Star Trek Reboot was amazing. I don't understand the hate!

[UFO]

Kirk's cheat wasn't to win the test, it was to expose the test as a sham. And if the test itself is unfair, why should he play fair when taking it?

I agree. But that's not the way Pine played it. He played Kirk as a cocky and reckless.

A little more thought on Pine and JJs part and the Kirk part would've been nailed down.. just like the actors did with all the other characters.

I guess they thought that way of behaving was "in character" for Kirk at that point or perhaps supporters of the "test is unfair" camp might argue he was treating it with the seriousness it deserved (see Kelso's post above). However lets assume there was also an inquiry in the prime universe (which I doubt) and KirkP reacted the same way. Apart from increasing security for the test and despite Kirks complaints about fairness, they still kept using it, apparently unchanged. To me that seems to suggest that his actions in the prime universe were not regarded as "cheating" since the test was designed to illicit all forms of response, of whick Kirk's was one. At least that might explain the commendation.

In any event Kirk wasn't exposing anything. Everyone knew it was impossible to "win". If anything his actions were more a kind of protest (as Kelso points out). He claimed not to believe in no win scenarios, but the fact he had to change the test to win proves he did believe in at least one!

 

[Therin of Andor]

What is wrong with the idea that Kirk might have been quietly confident?

Not very good box office drama.

Why do you assume that he has to be either a "spineless, uninteresting nerd" or an "antisocial rebel"

I don't.

 

[Franklin]

Kirk's cheat wasn't to win the test, it was to expose the test as a sham. And if the test itself is unfair, why should he play fair when taking it?

I agree. But that's not the way Pine played it. He played Kirk as a cocky and reckless.

A little more thought on Pine and JJs part and the Kirk part would've been nailed down.. just like the actors did with all the other characters.

I guess they thought that way of behaving was "in character" for Kirk at that point or perhaps supporters of the "test is unfair" camp might argue he was treating it with the seriousness it deserved (see Kelso's post above). However lets assume there was also an inquiry in the prime universe (which I doubt) and KirkP reacted the same way. Apart from increasing security for the test and despite Kirks complaints about fairness, they still kept using it, apparently unchanged. To me that seems to suggest that his actions in the prime universe were not regarded as "cheating" since the test was designed to illicit all forms of response, of whick Kirk's was one. At least that might explain the commendation.

In any event Kirk wasn't exposing anything. Everyone knew it was impossible to "win". If anything his actions were more a kind of protest (as Kelso points out). He claimed not to believe in no win scenarios, but the fact he had to change the test to win proves he did believe in at least one!

One thing is the same for Kirks in both universes: to them, the test was useless because it didn't reflect the real world. It's ingrained in Kirk's character that there's always a chance. That belief probably motivates him more highly than anything else. He HAS to believe it to try some of the things he does. It helps give him his confidence. So to that end, how can the K-M be a fair test of his character? It can't be. It stands against everthing he is to be put into that contrived situation.

I've always thought too much focus was put on David Marcus saying, "He cheated," in TWOK. It certainly influenced how the incident was treated in ST09.
But as is quoted above, how does one cheat a test of character? You can't in the academic sense, anyway. Kirk has a point about the K-M test that was worth making.

For what it's worth, Kirk Prime said he reprogrammed the simulation to make it possible to rescue the ship. We have no idea if that means Kirk Prime reprogrammed it and knew going in how to beat the test (as Kirk obvioulsy did in ST09), or he reprogrammed it to create at least a chance to win though he could still fail (which is what I'd like to think Kirk Prime did given how he said it to Saavik -- possible).

Either way, both Kirks are saying the same thing, it's not in my character to believe I can't win. You can't test me this way. In ST09, Kirk made that point blatantly. We'll never know exactly what Kirk Prime did.

 

[Captain Mike]

It is interesting how similar Shatner's version of a young Kirk is to STXI's. The book and film had a very similar vibe, IMO.

It's not similar at all.
Shatner's Kirk was an impetuous teenager that wanted his father's approval. 2009's was just a rebellious little fuck, much like single parent kids raised today, that do things just because they can and Mommy isn't going to do a damn thing about it, because he lost his daddy.
Not similar at all.

 

[F. King Daniel]

It is interesting how similar Shatner's version of a young Kirk is to STXI's. The book and film had a very similar vibe, IMO.

It's not similar at all.
Shatner's Kirk was an impetuous teenager that wanted his father's approval. 2009's was just a rebellious little fuck, much like single parent kids raised today, that do things just because they can and Mommy isn't going to do a damn thing about it, because he lost his daddy.
Not similar at all.

Yeah, it's because he wanted his father's approval that he was boosting cars at the start of the book. And why he tried to frame Spock a little while later.

But it's all forgiven because he wasn't from an unclean single-parent home, right?

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

This must be why David Marcus was such a hellion!! No daddy in the picture.

 

[Franklin]

This must be why David Marcus was such a hellion!! No daddy in the picture.

Playing bridge with his mother, no less!

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Scallywag!

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Well as far as I know, and you may have more information, even Picard wasn’t a NuKirk type bad-boy per se, just a little "enthusiastic" or headstrong (perhaps even excessively loyal!).

Picard was considerably less kind when he described HIMSELF to Wesley and later to Q.

Pike said "that tendency to leap before you look is something I think Starfleet's lost," which makes you wonder what kinds of guys they had in command at this time.

I get the feeling the same guys who decided on NuKirk’s character probably put those words in Pike’s mouth. But it’s a matter of balance and experience isn’t it? Otherwise you just lose a lot of starships.

They DID loose a lot of starships. I'm not saying that's the reason why, but...

To be honest, I have a problem with Kirk’s behavour in both universes. It doesn’t seem like there was an inquiry in the prime universe (they may have simply reasoned as you did above). But the problem remains: In what way is altering a test to your advantage different from breaking the rules by stealing the answers to a normal test ahead of time? That’s traditionally called cheating, not original thinking, so in a way STXI got that part right.

On any other sort of test, that would probably be true. But the Kobyashi Maru test, as Kirk himself points out, is a cheat in itself; it's DESIGNED to produce failure under all circumstances, so cheating on that test has different implications.

When I took calculus in college, our professor gave us his final exam on the first day of class. The following week he announced, to our complete lack of surprise, that every single one of us had failed miserably, which only served to demolish any delusions we had about what we did or did not know and drive home the fact that we would have to put in a LOT of work if we wanted to pass this class.

Now I suppose somebody could have cheated on that test; somebody could have come into class with a calculus app on their iPod and cheated their ass off. They could have gotten 100% on that first exam, which would have completely defeated the purpose of the exercise. But then this person convincingly argues "We're in this class to learn about the applications of calculus in the engineering field. In the real world, apps like this will be accessible all the time, so the real lesson we should be learning is what kinds of real-world problems can be solved using calculus!" The professor aint gonna change his grade, to be sure, but he just might make a note of that one smartass student for making a valid point.

 

[UFO]

Picard was considerably less kind when he described HIMSELF to Wesley and later to Q..

I can’t recall what he actually said, but unless it included having a rap sheet as long as his arm, perhaps he was being his own worst critic. We often are aren’t we?

Otherwise you just lose a lot of starships.

They DID loose a lot of starships. I'm not saying that's the reason why, but...

Well, they did promote nuKirk to command the fleet's newest flagship based on dumb luck and persistence so ...

Now you've got me worried. Here I was being smug about only nuStarfleet being that incompetent.

... But the problem remains: In what way is altering a test to your advantage different from breaking the rules by stealing the answers to a normal test ahead of time? That’s traditionally called cheating, not original thinking, ...

On any other sort of test, that would probably be true. But the Kobyashi Maru test, as Kirk himself points out, is a cheat in itself; it's DESIGNED to produce failure under all circumstances, so cheating on that test has different implications.
...

As you know from reading my more recent posts my thinking on this issue has developed a bit. As I’ve suggested, I believe that on the one hand Kirk is wrong to consider the test a "cheat" since it isn’t actually testing whether he can survive or not (nor is he being marked for that). On the other hand the prime universe examiners may have had a less heavy handed and more flexible attitude to what constitutes "passing", given what they are trying to actually test.

By the way, your analogy might break down near the end because unlike your professor, everyone including the staff knows the mission can’t be completed successfully. If however the professor (and everyone else) knows calculus apps are available, then presumably he has another reason to continue teaching how to do calculus. Assuming he does and isn’t just wasting time, if said student can explain why that reason is invalid, then he might impress the professor. But he won’t do so by telling him something everyone already knows, which is the same problem NuKirk has. I won’t assume KirkP has that problem because he might not have been protesting anything. He may have figured out what the examiners were after and responded accordingly (now that might be a bit of a stretch but we just don’t know).

 

[Crazy Eddie]

By the way, your analogy might break down near the end because unlike your professor, everyone including the staff knows the mission can’t be completed successfully. If however the professor (and everyone else) knows calculus apps are available, then presumably he has another reason to continue teaching how to do calculus. Assuming he does and isn’t just wasting time, if said student can explain why that reason is invalid, then he might impress the professor. But he won’t do so by telling him something everyone already knows, which is the same problem NuKirk has. I won’t assume KirkP has that problem because he might not have been protesting anything. He may have figured out what the examiners were after and responded accordingly (now that might be a bit of a stretch but we just don’t know).

I think in both cases Kirk is just trying to make a point, not so much a protest but a desire to disprove the Academy's contention that there are some problems that simply don't have answers. It's an honest disagreement with the faculty, and he expresses that disagreement in a novel way.

In the case of the impossible-to-pass first day exam, cheating on the exam sort of demonstrates that knowing calculus and knowing how to use calculus are not necessarily the same thing. He probably wouldn't change his professor's mind on how he teaches the class, but it would make for an interesting discussion during the next lecture to say the least.

And that discussion, FAR more than the test, is where a lot of the learning happens. I think that was the whole point of the inquiry for Kirk: the board already knew, more or less, what Kirk did and why he did it, but for the benefit of the rest of the class they wanted to get it all out into the open where it could be debated.

 

[Franklin]

By the way, your analogy might break down near the end because unlike your professor, everyone including the staff knows the mission can’t be completed successfully. If however the professor (and everyone else) knows calculus apps are available, then presumably he has another reason to continue teaching how to do calculus. Assuming he does and isn’t just wasting time, if said student can explain why that reason is invalid, then he might impress the professor. But he won’t do so by telling him something everyone already knows, which is the same problem NuKirk has. I won’t assume KirkP has that problem because he might not have been protesting anything. He may have figured out what the examiners were after and responded accordingly (now that might be a bit of a stretch but we just don’t know).

I think in both cases Kirk is just trying to make a point, not so much a protest but a desire to disprove the Academy's contention that there are some problems that simply don't have answers. It's an honest disagreement with the faculty, and he expresses that disagreement in a novel way.

In the case of the impossible-to-pass first day exam, cheating on the exam sort of demonstrates that knowing calculus and knowing how to use calculus are not necessarily the same thing. He probably wouldn't change his professor's mind on how he teaches the class, but it would make for an interesting discussion during the next lecture to say the least.

And that discussion, FAR more than the test, is where a lot of the learning happens. I think that was the whole point of the inquiry for Kirk: the board already knew, more or less, what Kirk did and why he did it, but for the benefit of the rest of the class they wanted to get it all out into the open where it could be debated.

Since he played it straight the first two times, I'd think the Academy would look at rigging the test the third time he took it far differently than if he'd rigged it the first time. If this is what happened to Kirk Prime, it's probably why he was commended for original thinking. A strong argument can be made that the test is flawed, and NuKirk started the discussion in Hollywood style.

What I can't understand is how Spock believed Kirk's father faced a real life no-win scenario. That wasn't the case at all. Kirk's dad had to save his crew, and facing overwhelming odds, he succeeded. In what would certainly look like a no-win situation against a huge ship with superior arms, George Kirk saved his crew. What the hell was Spock thinking?

 

[UFO]

I think in both cases Kirk is just trying to make a point, not so much a protest but a desire to disprove the Academy's contention that there are some problems that simply don't have answers. It's an honest disagreement with the faculty, and he expresses that disagreement in a novel way.

I see what you mean, but if Kirk is making a point, that is effectively a type of protest against the status quo, which I suspect is why I used it. I do agree Both Kirks were making a point but they could have made their views known in a less provocative way, but perhaps KirkP knew that the "test" was about observing how students responded, and in that sense not a test you can "cheat" on, as Franklin wrote:

I've always thought too much focus was put on David Marcus saying, "He cheated," in TWOK. It certainly influenced how the incident was treated in ST09.

But as is quoted above, how does one cheat a test of character? You can't in the academic sense, anyway. Kirk has a point about the K-M test that was worth making.

In any event, neither of the Kirks established their point. Both had to alter the test to win which tends to defeat their argument. I mean, they couldn’t have altered real life in the same way. The best they could say is that reality might have some variables not included in the simulation, but they can hardly guarantee that (so there could be real no-win scenarios). Despite that, I have no problem with him putting forward his view. I do think nuTrek went down the wrong road with this however by taking such a hard line (viewing it as a disciplinary matter).

And that discussion, FAR more than the test, is where a lot of the learning happens. I think that was the whole point of the inquiry for Kirk: the board already knew, more or less, what Kirk did and why he did it, but for the benefit of the rest of the class they wanted to get it all out into the open where it could be debated.

By putting Kirks career in jeopardy and by having one of the members of the board actually describe Kirk’s actions as cheating? It seems a bit over the top if all they wanted was a debate. And of course it was called an "inquiry". Indeed it started with: "This session has been called to resolve a troubling matter". Worse, they placed him on academic suspension. They were sure playing hard-ball. Now maybe all that was part of the tempering process I mentioned earlier but I’m not sure it was successful. Granted we can’t know what might have happened if it had continued, but as I say, I think it was too heavy handed. By the way, if discussions are more important for learning than the test you took (and I see your point), perhaps your professor should change the way he does things. I do agree with many of you sentiments, I’m just less convinced that’s exactly what was going on in STXI.

Since he played it straight the first two times, I'd think the Academy would look at rigging the test the third time he took it far differently than if he'd rigged it the first time. If this is what happened to Kirk Prime, it's probably why he was commended for original thinking.

I’ve wondered that myself but does it help or hurt him? The other way to look at it is he just got so frustrated the first two times, the desire to win forced him to "cheat" .

Doesn’t the fact he could take it three times also suggest its not really a test as such but more a learning exercise the academy just took notes on?

What I can't understand is how Spock believed Kirk's father faced a real life no-win scenario. That wasn't the case at all.

Spock said "the captain cannot cheat death". Not sure if that's going down with his ship(!) but he seemed to mean it more personally. Certainly in the bigger picture Kirk's father salvaged quite a bit from the situation however.

 

[Lynx]

I don't like reboots.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

It was the greatest movie ever made.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

By the way, your analogy might break down near the end because unlike your professor, everyone including the staff knows the mission can’t be completed successfully. If however the professor (and everyone else) knows calculus apps are available, then presumably he has another reason to continue teaching how to do calculus. Assuming he does and isn’t just wasting time, if said student can explain why that reason is invalid, then he might impress the professor. But he won’t do so by telling him something everyone already knows, which is the same problem NuKirk has. I won’t assume KirkP has that problem because he might not have been protesting anything. He may have figured out what the examiners were after and responded accordingly (now that might be a bit of a stretch but we just don’t know).

I think in both cases Kirk is just trying to make a point, not so much a protest but a desire to disprove the Academy's contention that there are some problems that simply don't have answers. It's an honest disagreement with the faculty, and he expresses that disagreement in a novel way.

In the case of the impossible-to-pass first day exam, cheating on the exam sort of demonstrates that knowing calculus and knowing how to use calculus are not necessarily the same thing. He probably wouldn't change his professor's mind on how he teaches the class, but it would make for an interesting discussion during the next lecture to say the least.

And that discussion, FAR more than the test, is where a lot of the learning happens. I think that was the whole point of the inquiry for Kirk: the board already knew, more or less, what Kirk did and why he did it, but for the benefit of the rest of the class they wanted to get it all out into the open where it could be debated.

Since he played it straight the first two times, I'd think the Academy would look at rigging the test the third time he took it far differently than if he'd rigged it the first time. If this is what happened to Kirk Prime, it's probably why he was commended for original thinking. A strong argument can be made that the test is flawed, and NuKirk started the discussion in Hollywood style.

What I can't understand is how Spock believed Kirk's father faced a real life no-win scenario. That wasn't the case at all. Kirk's dad had to save his crew, and facing overwhelming odds, he succeeded. In what would certainly look like a no-win situation against a huge ship with superior arms, George Kirk saved his crew. What the hell was Spock thinking?

There seems to be some debate about that in Starfleet, actually. As Pike says, it depends on how you define winning. Some consider the loss of the ship to be a loss period, but I think there's a school of thought that says the CREW is more important than the ship.

 

[Franklin]

I think in both cases Kirk is just trying to make a point, not so much a protest but a desire to disprove the Academy's contention that there are some problems that simply don't have answers. It's an honest disagreement with the faculty, and he expresses that disagreement in a novel way.

In the case of the impossible-to-pass first day exam, cheating on the exam sort of demonstrates that knowing calculus and knowing how to use calculus are not necessarily the same thing. He probably wouldn't change his professor's mind on how he teaches the class, but it would make for an interesting discussion during the next lecture to say the least.

And that discussion, FAR more than the test, is where a lot of the learning happens. I think that was the whole point of the inquiry for Kirk: the board already knew, more or less, what Kirk did and why he did it, but for the benefit of the rest of the class they wanted to get it all out into the open where it could be debated.

Since he played it straight the first two times, I'd think the Academy would look at rigging the test the third time he took it far differently than if he'd rigged it the first time. If this is what happened to Kirk Prime, it's probably why he was commended for original thinking. A strong argument can be made that the test is flawed, and NuKirk started the discussion in Hollywood style.

What I can't understand is how Spock believed Kirk's father faced a real life no-win scenario. That wasn't the case at all. Kirk's dad had to save his crew, and facing overwhelming odds, he succeeded. In what would certainly look like a no-win situation against a huge ship with superior arms, George Kirk saved his crew. What the hell was Spock thinking?

There seems to be some debate about that in Starfleet, actually. As Pike says, it depends on how you define winning. Some consider the loss of the ship to be a loss period, but I think there's a school of thought that says the CREW is more important than the ship.

Obviously, we're in the realm of the unknown here, but perhaps there's a rule in the K-M test that cadets can't make it a suicide mission. Perhaps they are also told that success isn't just defined by saving the K-M crew, but also keeping your ship intact.

Maybe they don't want cadets to stoop to acts of desperation and the test ends when those options are the only ones left or a cadet attempts one.

The Kelvin was doomed. The only options George Kirk had were save himself or his crew -- but not both. He used the ship to save his crew. In a way it's not much different than what Decker tried to do in "Doomsday Machine". In Kirk's case, that's certainly winning in my book.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I don't like reboots.

Fortunately for Star Trek, millions upon millions of perfectly intelligent people feel otherwise.

 

[jpch]

I don't like reboots.

Fortunately for Star Trek, millions upon millions of perfectly intelligent people feel otherwise.

we all want star trek to be back but i think you are gonna have a hell of a time convincing TNG/DS9/VOY Loyal fans that this new movie is on the same lvl and is as good as the series.
they just transformed it into a shooter/action/Alpha male bullshit in my opinion. just to attract none trekkies there is no problem with that,but it will never have the same flare and class of TNG ERA TREK. im certain gene Roddenberry in heaven is asking God to throw a few lightning bolts at JJ now

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

It is the greatest movie ever made.

Wait, did I say that already?

The first time I saw it when the metal letters spelling out S T A R T R E K rotated onto the screen I felt stabbed with joy because it was just so damn good. And yes I am a "Loyal fan" of the other series, loyal fan since the 70's.