Will Riker refusing own command

[Mojochi]

Crusher stepped down as head of Starfleet Medical. Not a wise move. Other than that we'd have had to put up with Pulaski.

Well, we don't exactly know the details of that decision, but at least she took them up on the job, & for one reason or another, it didn't work out. The only time I recall anyone turning down promotion was Picard when he got an admiralty offer to be commandant of the Academy, but that situation was probably a hasty offer on Quinn's part & most likely due to the neural parasite infestation. They both agree at the end it's best he stay captain of the D. Riker is just turning up his nose for self interest

 

[BillJ]

I don't care for naval standards, either. Except when I read English books and have to look up some navel terms or oders. You don't learn such things in your English class .

If we held these shows to "naval standards" then many things simply couldn't happen. Spock stealing the Enterprise, Kirk stealing the Enterprise, Sisko poisoning the habitable surface of a planet, LaForge becoming the chief engineer of the Enterprise out of nowhere, a child sitting at the helm of a starship, Picard violating the Prime Directive nine times in three and a half years and so on...

It's just odd that some people are just now realizing that Star Trek doesn't conform to "naval standards".

 

[velour]

Bad writing. It was not the best idea to define early Riker's character trait of fast promotions and the desire to captain a starship on a character who needs to stay put on the series throughout its entire run. So when Riker does end up as first officer for the seven-year run, he comes off like he lost all ambition and drive. The ONLY way his character arc has its proper conclusion on the show is for Patrick Stewart to leave.

When I look at this Riker situation in the context of a tv show/series, I wonder why the writers didn't just write the Riker character off the show, have him accept a promotion and have him move on to command his own ship, or whatever. That would have been the logical progression of the Riker storyline.

The writers made Riker ambitious and brash, constantly mentioning his desire to command his own ship. Yet they waited over a decade and how many seasons and movies before they had the Riker character accept a promotion. They waited until the very last moments of TNG. But by that time, the TNG franchise was over. Riker's reputation was already damaged by then. Too late.

Today, we see shows/series have major characters come and go at any time during the series. The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones come to mind. I don't know what model the writers of TNG were following.

It's ok to make cast changes if that is what advances the storyline or makes a storyline logical. I don't know why the writers of TNG didn't do that with Frakes/Riker character.

Imo, it would have made sense for the writers to have written off the Riker character. And BoBW would have been a good time to do so. Unfortunately, the writers blew it.

 

[BillJ]

When I look at this Riker situation in the context of a tv show/series, I wonder why the writers didn't just write the Riker character off the show...

Paramount didn't want to upset a popular show.

 

[Phantom]

Still too young by any realistic standard. Read up on what it takes to be a qualified naval officer.

Not the point. You keep misrepresenting what actually happened in the movie. Which is another thing: it is a movie. I don't give a rats ass whether or not they follow realistic naval standards. I care if it entertains me and Mrs. BillJ for two hours.

And the world revolves around what you and your wife find "entertaining", of course...

There are plenty of people who DO think about such things. 32 is stretching it, and that's with him getting out of the Academy in 2255 and not getting Enterprise until the mid 2260s with 10 years experience.

NO experience? NO time in grade? NO continuing education/career development? Not happening. A wet-eared Ensign is NOT qualified to command more than maybe a shuttle as command pilot. He just doesn't know enough to command a large ship-of-the-line.

It is absurdity on the level of putting a 16 year old who just got his conditional license behind the wheel of a Formula 1 or NASCAR racer and expecting him to compete for a Cup and not kill himself (and possibly a bunch of other drivers) in the process.

I don't care for naval standards, either. Except when I read English books and have to look up some navel terms or oders. You don't learn such things in your English class .

If we held these shows to "naval standards" then many things simply couldn't happen. Spock stealing the Enterprise, Kirk stealing the Enterprise, Sisko poisoning the habitable surface of a planet, LaForge becoming the chief engineer of the Enterprise out of nowhere, a child sitting at the helm of a starship, Picard violating the Prime Directive nine times in three and a half years and so on...

It's just odd that some people are just now realizing that Star Trek doesn't conform to "naval standards".

No one is saying it has to be exactly compliant with naval standards, but it should at least make some sort of plausible sense.

And it's not "naval standards" with the sarcasm quote marks. It's the real life standards (at least those used by the US Navy).

Here's an article by someone who was a Captain of a major US Navy ship (several in fact) who wrote about his career:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2...he-commanding-officer-of-an-aircraft-carrier/

Here's an excellent summary of the requirements to make the rank of Captain:

http://work.chron.com/qualifications-navy-captains-9058.html

 

[BillJ]

And the world revolves around what you and your wife find "entertaining", of course...

It is what it is. I buy tickets to movies with our enjoyment in mind.

There are plenty of people who DO think about such things. 32 is stretching it, and that's with him getting out of the Academy in 2255 and not getting Enterprise until the mid 2260s with 10 years experience.

Lots of things stretch the credibility of the Star Trek universe. Modern naval standards went out the window when Kirk could ignore orders whenever he felt the need and when Spock stole the Enterprise to go to Talos IV. Which was sometime late in 1966. They never looked back.

NO experience? NO time in grade? NO continuing education/career development? Not happening. A wet-eared Ensign is NOT qualified to command more than maybe a shuttle as command pilot. He just doesn't know enough to command a large ship-of-the-line.

If I'm interested in how the real military does it today then I'll pick up a book on the subject. But I can guarantee that no 15 year-old kids are manning the controls of an aircraft carrier.

Which completely ignores the fact that these movies take place 300 years in the future. Get back to me with the real world military standards of 2258, then we'll talk.

It is absurdity on the level of putting a 16 year old who just got his conditional license behind the wheel of a Formula 1 or NASCAR racer and expecting him to compete for a Cup and not kill himself (and possibly a bunch of other drivers) in the process.

Once again, just a movie.

 

[BillJ]

No one is saying it has to be exactly compliant with naval standards, but it should at least make some sort of plausible sense.

I get it now. The Abrams movies piss you off so your going to use it being fast and loose with naval standards as your reasoning. Even though Star Trek has always been fast and loose with naval standards.

I wonder how quickly a modern naval commander would be drummed out of the service if he allowed a fifteen-year old to steer his ship regularly? (ST:TNG) I wonder how quickly a modern naval commander would be drummed out of the service if he decided that the mission he was on wasn't important and went off to chase some personal project? (ST: "Obsession") I wonder how quickly a modern naval commander would be drummed out of the service if he falsified records to show orders that didn't exist? (ST: "The Menagerie") I wonder how quickly a modern naval commander would be drummed out of the service if he decided to go poison some waterway to teach an enemy a lesson? (DS9: "For the Uniform")

I can go on and on and on and on...

Star Trek has never been concerned with naval standards. I don't see a reason to bust Abrams balls over it now. YMMV.

 

[Ghrakh]

I'm absolutely sick of the insecurity of nuTrek fanboys.

 

[kkt]

If you pick and choose your naval standards, you can find historical support for at least some of them. In the age of sail, midshipman were recruited at 12 and standing watches at 13. If promotions were fast because of wartime or service in the tropics where there were lots of fatal diseases floating around, they might find themselves captains by their mid 20s.

Okay, so that's a much simpler time with much simpler technology that the captain had to master.

I remember reading news accounts of airline pilots who let their children fly the plane. The news story was usually after they crashed it, but it did happen.

I don't know where you'd find support for officers stealing ships not being a career-ending move. Or turning down offers of command, especially repeatedly.

 

[Mage]

Still too young by any realistic standard. Read up on what it takes to be a qualified naval officer.

Not the point. You keep misrepresenting what actually happened in the movie. Which is another thing: it is a movie. I don't give a rats ass whether or not they follow realistic naval standards. I care if it entertains me and Mrs. BillJ for two hours.

HERO!!!!

I'm so fed-up with all those 'but in real life...' comments about Star Trek, or the MCU, or the Jurassic World movie. It's not supposed to be real, so stop comparing it to real life.

 

[Mage]

No one is saying it has to be exactly compliant with naval standards, but it should at least make some sort of plausible sense.

The use of the world 'should' here is wrong. You need to use the word 'would', as in, you'd like it to be more like the real world. But Star Trek isn't. No movie is. That's why it's a movie, so it can take liberties with the real world scenarios and bring us entertainment. I don't want the real world in a movie. Have you seen the real world? It's boring as shite when compared to FTL starships, cloned dino's and monsters created thanks to nuclear experiments. I don't want my movies to be real world. There is no Godzilla in the real world. And there never would be, otherwise we'd all be watching a lot more news instead of netflix.

 

[Mutai Sho-Rin]

I'm absolutely sick of the insecurity of nuTrek fanboys.

Is this supposed to have some meaning in this thread? Didn't think so. Let's have no more such stuff, OK?

 

[BillJ]

I'm absolutely sick of the insecurity of nuTrek fanboys.

I know! How dare they counter bullshit with facts and precedents from other Star Trek TV shows and movies? It is almost like they watched and paid attention to Star Trek for many, many years.

 

[USS Firefly]

Mage are you sure Godzilla doesn't exist? The ocean is a big place

 

[Mage]

Mage are you sure Godzilla doesn't exist? The ocean is a big place

You have no idea how deep I can swim......

 

[Mysterion]

The second time he turned down a command, Starfleet should have just told him to forget it and to be ready for a desk job. Move on to some other officer with motivation.

 

[suarezguy]

I wonder how quickly a modern naval commander would be drummed out of the service if he allowed a fifteen-year old to steer his ship regularly? (ST:TNG)

I think a lot of people would agree having that was a mistake, I definitely feel it significantly reduced the believability.

 

[BillJ]

I wonder how quickly a modern naval commander would be drummed out of the service if he allowed a fifteen-year old to steer his ship regularly? (ST:TNG)

I think a lot of people would agree having that was a mistake, I definitely feel it significantly reduced the believability.

I guess I've just never watched Trek for believability. But different strokes and all that.

 

[hux]

I never understood why the writers kept bringing it up. What was their thinking? Frakes obviously wasn't leaving so why keep bringing up the fact that Riker is turning down promotions? Of course he is; if he doesn't then he's not on the frikking show anymore!

Were they trying to suggest that being number two on the Enterprise was so amazing that nobody would ever want to leave or were some of the writers being dickish and trying to give Frakes a hint or something?

What was the point?

 

[Phantom]

Lots of things stretch the credibility of the Star Trek universe. Modern naval standards went out the window when Kirk could ignore orders whenever he felt the need and when Spock stole the Enterprise to go to Talos IV. Which was sometime late in 1966. They never looked back.

The show's developmental materials actually discuss the issue of Kirk's autonomy. Because the ship is frequently out of easy contact range with Starfleet Command, Kirk has broad discretional authority. The best example of this factor in play is "Balance of Terror". Even this concept is actually rooted in real world naval tradition from the age of sail, when vessels were similarly out of contact with their command authority for long periods of time.

Spock "stole" the Enterprise using false orders. Which is basically the only way it could be done credibly. It's no different than Ramius stealing Red October.

If I'm interested in how the real military does it today then I'll pick up a book on the subject. But I can guarantee that no 15 year-old kids are manning the controls of an aircraft carrier.

Not defending Wesley at all. That too makes no sense.

Which completely ignores the fact that these movies take place 300 years in the future. Get back to me with the real world military standards of 2258, then we'll talk.

Running a starship takes less skill than running a naval vessel today? Esp considering a starship is far more advanced and complicated? Service requirements would be all that different?

If you're trying to posit that Starfleet Academy can stuff decades worth of practical experience into a 4-year series of lectures and simulations I'm gonna demand some sort of explanation as to how...perhaps a time-turner?

It is absurdity on the level of putting a 16 year old who just got his conditional license behind the wheel of a Formula 1 or NASCAR racer and expecting him to compete for a Cup and not kill himself (and possibly a bunch of other drivers) in the process.

Once again, just a movie.

The age-old cry of defenders of lazy and/or inept writing.