2160s or 2390s or?

[Overgeeked]

Or that people can enter the Academy when they're ready. Bones entered as an adult, no reason to assume a super-genius kid couldn't.

McCoy was already a trained MD, so his Academy training would more closely mirror what happens in the real world.

Genius or not, I doubt they hand an officer's rank and navigator of the flagship post to someone who hadn't went to the Academy.

YMMV.

LOL. Sorry, um, I was talking about letting Chekov into the Academy at an "early" age based on his super-genius status, and that he'd completed the coursework and earned his commission, not that they'd simply put him in classes for a few years then just hand him the keys to the flagship of the Federation... that would be stupid, wouldn't it?

 

[BillJ]

...then just hand him the keys to the flagship of the Federation... that would be stupid, wouldn't it?

Depends? You have a time traveler from 129 years in your future tell you there's a lot of fucked up shit headed your way and James T. Kirk defeats it all pretty much by himself because he's got balls the size of planets. Then one might take a look at whether or not they want to send him on menial missions that could get him killed.

It's fiction. The idea is to entertain, not give real world lessons on military career paths. I watch The Smithsonian Channel and read books on that stuff. This is Star Trek. I want Kirk to punch the bad guy, save the universe and get the girl. I want to be entertained.

 

[Overgeeked]

Depends? You have a time traveler from 129 years in your future tell you there's a lot of fucked up shit headed your way and James T. Kirk defeats it all pretty much by himself because he's got balls the size of planets. Then one might take a look at whether or not they want to send him on menial missions that could get him killed.

Ha. Too bad that's not what Spock Prime said to Kirk.

It's fiction. The idea is to entertain, not give real world lessons on military career paths. I watch The Smithsonian Channel and read books on that stuff. This is Star Trek. I want Kirk to punch the bad guy, save the universe and get the girl. I want to be entertained.

I read and watch science fiction to engage my sense of wonder and be entertained. I read and watch non-fiction to be informed and entertained. To me, seeing writers write themselves into corners and back out again in a logical, consistent, passably 'realistic', and interesting ways is entertaining. Deus ex machina and promotion ass-pulls are none of those things. I like science fiction as allegory, it's entertaining. That philosophy Abrams dislikes so much and the messages the other iterations of Trek tried to do are entertaining.

If the only way for something to work is "Okay, so if everyone in the room loses about 1000 IQ points--and if the viewers are buttered up enough--then this will make sense" then it's pure bad writing.

 

[BillJ]

...passably 'realistic'...

This is where we part ways. I don't need Star Trek to be passably realistic. One of the reasons it originally caught my eye was because it was weird and wild and totally unrealistic. I can look out my window and get all the realistic I can handle and then some.

In a 'realistic' Star Trek, the Talosians destroy the Enterprise to prevent from being discovered. Show over. In a 'realistic' Star Trek, Gary Mitchell kills Kirk and anyone that opposes him well before they get to Delta Vega. Show over. In a 'realistic' Star Trek, Spock is tossed out of Starfleet after he steals the Enterprise in "The Menagerie". New character needed. In a 'realistic' Star Trek, Q squashes the humans like the ants they are in relation to him. Show over. In a 'realistic' Star Trek, the Borg send overwhelming numbers and assimilate the Federation. Show over. In a 'realistic' Star Trek, Picard is never allowed to sit in the captain's chair again after being assimilated. Need a new captain. In a 'realistic' Star Trek, the Borg go back in time in the Delta Quadrant, never encountering the Enterprise or Starfleet and assimilate Earth. Show over. In a 'realistic' Star Trek, Sisko is court-martialed and drummed out of Starfleet for destroying a planetary ecosystem in "For the Uniform". Looking for a new captain. In a 'realistic' Star Trek, the Xindi don't send a probe to test on Earth thus alerting humanity that they are coming. Show over.

I can go on and on and on. There is nothing passably realistic about Star Trek and there never has been. It is a very odd standard to hold J.J. Abrams to. A commander of a nuclear aircraft carrier or sub can't just violate treaties and go wherever they please just because the captain has a hunch. Yet, we see that happen all the time in Star Trek.

 

[martok2112]

...passably 'realistic'...

This is where we part ways. I don't need Star Trek to be passably realistic. One of the reasons it originally caught my eye was because it was weird and wild and totally unrealistic. I can look out my window and get all the realistic I can handle and then some.

In a 'realistic' Star Trek, the Talosians destroy the Enterprise to prevent from being discovered. Show over. In a 'realistic' Star Trek, Gary Mitchell kills Kirk and anyone that opposes him well before they get to Delta Vega. Show over. In a 'realistic' Star Trek, Spock is tossed out of Starfleet after he steals the Enterprise in "The Menagerie". New character needed. In a 'realistic' Star Trek, Q squashes the humans like the ants they are in relation to him. Show over. In a 'realistic' Star Trek, the Borg send overwhelming numbers and assimilate the Federation. Show over. In a 'realistic' Star Trek, Picard is never allowed to sit in the captain's chair again after being assimilated. Need a new captain. In a 'realistic' Star Trek, the Borg go back in time in the Delta Quadrant, never encountering the Enterprise or Starfleet and assimilate Earth. Show over. In a 'realistic' Star Trek, Sisko is court-martialed and drummed out of Starfleet for destroying a planetary ecosystem in "For the Uniform". Looking for a new captain. In a 'realistic' Star Trek, the Xindi don't send a probe to test on Earth thus alerting humanity that they are coming. Show over.

I can go on and on and on. There is nothing passably realistic about Star Trek and there never has been. It is a very odd standard to hold J.J. Abrams to. A commander of a nuclear aircraft carrier or sub can't just violate treaties and go wherever they please just because the captain has a hunch. Yet, we see that happen all the time in Star Trek.

LLLlladieeees aaaand Genntelmennnnn! The WINNER, and stillll chaammmpeeeeeeen!!!!! Thhhaaaa CRUSHAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!

 

[BillJ]

LLLlladieeees aaaand Genntelmennnnn! The WINNER, and stillll chaammmpeeeeeeen!!!!! Thhhaaaa CRUSHAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!

It really isn't about winning an argument though. I just sometimes think that people's memories and interpretations of Star Trek don't match up with the actual material we got.

It had bigger than life characters and cool tech. But it was never realistic in its storytelling approach and its reputation for social awareness was massively overblown.

I've been watching for forty years simply because it is mostly fun to watch.

 

[Overgeeked]

Passably 'realistic' in the sense that the characters should react to the situations they're in in a manner consistent with their personalities and backgrounds. That they should react to those situations as if they were real. That the actors should try real hard to pretend what they're doing is real, no matter how silly it looks for everyone on set to simply lean hard in one direction for no discernible reason, they have to anyway because it will be made to look great in post. Passably 'realistic' in the sense that the story should progress logically from one scene to the next. That (unless there's some temporal monkey wrench) cause should follow effect. That each scene builds on what's happened before and continues to build to the next scene. You know, basic storytelling. Irrelevant of the setting or franchise.

I'm a big fan of surrealism, dadaism, weird fiction, and bizarro. One of my favorite writers is Philip K. Dick and I love the mindfucks he lays out in some of his books and shorts. So it's not that I'm objecting to things being a bit... loose here. I'm not talking about adherence to the real-world here, far from it. But the fiction should be presented in a passably 'realistic' manner, as I describe above. Even at Dick's wildest he still earns the weirdness. His characters still act and react in passably 'realistic' ways. Scene follows scene in a largely rational way.

What's striking to me is that you're bending over backwards to justify and explain away how this one promotion is perfectly logical and rational, yet you acknowledge the flaws of all the instances you cite above. Which is it? Do the absurdities of Trek need explaining away or don't they?

 

[martok2112]

The absurdities of Trek are subject to the same criteria as its veritas: Does it entertain?

For a great many people of considerable intelligence, it has done so. For a lot of people who realize their intelligence might be insulted even by the finest material Trek has to offer, as long as it allowed them to have a good time from 30 mins to 2 hours and 12 minutes (depending on what one is watching), or if a novel has entertained in similar fashion, then mission accomplished.

 

[BillJ]

What's striking to me is that you're bending over backwards to justify and explain away how this one promotion is perfectly logical and rational, yet you acknowledge the flaws of all the instances you cite above. Which is it? Do the absurdities of Trek need explaining away or don't they?

If they had more time, they may have remedied the cadet to captain stuff, but they ran out due to the writers' strike. So it's something that couldn't be fixed (if they wanted to, it almost feels like the beginning of Into Darkness was an attempt to remedy it to a degree).

I haven't bent over backwards to explain away this one promotion, I've offered a theory for why it may have happened in universe. Those are two different things.

They didn't need to explain why LaForge was chief engineer all of a sudden at the beginning of season two of TNG. Ahead of probably a hundred more qualified candidates. They didn't need to explain why Wesley Crusher was always at CONN, ahead of, probably, a hundred people who had already went to the Academy and trained to do the job.

It can be fun to debate the who, what, when, why and how of any given creative decision. But it becomes ludicrous when we start tossing around 'realistic' in the context of Star Trek.

It isn't about poor decisions or writing one's self into a corner. It's about telling the story you want to tell within the context of the film you're making. In popular culture, Kirk and Spock are akin to superheroes and the writers gave Kirk that superhero jump into the captain's chair. There is no right or wrong to it, it was their choice to make. It was no less realistic than hundreds of other things I've seen happen in Star Trek. Whether you personally like it or not is up to you.

 

[BillJ]

The absurdities of Trek are subject to the same criteria as its veritas: Does it entertain?

For a great many people of considerable intelligence, it has done so. For a lot of people who realize their intelligence might be insulted even by the finest material Trek has to offer, as long as it allowed them to have a good time from 30 mins to 2 hours and 12 minutes (depending on what one is watching), or if a novel has entertained in similar fashion, then mission accomplished.

I'm sure there are literary sci-fi fans that look down on Star Trek fans the same way some Trek fans look down on fans of the Abrams films.

 

[Overgeeked]

But it becomes ludicrous when we start tossing around 'realistic' in the context of Star Trek.

I've explained what I meant and you've chosen to ignore it. Clearly you're past the point of honestly engaging.

 

[BillJ]

But it becomes ludicrous when we start tossing around 'realistic' in the context of Star Trek.

I've explained what I meant and you've chosen to ignore it. Clearly you're past the point of honestly engaging.

Passably 'realistic' in the sense that the characters should react to the situations they're in in a manner consistent with their personalities and backgrounds. That they should react to those situations as if they were real. That the actors should try real hard to pretend what they're doing is real, no matter how silly it looks for everyone on set to simply lean hard in one direction for no discernible reason, they have to anyway because it will be made to look great in post. Passably 'realistic' in the sense that the story should progress logically from one scene to the next. That (unless there's some temporal monkey wrench) cause should follow effect. That each scene builds on what's happened before and continues to build to the next scene. You know, basic storytelling. Irrelevant of the setting or franchise.

I see nothing in the Abrams films that violates anything above, especially within the context of the Star Trek universe. Which is what bothers me. You're holding Abrams to a standard that you seemingly aren't holding the rest of the franchise to.

 

[martok2112]

The absurdities of Trek are subject to the same criteria as its veritas: Does it entertain?

For a great many people of considerable intelligence, it has done so. For a lot of people who realize their intelligence might be insulted even by the finest material Trek has to offer, as long as it allowed them to have a good time from 30 mins to 2 hours and 12 minutes (depending on what one is watching), or if a novel has entertained in similar fashion, then mission accomplished.

I'm sure there are literary sci-fi fans that look down on Star Trek fans the same way some Trek fans look down on fans of the Abrams films.

" 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
That's one of the reasons why I abandoned fandom.

Some of those fans can't just "live and let live." They have to "bully" people they think are their unders just because they like a particular medium of sci-fi, or are not adherent to "the one, true Star Trek ". Great lessons learned from the jocks, preps, rednecks, and girlie girls who bullied them in their youth. Learning by example. Yeah... great examples to follow.

Sorry, BillJ, I know you know my feelings about fandom, and I do not mean to bash you (or anyone else) over the head with my sentiments.

 

[Mudd]

No, my opinion isn't a fact. But my opinion is based on facts.

Everyone thinks theirs is.

I've been watching Trek since it first appeared. From my POV, "fact is" that Abrams has revived much of what gave Trek TOS its appeal and that has been lost in the last forty years or so.

Can't wait for the next one.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I'm never going to be an advocate of cadet to captain.

Actually it was lieutenant to captain, and it actually was the second time in the movie that happened since papa Kirk seems to be referred to as Captain after the Kelvin thing.

Plus at least Kirk did something for a promotion, Pike got a four step promotion to Admiral largely for flying a shuttle, getting captured, and being tortured.

 

[Trekkin]

Maybe it was the Roddenberry kind of promotion - we can't fire him, so we'll just kick him up the ranks and make sure he's got a position where he gets no say and can't do any damage.

I've heard similar theories for why it's always the Enterprise that gets the deep space 'to boldly go...' exploration missions. It's such a weirdness magnet that the top brass want it as far away from Earth as possible.

 

[Trekkin]

Maybe it was the Roddenberry kind of promotion - we can't fire him, so we'll just kick him up the ranks and make sure he's got a position where he gets no say and can't do any damage.

I've heard similar theories for why it's always the Enterprise that gets the deep space 'to boldly go...' exploration missions. It's such a weirdness magnet that the top brass want it as far away from Earth as possible.

 

[Overgeeked]

I'm never going to be an advocate of cadet to captain.

Actually it was lieutenant to captain, and it actually was the second time in the movie that happened since papa Kirk seems to be referred to as Captain after the Kelvin thing.

Actually it was cadet to captain. Jim Kirk had not graduated. He had no rank. Pike said, "You can be an officer in four years, have your own ship in eight." That "officer in four years" bit refers to the academy and graduating. If you don't graduate, you're not an officer and then you'd only be an ensign.

There's a difference between captain (rank) and Captain (in command of a ship).

Plus at least Kirk did something for a promotion, Pike got a four step promotion to Admiral largely for flying a shuttle, getting captured, and being tortured.

Jim Kirk did fuck-all to earn his promotion. He had an idiot for a mentor and was willing to emotionally manipulate a genocide survivor to get the big chair.

Pike was already ranked captain. There's only one or two references in the whole of Trek that mention there being anything between captain and admiral. That being Commadore Decker and maybe one other character, if that.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I'm never going to be an advocate of cadet to captain.

Actually it was lieutenant to captain, and it actually was the second time in the movie that happened since papa Kirk seems to be referred to as Captain after the Kelvin thing.

Actually it was cadet to captain. Jim Kirk had not graduated. He had no rank.

The screen graphic when Kirk and Sulu were beamed up says otherwise.

http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/File:Lt._J._Kirk.jpg

What you though Kirk wasn't going to get a rank when getting made first officer by Pike.

 

[T'Girl]

you're not an officer and then you'd only be an ensign.

And in most naval services, if you're not an officer you can't be even a ensign.



")