Yep, that would be just about right.
Any other TOSers give up post-Abrams?
- Thread starter jayrath
- Start date
Now, let's compare.
In the original timeline, Kirk entered the Academy at 17, graduated at 21. Let's be generous and figure that he graduated as a lieutenant, and the incident that was referenced in "Court Martial" on the Republic while he was an ensign was an Academy training cruise, so technically, he was still a cadet (which appears to be the assumption that Okuda's timeline goes with). By the time we see him in "Where No Man Has Gone Before", he's around 32 or 33, and is the youngest starship captain in the fleet. Figure when he commanded that destroyer, he was a commander, and getting command of the Enterprise carried with it a promotion to captain.
So, we're looking at going from lieutenant (j.g.), pay grade of O-2, to captain, pay grade of O-6, in roughly fifteen to sixteen years.
This is considered a meteoric rise.
Cadet to captain in anything less than ten years not only strains credibility, but shows a complete ignorance about how military organizations work.
In the original timeline, Kirk entered the Academy at 17, graduated at 21. Let's be generous and figure that he graduated as a lieutenant, and the incident that was referenced in "Court Martial" on the Republic while he was an ensign was an Academy training cruise, so technically, he was still a cadet (which appears to be the assumption that Okuda's timeline goes with). By the time we see him in "Where No Man Has Gone Before", he's around 32 or 33, and is the youngest starship captain in the fleet. Figure when he commanded that destroyer, he was a commander, and getting command of the Enterprise carried with it a promotion to captain.
So, we're looking at going from lieutenant (j.g.), pay grade of O-2, to captain, pay grade of O-6, in roughly fifteen to sixteen years.
This is considered a meteoric rise.
Cadet to captain in anything less than ten years not only strains credibility, but shows a complete ignorance about how military organizations work.
Care to elaborate? By the metrics that matter its a critcal, financial and popular success. Its been nominated for and won awards from various organizations. So what ever flaws you see (and have so far mostly failed to articulate) dont seem to be that important.
I couldn't care less how much money it made and who likes it. I think it's a pile of crap that missed the mark by a very wide margin. And I don't have to justify my opinion to anyone.
And here I thought we could engage in an informative dialog on why you didn't like the film. Why it failed to live up to the ideas and heights established by TOS. We seemed to be headed in that direction just a few pages back. I'm asking articulation, not justifiation. As fans of TOS/Star Trek/Science Fiction aren't we capable of that?
A
Amaris
Guest
I agree, and I would certainly hope so. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but when someone disagrees by stating the metrics of the movie, answers like "It's my opinion and I don't have to explain anything!" do nothing to push the discussion forward. Why stonewall all of a sudden just because others disagree? We're having a rather decent discussion here. I think we can keep it going.
This.
Reading the Crucible novels got me back into Trek, after I lost interest around the first episode of Voyager.
I'm glad they are back to the characters that made history. So what if they re-tool them. Young minds, new ideas, we must be tolerant.
Yup, we're gonna need a more detailed breakdown...
They can make movies, they just can'r write them!
At least past Trek film got their information straight, even the series had a science advisor!
James
At least past Trek film got their information straight, even the series had a science advisor!
James
like Kirk not having a brother...
A
Amaris
Guest
So, "1 to the 4th power" equaling something greater than 1 must be some of that new math, right? Because "Court Martial" seems to suggests that 1 to the 4th is greater magnification. 1 to the 4th power is just 1.
In the episode, "A Taste of Armageddon", how does a sound weapon based on the planet affect a starship outside of the atmosphere like it did to the Enterprise?
What information would that be?:
You can store your consciousness in another brain?
That you can create a planet out a nebula as long as you have "proto-matter"?
Proto-matter can raise the dead.
A planet made with "protomatter" will age rapidly as will all the lifeforms on it. But once a life form leaves that planet it will age normally.
That a slingshot around the sun can be used to go forward and backwards in time?
You can travel to the center of the Galaxy in just a few hours? And find a planet there that will support human life?
An exploding moon will send out shockwave so far that a ship lightyears away will feel it?
The Nexus?
A planet with a radiation that slows down aging?
Rapidly aging clones. (did they use protomatter?)
Somehow Supernovas, red matter and cadet to captain don't sound so bad.
BTW, Carolyn Porco from NASA advised the ST09 production on certain scientific aspects of the film.
I'd be interested in her take on just how well they listened to her, 'cause it seems to me they only used her as a spellchecker.
Add your science questions to your detailed breakdown.
We'll see how it works out. 
She advised mainly on the Titan sequence, if I'm not mistaken, and while they did use some elements which she suggested (notably the "warping into Titan's atmosphere to avoid detection" part) they opted to do other things differently in the finished film. (Note in particular the perspective on Saturn's rings as Enterprise rises from the "clouds".)
For further reading, go here, and look in the comments for one bearing the time/date stamp:
I think that what she says in that one comment ought to substantially satisfy your interest.
Time and time again I've said what I didn't like about the film, but it's never good enough so to hell with it.
If you like something than nothing anyone will say will dissuade you and that's fine. But to harp on that someone hasn't proved anything is bullshit. If it works for some, great. If it doesn't work for others, then also great. If some think the film honours TOS then bully for them. The ones who think the film doesn't do TOS service are no less entitled to their viewpoint.
Someone said it quite sometime ago, and it may have been CRA, come back in five, ten or twenty years and tell me this turkey still works.
Similar threads
- Locked
