STID realistic?
- Thread starter Grendelsbayne
- Start date
Precisely.
Of all the batshit insane things that Trek has pulled out of its ass from day one, landing the ship on a planet and submerging it is the unbelievable thing?
Prespective people.
Actually our comsats have gotten larger and larger. Chips have to be space rated. Kids had Pentium IVs and beyond by the time the 486 was ready for space. Optics still have to be large--as all light buckets.
I don't know. Then again, how many other COMMAND officers are on the Enterprise? Kirk, Sulu, Chekov and god knows who else have all taken temporary command of the ship when the CO is off the bridge. If Kirk and Spock were both killed on an away mission, Sulu would take command, and he would probably STAY in command until Starfleet came up with a very strong reason to replace him.
It could very well be that Starfleet officers are so highly trained in their jobs that the command officer's main skill set is his ability to "see the big picture" and coordinate all the different specialists under his command. In that sense, another analogy might be the practice of businesses to hire business-school graduates for management jobs despite the fact that some of those graduates have never run anything more complicated than a gas station.
No, she had the science officer's job; she just had to do all the REAL work while the Captain took all the credit.
Starfleet isn't a Navy.
Yep. As Kirk said to one of his students, "We learn by doing."
Of course not. The Enterprise is a ship, one which Kirk has -- through valorous conduct -- demonstrated himself fit to command.
Apparently it doesn't take much. You have to be smart enough to do the job (that's what the tests are for) and have the strength of character to do what is needed no matter what else is going on. Kirk's test scores are apparently second to none, but his CHARACTER was called into question with the Nibiru Fiasco. Those questions were decisively answered the moment Kirk climbed into the Enterprise's warp core and reset the damn thing in a cloud of radiation.
Except Kirk got there in rather different circumstances, if that's what you mean. I was suggesting that the label "chief science officer on USS Grissom" makes her position sound more grand than it may have been if the Grissom was only a small vessel with one relatively junior science officer.
Neither Prime Kirk or Picard (or likely any other captan in SF) were promoted to command capital ships fresh out of the academy so that probably isn't the Sarfleet Way. Besides, your analogy might be closer if such "business-school graduates" were placed in charge of the companies that hire them or given a seat on their boards.
Well it's also "a humanitarian and peacekeeping armada" (technically the Federation) I suppose, but I always thought that was more what they did that what the are.
And nuKirk hadn't really done that much when first promoted to command the Enterprise. Ironically, having been in the job for a year or so when he was demoted, he at least had some working experience of the job by that stage.
Not necessarily, courage, duty and loyalty are only parts of his character and don't guarantee he is the right person to command a Starship. Test scores aren't experience either. It does all help of course.
But saying he got the Enterprise "through valorous conduct" still make it sound like a bunch of flowers (or a medal).By the way, it has been suggested here previously that Kirk lost his command due to lying on his report to Starfleet rather than breaking the Prime Directive, which did save a sentient species afterall. I tend to agree. I imagine that is your impression too, given how often the PD gets broken.
Last time I checked, Kirk is not in charge of Starfleet.
If you believe the tie-in materials (and you're clearly meant to given the references in the movie) he's actually been in command of the Enterprise for about a year before the Nibiru mission.
Starfleet gave him a medal. Giving him the Enterprise was Pike's idea.Not necessarily, courage, duty and loyalty are only parts of his character and don't guarantee he is the right person to command a Starship. Test scores aren't experience either. It does all help of course.
Something else to consider is that it may not actually take a great deal of knowledge and experience to command a starship (Hell, Doctor Crusher even did this once). On the contrary, it takes a lot of knowledge and experience to be a GREAT commander of a starship. KirkPrime was arguably one of the best commanders in Starfleet history, a legend in his own time. NuKirk isn't much better off than J.T. Esteban.
Exactly right. If Kirk had simply been upfront about how the Nibiru mission went down and owned up to his responsibility in the mission, Pike would have reprimanded him and sent him on his way. But falsifying his reports is a GIGANTIC no-no with serious implications otherwise.
It doesn't even appear that there was a problem with Kirk's judgement or command abilities. The problem seemed to be his capacity to face the consequences of his actions in a mature, adult way.
That does surprise me.
Actually it seemed you were equating one company to one capital ship (both having sub departments where less experienced people might learn the ropes). Starfleet gave him a medal. Giving him the Enterprise was Pike's idea.Not necessarily, courage, duty and loyalty are only parts of his character and don't guarantee he is the right person to command a Starship. Test scores aren't experience either. It does all help of course.
Pike is part of Starfleet so its like SF gave him two medals.
Oh, I'm sure Starfleet academy can teach almost anyone to sit in a captain's seat, most of the time. But my point is the more experience someone has, the better they can deal with the unexpected or difficult situations.
Indeed. So at least in some ways Kirk wasn't ready when he was originally promoted to the job and still wasn't a year later. Going thought the ranks a little more would help identify and sort out issues potential captains might have I suggest. Then again we might both be under valuing the day to day requirements of a captain even when such decisions aren't quite so "Earth shaking".
I still don't see what the problem would have been adding a "X Years Later" subtitle to the moment Kirk stepped in the bridge at the end of the 2009 film, unless the writers knew from the get go that they were gonna have Kirk mess up in the second film. IMO, I rather watch the more experienced Kirk rather than the novice Kirk. If it had to be done for one film, fine, but not two. Perhaps the next film will move on with a more experienced Kirk, I hope. That was one of the pleasant things of SKYFALL, instead of continuing with Novice Bond, which should have just been with CASINO ROYALE instead of two films, the third film instead took place years later showing Bond as a veteran 00 agent who had already gone past his rough edges and seen his share of adventures. Will the next Trek film take place during the second year of their five year mission? The fourth? The final? I'll be interested in where they're heading, as long as they don't keep stretching up this Kirk Begins storyline any further.
As you put it so elegantly these have been "batshit insane things" "from day one" yet did not prevent the nuTrek producers to further develop, feature and highlight these "batshit insane things".
Bob
Is there a reason why it should?
As you put it so elegantly these have been "batshit insane things" "from day one" yet did not prevent the nuTrek producers to further develop, feature and highlight these "batshit insane things".
Bob
You mean the nuTrek producers deliberately developped, featured and highlighted insane things of the previous series and films? 
Bob
Bob
Nonsensical does not equal fun. And the bottom line is, there was no reason at all for the Enterprise to dive underwater. None at all. I don't care about the science of it or anything, but there should have been some attempt to provide a story reason for why they submerged the ship. Which there wasn't.
Sure there was. Kirk was immature and doing things the way he wanted regardless of regulations or common-sense.
It's pretty much in the film if you pay attention.
Even that's stretching it. "We have to make sure this primitive society which has no form of technology doesn't see the ship. If we stay in orbit there's no way they can see it at all." "Better take under water. Just to really make sure they don't see us."
The absurdity IS the point. I've just rewatched the film and I was reminded of an aspect of it that I like more each time I view it (same goes for the first): somethings are left unexplained. There is no need to provide a "story reason" for the ship being underwater. We are simply coming into the story mid-stream. We can use our imaginations to come up with all sorts of reasons why it's there (as have been offered here and elsewhere) or we can ignore the reason and "go with the story as is". When did it become necessary for every single action or situation in a movie to have an explicit explanation in the movie? I absolutely HATE when movies do that--I'm not an infant, I can reason things out for myself.
Exactly.
It's clearly a case of "wouldn't it look cool if the Enterprise came out of the ocean?" I probably would have just had the Enterprise emerge from the clouds, to the natives it looks like this object is coming straight from the heavens, therefore it must be a god. However, I suppose the filmmakers wanted it really up close to really get a feel for how massive it is, rather than seeing it from a distance.
"Realistic" doesn't either. In fact, when it comes to science fiction, it's usually the OPPOSITE of fun.
The ADF novelization mentions that the entire island -- and the Volcano in particular -- were chock full of ferromagnetic materials that were screwing with their sensors, and transporter functions were limited to just a couple of kilometers. They had to be extremely close and within a direct line of sight to beam anyone down at all.
That's probably a post-hoc justification, of course. The Rule of Cool pretty much covers it.
Similar threads
