Problem with Kirk's immediate promotion to Captain

Jim Kirk being captain at the end of the film just comes down to lazy writing.

Pine most definitely has the acting chops to play Jim Kirk. The big question is whether Orci and Kurtzman have the writing chops to bring Jim Kirk to life? I was moderately entertained by Transformers, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was such an incoherent mess that I have concerns about the Star Trek sequel.

I'm sure I'll get shouted down by people because of Star Trek's impressive box office. But take a gander at the Transformer sequels' take:

$835,274,255 - Box office

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=transformers2.htm

9,355,659 - DVD sales

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2009/TFRM2-DVD.php

I guess it comes down to whether you want Star Trek to be a moderately successful, moderately intelligent sci-fi franchise or if you want your Trek to be like Transformers pretty, popular and dumb as a rock.

And it hurts that they've decided to take the latter track. Because they were very close in alot of areas.

 

Technically it was Chekov who saved Sulu... and Kirk.

 

Wow - I agree with this completely. Objectively, I think NuKirk is dangerous because he is inexperienced and convinced by Spock Prime that he is awesome even though he isn't the same Kirk. He could be a diplomatic nightmare. He wont be a dangerous failure because the writers will write him as a success but that doesn't mean that Starfleet isn't acting foolishly.

However, credit where credit is due, Pine throws in some nuances to show us that there is a lot more going on with Kirk. His self-belief isn't quite so all encompassing. I think his performance may drag in a degree of the realism we're looking for.

As long as the writers make sure it is skill and not luck that see him develop I'll be happier.

 

How is Pine's Kirk dangerous?

 

Giving the power of starship command to someone that hasn't spent the time to learn what's involved. Telling someone they're going to do great things... when they've accomplished nothing.

Kinda like when Riker was given the power of the Q in Hide and Q (TNG season 1). Or think of it as giving a lighter to a child.

 

Well then could Pine's Kirk wonder why they made him captain so soon in the sequel, it was rushed wasn't it his rise to captaincy, just wondering that's all.

 

Well what you hope for is that: the period of time between destroying the Narada and Kirk taking the center seat is addressed in some fashion. Either with some type of sequence or dialogue referencing the missing time. We do have to account for the time it took the Enterprise to get home (with no warp drive), the fallout from the destruction of Vulcan (which could have paralyzed the Federation for a time) and the massive repairs needed by the Enterprise after its encounter with a black hole.

So the time period could have been anywhere between six months and a year possibly.

 

and..ultimately, the producers wont really care about explaining it. Because they have, in their minds, and I agree, explained it just fine in 'movie fashion' form. Does it make sense? No. But its a movie, a popcorn movie, and it is made to entertain not to follow 'realistic' change of commands, which is fine with me.

Rob

 

Indeed there is precident for Kirk's being given both the rank and the ship. Early on in American Civil War, officers were given their position in the military, simply because they knew somebody or had held a civil service office of some minor capicity. In some cases (on the Confederate side), Commanding Officers were elected by the enlisted men. (Upwardsw through the rank of Colonel). On both sides there were those of means who simply "bought" their commissions.

In a sad commentary on this, we now in the 21st century, have a president who has less time in government service, and zero military experience as compaired to, oh say the average army NCO, on his second enlistment.

 

But a lot of officers who bought their commissions were terrible leaders who sacrificed their men in high-risk madcap schemes. Posh officers in WWI were similar. Those who worked their way up through merit were more highly regarded and commanded greater loyalty from their men. Of course there were exceptions to every rule.

It's interesting that you raise the comparator of the American presidency too. Military command is only one aspect of the US President's role in the same way as the captain of a Starship. Having military experience is no indicator that someone has any diplomatic, political, administrative, or economic skill and vice versa. Kirk has had almost no time to demonstrate anything other than a consistent tendency to be insubordinate! How long before he considers the Prime Directive to be a hindrance he can do without?

A classic real world example is the second Iraq war. The military aspect was handled 'efficiently' (although Generation Kill suggests that tactics were flawed even there) but in the aftermath controlling and rebuilding the nation was handled appallingly poorly. My understanding is that Bush and his senior advisors overruled the advice of Colin Powell (who DID have a great deal of mlitary experience) and others and decided that the nation would pretty much rebuild itself.

Kirk has demonstrated a similar short-sighted 'act now and worry later' attitude. He'll succeed because the movies will show his high risk strategies will work and in fairness, without high risk strategies it won't be easy to maintain dramatic tension. I think I'd prefer to see him act sensibly once in a while and demonstrate the efficiency of his crew in sensible ways a bit more often.

 

Why is this fine with you? Why set the bar so incredibly low? Isn't it easier to enjoy entertainment that doesn't insult your intelligence?

Excellent point. Kirk in the TV series was willing to take risks, of course, but not generally wild-ass uncalculated ones. As much as I loved (most of) the original-crew Trek movies, I think one of their shortcomings is the way they reduced Kirk to a shorthand version of his younger self, always ready to defy Starfleet, steal ships, and go off half-cocked at the drop of a hat. It helps raise the stakes in any individual story, of course, but over time it also creates a pattern that seems problematic... and this film takes that and amplifies it by an order of magnitude. Or two.

He's reduced to a caricature of his original self, really. I recognize that one of the maxims of Big Movies is "defy authority," and there are certainly times and places when that's thematically appropriate, but it ignores what Kirk represented in TOS. He was the authority figure, after all... and notwithstanding his (very) occasional need to sidestep a self-important Admiral or somesuch, he kept in mind what that meant. He represented law and justice and a consistent set of principles "out there."

I fear that I'm coming across as some sort of status-quo worshipping authoritarian here, which couldn't be further from the truth. What I'm trying to get at is this: Kirk as we knew him earned the trust of the people around him (above and below), and thus his authority as Captain. He didn't get it handed to him as a result of luck, or chutzpah, or even Destiny. That's all changed now. One big win on one big roll of the dice simply does not mean that he has what it takes to do the job long-term.

(Except, of course, that he will anyway, by dint of Writers' Fiat.)

And oh, FWIW... any sort of analogy whatsoever between Jim Kirk and George W. Bush kinda makes me throw up in my mouth a little...

 

Lol - yeah Kirk is more like John Stewart

Maybe we're coming at this from the wrong angle. Kirk is so insubordinate that they know he'll never make a junior officer without being drummed out of the serivce. So they either promote the guy who saved Earth or drum him out of the service. It looks more like a publicity stunt with Spock there to try and reign him in. I can see them thinking that this dynamic might work - although Spock would have been ordered to join the Enterprise crew rather than just wandering in at the last minute and saying. 'Room for one more?'. How lax is Starfleet administration anyway?

And I'm still not sure why Spock marooned Kirk in the frozen wastes of a dangerous planetoid when he could have beamed him to the brig of the Starfleet outpost unless it was his due to his emotional imbalance.

 

I didn't like the way Kirk was chucked out of the Enterprise wasn't he just telling it how it the situation was any thoughts

 

Yeah, Bush Jr flubbed Iraq for us big time (sheesh). While was in the reserve he lacked the military back ground necessary to understand the military's command. Pres. Obama is lacking in both departments having been only a freshman senator as well as having zero military experience. (Did he buy his way into office?)

So the writers/JJ have ample examples to draw from, both past, and present to justify Star Fleet's position on giving it "all" to Kirk. (I have to keep reminding myself that this is not Star Trek of yore), so they don't feel compelled to follow the rules set set down for believability as emphisized by Roddenberry. Admittedly this does leave them with a good theme to explore in the nu-future films though.

 

That's probably it. Spock had a grudge against Kirk, and treated him more harshly than he would have anyone else.

 

Beaming down officers in that kind of situations must be against regulations even if they are not prisoners.

 

There are two things I want to pose in response to this question:

1.) Where is this deeply intellectual, grad school level philosophy exposition that Trek has done? That's hyperbole, I know, but for intelligent people doesn't Trek rely on suspending their disbelief? It works in varying degrees for different people but I hardly think the newest film is somehow guilty of being dumber than other examples in the Trek film history or that the bar was purposefully set low and then they met it.

2.) I'm with you, in a way, that the film could have been executed better... but at the same time that means more exposition, more dialogue, and subsequently less action. They've tried that formula a bunch of times now (while still trying to maintain the "action movie" status) and it hasn't turned out very well in more cases than not. At least they got half of it right, right? The villain and his motives, the characters and their development leave something to be desired but at least they got the flashy "universally entertaining" stuff kind of right, right? I mean how many more Star Trek: Insurrection's do we need?

-Withers-​

 

Kirk even quoted the regulation (that Spock violated) in his personal log, didn't he? As he was walking across the ice.

 

"... in what I believe to be a violation of security protocol 49.09, governing the treatment of prisoners aboard a star..."

(Interrupted by predator)

I would like to see this answered.

Either in the 10 previous movies and 5 TV series, there has been a lot of this *intellectual stuff*, in which case a more action based movie is great diversity.

Or there hasn't been and you're just whining.

And since when has star trek insulted your intelligence? Stretched your imagination maybe, but not insult your intelligence, unless you think Sci-Fi isn't about imagination?