Star Trek: Axanar

[fireproof78]

But, as gazmog noted, that would be the boots on the ground. The Starfleet officers are more akin to experienced officers of the line, who are likely going to be older and seen more action.

Without going too far off track given what we are discussing is all made-up - go and look at the history books - the 'experienced officers of the line' at the front were often not in their 50s and 60s, they were in their 20s and early 30s - partly because war time rapidly grows the services and creates slots and bullets take care of the rest. This idea that the young were simply "boots on the ground" is a false one I think created by how TV shows are cast (and here by the fact that this production features a lot of what we in the UK might em..call 'resting' actors).

Just as a random example - Colonel John Landers who commanded the 78th fighter group was 24 and got there with four years service.

I am fully aware of this fact, but one must also look at the life expectancy rate, and when there initial military experience would have begun. Historically, in some cultures, I would not be married until the age I am now (30) and would be working in my field or the family business (I'm not).

So, while historically, if Axanar were to be painted as a WW2 piece, then yes, the officers of the line would be much younger than the current cast. However, given that life expectancy rate is longer in the Federation (its even longer now than before) I don't find it unreasonable that these seasoned officers would be their ages.

Though, given history, I probably should be less harsh on Jedi Masters being only 18 in other fan films

 

[BillJ]

But, as gazmog noted, that would be the boots on the ground. The Starfleet officers are more akin to experienced officers of the line, who are likely going to be older and seen more action.

Without going too far off track given what we are discussing is all made-up - go and look at the history books - the 'experienced officers of the line' at the front were often not in their 50s and 60s, they were in their 20s and early 30s - partly because war time rapidly grows the services and creates slots and bullets take care of the rest. This idea that the young were simply "boots on the ground" is a false one I think created by how TV shows are cast (and here by the fact that this production features a lot of what we in the UK might em..call 'resting' actors).

Just as a random example - Colonel John Landers who commanded the 78th fighter group was 24 and got there with four years service.

I am fully aware of this fact, but one must also look at the life expectancy rate, and when there initial military experience would have begun. Historically, in some cultures, I would not be married until the age I am now (30) and would be working in my field or the family business (I'm not).

So, while historically, if Axanar were to be painted as a WW2 piece, then yes, the officers of the line would be much younger than the current cast. However, given that life expectancy rate is longer in the Federation (its even longer now than before) I don't find it unreasonable that these seasoned officers would be their ages.

Though, given history, I probably should be less harsh on Jedi Masters being only 18 in other fan films

But if it has been a long, bloody war with Axanar being the end, then it would make sense that we'd see a lot of younger officers holding senior positions.

 

[gazomg]

But, as gazmog noted, that would be the boots on the ground. The Starfleet officers are more akin to experienced officers of the line, who are likely going to be older and seen more action.

Without going too far off track given what we are discussing is all made-up - go and look at the history books - the 'experienced officers of the line' at the front were often not in their 50s and 60s, they were in their 20s and early 30s - partly because war time rapidly grows the services and creates slots and bullets take care of the rest. This idea that the young were simply "boots on the ground" is a false one I think created by how TV shows are cast (and here by the fact that this production features a lot of what we in the UK might em..call 'resting' actors).

Just as a random example - Colonel John Landers who commanded the 78th fighter group was 24 and got there with four years service.

True however in say world war 2 inexperienced youth were handed a weapon and used as fodder.

You would imagine those on starships had years of experience or at the least years in starfleet or whatever.

Decisions that were to be made are being made by older experienced people, hence why kirk in the recent trek films being a captain of the flagship vessel at such a young age prancing around the galaxy is beyond ridiculous.
Picard and his older age and "experience" was just right for TNG, Sisko was hardly a spring chicken and he was only a commander.

 

[Karzak]

^ Yeah, that's why the apparent bitterness of that response surprised me.

I am not at all surprised.

You guys are way off. I did not read any bitterness there. You're misreading I think. Maurice isn't really deserving of these kinds of insinuations, either.

 

[BillJ]

^ Yeah, that's why the apparent bitterness of that response surprised me.

I am not at all surprised.

You guys are way off. I did not read any bitterness there. You're misreading I think. Maurice isn't really deserving of these kinds of insinuations, either.

+1

 

[fireproof78]

Without going too far off track given what we are discussing is all made-up - go and look at the history books - the 'experienced officers of the line' at the front were often not in their 50s and 60s, they were in their 20s and early 30s - partly because war time rapidly grows the services and creates slots and bullets take care of the rest. This idea that the young were simply "boots on the ground" is a false one I think created by how TV shows are cast (and here by the fact that this production features a lot of what we in the UK might em..call 'resting' actors).

Just as a random example - Colonel John Landers who commanded the 78th fighter group was 24 and got there with four years service.

I am fully aware of this fact, but one must also look at the life expectancy rate, and when there initial military experience would have begun. Historically, in some cultures, I would not be married until the age I am now (30) and would be working in my field or the family business (I'm not).

So, while historically, if Axanar were to be painted as a WW2 piece, then yes, the officers of the line would be much younger than the current cast. However, given that life expectancy rate is longer in the Federation (its even longer now than before) I don't find it unreasonable that these seasoned officers would be their ages.

Though, given history, I probably should be less harsh on Jedi Masters being only 18 in other fan films

But if it has been a long, bloody war with Axanar being the end, then it would make sense that we'd see a lot of younger officers holding senior positions.

I see it going possibly both ways. One, is that Garth and the others were more junior officers that advanced and were more successful, thus living longer.

Also, that these officers were more behind the lines, and step in to line officer roles and more experienced, but younger, officers were killed, requiring the older officers to step in.

 

[Campe]

Nevermind the fact that Alec Peters is 19 years older than Steve Ihnat was when he played Garth. And there's supposed to be a 20 year age period between Axanar and "Whom Gods Destroy?" Ihnat looked older than his 35 years but not that old. Maybe, MAYBE 50. Peters does not look 30.

Sorry but that strains credulity for me. I get that it's Peters' baby and all of that, but seriously... Cast for believability. There are good actors in and out of Hollywood who would be more age appropriate and just as talented who could pull off the role. Just my $0.02.

 

[Mudd]

Garth in that TOS episode was a shapeshifter, so all bets are off.

 

[fireproof78]

Nevermind the fact that Alec Peters is 19 years older than Steve Ihnat was when he played Garth. And there's supposed to be a 20 year age period between Axanar and "Whom Gods Destroy?" Ihnat looked older than his 35 years but not that old. Maybe, MAYBE 50. Peters does not look 30.

Sorry but that strains credulity for me. I get that it's Peters' baby and all of that, but seriously... Cast for believability. There are good actors in and out of Hollywood who would be more age appropriate and just as talented who could pull off the role. Just my $0.02.

Well I can understand that $0.02 but here is 2 more for good measure.

First of all, fan films cannot always cast for believability. They are labors of love, and have to work around real life work, schedules and ability. As much as I have enjoyed many fan films over the years, my joke about 18 year old Jedi Masters is not inaccurate in the Star Wars fan film world.

Secondly, if I fought a Four Year war with the Klingons, I don't think I would look my 30 years either.

 

[BigJake]

Maurice isn't really deserving of these kinds of insinuations, either.

Oh they're "insinuations" now? FFS, dude, saying a comment looked like an overreaction is not "insinuating" something evil about the guy.

 

[Karzak]

It seemed a less incendiary word to use than "accusations."

 

[Kemaiku]

Garth in that TOS episode was a shapeshifter, so all bets are off.

It does seem unlikely that a megalomaniacal villain with the ability to choose any appearance he wanted would go with anything other than a perfected version of their appearance, or just younger.

 

[BillJ]

Garth in that TOS episode was a shapeshifter, so all bets are off.

It does seem unlikely that a megalomaniacal villain with the ability to choose any appearance he wanted would go with anything other than a perfected version of their appearance, or just younger.

Twenty years after Axanar, Garth would have to be, at least, in his 50's or 60's.

 

[Kemaiku]

Garth in that TOS episode was a shapeshifter, so all bets are off.

It does seem unlikely that a megalomaniacal villain with the ability to choose any appearance he wanted would go with anything other than a perfected version of their appearance, or just younger.

Twenty years after Axanar, Garth would have to be, at least, in his 50's or 60's.

And yet he doesn't quite look that in TOS. Certaintly not a 55 year old man who lived through war, mental illness and institutionalisation.

He's been giving his appearance work through his ability.

 

[loghaD]

How do you say "tribble puncher" in Klingon?

yIH qIpwI' = "tribble hitter"
yIH tlhaw'wI' = "one who hits a tribbles with their fist as one would a percussion instrument"

(the word tlhaw' is glossed as "hit (percussion instrument) with fist"; it's unclear how the word is used outside of this context)

 

[Kemaiku]

Little known fact; the Klingon High Council uses Tribble skin drums for all important occasions.

 

[USS Intrepid]

^ Yeah, that's why the apparent bitterness of that response surprised me.

I am not at all surprised.

You guys are way off. I did not read any bitterness there. You're misreading I think. Maurice isn't really deserving of these kinds of insinuations, either.

+3. Maurice is not that guy.

 

[Karzak]

Maurice isn't really deserving of these kinds of insinuations, either.

Oh they're "insinuations" now? FFS, dude, saying a comment looked like an overreaction is not "insinuating" something evil about the guy.

I did not say you were insinuating "something evil" about him. You brought that to this conversation.

My choice of the word "insinuation" was a less aggressive way of calling out your inexplicable, relentless attempt to categorize what Maurice was saying as anything more than it being his own informed opinion.

Other posters who know him better than you or I do seem to fall more in line with my reaction to this than yours, so I'm not sure why you are standing your ground so fiercely on the matter.

 

[gazomg]

karzak, you are the first to moan at everyone when the thread goes off topic or aimed at abrams,or continue your running battles with certain members so how about you keep the tread about Axanar , like you wanted earlier.

You are welcome.

 

[Maurice]

Are you expecting too much? Jaded perhaps? Or just too many prose written that it seems bland because you have seen far, far too many screenplays in your lifetime.

I reject prima facie your notion that being a discriminating consumer of the arts is somehow a bad thing.

You know, Ithekro's question seemed pretty good humoured and friendly. There's no particular need to get frustrated that there are people disagreeing with your assessment of the writing or the scene, so I hope you're not doing that.

From what I've observed, that doesn't seem to be Maurice's usual modus operandi.

^ Yeah, that's why the apparent bitterness of that response surprised me.

I find it amusing that any time someone strongly counter-argues a tone-deaf and vaguely insulting post they are perceived as being "frustrated" or "bitter" or "angry".

Ithekro's comment reads as very dismissive in the manner — all too common today — of attacking critical thinking by impugning those who hold a contrary position by suggesting they are out of touch. Simply inverting the statement showed that it was about the poster, not the argument, and flatly insulting. "There's no inflection in ASCII," as we used to say in the pre-internet days. If meant as a joke, it needed a big fat in there.

Since we're on the subject of implied overcritical standards, I want to argue the inverse. My experience with people who are (fair) strong critical thinkers is that while they do not tolerate mediocrity they conversely vociferously celebrate quality because they readily recognize when something is actually good and can articulate why that is.