Problem with Kirk's immediate promotion to Captain

Oops, sorry, the politics were not on my mind as I wrote that.

 

When a commanding officer is relived it means they transfer command to their replacement. It is not like a temporary relief captain on a civilians vessel.

Yes it does. Admirals are above ship command billets.

 

I meant in *Starfleet* they can.

And even if Kirk's position as Captain is permanent, that still doesn't mean he has to have the RANK of Captain. Not yet. Let him have the rank of Lt. Cmdr. but the position of Captain.

 

I would like to note that all three captains (Robau, Pike and Kirk) are shown with what looks like Modern day LCDR rank insignia.

 

^ Not the same thing. In the TOS era, the insignia for a full Captain is two solid stripes and one broken stripe. Repeat: That's a *full* Captain, i.e. an O-6 Captain. So therefore, Robau, Pike and Kirk all have the actual rank of Captain.

That same insignia (two solid, one broken), in the modern day US Navy, is indeed a LCDR insignia. But that's irrelevant, since we're only talking about Starfleet, not the US Navy.

 

^

I know, I was going to prove that Kirk was a LCDR, until I checked the other captains rank insignia. What i'm now trying to figure out is where are the missed ranks? Do they exist, and what do they look like?

 

It works exactly like the Original Series rank structure (up to Captain):

Ensign = no stripe
Lieutenant J.G. = 1 thin stripe
Lieutenant = 1 normal stripe
Lieutenant Commander = 1 normal and 1 thin
Commander = 2 normal
Captain = 2 normal and 1 thin

 

Cool thanks.

 

Then why engage in it? You're committing the fallacy of the excluded middle. I say that that it should aspire to being more than just "a popcorn movie... made to entertain not to follow 'realistic' change of commands," and you respond by demanding past examples of "grad school level philosophy"? That's not what I'm looking for, as should be self-evident. What I want is smart, thoughtful action-adventure storytelling that respects the integrity of its characters, the logic of its plot and setting, and the intelligence of its audience. Nothing more nor less. I could easily rattle off a dozen movies and shows that deliver it, but Trek09 isn't one of them.

As for examples from within the Trek corpus alone? I'd point to "The Naked Time" and "Balance of Terror" and "Conscience of the King" and "Devil in the Dark" and "Errand of Mercy" and "City on the Edge of Forever" and "Trouble with Tribbles" and "Journey to Babel" and "The Tholian Web" and "Star Trek II: TWOK" and "Star Trek VI: TUC," and that's just off the top of my head from the original-crew era.

I do. The interviews about how Abrams was more a fan of Star Wars than Trek communicated this, as did the past writing of Orci & Kurtzman, as did the way Paramount marketed it with a trailer full of hyperkinetic action, as did the myriad flaws of the film itself, of which this thread discusses only one.

Yes!

How on earth is "more dialogue and narrative depth, fewer explosions" equivalent to a "formula"? It's exactly the opposite, IMHO -- it opens things up for almost any kind of story. The problem with (some) past Trek films and shows isn't that they were too talky, it's that they were badly written.

Not necessarily in the same way as this one, but badly nevertheless. Please don't think that by criticizing Abrams, Orci, and Kurtzman I'm somehow implicitly defending Berman or Braga or John Logan. Bad writing is bad writing, it's not hard to recognize, and I recognized it in this film.

(More details on how and why? Check out my blog post about the movie, or this fellow's longer and even more scathing series of posts.)

I'm a huge fan of SF (not "sci-fi"), which is one of the reasons I'm insulted when someone tries to pass off a superficial simulation of it rather than putting in the thought to create the real thing.

Past examples of Trek insulting my intelligence, besides this movie? They're easy to come up with. ST V:TVH and "Thresholds" from VOY spring to mind, among others. Thing is, in the past they were always the exception more than the rule. But with this new film being a total reboot and a huge financial success, I'm concerned that it's reset the template, as it were: that going forward, Trek just won't be expected to be any more intelligent than this.

 

This is as about as intelligent as most Trek is, and in some cases probably more so in the fact that they didn't beat us over the head with the obvious so much as past Trek did.

 

It was trying to net a whole new audience and it succeeded. They took a calculated risk that the casualties amongst the die-hards would be minimal and that is the case too. The film was a success on all fronts.

 

Quite right.

 

Curt two-line posts like this annoy me, to be frank. They essentially ignore the entire context of the discussion that's been going on, as if no one had actually voiced any meaningful criticisms of the film that are worth addressing. You don't even respond to my concern as quoted in your post.

What exactly does it mean to you to be a "success on all fronts"? If you're talking strictly about selling lots of tickets, then sure... but IMHO that's only one front, not "all," and not one that has anything to do with the film as a creative work.

If you think there are serious aesthetic standards by which the film is a "success"—despite its myriad flaws in terms of plot logic, character development, and thematic coherence, just one of which has been enough to prompt this entire thread—then please, share with us what they are. Otherwise, you're just being dismissive and rude.

(And no, pointing out that some past Trek — although Devon's "most" severely overstates it—hasn't been any better than this is not a sufficient argument. Past shortcomings don't excuse current ones.)

 

Despite your artificial parameters, context is all. There were no worse flaws in terms of plot logic, character development and thematic coherence than in any other ST movie. Why this one attracts your special condemnation is a mystery to me.

 

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Because what you say is simply not true. Hell, just six posts upthread I linked not only to my own detailed criticism, but to a blog by a guy who's done a truly exhaustive minute-by-minute examination of the film's nonexistent plot logic without having to reach hard at all for examples.

I've seen every Trek film, every episode of TOS, and hundreds of episodes of the other series. I assure you, Trek is not typically this devoid of story logic, character development, and thematic content. (Although Nemesis and much of VOY and ENT came close.) If it were as bad as you claim, it would've never developed the kind of passionate, intelligent following and long-term staying power that it did. What's really puzzling is what motivates you to defend this film by defaming Trek in general.

(I'd also point out that the argument is a logical fallacy I specifically asked you not to commit, but you did anyway, rather than actually describe a critical sensibility in which this movie could be called "good.")

 

I think the new film will pull its own passionate, intelligent following. What's good about Trek is still all good here. I see no defamation. In fact I take issue with 'defaming', since you deliberately chose to misrepresent what I said. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I guarantee you'll find more people on this board who found nothing ugly about this Enterprise than the opposite.

The stories are what it's all about; what it's always been about. Everyone who is a Trek fan has a gigantic blind spot when it comes to problems with the shows and films, in order to sit back and enjoy the stories. Sometimes it works well, sometimes not so well, but there's nothing in this film that's any kind of insult to the tradition.

 

I don't think I misrepresented anything you wrote. In the midst of a discussion about a major plot whopper, with references and links to any number of others, you declined an invitation to defends this film's merits on any set of aesthetic terms you cared to choose, and instead opted to assert that its flaws were "no worse" than "any other ST movie." The logical implication there not only admits the indictment against this film, but extends it to Trek (at least big-screen Trek) as a whole.

And as far as "insulting the tradition"... well, perhaps it is in the eye of the beholder. But to me, the original Trek was about an optimistic, intelligent, humanistic future that had embraced diversity and diplomacy rather than conflict and militarism. I saw none of that in this story.

Or, as I wrote last year on my blog... "This is Star Trek only in the most superficial sense. Aside from names (of people, places, ships) and a few winking acknowledgments of the original, it jettisoned everything of substance. Trek always took a thoughtful approach to its subject matter. It was the most intelligent science fiction on TV by far in its own era, and for many years thereafter. It told stories about the human condition, with fantastic settings and situations that were allegories for the real problems of its day. It indulged in traditional “rubber science” SF tropes, of course, but in ways that were internally consistent and assumed its audience wasn’t completely scientifically illiterate. It aspired to be better than the medium required—and if it didn’t always hit its mark, it did so often enough to capture the imaginations and the loyalties of countless viewers. This film has no such aspirations. It may be far more expensive than any version of Trek on screen before, but in every way that really matters it’s playing to the cheap seats."

Attractive young actors and expensive production values are nice, but they're no substitute for what's missing.

 

OK people - rub if the matter - the only legitimate criticism of this film. Phrased another way "Trek is not an action franchise".

Well even though I'd argue that the new film has a lot more heart and character than most action movies, and feels very trek to me in its atmosphere, it is hard not to concede that we are not talking "City..." or "The Inner Light" here.

However, the only real difference between this film and for example TWOK, the only other Trek movie it really has to compete with, is the sub-plot in TWOK about ageing and moving on.

If the next film focuses on the opposite, with a story that also acknowledges the crews youth and lack of experience (basically the opposite end to TWOK) while telling a great action based story just like TWOK did, would everyone be happy?

 

"No worse" can also mean "just as good". I think you're getting carried away if you think that this film didn't capture the imagination of a whole new generation of viewers. I don't think they sat and watched it and thought "how shallow; where is the speechifying, where is the morality tale?" I don't think many long-term fans thought that either.

 

^^^ amen...this movie is aimed at those who...duh...want to go and have fun at a movie. All this here/how about continuity and 'change of commands' is really entertaining though.

Rob