To repeat: none of the officers of captain rank did more than Kirk to deserve it; and they can all get in line behind him.
That's right: they were all off in the Laurentian system for conveniently ambiguous but presumably legitimate reasons,
doing their duty rather than running off half-cocked on what was by all rights a futile and suicidal solo mission. You're suggesting that the
latter is what should be rewarded? You're committing the fallacy of viewing it in hindsight, judging the means legitimate because the results happened to work out.
Kirk displays a reasonable amount of leadership and innovation but his plan for just two crewmen to sneak onto the Narada is pretty poor. It's this kind of poor tactical planning that makes me doubt that he is ready to lead.
Indeed. Given that they assumed (wrongly) that they could sneak on undetected, and also that they knew how powerful the enemy was, why on earth didn't he and Spock take a larger landing party with them?
Oh and to anybody going with the there are other captains more qualified stuff. I got the impression from Pike that these other captains are the type that wouldn't even wipe themseles unless they checked with command first. Do you really want someone like that commanding the flagship in a crisis?
Where did you get that impression? Any particular dialogue to point to?
Besides which...
If the suggestion that every other captain in the fleet is a wuss turns out to be true, this will be another problem I have with NuTrek, not a justification for Kirk's promotion.
Absolutely.
PaulN said:
Even original Kirk was not that great... I love the vibe of TOS but Picard was a far superior commanding officer.
I have to disagree with you there, however. To me, Picard all too often came across as a "bureaucrat in space."
You won't find where there's a new chance every other week, nor a lieutenant who can do it. Kirk's unique.
No, he's not. Kirk was always very good at his job, but part of the reason for that was that he came up through the ranks (albeit quickly) and learned from experience. That's part of the problem with this movie: that's all been stripped away and replaced with the notion that Kirk's unique, "destined" to be captain, a better leader than anyone else... even though the actual decisions he makes given the information at hand don't demonstrate particularly sound judgment at all.
You seem to be making the assumption that no other Starfleet captain could become the commander of the Enterprise because they didn't come to Earth's aid? But I thought the whole point of this particular point of the film was that no one outside the Enterprise knew what was going on? I can't fault the Commanders' in the Laurentian system for not responding to a threat they didn't know existed.
Indeed. Moreover, who was it who made the decision that it wasn't important to let them know? Kirk. If his foolhardy plan had failed and Earth had been destroyed, the rest of the fleet would have been at a
huge disadvantage in getting up to speed and devising a back-up defense.
By doing something that stupid (promoting Kirk to Captain), you're essentially promoting that you prefer a rule-breaker who got lucky once to those who were loyal and did things the right way. That's a very dangerous precedent to set in a military organization. Especially for those coming up through the ranks.
Also true.. (Even acknowledging the fact that Starfleet isn't a strictly military organization, and chain of command has always been presented as a rather looser thing than in present-day militaries... the fact is, Starfleet has to think of the precedent this would set and the way it would affect morale, and both are bad.)
But at this point we all seem to be arguing against the vociferous defenses of just one poster, so perhaps there's pretty widespread agreement that this was a genuine shortcoming in the movie. (Merely one of many, IMHO, but that's another discussion...)