2160s or 2390s or?

[Overgeeked]

Actually it was lieutenant to captain, and it actually was the second time in the movie that happened since papa Kirk seems to be referred to as Captain after the Kelvin thing.

Actually it was cadet to captain. Jim Kirk had not graduated. He had no rank.

The screen graphic when Kirk and Sulu were beamed up says otherwise.

http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/File:Lt._J._Kirk.jpg

What you though Kirk wasn't going to get a rank when getting made first officer by Pike.

He was an academically suspended cadet with no rank. Pike gave him an Lt. commission and First Officer. Kirk then emotionally manipulated a near-genocide survivor into giving him command. So yeah, it's still cadet to captain in a day or two.

None of that changes the fact that he didn't earn any of it.

 

[Dukhat]

He was an academically suspended cadet with no rank. Pike gave him an Lt. commission and First Officer. Kirk then emotionally manipulated a near-genocide survivor into giving him command. So yeah, it's still cadet to captain in a day or two.

None of that changes the fact that he didn't earn any of it.

I didn't particularly care for the circumstances of Kirk going from lieutenant to captain either. I think it was just one of those unfortunate things that might have been changed had the writer's strike not happened and time lost to make some better editing. As in, say, adding a caption reading "Five years later" and then having Kirk be the captain (which would have made Pike's comment more valid about Kirk getting his own ship in eight years.)

But hey, that's not how things happened. I still enjoy the movie in spite of the fact that I personally didn't get every single thing I wanted. Because no one ever does.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Actually it was cadet to captain. Jim Kirk had not graduated. He had no rank.

The screen graphic when Kirk and Sulu were beamed up says otherwise.

http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/File:Lt._J._Kirk.jpg

What you though Kirk wasn't going to get a rank when getting made first officer by Pike.

He was an academically suspended cadet with no rank. Pike gave him an Lt. commission and First Officer. Kirk then emotionally manipulated a near-genocide survivor into giving him command. So yeah, it's still cadet to captain in a day or two.

None of that changes the fact that he didn't earn any of it.

Wasn't the Lt graphic from before he got the XO gig? Nowhere does Pike mention giving Kirk a commission.

You keep repeating this phrase " Kirk then emotionally manipulated a near-genocide survivor into giving him command", like it's somehow a horrible thing. Taking command was a good move, because Spock was a "near-genocide survivor" and not quite in his right mind. As the XO, Kirk was next in line. Could he have stepped aside for a more experienced officer? Sure, but that's not what the audience wants to see. The character is CAPTAIN Kirk. That's how we "know" him.

Kirk "earned" it on the job. Just like Picard on the Stargazer. He was suddenly Captain and had to lead.

 

[BillJ]

Wasn't the Lt graphic from before he got the XO gig? Nowhere does Pike mention giving Kirk a commission.

No, it was from when Kirk and Sulu are falling after the assault on the drill. But, I don't think Pike had time to do the paperwork and update the Enterprise computer as they were on the way to the shuttlebay when he made Kirk XO.

Logically, Kirk was already a Lieutenant.

You keep repeating this phrase " Kirk then emotionally manipulated a near-genocide survivor into giving him command", like it's somehow a horrible thing. Taking command was a good move, because Spock was a "near-genocide survivor" and not quite in his right mind. As the XO, Kirk was next in line. Could he have stepped aside for a more experienced officer? Sure, but that's not what the audience wants to see. The character is CAPTAIN Kirk. That's how we "know" him.

Spock was headed to meet up with the Fleet. Which would've meant Earth got destroyed. Someone else needed to be in the Captain's chair. I think Pike promoted Kirk to have someone that would have the balls to challenge Spock if things went bad.

Kirk "earned" it on the job. Just like Picard on the Stargazer. He was suddenly Captain and had to lead.

This.

Uhura: I sure hope you know what you're doing?
Kirk: So do I.

 

[BillJ]

Plus, we already have a precedent for officers who are still in school from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. It opens with Lieutenant Saavik taking the Kobayashi Maru.

 

[BeatleJWOL]

They WERE stealing from Wrath of Khan, I KNEW it

 

[Trekkin]

At the moment, you can graduate as a lieutenant if you take a certain training program. If Kirk had already taken it and Starfleet just pushed all the cadets forward into active service, he could have been a lieutenant.

Academic suspension isn't the same thing as being suspended from military service. If Pike as an instructor is allowed to just overturn it (or possibly Spock decided to drop or withdraw his accusations) then there's nothing wrong there. There's certainly no broken precedent in the Trek verse, or reality.

And again, we have no idea what Kirk got up to in 3 years. People seem to be assuming that just because they find him unlikeable or immature, then he wasn't a responsible student or officer. The only 'proof' they have of that was cheating at the Kobiyashi Maru, which was something that Prime Kirk did.

I'm not quiet following the logic of not kicking Spock from command. 'Spock was a survivor of genocide and was obviously emotional!' Uh, yeah? Hence why he should of been in command? Kirk's actions weren't meant to be nice, they were necessary.

And Kirk didn't pick on Spock for the genocide, he picked on his obvious mommy issues. In fact, Prime Kirk said very similar things to Prime Spock when he was emotionally compromised and unfit for command. The difference is that NuKirk was swinging for the fences to try and get a reaction, and accidentally hit the 'bug fuck berserk' button. Prime Kirk knowingly manipulated a particularly sore spot, because a hysterically weeping Spock had confided to him how guilty he felt about his mother the last time he'd been forcibly emotionally compromised. And the stakes were a lot lower in that instance.

 

[Tarek71]

JJ wanted to change the timeline but still have all the same characters from TOS show up on the Enterprise together. And to set it in 2258, even though that would make some of the TOS characters too young for their roles. Chekov, and ensign in 2267 is somehow old enough to be on the ship 9 years earlier. And Kirk, a Cadet, as Captain. People who were lieutenants in 2266-69 are lieutenants in 2258.

As I said earlier a fifth point in Kirks life should have been included. Baby, trouble-making kid, bar fly, cadet, AND young Commander Kirk. By stopping at Cadet, and leaving out characters from "the Cage" (except Pike) and "Where No Man Has Gone Before", you end up with a mish mash of problems about age and ranks. Stick Kelso or someone in there. Nope. Must have Chekov, so we will massage his age, and stick him in there anyhow.

 

[Nerys Myk]

JJ wanted to change the timeline but still have all the same characters from TOS show up on the Enterprise together. And to set it in 2258, even though that would make some of the TOS characters too young for their roles. Chekov, and ensign in 2267 is somehow old enough to be on the ship 9 years earlier. And Kirk, a Cadet, as Captain. People who were lieutenants in 2266-69 are lieutenants in 2258.

I'm sure it was the studio,not JJ who wanted these things. And more than likely the writers who implemented them.

Chekov is the only anomaly age wise. The others are the same ages as there Prime counterparts. As for ranks. It's Star Trek, some characters stay the same rank for decades!

As I said earlier a fifth point in Kirks life should have been included. Baby, trouble-making kid, bar fly, cadet, AND young Commander Kirk. By stopping at Cadet, and leaving out characters from "the Cage" (except Pike) and "Where No Man Has Gone Before", you end up with a mish mash of problems about age and ranks. Stick Kelso or someone in there. Nope. Must have Chekov, so we will massage his age, and stick him in there anyhow.

The majority of the people in the audience don't know or care about Mitchell, Kelso or Number One. They do know there's a young guy with a Russian accent though.

 

[Tarek71]

Yes, some of the characters ARE the same age in Nu 2258 as they were in Prime 2267, but they shouldnt be. They cant be the SAME age in 2258 that they are in 2267 right? Sulu should be in the Academy, unless he is an old lieutenant in 2267. Same for Uhura. Scotty might be in Starfleet, but a CHIEF engineer? A little young for that, no? Most of these issues derive from the decision to assemble the classic season 2 (with Chekov) cast, except 9-10 years earlier.

I get it. These are the Trek characters people know and love. They never got to know the other Doctors, Kelso, Number One, Mitchell, etc. Those could all be awesome kick ass characters if well written and cast of course. But if the goal is to have the later TOS lineup, why not set it later? Setting it in the mid to late 2260s seems like the the pretty simple solution to all that.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Yes, some of the characters ARE the same age in Nu 2258 as they were in Prime 2267, but they shouldnt be. They cant be the SAME age in 2258 that they are in 2267 right? Sulu should be in the Academy, unless he is an old lieutenant in 2267. Same for Uhura. Scotty might be in Starfleet, but a CHIEF engineer? A little young for that, no? Most of these issues derive from the decision to assemble the classic season 2 (with Chekov) cast, except 9-10 years earlier.

Why shouldn't they be the correct age in 2258? Their birthdates haven't changed. Sulu and Uhura are in their early twenties in 2258 in both universes. Scotty's in his thirties in both universes. That's not too young to be a Chief Engineer is it? How old was Geordi? Will these versions hold those ranks for ten years in universe? Who can say? Were they the same ranks in the 2258 of the Prime Universe as the New Universe's 2258? Again who can say? It's a different timeline.

I get it. These are the Trek characters people know and love. They never got to know the other Doctors, Kelso, Number One, Mitchell, etc. Those could all be awesome kick ass characters if written and cast of course. But if the goal is to have the later TOS lineup, why not set it later? Setting it in the mid to late 2260s seems like the the pretty simple solution to all that.

There's only one TOS lineup. And Kelso ain't in it.

 

[Tarek71]

They just wanted the classic season two cast doing the same jobs and having the same ranks they did in the show. We all get that. But they also wanted it set in 2258. So they shoehorned them in. A Cadet Captain, teen Chekov, a 37 yo John Cho as maybe 20/21 yo Sulu who is already a lieutenant. Apparently "ensign" is only a rank for 17yos like Chekov! ;-)

Or maybe Sulu did what teen Chekov did and got his ensign commission at 16 or 17. Saldana was 31 for the movie. I assume Uhura is supposed to be several years younger than that in 2258.

But in a Starfleet with 17 yo ensigns (who might still be ensigns after a decade even while others are Cadet Captains), I guess an 11 year lieutenant isnt so strange. :-D

 

[Tarek71]

Will these versions hold those ranks for ten years in universe?

I would prefer to see normal rank progression, crew substitution and job changes. We dont need a 52yo Sulu still piloting the Enterprise. I hope as early as the third movie, we see Sulu move on, and others too. I know the TOS movies decided to jettison new characters like Ilia and Decker, and keep this group together till their 50's-60's, but Captains Chekov and Sulu have a better ring to it, and let them not wait 30 years for the big chair.

There's only one TOS lineup. And Kelso ain't in it.

The season two cast is the classic lineup. But season one TOS was still TOS without Chekov. Oh I know having Mitchell instead of Pavel is a god awful sacrilege but it would have made alot more sense, with no loss to the film at all. They could always have brought Chekov in for the 2nd or 3rd movie.

 

[Autistoid]

But it becomes ludicrous when we start tossing around 'realistic' in the context of Star Trek.

I've explained what I meant and you've chosen to ignore it. Clearly you're past the point of honestly engaging.

Passably 'realistic' in the sense that the characters should react to the situations they're in in a manner consistent with their personalities and backgrounds. That they should react to those situations as if they were real. That the actors should try real hard to pretend what they're doing is real, no matter how silly it looks for everyone on set to simply lean hard in one direction for no discernible reason, they have to anyway because it will be made to look great in post. Passably 'realistic' in the sense that the story should progress logically from one scene to the next. That (unless there's some temporal monkey wrench) cause should follow effect. That each scene builds on what's happened before and continues to build to the next scene. You know, basic storytelling. Irrelevant of the setting or franchise.

I see nothing in the Abrams films that violates anything above, especially within the context of the Star Trek universe. Which is what bothers me. You're holding Abrams to a standard that you seemingly aren't holding the rest of the franchise to.

That's because the original series was made in the 1960s.


How hard is that to understand.

People can excuse it's flaws because it was made in the time, when virtually every sci fi was absolutely bonkers on how it did space.

Where in the 2010's when almost every scfi nowadays gets some of the basic premises of spaceflight mostly right.

It's a drastically different time period, that we live in.

 

[Nerys Myk]

They just wanted the classic season two cast doing the same jobs and having the same ranks they did in the show. We all get that. But they also wanted it set in 2258. So they shoehorned them in. A Cadet Captain, teen Chekov, a 37 yo John Cho as maybe 20/21 yo Sulu who is already a lieutenant. Apparently "ensign" is only a rank for 17yos like Chekov! ;-)

Or maybe Sulu did what teen Chekov did and got his ensign commission at 16 or 17. Saldana was 31 for the movie. I assume Uhura is supposed to be several years younger than that in 2258.

But in a Starfleet with 17 yo ensigns (who might still be ensigns after a decade even while others are Cadet Captains), I guess an 11 year lieutenant isnt so strange. :-D

They're almost all playing younger in the film. Kirk is 25 in 2258 while Pine was 29 in 2009. In the bar scenes he's playing an even younger Kirk. Fans often forget that Kirk entered the Academy much later than his Prime counterpart.

Will these versions hold those ranks for ten years in universe?

I would prefer to see normal rank progression, crew substitution and job changes. We dont need a 52yo Sulu still piloting the Enterprise. I hope as early as the third movie, we see Sulu move on, and others too. I know the TOS movies decided to jettison new characters like Ilia and Decker, and keep this group together till their 50's-60's, but Captains Chekov and Sulu have a better ring to it, and let them not wait 30 years for the big chair.

There's only one TOS lineup. And Kelso ain't in it.

The season two cast is the classic lineup. But season one TOS was still TOS without Chekov. Oh I know having Mitchell instead of Pavel is a god awful sacrilege but it would have made alot more sense, with no loss to the film at all. They could always have brought Chekov in for the 2nd or 3rd movie.

Mitchell wasn't part of the "regular crew". He, Kelso and Dehner were guest characters played by guest stars ( and doomed to die).

TWOK established that Chekov was on the ship during Season One.

 

[BillJ]

That's because the original series was made in the 1960s.

Okay?

How hard is that to understand.

I have brought up that very fact in one of my posts.

People can excuse it's flaws because it was made in the time, when virtually every sci fi was absolutely bonkers on how it did space.

I'm betting people will have no issues with how another franchise depicts space come December 2015.

Where in the 2010's when almost every scfi nowadays gets some of the basic premises of spaceflight mostly right.

No they really don't. But this discussion is about more than just the science of the movies.

But, people seem to enjoy other movies even though the science isn't right...

http://www.space.com/23104-gravity-movie-neil-degrasse-tyson-twitter.html

And directors often drop explanations if they feel they slow a movie down...

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/oct/21/gravity-alfonso-cuaron-knew-science-flaws

It's a drastically different time period, that we live in.

Okay? As someone that has watched Star Trek for a really long time, I refuse to hold Abrams to a standard I've never held Trek to before.

 

[Nerys Myk]

SF films really haven't changed their approach to science since the 60s ( and before) They still play by the same rule

Which is pretty much this:

We tried to be as accurate as we could within the framework of our fiction. In the end, it's fiction and it's an emotional journey more than anything else.

Star Trek has tons of memos for Kellam de Forest Research telling them X was wrong and Y would work better. Often they were ignored for the reason stated above.

 

[BillJ]

Star Trek has tons of memos for Kellam de Forest Research telling them X was wrong and Y would work better. Often they were ignored for the reason stated above.

If Neil deGrasse Tyson, one of the foremost astrophysicists of our time can enjoy films with bad/incorrect science, I think it's safe for me to enjoy them too.

At the end of the day, if you enjoy a story the flaws won't seem so bad. If you don't enjoy it, the flaws can seem overwhelming. It is what it is.

Tyson signed off with the withering: "Mysteries of #Gravity: Why we enjoy a SciFi film set in make-believe space more than we enjoy actual people set in real space."

Nevertheless, he did give it a critical thumbs up. "My Tweets hardly ever convey opinion," he said. "Mostly perspectives on the world. But if you must know, I enjoyed #Gravity very much."

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/oct/08/gravity-science-astrophysicist

 

[TheSubCommander]

He didn't finish the academy in three years. He bragged that he would, jump cut to "three years later" and a few scenes in he's about to be kicked out for dishonesty. No evidence of him successfully completing a four-year program in three years.

The evidence is his battlefield promotion to captain of the Enterprise.

There's "hard worker who successfully completed four years of classes in three years" and there's "bad writing ass-pull". Kirk's was definitely the latter. Besides, if his promotion somehow means he actually did the coursework in three years, there's the problem of all this classmates who kept their commissions too. Did Bones and Uhura and Cupcake all also complete all the coursework in three years? It's Ockham's Razor.

I am not interested in an argument as to whether NuKirk or Kirk Prime is better, because for me, the obvious answer by far is the latter. While I like Star Trek 2009, I'm a TOS-Enterprise era Star Trek fan. And STID was horrid to me. SO, I am not a Abramsverse apologist.

But that all said, you asked for evidence NuKirk completed his academy training. He did. He completed the curriculum in 3 years, not 4, and while his status was in question due to the Kobayashi Maru incident, no formal punishment was handed down because the hearing was interrupted. So, you can't claim he was kicked out of Starfleet.

What we do know is that Pike DID promote him to First Officer, during wartime. Kirk later ascended to acting captain after relieving Spock of command, and by the end of the movie, the promotion was made permanent. Both promotions, and the heroism supersede the pending Kobayahsi Maru incident, which we don't necessarily know would have prevented him from graduating, anyway. In the prime universe, Kirk got a commendation for "original thinking," and I think he likely would have in the Abramsverse, as well.

Just because Spock was pushing for Kirk to be reprimanded doesn't necessarily mean he would have been. In fact, Kirk's point of view was that it was a cadet's job to prove a test that is claimed unbeatable, was beatable. No one said Kirk couldn't reporgram the test, and the fact he was capable of reprogramming a test designed by Spock actually proves Kirk can out think Spock.

You can call Kirk's promotion an ass pull, bad writing, or ex Deus Machina, and you'd get no argument from me. But as horrid as STID was, it DID prove Kirk wasn't quite ready for the captaincy, though he redeemed himself by the end of STID. Bby the same token, with Kirk in command, Earth literally was saved arguably twice (Beating Nero, and later beating Khan and Marcus and preventing a possible war between the Klingons and the Feds...it wasn't clear the Feds could beat the Klingons in a long term war, and almost every alternate timeline shows the Klingons can and do beat the Feds).

SO the bottom line is that Starfleet felt saving Earth was the ultimate in demonstrating Kirk had learned what he needed to know to be a Starfleet officer, and his promotion to captain was his graduation.

 

[Tarek71]

They just wanted the classic season two cast doing the same jobs and having the same ranks they did in the show. We all get that. But they also wanted it set in 2258. So they shoehorned them in. A Cadet Captain, teen Chekov, a 37 yo John Cho as maybe 20/21 yo Sulu who is already a lieutenant. Apparently "ensign" is only a rank for 17yos like Chekov! ;-)

Or maybe Sulu did what teen Chekov did and got his ensign commission at 16 or 17. Saldana was 31 for the movie. I assume Uhura is supposed to be several years younger than that in 2258.

But in a Starfleet with 17 yo ensigns (who might still be ensigns after a decade even while others are Cadet Captains), I guess an 11 year lieutenant isnt so strange. :-D

They're almost all playing younger in the film. Kirk is 25 in 2258 while Pine was 29 in 2009. In the bar scenes he's playing an even younger Kirk. Fans often forget that Kirk entered the Academy much later than his Prime counterpart.

I would prefer to see normal rank progression, crew substitution and job changes. We dont need a 52yo Sulu still piloting the Enterprise. I hope as early as the third movie, we see Sulu move on, and others too. I know the TOS movies decided to jettison new characters like Ilia and Decker, and keep this group together till their 50's-60's, but Captains Chekov and Sulu have a better ring to it, and let them not wait 30 years for the big chair.

There's only one TOS lineup. And Kelso ain't in it.

The season two cast is the classic lineup. But season one TOS was still TOS without Chekov. Oh I know having Mitchell instead of Pavel is a god awful sacrilege but it would have made alot more sense, with no loss to the film at all. They could always have brought Chekov in for the 2nd or 3rd movie.

Mitchell wasn't part of the "regular crew". He, Kelso and Dehner were guest characters played by guest stars ( and doomed to die).

TWOK established that Chekov was on the ship during Season One.

All the better! Have Mitchell in ST09 and then introduce Chekov later. Just like the show did. Dove tails very nicely.

Chekov didnt appear in season one despite the TWOK retcon and TOS was still TOS. I wouldn't have Chekov in 2258 for the same reason I wouldn't have Saavik in 2258. Not there yet.

But it is "now" the mid 2260s so it's all good.
I'm over it now, anyway.