Kirk's status, new timeline- Really so far off? (Contains spoilers!)

[Franklin]

Babaganoosh wrote:

---

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.

Well, Kirk wasn't assigned to the Enterprise. Even if he were an officer (a junior one, too), he couldn't just show up on the Enterprise and say, "Here I am, ready for service." It wasn't his ship (assuming he had one at all). McCoy found a loophole, but he was nonetheless helping Kirk break orders. It'll be interesting to see why McCoy was willing to help him get aboard.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Babaganoosh wrote:

---

And again as well...Starfleet is much closer to the current US Navy than to those old systems.

This is true. The folks who created and wrote "Star Trek" drew pretty exclusively on their experience with the modern American military (not talking about the movies, which are much later addendums).

[M'Sharak]

Babaganoosh wrote:

---

^ I do remember an early spoiler that we would actually see both timelines during the film - and cut back and forth between them. For whatever the hell *that's* worth.

Link?

I remember something being said about the story-telling being non-linear, in that they'd be jumping back and forth in time, but I'm not sure I remember what you mention.

Also: did you notice that it's clearly Urban's profile seen in the picture and not that of Quinto?

[Vigilance]

Starship Polaris wrote:

---

This is true. The folks who created and wrote "Star Trek" drew pretty exclusively on their experience with the modern American military (not talking about the movies, which are much later addendums).

I disagree. I mean, clearly Gene in the original premise drew from his WWII service, but to say Trek models ANY real world military, past or present, especially a modern military, is just laughable.

Kirk and co. in TOS are shown to be on their own. That right there makes it nothing like our modern military.

Look at Where No Man, or Balance of Terror, where Kirk is dealing with potentially explosive, war-causing, universe-altering situations, on his own, with the nearest voice message weeks away.

A modern military commander would be on the radio to a senior officer or political leader in those situations.

And of course, Star Fleet as an organization seems to flat-out reward and encourage insubordination, if the fact that Kirk continues to be promoted is any indication.

The description of him in ST VI, as someone who violated the chain of command whenever it suited him, is one of the most accurate things about James T Kirk ever uttered.

So to the extent that it models any military organization we've ever seen, I'd go with 19th century Horatio Hornblower/Master and Commander style naval fiction.

But in reality, it's a utopian future, where the way they run things would make any real military man want to tear his hair out.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

M'Sharak wrote:

---

Link?

I remember something being said about the story-telling being non-linear, in that they'd be jumping back and forth in time, but I'm not sure I remember what you mention.

Also: did you notice that it's clearly Urban's profile seen in the picture and not that of Quinto?

I have the feeling -- as others have said in other threads -- that the "Bob Orci Quantum Theory explanation" is simply a de-facto "outside-the-film" explanation to fans for why things will be different. I don't think the movie will even mention two alternate realities as an "in-universe" plot point. Changing the future by going into the past, yes -- but not two alternate realities.

Because of Orci's "out-of-film" explanation, some of us fans may think we have a greater level of understanding for the film's plot, but to the casual fan who knows nothing about the film before seeing it, the fact that Orci said there are two alternate universes will be irrelevant, because that fact probably IS irrelevant to the story being told.

Abrams did this a lot with "Cloverfield". Due to the viral marketing campaign, there were things that a close obsever of the viral marketing could pick up in the film, such as the meaning of the object falling in the water at the end of the film. But to most people who only saw the film (and not the viral campaign), those extra items meant nothing, nor did being ignorant to the existence of these items detract at all from the film's story.

I think Orci's "Quantum Physics" explanation is simply for the sake of the fans and has nothing to do with the actual story in the film. The film will only show one universe -- albeit we may be told that Nero somehow "changed the future" of this universe.

[Captain Robert April]

I think the word some of us are looking for is "contrived."

[M'Sharak]

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

I have the feeling -- as others have said in other threads -- that the "Bob Orci Quantum Theory explanation" is simply a de-facto "outside-the-film" explanation to fans for why things will be different. I don't think the movie will even mention two alternate realities as an "in-universe" plot point. Changing the future by going into the past, yes -- but not two alternate realities.

Yeah, I got the impression he was simply explaining part of how he arrived at the idea for the story, not that it was going to be something we'd see spelled out in excruciating detail on screen. But the thing I mentioned about non-linear story-telling was from months ago -- long before the "Orci's Awesome Quantum Theory" interview -- and I got from Baba's mention of "an early spoiler" that he was also talking about something from earlier this year, possibly during summer or even shortly after principal photography was wrapped.

[trekkerguy]

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

I think Orci's "Quantum Physics" explanation is simply for the sake of the fans and has nothing to do with the actual story in the film. The film will only show one universe -- albeit we may be told that Nero somehow "changed the future" of this universe.

Eeeeexactly. The fanboiz are the only ones making a fuss of it.
No one who sees the film outside these online message boards will
know or care about the explanation. Which makes perfect sense
but really doesn't matter when judging the film.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

M'Sharak wrote:

---

...Yeah, I got the impression he was simply explaining part of how he arrived at the idea for the story, not that it was going to be something we'd see spelled out in excruciating detail on screen. But the thing I mentioned about non-linear story-telling was from months ago -- long before the "Orci's Awesome Quantum Theory" interview....

You're right about the non-linear story-telling thing (I didn't mean to derail the point of your post).

I remember trekmovie.com saying 2 years ago that this will be a non-linear story-telling that will jump around in times. in fact, here is an article from trekmovie (from EXACTLY 2 years ago, to the day) that talks about jumping around in time:
http://trekmovie.com/2007/01/03/star-trek-xi-update/

However, they may have simply been extrapolating what they know about Abrams' style -- like on 'Lost'. The fist three season of 'Lost' featured flashbacks to before the crash, and the past two seasons have shown flash-forwards to events that happen after the rescue.

[M'Sharak]

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

I remember trekmovie.com saying 2 years ago that this will be a non-linear story-telling that will jump around in times. in fact, here is an article from trekmovie (from EXACTLY 2 years ago, to the day) that talks about jumping around in time:
http://trekmovie.com/2007/01/03/star-trek-xi-update/

Heh, I remember that one, or at least the bit about "then the cone of silence descended". A lot was little more than rumor at that time, and some bits have changed or disappeared, and some projected dates have altered a bit, but it's not radically different from what we've seen much more recently, or from bits we've collected in between.

[USS Triumphant]

Babaganoosh wrote:

---

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:

---

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?

[pookha]

Tom Servo wrote:

---

Perhaps they are from his fight with Spock.

IIRC I remember reading that the scene where he finally boards the Enterprise is nearly three years after the bar scene.

Perhaps Kirk is in some sort of fast track through the command program due to his incredible skills and test scores, but his cheating on the Kobyashi Maru test really pushes some of the wrong buttons, and he left off the list for the active posting on some ship.

Perhaps the "Buckle Up" scene is even later in the timeline, years perhaps, then the rest of the film, as Babaganoosh has mentioned.

this is how i see it.
that the film is skipping around through periods.
we see him both as a cadet and later on after he has become at least a lt.
that what he did in the kobyashi maru could have cost him a posting makes sense.
it may also be a crisis came up and he presented a way to handle it that isnt even listened to because the higher ups are pissed due his cheating on the test.

which would explain why bones would smuggle jim aboard.
bones wouldnt do it just because jim wanted to go along but only if jim convinced him that he could be of help with whatever they were facing.

[Hartzilla2007]

USS_Triumphant wrote:

---

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.

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?

Or its just an undershirt that would normally be worn under the either gold, blue, or red uniform shirt that for some reason Kirk didn't get.

[pookha]

had it taken away or possibly it was ripped up.\
kirk was good at that sort of thing in tos.


but yeah wouldnt be suprised if the black shirt was either some type of environmental shirt or just the ordinary black undershirt.

but the more i think of wrath of khan and the kobyashi maru it maybe ment to be a test for officers at a certain stage in the command track rather then a test for cadets.

[J.T.B.]

Vigilance wrote:

---

As an example, Jimmy Doolittle went from Lieutenant Colonel to Major General (three ranks, skipping Colonel entirely) in the span of 5 months. So while ranks are "meant to be used" not everyone progresses through them at the same rate, and sometimes ranks are NOT used.

That's true, but that had more to do with the huge increases in the size of the Army Air Forces in the early days if the war. Such rapid rises are not uncommon in wartime, and are frequently accompanied by a corresponding reduction when the war is over.

Vigilance wrote:

---

And again, such things were much more common in the navies of old, which is what Trek is closer to.

It may have been more common than today, but it was still pretty rare. Even in the 1797-1815 US Navy, which skewed a lot younger than the Royal Navy, the average officer had 14 years of service before promotion to captain, and none had less than six years.

Franklin wrote:

---

As far as rising through the ranks quickly goes, George McClellan was a captain by age 21 (1847). He was barely a year out of West Point.

That was a brevet promotion for "gallant and meritorious conduct" in the battle of Chapultepec. His promotion to substantive captain didn't come until 1855. Brevet promotions created many problems and were abandoned by the army in the late 1800s. Their function is much better met by a system of honors and decorations, no one seriously thinks about awarding higher rank in that way anymore.

I don't know what the situation is in the movie, but historical precedents for a newly-minted officer taking an O-6 level command are pretty much limited to battle situations where every intervening level has been wiped out. There is no organization that would gamble such valuable assets on an inexperienced and untried officer, except in dire emergency.

--Justin