He looked to be the only one there. If you see others there let me know cause I completely missed them.
Problem with Kirk's immediate promotion to Captain
- Thread starter Sisko_is_my_captain
- Start date
He looked to be the only one there. If you see others there let me know cause I completely missed them.
Private box. Mom and Sam might be in another one. Old Spock's on the DL.
It seems to me that this back-and-forth on what (if anything) OldSpock told Starfleet, and how much that might have influenced Kirk's promotion, and (as came up earlier) how much time passed before that ceremony, and who attended that ceremony, and so forth, just serve to exemplify once again the basic storytelling approach taken at so many points in this film:
"Stuff happened. Don't ask why or how, don't puzzle over the missing details, don't worry if it doesn't seem to make sense. Just trust us."
"Stuff happened. Don't ask why or how, don't puzzle over the missing details, don't worry if it doesn't seem to make sense. Just trust us."
We are talking about the same franchise right? There have been plenty of times in trek where "stuff happens" and we don't get all the details. And then we, as fans, try to fill in the gaps.
One example, how did Kahn recognize chekov? He wasn't on the show yet.
Well, maybe he was on the ship, just not on the screen. No one questions it really.
Okay, either you can say that "fans try to fill in the gaps," or that "no one questions it really," but not both at once, because they're incompatible.
I think fans do care about having things explained... and certainly Khan recognizing Chekov was something that prompted a lot of discussion and speculation at the time (and thereafter).
Trouble is, the writers of this movie fairly clearly don't want fans to pay that kind of attention. They don't want to put in the effort to make their story make sense. They'd prefer much lower expectations. That's my complaint.
The same sort of complaint was frequently (and legitimately) leveled against Berman and Braga, so why isn't it fair to direct it at Abrams, Orci & Kurtzman?
Actually, you can say both because some fans question every minute detail, others don't. It's not all or nothing.
And sure, question it all you like. But why is it fair to paint Wrath of Kahn as a great movie (which it was in my opinion), and at the same time call the new movie a total waste of money and an affront to fandom as many, MANY people have done?
Sure, the plots got holes, but I don't think they are as big as people say unless they are purposefully looking for them. And I'd like to see one movie that didn't have plot holes.
I agree that TWOK was a great movie.
And I haven't claimed that Trek09 was "a total waste of money and an affront to fandom," or anything like it. What I've done is to disagree with the people who insist that it's a great movie, and done my best to explain the reasons why.
I'd argue that the plot holes and contrivances in Trek09 are both too huge and too numerous to ignore. (I'd also argue that it's fomulaic and clichéd, thematically vacant, scientifically illiterate, and that it turns most of the characters into cartoonish caricatures of themselves.)Kaziari said:
I think it's a discussion worth having. Otherwise, the logical upshot of your statement here is that since no story is perfect, no story deserves criticism either: a position of total relativism. I think there are legitimate differences of degree that are worth exploring. Some movies are worse than others, and this is one.
(FWIW, I was very critical about STV back in '89 as well. However, I was far less concerned about its potential impact on future Trek.)
I didn't say you claimed it was a total waste of money and an affront to fandom, I said many people have. And if "disagree" means shoot down and disregard, sure, I've seen that.
And I'd personally argue the opposite. As far as being formulaic, cliched, thematically vacant, scientifically illiterate, and cartoonish caricatures trek has been like that from the beginning. (The smart alien, cowboy hero guy, villains with bad accents.)
Some movies are genuinely bad, I agree. And criticism is fine, but what I see in regards to this movie time and time again is things like "It must be the young people who like it," and "Only those of us old enough to see trek originally truly understand it." Thats not criticism, thats just bashing other people's opinion.
Okay, so if I didn't say it, nor anybody else in this thread, who are you arguing against? It's a straw man.
You know, don't take this personally, because you're not the only one doing it, but I'm starting to find it really disquieting how many people on these boards are ready to defame the original Star Trek by way of defending this movie. It was not "like that from the beginning." Trek at its worst moments may occasionally have sunk to that level, but it aspired to considerably more, and at its best moments — and indeed on an average over time — it achieved it. To say that this movie is no worse than the worst of past Trek is hardly a glowing endorsement. I don't know how anybody who thinks that's all original Trek ever was could plausibly have been a fan of the show in the first place.Kaziarl said:
Again, not me, not anyone I've seen in this thread. (Or any other, even; who has made these age-based distinctions? I didn't see Star Trek in its first run myself — that was before my time.) And I've gone out of my way to emphasize that people are entitled to enjoy what they like (Hell, some people enjoy watching low-grade zombie pictures)... while still arguing my case that this isn't actually a good movie, regardless.Kaziarl said:
How much, if any of that is actually important to the story, the film or the audience? What OldSpock tells Starfleet? Zero importance. No impact on the story at all. At best fodder for future stories and fan speculation. Passage of time before the ceremony. Slightly more important for folks concerned about the Kirk rapid promotion. Impact on the the story told, not much. Who's at the ceremony. Other than Kirk and Pike, not important at all. OldSpock being there gives it a nice passing the torch feel. The scenes serve as an epilogue/coda and not part of the story at large. The idea that there has to be a "debrief" scene with Spock or guestlist for the ceremony shows more of a lack of basic storytelling knowledge than anything presented by the writers.
If it's fodder for "fan speculation" (as this thread demonstrates), then at the very least it's important to the audience... and IMHO what's important to the audience is relevant to the story. Certainly a bit more information on this particular point might've helped resolve the unanswered question animating the "Why didn't OldSpock try to correct the timeline?" thread.
But concern over that "rapid promotion" is the entire point of this thread, since in the view of quite a few people it's a sufficiently glaring SNAFU that it does negatively impact "the story told." (Insofar as that story is "Jim Kirk's origins," at least, as opposed to "Nero's defeat.")Nerys Myk said:
If all this stuff were really so insignificant that it didn't merit any attention in the story, then no one would be bothered by any of it, would they? Because the story would hang together on its own terms without any glaring implausibilities. As it stands, it doesn't.
Last edited:
A small segment of the audience. Fans who are obsessive over minutia and continuity. The same people who wonder if V'Ger was connected to the Borg, if Saavik was pregnant and who Sarek's son married. Less than 5% would be my guess.
I'm "concerned" over Kirk's rapid promotion, but it doesn't change how I look at the movie or negatively impact on my opinion of Kirk.
People are bothered by alot of things in movies. From costume gaffs to what happened to character X. That a statistically insignificant number of fans on a website are bothered by this stuff isn't relevent enough to make it an actually problem that needs to be addressed in the film. Every film raises "questions" that the film "fails" to address that causes some veiwer to say "why" or what". Spock not being shown giving Starfleet a future checklist is not a "glaring implausiblility". It has no bearing in the story. Who was at Kirk's promotion is another non-starter. Kirk's promotion to Captain actually has some traction. Though "nepotism" from Pike or Spock doesn't seem likely. PR poster boy is what I like. Might be fun to have Kirk frustrated by being sent on a "good will tour" and winds up with a real mission through his Kirkian wile.
did kirk go throw a rapid promotion.
perhaps but improbable things happening based on the situation have happened since the earliest days of sf.
he was very probably already a lt.
considering he had gone through the academy in three years he probably has already done stellar things along the way.
he had just played a very prominent role in saving the federation.
and if anyone made a case for kirk it would make more sense that it was pike instead of spock prime.
perhaps but improbable things happening based on the situation have happened since the earliest days of sf.
he was very probably already a lt.
considering he had gone through the academy in three years he probably has already done stellar things along the way.
he had just played a very prominent role in saving the federation.
and if anyone made a case for kirk it would make more sense that it was pike instead of spock prime.
Pike's view of Kirk isn't objective though. He's in love with the idea of an heroic George Kirk and gives young Kirk a lot of rope as a result. Spock Prime's view of NuKirk isn't objective either, bizarrely. Yes, he IS Jim Kirk but objectively Spock knows full well that the change in his history can lead to massive changes in character (e.g. the change from a book worm to a rebel with a serious problem with authority). He knows this from his experiences with Mirror Kirk.
Objectively, the fact that Kirk was very lucky and his risky plan worked doesn't detract from the fact that Starfleet must know that sooner or later his luck will run out if he doesn't moderate his risk taking. That doesn't make him good captain material YET.
HOWEVER - we also know that mind melds work both ways. Itis entirely possible that the reflection of Spock's memories will moderate Kirk in future. However, I don't see how Starfleet could take that into account. Their decision still seems ill-judged and premature to me.
Objectively, the fact that Kirk was very lucky and his risky plan worked doesn't detract from the fact that Starfleet must know that sooner or later his luck will run out if he doesn't moderate his risk taking. That doesn't make him good captain material YET.
HOWEVER - we also know that mind melds work both ways. Itis entirely possible that the reflection of Spock's memories will moderate Kirk in future. However, I don't see how Starfleet could take that into account. Their decision still seems ill-judged and premature to me.
You're implying that up until this movie all ranking decisions were completely logical in ST.
No, he's not implying that. Nor does he need to support such an absurd proposition in order to assert that the skipping of ranks in this story was particularly egregious.
