH WHY does everyone keep assuming that Kirk would have taken the Kobayashi Maru test as a "cadet?" Saavik wasn't a "cadet" in ST-II... she was Lieutenant. She was in command of a crew of cadets, but she, herself, was a commissioned officer. Naval Lieutenants are the same as Army Captains... meaning she had at least four and as many as ten years of active duty service under her belt already.

Same as would be the case with Kirk at the same point in his career.

The only way that this works is if they show Kirk arriving at SFA, then cut forward a number of years (eight, minimum!) to when he's back at the academy for his "Officer Advanced" course.

If they don't do it that way (and I'm giving it a 50/50 chance), then they'll be "off," badly. If he really is a "cadet" who takes command... they'll be slapping the audience in the face by doing so... especially those of us who've served.
I suspect it will be less than eight (time compression is often employed in historical feature films that deal with real subjects--sci fi has less of an investment in "realism") but I sincerely and seriously doubt it will be "cadet to captain". IF it is (and I consider it unlikely), then my estimation of the filmmakers will be severely diminished. I'm not especially worried, though.
Ovation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2009, 06:03 PM   #66
SiddFinch1
Commander
 
SiddFinch1's Avatar
 
Location: State of Mind
Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

Babaganoosh wrote: View Post
Franklin wrote: View Post
Somehow, I don't think he's still a cadet by the time McCoy gets him on the Enterprise. He's in black because he was brought aboard as McCoy's patient
But that's because McCoy had to *fake* Kirk's medical status in order to get him on the ship. If Kirk was already an officer of any kind, then by definition McCoy wouldn't have needed to do that.
he would if Kirk was supposed to be elsewhere. Kirk could be a Lt or even a Lt. Commander posted on another ship who sneaks on the big E for some reason
__________________
Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans: John Lennon
SiddFinch1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2009, 07:12 PM   #67
J.T.B.
Commodore
 
J.T.B.'s Avatar
 
Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

Vigilance wrote: View Post
And the better parallel for Kirk is King Arthur anyway. That ship is his destiny, his Excalibur. Whether or not it could REALLY happen is irrelevant. Whether or not it makes a good story? More important, and we'll see.
Yes, but I think it would be perfectly possible to tell a good story within a more realistic framework that didn't rely on some kind of "exceptionalist," King Arthur type of scenario. Not that I am assuming the movie would be like that.

clint g wrote:
Im seeing alot of stuff about that black uniform, so let me toss in my 2 cents. it has already been stated that the uniforms being worn in the movie are a 2 piece set. Its a Blue/red/gold over coat being worn over a BLACK shirt, in a way similar to how there was an over jacket being worn with the First Contact uniforms. It is very possible that Kirk (in a manner that is very fitting with his character) is simply just not wearing the gold overcoat, and just has the black shirt on display. I doubt it is a cadet uniform since it has already been displayed that the cadet uniform is a red jumpsuit style clothing.
That's what I'm betting as well. The black shirt is just the undershirt to the regular uniform.

--Justin
J.T.B. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2009, 09:35 PM   #68
xortex
Commodore
 
Location: Staten Island, NY
Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

the quickening wrote: View Post
The film will only show one universe -- albeit we may be told that Nero somehow "changed the future" of this universe.
'Assuming you are correct and only one universe is shown, how can this be an origins story, if we only see the altered universe? If Kirk's future is the only thing altered, I suppose you can say it is, but if the whole TREK universe is altered, then Abrams and company have made an origins movie that doesn't even tell the story of the origins of the characters we love and the movie is a failure from step one.'

I love this post. We are dealing with clever but not thoughtful writers and directors who are trying to 'steal' Star Trek so they can get a bigger cut and more credit.
Um, Polaris, did you read this post ? So this is an alternate origins story of a universe that both does and doesn't take place. That to me is already a disadvantage that wasn't necessary and then to make a whole movie explaining it seem meaningless. By distancing itself from the original it has lost it's power. Let me be clear I never said this movie is gonna suck. From what I've seen I think it is awesome film making thus far. As for the story, It'll probably only be good by sheer chance. Instead of steak and potatoes, we'll get a tuna or peanut butter and jelly sandwich with cinnimon! and the sound of a thousand nerds crying out in unison.

Last edited by M'Sharak; January 4 2009 at 10:54 PM. Reason: fixed quote tags
xortex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2009, 11:02 PM   #69
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

xortex wrote: View Post
the quickening wrote: View Post
The film will only show one universe -- albeit we may be told that Nero somehow "changed the future" of this universe.
'Assuming you are correct and only one universe is shown, how can this be an origins story, if we only see the altered universe? If Kirk's future is the only thing altered, I suppose you can say it is, but if the whole TREK universe is altered, then Abrams and company have made an origins movie that doesn't even tell the story of the origins of the characters we love and the movie is a failure from step one.'

I love this post. We are dealing with clever but not thoughtful writers and directors who are trying to 'steal' Star Trek so they can get a bigger cut and more credit.
Um, Polaris, did you read this post ?
<snip>
And what, may I ask, has Polaris got to do with that post?
__________________
"If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank and that settles it. I mean it does nowadays, because we can't burn him."
— Mark Twain, from Following the Equator
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2009, 11:51 PM   #70
xortex
Commodore
 
Location: Staten Island, NY
Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

M'Sharak wrote: View Post
xortex wrote: View Post
the quickening wrote: View Post
'Assuming you are correct and only one universe is shown, how can this be an origins story, if we only see the altered universe? If Kirk's future is the only thing altered, I suppose you can say it is, but if the whole TREK universe is altered, then Abrams and company have made an origins movie that doesn't even tell the story of the origins of the characters we love and the movie is a failure from step one.'

I love this post. We are dealing with clever but not thoughtful writers and directors who are trying to 'steal' Star Trek so they can get a bigger cut and more credit.
Um, Polaris, did you read this post ?
<snip>
And what, may I ask, has Polaris got to do with that post?
Well he tried to convince me that not tying it into TOS was not a bad idea.
xortex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 5 2009, 12:07 AM   #71
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

I don't follow.
__________________
"If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank and that settles it. I mean it does nowadays, because we can't burn him."
— Mark Twain, from Following the Equator
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 5 2009, 12:09 AM   #72
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

That does kind of sum up my problem with this whole project.

Sort of a big fat "So what?"
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 5 2009, 12:09 AM   #73
xortex
Commodore
 
Location: Staten Island, NY
Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

If Gastrof can learn to like this movie, so can I. It must be the spores.
xortex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 5 2009, 12:10 AM   #74
xortex
Commodore
 
Location: Staten Island, NY
Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
That does kind of sum up my problem with this whole project.

Sort of a big fat "So what?"



Agreed.
xortex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 5 2009, 12:20 AM   #75
Jackson_Roykirk
Commodore
 
Jackson_Roykirk's Avatar
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Re: Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers

xortex wrote: View Post
If Gastrof can learn to like this movie, so can I. It must be the spores.
So Xortex --

What you are saying is that this may not be exactly what you were expecting (or wanted) and that this film may not tie directly in with the rest of the Star Trek universe (even though you may have preferred that it did)...

HOWEVER, you will still try to enjoy the film for what it is -- and that is a stand-alone film based on the TOS characters and settings -- and you may even end up enjoying it for what it is, as long as Abrams made a film that you can enjoy.

If I didn't misrepresent your position, then .
__________________

...With shoes that cut, and eyes that burn like cigarettes
With fingernails that shine like justice and a voice that is dark like tinted glass...
Jackson_Roykirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
kirk

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.