Could it be that the Pavel Chekov in ST XI isn't the same Chekov?
- Thread starter Cadet49
- Start date
Re: Differences between FC/INS Sovereign & NEM Sovereign?
You make it sound as if changing the characters' ages is actually a problem and affected the film in any way.
It isn't and it didn't.
You make it sound as if changing the characters' ages is actually a problem and affected the film in any way.
It isn't and it didn't.
Re: Differences between FC/INS Sovereign & NEM Sovereign?
Only within the confines of a simplified plot. Having different characters with different levels of experience can add a lot of colour to a story. Why would a bunch of rookies be given command of a starship? What did Uhura actually do to justify her being a Chief Comms officer at age 19? Sulu forgot to take the handbrake off - Chief Helmsman material? Kirk has no diplomatic experience at all and a history of insubordination - pat on the back and off you go (Star Trekkin anybody?). Scotty is a rule-breaking, risk-taking buffoon. Chekov is 17 and freshly qualified so lets leave him in command of the bridge in a time of crisis. This wasn't a training cruise. Making almost the entire crew so inexperienced just makes Starfleet look really incompetent, that stretches credibilty and that can be irritating. So for some people, it DOES affect the film - it's very subjective.
Only McCoy and Spock appear to be fully qualified and demonstrate the skill for their TOS Starship positions.
Only within the confines of a simplified plot. Having different characters with different levels of experience can add a lot of colour to a story. Why would a bunch of rookies be given command of a starship? What did Uhura actually do to justify her being a Chief Comms officer at age 19? Sulu forgot to take the handbrake off - Chief Helmsman material? Kirk has no diplomatic experience at all and a history of insubordination - pat on the back and off you go (Star Trekkin anybody?). Scotty is a rule-breaking, risk-taking buffoon. Chekov is 17 and freshly qualified so lets leave him in command of the bridge in a time of crisis. This wasn't a training cruise. Making almost the entire crew so inexperienced just makes Starfleet look really incompetent, that stretches credibilty and that can be irritating. So for some people, it DOES affect the film - it's very subjective.
Only McCoy and Spock appear to be fully qualified and demonstrate the skill for their TOS Starship positions.
I thought it was made pretty clear that most of Starfleet was elsewhere and what ships they had available were staffed with cadets (plus a few experienced officers on top, like Captain Pike, Spock and presumably Engineer Olsen, Dr. Puri and Helmsman McKenna). Remember that they thought they were on a mission to evacuate an earthquake zone, not save the galaxy from an insane future-Romulan miner with a grudge against Spock.
Yes it was implied that there were more experienced crew (if Olsen was any example then maybe the cadets really are the best they have). However, the key bridge stations remain staffed by cadets throughout the crisis whereas normally senior personnel would be put in place (such as on TNG). A cadet with no active command experience is promoted to first officer over the ship's second officer. I can see what they needed to do for plot purposes but it was their own unlikely plot that painted themselves into that corner. That doesn't make it acceptable or clever.
I suppose in fairness you could argue that they thought a mercy mission might be good practice for a bunch of cadets but no ship should lack qualified crew to supervise those cadets. We see no consultation with any senior crew other than Spock and any suggestion that all the senior crew all over the ship were killed in the attack would just be another silly credibility-stretching sticking plaster (band-aid) for a childish plot.
Last edited:
Only three of them went to the Academy together, though: Kirk, Uhura, and McCoy. Spock, Scotty, and Sulu already had their careers underway. Chekov might have been fresh out of the Academy, but that would mean he's beyond cadet status.
While I would agree that some of the senior staff positions are questionable, I would have to ask:
-is Uhura really 19? I thought she was close to graduating. She was in Starfleet before Kirk was, after all. She was also shown to be the more confident and better linguist than their chief comms officer at the time.
-While Sulu may or may not be chief helmsman material, I think the handbrake mishap is a little harsh -- he proved himself in battle twice in the film, volunteering right after his embarrassing flub the first time and actually leading the ship the second time. Plus, who knows how long the actual chief helmsman had lungworm?
-While yes, the movie overemphasized Scotty's joke nature from the TOS films, we're also talking about the guy who would regularly lie to the captain about repair times so that he could be seen as a miracle worker, as well as the guy who sabotaged Excelsior and drank a Kelvin under the table.
kkozoriz1
Fleet Captain
I don't recall any mention of Sulu not being at the Academy. In fact, other than Pike, Spock and likely yhe late CMO Puri were the only crew members who were not cadets prior to Scott's arrival.
Well as far as I'm aware, TOS Uhura was born in 2239, which would make her 19 in 2258. Maybe she was born earlier too? I'm sure that Sulu wasn't intended to be chief helmsman in the movie (he seems to have skipped his stint as a physicist altogether) but I would expect him to fill that role in the next movie. The point I was making is that he does nothing in the movie to justify such a position over and above other helmsmen that one assumes Starfleet has who have greater experience than him (that is to say CHIEF helmsman). In making all the main characters inexperienced at the same time it makes a mockery of the notion that a decent work ethic can lead to rewards - it's instant gratification for the Iphone generation. Trek may be cheesy fantasy but I lament it losing some levels of realism that it used to have.
Uhura's age is unknown. The birthdate of 2239 is pure speculation from the 1994 Star Trek Chronology book, based on Nichelle Nichols' age when she did TOS (her age +300)
Yeah I think that was how most of the TOS character ages were calculated, although I can't be sure that her age has never appeared on some computer screen somewhere. Still, like Nyota, which only officially became canon in the last movie, it's generally accepted.
I think Rand's DOB appeared on a screen in the background of Flashback, aging the character 10 years from what her unofficial age was (from a line that was cut from the Miri script) but in line with the actress's real age.
The only concrete ages given to the main characters during the run of the series were for Kirk and Chekov, 34 and 22. Both were roughly the same ages as the actors portraying them.
Mr. Nitpicky in me got a little snooty about how George Kirk's death could have changed so many details, but the less-anal side shrugged it off. There's nothing in the film that says the original, pre-Nero timeline was the 1966 TV series. While Nimoy was included to legitimize the passing of the torch, he was just an actor playing old Spock. He could just as easily have been asked to simply do a cameo as an elder, something like the Lost in Space movie did.
I get more cranky about bad story points and plot holes than the character age thing.
Mr. Nitpicky in me got a little snooty about how George Kirk's death could have changed so many details, but the less-anal side shrugged it off. There's nothing in the film that says the original, pre-Nero timeline was the 1966 TV series. While Nimoy was included to legitimize the passing of the torch, he was just an actor playing old Spock. He could just as easily have been asked to simply do a cameo as an elder, something like the Lost in Space movie did.
I get more cranky about bad story points and plot holes than the character age thing.
And then TAS more or less gave Spock's age as 37 during "Yesteryear", given that his younger self was seven sharp when his older self traveled back in time 30 years. But the vagaries of timing specific TOS or TAS episodes mean that there could be a couple of years of leeway for the birthdates even if one generally subscribes to the "airdate plus three centuries" view on the classic adventures.
Certainly the Kirk and Spock timelines could stretch and bend enough to keep TOS and STXI fully compatible, whilst the Chekov timeline doesn't really allow for the two Chekovs to have been born in the same year.
Timo Saloniemi
Kirk's age was 34 in Season 2 (Year 3)? Spock was 37 in TAS (year 5)? At the time, I always assumed that Spock was about the same age as McCoy because Vulcans age more slowly but I think the writers just went ahead and assumed that he was roughly the same age as Nimoy. I think Rand's age (allegedly shown on screen in Flashback) makes her roughly the same age as Spock?
The aminated episode "The Counter-Clock Incident" implies a much older Spock. He's a teenager (funtional enough to fly the ship) when everyone but Bob and Sarah April are toddlers.
Teenager? The nature of the animation allows, nay, leads us to think he's the same age as in the "Yesteryear" flashbacks or the early scenes of STXI... If anything, his features are even more rounded in "Counter-Clock" than in "Yesteryear", his height even less.
At sevenish, he probably would outfly Anakin Skywalker.
Timo Saloniemi
At sevenish, he probably would outfly Anakin Skywalker.
Timo Saloniemi
Similar threads
