2160s or 2390s or?

[Autistoid]

SF films really haven't changed their approach to science since the 60s ( and before) They still play by the same rule

Which is pretty much this:

We tried to be as accurate as we could within the framework of our fiction. In the end, it's fiction and it's an emotional journey more than anything else.

Star Trek has tons of memos for Kellam de Forest Research telling them X was wrong and Y would work better. Often they were ignored for the reason stated above.

That is flat out nonsense.

There's degree's of realism.

No one wants 100 percent realistic.

And trek will never be hard sci fi.


But there is a long way between hard sci fi, and just making a little bit of sense.

When a illiterate 5 year old can tell you something makes no sense that means something.

Contrast to many movies today where you would actually need someone realitively well versed in science to pick through a movie.

 

[Tarek71]

The average US Navy cruiser captain is 46/47yo. That's the age Stewart and Bakula were when they started. Mulgrew and Brooks weren't too far off either, IIRC.

Kirk is the one that didnt fit. And NuK was absurd. I know people will say "maybe Starfleet is different", but it wouldn't be different. Twenty years of additional experience will always be relevant and a deciding factor in promotions.

 

[BillJ]

The average US Navy cruiser captain is 46/47yo. That's the age Stewart and Bakula were when they started. Mulgrew and Brooks weren't too far off either, IIRC.

Kirk is the one that didnt fit. And NuK was absurd. I know people will say "maybe Starfleet is different", but it wouldn't be different. Twenty years of additional experience will always be relevant and a deciding factor in promotions.

But Trek wasn't really a reflection of the modern Navy, it was more about the Age of Sail where younger men ended up in command of ships quite often.

http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/ddg73/Pages/namesake.aspx#.VXTB_kZGSoM

Decatur commanded the schooner Enterprise at the age of 24.

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/aug/05/local/me-65116

Leon Grabowsky gained command of a US destroyer at the age of 27 during World War II.

 

[BillJ]

No one wants 100 percent realistic.

But I should want it to be as realistic as you want it?

When a illiterate 5 year old can tell you something makes no sense that means something.

Since I was able to understand much of TOS (it was the only one around) was non-sense at five, what does that say about TOS? Or Star Trek in general since the storytelling never did get any more sophisticated?

I honestly think some people lob insults about intelligence at stuff they don't like in order to make them feel better about themselves.

 

[Nerys Myk]

SF films really haven't changed their approach to science since the 60s ( and before) They still play by the same rule

Which is pretty much this:

We tried to be as accurate as we could within the framework of our fiction. In the end, it's fiction and it's an emotional journey more than anything else.

Star Trek has tons of memos for Kellam de Forest Research telling them X was wrong and Y would work better. Often they were ignored for the reason stated above.

That is flat out nonsense.

What is "flat out nonsense"? Cuarón's statement or mine?

There's degree's of realism.

Is this in dispute?

No one wants 100 percent realistic.

So you agree with Cuarón and the decision by Trek's producers to sacrifice accuracy and realism for storytelling?

And trek will never be hard sci fi.

Did someone say it is?

But there is a long way between hard sci fi, and just making a little bit of sense.

I assume this and the previous sentence are meant to be connected? Yes there is a difference between hard scifi and the nonsensical stuff. Star Trek tends to be in that middle ground. So what's your point?

When a illiterate 5 year old can tell you something makes no sense that means something.

It usually means the 5 year old has encountered something he's unfamiliar with.

Contrast to many movies today where you would actually need someone realitively well versed in science to pick through a movie.

And which movies are those? Do you actually think that there haven't been films in the past that aren't as "challenging" from a science stand point? That only in the past couple of years have film makers been playing with complex scientific ideas?

 

[Tarek71]

The average US Navy cruiser captain is 46/47yo. That's the age Stewart and Bakula were when they started. Mulgrew and Brooks weren't too far off either, IIRC.

Kirk is the one that didnt fit. And NuK was absurd. I know people will say "maybe Starfleet is different", but it wouldn't be different. Twenty years of additional experience will always be relevant and a deciding factor in promotions.

But Trek wasn't really a reflection of the modern Navy, it was more about the Age of Sail where younger men ended up in command of ships quite often.

http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/ddg73/Pages/namesake.aspx#.VXTB_kZGSoM

Decatur commanded the schooner Enterprise at the age of 24.

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/aug/05/local/me-65116

Leon Grabowsky gained command of a US destroyer at the age of 27 during World War II.

Age of Sail and WW2 are also brought up! The modernization and professionalization of the services has changed that. Decaturs are serving today, but not as captains of frigates, destroyers or cruisers.

WW2 is a special case of immense fleet increase so young commanders and rapid promotions did occur.

 

[BillJ]

Age of Sail and WW2 are also brought up! The modernization and professionalization of the services has changed that. Decaturs are serving today, but not as captains of frigates, destroyers or cruisers.

But you're trying to apply modern standards to an organization three-hundred years in future.

The only thing we know about the future is that we know nothing about the future.

WW2 is a special case of immense fleet increase so young commanders and rapid promotions did occur.

We honestly don't know that the same thing wasn't happening with Starfleet in the 2250's. You had an Admiral gearing up for war with the Klingons and the loss of seven command crews at Vulcan plus we have no idea what was going on in the Laurentian system that may have opened up the need for even more command grade officers.

 

[BillJ]

Age of Sail and WW2 are also brought up!

Both seem applicable since Roddenberry often brought up the Age of Sail when talking about Star Trek...

Gene Roddenberry's original pitch for Star Trek described the ship's proposed hero (Robert April) as a "space-age Captain Horatio Hornblower". Both tales shared major themes centering on the captain of a ship far from home, depending on his vessel, a loyal crew, and his own considerable wits to resolve military and diplomatic crises threatening his country's interests. While clearly bearing Roddenberry's stamp, the spirit of Hornblower and the age of sailing ships was evident throughout the franchise, and most prominent in original series episodes like "The Corbomite Maneuver", "Balance of Terror", "Arena" and "The Doomsday Machine", as well as the films Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.

http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Horatio_Hornblower

...and many of the people who worked behind the scenes on Star Trek were World War II veterans, including Roddenberry.

I just don't understand why some people want to so badly chain Star Trek to modern sensibilities? That would seem to severely limit the type of universe one can build.

 

[Tarek71]

NuTrek does have the same standards as today. Prime Trek too. It's just Kirk and the Nu1701 crew that violates it.

NuPike, and the other captains and admirals seem fine age wise. The age of sail is long over. The era of twenty something generals and captains is over.

That should be even more true 300 years from now, not less. I know about the Horatio Hornblower comparison, but that is literary license. Which they are certainly allowed. It just produces an absurd result here.

 

[T'Girl]

Decatur commanded the schooner Enterprise at the age of 24.

While Decatur was still a young Lieutenant, the third Enterprise was 84 feet long, 22 wide and carried 70 officers and crew.

Not exactly a ship of the line.

.

 

[Tarek71]

Decatur commanded the schooner Enterprise at the age of 24.

While Decatur was still a young Lieutenant, the third Enterprise was 84 feet long, 22 wide and carried 70 officers and crew.

Not exactly a ship of the line.

.

Even now, much lighter, smaller vessels will have commanders who are sig younger and lower ranked. But the larger vessels have much older commanders.

A small 87' Coast Guard Cutter might have a twentysomething LTJG in command, but even frigate captains average about 42-43 years old. That extra 20 years of education, training, expertise and experience is critical, and will not magically stop being critical in 300 years.

 

[Overgeeked]

The evidence is his battlefield promotion to captain of the Enterprise.

There's "hard worker who successfully completed four years of classes in three years" and there's "bad writing ass-pull". Kirk's was definitely the latter. Besides, if his promotion somehow means he actually did the coursework in three years, there's the problem of all this classmates who kept their commissions too. Did Bones and Uhura and Cupcake

I am not interested in an argument as to whether NuKirk or Kirk Prime is better, because for me, the obvious answer by far is the latter. While I like Star Trek 2009, I'm a TOS-Enterprise era Star Trek fan. And STID was horrid to me. SO, I am not a Abramsverse apologist.

But that all said, you asked for evidence NuKirk completed his academy training. He did. He completed the curriculum in 3 years, not 4, and while his status was in question due to the Kobayashi Maru incident, no formal punishment was handed down because the hearing was interrupted. So, you can't claim he was kicked out of Starfleet.

Again, you keep claiming he completed the academy in three years but you offer only a circular argument and no actual evidence to support it.

And again, there's a world of difference between "successfully completed all the courses" and "fuck it, that's enough". Kirk didn't complete the academy coursework. Simple as that.

...know would have prevented him from graduating, anyway...

Funny how in one sentence you're saying he'd finished and in another you're admitting he didn't.

You can call Kirk's promotion an ass pull, bad writing, or ex Deus Machina, and you'd get no argument from me...

Good. So stop arguing already.

 

[TheSubCommander]

Again, you keep claiming he completed the academy in three years but you offer only a circular argument and no actual evidence to support it.


Again, you keep claiming he completed the academy in three years but you offer only a circular argument and no actual evidence to support it.

And again, there's a world of difference between "successfully completed all the courses" and "fuck it, that's enough". Kirk didn't complete the academy coursework. Simple as that.

And you likewise can't offer evidence to refute it. Maybe he took night school and summer school. Maybe he CLEPed out of some academy courses. People do it in college all the time, as I did. Also, I was in the Army, and completed basic training in 7 weeks, not 8, because I had to get to my AIT.

And by the way, sinking to profanity is low brow and foolish.

Funny how in one sentence you're saying he'd finished and in another you're admitting he didn't.

No there is no contradiction. Your reading comprehension just leaves much to be desired. Let me put it in terms even you can understand: His promotion to captain WAS his completion of his academy.

Good. So stop arguing already.

The only one arguing is you, and it's because you're being obstinate.

 

[Overgeeked]

And you likewise can't offer evidence to refute it...

Yeah, I can and have. The fact that his last scene in the Academy was before he'd graduated. And in it he was facing an academic review board. Not something you face after you've graduated, ergo he hadn't graduated yet.

Maybe he took night school and summer school. Maybe he CLEPed out of some academy courses. People do it in college all the time, as I did. Also, I was in the Army, and completed basic training in 7 weeks, not 8, because I had to get to my AIT.

Hey, look, fanwank. Maybe leave the storytelling to the storytellers. The filmmakers didn't include any of that.

And by the way, sinking to profanity is low brow and foolish.

Pfft.

Your reading comprehension just leaves much to be desired.

Ha. Profanity is low-brow and foolish, yet ad hominem attacks are not. Good to know, oh divine protector of all morality on the net.

Let me put it in terms even you can understand: His promotion to captain WAS his completion of his academy.

And again, you're missing the point. There's a difference between actually finishing all the coursework and being told you don't need to bother showing up anymore. There's zero on-screen evidence he'd completed the coursework, there's fairly glaring on-screen evidence he was told not to bother showing up for his next class. Again, huge difference. Only the first one is him actually completing the coursework and earning it. It's the difference between a doctorate and an honorary doctorate.

 

[martok2112]

In the end, it's all fanwank.

Either enjoy the movies, or don't. Just don't try to tell people they're wrong for enjoying whatever Trek they enjoy.

 

[Dukhat]

In the end, it's all fanwank.

Either enjoy the movies, or don't. Just don't try to tell people they're wrong for enjoying whatever Trek they enjoy.

Oh, I'm pretty sure the biggest JJ Abrams haters in the world (much less the extreme minority of them here) have still not convinced people to stop seeing his movies. Last I heard he's still a hugely successful movie director getting tons of people's asses in theater seats.

 

[Trekkin]

I'd like to point out that you can face an acadamic review post- graduation.

I know this, because I had a former classmate face one three years after he'd graduated. The university had caught on that he (and others) had plagerized essays. So not only did our equivilant of the Bar give him the boot, the Uni raked him through the coals and ended up taking his degree off him. It was a big enough scandal that it even made the papers.

And again, The Acadamy is not real. When today's universities, colleges and military acadamies can have such a wide array of rules and guidelines between them, it's pretty pointless to say 'the fictional quasi-military school set 200 years in the future must work like this coz REALITY!'

So no Overgeeked, you don't have 'evidence'. As Martok put it, you've got fanon. We don't know how the Acadamy works, we don't know how long the time gap is between the Narada being destroyed and the ceremony, we don't know.

 

[Nerys Myk]

My fanon is Kirk (both of them) and Saavik were Lieutenants and in Command School when taking the KM. Command School is a post Grad program for officers on the command track. Again, in my fanon.

 

[martok2112]

In the end, it's all fanwank.

Either enjoy the movies, or don't. Just don't try to tell people they're wrong for enjoying whatever Trek they enjoy.

Oh, I'm pretty sure the biggest JJ Abrams haters in the world (much less the extreme minority of them here) have still not convinced people to stop seeing his movies. Last I heard he's still a hugely successful movie director getting tons of people's asses in theater seats.

Oh, I'm quite sure of it too.

Still, it gets annoying when folk (no matter where they fit in the fandom) try to convince other folks that the Trek they enjoy is wrong on any and all counts.

 

[Overgeeked]

In the end, it's all fanwank.

Either enjoy the movies, or don't. Just don't try to tell people they're wrong for enjoying whatever Trek they enjoy.

But that's the thing. I'm not. I'm just pointing out that a few bits are utterly ridiculous and make no sense whatsoever. And that's pissing people off.

It's funny. People have this weird loop where they think the mere fact of them subjectively liking something makes it objectively good. Likewise, subjectively disliking something making it objectively bad. People seem to wrap their identity into things. So because a few of you like or love 2009, you take it personally when someone knocks it. And the reaction is, "I like it, therefore it's good." Newsflash, people like shit too. They simply justify it. People liked Sharknado enough for it to get two sequels. And there's the perennial favorite punching bag of 50 Shades of Grey.

The thing is what it is regardless of anyone's opinions either way. But that doesn't eliminate the flaws the films contain. They do exist. They're largely not about opinion. This shot over that shot, whatever. The shape of the Enterprise, whatever. But good storytelling is good storytelling. In a lot of places 2009 had some really great storytelling, but again, that doesn't eliminate the fact that in other places it completely failed at a basic storytelling level.

I'd like to point out that you can face an acadamic review post- graduation.

And if there's a school uniform, say an all red matching jacket and pants get up, do they make you wear that after you've graduated and come back? Seems rather odd to make a former student who's now graduated and moved on dress up to face a review. And there's the little glitch that the cadets are in all red, the instructors are in all black, and the other non-teacher officers are actually wearing their regular uniforms. So, by putting Kirk in the all-red cadet uniform he's most likely a cadet.

But then he's shown taking tests so he's probably not graduated. And if he's already graduated, why's he standing on line with all the cadets waiting for their assignments? That's a rather odd thing to do. If he's already graduated, he'd already have a ship that he was assigned to. Hmm... it's almost as if he were still a cadet... but that can't be right, because that wouldn't make a lick of sense.

...it's pretty pointless to say 'the fictional quasi-military school set 200 years in the future must work like this coz REALITY!'

I'm not arguing it should match reality, I'm saying how it's presented is insane. There's a difference.

So no Overgeeked, you don't have 'evidence'. As Martok put it, you've got fanon. We don't know how the Acadamy works, we don't know how long the time gap is between the Narada being destroyed and the ceremony, we don't know.

Well, we have what's actually shown on screen. That's evidence. We also have common sense and continuity. They can support or challenge assertions. We know a bit about how Starfleet Academy works, and we can guess that the rules and regulations would make at least a modicum of sense. Maybe not, but then this is the organization that puts an academically suspended cadet in charge of the flagship of the fleet because his mentor's an idiot and they're all clearly insane.

In the end, it's all fanwank.

Either enjoy the movies, or don't. Just don't try to tell people they're wrong for enjoying whatever Trek they enjoy.

Again, it's not about being wrong for enjoying something. Just acknowledging the thing's not perfect. But since so many people seem to wrap up their own personal identity in the things they like being considered objectively good, it's honestly no wonder. The sentiment seems to be: "I'm smart. I like it. I think it's good. Therefore anyone who doesn't like it is dumb. And anyone who disagrees with me is calling me dumb." Attack!

No, it's: "I like it." End of. The quality is in no way connected to your opinion of it. Sorry.

Oh, I'm pretty sure the biggest JJ Abrams haters in the world (much less the extreme minority of them here) have still not convinced people to stop seeing his movies. Last I heard he's still a hugely successful movie director getting tons of people's asses in theater seats.

There it is. The argument from ticket sales. Who was it that said somewhere around here that "no one's made that argument". Whelp, yeah they have, coz there it is.

Oh, I'm quite sure of it too.

Still, it gets annoying when folk (no matter where they fit in the fandom) try to convince other folks that the Trek they enjoy is wrong on any and all counts.

Again, not about wrong, simply that it's not perfect. But apparently even that is a bridge too far.

EDIT: But whatever. I'm over it. This has been... special.